Sam Seder: 'Mitt Romney: Universal Healthcare is Great For Everyone But America!'

Source:Sam Seder- Governor Mitt Romney (Republican, Massachusetts) campaigning for President of the United States, in the Jewish State of Israel. I hope he didn't get lost oversees.

"From the Majority Report, live M-F 12 noon EST and via daily podcast at:The Majority Report. When visiting Israel, Mitt Romney went on and on about what a great (government run) healthcare system they have... 

From Sam Seder

First of all: just to sort of the correct the record here and I think Sam Seder already knows this, but Mitt Romney never said: "Universal Healthcare is Great For Everyone But America!" And I think the host of the so-called Majority Report already says that. He said Israel's health care costs are a lot lower than America's. And then Seder correctly pointed out some of the aspects of the Israeli health care system. 

What Sam Seder didn't say is that Israel has a free health care system provided for by the government, because he knows better. They have a private health care and insurance system, that's tightly regulated by the national government there. Which isn't much different from what America has now, because of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (also known as ObamaCare) that was based on the RomneyCare plan in Massachusetts, a law that then Governor Mitt Romney signed into law and supported in Massachusetts.

The Ring of Fire: Mike Papantonio & Jonathan Haidt: 'The Psychology of Republican Voters'

Source:The Ring of Fire- talking to Professor Jonathan Haidt.

"If the Republican Party is good at only one thing, it's getting middle class people to vote against their own best interest. For years the GOP has convinced average voters that their party really cares about them, and that their policies that only benefit the wealthy are still best for the country. And the voters continue to keep buying this worn out line. Mike Papantonio seeks to find out why voters keep voting against their own interests with Dr. Jonathan Haidt, professor of psychology at New York University's Stern School of Business." 

From The Ring of Fire

I think there a couple major factors for why the blue-collar voters are moving to the Republican Party and away from the Democratic Party and Mike Papantonio and Jon Haidt covered one of then having to do with the civil rights laws of the 1960s. 

Pre-civil rights movement, the Democratic Party was the home of blue-collar voters, even though it's always had a northern, urban, well-educated, wealthy, yuppie, and hipster wing in it, like it has today. But if you were a blue-collar voter in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and even 1970s, you were probably a Democrat if you voted, because Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and even Jimmy Carter, bothered to speak to those voters and even offered programs and solutions to the problems that these voters were dealing with. 

The reason why the Republican Party was such a minority party in America, even when they did have The White House, because their coalition was so small. Up until the 1960s, the Republican Party was mostly country club, northern, midwestern, and western party, of rich people, including African-Americans, Jewish-Americans, and Asian and Latino-Americans. While the rest of the country of all classes, race, and ethnicities, were Democrats. 

Richard Nixon in the mid and late 1960s, even though he was a highly educated and successful, as well as wealthy Republican, saw a major numbers problem for the Republican Party, as he was planning his next presidential campaign, which would've been 1968. He discovered that Republicans were losing almost everywhere, because they didn't have enough voters. Their coalition was simply too small to compete with the Democratic Party. 

Richard Nixon doesn't win the presidency in the 1968, without his campaigning for Congressional Republicans and the successes that they had both in the House and Senate, but also governor's races in 1966, but also with the voters of blue-collar voters, including Independents, but Democrats as well. And Ronald Reagan picks up on this in the late 1970s and even into his failed presidential run in the Republican Party in 1976 and takes that campaign strategy into 1980. 

If you are well-educated, highly successful, wealthy, and even believe in individual freedom, (even if you a so-called leftist who doesn't publicize your belief in individual freedom) you are probably a Democrat. If you are a blue-collar voter, who perhaps just has a high school diploma, who is very fundamentalist when it comes to religion and believes America has been going to hell since the 1960s, you are probably a Republican today. That's how much the two major political parties have changed.

The Nation: Laura Flanders & Robert Pollin: 'Full Employment Is Possible'

Source:The Nation- talking to left-wing economist Robert Pollin. Good job, Bob!

"The latest book from Robert Pollin, economics professor at University of Massachusetts Amherst and director of the Political Economy Research Institute, is Back to Full Employment. If the title seems bold, the roadmap Pollin lays out behind it is hardly outlandish. In this conversation with Laura Flanders, Pollin explains how the Federal Reserve can grow employment tremendously, without the need for any legislation. "When you have unusued resources in the economy, you can pump money into the economy, and you'll create jobs right away," Pollin says. 

