Russia Today: The Alyona Show- Alyona Minkovski: 'How To Pay For Irene'

Source:Russia Today- Alyona Minkovski, talking about Hurricane Irene, courtesy of President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today Network.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[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.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an "autonomous non-profit organization", founded by the Russian news agency, RIA Novosti, on 6 April 2005.[3][8] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO "TV-Novosti" on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia." 

From Wikipedia 

"We have seen a lot of brave stand-ups from the mainstream media during hurricane and now it's on to cover the costs of the damages. But we'll take a look at Eric Cantor discussing the savings. And Alyona will break down areas of bloated government spending, where some of these funds could go to relief." 

From The Alyona Show

I have a wild idea: instead of waiting for natural disasters to occur every year, which are as predictable as having to pay your taxes in April every year orr snow in Minnesota or heat eaves in Texas, hurricanes in the Southeast and then borrowing the money from China or Russia to pay for the disaster relief, let's pay for these things up front. And yes, that actually means putting money down. 

I'm about to use an evil term in America: tax increases, plural because not just one but two tax increases even in this rotten economy. And I would be fine with cutting taxes and spending somewhere else to make up the difference. 

All rational people in America (as few as that may be) know there's plenty of waste in the Federal Government to make up the difference. And I'm not advocating for a middle class tax increase, at least not a plus-tax increase, but revenue-neutral. And anyone who reads my blog, knows that I'm not a Socialist. I would actually be an insult to Socialists and socialism. And so this is not why I'm advocating for two tax increases to pay for disaster relief, not just for Hurricane Irene but all natural disasters in the future. 

I'm doing this because I believe in fiscal responsibility and I know what that term means as well: paying for what you do and only doing what you need to do and can afford. And if you can't afford to pay for what you need, you go get the revenue somewhere else. Thats what fiscal responsibility is and disaster relief is clearly something we need. 

We can't as a country let our people suffer, especially for no fault of their own, that would just be immoral. Government clearly has a role but limited here in addressing the suffering and damage of disasters like this, Hurricane Irene was actually pretty mild compared with its potential. 

I live in Maryland in the Washington Area and all we got out of it, was some rain and wind on Saturday. And I didn't even lose power except for thirty seconds. Then it was back to warm humid and sunny which is normal for this area on Sunday. I believe in fiscal responsibility so much that I don't even believe government should borrow money to pay for disaster relief or wars. 

If we get a disaster or get attacked, of course we should respond, but we should pay for it and actually put the money down up front, so it's there exactly when we need it. Instead of cutting something or raising taxes later on. This is what I'm for in dealing with disaster relief, set up a national emergency management system to replace FEMA, as well as whatever disaster insurance programs, Flood Insurance being an example of that. 

This Natural Emergency Management System (or NEMS) would be a cooperative between Federal, state and local government's, as well as the private sector. The Federal Government would just regulate this system, not manage it. The states and locals would manage it, the part of it thats in their jurisdiction. So when they get hit by a disaster, they would then have the resources at their disposal to respond to it, instead of coming to the Administration or Congress for the money. And then they would contract out to let's say non-profit community services to do the work of the disaster cleanup that they would also regulate. 

I would pay for this with like I said two tax increases and then like I said I would cut taxes and spending somewhere else so this is deficit-neutral. It would probably actually save the Federal Government money in the future, because they would have one less agency that they would have to administer. 

These two tax increases would be a property taxes on all homes and places of employment to fund the disaster cleanup, that anyone who owns or rents these property's would pay into. And they would pay the tax based on how much the property is worth and much they are at risk to disaster. 

And then a payroll tax to cover disaster insurance that people and organizations would be able to decide for themselves from who they pay for their disaster insurance with a non-profit public option thats run independent of government being in each state as well. Again that tax would be assigned based on worth and risk. 

We are past the days hopefully for good that we can afford borrow and spend economics. The Bush Administration left office two in a half years ago. And it's been time we put that fiscal policy to bed and never wake it up again. We have an economy of over 14T$ and can more than afford to pay for things like disaster relief without borrowing the money to do it. 

Sony Pictures Classics: 'Inside Job- Official Trailer (2010)'

Source:Sony Pictures Classic- from the trailer of Inside Job.

"From Academy Award® nominated filmmaker, Charles Ferguson ("No End In Sight"), comes INSIDE JOB, the first film to expose the shocking truth behind the economic crisis of 2008. The global financial meltdown, at a cost of over $20 trillion, resulted in millions of people losing their homes and jobs. Through extensive research and interviews with major financial insiders, politicians and journalists, INSIDE JOB traces the rise of a rogue industry and unveils the corrosive relationships which have corrupted politics, regulation and academia. Narrated by Academy Award® winner Matt Damon, INSIDE JOB was made on location in the United States, Iceland, England, France, Singapore, and China." 

From Sony Pictures Classics

The best way to sum up the American economy the last ten years, can be done in two words: Cowboy Economics. What that is (in case you were wondering) is an economic system with essentially no rules, or where the rules that are necessary like anti-monopoly laws aren't enforced, where people can make as much money as they can essentially get away with, no matter how much people screw innocent people out of their money. With rotten investments that plummet and then resign with huge bailout check from either the company or from taxpayers. 

I'm speaking of the Enron scandal of 2001-02 and the of course the Wall Street scandal of 2008 that led into the Great Recession. Cowboy economics along with supply side (that I call borrow and spend economics) were the economic policy's of the George W. Bush Administration. That to a certain extent the Obama Administration has continued on both fronts in their first two going on three years. So there's no wonder why three years later we are still trying to recover from the Great Recession. 

There's also no wonder to why we have a national debt and deficit of 14T$ and 1.8T$ respectfully. Because we haven't regulated the people with a lot of the money and the Federal Government hasn't been paying its bills going back to 2001. And as a result as a country we are paying a heavy price for it that we are still trying to as a nation, figure out how to get out of it. 

Look, I'm a Liberal Democrat and I believe in American capitalism and our private enterprise system and people being able to go out and make as much money as they can earn without any limits on how much money they can make, after taxes, of course, as long as they do it as individuals. Which separates me from Socialists who believe in collectivism, that no one should have a lot more money than others. But just as long as they earn that money and that they don't screw others out of making a living and that they have unlimited, free and fair competition and that there's a referee. Meaning government to step in when others hurt people by screwing them, which is what separates me from Libertarians. 

Socialists (Democratic as well as Marxist) put too much faith in government. Libertarians on the other hand put too much faith in markets and private enterprise. So what we need instead is to have private enterprise, the ability for company's and individuals to go out there and make as much money as their production will allow them to earn. To earn, not to take, earning the money you make, not screwing others out of making a living on their own. And walking away with a huge payoff for your work, big difference. 

