Sunday, July 31, 2011
Conservatives as well a libertarians like to use France as an insult or as Bill Maher said an argument winner. And Maher mentioned that France has a very good Health Care System and that as Maher said we should steal it. But what he didn't mention and I believe why he didn't mention it, because it would've offended his Socialist Audience. Is that France does not have a Single Payer Health Care System, they have a Public Private Health Care System, similar to Germany, Switzerland, Holland, Taiwan and Japan. Where the french get to decide for themselves where to get their Health Insurance and Health Care. And what France does in Health Care, is similar to what the Obama Administration and the then 111th Democratic Congress wanted to do in Health Care Reform. In 2009/2010 before they settled for the Affordable Care Act which was basically just Private Health Insurance Reform and a Tax Credit for Health Care.
Another thing that people who say America should be like France argue, is that America should be more like France. Because they provide all of the Social Services for free, Health Care, Health Insurance, Pension, Education etc. Which is completely false, they do provide for all these services but none of them are free. Anyone in France who pays taxes, pays for these services in Federal Taxes, probably in the form of a Payroll Tax. Anyone who pays taxes, not only pays for everything they receive in society but they also pay for things that other people receive in society. As well as pay for the services that people who don't pay taxes receive in society. So people who want to see America become more like France, need to ask themselves do they really want to pay 50-70% in taxes to the Federal Government. Income taxes plus all of the additional Payroll Taxes that they would end up paying with to finance all of these additional Social Services. My answer is that most if not all of the Democratic Socialists in America the Michael Moore's of the World and others. Would say yes, well thats the easy part, the problem is that they only represent around 10-20 of the General Population in America. They would also have to convince and additional 30% or more just to get to a majority, just to have a shot of making this happen. The problem for them, is that High Taxes with everyone else who's not a socialist, are very unpopular in America.
France is a beautiful country with beautiful women and a lot of things to do and would makes a great place for a vacation. Especially in Southern France from my perspective and they do have a great Health Care System in a big country of around 65M people. But what also needs to be examined when someone says "lets make America more like France". Is how have they built their Welfare State, and is that something America would want to do, not just a certain part of the country. Or can we come up with out own solutions that work best for America.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video with Bill Maher on France
Friday, July 29, 2011
|Source: RT America- Armand Biroonak-|
The Coffee Party or as I would describe as the democratic socialist version of the Tea Party, but coming from the left with the Tea Party being a mixture of left and right, libertarians on one side, a lot of Ron Paul supporters associate with the Tea Party. But the Tea Party also has a Far-Right Faction in it coming from Theocratic Christians. But the Tea Party came on the scene against Wall Street bailouts, corporate welfare, debt and deficits. That the economy is in the toilet, the Federal Government is too big including our entitlement programs and what they believed America needed was for the Federal Government to spend less, tax less, stop borrowing for it's operations and give Americans less government and more liberty. It had strong libertarians themes to it especially in 2009-10 when they weren't about social issues at all, before the Michelle Bachmann's of the world took over. The Coffee Party is clearly not libertarian except perhaps on some social issues.
But The Coffee Party believes in things like democratic socialism, protecting the welfare state and if anything expanding it. Expanding the Federal Government to solve America's problems, not cut it. That the debt and deficit is not the issue, that lack of economic and job growth is the real crisis. And that one reason why America's economy has struggled now. is because the Federal Government is not big enough and doesn't spend enough money. Even though we are at now 3.7% or 25% of GDP and borrow 40% of every dollar that the Federal Government spends. But if we were more like Sweden or Britain, that spend 50% of their GDP's on it's central government. A lot of our economic problems would go away. That would be the thinking of the social democratic left. So you have two competing political ideology's here, you have more of a libertarian or classical conservative Tea Party and hopefully they'll get back to that or stay that way. That says the Federal Government spends too much and if they just cut back and taxed less and gave people more liberty.
The Tea Party saying that if Uncle Sam was smaller and consumed less, then his nephews and nieces could solve their problems on their own. Which is coming from the right. And and a social democratic Coffee Party on the Far-Left that says our main problems is that the Federal Government doesn't spend and tax enough and should do more of that on everybody. Not just the wealthy, they have more of a collectivist approach instead of an individualist approach to politics. These are two competing factions that could hold both the Democratic and Republican parties hostage. (So to speak) In the sense that if they don't do exactly what they want, they could destroy the major parties within. Or threaten to leave the major parties all together and walk out and from their own political parties. The debt ceiling debate is a perfect example of this. The problem that a Coffee Party has is that they represent the Far-Left of the country. And there's a short ceiling to what they can do in America and the type of support that they can come up with.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
I believe we need a new definition for ‘Corporate Welfare.’ Because Corporate Welfare goes to people and company’s that are doing great. And don’t give anything in return for the Welfare that they are getting through taxpayers. That also fund Public Welfare for the people who actually need the Welfare. Perhaps they should just be called corporate subsidy’s instead which is actually a real term to describe Corporate Welfare, because that’s what it is. Giving money to people and business’s for doing their jobs essentially. Producing good and services for people to buy and use.
Welfare Insurance is for people who are not working and don’t have the skills that they need to get a full-time job as well as a good job. To support themselves and their family’s. And because Welfare Insurance was reformed in 1996, people on that program now have to either be looking for work and they get help with that, or going to school to get the skills that they need to get a good job and become self-sufficient, as well as seeking work. And they get help with both of those. Food Assistance is essentially grocery insurance that people who don’t make enough money to be able to feed themselves adequately.
Unemployment Insurance is pretty self-explanatory. Money for people who are out-of-work and need temporary assistance while they are looking for another job. Medicaid is health insurance for low-income people who can’t afford health insurance on their own, or their employers health insurance. Public Housing is for people who can’t afford a home on their own and they get vouchers to help pay for a small apartment. And there are many other public programs. All these programs meet my definition of Welfare.