Visit The Nation for more videos. Watch the full interview with Robert Pollin at:GritTV." 

From The Nation

What Robert Pollin is talking about here, instead of reversing not just the middle class tax cuts, but all the tax cuts that have been passed, at least since 2001, (some leftists would go even further than that) he's talking about using the money that's already in the economy, that's simply not being spent right now. 

Every business in America is supposed to have reserve requirements. Mr. Pollin would just take that money and put into the economy directly on things like infrastructure, to put millions of Americans back to work. Interesting idea because it wouldn't even add anything to the deficit and debt upfront. But good luck getting it passed.

The Ring of Fire: Mike Papantonio- 'Progressives Need To Unite: The Calvary's Not Coming'

Source:The Ring of Fire- with Mike Papantonio.

"Mike Papantonio talks about the need for every sector of the progressive movement to unite together -- No single group can operate on its own, and together we can help take down the Tea Party GOP's disastrous plans for America."

Source:The Ring of Fire

Mike Papantonio is correct that the so-called Progressives (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) need to come together and unite, for the short-term to prevent a Mitt Romney Presidency and a Tea Party Congress next year. Which is exactly what will happen if so-called Progressive (Socialists, in actuality) Democrats don't show up and vote Democratic in 2012. Which is exactly what they didn't do in 2010. 

The reason why we have a Republican House right now, because Tea Party Republicans showed up and voted Republican in 2010, while Socialists sat at home (staring at their I-phones and laptops, drinking too much coffee) or vote for socialist third-party candidates. . Because President Obama turned out not to be a Socialist that they were expecting in 2008 and that the Democratic Congress wasn't socialist enough for them either.

See, elections do have consequences, which is something that right-wingers figured out a long time ago. That a lot of left-wingers (whether they're democratic or not) haven't figured out yet, that if you don't like who comes to power and one of those reasons why they did come to power, is because you didn't bother to vote, that instead of sitting out and complaining about it, that if you don't do your part to prevent the people who came to power from getting into power, that you don't really have much reason to complain. Because if you just bothered to vote, maybe the people you want in power are still there

Sam Seder: 'Mitt Romney Foreign Policy: An Anglo-Saxon Must Lead America!'

Source:Sam Seder- Governor Mitt Romney (Republican, Massachusetts) 2012 Republican nominee for President.

"From the Majority Report, live M-F 12 noon EST and via daily podcast at:The Majority Report. A Mitt Romney foreign policy adviser said that Obama could not understand the depth of the relationship between the United States and England because Obama could not fully appreciate the shared "Anglo-Saxon heritage"... 

From The Majority Report

Just for the record: Barack Obama is part English on his mother's side, to go along with Irish and Welch. I mean the man actually celebrates Saint Patrick's Day every year. He has the entire native-British ethnic pool in his DNA, because of his mother. His father is Luo-Kenyan-African. This can happen when someone is of mixed race, they get the DNA not just of two races, but of multiple ethnic groups from different parts of the world. So when Mitt Romney says we need an Anglo-Saxon President, I have a newsflash for him: we already have one. 

I would like to think Mitt Romney is a better man than to try to win a presidential that he knows he's trailing both in the popular vote and Electoral College, by trying to scare the hell out of Independent voters and perhaps blue-collar Democrats who lean right, and say that they have to vote for him, because Barack Obama is not a real American. But I've been wrong before.

Senator Bernie Sanders: 'Where is President Obama On Social Security?'

Source:U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) I personally respect any Socialist in America who lives and operates out of the political closet and says: "Damn right, I'm a Socialist and this is why." Which is what you get from Senator Sanders.

"Sen. Bernie Sanders questioned why President Barack Obama has not defended Social Security against Republican calls for deep cuts in the program that benefits some 55 million retired and disabled Americans, widows and orphans. "I do not believe that we should cut Social Security," Sanders said in a Senate floor speech. "I would like to know, and I think the American people would like to know, if President Obama feels the same way. It is past time that the president told the American people in no uncertain terms that he will not cut Social Security on his watch." Read more:Senator Bernie Sanders." 

From Senator Bernie Sanders

"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today questioned why President Barack Obama has not defended Social Security against Republican calls for deep cuts in the program that benefits some 55 million retired and disabled Americans, widows and orphans.

