Real Time With Bill Maher: 'Bill Maher on France'

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- talking about one of the favorite countries for Socialists, France.

"Bill Maher blasts conservatives who dismiss everything French as if it's somehow now "the ultimate argument winner" (see: "Kerry looks French" or Bill O'Reilly's boycott), then goes off on how conservative social issues tarnish the political process. I don't want any bitching on this page, against anyone, thanks." 

From Euro Trash? 

To paraphrase the great economics Professor, as well as one of my favorite Classical Liberals, Professor Milton Friedman: there's no such thing as a free lunch. When Professor Friedman said that, he wasn't referring to restaurants, cafeterias, and other eating establishments that don't give out free food (especially during mid day) he was talking about government services. Everything that we get from government, we pay for it one way or another. Whether its up our ass, through taxes, interest payments on the national debt, inflation, or having to live in poverty to receive those services. Every taxpayer in France, America, or any other country in the world (including Bill Maher) already understands this. 

Conservatives as well a Libertarians like to use France as an insult or as Bill Maher said an argument a winner. And Maher mentioned that France has a very good health care system and that as Maher said we should steal it. 

What Maher didn't mention and I believe why he didn't mention it, because it would've offended his socialist audience, is that France does not have a single payer health care System. They have a public- private health care system, similar to Germany, Switzerland, Holland, Taiwan, and Japan. Where the French get to decide for themselves where to get their health insurance and health care. 

What France does in health care, is similar to what the Obama Administration and the then 111th Democratic Congress wanted to do in health care reform. In 2009/2010 before they settled for the Affordable Care Act which was basically just private health insurance reform and a tax credit for health care. 

Another thing that people who say America should be like France argue, is that America should be more like France because they provide all of the social services for so-called free, health care, health insurance, pension, education,  etc. Which is completely false. They do provide for all these services but none of them are free. Anyone in France who pays taxes, pays for these services in Federal taxes, probably in the form of a payroll tax. 

Anyone who pays taxes, not only pays for everything they receive in society but they also pay for things that other people receive in society. As well as pay for the services that people who don't pay taxes receive in society. (Are you dizzy yet?)

People who want to see America become more like France, need to ask themselves do they really want to pay 50-70% in taxes to the Federal Government) Income taxes plus all of the additional payroll taxes that they would end up paying with to finance all of these additional social services? 

My answer is that most if not all of the Democratic Socialists in America (including millionaires who could afford a steep tax hike likeMichael Moore) would say yes. Well, thats the easy part, the problem is that they only represent around 10-20 of the general population in America. 

For Socialists in America to accomplish what they want they would also have to convince and additional 30% or more just to get to a majority, just to have a shot of making this happen. The problem for them, is that high taxes with everyone else who's not a Socialist, are very unpopular in America. 

France is a beautiful country with beautiful women and a lot of things to do and would makes a great place for a vacation. Especially in Southern France (from my perspective) and they do have a great health care system in a big country of around 65M people. 

But what also needs to be examined when someone says "lets make America more like France" is how have they built their welfare state and is that something America would want to do, not just a certain part of the country or can we come up with out own solutions that work best for America. 

Russia Today: The Aloyna Show- Armand Biroonak: 'US Uncut- Progressive Tea Party?'

Source:Russia Today- Armand Biroonak, on The Aloyna Show talking about a left-wing Tea Party.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the Russian federal tax budget.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"US Uncut, a new movement, organized protests at more than forty different Bank of America branches across the country to bring light on the tax evasion of multi-billion dollar corporations, corporate tax avoidance and theatrical "bail-ins."  Armand Biroonak, a DC Uncut Co-Founder joins the show with details." 

From Russia Today

The Coffee Party (or as I would describe as the democratic socialist version of the Tea Party) is a left-wing populist version, of the right-wing Christian-Nationalist/Conservative-Libertarian Tea Party. You're talking about Occupy Wall Street, the Green Party, Democratic Socialists of America, and the Far-Left flank of the Democratic Party, that wants to form their version of the Tea Party, but for the Democratic Party.

The Coffee Party believes in democratic socialism, which means protecting the welfare state and if anything expanding it. Expanding the Federal Government to solve America's problems, not cut it. That the debt and deficit is not the issue, that lack of economic and job growth is the real crisis. And that one reason why America's economy has struggled now. is because the Federal Government is not big enough and doesn't spend enough money. Even though we are at now 3.7% or 25% of GDP and borrow 40% of every dollar that the Federal Government spends. 

The Coffee Party wants to move America to Sweden (economically, culturally, and politically)  and be more like Sweden or Britain, that spend 50% of their GDP's on its central government. And they say a lot of our economic problems would go away. That would be the thinking like the social democratic left. 

So you have two competing political ideology's here. You have more of a libertarian or conservative-libertarian Tea Party that says the Federal Government spends too much and if they just cut back and taxed less and gave people more liberty.

The Tea Party saying that if Uncle Sam was smaller and consumed less, than his nephews and nieces could solve their problems on their own. Which is coming from the right. 

And then you have a social democratic Coffee Party on the Far-Left that says our main problems is that the Federal Government doesn't spend and tax enough and should do more of that on everybody. Not just the wealthy, they have more of a collectivist approach instead of an individualist approach to politics. 

These are two competing factions that could hold both the Democratic and Republican parties hostage. (So to speak) In the sense that if they don't do exactly what they want, they could destroy the major parties within. Or threaten to leave the major parties all together and walk out and from their own political parties. 

The debt ceiling debate is a perfect example of this potential chaos, obstruction, and political revolution. The problem that a Coffee Party has is that they represent the Far-Left of the country. And there's a short ceiling to what they can do in America and the type of support that they can come up with.

C-SPAN: Professor Noam Chomsky- On Welfare

Source:CSPAN- Professor Noam Chomsky, talking about Welfare in America.

"Public programs that provide funds for rich people are not called 'welfare', but in fact that's what MOST of the public funds are." 

From Professor Noam Chomsky 

“The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people. 

There are few genuine conservatives within the U.S. political system, and it is a sign of the intellectual corruption of the age that the honorable term ‘conservatism’ can be appropriated to disguise the advocacy of a powerful, lawless, aggressive and violent state, a welfare state for the rich dedicated to a lunatic form of Keynesian economic intervention that enhances state and private power while mortgaging the country’s future.” 

