Friday, September 30, 2011
When I think of what government should be doing and I'l admit my list is not very long. I'm a liberal and big believer in Individual Freedom and Maximize Freedom. But to Protect and to Serve, as well as Defend and regulate how people interact with each other. So of course I believe government should be running our Corrections System. Our Corrections System should not have incentive to have as many inmates as possible. Or leave inmates in prison as long as possible, thats what leads to overcrowded prisons. As well as sending Non Violent Offenders to prison who aren't a threat to anyone. And I'm thinking of Drug Addicts and other offenders who we and them would be better off with a short term Jail Sentence. Or doing their time in Halfway Houses doing Community Service and help finding work. The biggest issue with Privatization of Corrections, is the fact that their main job is to make money. And the longer their inmates serve and the more inmates they have, the more money they make. Not at the expense of their inmates who live there but at Tax Payer expense. Being paid for by people who are struggling to pay their current taxes. And what you also have as a result, is these Corrections Company's lobbying State Governments and the Federal Government. For more laws so they can have more inmates and longer sentences so they can keep their inmates longer. When thats the opposite of what we should be doing in a country with 2M inmates the largest Inmate Population in the World. Where we have overcrowded prisons across the country and budget crisis's all across the country. Quite frankly we need less laws, we need to eliminate what Libertarian Economist Milton Friedman called "Bad Laws". And we also need less Prison Inmates.
Are our Corrections Systems underfunded and undermanned and overcrowded, of course they are no one will deny that. Are our Corrections Staff underpaid, of course they are. Do they need more money, more personal and less inmates. Of course they do but also need to find a better way to fund our Corrections Systems. Thats more Cost Effective and that makes our Corrections System more efficient and easier to managed. And that gets to stop sending Non Violent Offenders who don't represent a major threat to society and the economy. To prison and that gets to Alternative Sentencing, especially for Drug Offenders users that it. And perhaps giving those current offenders probation and letting them out of prison. To be sent to Halfway Houses to get help turning their lives around and doing Community Service. As well as having Independent Dedicated Revenue for our Corrections System, so they are Self Financed. And no longer competing with other Public Services for Tax Revenue. And this means restoring Prison Industry's back to our Corrections Systems. And putting our inmates to work and selling the products that they make. As well as using those products to run the prison and using this revenue to finance our prisons. As well as paying our inmates for the Work that they do and then making them pay for their time in prison. Room and Board etc.
Privatizing Prisons might sound good in the short term, a way to cut Government Budgets and deficits without hurting society. But it creates other problems in the long term. Because you incentivize Corrections Corporations to make money at the expense of the inmates. Who should only be there to do their time and prepare themselves for life on the outside.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video about Private Prisons with Thom Hartmann
Thursday, September 29, 2011
As long as people don't threaten to kill, physically or libel other people or yell fire like in a theater. People can pretty much say whatever the hell that they want to in America. Without facing consequences at least from government, its that simple. That includes Hate Speech and the Westboro Church case back in March is a perfect example of this. You can call people whatever the hell you want to and say whatever the hell you want to them. As long as you don't threaten to physically hurt them, kill them or libel them. And then they can say whatever the hell that they want to in response in reply. Under the same certain conditions in response, thats what Free Speech is about. Its not just about Political Speech or Religious Speech for Christians of course. That some Neoconservatives may suggest. That however doesn't mean that when people say something that offends or that other people disagree with. That their aren't potential consequences for what people say, nor should their be in any Liberal Democracy. People can respond to each other indefinitely as long as they don't threaten to physically hurt or kill someone or libel them. Yes Free Speech does come with a price but that doesn't mean its not worth paying.
People have to understand when living in a Liberal Democracy that before they say something that may offend others. Or others may disagree with, especially controversial things that may be viewed as bigoted. That the people who are offended or disagree with you may respond and hit hard back. So if your going to be very expressive and feel the need to express yourself on Controversial Issues. That you better have Thick Skin and not be easily offended. Especially when people say things to you that you know is wrong and if anything is ignorant. Me personally as far as I'm concern, people can say and should feel free to say whatever they want to me. Just as long as they say it to my face and not behind my back. For one thing I pretty much know when someone has an opinion about me and what it is. And when I disagree with it, so what everyone is entitled to an opinion. And when they are right I take it for what its worth and move on with my life. Its not the act thats the problem but the coverup thats the problem. A lesson from the Watergate Scandal of the 1970s.
So to answer the question Free Speech does come with a price, the price being that people can talk back. Which is a good lesson in my case like my blog to use as an example. I allow people to say whatever they want to about it, now I prefer that they are on topic and not make it personal. They also need to know however that if they are going to hit me, that I'll probably hit back. Unless they are so ignorant that they aren't worth my time. And by the way I'm Thick Skin and I hit hard, not bragging just a fact.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video about Free Speech
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
The idea that Peter Orzag a well respected Democratic Economist is throwing out there. That the reasons for the gridlock that we have in the Federal Government, especially in Congress. Is that Congress made up of the people that we elected to send up there, both in the House and Senate. That if we don't like who's representing us, we can essentially fire every two and six years. If we don't like who's representing us, we really only have us to blame. Or the lack of choices to blame, this idea for our gridlock is that Congress is two powerful and that what we need to do instead. Is set up all of these Independent Commissions and triggers to solve our own problems. Is Undemocratic and I believe Unconstitutional and I'm very disappointed that a democrat. And a Liberal Democrat that is in Peter Orzag would suggest this. Our problems in our country are not that we are too free and our Federal Government is too weak. Our problems are in reverse, we are not free enough and our Federal Government is too powerful. And doesn't do a very good job of managing all of the power it gives itself. And that the people who we send back to Congress that approves all of this power for the Federal Government. The people are a problem as well, in who we keep sending back to Congress over and over and this is a Bi Partisan problem as well.
Our Political System as well to a certain extent is a big problem, we have two Political Parties. That have the responsibility of representing 310M people and no two Political Parties would be capable of doing a very good job of doing that. We had United Government from 2003-2007, controlled by the Republican Party. The people got tired of that and elected a Democratic Congress in 2006 and then we had Divided Government from 2007-09. The people didn't like that very much and elected a United Government in 2008 controlled by the Democratic Party. The country hated that and elected a Republican House in 2010. So now of course we have Divided Government again with a Divided Congress, where ever you look now. In the Federal Government its divided, not just between democrats and republicans but several smaller parties inside of both big parties. This is all the result of a Two Party System in a country of 310M people that as Politically Diverse as we are. And we are in this constant State of Gridlock and Crisis Mode whether the crisis is real or not. Because we don't have enough choices in who to represent us.
The problem with America is not that we are too free and our Federal Government is too weak. But that we aren't free enough to live our own lives and are so dependent on a Federal Government that no one likes. To take care of us, relying on a government that can't manage its own business very well. To take care of a country of 310M people, so we need a Political System that can represent the whole country. And a country where the people are free enough to live their own lives and take care of themselves.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video from RT on where America is too Democratic
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Senator McGovern benefited the Democratic Party by 1976 with Jimmy Carter being elected President in 1976. Who was a Liberal Democrat from the South, but not as far to the left as the national Democratic Party. George McGovern was a man who truly believed in public service. That it was about representing the public and not furthering your career financially. George McGovern grew up in the New Deal era in the Democratic Party era. The Democratic Socialist or Progressive Era of Franklin Roosevelt and thought this was the politics of the future. And something that he believed in and was the dominant political philosophy up until the late 1960s or so.
The problem that Senator McGovern had was that by the time he was a national Democrat and becoming a major contender For President of the United States, Senator McGovern was still a New Deal Progressive Democrat. During a time when the country was moving to the right on economic policy and when high taxes, Welfare, big government were becoming unpopular.Yet Senator McGovern was not just running as a New Deal or Great Society Progressive Democrat, but as someone who in his 1972 presidential campaign wanted to create round three and create a real welfare state in America. And create a national healthcare system to use as an example. When high taxes were becoming unpopular.
The main difference between Barry Goldwater and George McGovern’s landslide presidential losses, is that Senator Goldwater was ahead of his tome and the country wasn’t quite ready for his let’s call it conservative-libertarianism in 1964. At the heart of the Great Society era in the country. But in Senator McGovern’s case the country moved past his and LBJ’s progressivism and democratic socialism. And that we just didn’t need t have the New Deal and Great Society. But that we needed to expand it and create a real welfare state in America. Like they have in Scandinavia to use as an example. With things like a national healthcare system universal higher education run by the Federal Government. Americans by in large, weren’t ready for democratic socialism in the 1970s.
