Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Mitt Romney: "Universal Healthcare is Great For Everyone But America!": The Advantages of Private Universal Healthcare
If Universal Healthcare/Health Insurance means that everyone in the country has access to it and its affordable to everyone one way or the other. Then sign me up because I'm in favor of that and would be a dues paying members of he club, as long as the dues are affordable and reasonable. If Universal Healthcare/Socialize Medicine means that the State and in the United States case. Meaning the Federal Government, runs the Health Insurance System and perhaps even the Healthcare System as a whole, like the Communist Republic of Cuba. To use as an example, then no I'm not in favor of that, as Progressives in America have been calling for years, that if we only have Medicare For All. That everyone in the country would have free Health Insurance, at a price of course, notice the contradiction in that statement, that if its free, there wouldn't be any cost. The costs are higher taxes then they would be today and the other cost would be that choice in where we get our Health Insurance would then be eliminated. Because Uncle Sam would now be the only game in town when it comes to Health Insurance in this country. That I'm not in favor of and don't buy the argument that the rest of the Industrialized World has State Owned Health Insurance Systems, because thats bogus, Israel is another example of that.
The question is not whether we should have Universal Healthcare/Health Insurance but the question is how do we set up a Healthcare System. Where everyone have access to Healthcare and Health Insurance at an affordable cost to everyone that provides high quality Healthcare and Health Insurance for everyone. That yes everyone is part of the system that we are all covered with either Health Insurance or some type of Health Savings Account or out of pocket. But where we all pay for our share of our Healthcare Costs and not passing those costs onto others. America spends 18% of its GDP on our Healthcare System, Israel spends 8% of its GDP on their Healthcare System. But here's something that Israel also does, they have Private Health Insurance available from Cradle to Grave, as well as Patient Protections and a Healthcare Mandate. But Israeli's decide how they pay for their Healthcare but as long as they pay. Its a very similar system to Germany and Switzerland.
What America passed back in 2010 that the Supreme Court ruled as Constitutional in June this year. Is a very similar Healthcare Law to create a similar Healthcare System, as what Germany, Holland, Switzerland, Israel, Taiwan, Japan to use as examples have. An attempt to create Universal Healthcare/Health Insurance in this country but where the people are in charge in how their Healthcare is paid for as long as they are paying for it.
Monday, July 30, 2012
If you want to know what today's Republican Party is, look at the Democratic Party of the 1950s and 1960s. Thats today's Republican Party, the Southern Caucus that was so prevalent in Congress, especially in the Senate in the 1950s and 60s, is today's Republican Party. Made up of mostly Caucasian Southern Right Wingers that were anti Civil Rights and believed in States Rights, very Fiscally Conservative. And believed in what they call protecting what they see as American Values and if you didn't walk the line in what they see as American Values, you were somehow Un American. I just described today's Tea Party and in the mid to late 1970s, the Southern Caucus combined with the Religious Right and with Neoconservatives in the 1980s. With Economic Conservatives and you now see what makes up today's Republican Coalition and as bad of a Presidential Campaign that George Mcgovern. Ran in 1972, the one thing that he did accomplish was to form what makes up today's Democratic Party. Lyndon Johnson and George Mcgovern both saw in the late 1960s that Civil Rights was going to cost the Democratic Party the South and what Senator Mcgovern did as a response to that. Was to remake the Democratic Coalition, made up of Organize Labor, Racial and Ethnic Minorities, women, homosexuals, as well as the Northeast and West Coast.
One advantage that Republicans have over Democrats or Rightists over Leftists, is that Right Wingers tend to see things in black and white. Which makes communicating their message much simpler, they believe in Free Enterprise, low taxes, lower spending, Christianity, strong defense. And that anything that goes against what they see as traditional American Values or Traditionalism, they see as Un American again I just described today's Tea Party, thats made up of the. Old Southern Caucus, Religious Right, Neoconservatives and to a certain extent Economic Conservatives, the Mitt Romney's of the World that don't believe in Social Issues that much. And don't make them a big part of politics and since the Right Wing message is so simple and fairly consistent, except when it comes to Big Government its much easier for them to communicate their message. In quick sound bites TV spots, whereas Democrats tend to believe in similar things but have more of a complicated approach in how they accomplish these things.