Source:AZ Quotes- Professor Noam Chomsky I believe talking about Welfare in America in 1996.

From AZ Quotes

What is Welfare at least to me and how I define it and what would it look like if I had the power to reform it? Perhaps a scary thought for some. Pretty simple: Welfare is something that comes from what is a safety net, something that people can turn to when they’ve fallen through the cracks of the economy and can’t support themselves. 

Welfare is essentially public assistance for people who can’t support themselves at the time and need temporary income to support themselves while at the same time getting help. So they can get on their feet and support themselves and become productive income tax paying citizens.

I believe we need a new definition for "Corporate Welfare" because Corporate Welfare goes to people and company’s that are doing great. And don’t give anything in return for the Welfare that they are getting through taxpayers, that also fund public Welfare for the people who actually need the Welfare. Perhaps they should just be called corporate subsidies instead which is actually a real term to describe Corporate Welfare, because that’s what it is: giving money to people and business’s for doing their jobs essentially. Producing good and services for people to buy and use.

Welfare Insurance is for people who are not working and don’t have the skills that they need to get a full-time job as well as a good job to support themselves and their families. And because Welfare Insurance was reformed in 1996, people on that program now have to either be looking for work and they get help with that, or going to school to get the skills that they need to get a good job and become self-sufficient, as well as seeking work. And they get help with both of those. Food Assistance is essentially grocery insurance that people who don’t make enough money to be able to feed themselves adequately.

Unemployment Insurance is pretty self-explanatory. Money for people who are out-of-work and need temporary assistance while they are looking for another job. 

Medicaid is health insurance for low-income people who can’t afford health insurance on their own, or their employers health insurance. 

Public Housing is for people who can’t afford a home on their own and they get vouchers to help pay for a small apartment. And there are many other public programs. All these programs meet my definition of Welfare.

Public assistance which is really what this is about, are designed to help people with that actually need the help. 

Corporate Welfare to me is not Welfare, because it’s public assistance for company’s and individuals who are doing very well, which is a good thing. I’m clearly not a Socialist, but since they are doing so well, they clearly don’t need public assistance. 

And if we want to be a real capitalist economy, then let the haves support themselves and let’s help the have-nots become self-sufficient. And Welfare designed in a certain way that doesn’t make people dependent on public assistance can do that. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

ABC News: 'Political Activist Michael Moore'

Source:ABC News- filmmaker and New-Left political activist Michael Moore.

"Filmmaker and political activist Michael Moore didn’t want you to vote for Al Gore. While he said he thinks Gore is “a decent guy,” he also took the vice president to task in an open letter: “I have spent the last eight years doing what I could, in my own small way, to try and stop the hemorrhaging that your administration caused.”

And Michael Moore really didn't want you to vote for George W. Bush. He told the Texas Governor, “Your possible victory on Tuesday is a threat to our national security.” He went even further, calling Bush “a banal, despicable, and corrupt human being.” 

From ABC News

I actually agree with Michael Moore on something. (Maybe it does snow in South Florida in July) America a country of 310M people the third largest population in the world, we are by far the largest country in the world, to just have a two-party system. 

We are also one of the most diverse countries in the world if not the most diverse country in the world politically. We have large segments of our population that represent the entire political spectrum. From already over to the Far-Right, all the way over to the Far-Left. 

We have Liberals, Libertarians, Democratic Socialists, and Marxist-Socialists on the Left. We have Conservatives, Neoconservatives (who are Progressive Republicans) and Christian-Nationalists on the Right. And we have Independents who basically represent centrism in America, but they are a mixture of liberal and conservative in their ideology. 

This all means that we are left with a Democratic Party thats suppose to represent the left-wing in America and be the liberal party. And Liberals tend to run the Democratic Party, but liberals aren't the only people on the left. And the Democratic Party is made up of more people than just Liberals. 

Democrats have Democratic Socialists on the Far-Left and Progressive-Liberals in the middle. So the Democratic Party is essentially made up of three different factions and when the Socialists and Progressives don't like what the other is doing, they threaten to leave the party of destroy it within. 

The Republican Party thats supposes to represent the right-wing in America and be the conservative party and Conservatives used to run that party and to a certain extent still do, but there are a lot less of them in the Republican Party right now and they are probably in the minority in that party now. And of course the Republican Party is made up more than just Conservatives, but Neoconservatives and Christian-Nationalists and they still have some moderate Conservatives left as well in the Northeast especially. 

Not trying to sound partisan as a Democrat to make it official, but the Republican Party thats supposed to be about limited government and individual freedom, now has an authoritarian factions in it now, Christian-Nationalists, who want to make government bigger and limit freedom. (Conservatives, don't you miss the Grand Ole Party?) So the Republican Party is now made up of three competing factions and when the two factions on the outside don't like what the leadership is doing, they threaten to leave or destroy the party inside as well. 

What America a country of 310M people needs politically, is more major political parties that represent our entire political spectrum. There's more than enough of a movement and people who want this to happen and it could easily happen. Especially if you look at the approval ratings of both the Democratic and Republican parties that are in the 20s or 30s. 

We need the Democratic Party to be the progressive party, not a socialist party, which in the past have done a very good job doing. We need the Republican Party to be the conservative party and not a Christian-Nationalist party. And we need the Libertarian Party to step up to the plate and act like a major political party and represent the 10-20% of Libertarians in America. 

The Socialists need their own party that represents the socialist view in American politics. And the Democratic Socialist Party and there is such a thing and they could do this if they formed a coalition, with the Green Party and the so-called Progressive Caucus (DSA Democratic Socialists, in actuality) in the Democratic Party. 

And the Christian-Nationalists could leave the Republican Party and form their own party. 

And the Independents could have their own party as well that would be the Reform Party and others. 

We are a huge country we are more than capable of supporting all of our political factions and do it in the way where we would still have majority parties in Congress. But they would have less special interests to answer to. 

We officially have a two-party system, but in actuality we have two parties that are both made up of at least three parties each, but they are all under the same roof. (So to speak) In a marriage made for hell because they all have their own viewpoints and special interests they have to answer to. And it makes governing almost impossible because the leaders in both parties not only have to worry about the other party, but what other factions are doing in their own party. 

