Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Individual Freedom For Everyone

Sunday, December 29, 2013

MLB Classics: Video: ABC Sports: MLB 1986-ALCS-Game 5-Boston Red Sox @ Anaheim Angels: Full Game


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Perhaps the best MLB playoff game at least in my lifetime. And the biggest choke in my lifetime at least in MLB with the Angels blowing a 3-1 series lead with the opportunity to win the American League Championship at home with their offense, defense and pitching. And they simply didn’t close the door to a team they probably should’ve beaten at least in six games if not five. Wally Joyner not in the Angels lineup certainly hurt them in-game 5. But you got to know that they had the Red Sox beat in the ninth inning with their closer Donnie Moore who was lights out most of the 1986 season on the mound. He makes a bad pitch to Dave Henderson and that forces the game to extra innings. But Joyner would’ve been a big force in the Angels lineup in-game 6 and 7, when the Red Sox blew out the Angels at Fenway Park.

Thursday, December 26, 2013

The Hampton Institute: Opinion- Josh Hatala: The Socialist Party of America- A Historiographical View

Source: The Hampton Institute- Socialist Party Presidential Candidate Eugene Debbs-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat 

Where I disagree with Josh Hatala on this where I could probably make this whole post about, is that there are still two somewhat viable democratic socialist parties in America. Democratic Socialists USA and the Green Party, as well as many leftist Democrats who are mainly in the Democratic Party for political reasons in order to get elected and be active in a major leftist party even a center-left party. Socialism has failed as far as producing a major social democratic party that can compete and beat Democrats and Republicans on a regular basis.

But you got to know that U.S. Senator Bernie of Vermont the only self-described Socialist in Congress is a Socialist, as well as several members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Both in the House and Senate that Senator Sanders is a member of. But most of the members of the CPC prefer to be viewed as Progressives because of the negative stereotypes that come with being viewed as a Socialist or even a Social Democrat.
Socialism hasn’t failed in the sense that their ideas have failed or are considered too extreme. At least what would be viewed as mainstream both in America and in Europe that is democratic socialism. That combines both capitalism, a vibrant private sector, but that is heavily taxed and regulated to fund a very large welfare state to provide a lot of the services that people need to live well. From education to healthcare that is common in Scandinavia. A long with a safety net for people who are unemployed and so-forth.

That is basically Scandinavian or Nordic capitalism, which is the mainstream form of socialism in Europe. But even in America where capitalism was basically invented, we have a socialist component to our economic system as well in the form of our safety net for people who can’t take care of themselves. Who are out of work or can’t afford services that they need in order to survive like health insurance and food, even if they are working. It is just that our national social insurance system is a lot smaller in America than it is in Scandinavia.

It is not that so much that socialism has failed in America, because the Democratic form of it that I just explained is alive and well. Just look at the popularity of Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare and Medicaid. All of which could and have been labeled specially by their opponents and proponents as well as socialist programs. It is Marxism or Marxist socialism, where the state essentially is responsible for running the entire economy and to large extent the people’s lives, that has failed everywhere that it has been tried. Which is why most of the world has moved away from it.
Austin Peterson: The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann- Does Democracy Inevitably Lead To Socialism?



Saturday, December 21, 2013

Salon: Opinion: Hamna Zubair: Jon Stewart Defends Duck Dynasty Star's Right to Free Speech: The American Right to be Assholes

Salon: Opinion: Hamna Zubair: Jon Stewart Defends Duck Dynasty Star's Right to Free Speech

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I’ve gone out of my way not to comment on the so-called Duck Dynasty controversy. From either the way so-called Progressives have responded to what Phil Robertson has said, or of course how the right-wing media has defended not only what Mr. Robertson has said, but his constitutional right to say what he believes and thinks. For one I do not watch the show and yes I’ve seen a few moments of it from time to time to time. Flipping around the tube when I’m up too late or turning on A&E when I’m waiting to see the A&E shows I’m actually interested in. Longmire, American Hoggers and now Rodeo Girls.

So I’m not a regular viewer of Duck Dynasty to so say the least. But also I’m not surprised by what Mr. Robertson said. I mean let’s be real about this show. It is in a part of the country where these views are fairly common. This is where the anti-sodomy laws are still in existence and where the same-sex-marriage bans come from. Not saying that everyone from the Bible Belt and rural America are bigots. Just a lot of ignorant people there to put more faith into their religious views, than education and America. But lets face it this is where these views tend to come from. But also so what if some asshole on a TV show doesn’t like homosexuals and sees homosexuality as a sin.

How is some ignorant redneck’s views on homosexuality news. And besides Phil Robertson has a constitutional right under the First Amendment to say these things and any ignorant garbage he wants to express. And of course A&E under that same constitutional amendment has the right to run their network under few exceptions the way they want to. But to kick off or suspend one of their cast members because he doesn’t like gays and made that public on one of their shows, looks like nothing more than political correctness leftist fascism politics run amuck.