Public assistance which is really what this is about, are designed to help people with that actually need the help. Corporate Welfare to me is not Welfare, because it’s public assistance for company’s and individuals who are doing very well, which is a good thing. I’m clearly not a Socialist, but since they are doing so well, they clearly don’t need public assistance. And if we want to be a real capitalist economy, then let the haves support themselves and let’s help the have-nots become self-sufficient. And Welfare designed in a certain way that doesn’t make people dependent on public assistance can do that.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Michael Moore:"Two Political Parties Cannot Represent 300 Million People": I actually agree with Michael Moore
I actually agree with Michael Moore on something, America a country of 310M people the third largest population in the World. We are by far the largest country in the World, to just have a Two Party System. We are also one of the most diverse countries in the World if not the most diverse country in the World politically. We have large segments of our population that represent the entire Political Spectrum. From already over to the Far Right, all the way over to the Far Left. We have liberals, libertarians, Democratic Socialists and Classical Socialists on the left. We have conservatives, Neoconservatives and theocrats on the right. And we have independents who basically represent centrism in America but they are a mixture of liberal and conservative in their ideology. Which means that we are left with a Democratic Party thats suppose to represent the Left Wing in America and be the Liberal Party. And liberals tend to run the Democratic Party but liberals aren't the only people on the left. And the Democratic Party is made up of more people then just liberals, democrats have Democratic Socialists on the Far Left and Moderate Liberals in the middle. So the Democratic Party is essentially made up of three different factions and when the socialists and Moderate Liberals don't like what the liberals are doing. They threaten to leave the party of destroy it within. The Republican Party thats suppose to represent the Right Wing in America and be the Conservative Party. And Conservatives used to run that party and to a certain extent still do. But there are a lot less of them in the Republican Party right now and they are probably in the minority in that party now. And of course the Republican Party is made up more then just conservatives but Neoconservatives and theocrats and they still have some Moderate Conservatives left as well in the Northeast especially. Not trying to sound partisan as a democrat to make it official but the Republican Party thats supposed to be about Limited Government and Individual Freedom. Now has two competing Authoritarian Factions in it now, Christian Theocrats and Neoconservatives, who want to make government bigger and limit freedom. Conservatives don't you miss the "Grand Ole Party? So the Republican Party is now made up of four competing factions and when the three factions on the outside don't like what the Leadership is doing, they threaten to leave or destroy the party inside as well.
What America a country of 310M people needs politically, is more major Political Parties that represent our entire Political Spectrum. There's more then enough of a movement and people who want this to happen and it could easily happen. Especially if you look at the Approval Ratings of both the Democratic and Republican Parties that are in the 20s or 30s. We need the Democratic Party to be the Liberal Party not a socialist party, which in the past have done a very good job doing. We need the Republican Party to be the Conservative Party and not a Neoconservative or Theocratic Party. And we need the Libertarian Party to step up to the plate and act like a major Political Party and represent the 10-20% of libertarians in America. The socialists need their own party that represents the Socialist View in American Politics. And the Democratic Socialist Party and there is such a thing and they could do this if they formed a coalition. With the Green Party and the Progressive Caucus in the Democratic Party. And the Neoconservatives and Christian Theocrats could leave the Republican Party and form their own party. And the independents could have their own party as well that would be the Reform Party and others. We are a huge country we are more then capable of supporting all of our Political Factions and do it in the way where we would still have Majority Parties in Congress. But they would have less Special Interests to answer to.
We officially have a Two Party System but in actuality we have two parties that are both made up of at least three parties each. But they are all under the same roof so to speak, in a marriage made for hell. Because they all have their own viewpoints and Special Interests they have to answer to. And it makes governing almost impossible because the Leaders in both parties not only have to worry about the other party. But what other factions are doing in their own party.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video from Michael Moore on our Two Party System
I believe the President did as well as someone even with his vast Communication Skills, could do with a National Debt Ceiling Address. Especially with this material sounding very dry for today's Reality TV Audience and with Speaker Boehner countering him with a False Statement. Where he said the House Vote on "Cap Cut and Balance" being Bi Partisan last week. With only five democrats voting for it and at least ten republicans voting against it. There was actually more Bi Partisan Opposition to "Cut Cap and Balance" then Bi Partisan Support. I was a little worried Monday Afternoon when I heard that President Obama came out in favor of Leader Reid's plan in the Senate. That cuts the debt and deficit through cuts only even though he includes 1T$ in Defense Cuts. Coming from ending Military Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. According to a Progressive Blog Think Progress, the House Switchboard has been flooded with Phone Calls and emails, all about tonight's speeches I'm guessing, hopefully in favor of President Obama's speech. But we'll probably see within the next few days, I believe though that enough people did listen to President Obama's speech. And hopefully enough of them liked it enough, to tell enough Republican Representatives, that its time for the House GOP Leadership to make a deal with the President and Senate. But there's a much different team in the House now, thats not in business to negotiate. I believe however that Speaker Boehner is an adult who wants to put the debt and deficit debate aside or at least getting something accomplished on it. And start to move on to other things which I'm sure the Speaker and House Leader Cantor have on their agenda. Even though the House GOP only controls one Chamber of Congress and one institution in the entire Federal Government. They believe they hold all the cards because of the 2010 Mid Term Elections. But what they don't understand is that the voters didn't give them the Senate for a reason. Because they didn't like enough of their Senate Candidates to give them the majority there. Which left us with not only a Divided Government but a Divided Congress as well. What Leader Reid did in the Senate on Monday was to offer the House GOP a chance to say yes and move on but they still said no.
I'm glad the President has left Tax Hikes on the wealthy on the table to go along with Entitlement Reform and Budget Cuts including in defense. And lets see within the next few days if he was able to move enough americans to tell enough of their Reps. Thats its time to make a deal with the Senate and President and compromise so we can finally move on.
Click on the link of the blog to see another chance at President Obama's Debt and Deficit Speech
Sunday, July 24, 2011
When George W Bush became President in 2001 he an inherited a projected Budget Surplus of 1T$ over ten years including 100B$ a bank for his first year. And a National Debt of around 4T$ and we were talking about actually paying down the debt and deficit "too fast". Probably the first time we've ever had that debate in our history. President Bush left office eight years later with a Budget Deficit of 1T$ and a National Debt of 10T$. President Bush did have a couple of recessions in his Presidency, 2001-02 and you can make a case that he inherited the first one. Because the economy did start to slow down in 2000 but the "Great Recession" of 2008-09, clearly happened on his watch and he didn't fix the problem and you can argue that he made the problem worst with his own Fiscal Policy which I'll get to in a minute. You have to go back to the 1930s with FDR to find a President that served at least two terms that had an economy that did as bad as President George W Bush, seventy years. Which will be a big part of President Bush's Presidential Legacy, along with the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But how did he put this record together, during President Bush's tenure he had a Republican Congress for four years. Democrats controlled the Senate for the first two years and a Republican House for six years. During this period the Bush Administration decided that they could get two 1T$ Tax Cuts through without paying for them, Supply Side Economics. The two wars without paying for them, 3T$ to this point, the first time we've ever borrowed all the money to pay for wars. And a 500B$ Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, again all borrowed money. Howard Dean when he was running for the Democratic Nomination for President and when he served as Chairman of the Democratic Party. Dubbed the Bush Fiscal Policy Borrow and Spend Economics. You figure out what you want to do, how much it will cost and then borrow all the money to pay for it. Instead of having a list of priorities, this is what we need to do, this is the money we have. Lets figure out how to make it work the best and if we don't have enough money. We cut in other areas or we raise the revenue, that would be called PAYGO, you pay for what you spend.