Senator McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign, wanted a lot more Federal funding for public-schools in this country as well as regulations and so-forth. And the country simply didn’t want to pay the taxes to finance all of these new public programs. By 1976 the New-Democratic wing in the Democratic Party (the real Liberal wing of the party) that has a healthy skepticism of governmental-power in the economy and our personal lives, but not anti-government, was already forming. And were replacing the Dixiecrats in the party that were becoming Republicans. Jimmy Carter perfect example of that. So by 1976 the Democratic Party and country were moving past FDR progressive policies and Lyndon Johnson. So of course they weren’t ready for a Democratic Socialist (the Bernie Sanders of hims time) in George McGovern.
But what I call the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party, that’s different from the FDR or LBJ wing, was forming, but hasn’t had the power to nominate another McGovern Socialist to run for President in the Democratic Party. They tried with McGovern again in 1984, Jesse Jackson in 84 and 88, Dennis Kucinich in 2004 and 2008. But none of these Far-Leftist Democrats, have come even close to being a major contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. And we are now seeing McGovern-Democrats running for President in social democratic third-parties. George McGovern’s legacy for the Democratic Party, is that he expanded it. Taken it away from the right-wing Religious-Right of the South. And giving the Republican Party a Christmas gift from hell. And turning the Democratic Party into more of a Northern and West Coast party. That relies on minorities and women, to be successful politically.
Monday, September 26, 2011
French Socialists claims Senate win in poll blow for President Sarkozy: Democratic Socialism alive in France
France is clearly not America we have some things in common but we are very different countries economically and politically. For example one of the top two parties in France, calls themselves the Socialist Party. And they would be considered Center Left by French Standards, whereas the Socialist Party in America. And their are more then one but they are all Third Parties and considered Far Left parties in America. Democratic Socialism is alive and well in France and it is Democratic Socialism. Not communism or Classical Socialism but Democratic Socialism, where France has a large Private Sector. One of the largest Private Sectors in the World and one of the largest economy's in the World. And one of the most Developed Nations in the World but where their Federal Government plays a much larger role. In providing Social Services in France, education, Healthcare, Health Insurance, pensions etc. Where in America the Private Sector plays a major role in providing all of these services. But where our Federal Government plays a role as well. But to a much smaller degree then France, France like I said is a Democratic Socialist country. There Federal Government plays a big role in providing all of these services but where their Private Sector plays a role as well. At least in Healthcare and education, they provide choice with their Social Insurance System as well.
Despite what Political Activist Michael Moore says about France. And them providing all of these Free Services, he's just dead wrong and I believe he knows better. None of them are free at least for the people that pay taxes, they all pay for these services through their taxes. One of the reasons why their taxes are so much higher then in America. Because their Federal Government is twice the size of ours as far of the Percentage of GDP. They pay to fiance their Federal Government where America has the largest Federal Government in the World. But we also have the largest economy in the World by three times. But we spend half of our GDP on our Federal Government compared with the European Union. Both America and France are just very different, americans expect to provide a lot of these Social Services for ourselves. Through our economy and decide for ourselves who we pay to get them. And then have the Freedom of Choice to decide for ourselves. Where the french expect their Federal Government to provide a lot of these Social Services for them through taxes.
In America the term socialist is used a lot of times as an insult, especially by conservatives and libertarians. To describe people as they see as socialist, like President Barack Obama to use as an example. Or they'll use the term socialist to describe policy's they disagree with, like the 2010 Affordable Care Act to use as an example. Where if you call a french person a socialist or call their country socialist, they'll probably agree with you. And even it take it as a complement, two different countries.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video about the French Senate Elections
Sunday, September 25, 2011
The Real News: Paul Jay Interviewing Scott Wallace- Is There Any Henry Wallace Left in The Democratic Party?
|Source: Algemeiner- President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Vice President Harry Truman & Secretary Henry Wallace-|
What would the Democratic Party be today had Henry Wallace succeeded with his Progressive Party and they became the official third-party in America? And not just a third-party, but in actual competition with the Democratic and Republican parties. Unlike the Libertarian Party today, which is probably the largest third-party, but not much of a threat to either major party. And maybe had Teddy Roosevelt and Henry Wallace succeeded, the Progressive Democratic Socialists in America would have their own home. And not basically represent the Far-Left of the Democratic Party, but the actual mainstream of a major party.
Similar to the New Democratic Party in Canada, or as I call them the Social Democratic Party of Canada. Or even Progressive Democratic Party of Canada, with the Liberal Party there representing the Liberal Democratic Party in Canada. I’m a Liberal Democrat myself and I don’t use these terms to be insulting, but descriptive. The New Democratic Party in Canada which is a Democratic Socialist Party by their standards as well as ours. Is considered mainstream in Canada. Even though for the most part they’ve been the third-party. But they’ve always had considerable representation in the Federal Parliament, or at least recently they’ve had for the last twenty years or so.
Progressive Democratic President Harry Truman, tried to pass the Fair Deal in the 1940s. Which would be round two of the New Deal. Or round three after the New Deal and Great Society, if today’s Occupy Wall Street, or Coffee Party movement, the social democratic wing of the Democratic Party had their way. Making America’s version of the welfare state. Perhaps twice, or three times the size it is today and trying to make America look like Europe. With things like single payer health insurance, perhaps a national health care system with national hospitals. Universal pensions, universal public education, with the Federal Government taking a much larger role in funding our public schools. If not running them all together. Perhaps outlawing private schools. Universal higher education, so everyone can go to college that’s qualified for it. Perhaps nationalizing the banking system.
I mean the New Deal was considered radical in the 1930s and the Great Society was considered radical in the 1960s. But the Fair Deal, whether it came from Henry Wallace, or the modern Henry Wallace social democratic movement, would dwarf both agendas in America. Making our social insurance system a hell of a lot bigger than its today. And our taxes as hell of a lot higher than they are today. And this is just how it relates to economic policy and with a lot more regulations and taxes for our economy as well. Had Progressives, continued to push the idea of a Progressive Party which is what they would’ve called it when it started back in the Teddy Roosevelt era in 1912 and after that, maybe they’re a major political party today.
The Progressives had Henry Wallace in the 1940s and had they kept it going, Democratic Socialists would have their own party to call home today. And perhaps they would’ve left the Democratic Party. And Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader, the Progressive Caucus and many others, would be in the Progressive Party today. Instead of representing the Far-Left of the Democratic Party today. But Franklin Roosevelt sort of co-opted parts of their agenda in the 1930s and the rest as they say is history.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Socialism is not as scary as some may believe at least the american version of it, where we have Democratic Socialism mixed in with what I call American Capitalism. Which to put it simply is based on low Tax Rates and a lot of Economic Freedom. Canada, Britain and Sweden to use as examples, they just have a lot more Democratic Socialism. And I'll explain what Democratic Socialism is later on but socialism is not as scary as some may believe, which is a line I got from a friend of mine. Who's a Democratic Socialist and wrote a blog about this couple of days ago. When a lot of americans think of socialism, they probably think of the Communist Republic of Cuba or the old Soviet Union. Where socialists come in with a Military Revolution, nationalize the banks and a lot of other industry's. Invade peoples homes and take over the ownership there as well. That kinda thing has happened before and in Cuba and Russia but thats not Democratic Socialism or even Classical Socialism and they are different. Thats what's called communism or at least how communism has been applied to all the countries that call themselves communist. And I realize there's another definition of communism that looks more like libertarianism or anarchism, what's with all the isms. But thats how communism has been enforced, power to the State at the expense of the people to govern the people to put it simply.
What Democratic Socialism is which is what I want to focus on, is a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Private Sector to go along with a lot of Public Services in the form of a Welfare State, which is what Britain and Sweden have a lot of both. As well as America to a much smaller degree. What Democratic Socialists tend to believe and I'm not trying to speak for all of them and I'm not one myself either. Is that yes there should be a Private Sector with a whole wide range of industry's. That economy's tend to run better when they are not run by Government Planning . All of these Socialist Democracy's in Europe have Capitalist Economy's but mixed in with a lot of socialism. But that the State should tax and regulate the economy heavily to stop abuses in the economy. To prevent people from making a lot more money then others, which is a form or Redistribution of Wealth. And also to finance the Welfare State to provide things like education, Unemployment Insurance, pension, Healthcare, Health Insurance transportation. And that certain services should be run by State and should be Not For Profit and I just laid those out.
What America has or used to up until the last ten years or so, now we are living through Cowboy Capitalism. Which is completely different and I won't try to explain that in this blog. But what we used to have is what I call American Capitalism and is something we need to get back to. If we want to continue to be the number one Economic Power in the World whether we have the largest GDP or not. Thats based on vast Economic Freedom, low Tax Rates, solid regulations that don't overburden the economy. Quality Public Education and quality infrastructure. And yes a Safety Net for people who fall through the cracks and can't support themselves for a period of time. Traditionally Europe spends 45-50% of its GDP on its Public Sector, America post World War II spends 20-21% of its GDP on its Public Sector. And I'm talking about the Federal Government, its bigger if you factor in State and Local Governments. Both America and Europe have socialism, Europe just has a lot more of it then we do.
