Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Individual Freedom For Everyone

Monday, April 30, 2012

FDR Compilation Great Depression/New Deal: The President who Brought Democratic Socialism into Law in America

President Franklin Rossevelt the God of the Progressive Movement in America. The man who brought Democratic Socialism into Law in America in the 1930s. That all Progressives, whether they define they're politics as Progressive or Democratic Socialist. I know some Progressives who define they're politics as both Progressive and Democratic Socialist. And I know some Progressive who define they're politics as Libertarian Socialist. All Progressives generally speaking, look to Franklin Rossevelt as they're hero. Who brought what they've been fighting for before the New Deal in the 1930s. And after that with what President Truman tried to accomplish in the late 1940s, what he called the Fair Deal. An expansion of the New Deal and actually what FDR was pushing for in 1944. What he called the Economic Bill of Rights, again an extension of the New Deal. And what President Lyndon Johnson accomplished in 1965 with his Great Society agenda.

This is what Progressives have been pushing for since the Progressive Era, twenty years before the New Deal. Been fighting to expand ever since the New Deal and are fighting to defend today as well. What people like Ralph Nader, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Sen. Bernie Sanders and many others. And its President Rossevelt who brought Economic Progressivism, not Economic Liberalism. And perhaps I'll explain what I mean by that in a later blog, to the table in the 1930s. And have Progressives something they can point to and say, look this is what we did in the 1930s. And look at the results, this is what she should be doing again. High taxes aren't the problem on anyone, if they get good Public Service in return. This is the argument that Progressives have been making in the Democratic Party as well as other parties. But they Haven't had much success since the Great Society, in pushing they're programs through since.

FDR is the symbol the Leader and the person that Democratic Socialists point to. And someone who frankly keeps them going. Even though the politics have changed since the Great Society. Where the country has moved to the right, not become Conservative. But aren't as far to the left as Progressives tend to be. To put it mildly, they are still here giving Progressives a voice in American Politics.

Friday, April 27, 2012

PBS: A World of Ideas- Bill Moyers Interviewing Noam Chomsky: In 1988

Source: Vimeo- Bill Moyers & professor Noam Chomsky-
Source: PBS: A World of Ideas- Bill Moyers Interviewing Professor Noam Chomsky: In 1988

Last week I was in a debate on YouTube of all places, about libertarianism. We were commenting on a video about Professor Noam Chomksy. And I commented on it, saying he was a Libertarian Socialist. I understand that people not familiar with the term, like the person I was talking to on YouTube, that Libertarian Socialist might sound like an Oxymoron. Libertarians are always arguing in favor decreasing the size of the state. And that the current state that we already have is way too big and unconstitutional.

And American Socialists have argued that our State is way too small to meet the needs of Americans. When this person saw my comment on YouTube, this person said that basically that Noam Chomsky couldn’t be a Libertarian. Because he’s a Socialist and people like Ron Paul etc are real Libertarians. I’m guessing this person describes his politics as libertarian, but doesn’t seem to fully understand his own political ideology.

I told the person that I talking to that Professor Chomksy isn’t a Classical Libertarian, but a Libertarian Socialist. Big believer in social freedom and that we should be free to live our own lives. But that the state has to be big enough, with a welfare state to meet the needs of the country. Which is what Libertarian Socialism is. So a Libertarian Socialist would be against things like the War on Drugs. America expanding its power in the world, trying to police the World. Big believer in civil liberties, against what’s called the Military Industrial Complex and what’s called the Prison Industrial Complex.

Libertarian Socialists would be against things like private prisons and for things like legalizing narcotics. Especially marijuana, that pornography and gambling should both be legal, even prostitution. That the state shouldn’t try to police people from themselves, but regulate how we interact with each other. Libertarian socialism is a different form of progressivism. In the sense that even though they both tend to agree on economic policy, but tend to disagree on some key personal choice social issues.

Like Libertarian Socialists don’t believe that hate speech should be illegal, or that people should be subjected to civil action based on hate speech. Again as long as people aren’t threatening to hurt or harm each other. Today’s so-called Progressives, do believe hate speech should be regulated. The Westboro Church case of 2011, is a pretty good example of that. So-called Progressives tend to believe that gambling should be illegal as well and perhaps even prostitution and certain forms of pornography. There are Progressives that are Statists not just on economic policy, but social issues as well. Libertarian Socialists are individualists on social issues. There’s diversity in the so-called progressive movement.