As much as the Bush Tax Cuts have failed ten years later, because of how bad the economy is right now. The last thing we should be doing right now is passing Middle Class Tax Hikes on people who can't afford them and are struggling just to get by. And one of the last things we should be doing is adding top our debt and deficit situation as well. So what we should do is raise taxes on people who can afford them, use that revenue to help pay down the debt and deficit. Reform the Federal Government entitlements, defense and other places. Cut back in areas we don't need to spend as much. Defense, agriculture, Tax Subsidy's and Loopholes and invest in the economy like in infrastructure and energy. But do it in a way that doesn't add to our debt and deficit and start paying for everything that the Federal Government does going forward, including defense and Natural Disaster Relief.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video of the Ed Shultz Show on the Bush Tax Cuts.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
To put it simply, the best way to help poor people move to the middle class and become self- sufficient and not need public assistance for their daily survival, is to give them temporary financial assistance and child care, so they can survive in the short-term, yes. But to move them out of poverty, they education, to give them an opportunity to get their GED or go back to high school, as well as go to college like a technical school. So they can get the education and skills that they need, so they can get a good job to support themselves and their family's. And then finally job placement, help them find a good job that they are qualified for. So they can support themselves and their family's on their own and no longer need public assistance.
Along with deficit reduction and balancing the Federal budget, Welfare Reform of 1996, is President Bill Clinton's biggest achievement. It moved millions of people who would probably still be on Welfare Insurance today or working multiple minimum wage jobs just to barely survive today. Had it not been for the 1996 Welfare Reform Law. Millions of people who were on Welfare Insurance twenty years ago, now have good jobs today and some of them even own their own business's or manage a business. Then Governor Bill Clinton who made Welfare Reform a big part of his 1992 presidential campaign, didn't make a big push to pass a bill out of Congress his first two years. When he had a Democratic Congress, including a forty-seat majority in the House.
Even though President Clinton had good ideas on Welfare Reform, like education, job placement and child care. So these single parents could leave the home to go to school or look for work. His calculation was probably that he would never get the votes at least in the House, because the Far-Left flank in the Democratic Party there would never go along with a bill that had time limits for Welfare deficit reduction, the crime bill, Family Medical Leave and of course the nightmarish debacle of health care reform. All things he passed in his first two years except for health care reform. It took a Republican Congress for President Clinton to finally incorporate his ideas as well as republican ideas to make it law. And it was by far the best legislation that a Republican Congress in modern times has ever passed.
What we tried in the 1930s and 1960s with anti-poverty programs, where you essentially just give low-income low-skilled people money and expect nothing from them, that the "cycle of poverty" would just go away on its own, clearly did not work. Sixty-years later poverty was still a big problem in America which is why it was reformed. But in the 1990s we finally saw record reductions in poverty down to as low as 13%. One of those reasons being the economic expansion of that decade. But if you're low-income and low-skilled, you won't see the benefits of any economic expansion. Which is a big reason why Welfare Reform was so important, because it empowered low-skilled people to get the skills that they need to get themselves out of poverty and into the middle class.
Thom Hartmann:"From Tea Party to Coffee Party/Democracy 2.0: The Democratic Socialist version of the Tea Party
When the Tea Party started off it had a very clear message, the Federal Government spends too much, its too big, we have to get the debt and deficit under control, anti Corporate Bailouts and had very strong libertarian leanings and didn't care about Social Issues. This was the Tea Party Movement before the Christian Right merged with them, the Michelle Bachmann's, Sarah Palin's, Herman Cain's of the World merged with them. Which continued to push a certain Fiscal Policy message but still like Corporate Welfare and brought back Social Issues and brought back the politics if you disagree with me then your not a real american. And went back to being Anti Muslim, Anti immigrant, Anti Gay go down the line including Anti Pornography and Anti Adultery. And trying to make anything that they don't like illegal just because they don't like it and trying to tell people how to live their own lives. The original version of the Tea Party with the libertarian leanings I respected as a liberal, even though my approach on these issues is much different. The original version of the Tea Party had a chance to become a major Political Movement in American Politics and perhaps even be able to merge with the Libertarian Movement. But this new Theocratic Tea Party will go no farther then the Christian Right and be seen as another Fringe Movement in American Politics. Because americans especially Independent Voters don't tend to like Big Government Authoritarianism.
Back in late 2009 early 2010 and they didn't get started early enough to be a major factor in the 2010 Mid Term Elections, just look at the Ed Schultz rally, I believe in October 2010. Another movement began to come from the Democratic Party calling themselves the Coffee Party. That was what I would describe as the Democratic Socialist version of the Libertarian Tea Party. That saw their role as to defend the American Welfare State especially during Deficit Reduction. And if anything expand the Welfare State and use government to promote Progressive Policy's to create jobs in America. When you have 9.2% Unemployment, no better time then to try to create jobs. I don't see the Coffee Party becoming much of a factor in the Democratic Party to create positive change. In as far as winning elections and taking back the House of Representatives. For one thing there are not enough of them in Congress, the House Progressive Caucus, what's that 40 members and maybe 5-10 in the Senate. If they were to decide to take on Democratic Members of Congress in an Election Year when the economy will probably still be weak or worst take on the President with their own candidate. Democrats will lose everywhere, they'll have a hard enough time getting reelected on their own. If the Republican Party nominates Mitt Romney for President and the economy is still weak. President Obama will have a hard enough time getting reelected. Because the election will be about his record.
What the Coffee Party can contribute to the Democratic Party in a positive way, is recruiting House and Senate Candidates where the incumbents are republican. Which I believe will get the Democratic Base out to vote for democrats whoever the candidate is, as well as the Get Out to Vote Operations for the fall. To get as many democrats to vote as possible. Otherwise you'll see another divided Democratic Party, just like 1988, 84, 80, 72 and 68 that loses in a landslide to republicans in Congress and the White House. "United we Stand, Divided we Fall".