Private enterprise is the ability for individuals and business's to go out and makes as much money as they can earn. So long as they have free and fair open competition as well as anti-monopoly laws. And where government is there to not try to protect people from themselves, but to protect innocent people from the harm of others. 

The problem with America is not American capitalism our private enterprise system. The problem with America is that we've gotten away from it. And moved to a system of cowboy economics and corporate socialism where we subsidize company's just for making a profit. And then bail them out when they fail. The whole notion of "Too Big To Fail" is the whole problem right there. The point being they should've never been "Too Big To Fail" in the first place. 

Russia Today: Pepe Escobar- 'Bye-Bye Gaddafi, welcome Al-Qaeda?'

Source:Russia Today- welcome to Libya.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[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 

"While Tripoli is celebrating the end of a dictatorship, analysts are skeptical democracy is next in line for Libya. Journalist Pepe Escobar told RT, Al-Qaeda is already effectively in power in the capital. 

RT on:Twitter. RT on:Facebook."  

From Russia Today

Knocking the Gaddafi Regime out-of-power in Libya is great, but Libya still needs a national government. as well as provincial and local government's to govern this very large country, as well as defend it from foreign invaders and Gaddafi fighters. 

Stabilizing Libya will be the main issue that the Libyan Transitional National Council, essentially Libya's interim national government will have to manage as they work to form a long term government both from an interim basis and then once the Libyan people writes a national constitution and forms its own form of government. Hopefully a democratic, responsible, constitutional government to govern the country thats respectful of human rights. 

But of course the TNC is only made up of, I don't maybe 50K people and a lot of their members are the Libyan rebels themselves that successfully fought to knock Moammar Gaddafi and his regime out-of- power. The Gaddafi military was 100K people that the new Libyan Government is going to have to rebuild and have a military that size or bigger. 

The entire Gaddafi Regime was maybe 500K people, so the TNC has a lot of work ahead of it without the manpower to do it on their own. And to be able to govern the country in the short-term and then later long- term, they are going to need international help to accomplish this. 

Where the Arab League especially Egypt can play a big role, with security and then later forming a long- term government in Libya. And this is where NATO and the European Union, United Nations, perhaps even the African Union and to a smaller extent the United States can step in and play a positive role. 

The number one thing that Libya needs and this of course is coming from a Western outsider, is security and stability. One of the biggest mistakes that happened in Iraq during the Iraq War, was that they moved to national elections and forming the new government and constitution before security and stability were established in this big country of 25M people at the time. 

The United States didn't have enough forces to secure Iraq and they moved to eliminate the Hussein Regime and its armed forces and security forces, without having anything to replace it. Which left Iraq wide-open for attacks both domestic and foreign and became a country that didn't have any Al-Qaeda members pre-2003 Iraq War, to a country with perhaps the largest Al-Qaeda membership during that Iraq War. 

Iraq has all of the different ethnic and tribal groups as well as religious groups that hated the Hussein Regime, that wanted their revenge against them. So what Libya is going to need is security as well as respect for human rights and to move past the Gaddafi Regime and stability as they work to write a national constitution and form a more lasting national government that can govern and secure Libya in a responsible way that the Libyan people and international community can respect. 

Thom Hartmann: Will Bunch- 'The Decline Started With Ronald Reagan'

Source:Thom Hartmann- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) 40th President of the United States.

"Thom Hartmann and Will Bunch, Senior Fellow-Media Matters / columnist-Philadelphia Daily News / author-Tear Down This Myth: How the Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future (His latest book is  The Backlash: Right-Wing Radicals, High-Def Hucksters, and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama"), discuss Ronald Reagan, and the myth of his legacy

If you liked this clip of The Thom Hartmann Program, please do us a big favor and share it with your friends... and hit that "like" button!" 

From Thom Hartmann

If you want to look at the decline of the American economy, it actually goes back to the late 1960s with the Vietnam War and the Great Society entitlement programs, where Federal Government spending went up way more then our Federal Government has traditionally spent. 

Pre-1970 it wasn't uncommon for the Federal Government to balance its budget but starting in 1969-70, balancing the Federal budget became uncommon. Because of all of the money that we were spending at home and oversees. 

The 1970s was probably the worst decade we had economically pre-Great Recession and it came after the 1960s which was one of our best decades economically. President Nixon inherited a slowing economy and the Nixon Administration didn't do much to help with expanding the Vietnam War, price controls and the energy freeze. The Ford Administration which inherited a recession with high unemployment and inflation. As well as an energy freeze but at least they tried to address these issues without much success. 

The Carter Administration inherited a bad economy as well in 1977 again with high unemployment, which of course got worse in 1978 with another recession in 1980, with high unemployment, high inflation, high interest rates. As much as you want to criticize Ron Reagan as President and I criticize him a lot for his supply side economic policy, not paying for his tax cuts or government expansion, the American economy did dramatically improve under President Reagan's watch in the 1980s. 

The economy approved in the 1980s: we went from low economic growth to high economic growth by 1984. From 10% unemployment to 7% by 1984 and 5% by 1989 when he left office with low inflation and interest rates. 

The Reagan Administration inherited a bad economy and left office with a good economy, but left office with the highest national debt and deficit in American history, due to President Reagan's supply side economic policy. The tax cuts and defense spending would've been fine fiscally, had he paid for them. 

So-called Progressives in America (like the Thom Hartmann's of the world) who are actually Democratic Socialists in America, like to blame Ron Reagan more then even George W. Bush for today's Great Recession and perhaps every other problem were facing as a country. And not grant President Reagan the fact that he inherited a horrible economy that had just come out of recession. Like the third one of the 1970s and about to go into another one in 1982, because he cut taxes from 70% to I believe 36-39% somewhere in there. 

And of course the Far-Left in America (Socialists and Communists) have this overall economic view that the main problems with our economy is that Americans including the middle class, don't pay enough in taxes and the Federal Government doesn't do enough. Our problems have to do with fact that we don't have 50-60% tax rates like in Britain and Sweden. And our Federal Government doesn't spend enough, that our private sector is too large and that our public sector isn't big enough. Where its spending around 50-60% of our GDP like in Europe. 

But we tried a similar approach with a 70% Tax Rate from the mid 1960s to 1981 and our economy didn't do very well in that period. Plus with the Vietnam War and the explosion in entitlement spending, Ronald Reagan has become for Socialists what FDR is for Conservatives and Libertarians: their favorite whipping boy. 

Thom Hartmann: 'The Republican Plan to End Social Security?'

Source:Russia Today- is Thom Hartmann talking about Social Security or President Lyndon B. Johnson)

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[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 

"How Republicans are cleverly turning social security into a soon to be phased out welfare program!" 