To give you an example if you are a Republican, you believe in Economic Freedom. If you are a Democrat you also believe in Economic Freedom but the more left of center you are, the less Economic Freedom you believe in. And its not just Economic Freedom you believe in but you want an economy that works for everyone and not just the special few. Which Republicans call Big Government, that Democrats still haven't found an effective way to respond to that.
Friday, July 27, 2012
I actually like the idea that Progressive Economist Robert Pollin, who I probably agree with more often then I do agree with Progressive Economist Robert Reich. Which isn't saying much but Bob Pollin has a good idea here, one of the reasons why our Small Business's are struggling right now. And are not expanding, is because they can't get loans, because the banks aren't lending, they aren't lending money right now, they are sitting on over a trillion dollars in assets. Money that the economy could definitely use right now, that the Federal Government wouldn't have to borrow or cut back. Or raise taxes on anyone in this bad economy, because the money is already there, the Federal Reserve could take that money, put in the economy and lend it out to legitimate business interests that can't afford to either startup or expand. Hiring thousands of workers, people who are unemployed, that obviously don't have much money to spend right now, new workers leads to new customers. New customers leads to Consumer Spending, Consumer Spending leads to Economic Growth, Economic Growth leads to Job Growth, Economic and Job Growth leads to falling debt and deficit. If Congress plays it right and doesn't go on a spending binge with the new, they act like sober sailors instead of drunken sailors. All part of the Economic Spin Cycle.
So tapping into some of these new resources while still leaving plenty of money, so banks have insurance if they get into trouble. Would be a great first step, the next step would be like a Marshal Plan but for the United Sates, lets give our Construction and Manufacturing Industries a huge boost. And start rebuilding this huge beautiful country and target those 12M Unemployed Workers, a lot of them in the Construction Industry and put these people pack to work, with a five year. 1T$ Infrastructure Investment bill, 200B$ a year for those of you that are slow at math and lets pay for this by taxing pollution or some other part of the economy we can do without. Gas and oil, we obviously need gas and oil but while those prices are low, as well as an idea that former US Senator Bill Bradley suggested in his latest book, for every workers that employers hire. Allow them to deduct the Payroll Taxes that they pay for those workers for up to a year, as long as they don't fire anyone else.
For anyone else that employers are considering laying off because they are losing revenue. Allow them to deduct the costs of keeping those workers on their payroll, as long as they don't lay them off or fire them. So we aren't losing any more jobs as we are struggling to create any and as we start hiring again, we aren't losing any more jobs, as we are adding more jobs. These are ideas that I would put into any Economic Growth Act.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
|Source: The Ring of Fire-|
Mike Papantonio is correct that the so-called Progressives need to come together and unite, for the short-term to prevent a Mitt Romney Presidency and a Tea Party Congress next year. Which is exactly what will happen if so-called Progressive (Socialists, in actuality) Democrats don't show up and vote Democratic in 2012. Which is exactly what they didn't do in 2010. And a reason why we have a Republican House right now, because Tea Party Republicans showed up and voted Republican in 2010 while Socialists sat at home, or vote for socialist third-party candidates. . Because President Obama turned out not to be a Socialist that they were expecting in 2008 and that the Democratic Congress wasn't socialist enough for them either.
See, elections do have consequences, which is something that right-wingers figured out a long time ago. That a lot of left-wingers whether they are Liberal such as myself or they are Socialist, haven't figured out yet. That if you don't like who comes to power and one of those reasons why they did come to power, is because you didn't bother to vote, that instead of sitting out and complaining about it, that if you don't do your part to prevent the people who came to power from getting into power, that you don't really have much reason to complain. Because if you just bothered to vote, maybe the people you want in power are still there.