And doing it to avoid being sued out of business by so-called Progressives activists who want to outlaw any type of hate speech that may happen to offend minorities they care about. Phil Robertson is basically only famous because he happened to say on a TV show something negative about gays. And of course the national media and so-called Progressive media going out-of-their way to keep the story alive to bring attention to hate speech in America. And perhaps promote one of their lost causes of outlawing hate speech in America. Which of course is protected by the first amendment whether it comes from the Right or Left. That the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled time after time.


Friday, December 20, 2013

The American Prospect: Opinion: Monica Potts: Paul Ryan's Misguided Poverty Plan

The American Prospect: Opinion: Monica Potts: Paul Ryan's Misguided Poverty Plan

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

There are good progressive policies in dealing with poverty in America. Like increasing the minimum wage or even creating a new living wage of around twelve-dollars an hour. That I would be in favor of if it came with a thirty-percent tax break for employers, so their payroll costs do not go up too much, especially for small employers. Another good progressive policy would be to have employers who pay their workers poverty wages to the point that they need both public and private assistance to survive, have employers subsidize their low-wage workers public assistance, instead of middle class workers.

To have these employers pay at least part of their low-income workers public assistance costs. Which would also make our debt and deficit outlook better as well. But going forward we need to think more liberally in how we try to reduce poverty in America. And get more pro-active and develop policies that empower these people to become economically independent so they can take care of themselves and move off from public assistance. It is not like we need to develop some new grand strategy or plan to combat poverty in America.

And we simply do not need to create some type of new War on Poverty or Great Society to do this. The information, evidence and facts are already in how you reduce poverty in America. First, yes you need public cash assistance for low-skilled adults whether they are working or not so they can cover their short-term bills. But long-term to actually move these people out of poverty, you have to be more liberal and less government centric and oriented.

We need to be less socialist when it comes to poverty and more about individual empowerment even. And be less about government taking care of people and become about empowering this population to be able to take care of themselves. And that gets to things like education and job training for adults who need it to finish their high school education. But moving forward moving to higher education with junior college and vocational opportunities opening up for these adults.

When it comes to combating poverty in America, you need to know what your goals and plans are, what are you trying to carry out. And for eighty-years this country has mostly been about giving people in poverty more money so they can live more comfortably while still living in poverty. What I’m interested in doing is actually empowering this population so they can move out of poverty into the middle class and become economically independent.


The American Prospect: Opinion: Monica Potts: Paul Ryan's Misguided Poverty Plan: A Real Plan to Reduce Poverty in America

There are good Progressive policies in dealing with poverty in America. Like increasing the minimum wage or even creating a new living wage of around twelve dollars an hour. That I would be in favor of if it came with a thirty percent tax break for employers so their payroll costs do not go up too much especially for small employers. Another good Progressive policy would be to have employers who pay their workers poverty wages to the point that they need both public and private assistance to survive. 
To have these employers pay at least part of their low-income workers public assistance costs. Which would also make our debt and deficit outlook better as well. But going forward we need to think more liberally in how we try to reduce poverty in America. And get more pro-active and develop policies that empower these people to become economically independent so they can take care of themselves. And move off from public assistance. It is not like we need to develop some new grand strategy or plan to combat poverty in America. 
And we simply do not need to create some type of new War on Poverty or Great Society to do this. The information, evidence and facts are already in how you reduce poverty in America. First yes you need public cash assistance for low-skilled adults whether they are working or not so they can cover their short-term bills. But long-term to actually move these people out of poverty, you have to be more Liberal and less government centric and oriented. 
We need to be less socialist when it comes to poverty and more about individual empowerment even. And be less about government taking care of people and become about empowering this population to be able to take care of themselves. And that gets to things like education and job training for adults who need it to finish their high school education. But moving forward moving to higher education with junior college and vocational opportunities opening up for these adults.
When it comes to combating poverty in America you need to know what your goals and plans are, what are you trying to carry out. And for eighty years this country has mostly been about giving people in poverty more money so they can live more comfortably while still living in poverty. What I’m interested in doing is actually empowering this population so they can move out of poverty into the middle class and become economically independent.  

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

The New York Times: Opinion: Thomas Edsall: Is The Safety Net Just Masking Tape?: Economic Power vs. The Welfare State

The New York Times: Opinion: Thomas Edsall: Is The Safety Net Just Masking Tape?

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I’ve been looking for a new term or phrase that could describe an economic agenda as a New Democrat a Liberal whose moved past the progressive New Deal and Great Society ideologically. And not to the Left of these programs, but past it and in favor of a new approach to economics. And American capitalist and economic empowerment for all Americans especially those who haven’t found it. President Bill Clinton a fellow Liberal New Democrat in his first term had an agenda called the New Covenant.

The New Covenant was supposed to be what President Clinton would try to accomplish for the country in his first term. And then later when Republicans took back Congress, the alternative agenda to House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s Contract With America. New Covenant is a weak term and has more religious than political meaning to it. The New Deal and Great Society were successful at least politically because Americans could see the goals of these two agendas and what they were trying to accomplish very clearly.

I haven’t found the key catch phrase that I’m looking for yet, but what I’m going to layout with this post is what I believe the role of government is when it comes to the economy. And seeing that everyone has access to economic freedom in America and not dependent on public assistance for their economic well-being. Simply as an American forget about ideology for a moment, I believe that all Americans have the right to make their own beds in life and live up to their own full-potential.