From Russia Today

Why should millionaire and billionaires be collecting from Social Security, people who've done very well for themselves and can finance their own retirement? How can we call a pension insurance program (Social Security is, not a pension program) when we don't let everyone who pays into it, collect from it?

Social Security. when it only pays out for the people who actually need it, about 66% of the Federal poverty Rate (around 14K$ a year) save taxpayers money and keeps poverty down.

What we need to tell people and empower those who do need it, is that they need to plan and finance their own retirements. And the Social Security will still be there, especially for people who actually need it.

These two reforms alone would save both Social Security and Medicare and be a big help in the U.S. Government getting its debt and deficit under control and we can stop borrowing from countries that don't like us to fund our governmental operations. Including things like Unemployment Insurance that we've been doing in the Great Recession and Grocery Assistance.But these are just a few reforms that I would like to see in Social Security and our broader safety net. 

I would actually like to end our safety net by phasing it out, but replacing it with something better, so no one who depends on these programs in order to survive gets hurt by my reforms but is actually helped by them. 

I mentioned this several times already in a few other posts, but I would do this by first reforming the financing of them, as I've already mentioned. But them taking them off of the Federal and state budgets and turning them into independent, semi-private, non-profit, community services, all of them. The ones that already have their own revenue source would keep it but be reformed. Like Unemployment Insurance, Social Security, Medicare. (To use as examples) 

The social insurance programs that don't have their own revenue sources, would get one. Like Welfare Insurance, Medicaid, Agriculture Insurance (to use as examples) and then they would all help the people who are eligible for them. Unemployment and Welfare Insurance would help the people who are on them get by but also put them to work so they can support themselves. (To use as examples)

I believe there's a faction of the country, people who I would call the Socialist-Left in America (like Thom Hartmann, for instance) believes that all social insurance programs should almost never if ever be reformed, because then they would have to admit that there's something wrong with them. That there are areas in the safety net that are actually not perfect and could work better than they already are. Except to give them more money and this is a big reason why they are so hard to reform.

The Real News: Paul Jay- 'Should Banks be a Public Utility?'

Source:The Real News- interviewing Yves Smith.

"Yves Smith: Finance sector controls the regulatory process - there needs to be a publicly controlled alternative to the private banking system." 

From The Real News

As a Liberal who has no interest in making the Federal Government any bigger than they are and actually wants to make it smaller both the budget and workforce to make it smaller and more efficient. But with the irresponsible behavior of our private banking system and the fact they can bring down our economy like in 2008 with their irresponsible behavior and how large they are and important they are to our economy, they literally have a part of our entire economy. Ao we have to have a healthy banking system that the banks and consumers benefit from in order for us to have a health economy and we don't have either right now. 

I'm someone who believes in competition, not monopoly whether it's a private monopoly or a public monopoly. To me monopolies look like what Microsoft used to look like before it was broken up. Or what a state DMV looks like today and to a certain extent our public education system in America. If a large organization (again, private or public) doesn't have enough competition, it's going to perform and be efficient as it should be because it doesn't have the financial incentive in order to succeed. 

One of the reasons why I'm not in favor of single payer health insurance where the Federal Government controls our entire health insurance system like with Medicare or a single payer pension where the Federal Government controls our entire pension system like with Social Security, large organizations or any organizations need competition in order to succeed, or they get complacent and greedy thinking: "Why do we need to improve our service or even perform a good service, our customers don't have any other choices to turn to." 

Our public education system is an excellent example of a public monopoly where most of our students are stuck going to certain schools based on where they live and not what's the best school for them. 

I'm not in favor of having the Federal Government taking over the banking system in America or even allowing our states to do so either. But what I am in favor of is leaving our current private banking system private and even for-profit (if they choose to stay that way) but regulating it better so they are no longer "Too Big to Fail". As well as providing the private banking system with more competition, similar with my position on health care reform, with a public option in the banking system, but not a new Federal Bank but what I would do is set up a new Federal banking system. 

With a public banking system we could allow all fifty states, plus the territories to open up their own public banks that would all be operated independently of the Federal and state government's. That would be regulated by them and be non-profit as well and then let the consumers decide for themselves what bank they want to use: stick with their current private bank, pick another private bank, or choose a public bank. And let the market the people decide for themselves and give them the freedom of choice to decide who they do their banking with. 

The market is a beautiful thing when you let it operate properly. Community banking is a great idea to provide more competition not less in the banking system. Just as long as you don't end one monopoly by creating another and having less choice in the market. And giving people less freedom of choice in where they do their banking, but have maximum freedom of choice instead.  

On a personal note: this is my 100th post for The FreeState MD. 

The Real News: Paul Jay- Gilbert Achcar: 'Boots on the Ground" in Libya?'

Source:The Real News- Libyan boots on the ground?

"Gilbert Achcar: NATO wants an "Egypt solution", but to achieve it, they may try to put international UN troops in Libya." 

From The Real News

I'll put this as simply as I can: no American troops on the ground in Libya! We have way too many problems as it is and are already over committed around the world and need to start bringing troops home from around the world. And not just in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Korea, all developed nations that are more than capable of defending themselves and have the financial resources to do so. Which is a big reason why we have a 14T$ national debt because of all the money we've borrowed over the years to defend these developed nations. 

Libya is probably going to need foreign troops now and into the future to help the Transitional National Council, but thats going to have to come from other sources. The Arab League being a great start, as well as perhaps the African Union. If Libya could handle having African (not Arab troops in their country) as well as the European Union, with the NATO No Fly Zone already being popular there. As well as perhaps a United Nations force and allow other foreign troops to go along with this. With the approval of Libya of course. 

It's the Libyan People's nation now especially with Moammar Gadhafi out of power. Libya physically is a very large country, about the size of Algeria which is just next door. Saudi Arabia and Iran and the Gadhafi Regime had a military of 100,000 troops even in a country of 6M people. And a fairly well developed military as well that was professional and even had weapons of mass destruction. 

Libya is going to need foreign troops there in the short-term to defend the nation and to try to prevent civil war. And to prevent foreign terrorists from invading the nation to try to take it over. They are also going to need foreign troops to help rebuild the Libyan military and retrain them, because they'll probably need a military of around 100,000 troops in the future as well because of its physical size, it's neighborhood and especially if the new government in Libya ever develops the nation and its population expands. Which could definitely happen. Iran similar size physically to Libya was a country of 20M people in 1979. Less than twenty years later they had a population of 75M people. 