Socialism is not as scary as people may think but to me its scary enough, when your talking about trying to make America more like Europe. Where we would end up sacrificing a lot of our Economic Freedom and independence and individualism. To move to a more Collectivist Society where we rely more on Big Government to take care of ourselves.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video about Socialism in America
Friday, September 23, 2011
Before I get into my position on the Death Penalty I just want to lay out as one of mayby five people who haven't followed the Troy Davis case. All right maybe ten people in the country, the Far Left has been all over this story, I absolutely have no idea whether Mr Davis is guilty of the murder he was convicted of. And he's not the reason why I'm writing this blog but I will admit, that without this story I wouldn't be writing this blog at this time. This is not an issue I think that much about except when I'm watching True Crime shows and thats the only time. And I've basically has the same position on the Death Penalty since my late teen early 20s, I have moderated it a little bit. Its really the Tim McVeigh Oklahoma case of the mid and late 1990s. Where I started thinking about this case and I've moderated my position a little bit. But how should someone approach the Death Penalty when deciding what their position should be. I believe you should look at it from a perspective of when do individuals and government. Have the right to take Human Life and if your looking at consistency and don't want to be hypocritical. Your position on the Death Penalty should be the same as your position on abortion. But they don't have to be as well and as long as you can justify your positions why not. Besides you don't even have to justify your positions and let people view you as hypocritical.
The Catholic Church is about as consistent of an organization that I've ever seen on these issues. They are Pro Life and they means it, they don't believe that either government or individuals have a right to take Human Life. Except in when Self Defense is at risk right away, meaning when someone is under attacked. Not meaning that you can kill someone because you believe your life may be in danger later on but right away. Making them Pro Life on the Death Penalty and abortion, meaning they are anti Death Penalty and anti Abortion Rights. And I respect their positions for their consistency and how they approach both issues. Some libertarians tend to be anti Death Penalty and anti Abortion Rights. They believe that everyone has a right to liberty and Human Life etc but a lot more libertarians as well as socialists and some liberals, are anti Death Penalty but Pro Choice on Abortion. Making them inconsistent as well as hypocritical in my view on those issues. Because they are apparently find with killing a fetus a potential person later on. But have a problem with killing a murderer who knows they murdered the person they are accused of and if anything proud of it. And perhaps murdered several people and enjoyed that and I'm thinking of Ted Bundy to use as an example.
People on the Religious Right tend to be be Pro Life on abortion and go out of their way to claim that they are Pro Life to the extent. Of saying that abortion is murder and the Far Right even murdering Abortion Doctors. But are Pro Death Penalty and apparently don't have a problem killing people even though they claim they are Pro Life. Who probably murdered the person or people they are accused of murdering. But they don't know for sure and person accused claims their innocence until the moment they die. So what they are really saying is that they are Pro Innocent Life. Which would be a tougher position to sell and harder to work politically. I have a problem with people who say they are Pro Choice on abortion. Because protecting privacy is more important then potential Human Life, even babies that are in 8-9 months of the pregnancy. Which is what's called Late Term Abortion but have no problem giving the Death Penalty to a murderer, again lets use Ted Bundy or how about John Wayne Gacy. Who were both Serial Murderers and knew what they did.
Like I said consistency to me is very important anytime your talking about life, Death Penalty, abortion, any of those issues. And so is mine and I'll lay it out and why. I'm 98-99% Pro Choice on abortion as well as a lot of other issues, my only exceptions would be. I'm against Tax Payer Funding of abortion except to save the life or health of the mother. And I'm against Late Term Abortion Rights again except for the life and health of the mother. Because I believe the Right to Privacy is critical and can't be messed with and Healthcare is an excellent example of this. Once you give government permission to interfere with peoples Healthcare and I'm talking about competent people here. Then you empower government to infringe on our other Constitutional Rights as well, it would be a Slippery Slope.
Now after reading most of this blog and just seeing my position on abortion, you probably already know my position on the Death Penalty as well. But just to make it official, I'm Pro Death Penalty for any Convicted Murderer where we know that the person committed that crime. Where they know they did it and if anything proud of what they did and maybe asking for the Death Penalty as well. As long as they are twenty one or over and are competent, they know what they did and what they were doing at the time of the crime. For any other Convicted Murderer where its a case that they mostly likely did or probably did it. Or are under twenty one or incompetent at the time. Give those people Life Without Parole so they'll never have an opportunity to murder someone again at least on the outside. And let murderers who confesses and are truly sorry for what they did. Or gives information about additional crimes Life Without Parole as well.
I realize I could've explained my position of the Death Penalty in one paragraph and saved you some reading. But I don't believe that would be much of a read or a blog. And being as important and divisive as an issue as it it, its something that deserves further explanation and reasoning. Its not an issue that should be taken lightly.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video from Russia Today on Death Penalty and see the opposite position
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Before one celebrates how great the Medicaid Health Insurance program, is they should understand that its a bare bones operation. Meaning that it only covers certain things and not other things, including Health Care that people may need to survive. Its very expensive for the States to run and for the most part do run this program. With not much help from the Federal Government who make them run it, States don't have a choice. If the FEDS don't come up with the money, they are lets say stuck for lack of a better word. And have to find that missing revenue for themselves. Medicaid is the definition of an Unfunded Mandate, its free Health Insurance for people who live in poverty. As well as disabled people who live in poverty as well, without its own Revenue Source . Making it even more expensive to run for the States because they have to fund it out of General Revenue. Especially when the FEDS don't pay their fair share which is every year and its even harder to fund in this slow economy. Where revenue of course is very tight and everything across the board including Health Insurance is getting cut across the board. Including the Health Insurance of Public Workers and perhaps one reason, is to so States can cover their Medicaid Costs. To cover the costs of people who don't work for a living or can't afford their own Health Insurance. At the expense of the people who work very hard for a living and aren't rich or wealthy either. And one of the reasons why they work for government, is because of the benefits. So before you speak very high of Medicaid, why don't you find a way to reform it, because anyone in their right mind. Would pay for other Health Insurance instead of Medicaid if they can afford it.
As far as Single Payer Health Insurance another word Medicare for all, as I've argued before I'm against it and I'll tell you why again briefly, The way to bring down Healthcare Costs is pretty simple to me and its all about Personality Responsibility. One by taking care of yourself so you don't have to consume as much Healthcare as people who don't. Government can help here by subsidizing good behavior and taxing bad behavior. Two choice and competition, let people decide for themselves where they get their Health Insurance just as long as they do that. Through either Health Insurance or a Health Savings Account and not past those costs on to other people. And this could include a Public Option as well, I've been arguing for a Public Option in Health Care. Both in insurance as well as doctor care for three years now, as long as its not run by government, but operated independently of government. America is not a Majoritarian Democracy where the majority of people can rule over the minority. This is not a Socialist Democracy either, we live in a Liberal Democracy. Where If the majority of people wants Public Health Insurance and Healthcare. They would have that right in my system. But the minority would still have the Freedom of Choice to decide where they get their Health Insurance and Healthcare as well. With Freedom of Choice Health Insurers would have to compete with each other and deliver the best service possible. To get the most customers as possible. And three through proper regulation and that means a Patients Bill of Right like in the 2010 AFA.
What socialists who obviously support Medicare For All, needs to understand that there best way to achieving what they want. Is through Liberal Democracy and the market, two things they tend not to be fans of. Instead of forcing and mandating people on Medicare. Which how socialism generally operates, even Democratic Socialism which I have a bit more respect for. Bring them into Medicare and their propose Health Insurance Monopoly. By convincing them that their way is best and that government actually knows best and better then the people how to live their lives at least in Healthcare. And show them why they believe Medicare For All would be the best system, by taking it to the people and all of the people. And let the people decide for themselves how they get their Health Insurance and Healthcare. By convincing them and also drop this Top Down approach to Health Care Reform. By trying to get the Federal Government to force it on everybody and go State by State, with a grassroots approach. Look at what Vermont is doing and of course this approach would be slower but at least you would have a shot at succeeding. Because you would be attempting to convince people in a Liberal Democracy that your approach is best through Freedom of Choice. Not by force and mandate.
The future of Medicare For All is through Vermont a State by State grassroots approach and taking it to the people. And if you can convince the other forty nine States that your approach is best. Then socialists would accomplish at least one of their goals that they've been fighting for since at least the 1930s. By taking it to the people instead of trying to force it on everyone.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video of Sen. Bernie Sanders on Healthcare Reform
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
The real question should be here is President Obama's Deficit Reduction plan a policy plan or a political plan. Or is it a combination of both, I would argue its a little of both. It is a policy plan because Barack Obama I believe clearly believes in taxing millionaires more as a way to pay down the debt and deficit. He's been arguing for that at least since he started running for President back in 2007. I'll give the President that, he's proposing something he actually believes in. Which unfortunately can't be said about all politicians but thats a different story. But its also clearly a political plan as well, this Deficit Reduction plan is clearly about throwing a bone to the left and I'm sorry if this offends the Far Left. To bring them back in his corner for the 2012 Presidential Campaign and that they work for his reelection, which at this point is clearly in doubt. And he needs both of these factions to not only vote for him in 2012 but work for him as well in 2012. Is this plan "Class Warfare", of course not, its an attempt to demand that the people in the country. Pay their fair share of taxes in what's left of our Progressive Taxation System.