In the short-term if Socialists don't want a Tea Party Congress to go along with a President Mitt Romney, they have to show up and vote, vote Democratic, vote for President Obama, vote Democratic in their House race and vote Democratic if they have a Senate race. And help with the turnout, especially in swing states, like anywhere in the Midwest at this point, except for maybe Minnesota. Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Colorado. If Socialists show up to the polls and vote Democratic in 2012, President Obama gets reelected and perhaps walking away. Senate Democrats retain control of the Senate and maybe House Democrats take back the House. But if they don't show up to the polls and vote in 2012, everything they've worked to accomplish in the last hundred years, will be in jeopardy in the next Congress. So if Socialists want to prevent this from happening, suck it up and vote for the Democrats in 2012.
Long-term if after the 2012 general elections, after President Obama has been elected and at least with another Democratic Senate to go along with the White House, if Socialists are still fed up with the Democratic Party, because they don't believe we are progressive enough, then come together and unite again and to form one progressive/democratic socialist party. That would combine the Progressive Caucus, Democratic Socialist Party, Green Party and Progressive Party. But in 2012 for Socialists, it has to be about the Democrats.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Sam Seder: Mitt Romney Foreign Policy: "An Anglo-Saxon Must Lead America!": What Right Wingers want Americans to Think About Barack Obama
I"m not a mindreader or 8'0 tall or from the planet Jupiter or speak Arabic, Hindi to go along with Japanese and English, in case any of these things weren't obvious enough. And the memos weren't sent out to everybody but if I were to guess what Mitt Romney was trying to say today about Anglo Saxons and how they relate to Britain and America. And granted trying to read the mind of the Flip Flopper in Chief is difficult but if I had to guess what Mitt was trying to say today with that statement. Is that America should never forget its Anglo Saxon Heritage in the fact that, the American Colonies came from the United Kingdom, in the sense that they use to be part of the UK and that there are still millions of English Americans in this country. As well as other European Americans and people of mix race like Barack Obama that have British blood in them. And the history that the United States has with the United Kingdom, if thats the case fine, so be it, kinda guilt of stating the obvious there. But thats a hell of a lot better the Michelle Bachmann who has a habit of missing the obvious even when it punches her in the face, her intelligence and knowledge. Is highly unimpressive and if this is what Mitt was trying to say and I'm sure he'll retract what he said today later, then fine.
If what Mitt was trying to say that America must always be led, meaning the President by an Anglo-Saxon. And he's said a lot of strange things before but I think its pretty clear by now Mitt Romney is not a racist, then he has a problem, saying that non Anglos aren't qualified to be President of the United States. And with a statement like that he can forget about courting Latin, Asian or Jewish Americans to vote for him and this will also turn off a lot of Anglo Independents as well. See Neoconservatives want Americans to believe, that Barack Obama is Un American, essentially unqualified of being President, they tried this in 2008 and had almost no success. In large part because John McCain the Republican Presidential Nominee, didn't buy into it and since Barack has been President they've been trying the same thing, trying to paint President Obama. As some type of Social Democrat trying to make America into the Europe of North America.
Over fifty million Americans voted for Barack Obama to be their President in 2008, including winning thirty five States. Including Bible Belt States like Virginia and North Carolina and to a certain extent Florida from Tallahassee down to Central Florida is part of the Bible Belt as well. And are so furious that someone whose clearly not like them, well educated for instance, is President of the United State and have been trying to undermine President Obama ever since.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
US Senator Bernie Sanders: Where is President Obama on Social Security?: What The Future of Social Security Could Look Like
I'm not a mindreader but if I had to guess, I would have to say the Barack Obama is a supporter of Social Security, its hard to imagine a Democrat who wouldn't be. He's always spoken in favor of Social Security and how important it has been to the country and so fourth. And I'm guessing Senator Bernie Sanders understands this but in one sentence Senator Sanders says there isn't any financial problems with Social Security. But in the next sentence he says that we should raise the cap on the Payroll Tax that funds Social Security, so that every worker would pay 6.2% of all of their income in Payroll Taxes. Not just Middle Class and Low Income workers and this reform would save he program, fix whatever financial difficulties that this program has. Well programs that don't have financial problems don't need to be fixed to state the obvious. What Senator Sanders and other Progressives are essentially calling for, what is over a 1T$ Tax Hike a year, that would be dedicated to just one program, Social Security. I believe what the President is open to, is reforming the program, gradually raise the Retirement Age that would only affect workers who can afford to. People who are physically able of working longer and can get by without that Social Security income for a few more years.