That all Americans have the right make the best out of life that they possibly can, but they also have the responsibility to live with the decisions that they’ve made with their own lives for good and bad. And that means keeping most of the rewards for their production, but also have the responsibility of paying off their own debts from making bad decisions. And paying their fair share in taxes that they owe as well as a cost for living in a civilized developed society. But also paying for the advantages that come with living in a liberal democracy with all the freedom that comes with that especially in the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world.

In other words I do not believe it is the job of government federal or otherwise to provide for us most if not all the things that we need to live well in life. Government just have the responsibility to see that we all have the opportunities to obtain the freedom and power to be able to take care of ourselves. And then hold us accountable for the decisions that we make for good and bad. So now you know I’m not a Social Democrat or a Democratic Socialist and at least by the popular definition, not a Progressive.

But I am a Liberal Democrat who believes in liberal democracy and that liberal democracy should work for everyone and that government including federal does have a role to play with that. Just not most of the responsibility and certainly not all of it either when it comes to economic policy. And I’m mostly about education and seeing to it that all Americans have access to a quality education from K-12, as well as college. And want to see universal higher education in America so we can all have access to it and government can play a role.

A role not the only role in seeing that all Americans can afford higher education in this country. But even with the best education system in the world, we would still need a public safety and a private safety net there for people who fall through the cracks of this liberal capitalist economic system. As well as for people who for whatever reasons do not have the skills that they need to do well in life, especially if they also have kids. And we also need to make sure their kids get what their parents or parent didn’t get which is a good education.

So no again I’m not a Social Democrat or Democratic Socialist and do not put my economic philosophy around a welfare state and government, federal or otherwise. But my philosophy is built around the individual and ensuring that the individual has the tools that they need to do well in life. And yes government including federal has a big role, but not the only role here. Instead I believe in what I would call an economic empowerment system where the safety net would be part of that. So all Americans can have money to cover their short-term bills. But long-term this safety net would be there to empower people who need it to be able to take care of themselves. And again that is where education and job training play a big role there.

Saturday, November 30, 2013

Thom Hartmann: Video: Follow the French on the Millionaire Tax



You want everyone paying their fair share of taxes at all economic levels. Which is one of the reasons why I’m in favor of what I call the Progressive Consumption Tax. Which would accomplish most of that especially by eliminating all the wasteful tax loopholes in the tax system, including corporate welfare. But you don’t want taxes so high on anyone that it discourages people to be productive and successful. And gets them asking the question, “why should I work hard and be productive when Uncle Sam takes most of the money that I make anyway?”

We do not want taxes so high to that point which is what we saw in the late 1950s and early 1960s, with a recession, followed by weak economic and job growth. Similar to what we’ve grown through the last five years. And even though the Great Recession wasn’t a result of taxes being too high, taxes that are too high can play a role in creating recessions with people not having enough money to spend to create strong economic growth. And what we saw as a result in the mid 1960s was a Progressive Democratic president in Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress with Conservative Republican help, is cut taxes across the board for everyone. Which contributed to an economic boom of the mid and late 1960s.

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Classic MLB 11: Video: NBC Sports: MLB 1979-All Star Game-National League @ American League: Full Game


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Playing an all-star baseball game at a football stadium. The Kingdome despite being fairly close to the action for baseball and a very loud stadium for both baseball and football, was basically a football stadium, because of its size, sixty-five thousand seats for football. And in the high fifty-thousands for baseball, but this was a great game. Where Pittsburgh Pirates outfielder Dave Parker who was a five- tool player up until the mid 1980s, throws out a baserunner from the outfield wall unassisted. Perhaps the best defensive play in MLB All Star game history.
For all the talk about this game being a slugfest with the lineups that both teams had and the stadium they were playing at, this game could’ve been played at Shea Stadium in New York, or Busch Stadium in St. Louis, Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, Kaufmann Stadium in Kansas City. Because this was a pitchers duel with the Americans beating the Nationals 7-6. Which is a high score, but not that high compared with who was hitting for both teams and where they were playing. Goes to show you that great pitching, especially when that great pitching throws hard with control, will beat great hitting. Especially if those great hitters are expecting a big game because of the ballpark that they are playing at.

Saturday, November 23, 2013

The Young Turks: Video: Cenk Uygur: President Obama Sets Bear Trap, Republicans Walk Right Into It


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

The current Republican governing policy is, “if Democrats are for it, we are against it, even if we are for it, or were once in favor of it”. And even offered it in health care reform a perfect example of that where the Affordable Care Act actually has a lot of good conservative ideas like the health care mandate and the health care market place in it. Which is the main reason why there hasn’t been much compromise in Congress between the House and Senate because when Democrats say okay we’ll agree to that, the House GOP just moves the ball further to get more compromises.

Then instead of Republicans saying okay let’s do that, Republicans just move the ball and say well, “if Democrats are willing to give us this, we can get them to give us this as well and hold off on a deal”. The deficit reduction negotiations are a perfect example of this where Democrats have put entitlement reform on the table and what Republicans is do is to say well, “if they will do that, then they’ll take exactly what type of entitlement reform we are interested in”. Like cutting Social Security benefits to future retirees or cutting benefits to current beneficiaries.