Its an attempt to demand that the only group of people thats benefited in our economy the last ten years, that they pay more in taxes. To help pay down our massive debt and deficit, because they can afford to and won't get hurt by it. "Class Warfare" would be about punishing a class of people just because they are part of that class and do it to the point that it hurts them. An example of "Class Warfare" would be to lay a group of Middle Class workers off, so executives can make more money. Which is done on a regular basis or running a big company into bankruptcy where thousands of people lose their jobs and Life Savings. Perhaps even reputations and then walking away with a big Bonus Package. And some people did go to jail as a result of the 2001-02 Scandal. But the victims of these crimes got hit worst.
I'm not a socialist democratic or classical, far from it, I believe that people should make as much money as they earn. Without screwing innocent people to make money, whether its the Wall Street Scandals of 2001-02 or 2008. I also believe that they should be able to keep a large chunk of their earnings as well. But that they should also pay their fair share of taxes and when your suppose to be paying 35% under today's law in Income Taxes. But your actually only paying 15-20% in taxes after all of your deductions and credits and moving money out of the country. And your a millionaire or billionaire and someone making 100K$ is paying 25-30% in Income Taxes thats not fair if you believe in Progressive Taxation. And thats the point of this Millionaires Tax and closing Tax Loopholes in Deficit Reduction.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video of President Obama's tax plan
Sunday, September 18, 2011
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on Iran or Iranian Society, I'm not from Iran, I'm not of Iranian Decent, never lived there. Never lived or been to the Middle East at all. All of the info I've gotten on Iran has been from the West but from Middle Eastern experts, people who study Iran and the Middle East broadly. And from what I've seen about Iran, for one its an Islamic Theocracy, the Islamic Republic of Iran being a pretty good clue. With a quasi socialist certainly not Democratic Socialist and Capitalist Economy and where the President of the Islamic Republic. Is not the Head of the State meaning the Leader of the Country, the President is more like a Presiding Officer. That we have in the US Congress, there to enforce Current Policy and Rules but without the power to make policy. Even though the President of the Islamic Republic is an Elected Office directly by the people. But the real power in the IS Government belongs with what's called the Supreme Leader. The man who runs what is basically an Islamic Council of Clerics and the Supreme Leader is basically a dictator accountable to no one.
Iran is not a complete Authoritarian Society, their people actually has some freedom to live their lives. And not be harassed by their government. As long as they are not doing what would be described as the Iranian Government as threatening the State. They are similar to China in that sense or Saudi Arabia, they are way ahead of the Communist Republic of Korea, that basically starves its people. Because they don't know how to run an Agriculture Policy and iranians tend to be well educated as a society. That can feed themselves but their government doesn't know how to run an economy. Like most governments and these people have a hard time finding good jobs, despite Iran's vast Natural Resources. In oil, Natural Gas and its people.
Its clear to me anyway and a lot more people, that there is a Democratic Opposition in Iran. In the IS Parliament and in the society and that the Iranian People want freedom. To live their own lives speak out and not be harassed by government for speaking out or for anything else. As we've seen in that last few years with the demonstrations in Iran and I believe these people. Deserve the respect and resources of the West and other people who love freedom. To help make this come about for them, so they can fight back when their own government cracks down on them. Just for speaking out against the government.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video about Iran
Saturday, September 17, 2011
I've been arguing in previous blogs that Democratic Socialists since Democratic Socialists don't like the current Democratic Party Leadership. In the White House, Congress and Democratic National Committee etc. Since the Democratic Leadership are Left of Center Liberals including President Obama and Vice President Biden. And that people who call themselves Progressive Democrats who tend to be Far Left socialists, Democratic Socialists and Socialist Libertarians. That since the Far Left doesn't like the Democratic Leadership, instead of just complaining about the Leadership. They should try elect more of their members to office, Congress, State Offices, Local Level etc. Instead of just running one of their members from the House of Representatives for President every four years. Because they don't like the frontrunner, because they are too mainstream and appeal to Independent Voters. And Tim Carpenter the Head of Progressive Democrats of America understands this. Which is why he's trying to recruit and elect more of his members across the country. To run for Public Office and running for State Office would be a good idea as well.
Democratic Socialists in America don't have enough of their members elected to Public Office. Which is why they haven't been able to get more of their agenda heard and passed. And are only in the Democratic Party so they can have a voice and a small voice at that in a major Political Party. Because they are a small minority in the party. Liberal Democrats hold most of the major Leadership Offices in the Democratic Party because they can get elected Statewide and nationally. Because Independent Voters don't see them as Tax and Spenders and Soft on Defense and Crime etc. Stereotypes that Democratic Socialists in America have been stuck with for over forty years now. So going forward if socialists want to have a bigger voice on the Democratic Party, they have to elect more of their members.
For Democratic Socialists to get their agenda passed and become law in America, they have to get more of their members elected. And not just to the House of Representatives and later run one of their Reps. for President. But get elected to the Senate and Governor and other State Offices as well. Get some Executive Experience in the Public Sector but Private Sector as well and put a record together that can show they are responsible with money. And can run large organizations, because its rare that socialists get elected Statewide in America. The Bernie Sanders of the World doesn't come around very often in this movement.
The main problem with the Democratic Socialist Movement in America and I haven't even gotten into their policy's yet. I've done that in the past and will argue against them in the future as well. But their main problem is that they don't have enough of their members elected in Public Office. Especially Statewide and Tim Carpenter understands this and is trying to change it.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video of Tim Carpenter on the Thom Hartmann Show
Friday, September 16, 2011
Ralph Nader has the tendency of of saying things that are very provocative, articulate, correct even. As well as saying crazy things in the same speech or forum making the same point. America is clearly a Two Party System, from my perspective a a Liberal Democrat who will probably die as a democrat and proud to be it. Is a problem in a Liberal Democracy of 310M people where the whole entire Political Spectrum is represented. But where millions of americans aren't represented in American Politics politically, as far as having Leaders who represent their politics. So what we have is the two parties that both have at least three parties represented in them. The Democratic Party is made up of liberals such as myself but also Dick Durbin, John Kerry and Chuck Schumer. All High Ranking Members of the Senate, Dick Durbin being Asst. Leader of the Senate. And then you have Democratic Socialists in the Democratic Party, like Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the House Progressive Caucus and many others. And of course Moderate Liberals, the Joe Lieberman's of the World who are basically liberals. But tend to me a little more conservative on Foreign Policy. I would call Sen. Lieberman a Neoconservative on Foreign Policy actually. Which is why he's so unpopular in the Democratic Party, but he's pretty liberal on Social Issues and even Economic Policy to a certain extent. And then there's the Republican Party made up of Classical Conservatives or what's left of them, the Rand Paul's of the World, Tom Coburn as well, both US Senators. And of course Neoconservatives the Dick Cheney's of the World and of course the Religious Conservatives, people who I would describe as Christian Theocrats. People like Rick Santorum a current Presidential Candidate and former US Senator. And the Tea Party which is made up of Classical Conservatives, libertarians to a certain extent and theocrats.
Where Ralph Nader is wrong is that America of course is not a Dictatorship, just look at how the White House relates to Congress right now. You have a Democratic White House and a Divided Congress, where neither of the three have enough power to do what they want basically. Except in how to run their own institution, which is why we have gridlock right now, with the White House, House and Senate not being able to work together very well right now. This dictatorship idea is nonsense and just frustrated Political Rhetoric on Mr Nader's part because his point of view on the issues. Is not represented very well in the Federal Government, because he doesn't have a party to represent his side in Washington. And enough members of the Democratic Party to carry out his agenda which I'll talk more about later on. What we have in Washington is two parties that disagree on almost everything and have different policy's for every position. And are so far apart on most issues and where the base of their parties. Hate the either side so much, that they don't want to work with the other party. But its also not in their Political Interest of working together as well.
What I see American as politically as made up of five major Political Factions and two minor Political Factions. The major factions being the liberals that are in the Democratic Party. Conservatives that are in the Republican Party for the most part, libertarians that have their own Libertarian Party. But are also in the Democratic and Republican Parties and I get into more of that later. Socialists that are in the Democratic Party but also in minor Third Parties. Like the Democratic Socialist Party and Green Party and speak more about that later as well. And Independents that are in the Democratic and Republican Parties but are also registered as independent. And the minor Political Factions, being Religious Conservatives and Neoconservatives who are republicans and minor Far Right Third Parties as well.