Click on the link of the blog to see a video from Thom Hartmann on the Coffee Party
Friday, July 22, 2011
I'm a little reluctant to criticize Rep. Peter Defazio even in a constructive way, because he's one of the most articulate, honest and humorous Members of Congress, in both Chambers and both parties. And if he ever got around to running Statewide in Oregon, I believe he would get elected and I would support him. But he's dead wrong as far as letting all of the Bush Tax Cuts expire even on the Middle Class. I believe the main reason and its certainly a reason for our weak Economic Recovery. Is because of the Low Demand in our economy, people aren't spending enough money to create big enough Economic Growth to give us enough Job Creation to create enough jobs to bring down our high Unemployment Rate. Pass a Middle Class Tax Hike on people who perhaps right now are just barely Middle Class and are worried about whether they'll have a job tomorrow, if they still have one. Will mean they'll spend less money and because they'll have less money to live on and have an even tougher time paying their bills. Which would mean our Economic Growth would be even weaker and we would lose more jobs and have a higher Unemployment Rate as well. The House Progressive Caucus and its allies make the point, that we had a much better economy in the 1990s especially in the late 90s, 97, 98 and 99. So since the economy was stronger then, we should go back to those Tax Rates which were higher. What they don't mention and I'm sure they are aware of this because they talk to their constituents on a regular basis if nothing else. Is back then we had a very strong economy, perhaps the strongest in our future. Which is completely different from today with the weakest economy in at least thirty years. Back then we could afford higher Tax Rates on even the Middle Class because the economy was much stronger then it is 10-20 years later. Higher Tax Rates can work on High Earners because they already have plenty and aren't looking to spend money just to survive, because they already have plenty. They are not the people that we need to spend more, they rather save and invest. Its Middle and Low Income people that we need to spend more money and to encourage them to spend more. To generate enough Economic and Job Growth to bring down our Unemployment Rate to a much more manageable level.
Tax Hikes on people can't afford them and are struggling just to survive, will just make life more difficult for them. Because they'll have even less money to live on. And would be even worse for our economy and debt and deficit outlook. What we need to do is pass Tax Hikes on the Upper Class, to help pay down our debt and deficit. And encourage Middle and Low Income people to spend more money to generate more Economic and Job Growth.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video of Rep. Peter Defazio talk about the Bush Tax Cuts on the House Floor
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Sen. Tom Coburn is not as far to the right as people can get or he would be Member of Congress who no one in Congress would be able to work with other then the Far Right. The Senate or House but he's as Fiscally Conservative as they come in the sense that he believes that the Federal Government should pay its bills and only pay for things that it should be doing and cut back on things that he believes we shouldn't be doing. Which I believe would qualify as Common Sense to most sane people. Sen. Bernie Sanders isn't as far to the left as people can get but there isn't much room on the left to be to the left of him. He is an admitted Democratic Socialist for crying out loud and proud of it. And believes in the Welfare State and collectivism and that government, especially the Federal Government should play a big role in looking after the welfare of the people. And that Private Enterprise, even though I don't believe Sen. Sanders believes in nationalizing most industry's. Can't be trusted to look after people and that the Federal Government should step in and provide a lot of these services. Everything from education, Health Care, Health Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, transportation, energy and there's probably a lot more. So when your comparing a Conservative Senator like Tom Coburn who believes in Limited Government and there's a limit to what government especially the Federal Government should be doing and a big believer in Free Enterprise and Free Markets and is actually against Corporate Welfare and those Tax Loopholes. With a Democratic Socialist Senator like Bernie Sanders, two men who I don't tend to agree with a lot on but two men who I have a lot of respect for. And a big reason is for their honesty and they are talking about big issues like Deficit Reduction. Both Senators have admitted that Deficit Reduction has to be done for the good of the economy, your going to see much different approaches in how to accomplish this. With Sen. Coburn who actually believes in Fiscal Responsibility and there's a limit to what the Federal Government should be doing. Including on defense, if you look at the Coburn Back in Black Deficit Reduction plan, you'll find major Defense Cuts in it. As well as closing Tax Loopholes and Entitlement Reform a Means Testing approach. With a approach from Sen. Sanders thats more centered around Defense Cuts, closing Tax Loopholes and Tax Hikes probably on everyone not just the wealthy.
Sen. Tom Coburn and Sen. Bernie Sanders both represent one thing thats right about the Federal Government, Congress and Washington. Because they represent their viewpoints and constituents as well as they can be represented because of their honesty. They say what they mean, what they believe and back up their views as well as they can be backed up.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video of Sen. Bernie Sanders on the Senate Floor
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Glad to see President Obama finally show some leadership and take some action on the Deficit Reduction and Debt Ceiling issue. And actually come out in favor of a plan, the plan introduced by the "Gang of Six" in the Senate a Bi Partisan group of Senators led by Sen. Kent Conrad Chairman of the Budget Committee and Sen. Tom Coburn a very iimportant Republican Senator and Fiscal Conservative. This plan closes Tax Loopholes, cuts Military Spending but in a strategic way. But it sorta punts on the Tax Cuts for the wealthy and Entitlement Reform, where we could save hundreds of billions of dollars every year without hurting anyone. But apparently this is a 4T$ Deficit reduction plan over ten years, with serious Budget Cuts and Revenue Raisers. And if this were to come true, would get our Federal Debt and Deficit under control and I believe be a jump in the economy and strengthen our dollar. Which would also be a boost to the Stock Market. Not the plan that I would've written, because it does nothing on the Tax Cuts for the wealthy, Entitlement Reform or closing some of our Foreign Bases in Developed Countries that can afford to defend themselves. That we can no longer afford to defend with our debt situation and our own Foreign Policy issues. We'll have another opportunity within a year or so to save an additional hundred billion dollars a year to pay down our debt and deficit. By bringing our troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq, knock on wood as the saying goes. This is a hell of a lot better then the McConnell Punt from the Senate Minority Leader or Crap Carry and Bounce from the House Tea Party. And it shows that there are still some Members of Congress, at least in the Senate. That understand the debt issue, what needs to get done and which is as important. What can pass at least in the Senate and if the House GOP ever wakes up, what should be able to pass in the House as well. Because both sides will be giving up plenty to get plenty in return, Budget Cuts and Revenue Raisers, without having to make tough political choices on Entitlement Reform and Tax Hikes on the wealthy. Which is why this wouldn't of been the plan I would've written.
If I had to coin this Deficit Reduction and Debt Ceiling plan, I would call it The Comeback Drive, that got us back in the game so to speak. And bought Congress and the White House more time to deal with the tougher issues to win the game. And I'm done with sports analogy's, at least football for this blog. Its that time of year.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Just when I was starting to believe that Mitch McConnell was one the most skillful Senate Minority Leaders of all time and perhaps the most skillful Senate Republican Leader, at least going back to Bob Dole or Howard Baker. He offers a Debt Ceiling plan that manages to offend the left and I'm one of those people but not part of the Far Left but thats a different blog. As well as the Right Wing and Far Right, people he actually needs in order to keep his job and hopefully one day for him get promoted to Senate Leader instead of Minority Leader. If and when Senate Republicans manage to take control of the Senate again. His plan is as dumb as its simple, it says that if the President and Congress, don't reach a Debt Ceiling agreement by August 2nd. When we are currently scheduled to default if an agreement isn't reached, that the President unilaterally could raise the Debt Limit on his own. Be able to borrow the 2T$ thats needed to raise the Debt Limit. And I believe there is actually a catch to the McConnell plan, that by October Congress would be able to weigh in again on the Debt Ceiling that the President of course would have to approve. The President has already made it clear that he doesn't want to use the Constitutional Option on the Debt Ceiling so to speak, that instead wants to reach a Grand Bargain with Speaker John Boehner and Leader Harry Reid on a Debt Limit increase but also a Deficit Reduction deal with Congress as well. But would use the Constitutional Option if he's not able to reach an agreement with Congress and he's well within his right to do that. But also it would look bad politically and sorta make the President look like a dictator, if he unilaterally borrowed and additional 2T$. Especially since he and Congress have already put 4T$ on the National Debt in 2 1/2 years. Not all of it their fault but its all happened on their watch. The only reason why I could see Minority Leader McConnell offering this plan, is to have something else to use against President Obama to make him look like a "Big Spender" and Fiscally Irresponsible. The problem though that it would be McConnell's idea that he would be acting on. The McConnell plan is another example of DOA and would never pass either the House or Senate or get signed into law.