To look at the politics of this and Barack Obama is clearly skillful politician, he won't take any position that could cost him votes with Senior Citizens. And Progressive Democrats that he needs to vote for him, at least until after the Presidential Election. And if he ever decides to lead on this issue as President, he'll wait until next year to come up with a program. That wouldn't affect or hurt anyone who currently needs the program, current retirees and boomers who are about to retire. But for the future for Gen-Xers such as myself and people younger then me, would empower them by giving us the option to use Social Security as our own Personal Retirement Account. In a system that called Social Security Plus, where the base of Social Security would remain the same but where workers would have the option to increase their own Payroll Tax up to a certain point. That would be matched by our employers and set aside in our own PRA, that we would managed ourselves.
Social Security of course is not in crisis, Senator Sanders is correct about that, President Obama understands this and I believe most Republicans understand it as well. But it could be a lot better and we could fix the financing of it so when Gen-Xers and Gen-Yers are ready to retire. This system will be strong for them as well and not have to worry about paying into a system that we'll never collect from.
Monday, July 23, 2012
I was probably foolishly hoping that after the Aurora shootings last Thursday night, that instead of the American media jumping right into gun control, after they got the main details of the case, that maybe they would wait at least twenty-four hours before we automatically jumped into this thirty- year old or longer gun control debate that never goes anywhere. Except for the 1994 Crime Bill that did have an assault weapons ban and a three-day waiting period that people had to pass. Meaning that law enforcement had three days to determine if you were a criminal or a convicted felon. If you passed this check, which most people who bought guns in this ten-year period from 1994-2004 period did, you were able to buy a gun. If you failed the check, not only would you not get that gun, but you probably end up back in jail.
But the gun control debate has never been something that’s unified the country. The crime bill passes in 1994, Republicans take control of Congress for the first time since 1952 in November that year. And a reason for that had to do with the crime bill, the Far-Right woke up in America and decided that they not only needed to vote, but vote Republican and get Congressional Republicans in their pockets. So they don’t have to worry about gun control again. What I was hoping to see instead of jumping into gun control, a debate where we generally get nowhere and as long as we have a divided Congress, we won’t get anywhere, that we could talk about ways of preventing these tragedies in the future. That we could come together on instead of using another tragedy to play gotcha, that we as a country would look into the details of this tragic case.
All of the innocent victims that died that night, who thought they were doing nothing, but having a good time that night, see a movie that they were waiting to see and perhaps doing other things that night. Expecting to have a good time that night and at the very least, expecting to survive the evening. Look into the details of the suspected murderer and what possible motivation he could’ve had committing such tragic acts with so many innocent people dying as a result and how we can prevent this as a country from happening in the future. But instead by 3-4PM Friday afternoon on CNN, 15-16 hours after the shootings, Brooke Baldwin and her guests were already jumping into the gun control debate. All of those innocent people who were killed and what does the media do, talk about an issue that just puts another wedge between the country.
With people who don’t believe the 2nd Amendment should even exist and people who believe the 2nd Amendment shouldn’t be subjected to any regulations. As well as people who are more reasonable who are talking about common sense regulations, where I tend to be. Not evening mentioning the fact that the shooter snuck into the theater through the emergency exit and had the theater had done its job as it relates to security, they could’ve prevented this tragedy from happening in the first place.