There’s diversity in the progressive movement to the point, that now there are Leftists like Noam Chomsky that describe their politics as Libertarian Socialist. Socialist on economic and foreign policy, as well as national security. But liberal-libertarian on social issues. There’s a blog called the Progressive Libertarian. I’m friends with people on Facebook and outside of Facebook that call their politics libertarian socialist. And you have Progressives who are collectivist on economic policy but some key social issues as well. So when they get labeled nanny statists by the right-wing and Liberals like myself. And you can see why. I would describe Professor Chomsky’s politics as a combination of Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders. Or perhaps just Bernie Sanders. Someone whose a Socialist-Liberal, or Libertarian-Socialist.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

"Europe’s Austerity Recession": Europe Rethinking Democratic Socialism and Making Reforms

Europe’s austerity recession

If you want to see evidence about why Europe is going through a Debt Crisis. And how restructuring the Federal Governments there. Can improve the economies there by getting debt off of the Balance Sheets. And keeping Interest Rates down, just look at well Greece. Which has one of the largest Federal Governments in the World as far percentage of its GDP. They are getting bailed out by the International Monetary Fund and the European Union as well. Look at Italy, Spain and Portugal as well. That are headed in that direction and then look at Germany and Sweden. Not many countries that are growing in Europe right now but its biggest is doing. Better then America and has higher Economic and Job Growth. As well as a lower Unemployment Rate then us and they've restructured the Federal Government. And then look at Sweden a country of 9M people but with an economy of around 500B$, thats physically the size of Afghanistan. Imagine how large of an economy they would have, if they weren't so spread out. And they had 50-60M people, they spend 50% of its GDP on its Federal Government and have made savings and reformed its Welfare State.

The Socialist Utopia of Sweden has one of the highest Economic and Job Growth Rates in the World right now. But they've reformed its Welfare State and made savings in it. They've realized that perhaps its Federal Government was doing too much. And that Swedish People might need to do more for themselves. It took Swedish Conservatives coming to power there or what Conservatives look like in Sweden. They may look like Liberals in America but thats probably for another blog. For Sweden to figure out that its government was too big and taxing too much. But its economy is doing very well right now. Cutting Federal Budgets just to make savings in them, won't alone turn your economy around. People need money and incentive to spend, you need to try to create demand. Aa well as invest in things that can lead to Economic Growth like Public Infrastructure. But it can part of a package if done right, that can get you out of recession. And bring your debt down.

Britain is an example of austerity going wrong but in defense of the Cameron Government. They inherited a bad situation and perhaps have made it worse. I'm not as familiar with its Budget Cuts as I'm with Sweden and France. You shouldn't cut just to cut but to bring your debt and deficit down. While at the same time your investing in things that can lead to Economic Growth. Which is what the Clinton Administration did in America in the 1990s. And hopefully President Obama will adopt the same approach.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Brent Abrahamson: President Franklin Roosevelt’s Second Bill of Rights Speech

Democratic Socialist?
This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeStates Plus

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt became President in 1933 he obviously inherited the Great Depression and created the New Deal to respond to it. By the early 1940s, we were committed to World War II thanks to Japan bombing Pearl Harbor and Nazi Germany murdering European Jews. President Roosevelt creates the New Deal, we get out of the Great Depression by the early 1940s, we win World War II by 1944-45 and President Roosevelt was looking to complete his Presidency. He was President for twelve years, 1933-45 and had plenty of time to figure out what to do with it. And he decided to build on the New Deal, which he called the 2nd Bill of Rights. Which has also been called the Fair Deal, which was about economic security for all Americans.

FDR wanted to create things like national health insurance, perhaps national healthcare as well. Education reform, perhaps a national higher education system. And all the economic rights, like a right to a good job, a right to a living wage, a right to health care and health insurance, a right to a pension. Europe has these things or at least once they did, but once you guarantee that all Americans have a right to a good job and other things like that, it makes it very difficult to remove unproductive workers. As long as they are not stealing or abusing coworkers that sort of thing. Because they now have a right to that job. Like someone would have the right to free speech and other things.

For any of these economic rights to be real, they need to be part of the U.S. Constitution. Which they currently are not, otherwise they can always be removed just by statue. And President Roosevelt was never successful in accomplishing that. What he should’ve focused on, was creating an economic system where everyone would have the opportunity to be successful. Based on what they contribute to society and that means quality education for everyone.

