NatSoc is Bernie Sanders tier

>The entire welfare state is shit.
why? what's the better alternative for a modern country

>Fiat currencies will always be abused by the governments leading to inflation which destroys wealth and savings.
This is a big problem with (((central banks))) which I haven't seen any natsocs address.

Don't spend it on anything, let the people keep the money for themselves.

Ebil Nahtzees allowed many Jews to settle outside of Germany despite claims of holocaust. They made a mistake.

Charity.

>Voting for a literal jew is natsoc.

The issue is what to do with taxes. We can use taxes we all pay to benefit Israel or our taxes can be re-spent on our citizens.

who will build roads?

If those programs were for only working white Americans, they'd be fantastic. Comparing social policies to a hardworking white ethnostate like Nazi Germany and a massive melting pot full of niggerdom and spics like America isn't exactly a 1:1.

what if people decide not to be charitable? Seems like that isn't a very reliable method

Your bait is weak. Explain yourself faggot!

That's why you cut the taxes and let people keep their money. Privatize healthcare and stop subsidizing higher ed through debt. When tuition costs plummet, people can either save for college, get scholarships, or businesses can train their future employees directly. They will have to if they want to staff their businesses. H1B should be eliminated and a racial state instituted. That's the only thing Natsocs get right.

Attached: 1540798258206.jpg (1097x2706, 1.28M)

Government. I'm talking about cutting the taxes that would spend on communist healthcare and higher ed.

kike detected

>come and join my business, goyim
>welcome to your cubicle where you will spend the next 50 years of your life working for me, goyim

kikes GTFO

Attached: 6.png (980x742, 208K)

>let people keep their money
This implies there's work to be had. Taxes pay for building infrastructure, for example, which renders higher employment. Socialism is about ensuring the health of the society, from the working class to the disabled (truly disabled.. not lazy commies on welfare).

>Democratic National Socialist
>the plan all along

They will when they know government isn't responsible for it anymore. That's why more people don't give to charity now. Most people care about helping others that are in actually need. This is opposed to now where the government just subsidizes poverty.

No, they'd still be shit. Do you think the government should control all food production? How about clothing? Why or why not?

Fag detected.

In the perfect white natsoc utopia why wouldn't people give to charity?

Infrastructure spending is only useful insofar as it creates something useful. You could lower unemployment by paying people do dig giant holes with spoons, but it would be incredibly wasteful. Eventually you run out of stuff that needs building.

>government isn't responsible for it anymore.
but government programs haven't eliminated poverty in America at all. How is the government "subsidizing poverty" any different than charity subsidizing it? Why would individuals doing it themselves be any better?

Kys, commie.

Attached: world-economic-history.png (587x375, 25K)

>Eventually you run out of stuff that needs building.
Eventually you run out of jobs for humans to do when replaced by AI. Everything is eventually. But right now we need Socialism to protect the wealth our society generates, and we need Nationalism to protect our borders. National Socialism - it's that simple.

More accountable, more community driven. Private charities are much better at achieving real results than government bureaucracy.

>But right now we need Socialism to protect the wealth our society generates
No. Socialism (or government provision) for things that aren't public goods is fucking retarded, hence Bernie tier.
>and we need Nationalism to protect our borders
Yes.

how could a private institution be more accountable than a government of elected people? I don't see any evidence that a private charity is more effective at helping people than a welfare government is.

are you confusing Socialism with Marxism?

Attached: Hitler Socialism 2.jpg (1024x878, 196K)

As for AI, the argument is that there have been many technological advancements in the past that have created temporary unemployment but people have always found new ways to be productive. If it turns out this isn't the case when AI hits, then maybe, maybe, something like a UBI would be necessary.

No. Many of Hitler's policies could have been straight out of the Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders playbook.

Like which ones? And which Cortez/Bernie policies are not out of Hitler's playbook?

>how could a private institution be more accountable than a government of elected people?
They can fail. When bureaucratic agencies are doing a poor job they get more money.
>don't see any evidence that a private charity is more effective at helping people than a welfare government is.
Plenty of evidence out there, just google it.

>Like which ones?
Banks, healthcare, welfare, higher ed, nationalizing corporations, etc.

Facts:
Hitler was left
KKK is left
Fashism is left
Democrats are left

You think our banks are doing a good job, or that welfare isn't a good thing for people who genuinely need it, or that we should spend our money to educate our society instead of giving it all to Israel?

>You think our banks are doing a good job
No.
>or that welfare isn't a good thing for people who genuinely need it,
Private charity is superior.
>that we should spend our money to educate our society instead of giving it all to Israel?
It's not an either/or scenario.

Attached: ae46ec25fda1495a723b4bff122cc35a63c509959a8ac670654f22db6b5b194c.jpg (489x379, 38K)

citation needed

>Private charity is superior.
There's always public charity scandals.
>It's not an either/or scenario.
How not? We'd have a wall if not spending the money on Israel.