Friday, July 20, 2012
One thing that I respect about George McGovern, was that he didn’t meet all the stereotypes that have been thrown at Progressives. At least since he ran for President in 1972, but ever since. This was a man who grew up in South Dakota and was proud of it and represented South Dakota in Congress for twenty-two years. Winning five Congressional elections, two in the House and three in the Senate. He was not from Boston, or New York, or Washington, or Chicago, or San Francisco, or Los Angeles. Stereotypical progressive cities in America, where many Progressives either come from, or live now. Senator McGovern, was an American Patriot, who served his country proudly in World War II, not a Pacifist. He was a devout Christian, not an Atheist. And also simply because of his honesty and consistency, he was against the Vietnam War when it was popular in the mid 1960s and was against it when it was unpopular the rest of the way.
George McGovern’s legacy in the Democratic Party, is a positive one. At least in this sense because of his political judgement. And he knew how the civil rights laws and the Great Society of the 1960s were going to cost the Democratic Party in the South. That the Democratic Party were going to need new voters. Similar to the Republican Party of today and they were going to need new voters. So what he and his campaign did was change the rules of the Democratic Party to get more Democrats represented in the party. African-Americans, Latinos, Jews, women and others and making the Democratic Party a true national party. That didn’t have to have the South to be a competitive party nationally.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
US Representative Michele Bachmann: "Anthony Weiner's Wife, Huma Abedin, is a Secret Undercover Muslim Agent": The Nut House Has a New Escapee
US Representative gives justification of why people should have to meet certain qualifications before they can run for Congress. Either in the House or Senate, that we have to do more then just to say that people have to be American Citizens, be of a certain age and live in District or Sate that they want to represent. That they should have to pass some type of Mental Competency test, that they have to meet certain intelligence requirements, they have to be of sound mind. If we have such qualification requirements right now, Michelle Bachmann wouldn't be in the US House, she would be living in a group home. Or Mental Institution or living off of her husband Marcus, who thank God hasn't run for office himself, one Bachmann is more then the United States can afford right now in Congress. Even though comedians and satirists and bloggers, would never run out of material to use, if both Bachmann's were in Congress but still it would be too much pain even for such a great and huge country like the United States to put up with. You put both Bachmann's in Congress, our National Debt would get retired right away, our lenders would tell us. Look America you have enough problems with both Bachmann's in Congress right now, we'll leave you alone.
I would like to know where Representative Bachmann gets her material, better yet who are the escaped Mental Patients that are feeding her this material or does she visit them in the institution every weekend and get her material from them that way. Another question how the hell does a State like Minnesota, that hasn't voted Republican for President, since I believe 1964. Have a House District where someone like Michelle Bachmann can get elected to represent it. No offense to West Virginia which is a beautiful State but does Representative Bachmann represent the West Virginia of Minnesota. Where the people there are so ignorant, that they believe the President of the United States is an Illegal Immigrant and probably can't even name or spell the name of their own Governor. And the last question, how come Democrats haven't found anyone that can beat Rep. Bachmann and take her seat. Things to ponder.
Representative Bachmann is a great source for comedic material and perhaps thats why she keeps getting reelected, in 2008 and in 2010 and perhaps 2012 as well. But hopefully her latest Conspiracy Theory to go along with Same Sex Marriage being a threat to National Security. Will be the jolt that her constituents need that she's a joke and an embarrassment to Minnesota and its time for her to leave office.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Unless you agree with Fox News and like their commentary and thats exactly what it is and like what they report. And if you are lucky you might find a couple of actual reports on FNC each day, keep looking you might find one by accident if nothing else. When you hear that label of Fox News "Fair and Balanced", how you not laugh at that when you hear it, I mean think about it what is false advertising. Advertising something you say that you do or sell, that you actually don't and in most cases, you know you don't sell what you say that you do. And example of that would be like someone selling gasoline as a healthy drink or McDonalds Big Macs and fries help reduce obesity. Things that are completely false or C-Span claiming to be the Worldwide Leader in Sports News, would be another example. Fox News is in the business of selling what's left of the brand name of the Republican Party and to speak to and speak up for allies of the GOP, pure and simple.