The only goal Republicans have right now is absolute power. And to accomplish this, they need to hold onto the House and 2014 and retake the Senate in 2014. To give them a united Republican Congress and to win back the White House in 2016 as well. While hanging onto Congress and the hard right partisan Republicans in the House and Senate have one clear strategy. “If Democrats are for it, it must be a bad idea even if it is our idea. So we are only going to put policies that are as far to the right as possible to get our partisan right-wing base behind us to avoid primary challenges”.

Which leaves us with gridlock when you have the Republican Leadership saying no to anything that the Democratic Leadership especially in the Senate and White House say yes to. Because now Democrats are in a position where they are only negotiating with themselves. Trying to find more moderate members in Congress to go along with some of these more conservative ideas in broader packages, while not losing any of their more, well lets say progressive members. Instead of negotiating with their own caucus’ in the House and Senate, along with Congressional Republicans.



Friday, November 22, 2013

Thom Hartmann: Video: We Are Subsidizing Low Wage Employers!



Here’s an idea. Instead of having taxpayers who mostly work in the middle class be forced to subsidize low-income workers for their food, housing and health care, instead penalize employers who pay their employees so low, that they need to collect public assistance from taxpayers in order to survive. Eat, housing, health care and so-forth, instead of subsidizing low-wages in this country. And tell employers the money we are now paying for Food Assistance, Public Housing and health insurance, they can get that back if they train their low-income workers so they can get a better job even in their company. Or somewhere else and not have to collect from public assistance at all.

What taxpayers are doing now and again mostly in the middle class, is being forced to make up the difference in income that employers do not pay their low-income workforce. Because these low-income workers whether they work or at Wal-Mart, or for a fast food chain, do not make enough money to cover their housing, groceries and health insurance. They have to get that money from taxpayers instead of their employer so they have what they need to survive. Along with the corporate welfare and paying corporations to send their jobs oversees. When these employers have more than enough resources to pay their employees what they need for the basic necessities. Not so they are rich or even middle class, but so they can afford their rent, their groceries and their health insurance.

Thursday, November 21, 2013

The Daily Beast: Congress: Ben Jacobs: Harry Reid Goes Nuclear on Filibusters

The Daily Beast: Congress: Harry Reid Goes Nuclear on Filibusters 

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Just to be perfectly clear, the Senate filibuster on executive and lower judicial nominations, meaning non-Supreme Court appointments to the federal bench have been removed from possible future filibuster challenges. Which means President Barack Obama and any other future president from either party, as long as the rule is in place, will be able to get their executive administration nominees through with just fifty-one votes. And if their party is in the Senate majority and they have a clear majority and their Senate caucus is united, the president will get their non-Supreme Court nominees through all the time.

Unless the president has bipartisan opposition against their appointments and they are clearly unqualified and both sides see that. Which is what happened to President Bush in his second term. But as long as the president has his party behind him or possibly her in the near future, the president Democrat or Republican will get their executive nominees through. Generally speaking I’m against this for both political, but also practical reasons. Because this means in the future if the Republican Party ever figures out how to win back the White House and stops nominating Far-Right Neo-Confederates to run for the Senate in swing states, they’ll get their nominees through all the time.

And that even means some pretty bad ones as President Bush did send up. But under the circumstances Senate Leader Harry Reid did the right thing, because not only were qualified nominees being denied even a vote on the Senate floor, like U.S. Representative Mell Watt, who I believe to serve run the Federal Housing Administration, the first sitting Member of Congress to be blocked because of a Senate filibuster in eighty-years to serve in the Executive Branch, but it was how these nominees have been blocked.

Senate Republicans led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Chuck Grassley, the Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee, probably the lead strategist for the Republicans when it comes to blocking President Obama’s nominees, but it was how they were blocked. With Senate Republicans changing the rules and debate in how they obstruct. The advise and consent tradition in the Senate is pretty simple and clear.

The President nominates people to serve in his administration or to a court. The Senate gets to decide almost always by majority rule whether the nominee is qualified for the job or not. Not whether a particular senator would nominate that person or whether they believe that agency, office or court should exist. Or whether this is the right time to fill that vacancy or not. But whether the nominee is qualified for the job or not. Senate Republicans have gone way past that.

Senate Republicans have changed advise and consent to, “we’ll decide we the minority party in the U.S. Senate when the President of the United States can appoint people to his administration or a court. Based on whether or not we believe that office or agency should even exist or not and if this is the right time to fill that position”. And Senator Grassley has been very clear about this and this was the main argument. That Senate Republicans used to block nominees to the Washington, DC federal court, because they believe that court didn’t need new judges right now.

The hypocrisy in this debate from both sides is pretty clear from both sides. Senate Republicans were against filibustering executive nominees before they were for it. And now Senate Democrats were in favor of filibustering executive nominees before they were against it. Because of how Senate Republicans have changed the rules and their strategy for how they block nominees no longer based on qualifications, but when and if vacancies should be filled or not, Leader Reid didn’t have much of a choice today. Otherwise President Obama wouldn’t be able to fill key offices in the future.