In just the last week we've seen Leaders from both the House and Senate offer Debt Ceiling plans that they know or should know. Have no shot in hell of passing and becoming law. Instead of working together to find a solution to the Federal Government's debt issue, which is one of their jobs to help solve problems that the Federal Government faces. And right now no one in Congress in Leadership is earning their six figure salary for their part time jobs.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video about the Mitch McConnell Debt Ceiling plan
Monday, July 18, 2011
|Source: Polar 79-|
If Noam Chomsky is talking about an economic system where the workers own the company that they work meaning the central government, meaning state ownership of the means of production of society, meaning, or economic Marxism, then I think he’s dead wrong. There isn’t a large developed country in the world with that economic system. But if he’s talking about an economic system where the workers each own a percentage of the company that they work at, like with private stock options, not just for executives, but the entire workforce, then I believe Dr. Chomsky is on to something.
In a system like that no CEO would make a hundred or thousand times more than the workforce. Each CEO would be paid based on the job they are doing good, or bad and wouldn’t set their salary. The Board of Directors made up of the stockholders and the workforce would determine this. And no one person or a small group of people would own an entire corporation. But the CEO like the entire management and workforce would own a piece of the company based on what they contribute to it. So they would all get a base salary, plus their stock options. When the company is doing well, so are they, when the company is doing poorly, so are they.
Which would give plenty of incentive for the entire management and workforce to work as hard and be as productive as they possibly can. Because there’s plenty of financial incentive for them to do that. I could see an economic system developing like this in America if there enough people who want it bad enough and will work hard and well enough to make it happen. The Green Bay Packers of the NFL have a similar system to this. Where essentially all the Green Bay residents own at least a piece of the club. Not the city government, but the individuals each own a private share of the club.
They don’t have one person whose the owner of the club or the general partner of a small group running the club, but a CEO who has to report to the Board of Directors and the stockholders in the club. And they have been not only one of the most successful NFL franchises since they’ve been in existence, but in pro sports in general. What I would like to see in America is that we move away from cowboy capitalism, where there’s basically no taxes and regulations for company’s and wealthy people and a lot of corporate welfare. But instead where company’s are able to stay in business by the quality of services they provide.
A system of individualism that I would call American capitalism, where people can make as much money as their skills and production will allow. Pay taxes based on how much they make with the wealthy paying the most and going down. But where taxes aren’t so high that there’s not enough incentive for people to work hard, be productive and earn a good living. And where the economy is not over regulated or under regulated, or where regulations aren’t enforced like the last ten years. But where the economy is well-regulated to protect company’s and individuals from abusing each other.
Where we have a public education system producing enough good workers for the highly skilled jobs. And a safety net that catches people who fall through the cracks, but helps them get up on their own feet to be self-sufficient. If company’s on their own, or new startup company’s want to move to a system where the entire management and workforce owns a piece of the action so to speak, great. Thats their call, but that shouldn’t be forced on them. Let the market decide how these company’s are run. Instead of state planners and have government there to help people back up who fall and prevent and punish company’s and individuals who abuse others.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Democracy Now: Amy Goodman Interviewing Naomi Klein- Anti-Union & The Budget Crisis, Bills & Shock Doctrine American Style
|Source: Democracy Now-Naomi Klein-|
I'll admit, I'm not very familiar with Naomi Klein. But the few times I've heard her speak, I've disagreed on every point she's made, but found her interesting every time. Which is why I've listen to her multiple times. But apparently snow is falling in South Florida in July because I've found something that I agree with Naomi Klein on. Not that I've looked very hard which is why am I for worker rights. I believe this is a simple question and to be somewhat flip. Which I'll admit won't be my first time, I'll answer that with a question . Imagine what America would be without workers rights. Workers would literally be at the knees of management, whether its coming from the private or public sector. I'm not anti-management, far from it. I'm a big fan of American capitalism. When it actually is American capitalism and not cowboy capitalism. But without workers rights, management could essentially do whatever they want to do to their workforce.
And the employees wouldn't have a way to appeal what management is doing, perhaps not even be able to complain to management about the working conditions. Without their own recourse to be able to leave their job. Which might not make any other sense, because they might need the exact job that they have. So that wouldn't be much of a choice for them. Labor unions are there to essentially fight for their members to give them the best benefits as possible. That is essentially their only job at all if you think about. Teacher unions the perfect example of this and they do this by keeping management in check so they don't go too far. It's actually in the self-interest of management to have the best pay and benefits as possible, to have the best workforce possible. So they work as hard as possible and are productive as possible to make the company or government as effective as possible. And in the private sectors case as profitable as possible.
But management doesn't always understand this and they look straight at their bottom line and look to cut costs as much as possible to save as much money as possible. Not realizing that they are actually hurting their company or agency in the long run. Because high skill people won't want to work their because of the low pay and poor benefits. Another thing about labor unions and workers rights if we didn't have them, think about it. No weekend, no overtime pay, no Social Security, no Unemployment Insurance, no forty-hour workweek, no pensions, so safe working conditions. I mean you could go down the line. Labor Unions aren't perfect and of course they have their weakness's, but neither is management, but together when they are both doing their jobs and working together, they form a partnership for progress in America. You give is this and we'll give you that. You give up this and we'll give up that. Just because something is not working perfectly, doesn't mean you have to eliminate it. You can always try to reform as well which is another option.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
On sort of a casual note I'm glad to see these prison inmates showing some initiative and leadership and had they showed these skills when they were free in a constructive way, perhaps they wouldn't be in prison and had they behaved themselves when they got to prison, perhaps they wouldn't be in isolation today in prison. Prison isolation is for inmates that represent a threat to other inmates and prison staff, as well as gang leaders. Isolation is not for white-collar criminals who are in prison for credit card fraud.
