With government socialism, what could possibly go wrong?

This is in response to Steve Scott's Nov. 5 letter suggesting we should adopt a Democratic socialism system in order to redistribute the wealth of private enterprise more evenly amongst our citizens.

According to his definition, private businesses would generate the wealth and then someone (the government) would, in turn, spread that wealth out to the populace.

Calling this Democratic socialism is like putting lipstick on a pig. Liberal progressives know that to sell their ideas they have to call it something different or softer than it actually is, something easier to swallow -- kind of like my all-time favorite, "undocumented" as opposed to "illegal." What's next, Democratic communism?

Regardless of how you'd like dress up socialism, the bottom line is to destroy capitalism, the bedrock of our country. And who is going to be in charge of this process?

Well, it's the highly efficient, highly organized government, you silly gooses. Government would become even more bloated than it is today, and it will be reaching in our pockets even more so they can redistribute our hard-earned income to whomever they feel is more deserving.

After all, they know better than you who needs and deserves your money, right?

Taxes would skyrocket and private industries, without any incentive, would flee to more friendly countries or cease to exist at all. Once again, who would replace these services or products?

Didn't you learn from earlier? It would be the highly efficient, highly organized federal government, of course. After all, doesn't the government operate on a higher level and is more productive than the private sector? What could possibly go wrong?

Mark Mullen

Bradenton

This story was originally published November 14, 2015 at 12:00 AM with the headline "With government socialism, what could possibly go wrong? ."