The United Nations, European Union, Arab League, African Union should all step into Libya with troops (with Libya's approval) to help defend that nation in the short-term as Libya builds its new government and why these people are helping to rebuild the Libyan military so they can leave Libya and Libya can once again defend itself, while the United States can help with resources, like weapons, planes, etc, as well as foreign aide, so Libya can build up its country. 

America is already over committed as a military and its time we bring our troops home because we are already over committed. And rebuild our own country instead as Libya builds its own country and their new form of government. 

Vila Web: Naomi Klein- 'On Democracy vs Neoliberalism'

Source:Vila Web- Left-Wing author Naomi Klein, talking about neoliberalism (which is really liberal democracy) I believe in 2011.

"Naomi Klein on democracy and neoliberalism." Originally from Vila Web, but the video has since been deleted or blocked.

In 1989 or so a new Center-Left movement emerged in the Democratic Party. People who are called New Democrats who are Liberal and Progressive Democrats, who wanted to take the Democratic Party back from the social-democratic New-Left McGovernites who emerged in the party in the late 1960s and early 1970s.  Who saw the Democratic Party just loose three-straight presidential elections for the first time in like sixty years. 

There were a group of Progressive Democrats (the real Progressives) who were somewhat moderate, led by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Gary Hart, Dick Gephardt to a certain extent, Bob Kerry, Joe Lieberman, etc. Who in the 1990s would get dubbed as New Democrats. Who saw their party get hammered in election after election and decided it's time they fought back. They concluded that the Democratic Party was still a viable party, but that it started to move out of the political mainstream of American politics.

The Democrats became unelectable as a party on the national level, because they were seen as tax and spenders, soft on crime, soft on defense, soft on welfare, soft on corruption, etc. You can go down the line perhaps you've heard these terms before. And decided to put organizations together to promote their new way of thinking and their policy's and recruit political candidates who think like they do. 

Organizations like the Progressive Policy Institute that's still in business (notice that word progressive) that's still business today thats not a social democratic institute (as that name might indicate) but a Center-Left institute. As well as the New Democrat Coalition and they wanted to promote a new way of thinking to deal with the issues that the country was facing. And then recruit the political candidates to run on these policy's and try to put them in place once they are elected. That wasn't government-centered and focusing on creating new Federal social insurance programs. But that was people centered focusing on empowering people to handle their own problems. The 1996 Welfare to Work Law is a perfect example of this.

Center-Left Democrats (the real Progressives)  wanted to promote a new agenda that wasn't government- centered, but still hold true to the progressive values of the Democratic Party. Using government to help people in need help themselves and move past the days of indefinite public assistance and empower people in need to get themselves on their feet. 

Welfare to Work wasn't the New Democrats (the real Progressives) only objective. Things like fiscal responsibility and government living within its means, the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act being a perfect example of this, that had a lot of budget cuts in it as well as tax hikes on the wealthy. Getting rid of the soft on crime image that killed the Democratic Party in 1968, 72, 80, 84, 88 by getting tough, but smart on crime, by having violent offenders serve out their sentences and serving long sentences for serious crimes. But also measures to prevent crime and addressing at risk youth with after school programs so they could be constructive after school. 

The New Democrats (the real Progressives)  well as free but smart trade so we can sell our products oversees at low tariff rates: NAFTA and GAT in 1993. And national security, so we can still be strong, but be intelligent in how we send our troops. And not send them everywhere.

The Democratic Socialist-Left in the Democratic Party saw this movement and saw New Democrats take over the Democratic Party and saw their power and influence diminish. Because New Democrats were getting elected governor and to the Senate and not Democratic Socialists. Where most of them are still in the House representing House districts and not being able to get elected statewide (for the most part) and especially not nationally. 

The last Democratic Socialist that won the Democratic nomination for President, was Senator George McGovern back in 1972. How the Democratic Party has changed and for the better for my perspective as a Democrat. So what Democratic Socialists like Naomi Klein and others, when they are critiquing neoliberalism, they are talking about New Democrats who are not socialist enough for their point of view.

Jan Shakowsky: 'Announces Bill to Create 2.2 Million Jobs'

Source:U.S. Representative Jan Shakowsky (Democrat, Illinois) talking about her jobs plan.

"Representative Jan Schakowsky talks about her new Jobs Bill which will hire two million Americans to address our jobs crisis." 

From Jan Shakowski 

The so-called House Progressive Caucus (Democratic Socialists of America, in actuality) developed a similar plan back in the April during the official House debate on the budget. That got around forty votes in a 435 Member House, which should give you a pretty good idea of how many people voted against it. Not all of the forty-five members or so of the so-called Progressive Caucus in the House voted for it, they weren't even united behind their own plan. 

The CPC plan back in April also had a tax hike of over 1T$ in it including on the middle class when they can least afford it in this bad economy. Where they are struggling just to pay their current bills, so a new tax bill doesn't make that any easier. 

I'll give Representative Jan Shakowski credit for not putting in a middle class tax hike in her latest plan. But her jobs plan is essentially centered around creating new Federal Government jobs, creating all of these new Federal agencies to go out and hire all of these new people to do these public works. And have very little if anything to create jobs in the private sector thats hurting right now, people who actually have to meet payrolls and live within budgets or risk going out of business. 

The private sector is not like the Federal Government that controls the national currency and can just borrow and spend to pay for its operations, because they can print money. Had Representative Schakowski's (great name by the way especially for someone from Chicago, but thats a different story) had her plan been centered around fixing and expanding infrastructure in America, then I would have a lot more respect for it. 

And then we also need tax cuts to encourage consumer spending which is where the real weakness in our economy economic growth (or the lack of it) because not enough people in America are spending enough money for us to have enough economic growth to create enough jobs to bring down our unemployment rate. 

The debt and deficit are big issues in the economy today as well because they relate to the weakness of our dollar with all the money we owe other nations, but without a strong economy, we'll never be able to bring down our debt and deficit to the point where we can manage it in a healthy way.

A solid economic plan to me is in the neighborhood of around 1-2T$ over five years thats centered around infrastructure, like a National Infrastructure Bank that I've mentioned and pushed before that I'll being doing again in the future. That repairs and builds roads, bridges, airports, waterways, schools, etc. With kids going back to school in the next few weeks, now would be a perfect time to spend 50B$ or so right now on fixing and building new schools.

A NIB could finance all of these projects through the private sector and then hire private companies to do the work and then they would hire the workers to do the work. As well as focusing on our consumer spending (or the lack of it) with tax cuts for the middle class to do that, like a payroll tax cut or a consumer tax credit, a tax credit that people would have to spend automatically and make it big enough to make a difference. 

And then passing the Central America, Columbia and Korea trade deals that are stuck in Congress, so we can start exporting again. But then pay for this entire plan and not put it on the national debt card.