What we need is Five Party System, where are all of the Political Factions are represented and I'm not talking about a Parliamentary System which is what socialists want. Where basically no one is in charged, but with five major Political Parties where all parties are represented. And then have run offs if necessary if the candidates don't get at least 51% of the vote in the first round of voting. The Democratic Socialists in the Democratic Party and Green Party could move over to the Democratic Socialist Party. The Neoconservatives and Religious Conservatives could leave the Republican Party and form their own party. The Libertarian Party could recruit the Liberal Libertarians in the Democratic Party and the Conservative Libertarians in the Republican Party.
America doesn't need a Parliamentary System but we should scrap the Two Party System and move to a Political System that better represents. America as a whole where all Political Ideology's are represented in this huge vast country of 310M people that most of us are proud to call America.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video of Ralph Nader on the Two Party System
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Bashir Assad the President of Syria is at the point and has been at the point, that all he cares about is staying in power. And he doesn't have a limit at least yet on how many people he's willing to have killed in order to do that. And China and Russia have been no help if anything the opposite, in preventing the Mass Killings of people in Syria. Who are fed up with the Assad Regime and want a say in who represents them in government and how they live their lives. The Arab League has actually been pretty responsible here and this is an organization that usually backs Authoritarian Regimes in Arabia. The European Union and United States have been tough in their rhetoric against the Assad Regime. And have started Economic Sanctions against the Assad Regime but other then that haven't done much. To stop the Assad Regime murder its own people, an actual government murdering their own people. The Assad Regime is going to keep doing what they are doing. Until they put the Syrian Opposition down or as long as they feel they can get away with it, while still leaving them in power.
President Assad Calling for General Elections next year, are only designed to keep him in power. Which means to stop the Assad Regime from killing and locking up their own people. Just because they are fighting for their own liberty and want to move Syria forward as country and into the 21st Century. Which it could become, it doesn't have to be a Third World country. They are about the size of Iraq physically and in population but without the oil and Natural Gas. But they do have an Educated Class and a Middle Class that could build the Syrian Economy into something much bigger then they are. Similar to Israel but with three times the population and a lot more land. But they have to do this for themselves, the Assad Regime is just interested in staying in power. These Authoritarian Regimes in the Middle East are only interested in staying in power. They know they are outdated and their people want reform.
I don't believe the Syrian Rebels can take down the Assad Regime on their own, the Syrian Security Forces seem to be a lot more willing to kill their own people. Then the Mubarak Security Forces in Egypt and the Rebels are outmanned and under resourced. So they need help, from Turkey which would be a good start, the Arab League, Egypt, the European Union and United States. With Economic Sanctions to prevent resources from getting in an out for the Assad Regime. Calling for President Assad to to step down from power and if this isn't enough which worked in Egypt. Then arming the Syrian Rebels and giving them the resources they need to go up against the Assad Security Forces. And if all of that is not enough, a No Fly Zone from NATO over Syria to protect the Syrian Rebels.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video from Al Jazeera on Syria
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
The Israeli-Palestinian area is an area thats basically divided into two different races of peoples as well as religions. That could never function as one country together, which is why Palestine has basically become an Independent Territory of Israel. Similar to how Puerto Rico is a territory of America, where a significant number of Puerto Ricans. A lot of them decedents of Spain consider Puerto Rico a country, a lot of Palestinians consider Palestine a country. Even though its not currently but moving in that direction hopefully for them as well as Israel as far as I'm concern. Its in Israel's interest as former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Israel Shimon Peres once said. That Israel a tiny country, about the size of Delaware physically and with a population of only 7M people. Less then New York City and Israel is a country. That Palestine become completely independent of Israel. And for them to govern their own affairs but of course under certain conditions. So Israel wouldn't have any need to occupy another country and could just worry about the affairs of Israel and not the aide of another country as well. But only under certain conditions. That they have a Peace Treaty similar to what Israel has with Egypt, that Palestine would crackdown on terrorists in Palestine and Israel does the same thing in Israel. Terrorists that represent threats to both countries and that both countries aren't a threat to each other. And have Diplomatic and Trade Relations with each other as well. That neither country sponsors terrorists and they work together to defeat terrorism, that they become partners in the War on Terror. That they both recognize the right for the other to exist as well.
Palestine at this point is not ready to become an Independent Country, they don't have the ability to defend themselves and meet these conditions. They don't have the military or Law Enforcement capabilities to do these things. And they don't have a Federal Government thats responsible for governing the whole country. Palestine is split up between West Bank and Gaza, two different territory's. West Bank being governed by what I would call the adults in the room meaning the Fatah Party with their Leader President Mahmoud Abbas. And Gaza being governed by basically a Terrorist Organization thats trying to establish an Islamic State in Gaza and Palestine as a whole. And is attempting to eliminate Israel off of the map to form a Greater Palestinian Islamic Republic. So for there to be any Independent Palestinian State, I believe Hamas has to be out of the picture. Or at least reformed in a way where they are just a Political Party and they disarm. What should've been a long time ago in Ireland with Irish Republic Army. And then Israel and Palestine would have to figure how they are going to link West Bank with Gaza, into one United Palestinian State. For that to happen, Israel would have to give up additional land in South Israel to make this happen.
Its in both Israel and Palestine's interest for their to be an Independent Palestinian State that can govern and defend itself in a responsible way. Where both countries aren't threats to the other but for that to happen they have to work together. And get Hamas out of the way so they can no longer be a destructive force in the Peace Process.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video about Palestinian Statehood
Sunday, September 11, 2011
I generally support the concept of the International Monetary Fund, try saying that fast or IMF which is easier to say fast. To prevent countries even to fault of their own and I think Greece would qualify here. To prevent them from going bankrupt which would be very bad for its people. As well as its neighbors because when economy's tend to collapse, people can get desperate and look to move to other countries. Making things more difficult for the countries that have to deal with these refugees for lack of a better word. Something like an IMF, could also be beneficial for Developing Countries that have responsible governments. That are looking to modernize and develop and give their people some Economic Freedom. Central America comes to mind a region thats been looking to do this and has had some success at it. Like in Panama and Costa Rica, as well as Mexico thats come a long way in the last twenty years or so with a ways to go. Mexico especially because they are so damn big, one of the largest countries in the World physically as well as in population. Its a country of 120M people thats two thousand miles wide and long. Ranging from the Pacific Ocean to South Texas to the Gulf of Mexico and to the border of Central America. The better Mexico can do economically, the better off America is because it means more mexicans will be able to find work in Mexico. And not have to leave that country and come to America where they probably don't speak the language and would have to try to fit in.
Something like an IMF I believe could be very beneficial to countries that are having financial difficulties and are facing bankruptcy. And can't avoid bankruptcy without devastating their Law Enforcement, military or Social Insurance Programs. Something like an IMF can also be beneficial for Developing Countries that are looking to develop and become wealthier if not developed. If its designed the right way, where the countries aren't given a pot of money to spend as it pleases. Because the IMF is funded by World Tax Payers and they have a right to see their money spent in a responsible way. So if Greece doesn't want to be put under certain restrictions from the IMF and is expecting the IMF to bail them out with no questions asked. They have another thing coming as the band Judas Priest said and perhaps should look for a way to solve their own financial problems. And don't come to America to bail them out because we have our own financial issues, that if we don't address fairly soon. We may need help from the IMF as well in the future which I believe no american wants.
The reasons why the IMF hasn't worked in places like countries in Africa, has to do with corruption. Some governments get the money there and then use it to pay off their allies. Or the money never makes it to the governments in the first place and is stolen by rebels or terrorists. But something like an IMF could be helpful if they are working with responsible governments. So they have some money to help finance their government and develop their economy. In areas like infrastructure, education, developing the Natural Resources and starting industry's. Africa could benefit from something like an IMF if they were to limit the corruption to a point, where the aide could get into to where it needs to go to help.
Click on the link of the blog to see a not so objective video from RT on the Greek Financial Crisis
I'm really getting tired of hearing this notion that China is passing America economically and perhaps in every other important category. Here some facts America has a population of 313M people and a GDP of 14.78T$ and a Per Capita Income of 47K$. China has a population of 1.33B people and a GDP of 5.87T$ and a Per Capita Income of 4,382$. China has a population of over four times as America and America has an economy 2.5 times the size. And our PCI is almost twelve times the size, China has come along way but they have a hell of a long way to go. They have beautiful infrastructure in their big cities, where most of their wealthy and Middle Class people live. But we are still talking about a Developing Country where with about 1B people who live in awful poverty in their Rural Areas. Our poor Rural Areas are probably rich compared to China's. China probably within 10-20 years will have the largest Gross Domestic Product in the World or GDP. But unless America continues to slide our Per Capita Income which is more important, because that gets to Purchasing Power will probably still trample China's. Russia, Mexico and Brazil all have PCI that are at least twice the size of China's. These are all still Developing Countries that are moving in the direction of becoming Developed Nations with a long way to go.