Sunday, April 22, 2012

USA Today-Boston AP: Yankees Club Five HRs To Spoil Red Sox's Celebration of Fenway Park

This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal Plus

What I’m about to blog, is no way to sound like a damn Yankees fan. Because I’m not trying to bash the Red Sox, I’m a lifelong Orioles fan. And not a fan of either team, the Yankees and Red Sox. And they are the Orioles top two rivals. But you would think when celebrating the 100th Birthday of what I believe is the greatest of the classic ballparks in Major League Baseball, you would bring your A Game, bring your best. Especially when facing your arch-rival in the New York Damn Yankees.

Red Sox starting pitcher Clay Buchholtz did that. Only giving up one run over six innings. The Red Sox batters gave Buchholtz a 9-0 lead and Red Sox manager Bobby Valentine pulls Clay Buchholtz, to bring in the Red Sox bullpen. The bullpen thinking it must be their off day, or they were throwing batting practice to the Yankees or were still drunk from celebrating the Fenway 100th Birthday. This is Boston, that is possible and no that wasn’t an Irish joke, but a Boston joke.

The Red Sox bullpen giving up, count them fifteen runs over three innings. Represents the ultimate of chokes and again we are talking about the Red Sox. So that’s saying something, for a regular season game and the Red Sox fans and Fenway Park deserved a hell of a lot better.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Salon: Opinion: Troy Williams: When Mormons Were Socialists: Mitt Romney The Socialist Mormon?

Salon: Opinion: Troy Williams: When Mormons Were Socialists 

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress

Hopefully this is not a news flash for anyone, but I’m not an expert on religion. I’m also not ten-feet tall, if anyone is wondering that as well. I’m especially not an expert Mormonism, which is probably one reason why I’m Agnostic. A devout Agnostic, if there’s such a thing, but what little I do know about Mormonism, is extremely little, as small as Danny DeVito. Which is probably only enough to fill up a bottle cap. That there is a communitarian aspect to Mormonism. That they live together in compounds, that sort of thing.

To suggest that Mormons are Socialists and they believe all people should live this way, have multiple spouses, at least for men, that sort of thing, is a big stretch. The only socialist religion out there, if you want to call it a religion, would be Atheism, or really militant or fundamentalist Atheism that you see on the far-left. The belief that there is no God and today’s so-called Progressives tend to be Atheist. The closest thing we have to a socialist religion in America would be what is supposed to pass as progressivism today. Which is another way of saying democratic socialism.

Today’s socialism really, is a very collectivist, communitarian, share and share alike philosophy. “That we are only as strong as our weakest link. That we need a strong, large centralized, bloated, I mean big government to mandate, I mean ensure economic equality in America. That we don’t have rich, middle or poor people. That we are all the same and equal”. That’s what progressivism looks like from today’s so-called Progressives is. And if this was a religion, it would be a socialist religion.

And as much as today’s, well Socialists in America, may complain or hate religion, they have as much faith and belief in the state, especially the federal state to take care of and look after and manage the people’s well-being, as the Religious-Right believes Jesus will do those things for the people. The Religious-Left in America (and yes, there is such a thing) to call Mormonism a socialist religion or to link Mitt Romney to socialism at any point, is a stretch and pretty humorous.

Sort of like calling people who have salad with their steaks, a vegetarian. A blind person wouldn’t believe that because they could smell the beef. “Where’s the beef, right in front of my nose”. But people are welcome to say and believe anything they want, in a liberal democracy, including Socialists who wished we weren’t a liberal democracy. And if anything Socialists have more freedom to express themselves in our liberal democracy, than in a social democracy. Because of our liberal First Amendment.

Sunday, April 15, 2012

AlterNet: Blog: Bill Maher on Rosengate: "I Think What She Meant is That Mitt Romney's Never Gotten Her Ass Out of the House to Work": Hillary Rosen's Fat Mouth Strikes Out

AlterNet: Blog: Bill Maher on Rosengate: "I Think What She Meant is That Mitt Romney's Never Gotten Her Fat Ass Out of the House to Work"

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

I’ve gone out of my way to avoid blogging about “Hillary Rosengate”. As Talking Points Memo coined it this week. A progressive Magazine by the way, because it was one of the dumbest things I’ve heard said in American politics. Which is saying something, I mean we had eight years of George W. Bush as President. 