PBS NewsHour: Jeffrey Brown- 'Watch President Obama's, Speaker Boehner's Full Debt-Ceiling Remarks'

Source:PBS NewsHour- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) talking about the debt ceiling agreement that was reached with Congress.

"The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor.[6] It is a nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational television programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience, America's Test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Arthur, Barney & Friends, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Downton Abbey, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, Nature, Nova, the PBS NewsHour, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping up Appearances and This Old House." 

From Wikipedia 

"President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner addressed the nation Monday about the approaching debt-limit deadline and the political stalemate between top lawmakers over deficit-reduction proposals. Watch their full remarks plus analysis from Gwen Ifill and Political Editor David Chalian. Read more:PBS." 

From the PBS NewsHour

I believe the President did as well as someone even with his vast communication skills, could do with a national debt ceiling address. Especially with this material sounding very dry for today's reality TV audience and with Speaker Boehner countering him with a false statement where he said the House vote on "Cap Cut and Balance" being bipartisan last week. With only five Democrats voting for it and at least ten Republicans voting against it. There was actually more bipartisan opposition to "Cut Cap and Balance" than bipartisan support. 

I was a little worried Monday afternoon when I heard that President Obama came out in favor of Leader Reid's plan in the Senate, that cuts the debt and deficit through cuts only even though he includes 1T$ in defense cuts, coming from ending military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. According to a left-wing blog Think Progress, the House switchboard has been flooded with phone calls and emails, all about tonight's speeches. I'm guessing hopefully in favor of President Obama's speech. But we'll probably see within the next few days. 

I believe though that enough people did listen to President Obama's speech. And hopefully enough of them liked it enough, to tell enough Republican Representatives, that it's time for the House GOP Leadership to make a deal with the President and Senate. But there's a much different team in the House now, thats not in business to negotiate. 

I believe however that Speaker Boehner is an adult who wants to put the debt and deficit debate aside or at least getting something accomplished on it. And start to move on to other things which I'm sure the Speaker and House Leader Cantor have on their agenda. Even though the House GOP only controls one chamber of Congress and one institution in the entire Federal Government, they believe they hold all the cards because of the 2010 mid-term elections. 

But what the House GOP Leadership doesn't understand is that the voters didn't give them the Senate for a reason, because they didn't like enough of their Senate candidates to give them the majority there. Which left us with not only a divided government but a divided congress as well. 

What Leader Reid did in the Senate on Monday was to offer the House GOP a chance to say yes and move on but they still said no. I'm glad the President has left tax hikes on the wealthy on the table to go along with entitlement reform and budget cuts including in defense. And let's see within the next few days if he was able to move enough Americans to tell enough of their Reps thats its time to make a deal with the Senate and President and compromise so we can finally move on. 

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- '10th Anniversary of Bush Tax Cuts (Analysis)'

Source:The Young Turks- Cenk Uygur, talking about President George W. Bush's tax cuts.

"10 years after president George Bush and Republicans in Congress pushed forward with tax cuts for the rich Cenk Uygur breaks down the damage." 

From The Young Turks

When George W Bush became President in 2001 he an inherited a projected budget surplus of 1T$ over ten years including 100B$ a bank for his first year. And a national debt of around 4T$ and we were talking about actually paying down the debt and deficit "too fast." Probably the first time we've ever had that debate in our history. 

President Bush left office eight years later with a budget deficit of 1T$ and a national debt of 10T$. President Bush did have a couple of recessions in his presidency, 2001-02 and you can make a case that he inherited the first one. Because the economy did start to slow down in 2000 but the Great Recession of 2008-09, clearly happened on his watch and he didn't fix the problem and you can argue that he made the problem worst with his own fiscal policy. 

You have to go back to the 1930s with FDR to find a President that served at least two terms that had an economy that did as bad as President George W Bush. Seventy years, which will be a big part of President Bush's presidential legacy, along with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

But how did he put this record together, during President Bush's tenure? He had a Republican Congress for four years. Democrats controlled the Senate for the first two years and a Republican House for six years. During this period the Bush Administration decided that they could get two 1T$ tax cuts through without paying for them. (Supply side economics) The two wars without paying for them, 3T$ to this point, the first time we've ever borrowed all the money to pay for wars. And a 500B$ Medicare prescription drug benefit, again, all borrowed money. 

Howard Dean when he was running for the Democratic nomination for President and when he served as Chairman of the Democratic Party, dubbed the Bush fiscal policy: Borrow and Spend Economics. You figure out what you want to do, how much it will cost and then borrow all the money to pay for it. Instead of having a list of priorities: "This is what we need to do, this is the money we have. Let's figure out how to make it work the best and if we don't have enough money." 

We cut in other areas or we raise the revenue, that would be called PAYGO, you pay for what you spend. As much as the Bush tax cuts have failed ten years later, because of how bad the economy is right now, the last thing we should be doing right now is passing middle class tax hikes on people who can't afford them and are struggling just to get by. 

And one of the last things we should be doing is adding top our debt and deficit situation as well. So what we should do is raise taxes on people who can afford them, use that revenue to help pay down the debt and deficit. 

Reform the Federal Government entitlements, defense and other places. Cut back in areas we don't need to spend as much. Defense, agriculture, tax subsidy's, and Loopholes and invest in the economy like in infrastructure and energy. But do it in a way that doesn't add to our debt and deficit and start paying for everything that the Federal Government does going forward, including defense and natural disaster relief.

C-SPAN: Washington Journal With Susan Swain- Christopher Hitchens & Tom Davis (1996)

Source:C-SPAN- British writer, columnist, author, political satirist Christopher Hitchens. 

"Hosted by Susan Swain. Rep. Thomas Davis and Mr. Hitchens talked about current issues including the re-election of President Yeltsin and issues pertinent to the Clinton and Dole campaigns. Credit to CSPAN:CSPAN." 

From C-SPAN

To put it simply: the best way to help poor people move to the middle class and become self-sufficient and not need public assistance for their daily survival, is to give them temporary financial assistance and child care, so they can survive in the short-term, yes, but to move them out of poverty, they need education to give them an  opportunity to get their GED or go back to high school, as well as go to college like a technical school, so they can get the education and skills that they need, so they can get a good job to support themselves and their family's. And then finally job placement, help them find a good job that they are qualified for. So they can support themselves and their family's on their own and no longer need public assistance.