Fox News are obviously not going to admit this, they do for Right Wingers what MSNBC does for Progressives in America. As well as putting down the other side, underplaying positive things from the opposition and overplaying negative news from the opposition. So to hear FNC's Megyn Kelly claim that Democrats and the Obama Campaign lie, is hard to take seriously when no one knows when was the last truthful thing she said about Democrats
Monday, July 16, 2012
Disclose Act: "Is it Time to Stop Selling off Democracy?": Why the Disclose Act is Pure Politics and what its Designed to do
The Disclose Act like a lot of legislation in Congress from both the House and Senate, from both parties. Unfortunately is not designed to pass, Senate Democrats know they don't have the sixty votes in the Senate to pass it, they have fifty three seats and will lose at least 2-3 of their own members on this vote. And know that not one single Senate Republican will vote for it, because they didn't work with any Republicans to write this bill and did that on purpose. They want an issue to use against Republicans in Congress in the fall, we are for Full Disclosure, Republicans are not. What are Republicans trying to hide etc, the Disclose Act targets Republican Special Interest Groups, especially corporation and Republican Super Pacs, thats what this bill is tended to disclose. If Senate Democrats were interested in passing the Disclose Act in this Congress, they would've worked with 5-7 Republican Senators, like John McCain, Lamar Alexander, Tom Coburn, Dick Lugar, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and perhaps others. And drafted Full Disclosure, that would've covered both sides of the Political Spectrum.
The Disclose Act is a step above trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment that would give the Federal Government the authority to regulate Political Speech. Which even somehow you got the Amendment out of Congress, you are looking at least ten years down the line to for a Constitutional Amendment to become law. But its only a step because the Disclose Act as its currently written, will never become law, what Congress should be doing instead and this should start in the Senate. Where there seems to be some feeling of least at the need of passing Campaign Finance Reform in a way that would hold up as Constitutional, is pass Full Disclosure. Which would cover Members of Congress and their opponents and anyone who contributes to them. As well as Third Party Groups, like Super Pacs that work on their behalf, something like this could actually become law. Instead of writing legislation thats never intended to become law at least in this Congress.
But the Disclose Act in its current form is similar to most of the legislation that House Republicans pass. Not designed to become law at least as long as we have Divided Government but to appeal to the bases of the party and give them an issue to use against the other party. And represents a big example of what's currently wrong with Congress and our Campaign Finance System.
Friday, July 13, 2012
When you are talking about Socialism you should know what you are talking about. Because its not an Economic Policy but a Political Philosophy with an Economic Policy built into it. And Socialism is also a diverse Political Philosophy, there are Socialists that believe in State Ownership and believe there shouldn't be any Private Ownership and Property Rights. That the State and in the United States the Federal Government should be running and owning everything. And there are Socialists and people who I'm friends of who do believe in Capitalism and Private Ownership and even Property Rights. But again the State should have a large role in providing Human Services in America and believe in the Welfare State and high taxes and regulations. And those are the Socialists I tend to respect and there are people who actually define their politics as Socialist Libertarian the Noam Chomsky's of the World. Again I have friends who describe their politics as Socialist Libertarian and then there are Socialists who I would describe as Statists, people who essentially believe. That the State should have a role in protecting people from themselves. Progressives who believe that Hate Speech should be illegal and the State should be able to tell the people what they can eat for their own good, that sorta thing.