What we need right now as a country more than anything else and we need a lot, is job growth where we are creating around 200K jobs a month again. And the only way to do this is through economic growth of around 4-5%. And to do this we need start building and exporting things again. And as people we need to start spending money again, not expanding the Federal Government.

Russia Today: Kristine Frazao- 'Presidential hopeful Gary Johnson: Eliminate the IRS'

Source:Russia Today- Governor Gary Johnson (Republican, New Mexico) 2012 presidential candidate, talking to President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[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 

"Lately the GOP presidential hopefuls have put on a media circus. And the US' economic issues have been a hot topic for debate. Many of the candidates have expressed their solutions on how to get America out of the economic rut and Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico, shares with Kristine Frazao what he'll do as president of the US." 

From Russia Today

I love Gary Johnson's idea of cutting the Federal Government by 43% not because I'm a (pardon the term) a cheap bastard (not that I'm denying that) who wants to throw poor people on the street and senior citizens out of senior citizen homes, but to reform our Federal Government in a way to make it as effective as possible, which by itself would bring the costs of the Federal Government down, because they wouldn't be doing as much. And the safety net is a great place to start when it comes to government reform. 

But we also need to cut back our defense Budget not to make us weaker but so we have less responsibility and demand that these developed nations play the lead role in their own national security. As well as agriculture welfare and corporate welfare: we shouldn't be subsidizing at taxpayer expense company's and individuals for doing well. But tax them at a rate that encourages them to do well in the future, big difference. 

What I would like to do is reform our Federal Government in a way that it's doing much less in the future without hurting anyone who depends on these public services in the future. But do it in a way that makes these public services more cost-effective as well as more efficient in the future. But having others play a bigger role in providing these public services and bring down the costs of them in the future. Which keeps taxes down on everyone in the future and makes these public services more beneficial for everyone who depends on them now and into the future. 

And then reforming our tax code in the short-term and long-term. In the short-term to help bring down our debt and deficit and in the long-term after the Federal Government is reformed, to provide the necessary tax revenue to fund the new and improved (pardon the expression) Federal Government. A tax system that based on consumption and paying for the public services that people consume, rather than taxing people by what they make which discourages making and investing money. 

When it comes to government reform, to start with defense cut the defense budget by 200B$ a year which might sound real high, but in a defense budget of 700B$, is very doable, do this by ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and have NATO and the Arab League play a bigger role in developing these nations. I was for the no fly zone in Libya from the beginning, but with President Obama's latest position on the War Powers Act, where he essentially believes he doesn't need approval from anyone to commit American troops, it's time for us to bring those folks home. (Assuming Congress doesn't get off their cans and do their jobs)

And with out other troops oversees, bring them home and demand that these developed nations play a bigger role in their own nationals security:  Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea, and transform NATO into the European Defense Alliance (or something) that would work with us, Canada, Scandinavia, the Slavic republics, Turkey in partnership, but that where Europe defends Europe not America And everyone else defends themselves. 

And then get the safety net off of the Federal and state Budgets all together and convert them into semi- private, non-profit community services for the less-fortunate. They would all be self-financed and run independently and regulated to the extent that they would have to serve anyone eligible who applies. 

As far as tax reform, I would eliminate all tax loopholes including corporate welfare in the short-term and then lower tax rates, to help bring down the debt and deficit but in the long term. 

I would throw out the tax code and replace it with a combination of payroll taxes and consumption taxes. A payroll tax to fund the new Defense Department and then force the Defense Department to live within the National Security Tax and not be able to collect from other revenue. Thats one example. 

Tax reform really should be another post, but another example would be a border fee to enter or exit America to fund the Border Patrol. And then consumption taxes that would cover everything with low- income people still being able to receive the Earned Income Tax Credit. And make it progressive as well, more expensive goods would be taxed higher the cheaper goods. Luxury Cars taxed higher than grocery's. (To use as an example)

The idea of tax reform is great if its done correctly and doesn't result in a net tax increase especially in this bad economy. But tax reform doesn't make much sense without government reform to make the Federal Government as cost-effective and as efficient as possible. And then you can figure out how much revenue you need to fund the new government. 

FORA-TV: Brian Doherty- 'Conservatism vs Libertarianism (2007)'

Source:FORA-TV- Reason Magazine's Senior Editor Brian Doherty, in Berkeley, California, talking about his book about conservatism and libertarianism.

"Reason Magazine Senior Editor Brian Doherty discusses the differences between libertarianism and traditional conservative ideologies. 

Brian Doherty considers "Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement."

This illuminating, lively history of a political movement on the rise - told through the life stories of its standard bearers - casts new light on the intellectual and political history of post-WWII America. Doherty traces the evolution of libertarianism through the unconventional stories of Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Milton Friedman, and their personal battles, character flaws, love affairs, and historical events that altered its course. In so doing, he provides a fascinating new perspective on American history, from the New Deal through the culture wars of the 1060s to today's divisiveness.

In February, the Wall Street Journal noted, "With 'Radicals for Capitalism', Brian Doherty finally gives libertarianism its due...Mr. Doherty has rescued libertarianism from its own obscurity, eloquently capturing the appeal of the 'pure idea', its origins in great minds and the feistiness of its many current champions." - Cody's Books

Brian Doherty is a senior editor of Reason, the libertarian monthly named one of "The 50 Best Magazines" three out of the past four years by the Chicago Tribune. Established in 1968 and a four-time finalist for National Magazine Awards, Reason has a print circulation of 40,000 and won the 2005 Western Publications Association "MAGGIE" Award for best political magazine." 

From FORA-TV

When I look at political ideology's as a political junky and as a blogger, as a Liberal myself, I have more respect for the political ideology's that respect individual freedom and the U.S. Constitution. And I'm not just talking about economic freedom but personal freedom as well, the ability not just for people to make their own economic choices in life. But also how they live their own lives as a whole, who they can marry, what they can do with their money, what they can do to their bodies, make their own health care choices, etc. And that brings me to liberalism, obviously. 

In this post I'm going to focus on the differences between classical conservatism, the Barry Goldwater's, Ron Reagan's, Bill Buckley's, and libertarianism, the Ron Paul's, Peter Schiff's of the world. Libertarianism and classical conservatism also being political ideology's based on individual freedom and the U.S. Constitution where they both believe which is were Americans get their freedom from. And that people essentially have the right to be stupid and let birds fly to chart their own course in life. And that they shouldn't get bailed out for their bad decisions either. 

I got this idea for this post from a friend of mine on Facebook and they know who they are and I'm dedicating this post to that person. 