Along with deficit reduction and balancing the Federal budget, Welfare reform of 1996, is President Bill Clinton's biggest achievement. It moved millions of people who would probably still be on Welfare Insurance today or working multiple minimum wage jobs just to barely survive today. 

Had it not been for the 1996 Welfare To Work Law, millions of people who were on Welfare Insurance twenty years ago, now have good jobs today and some of them even own their own business's or manage a business. 

Then Governor Bill Clinton who made Welfare reform a big part of his 1992 presidential campaign, didn't make a big push to pass a bill out of Congress his first two years. When he had a Democratic Congress, including a forty-seat majority in the House.

Even though President Clinton had good ideas on Welfare reform, like education, job placement, and child care, so these single parents could leave the home to go to school or look for work, his calculation was probably that he would never get the votes at least in the House, because the Far-Left flank in the Democratic Party there would never go along with a bill that had time limits for Welfare deficit reduction, the crime bill, Family Medical Leave and of course the nightmarish debacle of health care reform. All things he passed in his first two years except for health care reform. 

It took a Republican Congress for President Clinton to finally incorporate his ideas as well as Republican ideas to make it law. And it was by far the best legislation that a Republican Congress in modern times has ever passed.

What we tried in the 1930s and 1960s with anti-poverty programs, where you essentially just give low-income low-skilled people money and expect nothing from them, that the "cycle of poverty" would just go away on its own, clearly did not work. 

Sixty-years later poverty was still a big problem in America which is why it was reformed. But in the 1990s we finally saw record reductions in poverty down to as low as 13%. One of those reasons being the economic expansion of that decade. But if you're low-income and low-skilled, you won't see the benefits of any economic expansion. Which is a big reason why Welfare reform was so important, because it empowered low-skilled people to get the skills that they need to get themselves out of poverty and into the middle class.   

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on WordPress.

Thom Hartmann: Shane Brooks- 'From Tea Party to Coffee to Democracy'

Source:Thom Hartmann- talking to Shane Brooks, about the Coffee Party.

"Thom talks to Shane Brooks, a reformed Tea Party member, Whiskey With My Coffee on his transition from Tea Party to Coffee Party to Democracy 2.0." 

From Thom Hartmann

When the Tea Party started off it had a very clear message: the Federal Government spends too much, its too big, we have to get the debt and deficit under control. They were also anti-corporate bailouts and had very strong libertarian leanings and didn't care about social issues. 

The Tea Party movement before the Christian-Right hijacked it, was a conservative-libertarian movement. But then the Michele Bachmann's, Sarah Palin's, Herman Cain's of the world merged with them. Which continued to push a certain fiscal policy message, but still likes corporate welfare and brought back social issues and brought back the politics if you disagree with me then you're not a real American. And went back to being anti-muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-gay go down the line (if you have way too much time on your hands) including anti-pornography, and anti-adultery. 

Now the so-called Tea Party is trying to make anything that they don't like illegal just because they don't like it and trying to tell people how to live their own lives. The original version of the Tea Party with the libertarian leanings I respected as a Liberal, even though my approach on these issues is much different. The original version of the Tea Party had a chance to become a major political movement in American politics and perhaps even be able to merge with the Libertarian movement. 

But this new theocratic Tea Party will go no farther than the Christian-Right and be seen as another fringe movement in American politics, because Americans especially independent voters don't tend to like big government authoritarianism.

Back in late 2009 early 2010 and they didn't get started early enough to be a major factor in the 2010 mid- term elections. Just look at the Ed Schultz rally, I believe in October 2010. Another movement began to come from the Democratic Party calling themselves the Coffee Party. That was what I would describe as the democratic socialist (or social democratic) version of the Conservative-Libertarian Tea Party. That saw their role as to defend the American welfare state especially during deficit reduction. And if anything expand the welfare state and use government to promote so-called progressive policy's to create jobs in America. When you have 9.2% unemployment, no better time than to try to create jobs. 

I don't see the Coffee Party becoming much of a factor in the Democratic Party to create positive change in as far as winning elections and taking back the House of Representatives. 

The Coffee Party is not big enough and there are not enough of them in Congress. The so-called House Progressive Caucus (Democratic Socialists and DSA members, in actuality) are 40 members (give or take) and maybe 5-10 in the Senate. If they were to decide to take on Democratic members of Congress in an election year when the economy will probably still be weak or worst take on the President with their own candidate, Democrats will lose everywhere, they'll have a hard enough time getting reelected on their own. 

If the Republican Party nominates Mitt Romney for President and the economy is still weak, President Obama will have a hard enough time getting reelected. Because the election will be about his record.

What the Coffee Party can contribute to the Democratic Party in a positive way, is recruiting House and Senate candidates where the incumbents are Republican. Which I believe will get the Democratic base out to vote for Democrats whoever the candidate is, as well as the get out to vote operations for the fall. To get as many Democrats to vote as possible. 

Otherwise you'll see another divided Democratic Party, just like 1988, 84, 80, 72 and 68 that loses in a landslide to Republicans in Congress and the White House: "United we stand, divided we fall."

Peter DeFazio: 'Let All The Bush Tax Cuts Expire'

Source:CNN Politics- President George W. Bush (Republican, Texas) 43rd President of the United States.

"Democrat Peter DeFazio of Oregon mocked Republicans in the House. "Let all the Bush tax cuts expire!" DeFazio said. "That's 4 trillion dollars. It's not too complicated! It would take us back to those bad old Clinton years when rich people paid taxes. The 'job creators,' they call them," he said in a mocking voice. "They can't make the 'job creators' pay taxes -- it will ruin the economy!' "  

From CNN Politics 

"DeFazio on the Bush Tax Cuts and the budget" 

Source:U.S. Representative Peter DeFazio (Democrat, Oregon) speaking on the floor of the U.S. House about President Bush's tax cuts.

From Peter DeFazio

I'm a little reluctant to criticize Representative Peter Defazio even in a constructive way, because he's one of the most articulate, honest and humorous members of Congress, in both chambers and both parties. (Which is like saying someone is the best ballet dancer in Wichita) And if he ever got around to running statewide in Oregon, I believe he would get elected and I would support him. But he's dead wrong as far as letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire even on the middle class. 