If inmates in isolation behave themselves while they are in insolation, they can get out of it and return to general population and have more opportunity's to make their prison sentences more constructive for them, the prisons, and society in general. With education and vocation so when they get out of prison, they can have skills to make themselves successfully legal in life. So they never have to come back to prison.
I'm a Liberal, but not an Anarchist, which is different so of course I'm concern with civil liberties and other liberties, but at the same time I'm also concern with Public Safety. Because without freedom and public safety we have neither. Because without public safety people don't have as much freedom to live their lives, because of the fear that their Public Safety and life are in danger. So when inmates who represent a threat to the prison as well as other inmates are sent to isolation. I don't have the attitude of throw them in jail, which is what isolation is in prison, another jail in prison essentially. And throw away the key and expect these inmates to learn their lesson the old fashion way with strict treatment.
I believe these inmates should be treated with mental health experts to get their behavior and temper under control. As well as the ability to have recreation while in their isolation, reading and writing materials for example, more food, more time out of the cell lets say four hours a day. And let them spend that time with other isolation inmates. Perhaps even visits from family and other inmates thats monitored. So their friends and family can see how they are doing. Better beds and even music and TV, as long as they behave themselves while having all these privileges.
Isolation in prison yes should be to keep the dangerous inmates who represent a major threat to staff and other inmates away from general population. But isolation should be designed to make these inmates better and not worst and if it were designed this way. Isolation could become a form of prison rehabilitation for inmates, something as a society we've moved way too far away from.
Friday, July 15, 2011
The wrongs of the Far Right, where should I start, I would've gone with where to begin but I used that as part of the title of my blog. In the interest of originality I chose something else, I hope you like it but I also hope its not your focus of this blog either. So moving on I separate the Far Right from the Right Wing, as I believe any knowledgeable Political Junky or Political Analyst would. The Far Right being the the Rush Limbaugh's, the Bachmann's a bad company from my perspective. And others the Christian Right and Neo Right, the Christian Tea Party as I call them. The authoritarian Big Government Faction of the Republican Party, what the Republican Party didn't use to be. Until they decided they need this block of voters if they were ever going to be a major player in Congress and actually win control of it. Starting in 1980 with the Senate with the Reagan Revolution and then in 1994 by winning both the House and Senate with the Gingrich Revolution. Apparently there weren't enough Classical Conservatives and Libertarians at the time 35 years ago to make this happen for the Republican Party, so they felt they needed another block of voters. And here comes the Christian Right and Neo Right, a party that used to be about Limited Government and anti Big Government. The last 20 years has become about authoritarian Big Government, telling people how to live their lives and if they do something or are something that they don't like, they automatically assume that they must have some type of disease. And being the good Christians that they are, they try to cure them like the Bachmann's and others. Or they try to send them to prison. By passing laws making what they are doing, whatever it is illegal even if they are not hurting any innocent people with their activities. I've just laid out what is wrong with the Far Right in America, they are Big Government Big Brother Uncle Sam impersonators who believe Uncle Sam knows best how everyone else should live their lives and if they do something that not part of their Moral Code. They try to make it illegal.
The Right Wing as I see it, the Barry Goldwater Classical Conservatives are exactly what is right about the Conservative Movement in America. But unfortunately with the Republican Party and America as a whole have lost power in this country. They are the opposite of the Far Right, they are truly pro Limited Government and anti Big Government and believe that people should be left alone to live their own lives. As long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. The Far Right and Right Wing as I see it, two Political Factions part of the same wing of the American Political Spectrum.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video from Keith Olberman about what is wrong with the right
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Tea Party Caucus Moves To Make Sure Money Will NOT Be Cutoff From Military: What happened to the Real Tea Party
What happened to the old Tea Party that I wouldn't say I love as a liberal but definitely respected. That was about Limited Government, getting the Federal Government off of our backs. That was anti Big Government, anti Corporate Welfare, anti Neoconservatism. This was a movement back in 2009-10 when they came on the seen that didn't want to be associated with the Christian Right and Neoconservatives, that was even anti George Bush. That wasn't part of today's Republican Party thats dominated by the Christian Right and Neoconservatives. That sorta looked like the Grand Ole Party of 20-30 years a real Limited Government party. I gotta admit that back in the summer of 2010, when I started blogging about the Tea Party Movement, that I saw them as a faction of the Christian Right with a very conservative fiscal message. As they moved along and went out of their way to not be associated with Social Issues that moves the Christian Right. That told me they had Classical Conservatives and libertarians in it. That told me that they were a separate movement from the Christian Right, a real Classical Conservative Movement that people had the right to live their own lives, as long as they weren't hurting anyone else with their freedom. And by in large wasn't interested in Social Issues and looking to push some Anti Gay or Anti Porn ban. I'll tell you what happened with part of the Tea Party Movement, in case anyone was wondering, they got in bed with the Christian Right and combined both movements. Michelle Bachmann case in point, she's the Leader of the Christian Tea Party. This faction as I see it is different from the Tea Party or represents another movement on their own or has even replaced the Tea Party as a major Political Movement not only in the Republican Party but in American Politics as a whole. I'm sure there are still some Classical Conservatives and libertarians left in the Tea Party Movement but they are no longer in charged and won't have much of a say in who the Republican Party nominates for President in 2012.
Anyone who believes that we can get our Federal Deficit and Debt under control without making overall cuts in Defense Spending. Without making damaging cuts in Entitlement Programs and passing painful Tax Hikes on the Middle Class. As apparently these Republican Reps. believe can be done. Doesn't understand the Federal Budget and the debt and deficit issues it faces.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video of the House Michelle Bachmann Caucus
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
I know I've been blogging a lot about marijuana lately the last year or so as well as the broader War on Drugs. But its been a slow news day and this is still very important issue and I'll do my best to not sound repetitive but no promises.
If a Socialist Democrat like Rep. Barney Frank and a Libertarian Republican like Rep. Ron Paul can agree that we should no longer criminalize the use and possession of marijuana, if they can agree on anything. Then we should take their Marijuana Bill in the House seriously and at least take a look at it. Just for the fact that Rep. Frank and Rep. Paul actually agree on something and it may be the last time that they agree on anything. But on a serious note, their bill doesn't Legalize Marijuana without any strings attached which would be irresponsible and they both know that. Their Marijuana Bill simply treats marijuana like alcohol, which does just as much or more damage to people in society and is just as addictive if not more. With Regulation and Taxation just like alcohol, 21 or over to smoke, posses or sale to use as examples. Right now marijuana users get off tax free and don't pay a dime for their marijuana use and have a major advantage over alcohol and tobacco users. Which again is unfair to alcohol and tobacco users and a lot of marijuana users end up using pot their entire Adult Lives without paying a dime in taxes. By the way a lot of these marijuana users don't spend a day in jail or prison, which is good for them and society in general but thats a different blog. To put in the in case you weren't aware file, just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it goes away or isn't done. All you have to do to know this is to take a look at what the oldest profession in the World including America, where its currently illegal as well but thats another blog as well. That profession is alive and well in America and the rest of the World. There's and attempt by me to not sound repetitive.