First, what do Classical Conservatives the Rand Paul's of the world today have in common with Libertarians, the Peter Schiff's of the world today? Respect for the U.S. Constitution and individual freedom, the idea that our Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals) who were made up of Conservatives and Liberals when they wrote the U.S. Constitution pretty much got most of it right when they wrote it. 

Our Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals) wrote one hell of a document and that constitutional amendments that have been written since improved the Constitution. But that it's a great document for anyone who believes in liberal democracy and that (excuse the expression) that we shouldn't dick around with it and try to limit people's freedom. Like constitutional amendments to ban homosexuals from getting married or taking the power away from the people to decide who we can for vote for to represent us in Congress. 

Or big government law laws that are unconstitutional like the Patriot Act that violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (as far as I'm concern) that what the Federal Government can do is already laid out for them in the U.S. Constitution and that Congress can't pass any law that they want even if it might be popular, if it violates the U.S. Constitution, which is what separates Classical Conservatives and Libertarians from Democratic Socialists. 

Socialists who I believe see the U.S. Constitution as more of an advisory document than anything else and have a collectivist approach to politics rather than an individualist approach. And the Constitution is basically an individualist document centered around Individual Freedom (that locks Socialists out of it, perhaps intentionally) to begin with and this gets in the way of their politics. 

The differences between classical conservatism and libertarianism has to do with the economy and foreign policy. Classical Conservatives prefer a private market (what they call a free market) and decentralization approach to our safety net opening up these social insurance programs to the private market. Giving the people a choice in how they consume these programs, Social Security and Medicare being perfect examples of this. And letting the states take over the rest of our social insurance programs: Welfare Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, and Medicaid being perfect examples of this. 

Where Libertarians want government out of the economy all together and see all of these social insurance programs as unconstitutional. 

When it comes to foreign policy, Classical Conservatives aren't Neoconservatives (obviously) and see our foreign policy as having to do with protecting our national interests around the world. And not getting involved with other countries conflicts like civil wars or promoting our form of government around the world either. 

Where Libertarians tend to be isolationists on foreign policy and only want us to use military action when we are directly under attacked. 

Classical conservatism and libertarianism are both similar political ideology's because they are both based on individual freedom and the U.S, Constitution. But they are also different in a sense because libertarianism is borderline anti-government and perhaps just a couple steps away from anarchism. 

Where Classical Conservatives want government there to protect innocent people from the harm of others. So innocent people's freedom isn't compromised.  

The main differences between Conservatives (lets say) and Libertarians, is that Conservatives aren't anti-government, just anti-big government. So they are against both socialism (democratic and otherwise) as well as religious fascism and fascism in general. Whereas Libertarians at least these days don't seem to have a role for government to do anything, really. At least at the Federal level. 

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- 'Dominionism: Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry Share Radical Religion Ties'

Source:The Daily Beast- Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, being captured by religious fundamentalists.

"A Daily Beast piece explains how 2012 Republican presidential candidates and Tea Party favorites Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry share ties to a radical fundamentalist Christian movement known as Dominionism. Cenk Uygur, Richard Eskow and Brian Unger discuss on The Young Turks." 

From The Young Turks 

"With Tim Pawlenty out of the presidential race, it is now fairly clear that the GOP candidate will either be Mitt Romney or someone who makes George W. Bush look like Tom Paine. Of the three most plausible candidates for the Republican nomination, two are deeply associated with a theocratic strain of Christian fundamentalism known as Dominionism. If you want to understand Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, understanding Dominionism isn’t optional." 

From The Daily Beast

As a Liberal Democrat with a strong belief in liberal democracy, who believes free people in a free society should be able to live freely, without government interfering in how free people should live their own lives as long as we are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. 

I get worried every time I here Big Government Democrats or Republicans (Socialists on the Far-Left and Christian-Fundamentalists on the Far-Right) come out in favor of policy's that restrict our freedom, whether its economic or personal freedom. And thats exactly what you get from Republican (in name only) presidential candidates Michele Bachmann an Rick Perry, two candidates who both believe the fastest route to the Republican nomination for President is with the Christian-Right and getting their support. 

In Michele Bachmann's case at least she truly believes in the Christian-Right agenda. And with Rick Perry, I just don't know enough about him to decide if he's playing politics or if he truly believes in this agenda. But with Representative Bachmann's case you have a long record going back to 2004 when she was in the Minnesota Senate coming out against equal rights for homosexuals (to use as an example) and then in I believe July signing that pledge from a Far-Right religious group coming out for laws banning pornography and a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. What happened to states rights in this case, they've always regulated marriage straight and gay. 

Every time I hear Michele Bachmann say she's a "Constitutional Conservative" I feel like flushing the toilet, literally. (Or believe she should be required to say that under oath) Constitutional conservatism is not about amending the Constitution but living within it (especially government) and not trying to get around it. At best Michele Bachmann is a Christian-Conservative (more like fundamentalists or even a theocrat) replacing the Constitution with an interpretation of the Bible to govern the country. 

While Rick Perry has decided he's going to be a Christian-Conservative at least for this presidential campaign. As well as a fiscal Conservative on economic policy, even though his fiscal record as Governor of Texas suggests otherwise with pile of debt Texas piled on. As well as all the Texas Government jobs he created. (If you need a job in Texas, talk to Governor Rick Perry) 

Every time you hear a so-called Christian-Conservative say they are anti-big Government and a Constitutional Conservative (check to see if it's currently snowing in Las Vegas in July) please do yourself a favor and take that with a mountain. (Actually, take it with Salt Mountain) As well as look to see how many constitutional amendments that would restrict our freedom that they are in favor of. 

People who are called Christian-Conservatives in America believe that our problems as a country have to do with some as former serial political candidate and loser Alan Keyes said: "Our moral crisis" and that our problems have to do with our moral character. 

As Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has said this, Rick Santorum is in favor of empowering the Federal Government to regulate marriage in America. He's in favor of one marriage law for the whole country regulated by the Federal Government. As well as a constitutional amendment to make this happen. 

The Far-Right in America (just to be completely accurate) believe that we have too much personal freedom in America and that the Federal Government should restrict it and even pass constitutional amendments to make that happen. 

So when you hear presidential candidates come out against Big Government, don't take the word at face Value if you are not very familiar with them. And take the time to look into their record especially as it gets to what they've said in the past. Because you remember they are politicians or aspiring politicians. And are politicians unfortunately are prone to say what they believe we want to hear. 

Thom Hartmann: Peter Ferrara- 'Is Shared Sacrifice Socialism?'

Source:Thom Hartmann- talking about socialism.

"Thom Hartmann speaks with Peter Ferrara, Senior Fellow for Entitlement and Budget Policy-The Heartland Institute / Author-"America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb", about whether shared sacrifice is socialism. If you liked this clip of The Thom Hartmann Program, please do us a big favor and share it with your friends... and hit that "like" button!" 