I believe the main reason and its certainly a reason for our weak economic recovery is because of the low- demand in our economy, because people aren't spending enough money to create big enough economic growth to give us enough job creation to create enough jobs to bring down our high unemployment rate. Pass a middle class tax hike on people who perhaps right now are just barely middle class and are worried about whether they'll have a job tomorrow, if they still have one. 

The lack of consumer demand in the economy means middle class Americans spend less money and because they'll have less money to live on and have an even tougher time paying their bills. Which would mean our economic growth would be even weaker and we would lose more jobs and have a higher unemployment rate as well. 

The so-called House Progressive Caucus (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) and its allies make the point, that we had a much better economy in the 1990s especially in the late 90s (97, 98, and 99) so since the economy was stronger then, we should go back to those tax rates which were higher. What they don't mention and I'm sure they are aware of this because they talk to their constituents on a regular basis if nothing else, is back then we had a very strong economy, perhaps the strongest in our history. Which is completely different from today with the weakest economy in at least thirty years. 

Back in the 1990s we could afford higher tax rates on even the middle class because the economy was much stronger then it is 10-20 years later. Higher tax rates can work on high-earners because they already have plenty and aren't looking to spend money just to survive, because they already have plenty. They are not the people that we need to spend more, they rather save and invest. Its middle and low-income people that we need to spend more money and to encourage them to spend more, to generate enough economic and job growth to bring down our unemployment rate to a much more manageable level. 

Tax hikes on people can't afford them and are struggling just to survive, will just make life more difficult for them, because they'll have even less money to live on. And would be even worse for our economy and debt and deficit outlook. 

What we need to do is pass tax hikes on the upper class, to help pay down our debt and deficit. And encourage middle and low-income people to spend more money to generate more economic and job growth. 

Senator Bernie Sanders: 'Congratulations Tom Coburn'

Source:Senator Bernie Sanders- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) talking about Senator Tom Coburn and the Gang of Six's deficit reduction plan.

"Senator Sanders speaking about the disaster that would ensue if the American economy were to default, how to address the crisis that we now face with long-term deficit reduction, and the "Gang of Six's" proposal which include major cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and  Education." 

From Senator Bernie Sanders 

Senator Tom Coburn is not as far to the right as people can get or he would be a member of Congress who no one in Congress would be able to work with other then the Far Right (Senate or House) but he's as fiscally conservative as they come in the sense that he believes that the Federal Government should pay its bills and only pay for things that it should be doing and cut back on things that he believes we shouldn't be doing. Which I believe would qualify as common sense to most sane people. 

Senator Bernie Sanders isn't as far to the left as people can get but there isn't much room on the left to be to the left of him. (Communists and that's about it) He is an admitted Democratic Socialist (for crying out loud) and proud of it and believes in the welfare state and collectivism and that government, especially the Federal Government should play a big role in looking after the welfare of the people. 

Senator Sanders also believes that private enterprise, even though I don't believe Senator Sanders believes in nationalizing most industry's, can't be trusted to look after people and that the Federal Government should step in and provide a lot of these services. Everything from education, Health Care, Health Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, transportation, energy, and there's probably a lot more. (But in the interest of time...)

So when you are comparing a fiscally Conservative Senator like Tom Coburn who believes in limited government and there's a limit to what government especially the Federal Government should be doing and a big believer in private enterprise and private markets and is actually against corporate welfare and those tax loopholes, with a Democratic Socialist Senator like Bernie Sanders, two men who I don't tend to agree with a lot on but two men who I have a lot of respect for, you're talking about the opposites of political spectrum. A Socialist (in Bernie Sanders) versus a Christian-Conservative, who is also a fiscal Conservative. (In Tom Coburn)

Both Senators have admitted that deficit reduction has to be done for the good of the economy, you're going to see much different approaches in how to accomplish this. With Senator Coburn who actually believes in fiscal responsibility and there's a limit to what the Federal Government should be doing including on defense. 

If you look at the Coburn Back in Black deficit reduction plan, you'll find major defense cuts in it. As well as closing tax loopholes and entitlement reform, a means testing approach. With an approach from Senator Sanders thats more centered around defense cuts, closing tax loopholes,  and tax hikes probably on everyone, not just the wealthy.

Senator Tom Coburn and Senator Bernie Sanders both represent one thing thats right about the Federal Government, Congress, and Washington, because they represent their viewpoints and constituents as well as they can be represented because of their honesty. They say what they mean, what they believe and back up their views as well as they can be backed up.

Al Jazeera: 'President Obama- Backs Gang of Six' Deficit Plan'

 

Source:Al Jazeera- Speaker of the House John Boehner (Republican, Ohio) and the House Republican Leadership.

"Al Jazeera (Arabic: الجزيرة‎, romanized: al-jazīrah, IPA: [æl (d)ʒæˈziːrɐ], literally "The Island", though referring to the Arabian Peninsula in context)[3] is a state-owned[4] broadcaster based in Doha, Qatar, owned by the Al Jazeera Media Network. Initially launched as an Arabic news and current affairs satellite TV channel, Al Jazeera has since expanded into a network with several outlets, including the internet and specialty television channels in multiple languages... 

From Wikipedia 

"The US president has announced his support for a bipartisan deficit-reduction proposal aimed at averting a debt default, saying time was running out for an agreement to raise the US borrowing limit.

Barack Obama said the ambitious budget plan brought forward on Tuesday by the "Gang of Six" group of senators could provide new ideas for breaking the impasse in Congress over raising the federal government's credit limit by August 2.

Al Jazeera's Kimberley Halkett reports from Washington." 

From Al Jazeera

Glad to see President Obama finally show some leadership and take some action on the deficit reduction and debt ceiling issue. And actually come out in favor of a plan, the plan introduced by the "Gang of Six" in the Senate a bipartisan group of Senators led by Senator Kent Conrad Chairman of the Budget Committee and Senator Tom Coburn a very important Republican Senator and fiscal Conservative. 

This plan closes tax loopholes, cuts military spending but in a strategic way. But it sort of punts on the tax cuts for the wealthy and entitlement reform, where we could save hundreds of billions of dollars every year without hurting anyone. But apparently this is a 4T$ deficit reduction plan over ten years, with serious budget cuts and revenue raisers. And if this were to come true, would get our Federal debt and deficit under control and I believe be a jump in the economy and strengthen our dollar. Which would also be a boost to the Stock Market. 