Tuesday, November 19, 2013

The Globalist: Opinion: Bill Hunphrey: "The Problem With Billionaires": Why Tax and Spend Doesn't Work

The Globalist: Opinion: Bill Humphrey: The Problem With Billionaires

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

This idea that what America needs to do is just tax the hell out of millionaires and billionaires and use that money to spend more on War on Poverty programs to help the poor, as if fifty-years later that has worked very well, because the ultra-right as Bill Humphrey likes to say, has so much money that they don’t know what to do with that money, but government can come in and spend that money better than the people, and if we just do that we can solve our economic problems, forgetting about the seventeen-trillion dollar national debt and six-hundred billion dollar budget deficit, simply doesn’t work.

But of course if you are a so-called Progressive of today, debt and deficits do not matter. But if that is the case, than why do we need to have such huge tax hikes to fix our economy. Why not just continue to borrow and spend to address our economic problems. I’ve already answered my own question, because debt and deficits do matter. Otherwise this proposal to raise taxes to pay for new government spending, because our beloved U.S. Government knows how to spend this money better than the people, I mean come on who are you trying to fool. Unless the real reason for this huge tax hike is because you just want government to have a lot more money to spend on behalf of the people.

I agree that if you include all the tax breaks, the wealthy in America are under taxed, especially compared with the middle class. But if that is the concern and not just raise new money for the government, you would be interested in tax reform that eliminates most of the tax breaks for the wealthy. And go to a Progressive Consumption Tax system or PCT Progressive Consumption Tax to replace the income tax. And everyone would be able to keep all the money they make except the money that they spend.

A PCT would benefit everyone including low-income people, because you could still keep the Earned Income Tax Credit and this system would be progressive. Lower taxes on basic necessities needed in life. Like food, health care, housing to use as examples. but higher taxes on luxury items. Luxury and sports cars, second homes, yachts, vacations to use as examples. We would tax people based on what they takeout of society including the wealthy. Instead of taxing people based on what they produce for society.

If the idea is to have a country with as many successful people as possible and with as few lets say low-income people as possible, knowing we’ll never have a country that is completely free of poverty, which is just an annoying fact, than you don’t tax people so high that is discourages them to be successful. And instead tax everyone based on what they take out of society. Especially the wealthy who spend a lot of money on things they do not need. And instead of just spending more money on social programs, design those programs so they empower people to be independent and live in freedom. So they do not need public assistance at all to pay their bills.

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Classic MLB 11: Video: NBC Sports: MLB 1984-GOW-Detroit Tigers @ Chicago White Sox: Jack Morris No Hitter


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Here’s one example of why Jack Morris should be in the MLB Hall of Fame. Because when he was on, he could be very dominant, because he threw hard and then throw in his devastating forkball and he could fool you. One of the last pitchers especially of his era that you wanted to fall behind, because of his forkball and he wouldn’t need to throw strikes to get you out. The 1984 Detroit Tigers are about as a complete and great baseball team that MLB has had. At least since 1969 when divisional play started. They were very good defensively, had a very good, deep and all around lineup offensively. And had very good pitching, both starting and in the bullpen. And Jack Morris was a big part of that and should get more credit for it.

Friday, November 15, 2013

Given the Myth of Ownership, is the Idea of Redistribution Coherent? | Next New Deal

Next New Deal: Opinion: Mike Konczal: Given the Myth of Ownership, is the Idea of Redistribution Coherent? 

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

We need to get past the idea of whether or not wealth redistribution is a good or bad thing. And just define it instead and layout exactly what wealth redistribution is. Because if we do that, we’ll all know what it is and what it is for and realize that most of us as Americans are actually in favor of wealth redistribution at least in certain forms. And it would be an issue that could bring most of the country together and leave us with at least one issue. That we are united on and lessen some of the political division in the country.

Here’s an example where Progressive economist, professor and blogger Robert Reich and I actually agree on something. Wealth redistribution is anything that government does for the people through taxation. All the roads it pays for is wealth redistribution, the law enforcement it provides the national security it provides, the hospitals it builds, the social insurance programs, everything that it does to benefit the country as a whole is a form of redistribution of wealth.

And to give you an example, the Federal Government taxes Joe and Mary from Buffalo, New York, to build a road in Atlanta, Georgia that benefits Bob and Sally and others in the Atlanta area. Or taxes people in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to expand, renovate and build a new military base in Dallas, Texas. That is wealth redistribution and of course Medicare and Social Security are wealth redistribution programs, because they tax today’s workers to benefit today’s retirees. And these are the two most popular things that government does that any politician risks their careers when they talk about changing those programs.

I just gave you the good versions of wealth redistribution that an overwhelming majority of the country supports. With only factions of the Tea Party movement and the Libertarian movement would oppose. And I’ll give you another popular form of wealth redistribution as well that gets to social insurance. You use taxpayer funds to not only help people in need get by in the short-term who for whatever reasons aren’t able to support and take care of themselves because they are out of work. Or lack the skills necessary to get a good job and you use those taxpayer funds to finance a real social insurance system that empowers people in need to get on their two feet. And be able to take care of themselves through education, job training, job experience and finally job placement into a good job. Sort of like property insurance when your home is hit with a disaster and you need money to repair the home. Or buy a new home and you collect from the insurance in order to do that.