From Thom Hartmann

To answer the question that Thom Hartmann asked Peter Ferrara, is shared sacrifice socialism: the answer is yes. Shared sacrifice is a form of collectivism to fund the government that our Congress and Administration decided that we should have. 

I'll give you another one: a progressive tax system (that America still technically has) is another form of socialism as well, but my point is so what and I'm a Liberal and I believe that free people in a free society (which is what America is) has the right to go out and earn as much money as their skills and production will allow, but pay taxes based on what they earn. With the wealthy paying the most and go down from there. But that are tax rates should still be low enough to encourage the making of wealth in America. So everyone can benefit from it. 

MSNBC anchor Lawrence O'Donnell (who I call Larry because I'm not a preppy snob that he apparently is) said (and by the way I agree with Larry O'Donnell as often as I drink a dry glass of water) but he's dead right here. There's good capitalism and there's bad capitalism and there's good socialism and bad socialism. 

It's not often as far as I'm concern that Socialists get anything right at least not in America, Europeans can speak for themselves. But shared sacrifice is a form of good socialism, because it demands and let's be honest here, it's rare if ever that government asks people to do anything, they always demand it and with shared sacrifice they demand that people contribute to the financing of government based on their ability to pay for it. But not to the point that it discourages people from earning a good living. 

Shared sacrifice is also very important when we are as we are now talking about debt and deficit reduction, because when we need to cut back as we are doing now, we have to do it in a way that hurts the least and doesn't hurt anyone in a way that devastates them. And that includes the people who've benefited most from America and our system, Constitution, economic freedom, and everything else. Shared sacrifice is about everyone contributing to pay their fair share but not in a way that devastates anyone.

So again to answer the question, shared sacrifice is a form of socialism, but a good form of it. Not the form that try's to nationalize industries or limit peoples economic freedom or any other freedom. Or tax people to the point that there's not enough incentive in the economy for people to work hard, be productive and be successful. Which would be a form of bad socialism.

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur- 'Prisoners: America's New Cheap Labor (ALEC Exposed)'

Source:The Young Turks- I believe a California prison, but don't quote me on that.

"ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) is exploiting private prison labor for profit and lobbying for harsh crime and pro drug-war legislation to create more cheap workers for corporate America. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian discuss." 

From The Young Turks

The modern version of slave labor is a bit extreme. (Coming from TYT) Prison inmates are technically compensated and actually do get paid. Wages that you might see in, I don't Haiti (to use as an example,) 20 cents an hour. But they do get free room and board, food, health care, laundry, recreation, etc. Fine, I can go along with that. 

The fact is their living conditions wouldn't be tolerated perhaps anywhere else in the developed free world. And we can do much better than this to the point that would help the inmates, the prisons, society, and our governments budgets, by giving our prison inmates real jobs and compensate them based on what they produce and have them do jobs that they are educated, trained, and qualified to do. Jobs that just keep the prison running and then prisons wouldn't have to bring in private companies to do the work. 

Jobs like the mess hall like maybe turning mess halls into real cafeteria's (instead of mess halls, where they eat a lot of mess, pun intended) with real food and making inmates pay for their food. 

Laundry. make the inmates do the laundry and then charge the inmates for their laundry and clothing. 

Jobs in construction, have the inmates to the work when it comes to renovation of prisons or prison expansion. Jobs like real wood shops and factories that would build the furniture for the prisons, but also the furniture in other government offices and have these agency's pay for the work and then compensate the inmates for their work. 

Jobs like auto mechanics like with the prison buses and other automobiles as well as bring in private automobiles for repairs as well as police cars. 

Barbershops, you could also have inmates working in jobs on the street, well-supervised, of course like street repair and other things, but pay them for what their work is worth. And not the 20 cents an hour that they get, but what a free person would be making for that work. 

If we just had a corrections system that brought back real prison industries that didn't compete with private industries unfairly, our prisons could pay for themselves and wouldn't have to compete with education and infrastructure and other priorities for taxpayer funds, because these industries would make money and the inmates would make money do the jobs and could then pay for their room and board. 

Not all inmates are qualified for well-trained  jobs and some of them need to be in tight supervision until they are ready for general population. But our general population inmates should be working and working full time to pay for their room and board. And to keep the prisons running where they live and to make our corrections system less of a burden on our government budgets. 

Also, not all inmates are ready to work once they get there and it might not just be they can't function in general population. It's hard to find a group of people in society that has as low as an education level then prison inmates. Thats a main reason why they are in prison to begin with because they don't have the skills to make it legally on the outside. So these people first need to be educated in prison before they are ready to work but we can do this as well: high school and college that they could later pay for. 

America unfortunately already had a slave era and we certainly don't need to try to repeat that or come anywhere close. But our inmates need to work, for their good, for the good of the prisons and for the good of society once they get out of prison. But we need to do it in a way that benefits everyone involved and as humanly as possible.

The Real News: Paul Jay- Robert Pollin: 'Why Austerity and Not Stimulus?'

 

Source:The Real News- what Socialist call the government's money. They say it's the people's money, but want government to spend the people's money for them, instead of letting the people spend their own money.

"Bob Pollin: Main objective of austerity is to demolish the welfare state and public ownership." 

From The Real News

It's hard to argue that the 2009 Recovery Act was a success, if you look at the fact that today's unemployment rate and economic growth is both lower today than it was in late 2009, when the Great Recession officially ended, but we would be a hell of a lot worse off without the Recovery Act even though its not a great success. 

But why wasn't the Recovery Act more successful, because it wasn't big enough and wasn't targeted properly. Which is what happens when you legislate in crisis mode and you try to and I'll clean this up, fly by the seat of your pants without a gage (perhaps you are drunk and blind as well) to tell you where your going and how to get there but the fact is we needed something like this but it should've been done better. 

I argued in a blog post in early 2010 at the one year anniversary of the Obama Administration as well as during President Obama's first 100 Days that the Recovery Act wasn't big enough and not properly targeted. And if you are going to have a borrow and spend Economic policy (which I'm generally against, except in an economy this bad where no one has any money to spend) and the Federal Government is the only one capable of printing money with their control of the currency, that you should borrow as much money as it takes to deal with the Great Recession to get economic and job growth going again. Instead of borrowing 45B$ for infrastructure, that you should borrow about ten times that, to fix a lot of these projects that the Core of Engineers said has to be done. 

That instead of cutting taxes and regulations and expanding lending authority for small business in the summer of 2010, that you do that during the heart of the Great Recession. And this is not Monday morning quarterbacking on my part, I wrote this in a blog post on this site two 1/2 years ago. 