But my broader appoint is that if people want to do something bad enough, they'll find a way to do it whether its legal or not. Its just a matter at what price they as well as society pays for it. This is true with marijuana, gambling and yes prostitution and I can go down the line as well but in the interest of time and keeping you week I'll spare you, for now. So knowing this we would be better off financially and morally, to take that as fact and instead of prohibiting how adults live their own lives. Lets regulate how these activities are done instead, because since we know that these activities are done. We might as well make them as safe as possible because for the very fact that we know that they are going to be done, whether they are legal or illegal.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video on marijuana
Just to critique Keith Olberman's Special Comment. The American safety net is not America's greatest accomplishment. He's simply dead wrong there and thats the nicest way to put it. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are our greatest accomplishments. The two documents that guarantee our freedoms. That I believe some Americans unfortunately take for granted, but perhaps thats a different piece.
I'll start this piece with a question. Is that the job of the safety net to take care of people? The last time I check the role of a safety net is to catch people who fall and then help them back up. The term safety net implies that, to catch people who have fallen and then help them back up and To not leave them on the ground. The job of government is not to take care of people who are mentally able and physically able bodied. In America if you're physically and mentally capable of working, then your expected to. That the whole reason why we have limits on Unemployment Insurance and now for about fifteen years Welfare Insurance has time limits as well, people on Unemployment and Welfare are expected to go back to work, earn a living and be self-sufficient.
People who end up using public assistance are not expected to life off of taxpayers indefinitely and that government can help people go back to work and help them find jobs and give them assistance to go to school or go back to school to get a good job and not have to live off of taxpayers indefinitely. So when Keith Olberman implies that the safety net's job is to take care of people, he's essentially implying that the people who benefit from these safety net programs no longer have the freedom and responsibility to take care of themselves. Because government will do that for them.
The job of the safety net is to catch people who fall and then help them get back up on their own two feet. Yes, with temporary financial assistance, but more importantly down the the road empower people who need these social insurance programs and I'm not talking about Social Security and Medicare programs that people have paid into their whole lives, but the anti-poverty programs, with education and job placement. The best anti-poverty programs are a good education and a good job. Because then low-income people will become self-sufficient and be able to take care of themselves.
Government's job is to protect and defend its people, not take care of them indefinitely. And when people fall through the cracks, catch them with the safety net (so to speak) but then help them back up with a good education and a good job. So they can stand on their own two feet and take care of themselves.
Monday, July 11, 2011
I find it ironic that someone who speaks out against American Capitalism and perhaps capitalism in general. Which is what Filmmaker/Comedian Michael Moore does, a man who I have lets limited respect for. He's not a government filmmaker or a government or a government comedian or a government actor. He's a Private Citizen who's had all of his Professional Success in life in the Private Sector. And yet he claims to be either a Classical Socialist or a Democratic Socialist and if America were to give up on capitalism and move to a Classical Socialist economy. Meaning the State owns the Means of Production in Society, Mr Moore would no longer be a Private Filmmaker working for himself, he would be working for the Federal Government. He's not a dumb guy and rather intelligent actually but a lot of his facts are just wrong. Like when he says that America should move our economy towards France, because their services are all free. Like Health Care, Health Insurance, Education, Transportation, Pension etc. He's simply dead wrong, none of those services are free, the french either pay for them in taxes from the Federal Government there or pay for them in fees in the Private Sector. Apparently Michael Moore never saw or read Milton Friedman's lecture about there's no such thing as a Free Lunch. We all pay for what we get or somebody pays for it for us. Mr Moore is also wrong about the French Health Insurance and their Health Care System in general. They don't have a Single Payer Health Care System that he would like to see in America. They have a Public-Private Health Care System that includes both their Health Care and Health Insurance. I don't believe Mr Moore is a Classical Socialist for selfish reasons, I don't believe he would want the Federal Government being able to censor his movies for example, can't blame him for that.
I see Michael Moore as a Democratic Socialist, someone who believes that government especially the Federal Government should play a big role in providing services for people in society. Health Care, Health Insurance, Education, Pension, Transportation, Housing etc. Meaning the Welfare State, because he believes yes its the right thing to do. But also so he can continue to make his own Private Movies.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video of Michael Moore on socialism
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Normally I wouldn't hit this story twice, I blogged about it on Friday, even though that blog was about Rep. Michelle Bachman's broader view on Social Issues. But since this is Michelle Bachmann and she has a hypocritical streak going when it comes to Big Government. And its Saturday, the slow news day of all slow news days. I'm going to hit this story again and go out of my way not to sound repetitive on this story but no promises.
This is what Big Government Conservatism at its worst but that would be an insult to conservatism, because conservatism is about conserving Constitutional Rights not abolishing them. Which apparently with Rep. Bachman's views on Social Issues, she's trying to eliminate some of our Constitutional Rights and making America a less Free Society and no longer a Liberal Democracy. This is more like authoritarianism then conservatism, essentially using government meaning the Central Government and in America's case the Federal Government. To protect people from themselves as well as others but protect us from ourselves as well. That if people have to much freedom in an authoritarian's mind, that they won't know what to do with it and might hurt themselves with it. So things like pornography, certain types of movies and other forms of entertainment including fashion would be illegal. That certain forms of speech thats not political thats also protected by the US Constitution with the First Amendment, would no longer have those protections if the Federal Government doesn't approve of it. So if the Federal Government doesn't personally like porn, lets take that first just because thats Rep. Bachmann's latest Public Position. Not because I have or don't have some special affection for pornography. Instead of the FEDS just making the choice that they would have in a Liberal Democracy. The Freedom of Choice to look at or not look at porn, they simply make that illegal, punishable by jail time for everyone else. And would make that choice for the rest of the country on their own. Thats just one example, instead of moving America forward as a First World Liberal Democracy. They want to move America backwards as like a Third World Authoritarian Republic or Monarchy thats common in the Middle East.