This is not the plan that I would've written, because it does nothing on the tax cuts for the wealthy, entitlement reform or closing some of our foreign bases in developed countries that can afford to defend themselves. That we can no longer afford to defend with our debt situation and our own foreign policy issues. We'll have another opportunity within a year or so to save an additional hundred billion dollars a year to pay down our debt and deficit by bringing our troops home from Afghanistan and Ira. (knock on wood, as the saying goes) 

This is a hell of a lot better than the McConnell punt from the Senate Minority Leader or Crap Carry and Bounce from the House Tea Party. And it shows that there are still some Members of Congress (at least in the Senate) that understand the debt issue, what needs to get done and which is as important. What can pass at least in the Senate and if the House GOP ever wakes up, what should be able to pass in the House as well. Because both sides will be giving up plenty to get plenty in return, budget cuts and revenue raisers, without having to make tough political choices on entitlement reform and tax hikes on the wealthy. Which is why this wouldn't of been the plan I would've written. 

If I had to coin this deficit reduction and debt ceiling plan, I would call it The Comeback Drive, that got us back in the game (so to speak) and bought Congress and the White House more time to deal with the tougher issues to win the game. And I'm done with sports analogy's. (At least football for this post) It's that time of year.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- 'Debt Ceiling Offer From McConnell'

Source:The Young Turks- Cenk Uygur on the debt.

"Will president Obama and the Democrats go along with the debt ceiling proposal offered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell? Cenk Uygur shares his take." 

From The Young Turks

Just when I was starting to believe that Mitch McConnell was one the most skillful Senate Minority Leaders of all time and perhaps the most skillful Senate Republican Leader, at least going back to Bob Dole or Howard Baker: he offers a Debt Ceiling plan that manages to offend Center-Left Democrats (and I'm one of those people) as well as right-wing and Far-Right, people he actually needs in order to keep his job and hopefully one day for him get promoted to Senate Leader instead of Minority Leader. 

The McConnell plan is as dumb as it's simple: says that if the President and Congress, don't reach a debt ceiling agreement by August 2nd when we are currently scheduled to default if an agreement isn't reached, that the President unilaterally could raise the debt limit on his own. Be able to borrow the 2T$ thats needed to raise the debt limit. And I believe there is actually a catch to the McConnell plan, that by October Congress would be able to weigh in again on the debt ceiling that the President of course would have to approve. 

The President has already made it clear that he doesn't want to use the constitutional option on the debt ceiling (so to speak) that instead wants to reach a grand bargain with Speaker John Boehner and Leader Harry Reid on a debt limit increase, but also a deficit reduction deal with Congress as well. But would use the constitutional option if he's not able to reach an agreement with Congress and he's well within his right to do that. But also it would look bad politically and sort of make the President look like a dictator, if he unilaterally borrowed and additional 2T$. Especially since he and Congress have already put 4T$ on the National Debt in 2 1/2 years. 

The only reason why I could see Minority Leader McConnell offering this plan, is to have something else to use against President Obama to make him look like a big spender. The problem though that it would be McConnell's idea that he would be acting on. 

The McConnell plan is another example of DOA and would never pass either the House or Senate or get signed into law. In just the last week we've seen leaders from both the House and Senate offer debt ceiling plans that they know or should know have no shot in hell of passing and becoming law. Instead of working together to find a solution to the Federal Government's debt issue, which is one of their jobs to help solve problems that the Federal Government faces. And right now no one in Congress in leadership is earning their six figure salary for their part-time jobs. 

Democracy Now: Amy Goodman- Interviewing Naomi Klein: 'Anti-Union & The Budget Crisis, Bills & Shock Doctrine American Style'

Source:Democracy Now- author Naomi Klein, on Democracy Now talking about her book Shock Doctrine.

"As a wave of anti-union bills are introduced across the country in the wake of Wall Street financial crisis, many analysts are picking up on the theory that award-winning journalist and author Naomi Klein first argued in her 2007 best-selling book, "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism." In the book, she reveals how those in power use times of crisis to push through undemocratic and extreme free market economic policies. Democracy Now! interviews Naomi Klein to discuss how the shock doctrine is being used by politicians pushing drastic cuts and reforms as a response to the financial crisis.

"The Wisconsin protests are an incredible example of how to resist the shock doctrine," Klein says. 

For the video/audio podcast, transcript, to sign up for the daily news digest, and for more interviews with Naomi Klein, visit:Democracy Now." 

From Democracy Now

I'll admit, I'm not very familiar with Naomi Klein. But the few times I've heard her speak, I've disagreed on every point she's made, but found her interesting every time. Which is why I've listen to her multiple times. 

But apparently snow is falling in South Florida in July because I've found something that I agree with Naomi Klein on. Not that I've looked very hard which is why am I for worker rights. I believe this is a simple question and to be somewhat flip. Which I'll admit won't be my first time, I'll answer that with a question: imagine what America would be without workers rights, workers would literally be at the knees of management, whether its coming from the private or public sector. 

I'm not anti-management, far from it. I'm a big fan of American capitalism when it actually is American capitalism and not cowboy capitalism. But without workers rights, management could essentially do whatever they want to do to their workforce.

With no checks on management like in a corporatist state, the employees wouldn't have a way to appeal what management is doing, perhaps not even be able to complain to management about the working conditions. Without their own recourse to be able to leave their job. Which might not make any other sense, because they might need the exact job that they have. So that wouldn't be much of a choice for them. 

Labor unions are there to essentially fight for their members to give them the best benefits as possible. That is essentially their only job at all if you think about. Teacher unions the perfect example of this and they do this by keeping management in check so they don't go too far. 

It's actually in the self-interest of management to have the best pay and benefits as possible, to have the best workforce possible. So they work as hard as possible and are productive as possible to make the company or government as effective as possible. And in the private sectors case as profitable as possible.

But management doesn't always understand this and they look straight at their bottom line and look to cut costs as much as possible to save as much money as possible. Not realizing that they are actually hurting their company or agency in the long run. Because high-skill people won't want to work their because of the low pay and poor benefits. 