Redistribution is sort of an unpopular term in America because thanks to the right-wing and Social Democrats on the Left-Wing, it tends to be viewed in socialistic terms. “You take money from the successful to give to government to take care of the economically unsuccessful. People in America who aren’t for whatever reasons able to take care of themselves. Encouraging people to be dependent on government, while discouraging people to be successful”. That is how right-wingers have successfully stereotyped wealth redistribution in America. And Social Democrats on the Left who actually believe in this form of wealth redistribution have helped the Right out on this by actually being in favor of this.


Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Classic MLB 11: Video: NBC Sports: MLB 1979-ALCS-Game 2-Anaheim Angeles @ Baltimore Orioles: Full Game


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Game two of the 1979 ALCS being played at the “Outdoor Insane Asylum”, as Baltimore Memorial Stadium was called. As it should’ve been being perhaps the loudest outdoor stadium in pro major league sports in America. Both for baseball and football giving, the Orioles and Colts huge home field advantages especially when they were good. This was a game that the Angels basically had to have, since they only won one game in Anaheim, but failed to get. Different ALCS had the Angels managed to win game two, going back to Anaheim with a split and the momentum and a chance to win two out of three to win the American League Championship. All the Orioles wanted to do in this game, was to win it and go to Anaheim with a shot at clinching the ALCS in game 3.

Saturday, November 2, 2013

The Daily Beast: Opinion: Peter Beinart: Brown University's Campus Leftists vs. Free Speech: Free Speech vs. Fascism

The Daily Beast: Opinion: Peter Beinart: Brown University's Campus Leftists vs. Free Speech

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress

I hate the term ‘campus Liberals’ to refer to people are supposed to be Liberals even though they aren’t and sound more like Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez supporting and admiring Neo-Communists, than they do Liberals. I’ll get to what I mean by that later, because you simply can’t be a Liberal if you do not believe in free speech period. It would like someone whose a Conservative who doesn’t believe in private enterprise or capitalism. Or a Libertarian whose against the right to privacy and in favor of the War on Drugs. There’s a big reason the first amendment is the first amendment because it is the most important amendment we have and the most important freedom that we as people have.

Take free speech away and you might as well take away democracy and the freedom to assemble and the right to privacy. Because one doesn’t work without the other with people being able to organize and speak their minds even if it offends people on the fascist Left or fascist Right. People who believe they are God (even if they are Atheists) and have all the answers and are right about everything to the point they believe they shouldn’t have any opposition. So if you believe in censorship as a policy and that free speech only applies to people who you agree with, then you are not a Liberal. Just like someone whose against c capitalism and wants the economy to be nationalized is not a Conservative. Or someone whose against the right to privacy and against freedom of choice is not a Libertarian.

The reason the United States Constitution is one of if not the most liberal constitution’s in the world is because of all the freedom it guarantees us over our own lives. Which pisses the hell out of statists on the Left and Right who believe people tend to be stupid. And we need their version of big government to manage our lives for us. It doesn’t guarantee happiness, success or wealth, but provides us with the freedom to gain these things for ourselves in most cases. Our education system fails us in many ways to see that all Americans have the freedom to live in freedom. But under our Constitution we all have the constitutional rights to obtain freedom in America. Including the right to speak and express ourselves and write and organize and assemble.

And we are guaranteed all a certain level of privacy as well and is starts with the First Amendment. And if you do not believe in it, you are not a Liberal, but perhaps a statist. Or fascist, or some type of collectivist that wants everyone to be the same with no individuality. Perhaps you have your foot so far up your ass that you think you’re God with all the answers about what people need to be happy and healthy in life. And that since you are God, you’re not entitled to opposition and the freedom and individuality is not needed in your utopia.

People with egos the size of planets, who lack a solid basis in reality and see themselves as imperfect, have no business trying to govern a free society. And without for people to be themselves, because you want a world where we all think the same and believe in the same things where dissent is not tolerated. So when I hear the term ‘campus Liberal’ and I hear about these so-called Liberals who believe in censoring people they disagree with because it may offend certain groups they believe need their protection, I believe the real meaning of Liberal has disappeared and has been replaced by something else.

I’m not sure if I should laugh or get angry as a Liberal when I hear so-called Liberals take such anti-liberal statist, collectivist and now fascist positions on things. Now not just having to do with the economy, but now our personal affairs and how we can express ourselves. Because these people aren’t Liberals, but instead represent the false negative stereotypes of liberalism. And real sorry class of people who live such sorry lives and don’t have enough to keep themselves busy and make themselves happy. That minding their own business is simply not good enough, that they feel the need to mind other people’s business as well. Especially in an era where Americans are finally seeing what liberalism really is. And not how it has been stereotyped and bashed for forty years.