And you want to talk about Governmental Systems, sure lets do that. China of course has a One Party System with an Authoritarian Dictatorship, meaning the chinese don't get to select their Leaders and Representatives. Unlike America of course where we get to choose all of our Leaders and Representatives and then vote them out in the next election if we don't like them. The chinese obviously can't do that and unless your a socialist or a communist, you would prefer to have a say in selecting your own Leaders rather then have them picked for you. So of course its easier for China to invest in things like infrastructure. Because the President of the Peoples Republic doesn't have to go through the PR Congress in order to do that. Or the fact that he knows his party controls Congress as well, so its a lot easier to get things passed. The United States Federal Government was purposely designed to make it hard to pass laws, because it was written by liberals and libertarians. Who believed in Limited Government and didn't want the President to become a dictator. Its not our form of government thats the problem but the people running it. Or some of the people and thats why we have General Elections.
America will always be as important in the World as we need to be and want to be, as well as the most important country in the World. As long as we do what we need to do to stay there. We may not always have the largest GDP, but our Per Capita Income will always be larger then anyone of the large countries. And I mean countries 100M people or more, if Europe united then they would be right there with us or ahead. We've decline and we need to rebuild, we can't continue to carry the debt and deficit that we do. We need to build and repair our infrastructure, we need a National Energy Policy that gets us off Foreign Oil and makes us Energy Independent. And we need to reform our Public Education System, we need to start making things in America again and exporting them. And if we do these things in a positive way and pay for them without borrowing. We'll always be as powerful and as important as we need to be. No matter what China does.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video about Chinese and American Infrastructure
Friday, September 9, 2011
Actually I would prefer to call this blog President Obama finally goes on the record, but I'm limited as far as how many characters I can share. When it comes to titles on posts with Social Networks and you really need to be a Social Networker to understand what that means. And if your absolutely dying to know what that means, send me an email and I may answer that for your you. But keep in mind I might ask to see proof that your actually dying, so I don't expect seeing any emails on Social Networking. But so be it I can put the full title of my blog, on guess what any guesses, my blog!
So moving on I would give President Obama 9.5 tonight which would be like a three run Home Run for you baseball fans, on tone substance and length. My only problem with the President's Speech would be him pushing for Tax Credits to encourage business's to hire. Its not that business's don't want to hire right now, its that they don't believe they can afford to hire. Because of the lack of demand, any Tax Credits should relate in encouraging people and business's to spend money because of our lack of demand. Which would lead into more hiring to meet the new demand, something like a Payroll Tax Cut, or Consumer Tax Credit that people would have to spend and not save. Or do something with the Housing Crisis, allowing people to deduct the losses of their homes as a result of the "Great Recession". Not because they bought a home they couldn't afford. But President Obama was very strong on Infrastructure Spending without actually mentioning infrastructure.
Coming out in favor and going on the record for a National Infrastructure Bank which would pay for itself after it gets Start Up Capitol. And the figure is good as well 447B$, I would put most of that money in a NIB and let them do their work. Start rebuilding and building schools, bridges, airports, dams, highways, buildings etc, to start putting our Construction Workers back to work. Not only an extension in Unemployment Insurance but empowering these people to go back to school and get additional skills. As well as subsidizing their employment as they go back to work for free as far as where they work. But they would still have their Unemployment Insurance and be able to keep their skills in check, especially for the long term unemployed. As well as passing the three Trade Deals that he hasn't pushed very hard or even sent up to Congress. Central America, Columbia and Korea. So American Business's can sell their products oversees and we can have the same Trade Access in Foreign Markets as they have here.
I believe the President went into this speech knowing that the House Republican Leadership won't pass it as it clearly stands. But with how House Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor have reacted to it, not calling it DOA. And being in favor of some type of Payroll Tax Credit as well as Infrastructure Spending. Tells me that their might be some type of American Jobs Act that could pass the House in a few months. That the President would support and hopefully the Democratic Senate and Leader Reid will push the President's bill as it clearly stands. To get a final bill that looks as close to the AJA as possible. The President has been talking about creating jobs for thirty three months now, without actually putting anything in writing and sending something up to Congress. And tonight he finally went on the record and put a jobs plan on the table.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
First of all Al Sharpton doesn't belong on any serious program which I believe this MSNBC Program intends to be covering Political Debates. Interviewing Presidential Candidates who are in these debates or does he belong hosting a national News Talk Show. But this is the quality or lack of if when it comes to MSNBC right now but perhaps thats a different blog. So when Rev. Sharpton mentions that one of the purposes of the Federal Government, is to keep States from getting too strong. What he failed to mention or understand, is that we have State Governments and States Rights and a Constitution. For one reason from keeping the Federal Government from being too strong and we have Limited Government to keep government in general from getting too strong. So the people can have their Individual Freedom and not be harassed by government. Also picking the panel that MSNBC did from the left with Gene Robinson to the Far Left with Al Shaprton. To cover a Republican Presidential debate, would be like FNC picking Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, moderated by Sean Hannity. To cover a Democratic Presidential debate, very biased coverage to put it mildly. Of course they are not going to like what these republicans have to say.
As far as Herman Cain's 9,9,9 Tax Reform plan, I think he's going to need a Government Reform plan before his Tax Plan. Because the 9,9,9 plan I don't believe would generate enough revenue unless he has some Supply Side Economic theory he hasn't laid out yet. Because people now paying 33-35% in Federal Taxes, would go to 9%. So Herman Cain would also need to come up with a Government Reform plan or some serious Budget Cuts. This idea from Rachel Maddow that a Consumption Tax would unfairly hurt Low Income people, it depends on how you structure it. If you have a 15-20% Consumption Tax on all products in America. Then of course that would hurt Low Income people who spend most of their money on basic things they need to survive. Rent, food, clothing etc and they would see a huge Tax Increase as a result of a Consumption Tax at around 150% from what they are paying now. But if you make it progressive, like lets say 5% on things like food, clothing, transportation. And maybe 20-25% on Luxury Items or higher, then Low Income peoples taxes would be about the same or lower as now. And wealthy people would pay more in tax as in percentage, because they spend more money.
As far as Personal Retirement Accounts or PRA, I like them but only in a system thats called Social Security Plus, Which would be PRA's that workers and employers would pay into, an increase in the Payroll Tax to fund it. And the money that would be put in a PRA would be Tax Free, so people would automatically have their Social Security. Plus this additional Retirement Account that would be there's, that they could take out of once they retire. So if they were to make bad investments along the way, they would at least have their basic Social Security to fall back on. Socialists of course hate this idea because it takes power away from government and give to the people. Adding some individualism to the Social Security System and making it less collectivist. But this concept is fairly popular with the rest of the Political Spectrum, especially Gen Xers like myself and younger. And we could cut taxes and Government Spending somewhere else to avoid a net Middle Class Tax Increase. This idea was endorsed by a Liberal Democrat Tom Daschle back in 2004 when he was the Senate Minority Leader. This is not just an idea for conservatives.
I believe Herman Cain who doesn't have a blizzards chance in hell of winning the GOP Nomination for President, actually put some thoughtful ideas on the table tonight. And if structured properly could advance the debate in Tax Reform and Social Security Reform and I believe he had a good night.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video of Herman Cain on MSNBC
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
You want to know why we haven't had serious Campaign Reform, except for maybe McCain-Feingold of 2002, which might be a stretch. It closed some pot holes in the system while digging more at the same time. Eliminating Soft Money and I'm not going to explain these terms right now, shoot me an email if you really want me to tell you. But instead of all of that money going to Soft Money, it went to Hard Money, again send me a message if you want to know what Hard Money is as well. But the reasons why we haven't had serious Campaign Reform at the Federal Level and I just laid out one. When your in a monsoon, which is what our Campaign Finance System is right now a monsoon of money. And you have a leaky roof and its a safe bet you don't want to drown in this monsoon. Lets say your not suicidal to use as an example. Perhaps a leaky submarine underwater that can't get to the top is a better example but hopefully you get the idea anyway. And you try to plug one hole but guess what other holes open up, because you have a leaky roof and perhaps its old and rusted as well. Thats what its like to reform our Campaign System in America , which is very similar to trying to reform our Tax System. You close one loophole or several loopholes and others pop up. The same thing happened in the 1994 Crime Bill with the Brady Gun Control Law, they were able to limit certain guns. But then came the Gun Show Loophole and we've seen a few people unfortunately die as a result with killers getting their guns at Gun Shows.