Dumb thing to say especially coming from one of the best political strategists and analysts in the business today in Hillary Rosen. Both Democrats and Republicans would acknowledge that. So dumb to the point that after Hillary Rosen made her statement saying that “Anne Romney has never worked a day in her life” on CNN’s AC360 on Wednesday night, she ends up apologizing for it on the CNN Morning Show on Thursday. 
And the Democratic Leadership goes out of their way to make it clear that they disagree with what Rosen said. The White House makes it clear that Hillary Rosen doesn’t work for them, or for the Obama reelection campaign. Thanks to Rick Santorum who’s turned out to be a year around Christmas Gift for the Democratic Party, as well as for comedians, bloggers and political satirists, Democrats have been kicking butt when it comes to female voters in 2012. 
The Democratic Party has been kicking Republican Butt, especially Mitt Romney’s, when it comes to female voters, as CNN political analyst Gloria Borger said. "Mitt Romney doesn’t have a gender gap with women, but a gender gulf", or gender canyon. Something to that effect, in others words a huge deficit amongst female voters. 
President Obama was already having a bad week to begin with. From last Friday’s jobs report that showed job growth slowing. And Hillary Rosen gives the Romney campaign a gift from God. Something positive to talk about, their support for motherhood. I mean seriously who’s against motherhood, I mean that would be like hating freedom, or sex or sleep, anything else where most Americans absolutely love. 
To suggest that you're in favor of motherhood, which was what the Democratic Leadership was saying post Hillary Rosen’s comments, is like saying you support having a strong country where everyone can get a job that needs one. That you're against crime, especially murder and you hate racism. These things are so obvious, that you shouldn’t have to try to convince people of your positions. 
Hillary Rosen is the big foot in the mouth that the Republican Party has been waiting for ever since they decided that Mitt Romney should be their presidential nominee and Rick Santorum should be his main challenger. They figuring that if "we are going to have to foot in the mouth's running for president, Democrats should have at least one. And I mean a really big one since we have two of them for both legs.

Thursday, April 5, 2012

AlterNet: Opinion: Robert Reich: "How We're Turning America Into a Giant Casino": The Progressive War on Freedom of Choice

AlterNet: Opinion: Robert Reich: How We're Turning America Into a Giant Casino

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress

Last night I wrote a blog based on a blog I saw from Progressive Professor Robert Reich, where he was criticizing organize gambling in America. And making the case that America was becoming a “Giant Casino” because of organize gambling. And I’m sure other activities Progressives seem to feel the need to protect people, even if they don’t want their protection. That grown American adults are too stupid to make their own decisions in life. Like how to spend their own money that they earned themselves.

But of course with the so-called Progressive of today, it is not our money, meaning the money that we have and earned for ourselves is ours t begin with. That it’s government’s money that they would call the public’s money and we only get to keep what Uncle Sam allows us to keep for ourselves. And even to protect people from themselves, that we are not capable with our money because we are not capable of deciding for ourselves whether or not we should be able to gamble our own money or not.

That we need our Uncle Sam to babysit us and teach how we should live our own individual lives, because we are simply too stupid as individual Americans to make these basic decisions for ourselves. Gambling like any other activity that comes with risk like riding a motorcycle, horseback riding, going to nightclubs and even concerts, comes with a certain amount of risk. That people who again choose to make that decision for themselves., will only make the best decision that they can with the best available information that is available.

We don’t need government to babysit us and make our decisions for ourselves. What we need government to do is to regulate these activities to stop and punish predators so innocent people who’ve again made the choice to participate in these activities themselves. And to set basic rules to make them as safe as possible. Much different from government putting their big fat foot on the ground, that generally gets stuck in their mouth to begin with, “saying no! You can’t do these things and if you do anyway, we’ll punish you for your own good”.

Generally I go off on Religious and Neoconservatives, when it comes to freedom of choice. And their lack of support for it and criticize them for being in favor of big government. And go off on Progressives for supporting big government as it relates to the economy. But Progressives also have some big government tendencies on these some of these social issues as well. I’m not saying that Progressives are big government supporters across the board.

Because Progressives are not, if they were, then they would basically be Communists. Or how communism has been practiced, take Cuba. And I’m not saying this to be partisan as a Liberal. Because on most social issues, Progressives tend to be very good when it comes to personal liberty. Like abortion, gay marriage, homosexuality and to a certain extent marijuana when it comes to the non-paternalistic wing of the progressive movement.