Thursday, October 17, 2013

Classic MLB 11: Video: NBC Sports: MLB 1986-5-03-GOW-Anaheim Angels @ Milwaukee Brewers: Full Game


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

The 1986 Angels were a very good, if not great all around team. Hitting, pitching and defense that should’ve at least gotten to the World Series. But of course lost three straight games in the ALCS after having a 3-1 lead in that series.The Angels, who contended both in 84 and 85 in the AL West, which was back before the wildcard came into both leagues. Looked like the team to beat in the AL West both seasons. 1986, they weren’t expected to win the AL West, especially the way that they did by being in first place most of the season. But in 86, they put it together for the whole season. Both with their offense and pitching. And managed to avoid fading in August and September like they did in 84 and 85. The 1986 Brewers, were somewhat in transition. Especially with their pitching and weren’t contenders at all and about a 500 ball club.


Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Thom Hartmann: Dennis Prager-Leftism is a Different Approach to Americanism


Source: Thom Hartmann-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeStates Plus

When did Dennis Prager become an expert on the American Left? The man is not even an expert on something that he claims to be which is a conservative. He’s at best a Religious Conservative who bases his political beliefs on his religious beliefs. Which is not conservative in a political sense. Dennis Prager is not Barry Goldwater, but probably has more in common with Rick Santorum, or Michelle Bachmann and perhaps other Tea Party Confederates. Who believe Barack Obama is an illegal alien and a Muslim-Socialist or something. Than he has in common with real Conservatives in America.

As far as leftism being a different approach to America. Of course we do not have a dominant political philosophy in America. No functioning liberal democracy does. Other than maybe liberal democracy itself. A society based on liberal values dealing with individual and constitutional rights and individual freedom. And that includes both personal and economic freedom. If that’s the case, then the Center-Left has won and Liberals have their liberal democracy known as America. But one question because it gets to what you mean about leftism. Because leftism is a collection of different leftist political philosophies going from liberalism on the Center-Left to Socialists and Communists and Anarchists on the Far-Left. So when you are talking about what you might call leftism, it helps whoever is listening to you to know what form of leftism are you talking about.

But also again go back to liberal democracy. There’s not just one Left version of what America is and what it should be, but multiple versions. Also there’s multiple versions or rightists views or rightism if you want to call it that, multiple rightists views going from a very fundamentalist religious theocratic view of what America is and what it should be. To more of a conservative or conservative libertarian view of what America is and what it should be. So of course there are different views on what America is and what it should be.

Dennis Prager and Thom Hartmann, Prager especially were not making news in this interview. By saying there is a Leftist view of America or a Rightist view of America. The only news here for anyone whose not already aware of this, is forget about the Left, because seriously when Dennis Prager gives these critiques about the Left let’s get real, because he’s talking about Liberals and what he believes liberalism is. Something and people he knows as little about as fish know how to drive trucks. Not an expert on anything related to the American Left.
Thom Hartmann: Dennis Prager- Leftism is a Different Approach To Americanism


Monday, October 14, 2013

The North Star: Opinion- Dario Cancovic- Capitalist Oligarchy and Socialist Democracy

Source: Portside.Org- Marxists?
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeStates Plus

If you want to know what Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists should be about at least in America, look no further than Senator Bernie Sanders. The only self-described Democratic Socialist in the United States Congress. But you could also look at former U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich who was essentially redistricted out of office, or look at Ralph Nader. And why do I say this, because these men aren’t great fans of capitalism, or private business and certainly not corporations. But understand economics well enough that you must have a certain level of private enterprise, to have a strong functioning economy.

Democratic Socialists in America understand economics well enough to know to have a functioning economy you must have at least a certain level of private enterprise. That there is indeed a limit to what government, even a Federal government can do for their people. Who need the freedom to succeed and be able to make a living for themselves and run business’s and so-fouth. Central-planning, when it comes to economics, tends not to work. And you need at least a certain level of competition to have the strongest economy possible. Where as many people as possible can succeed in it.

Now where democratic socialism comes in, is to make sure that the private sector is regulated by the public sector, is taxed by the public sector to fund all sorts of things that Socialists believe that government should be doing for the people. But also so you have a strong enough economy to fund the centralized superstate that Socialists, tend to be in favor of to provide the human services that people have to have in order to live well anywhere. Like healthcare, health insurance, education, public transportation, childcare and the regulators that the central state in the social democracy needs to make sure that private business are behaving and not abusing their workers and their consumers.

Europe, is full of social democracies like this. Especially in Scandinavia, but Britain is another good example. And these countries are functioning developed countries. But a big reason for that is because of their economies all have capitalist economic systems with strong private sectors to provide the central state with the revenue it needs to do the things for the people that Socialists want done.This is what democratic socialism is about in Europe and what it should be about in America. Which is a socialist form of capitalism. Which I know sounds strange, but it is true.