Another thing about labor unions and workers rights if we didn't have them, think about it: no weekend, no overtime pay, no Social Security, no Unemployment Insurance, no forty-hour workweek, no pensions, so safe working conditions. I mean you could go down the line. 

Labor Unions aren't perfect and of course they have their weakness's, but neither is management, but together when they are both doing their jobs and working together, they form a partnership for progress in America. "You give this and we'll give you that. You give up this and we'll give up that." Just because something is not working perfectly, doesn't mean you have to eliminate it. You can always try to reform as well which is another option.

Russia Today : The Alyona Show- Aloyna Minkovski: 'Massive CA Prison Hunger Strike'

Source:The Aloyna Show- Clyde Young, former California state prison inmate.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the Russian federal tax budget.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"This is the second week of a prisoner hunger strike taking place at Pelican Bay State in California that some fear may lead to deaths. The SHU in Pelican Bay Prison is one of the oldest and largest isolation units in the country, with over a thousand prisoners in isolation. Some of the prisoner demands include an end to long-term solitary confinement, and adequate and nutritious food. Clyde Young, a revolutionary communist and former prisoner discusses." 

From The Aloyna Show

On sort of a casual note: I'm glad to see these prison inmates showing some initiative and leadership and had they showed these skills when they were free in a constructive way, perhaps they wouldn't be in prison and had they behaved themselves when they got to prison, perhaps they wouldn't be in isolation today in prison. Prison isolation is for inmates that represent a threat to other inmates and prison staff, as well as gang leaders. Isolation is not for white-collar criminals who are in prison for credit card fraud.

If inmates in isolation behave themselves while they are in insolation, they can get out of it and return to general population and have more opportunities to make their prison sentences more constructive for them, the prisons, and society in general. With education and vocation so when they get out of prison, they can have skills to make themselves successfully legal in life. So they never have to come back to prison.

I'm a Liberal, but not an Anarchist, which is different so of course I'm concern with civil liberties and other liberties, but at the same time I'm also concern with public safety. Because without freedom and public safety we have neither. Because without public safety people don't have as much freedom to live their lives, because of the fear that their public safety and life are in danger. So when inmates who represent a threat to the prison as well as other inmates are sent to isolation. 

I don't have the attitude of throw them in jail, which is what isolation is in prison, another jail in prison essentially. And throw away the key and expect these inmates to learn their lesson the old fashion way with strict treatment. 

I believe these inmates should be treated with mental health experts to get their behavior and temper under control. As well as the ability to have recreation while in their isolation, reading and writing materials for example, more food, more time out of the cell lets say four hours a day. And let them spend that time with other isolation inmates. Perhaps even visits from family and other inmates thats monitored. So their friends and family can see how they are doing. Better beds and even music and TV, as long as they behave themselves while having all these privileges.

Isolation in prison yes should be to keep the dangerous inmates who represent a major threat to staff and other inmates away from general population. But isolation should be designed to make these inmates better and not worst and if it were designed this way. Isolation could become a form of prison rehabilitation for inmates, something as a society we've moved way too far away from.

The Stoner Jesus: 'We've Got To Stop Criminalizing People For Using Marijuana!'

 

Source:The Stoner Jesus- Some criminal defense attorney appearing on FOX Business, talking about marijuana decriminalization.

"We've Got To Stop Criminalizing People For Using Marijuana!"  

From The Stoner Jesus

I know I've been blogging a lot about marijuana lately the last year or so as well as the broader War on Drugs, but its been a slow news day and this is still very important issue and I'll do my best to not sound repetitive, but no promises. 

If a left-wing Democrat like Representative Barney Frank, who was the Bernie Sanders of the House before Bernie came around and a Libertarian Republican like Representative Ron Paul can agree that we should no longer criminalize the use and possession of marijuana, if they can agree on anything, then we should take their marijuana bill in the House seriously. (After we give that story to The Onion and the tabloids, because on one else will believe it) And at least take a look at it. Just for the fact that Representative Frank and Representative Paul actually agree on something and it may be the last time that they agree on anything, gives hope that poverty and starvation one day, a very long time from now can be cured. As well as world piece, perhaps the day after. 

But on a serious note: the Frank-Paul  bill doesn't legalize marijuana without any strings attached which would be irresponsible and they both know that. Their marijuana bill simply treats marijuana like alcohol, which does just as much or more damage to people in society and is just as addictive if not more. With regulation and taxation just like alcohol: 21 or over to smoke, posses or sale to use as examples. 

Right now marijuana users get off tax free and don't pay a dime for their marijuana use and have a major advantage over alcohol and tobacco users. Which again is unfair to alcohol and tobacco users and a lot of marijuana users end up using pot their entire adult lives without paying a dime in taxes. 

By the way, a lot of these marijuana users don't spend a day in jail or prison, which is good for them and society in general but thats a different post. To put in the case you weren't aware file: just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it goes away or isn't done. All you have to do to know this is to take a look at what the oldest profession in the world including America, where its currently illegal as well but thats another post as well. That profession is alive and well in America and the rest of the world. 

There's and attempt by me to not sound repetitive, but my broader appoint is that if people want to do something bad enough, they'll find a way to do it whether it's legal or not. Its just a matter at what price they as well as society pays for it. This is true with marijuana, gambling and yes prostitution and I can go down the line as well (but in the interest of time and keeping you awake I'll spare you, for now) so knowing this we would be better off financially and morally, to take that as fact and instead of prohibiting how adults live their own lives. 

Let's regulate how these activities are done instead, because since we know that these activities are done, we might as well make them as safe as possible because for the very fact that we know that they are going to be done, whether they are legal or illegal.

Russia Today: 'Tea Party Bagging Defense Spending?'

Source:Russa Today- U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) member of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the Russian federal tax budget.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"Following the November 2010 elections, several Tea Partiers went from hopeful candidates to US Senators and members of Congress. Most campaigned on a platform of cutting spending and reducing the national deficit. Now that they are in power though, will the Tea Party implement the economic austerity they promised and take on the "Sacred Cow" of US defense spending cuts? Are they serious about cutting entitlements and defense by the amounts needed for long term fiscal sanity? Of the Republicans' 47 Senators and 242 Congressional Representatives, only 5 percent (15 members) expressed support for cutting defense spending. So is it all just talk to win political points?" 