The next time I hear Rep. Michelle Bachmann claim that she's a Constitutional Conservative and anti Big Government and I see her make that claim on TV or the internet. I'm going to treat those remarks as part of her Daily Monologue, because at the rate she's going. She's turning into a First Rate comedian and a Second Rate politician. Because she's doesn't know what the hell she's talking about and is a pardon the term. A Master of Speaking out of her ass.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video of Countdown with Keith Olberman
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Sen. Orrin Hatch who by the way is the Ranking Member on the Senate Fiance Committee, the Lead Minority Member of that committee. So hopefully he has some idea of what he's talking about when it comes to taxes, perhaps vague though. Apparently he came out on Thursday for Tax Hikes on Low Income people. I don't know the Senator personally but known of him for about twenty years now, since the Clarence Thomas Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings. Sen. Hatch is still a member of that committee and has served as both Ranking Member and Chairman of that committee. He's been in the Senate so long that he's had both of those jobs twice. I don't know him personally but what I've learned about him personally and politically, is that he's a very honest Conservative Republican. As a liberal myself, you might be able to count on one hand and not need all five fingers, to count the number of things that we agree on. But what I've respected about him and yes I mean that in past tense, is his honesty, you know where the Senator stands on all the issues. He's had sorta of a take it or leave this is who I am sorta approach to politics. The same thing that Ted Kennedy had and why Conservative Republicans had so much respect for him. And the same thing can be said about Orrin Hatch with Liberal and Socialist Democrats. Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Hatch are two of the most honest people to ever serve in the Senate as well as Congress as a whole. And one reason why I believe they were such close friends and worked so well together.
So when Sen. Hatch comes out for Tax Hikes for Low Income people and protecting Tax Cuts for High Earners. When Sen. Hatch as always supported the Earned Income Tax Credit in the past, a Tax Credit that I believe was created by President Reagan of all people. It tells me that Sen. Hatch has more then Fiscal Policy on his mind but his Political Future as well. Sen. Bob Bennet one of the most conservative Members of Congress when he served. Lost the Republican Primary in Utah in 2010 which is why he's no longer in Congress. Because he wasn't conservative enough and caught working with Liberal Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, that sounds simplistic but thats most of the truth. There's talk that Sen. Hatch who's up for reelection himself in 2010, will face a Primary Challenge from the Far Right as well and we are talking about Utah. So thats about as conservative as conservative gets and I believe that Sen. Hatch believes the best way of getting reelected to the Senate and going back to Congress. Is to not face a Primary Challenge and win it if he gets one and look as far to the right as possible especially on Fiscal Policy. Even if that means taking positions he doesn't believe in and wouldn't take normally. I believe that Sen Hatch coming out for Tax Hikes on Low Income people is pure politics and not leadership.
One thing leadership is about taking positions that you believe in whether they are popular are not. Because you believe in them and believe they are the right thing to do. Once a politician takes a position just for Popular Support, they are no longer a leader but a puppet for Popular Will.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video of Sen. Orrin Hatch coming out for Tax Hikes on Low Income people
Friday, July 8, 2011
Jim Clyburn who's one of the Members of Congress in both the House and Senate that I respect the most in both parties. Has this exactly right, Democratic Socialists in Congress and around the country should jump all over this potential deal. Means Testing for Social Security and Medicare and reforming it in a way for people who actually need it. Meaning wealthy people paying more into Social Security and collecting less if anything. And giving more benefits to the retirees who actually need Social Security income to pay their bills. Making the program more of a Welfare Insurance program for the people who actually need it. And eliminating Early Retiree income for High Earners as well. And the reforming Medicare in a way that reforms it for the people who need. By increasing Medicare Taxes on High Earners and having them pay more in premiums. In exchange democrats would get an Excise Tax on millionaires as well as substantial, somewhere in the ballpark of 70-100B$ a year in Defense Cuts. Conservative Republicans are already on board for Defense Cuts and some of them are already on board Tax Hikes, but they would probably have to start at around a million dollars a year, not 250K$. They would probably also need Tax Reform including Corporate Tax Reform, that eliminates Tax Loopholes and lowers rates. But this to me would be a Grand Bargain for democrats and their Democratic Socialist base. Because they would get a Millionaires Tax and serious Defense Cuts. Social Security and Medicare would be reformed but not in a way that hurts anyone who needs it but helps us get our deficit and debt under control. Anyone who's truly interesting in moving the Debt Ceiling as well as the broader deficit and debt issue past us. So we can concentrate mostly on the economy again and bringing our troops home. Should take this deal, anyone who just wants this issue to fire up their base will of course say no.
President Obama wants to make this deal, I believe House Speaker Boehner wants to make this deal and I believe Senate Leader Reid wants to make this deal. If people on Social Security and Medicare who need those programs aren't hurt by it, which they wouldn't be. And then he could sell the deal to the Senate Democratic Caucus. The question is will the Fringe Basses in both parties allow the deal to happen or not.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video of House Asst. Minority Leader Jim Clyburn on Hardball
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
|Source: Big Think-|
People who are called "Modern Liberals" today are actually Democratic Socialists and are not liberals at all really. Even though they have liberal leanings on social issues which I commend them as a real Liberal. People who would be called "Modern Liberals", call themselves that or Progressives. Instead of Democratic Socialists, even though Senator Bernie Sanders views himself as a Democratic Socialist and obviously the Democratic Socialist Party in America, views themselves as Democratic Socialists.
And if you look at the issues, people who call themselves Democratic Socialists and people who call themselves Modern Liberals, agree on almost everything. Especially the role of government and especially the role of the Federal Government. I can understand why Democratic Socialists who aren't comfortable with that term, because of how unpopular the term socialism is in America and the negative stereotypes that come with that. But thats a political calculation on their part, rather than a accurate description of their politics.
As an actual Liberal myself and not a Democratic Socialist or a Socialist in any form, I don't use the term Socialist or Democratic Socialist as a negative term or a partisan term. But a description of their politics. Whatever one's politics are and wherever they are on the political spectrum, they should know exactly what they are and be honest about it. If they are articulate and intelligent enough to sell their politics so to speak, to win popular support whether their political views are popular at the time or not.
Because if people can sell their politics, because they are articulate and intelligent, they'll at the end of the day be able to sell their political views and policy's and win popular support. Because voters at the end of the day will look at them and say, "you know what, I didn't like this persons policy's before, because I used to think this about them, but they actually make sense to me and I'll vote for them."
Liberalism classical or modern or in between, is about freedom and responsibility for the individual as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. As well as limited government, equal opportunity for all. Its not about collectivism and the welfare state, which are socialist values. Democratic socialism and liberalism are two different political ideology's not one in the same.
A few things that I like about what Katrina Vanden Heuvel said about liberalism. Is that its about equal opportunity, empowerment, equal justice, free thinking. That people should be able to think for themselves and not feel the need to agree with everyone or anyone else even if other people hold the popular views at the time. These values don't sound socialist at all. These are true liberal value and if The Nation Magazine and other New-Left social democratic publications actually held these views and promoted these values, then they would be truly liberal publications.