But when it comes to what people can do with their money, except for marijuana to a certain extent, if there’s any risk or the chance that people can get hurt as a result, or where people can make a lot of money from these activities, they seem to feel the need to try to outlaw these activities. It’s not just Bob Reich’s blog against organize gambling last night. But Progressives seem to feel the need to outlaw hate speech.

Because today’s Progressives seem to feel people can get hurt from having to listen to it. They want to protect people they care about from having to listen to things that may offend. While they make every First Amendment argument they can think of to attack people they are against. Take the Supreme Court decision last year, in March having to do with the Westboro Church.

Or the need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to use against Fox News. Because apparently they don’t believe Americans can tell the difference from real news and what’s bogus reporting, which is what you get a lot from Fox News. The so-called Progressive feel the need to not only protect people, but protect them from themselves. Which is exactly what big government is, whether its applied to economic or social policy. And Progressives are guilty at times on both fronts when it comes to big government.

Organized gambling is not a question of whether it is going to be around or not. It has been around with us at least as long as we’ve been a Federal Republic. The question is how should it be around and should people feel worried about going to jail or not, if they chooses to gamble their own money. Do we need Uncle Sam to protect people from ourselves, or have an educated public that is more than capable of making these decisions for themselves.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Huffington Post: Opinion: Robert Reich: "Turning America Into a Giant Casino": Progressives Against Freedom of Choice

Huffington Post: Opinion: Robert Reich: Turning America Into a Giant Casino

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress

If you believe in things like individual liberty, freedom of choice and even property rights, that people not only own their material property, but themselves as well their lives and how they live their lives, then you shouldn’t have a problem with organized gambling at least as far allowing individuals to make the decision whether or not to gamble their money on their own or not.

Now if you don't believe in things like personal liberty and freedom of choice, that people are generally stupid and can't be trusted to make their own decision especially with their own money, then you sure as hell will have a huge problem with legalized organized gambling. And perhaps are in favor of setting up some federal agency of babysitters that will decide what we can and can't do with our own earned money that we get paid working for a living. 

But again if you believe in personal liberty and believe that individuals should be able to make the personal decision of whether or not to gamble or not, you believe it should be legal. Whether you personally believe in gambling or not. But that you don’t believe people should be arrested or prosecuted, because of what they did with their money. As long as they are not hurting others with what they are spending their money on.

Big winners when it comes to organized gambling, are of course the casinos. They wouldn’t be in business otherwise, I mean seriously who goes in business to lose money. I'll tell you who, the people who go bankrupt and out of business as fast as an fat person cleans their plate at an all you can eat buffet. And perhaps are so stupid that they weren't even aware that they went into business to lose money. 

Just like the big winner in the War on Drugs are drug dealers. Just because people make a lot of money running a business, doesn’t mean that's bad. Something that today's so-called Progressives perhaps including Robert Reich doesn't seem to understand and believe anyone who profits off of services that they provide for the public are somehow immoral or something.  And just because you make things illegal, doesn’t mean it goes away. 

Again take the War on Drugs and I would add prostitution, the oldest profession in the world legal or otherwise to use as examples. Organize gambling should be treated like any other business. Subjected to regulation and taxation, to make it as safe as possible. Instead of Uncle Sam putting his big fat foot on the ground, assuming he can get it out of his mouth and saying, "no! You can't do that and if you do it, we'll arrest you for your own good". Again similar to the War on Drugs. 

Big Government Progressives and Neoconservatives have this notion that government has to be strong, in order to protect the people from themselves. And that certain things that they don’t like have to be illegal. To protect us, so we don’t make bad decisions with our own money and lives. 
A couple problems with that, both of them are practical. One they don’t seem to realize that these activities are going to go on regardless of whether they are legal or not. The other being that they don’t tend to be very good at spending other people's money. As Libertarian Professor Milton Friedman argued and make mistakes on their own. The Progressive War on Gambling, is similar to the Progressive War on Corporate America. That if these activities are legal, then certain people will make a lot of money.

Again if you're going to live in a liberal democracy, then you need to be able to admit some facts. That you're going to live with a lot of people who are different from you. And who look at life and live life different from you. And for us to survive as a liberal democracy, with individual liberty, we need to accept these facts, to be able to live with each other as best as we can. Not try to force our values onto others and try to play Uncle Sam for the whole country and Uncle Sam knows best. Because a lot of times he simply doesn't.