The contributions that Socialists have made to American Politics, has to do with the Safety Net. That Capitalism of course is not perfect and people fall through the cracks and need help while they are down. Thats why we have a Safety Net, Socialists have served as a counterweight to Capitalism and Liberal Economics in America and they've made a good contribution there. Its when they try to take it further then that and try to make the case Americans are essentially under taxed, not just the wealthy but the Middle Class as well. And the Federal Government needs more power and revenue to take care of its people, that we don't do a very good of that ourselves. And they talk about things like Socializing the Healthcare Industry or Banking Industry or sometimes even education, that all of these things are national priorities and the Federal Government is in the best position to run them.
You should ask a Socialist to name a large economy in the World thats run and owned by the State, meaning State Ownership of the economy. Because they won't be able to name one, even the Communist Republic of China as I call them has a form of Capitalism now. Better yet name a developed country large or small that has State Ownership of the economy. And you won't be able to name one either because there isn't one, even the Communist Republic of Cuba now has their version of what's called State Capitalism. And the reason for this for people to be successful in life, by in large they have to work for it and earn it. And companies also need competition to be successful in order for them to be as successful, otherwise they'll just stagnate, because of lack of competition. Which is what you get from State Ownership.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Whether Fox News blamed Occupy Wall Street for some murder, I don't know and I don't really care, I didn't see the video. It wouldn't surprise me however though because FNC is in the business of promoting the Tea Party and Neoconservative Republicans and putting down anyone they see as the opposition. Which is most of the rest of the country, that just doesn't talk about believing in Individual Freedom but actually believes in what they talk about. Which are two different things, the same people who talk about that the Federal Government is too big and out of control. Are the same people who support the Federal Government when they crackdown on people for possessing or smoking marijuana. Or when they close down Medical Marijuana shops or bash homosexuals because they want to marry each other or call Abortion Doctors murderers or claim young adults aren't qualified to vote. Because they tend to vote for Democrats or immigrants and Latinos are Un American and shouldn't be allowed to vote or that Americans aren't qualified to vote for their Members of Congress. And that State Legislatures should make these decisions for us or support a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw pornography.
The Tea Party is now a Political Faction that believes in Freedom for people like them, that live the way they do. And that the rest of the country, which again is most of us, is Un American and should be in jail or something or denied the same rights as members of the Tea Party. And Fox News is in the business to defend the Tea Party movement, which is why they may or may not report stories accusing members of Occupy Wall Street of being murderers. And Fox News should be treated for what they are and nothing else.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
The fact is to have a strong economy anywhere in the World, people have to have the incentive to work hard and be productive. The Peoples Republic of China a Communist State figured this out thirty years ago and once people are productive, they have to see the fruits of their labor, be rewarded. For their production and then be taxed based on their ability to pay taxes but not taxed so high, that they aren't incentivize to be productive in the future. Another words millionaires being taxed more then people making 50K$ a year. The answer to Income Inequality is not to take money away from people who are very productive and give that money to government to take care of people who aren't productive. The answer is to empower the people who aren't very productive in life who don't have the skills to be successful, to get them the skills that they need to be productive in life. There are people who are very wealthy in this country and have gotten that way by taking advantage of the system and taking it out of people who don't have the power to get the same breaks as the people who do. But you don't fix that problem by taking all of their money from them, you fix that problem through better regulations.
Imagine if Congress were to pass a Billionaires Tax, keep in mind there's at best fifty Socialists in the House and maybe five at most in the Senate. So good luck finding the votes for it but lets say something like this were to pass, what would be consequences of this be. You pass this tax tomorrow, keep in mind the President isn't a Socialist, which is shocking news for Republicans but its true. I've actually talked to Socialists who say the same thing, so there wouldn't be someone to sign this tax but what would the consequences of a Billionaire Tax be. Before this tax would become law, billionaires would send most if not all of their money out of the country, where they don't mind or even like rich people, like in the Caribbean, Switzerland, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, other places in the Middle East. They would send all of their money that 1B$ or North of that out of the country to avoid the tax.