From Russia Today

What happened to the old Tea Party that was about limited government, getting the Federal Government off of our backs, that was anti-big government, anti-corporate welfare, anti-neoconservative?

The Tea Party was a movement back in 2009-10 when they came on the seen that didn't want to be associated with the Christian- Right and Neoconservatives, that was even anti-George Bush. That wasn't part of today's Republican Party thats dominated by the Christian-Right and Neoconservatives. That sort of looked like the Grand Ole Party of 20-30 years a real limited government party. 

I gotta admit that back in the summer of 2010, when I started blogging about the Tea Party movement, that I saw them as a faction of the Christian-Right with a very conservative fiscal message. As they moved along and went out-of-their-way to not be associated with social issues that moves the Christian-Right. That told me they had Conservative-Libertarians in it. That told me that they were a separate movement from the Christian-Right and were a real classical conservative movement that people had the right to live their own lives, as long as they weren't hurting anyone else with their freedom. And by in-large wasn't interested in social issues and looking to push some anti-gay or anti-porn ban. 

I'll tell you what happened with part of the Tea Party movement (in case anyone was wondering) they got in bed with the Christian-Right and combined both movements. 

Representative Michele Bachmann case in point: she's the Leader of the Christian Tea Party. This faction as I see it is different from the Tea Party or represents another movement on their own or has even replaced the Tea Party as a major political movement not only in the Republican Party, but in American politics as a whole. 

I'm sure there are still some Conservative-Libertarians left in the Tea Party movement but they are no longer in charged and won't have much of a say in who the Republican Party nominates for President in 2012. 

Anyone who believes that we can get our Federal deficit and debt under control without making overall cuts in defense spending, without making damaging cuts in entitlement programs and passing painful Ttx hikes on the middle class, as apparently these Republican Representatives believe can be done, doesn't understand the Federal budget and the debt and deficit issues it faces. 

Cathy Ferkleheimer: Countdown With Keith Olbermann- 'We Do Not Take Care Of One Another - Special Comment - 2011-07-11'

Source:Cathy Ferkleheimer- Countdown With Keith Olbermann, talking about the 10th anniversary of 9/11.

"We Do Not Take Care Of One Another - Special Comment - 2011-07-11" 

From Cathy Ferkleheimer

Just to critique Keith Olbermann's Special Comment: the American safety net is not America's greatest accomplishment. He's simply dead wrong there. (And thats the nicest way to put it) The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are our greatest accomplishments. The two documents that guarantee our freedoms. That I believe some Americans unfortunately take for granted, but perhaps thats a different piece.

I'll start this piece with a question: is the job of the safety net to take care of people? The last time I check the role of a safety net is to catch people who fall and then help them back up. The term safety net implies that, to catch people who have fallen and then help them back up and to not leave them on the ground. 

The job of government is not to take care of people who are mentally able and physically able bodied. In America if you're physically and mentally capable of working, then you are expected to. That the whole reason why we have limits on Unemployment Insurance and now for about fifteen years Welfare Insurance has time limits as well, people on Unemployment and Welfare are expected to go back to work, earn a living and be self-sufficient.

People who end up using public assistance are not expected to live off of taxpayers indefinitely and that government can help people go back to work and help them find jobs and give them assistance to go to school or go back to school to get a good job and not have to live off of taxpayers indefinitely. 

So when Keith Olbermann implies that the safety net's job is to take care of people, he's essentially implying that the people who benefit from these safety net programs no longer have the freedom and responsibility to take care of themselves. Because government will do that for them.

The job of the safety net is to catch people who fall and then help them get back up on their own two feet. Yes, with temporary financial assistance, but more importantly down the the road empower people who need these social insurance programs. And I'm not talking about Social Security and Medicare programs that people have paid into their whole lives, but the anti-poverty programs, with education and job placement. 

The best anti-poverty programs are a good education and a good job. Because then low-income people will become self-sufficient and be able to take care of themselves.

Government's job is to protect and defend its people, not take care of them indefinitely. And when people fall through the cracks, catch them with the safety net (so to speak) but then help them back up with a good education and a good job. So they can stand on their own two feet and take care of themselves.

American Film Institute: 'Michael Moore- Talks About Socialism'

Source:American Film Institute- Successful, wealthy filmmaker Michael Moore, talking about socialism.

"Michael Moore talks about socialism while speaking after a screening of his film CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY at the AFI Silver Theatre in Silver Spring, MD." 

From The American Film Institute

I find it ironic that someone who speaks out against American capitalism and perhaps capitalism in general (which is what filmmaker/comedian Michael Moore does) a man who I have lets limited respect for, speaks out against an economic system that works so well for him. Michael Moore speaking out against capitalism, would be like Michale Jordan speaking out against the National Basketball Association, a league that has done so well for him and with him: you're going after your own bread and butter, meat and potatoes (Of what have you) 

Mr. Moore is not a government filmmaker or a government or a government comedian or a government actor, he's a private citizen who's had all of his professional success in life in the private sector. And yet he claims to be either a Socialist and if America were to give up on capitalism and move to a Marxist-Socialist economy, Mr, Moore then would become a state propagandist. 

Mr. Moore would no longer be a private filmmaker (in a Marxist-Socialist system) working for himself, he would be working for the Federal Government. He's not a dumb guy and rather intelligent actually but a lot of his facts are just wrong. Like when he says that America should move our economy towards France, because their services are all free, like health care, health insurance, education, transportation, pension, etc. He's simply dead wrong: none of those services are free, because the French either pay for them in taxes from the Federal Government there, or pay for them in fees in the private sector. 

Apparently Michael Moore never saw or read Milton Friedman's lecture about there's no such thing as a free lunch: we all pay for what we get or somebody pays for it for us. Mr. Moore is also wrong about the French health insurance and their health care system in general. They don't have a single-payer health care system that he would like to see in America. They have a public-private health care system that includes both their health care and health insurance. 

I don't believe Mr. Moore is a Marxist-Socialist for selfish reasons: I don't believe he would want the Federal Government being able to censor his movies. (For example) Can't blame him for that. I see Michael Moore as a Democratic Socialist, someone who believes that government especially the Federal Government should play a big role in providing services for people in society: health care, health insurance, education, pension, transportation, housing ,etc. Meaning the welfare state, because he believes yes, it's the right thing to do, but also so he can continue to make his own private movies.