The idea National Infrastructure Bank that has a bipartisan bill in the Senate that would be self-financed and prioritize a lot of these infrastructure projects, should've been in the Recovery Act and we could've borrowed the money to start it up and it would've had a two year head start and up in running right now. And be taking care a lot of this work and putting a lot of people back to work today and our unemployment rate would've fallen. 

And because the Recovery Act was badly designed, today we have an economy thats as bad or not much better than when the Great Recession started and we are left with a bad economy and national debt and deficit that have to be dealt with at the same time. Partially because of the Recovery Act, but also because of a lot of bad fiscal policies that the Obama Administration inherited from the Bush Administration. So we are in a situation today in the summer of 2011, where we have to both, stimulate the economy and pay our bills and cut our costs. 

The debt deal of last week is a solid start but should've been a lot better and hopefully round two ofdDebt reduction will be a lot better and more balanced. But as we are doing this we need to put people back to work and spending money again, which is the easiest way to pay down our debt with economic growth. 

A National Infrastructure Bank, free trade, and energy bill ,more targeted tax cuts to encourage consumer spending, would be a good start and we can pay for all these things as well, without hurting the economy. 

Thom Hartmann: 'Is the Era of Big Government Over & The Era of Hostage Taking here?'

Source:Russia Today- Thom Hartmann talking about big government and the 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 

"Since President Obama gave in to the demands of Republican hostage takers during the debt-limit debate - Republicans will use the same, "give us what we want or we'll pull the trigger" tactic over and over and over again." 

From Russia Today

Is the era of Big Government over? And what I mean by that is not just socialist big government (that Thom Hartmann prays for and makes love to every day and night) but authoritarian big government with limited personal freedom. Well, thanks to President Ronald Reagan whether you think this is a good or not, the era of socialist big government never had a chance to come to existence in America. Socialists best shot at bringing socialism to America, was with Senator George McGovern in 1972. (Read up on you history if you're not familiar with McGovernism) 

It's hard to imagine how socialism makes a comeback in America. What we have when it comes to social insurance, is what we have and if anything those programs will be reformed to make more cost-effective and hopefully more efficient and if anything competition will added to them. And there called social insurance programs for a reason: they are there for people who fall on hard times economically, they are not designed to take care of people indefinitely and babysit grownups.

So when President Bill Clinton said back in the 1996 State of the Union Address that: "The era of Big Government is over" he was stating a fact, but that statement was about fifteen years late. It was a statement from Captain Obvious, but 15 years later. Bill Clinton did not run for President to expand big government in America to begin with and did not set out to expand it either. Even though the era of big government socialism is over (even though it really never got started in America) and as a Liberal I see that as a good thing. 

The era of big government authoritarianism from the Far-Right is alive and well, with the Far-Right pushing legislation to make collective bargaining harder or impossible. The Far-Right pushing anti- pornography laws, anti-gay marriage laws. Laws that would actually make adultery illegal. Anti- gambling laws, marijuana is still illegal in America. The Patriot Act that I believe violates the Fourth Amendment with government being able to search what people read just because they might seem suspicious to them. Or being able to search people without search warrants. 

With the rise of the Christian-Right thirty plus years ago pushing their "Moral Agenda" on what they believe all Americans should be like and with the rise of neoconservatism ten years ago, believing national security is more important then constitutional rights, the era of Big Government is alive and well in America but in a different form.  One thing that Liberals, Libertarians, and Conservative-Libertarians all agree on. 

CNN: Elliot Spitzer- Bill Maher: 'President Obama Never Blames Republicans'

Source:CNN- Elliot Spitzer, interviewing comedian Bill Maher.

"Comedian Bill Maher says many Americans do not vote in their economic interest and discusses the possible reasons why." 

From CNN

Apparently Bill Maher is making the argument that President Obama should forget about 40% of the electorate and act more like a party leader like in Europe with their parliamentary systems where the Prime Minister or President there just runs to keep their party happy, because they know they don't need 50% or more to get reelected. 

The problem with that is that only 53% of the electorate voted for him in 2008. You can't screw off 47% of the electorate and just concentrate on 53%, because that would leave the President without a lot of room for error. And with an economy that will still have an unemployment rate of at least 8.5% unemployment going into the 2012 general elections and with no President ever getting reelected with an unemployment rate higher than 7%. (At least in modern times) 

The President is going to have to broaden his base, not to win everybody but to get as many votes as possible. He's going to have to lock down the Democratic Party and win the Independent vote to get reelected. And it's possible that the President could get reelected with a Republican Congress. Especially since 2/3 of the Senators up for reelection are Democratic seats. 

And I believe the chances are good better then 50-50 that Democrats will win back the House, but with this economy, thats not a guarantee. The biggest thing that President Obama has going for him right now, is his competition. (Or lack of it) Which doesn't highlight a strength of the President but the weakness of the Republican opposition right now. 

The Republican Party right now doesn't have a presidential candidate that can both win the nomination and the general election. Their best candidate in the general election is Mitt Romney, but both the Tea Party and Christian-Right really dislike him (if not hate him) and probably believe he's as bad as Barack Obama. Which is why Mitt Romney has been going out-of- his-way to look like a Religious-Conservative, with coming out for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. But its all politics, he's Northeastern Republican and they tend to be moderate-liberal on social issues. 

The President's biggest strength is Republican weakness. But this is what President Obama can do to win the Democratic Socialist-Left back or enough of them to get reelected, make the next fifteen months about jobs. Along with the Democratic Senate, all they should be doing right now is pushing legislation to create jobs. And the President and Congressional Democrats both have a jobs agenda to do this. Infrastructure, energy, and Free Trade which would all be a boost to our manufacturing industry, because we would need new supplies for our infrastructure projects, repairing old ones and building new one. 

A comprehensive energy plan would be a boost to our manufacturing industry because again the supplies that would be needed. There's three trade deals stuck in Congress right now: Central America, Columbia, and Korea, which is a bipartisan problem that the President should try to fix. That would be a boost to our manufacturing industry as well, because we would be able to sell more products in foreign markets. 

The next fifteen months should be all about jobs for President and the Democratic Senate and the House Democratic Leadership should be pushing a jobs agenda as well. And using that against the House GOP by telling then what have you done to create jobs and what are you going to do. It would also be a great campaign issue as well. 

President Obama is clearly not going to win everyone back, the entire Republican Party won't vote for him most likely. But he can't get reelected without the Democratic Party united behind him and voting for him. And then communicating a jobs agenda to enough Independents to win the election. And to do that going forward is has to nothing other than about jobs, pushing jobs legislation through the rest of this Congress. And going forward on the campaign trail.