A Billionaires Tax would be a solution in search of creating another problem, because it wouldn't generate the revenue its targeted for. And end up sending more money out of the country, Socialists have this fantasy that there aren't any rich, middle or poor people in the country. That we are all the same but thats exactly what a fantasy is, there are people who are simply more successful in life then other and the answer is to empower the people who aren't successful, to be successful. Not punish the people who have made it in life.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Very early on back in 2009 in the Obama Administration, President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. Concluded that the 2001-02 Bi Partisan Education Reform bill that President Bush pushed through Congress called No Child Left Behind, wasn't working and was in much need of reform or even be scrapped. And as part of the 2009 American Recovery Act, the President put in a provision called Race To The Top, which is the Obama Administration's version of NCLB. Which rewards certain School Districts and States for meeting certain Education Standards with new funding and deny them funds when they don't. Another words awarding good schools and punishing Low Performing schools. Progressives and Education Unions of course hate this approach and don't tend to believe in standards, especially if that means that bad teachers can end up getting fired over it. And to be honest and accurate Education Unions are in the business to protect teachers jobs, not to advance education. Schools are in the business of education and teachers should be as well, not doing whatever they can to protect their jobs, even if they aren't doing a good job.
Education Reform should be about three things, accountability across the board, schools, teachers and students. Rewarding good schools, teachers and students and reevaluating schools, teachers and students, what do Low Performing schools need to do to be better. Do these Low Performing teachers need to be retrained so they can do a good job or should they be fired. And for Low Performing students, instead of promoting them to the next grade, even if they aren't meeting the grades. Or should we get them more help so they can become better students and catchup with their class. The next thing that should be in Education Reform should be about competition, instead of forcing parents to send their kids to school based on where they live. Allow them to send their kids to the best school for them, thats called Public School Choice. The next thing that should be in Education Reform should be additional funding for schools in Low Income areas so they have the resources they need to be successful.
If you are interested in economics, you should be interested in Education Reform as well. Because without a good Education System, we aren't going to be able to remain a World Economic Power, because we aren't going to be able to produce enough quality American Workers to get the good jobs in the future. And be able to produce the things that we need to be able to produce ourselves to be an Economic Power, unless we want to continue to import workers from Asia that already have the skills. That American Workers should already have themselves.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Its not just America and Mexico where the War on Drugs is now being fought but its also a Regional War in Americas as well. Central America and in South America, as well as parts of the Caribbean as well that the United States is involved, as well as helping to fund governments who don't have a great record as far as spending other peoples money. Like in Mexico and in Columbia that have a history of corruption, at American Tax Payers expense, as well at the Tax Payers expense of the people in these countries. What the United States has been doing is giving these countries money to fight our War on Drugs in their countries, as well as sending our Drug Warriors into their countries to fight this War there. And for what use of narcotics are up in America as well as in these other countries, we are still fighting the War on Drugs not only in America but in these other countries as well. Forty one years later, at a cost of over 1T$ and we are eliminating a possible economic boost for a lot of these Third and even Fourth World countries like Afghanistan. Money they would be able to generate on their own and need less Foreign Aid from us and other Developed Nations in the future.
What the United States and Latin America should be doing instead right now and in the future. Is stop fighting this war, admit that its failed and cut our losses and develop a new policy in how we deal with narcotics in America and in Latin America as well. Thats based on realty that we still have millions of people who want narcotics and instead of arresting people for being addicted to something they want. And what they do to themselves and instead try to convince Narcotics Addicts that they should no longer want they are addicted to, get them in Drug Rehab at their expense. Instead of jail or prison, stop fighting marijuana and legalize it and treat it like alcohol instead and decriminalize possession or use of cocaine and heroin. As long as people aren't hurting other with their use or possession of these narcotics. Have them pay a fine for the amount they have, instead of putting them in jail for it.
We have forty one years of evidence that the War on Drugs has not only failed in America but in Mexico and Latin America as well. And in these tough economic and budget times with high debt and deficits, you would think we would find much better ways to spend Tax Payer dollars. That would give us a much better bang for our bucks and invest the dollars that we should be spending in things that payoff and make sense instead.