But again as big as a problem as that is and that by itself is big enough to kill any serious Campaign Finance Reform. You also have the Two Party System, where both parties hate Divided Government and hate each other which is what we've usually had the last forty years. They both want United Government where they have the Administration and Congress and to get that, they have to knock the other party out of power. But that alone is not good enough for either of them, once they control the Federal Government. They want to knock the other party so far back, that it would take them at least two Election Cycles, for them to get back into power. And the only way to have serious Campaign Reform, is to hurt both parties and their Special Interest Groups. To make the people that put them into office weaker and that aint going to happen. At least not with the current Leadership in town with both parties. Oh did I mention the US Supreme Court yet, I better do that because they are the court that relates Campaign Fiance with Free Speech. The 2010 Citizens United case, case in point which means regulating the amount of Campaign Money is borderline impossible. Your looking at a Constitutional Amendment to do that. All right those were just my Cynical Points but truthful, I actually have a positive solution to this problem that I believe is a problem that has very limited solutions.
Imagine that Harry Reid, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi weren't the Leaders of Congress right now. And I'll give you another one Barack Obama is not the President either, who I believe would like to see real Campaign Reform. But knows its not in his short term Political Interest, so he's not going to do much about it. Imagine that Dwight Eisenhower or Harry Truman were President. And the four Leaders of Congress cared more about Campaign Reform then their party, because they believed the country needed it. You might as well also imagine that their aren't in starving people in Somalia right now or Afghanistan has the largest economy in the World as well. Thats sarcastic if not mean but close, then we could have a Campaign System with Full Disclosure and that might be all we need and all we can get. That wouldn't get thrown out by the Roberts Supreme Court. To me its not about the amount of money thats spent on Political Campaigns. But who's spending the money and who's taking it and how it relates to their Congressional Record, Presidential Record or whatever Public Office they hold. Its when a politician comes out against Teen Smoking and wants to prevent it but then takes a lot of money from Tobacco Company's thats the problem. Or No Bid Contracts that get rewarded because someone contributed a lot of money to the last Political Campaign. These are just a couple of examples and their a lot more.
Full Disclosure is all we can hope for and all we might need, when incumbents or candidates take Campaign Contributions, they would have to report that right away and make it public. Thats what Full Disclosure is. Its perfectly constitutional because incumbents and candidates have to report their income all the time. No mater how much or little money they made and how they made their money.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
If you look at what Nation Building is and what its suppose to be, go into a country thats never really been a country. With a government thats capable of governing the country in a responsible way. Nation Building at its best, looks something like the Balkan Region, where NATO, the European Union and the United States to a certain extent. Took out ruthless dictators and terrorists who were murdering people because of their ethnicity. Albanians, bosniaks, serbians, croats etc and then sent in supplies and resources and gave them to the responsible people of these new countries. To build their new countries, Nation Building at its worse looks like Afghanistan as far as I'm concern. Ten years into a Civil War there and this country which has never been a country capable of governing itself, in 2011 is still in that position. Where a Brutal Regime has been replaced by a Corrupt Government. I wouldn't say Iraq is in that category, because even though it took them about six years to get there. They now have what looks like a functioning Federal Government with a capable Law Enforcement and Military but they are not done yet.
For Nation Building to work, I believe you need several things, the consent of the people that you want to help. To eliminate whatever threat to security that may remain from any terrorists and loyalists from the previous regime that may be there. You have to have security so when you start to actually build the country, build in a lot of cases not rebuild. Somalia and Afghanistan perfect examples of this and Libya to a certain extent as well. With Western Europe and Japan it was about rebuilding, two different things. You have to have security so when you send in the supplies, they get to the responsible people who will govern and build the country. In six months thats already basically been established in Libya, much different from Afghanistan and Iraq. And then you need a coalition of countries one, so you can get the most supplies and resources and provide the most security as possible. But also for political reasons, so your not seen as occupiers. Thats what's been established in Libya as well. Instead of one country basically take the United States in Iraq, thats basically tried to do most of the hard and dangerous work on their own.
This is what Somalia needs and they will be a long term Building Project, they are simply not capable of governing and defending or even feeding themselves. They need Financial Aid, Agriculture Aid, Temporary Security and help establishing their own Law Enforcement and Military. That can defend their country which is fairly large physically, about the size of Afghanistan and also in a rough neighborhood. In the African Horn thats prone to terrorism and is very diverse ethnically with different peoples that don't like each other. The good news is that they don't have an Authoritarian Regime like the Assad Regime in Syria. The bad news is that they don't really have a government of their own at all. That can defend and govern this large country and they are going to need an International Coalition that can help them get there. And this is where the African Union and Arab League, Somalia is right in their region can help. And the European Union, NATO and the United Nations as well as the United States with resources can be a big help as well.
Nation Building is not occupying which is basically what the United States has been doing in Iraq. Nation Building is assisting a people to be able to govern themselves. Helping them build up their own National Government so they can govern themselves. Nation Building is not Nation Rebuilding either, these are two different concepts.
Monday, September 5, 2011
|Source: The Real News-|
From the early 1930s to the late 70s, progressivism pretty much ruled not only America while democratic socialism ruled the rest of the developed world. With Classical Conservatives like Senator Barry Goldwater when he ran for President in 1964, breaking in to a certain extent to offer a new agenda a new politics that was about individual freedom. Economic and social freedom that was about lowering taxes and regulations and letting people live their own lives. And do for them what government was doing for them up to a point.
But of course Senator Goldwater lost in a landslide to President Johnson in 1964, but did manage to lay down the building blocks for the conservative movement. That came into power in the late 70s and Ronald Reagan did become Governor of California in 1967 and reelected in 1970. And almost won the Republican nomination for President in 1976 and I believe would've been elected in 76 against Jimmy Carter.
Then you have the Thatcher Revolution in 1979 in Britain, the Reagan Revolution in 1980 in America. The Brian Mulroony Revolution in Canada in the 1980s, you had all of these conservative revolutions happening in the West. The Helmut Kohl Revolution in Germany in the 1980s and you saw all of these conservative government's come to power in the West. And not exactly because all of these Conservatives came to power, but also the economy's in the countries took off and became powerful again after stagnating in the 1970s. People did not vote these Conservatives into power because they hated the welfare state. But they did because their economy's were weaken and felt they were overtaxed and perhaps the government was doing too much. And wanted more freedom to live their own lives and take care of themselves.
Progressivism made its mark in America in the 1930s with the New Deal, as a response to the Great Depression. But not to destroy American capitalism but to be a soft landing when people fell through the cracks and to provide a basic standard of living. And countries that used to be Communist Republics like in Eastern Europe and some of the Slavic States, saw these countries economy's take off. And decided that they wanted their economy's to look like that as well. Britain and Germany didn't go from being democratic socialist to American capitalist, but more socialist to European capitalist.
European Conservatives didn't destroy their welfare states, neither did America. But they did provide their people with more economic freedom. And then when Bill Clinton became President of the United States in 1993, Democratic Socialists I believed were expecting President Clinton to destroy the Reagan Revolution and bring back the high tax rates. And if anything expand the welfare state, which of course he didn't in eight years.
President Clinton with help from a Republican Congress, only created one new entitlement program in his eight years, the State Children's Health Care Program, but thats run by the States. What President Clinton brought in was a liberal economic policy instead that would be centered around economic freedom, Low taxes, free trade, education, and a tight fiscal policy. With deficit reduction and balanced budgets and government being there to help the people who fall through the cracks. But help them get up not take care of them with Welfare to Work in 1996.
So when Democratic Socialists talk about "neoliberalism", they are actually talking about liberalism instead, classical liberalism if you prefer. Which is different from progressivism that had dominated American politics for about fifty years. That we as a country have moved away from. And they are not happy about that, they would like to see us go back to the future.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
I'll give President Hugo Chavez of the Bolivar Republic of Venezuela credit, he did come to power legally and democratically. And not to compare President Chavez with Adolph Hitler Chancellor of Nazi Germany. Other then the fact that they were both elected legally and democratically. But then they both used democratic means to establish their authoritarian goals, Chancellor Hitler was a dictator and evil one at that. Not many more evil people period then Adolph Hitler in World History and Hugo Chavez who I don't see as evil. But if he's not the Dictator of Venezuela, definitely has aspirations of being the Dictator of Venezuela. He's made statements basically saying that one of his goals is to be the Fidel Castro of South America. Fidel Castro is a communist obviously who came into power in a Military Revolution, so that alone gives President Chavez a leg up on President Castro who came into power democratically. I give credit to President Chavez for wanting to make Venezuela a more progressive country. Where everyone can get a quality education and have access to quality Health Insurance and Health Care. Two things that President Castro has managed to establish in Cuba, as well as President Chavez wanting all venezuelans who can work be able to get a job. And wanting to close the Income Gap between rich and poor etc, like I said there are some positive aspects to Hugo Chavez,
I don't consider himself to be an evil man. The Democratic Opposition in Venezuela might see Chavez differently though but Hugo Chavez is a socialist and not a Classical Socialist or even a Democratic Socialist. But at least a borderline communist someone with serious authoritarian leanings with aspirations of being a dictator. And a dictator of a fairly good size country of 27M people with significant Natural Resources. Who's not interested in having a Democratic Opposition which is why he's shut down some newspapers and nationalized some Broadcast Networks in Venezuela. As well as nationalize some Venezuelan Industry's in energy and communications. Just like Fidel Castro in Cuba and today fifty years later they are a Third World country. Give President Chavez time and maybe the entire Venezuela Economy will be nationalized.