Because socialism, is a broader political philosophy, not just an economic system. But once you go past this and say capitalism is too risky and too many people get hurt while a few do very well and start talking about nationalizing industries if not all industries and having state take over the economic system, you don’t produce a socialist utopia. But you get an inefficient North Korea, or China from the 1970s. Or the old Soviet Union. A failed gigantic superstate trying to do too much for it's people.
The School of Life: Political Theory- Karl Marx



Classic MLB 11: Video: NBC Sports: MLB 1985-GOW-6/22-New York Yankees @ Detroit Tigers: Full Game


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

1985 is the perfect example of why MLB should’ve went to the three division format in both the American and National League with the playoff wildcards well before 1994. Because you had four ninety win teams in 1985 and each division champion would’ve had at least ninety wins. The Toronto Blue Jays in the AL East, Kansas City Royals in the AL Central, and the Anaheim Angels in the AL West. The New York Yankees as a wildcard team in 85 would’ve have more wins than every division winner except for the Blue Jays. If you go with two wild cards in each league, the Detroit Tigers would’ve just barely misses the AL Playoffs in 85 with 84 wins, a game behind the Chicago White Sox. 1985 was a great year for MLB and the Yankees and Tigers were both in the playoff race that year. And played each other on NBC which is this game.

Saturday, October 12, 2013

The Globalist: Opinion: Uwe Bott: “The Need For U.S. Constitutional Reform”: Over a Government Shutdown?

Our Founding Liberals
The Globalist: Opinion: Uwe Bott: “The Need For U.S. Constitutional Reform”: Over a Government Shutdown?

I’ve blogged about this before, but the problems with America do not have to do with the United States Constitution. But the some of our so-called leaders and public officials who in some cases represent a hard fringe on the Far-Right, or Far-Left. Some represent the people who send them to Washington. And some actually represent their constituents pretty well. And deserve to be reelected over and over. And to say that we should change our Constitution just because there is precedent to do so, is not a reason.

It is like saying, “I had steak for dinner last night so I might as well have it again tonight.” Without looking at what else is available to eat that night and what would be the best thing to eat that night. And if you are going to do something drastic like changing the U.S. Constitution, the document that fathered liberal democracy in the world and what a lot of other democracies are built around with all the rights and freedom and what comes from that, as well as the checks and balances and separations of powers, you gotta have a hell of a reason to change such a great document. That has only been changed I believe twenty-seven times in two-hundred and thirty-seven years.

To say we must change the U.S. Constitution because we have a faction in one party in one chamber of one branch of government, essentially holding the rest of the government and I don’t like using this word unless I’m actually talking about real hostages, But holding the rest of the government back (for lack of a better word) unless they are able to kill a law that has already been settled by the U.S Supreme Court and a general election where President Obama is reelected to go along with most if not of the members of Congress in the House and Senate, is crazy. The answer is to vote out people who aren’t governing responsibly.

All of these Congressional Democrats who supported the Affordable Care Act, voted for it and even wrote parts of it. To change a Constitution, just because House Republicans don’t like one law, is not a good reason. What you do in that situation is what Democrats are doing now and hold them accountable. “These are the people who are preventing the Federal Government from reopening, because they’ve failed over and over to get a law killed that they hate.” And you keep pointing them out in public until their leadership gets the message. And says, “enough is enough. We aren’t going to let this fringe ruin us in the next election.” And you hold them accountable again at the ballot box in 2014 and get them replaced by responsible adults.

If you love social democracy so much, how about living in one for a while. And see if you like that more than America. And live somewhere where elections do not have consequences. And votes in a way do not matter. Because if a majority of people and that majority just might be one and they decide that current government in power is not popular, new elections can be called right away even if there is already a new government.

America, is a Constitutional Federal Republic in the form of a liberal Democracy. And we are different and we have basic fundamental rights that can’t be taken away from us. Like being abused my a majority and we have minority rights in this country. And just because 50.1% of the country thinks people shouldn’t be allowed to do something, doesn’t necessarily mean they get to rule over the 49.9% of the country that says, “how we live our own lives, is none of your damn business. So why don’t you butt the hell out.” As we are seeing with the gay rights cases that going through the court system including gay marriage. Where gay marriage bans are getting thrown out. Even gay marriage bans that were popular and voted for by the will of the people, so to speak.

Social democracy, is essentially rule by majority including the majority being able to rule over the minority. And being able to tell them how they can live their own lives. And that is just not how liberal democratic America rolls, so to speak. We say power to the individual and let them govern themselves as long as they aren’t hurting innocent people. And we have constitutional rights that can’t be taken away from us that protect our privacy. And our ability to live our own lives that can’t be taken away from us by a popular vote. And as I said before the problem with America, is not our Constitution. But some of our public officials who do not understand it who need to be kicked out of office.


Classic MLB 11: Video: ABC Sports: MLB 1981-ALDS-Game 3-Kansas City Royals @ Oakland Athletics: Full Game


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

The expanded MLB Playoffs is not the problem I have with the MLB Playoffs in 1981 in the American League and National League. Its how they did it which is the problem. With the teams having the best records in first and second halves of the season in each division qualifying for the playoffs in each league. Which meant four teams making the playoffs in both leagues, which is how MLB did it from 1995-2011. Which again I don’t have a problem with, but how they did it.

Instead of having the teams that had the best records in their divisions for the entire season and have the two second place teams in each league qualifying as wildcards in each league, they had the best teams in the first halves of the season, play the teams with the best record of the second half of the season. Which meant teams like the Cincinnati Reds who had the best overall record in the NL West in 1981, missed the NL Playoffs. Because they didn’t have the best record in their division in either the first or second half of 1981.