But the good news for Venezuela is that the Democratic Opposition picked up seats in the National Assembly last year. Chavez's Socialist Party or whatever its called still has a significant majority there. But democracy or at least the wanting of democracy is still alive and perhaps well in Venezuela. And perhaps in the next General Election in Venezuela, maybe Hugo Chavez will be knocked out of power legally and democratically just like he came into power. And then if that happens big if, the question will be will President Chavez step down from power or call the election bogus or something. And unilaterally declare himself the winner which is what a lot of dictators do. Slobodon Milosevic of Serbia being a pretty good example of this.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video from Russia Today on President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela
Saturday, September 3, 2011
When Natural Disasters like Hurricane Irene strikes with was awful for the Northeast and New England ironically as that might sound. I believe most americans, perhaps even some libertarians believe thats a time for the country to come together. And help the victims of these Natural Disasters and help them rebuild their communities. The question is how, who should have this responsibility, who should be in charged of our Disaster Relief and I'm talking about Disaster Cleanup and Disaster Insurance. Should we put most of the power in the hands of the Federal Government, the White House and Congress. And let them decide how much relief the victims of Natural Disasters should get. Run by FEMA the Federal Emergency Management Agency or should we decentralized this power and let more people have a role in how this done. Especially the people on the ground of these disasters and the other question I would ask is how should our Disaster Relief be paid for. Should we wait for these disasters to happen and then of course let the Federal Government declare it an emergency. And let them borrow the money that it takes to pay for our Disaster Relief and put that money on the National Debt Card. And take out a loan from Russia or China as we have always done in these situations. Hurricane Katreena of 2005 being a perfect example of this, where we borrowed something like 100B$ a year or more to pay for the Disaster Relief there. That we are actually still paying for today six years later and we can probably thank FEMA for that as well. Or should we since we don't even have to be physic to see this coming, because we know every year just because of the huge country that we live in. And where we are located that since we know these storms are coming every year, should we put the money down ahead of time. And pay for the disasters that we have to cleanup. I believe we should decentralize our Emergency Management System and bring more people in on it and pay for these disasters before they come up.
Lets let Florida, Vermont, New Jersey, California, Maryland of course the people on the ground and our Private Sector have a role in our Disaster Relief. And even bigger role and pay for our Disaster Relief and Disaster Insurance by the people who benefit from them. With a Payroll Tax to cover Disaster Insurance that the people can decide for themselves who they pay for it. And a Property Tax to pay for the cleanup, Disaster Insurance System that each State would set up for themselves that would have to meet basic Federal Standards. And with this Property Tax, leave up to the State and Local Governments to handle this cleanup with this Property Tax. And they could contract out parts of the cleanup with an Open Bid Process to handle the work. The taxes would be based on worth of property and risk for property. With each State collecting this Property Tax for themselves instead of going to the Federal Government for the money that they should get. With the Federal Government playing the role of a regulator.
Its not a matter of if we should help the victims and areas that get hit by these Natural Disasters or not, at least as far as I'm concern. But a matter of how we should pay for it and who should be handling the cleanup thats the questions. And in an era of bad economics and tight budgets, this is a debate we should have as a country.
Click on the link of the blog to see a video to see Bernie Sanders on Thom Hatrmann
Friday, September 2, 2011
To start on a casual note, if you look at Buddy Roemer and Sen. Tom Coburn two men I respect a lot and I'm not saying this to put either of them down. And you know who both of them are, you seen and heard both of them, you are fairly familiar with both of them. You would think that they are a lot alike and perhaps even related and I believe would at least make a very interesting GOP Ticket in 2012. They both pretty much represent what the Republican Party used to be, Fiscally Conservative pro military but only use it in our National Interest. Pro Federalism, that the Federal Government should live within its means and within the US Constitution. Something they both believe that the Federal Government has moved away from. They both believe, I believe except for abortion, want americans to be able to live their own lives. They are both Classical Conservatives what used to dominate the Republican Party up until twenty years ago or so.
Thats why former GOV and Rep. from Louisiana Buddy Roemer and now private businessman and Republican Presidential Candidate. Can't get into the GOP Presidential Debates, because he's not a Religious Conservative or a Neoconservative that dominates the Republican Field right now. Except for Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and John Hunstman , to a certain extent Newt Gingrich who's apparently lost all of his political skills. Which is a shame because he used to be a great politician and I mean this in the nicest way possible. But he's apparently lost the ability to communicate without offending the Republican Establishment and communicate his ideas. But only Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann and Mitt Romney if you listen to the "Political Analysts". Have a credible shot at winning the Presidential Nomination. And then there's Mitt Romney who I call a Fair Weather Candidate, if it works politically he's for it. But you get rid of the entire of the entire Republican Field and just leave in Paul, Johnson, Huntsman and Roemner and perhaps throw in some more candidates like them. You have a hell of a Republican Field, because they would be liked economically and not scare Independent Voters on Social Issues.
Buddy Roemer represents what the Tea Party used to be before it merged with the Religious Right. When it started out, the Federal Government is too big, spends too much and they want it out of our lives. And just be there to protect us and when we need but not try to control how we live . And especially don't bail out people can company's that failed and hurt the people and laid them of because they don't know how to run a business. And of course I'm thinking of TARP on 2008, awarding bad behavior as they see it. They were anti Corporate Welfare that all company's should be able to succeed or fail on their own etc. But since the Religious Right still dominates the Republican Party and to a certain extent Neoconservatives still have influence there. The Dick Cheney's of the World, candidates like Buddy Roemer, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and John Huntsman. Can't even except for Ron Paul, get enough respect to even be included in the Presidential Debates. But Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann are, because of who now runs the Republican Party today.
If this is 1988 or even 1992 and lets say democrats control the White House for a minute, Paul, Johnson, Huntsman and Roemer would all be considered the leading candidates to win the Republican Nomination. Because they would all fit in very well with what used to be a Classical Conservative Republican Party. Not a Religious or Neoconservative Republican Party.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Here's another reason why the Congressional Join Committee on Deficit Reduction as I call it, which is because I don't know the official name of it. And I'm not just saying that just to be funny, its also the truth. Because groups on the Far Left, just look at this video have already bought the Democratic Members of this committee. Not to do a damn thing to reform the Federal Government in general, because they know that would come with Spending Reductions. Especially in the areas of Entitlements and other Social Insurance Programs, where of course they believe there is no waste. Either they actually believe that or just want to believe that but that represents a big enough problem to Entitlement Reform to kill it. And then of course you have groups on the Far Right who've already bought the Republican Members of the Joint Committee. To not consider any Tax Hikes especially on the wealthy who can afford but no one in general. Including in areas of Tax Reform, including doing such common sense things like closing wasteful Tax Loopholes and Corporate Welfare. This won't work because the Far Left believes that even if there's such a thing as "Government Waste", that everyone else on the Political Spectrum. Believes is obvious and the only question is where and how much. But the Far Left are socialists so they won't be seen as putting down government as much as possible. Except for in the areas of National Security, Law Enforcement and Tax Subsidy's, anything that takes money away from their Social Insurance Programs. And then of course you have people on the Far Right, Neoconservatives who don't believe there's such a thing as Defense Waste or Law Enforcement Waste. Won't even acknowledge terms like Corporate Welfare or Tax Loopholes, except for Tax Credits that help the Working Poor. To keep them working and not collecting more Public Assistance.
This is not possible at least in this political climate, the Democratic Party still has to deal with socialists in their party. And the Republican Party still has to deal with Neoconservatives and theocrats in their party. And the two fringes of American Politics, the Far Left and Far Right will kill whatever possible deal that could come from the Joint Committee. But you get some reasonable liberals and conservatives together, people who understand that a 14T$ National Debt and 1.8T$ Deficit is too high. And that everyone in the Federal Government who deserves to be punched in the face and take a hit. Should do so because there's plenty of waste all over the Federal Government but this problem. Could be fixed in just three areas, defense, Entitlement Reform and Tax Reform. Bring our troops home from Europe, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea. Use that money to pay down the debt and deficit and demand that those countries defend themselves. Essentially transform our Entitlement System into a Welfare System that would only be for people who need it. And demand that people who can afford to pay more into it. Tax Reform, Tax Hikes on the wealthy in the short term, but long term close most if not all Tax Loopholes and tax more but at lower Tax Rates on everyone in the long term.
Our debt and deficit problem as far as I'm concern is fairly simple to solve, you go where the money is and get more out of what your spending by doing less. But the problem is thats not possible because the adults aren't in the room of the Joint Committee. Except for John Kerry and Max Baucus. And the fringes are in charged instead.
Click on the link of the blog to see a not so objective video on Defense Waste