“I do not believe that we should cut Social Security,” Sanders said in a major Senate floor speech. “I would like to know, and I think the American people would like to know, if President Obama feels the same way. It is past time that the president told the American people in no uncertain terms that he will not cut Social Security on his watch.”

Before Obama was elected in 2008, he was a strong defender of Social Security. “I agreed with him,” Sanders said. “I suspect that millions of Americans voted for President Obama because of the strong stands he took in defending Social Security.”  Sanders introduced legislation, modeled on a 2008 Obama proposal, to lift a cap on Social Security payroll taxes so people with earnings of $250,000 and more would pay the same share of that income as all workers.  The payroll tax is now assessed only on incomes up to $110,100 a year. 

During the past four years, President Obama has been largely silent on Social Security. The White House even failed to rebut alarming reports last year that Obama was considering Social Security cuts as part of a “grand bargain” with Republican House Speaker John Boehner.

Unlike Obama, his Republican challenger’s stance on Social Security is much clearer. Mitt Romney wants to begin the process of privatizing Social Security. He wants to gradually increase the retirement age to 68 or 69. Romney also favors slowing the growth of benefits for persons with “higher incomes.” Under a plan floated by Romney’s allies on Capitol Hill, someone making about $45,000 a year today who retires in 2050 would receive 32 percent less in annual Social Security benefits than under the current formula. By that definition, the top 60 percent of all wage earners would be considered “higher income.”

“It should come as no surprise that Republicans in Washington and Gov.  Romney want to slash Social Security.  The truth is Republicans have never liked Social Security and they have been attacking Social Security since its inception,” Sanders said.

“The question, however, that millions of Americans are asking themselves today is where President Obama stands on Social Security.  Unfortunately, he has been largely silent on this issue since he has been in the White House and during this 2012 campaign.”

Social Security has not contributed to the deficit or national debt.  It has a $2.7 trillion surplus and will be able to pay 100 percent of promised benefits to every eligible recipient for the next 21 years.  Even with no changes, there will still be enough funding to pay more than 75 percent of promised benefits after that. 

Sanders is chairman of the Defending Social Security Caucus in the Senate." 

From Senator Bernie Sanders

Apparently someone has been dumping alcohol down my throat while I'm asleep or sticking marijuana into me (perhaps also in my sleep) because I just heard Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders endorse a tax cut. He said so himself on the Senate floor today and said that he supports tax cuts for 98% of Americans. A Socialist endorsing tax cuts, is like a vegan endorsing all you can eat meat lovers buffets, an Arab endorsing the Jewish State of Israel, it almost never happens. 

Socialists are primarily in the business to grow government, especially the national government, so big government can take care of as many people as possible, with the people's own money. They're not in the business to give the people more of their money back to spend as they please. So any Socialist supporting any tax cut, is at least borderline shocking.

As as Senator Sanders on Social Security: this is generally get from the left-wing, generally left-wing Democrats or just Democrats who very partisan but perhaps not left-wing, especially during a presidential election, they accuse Republicans, especially the Republican presidential nominee, of wanting to cut and end Social Security and Medicare, regardless of what Republicans are actually offering. There's nothing new here. And if the Democrat isn't 100% with on Social Security, they'll accuse the Democrat of not being strong enough on Social Security. Which is what Senator Sanders did to President Obama today.

Thom Hartmann: Noel Flasterstein- 'Do Americans Really Need Assault Weapons?'

Source:Thom Hartmann- from the show. 

“Thom Hartmann debates Noel Flasterstein, Attorney & National Gun Rights Expert / Second Amendment advocate Website:Gun Rights For You on the issue of assault weapons and the Second Amendment.

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

From Thom Hartmann 

I was probably foolishly hoping that after the Aurora shootings last Thursday night, that instead of the American media jumping right into gun control, after they got the main details of the case, that maybe they would wait at least twenty-four hours before we automatically jumped into this thirty- year old or longer gun control debate that never goes anywhere.

Except for the 1994 Crime Bill that did have an assault weapons ban and a three-day waiting period that people had to pass, meaning that law enforcement had three days to determine if you were a criminal or a convicted felon. If you passed this check, which most people who bought guns in this ten-year period from 1994-2004 period did, you were able to buy a gun. If you failed the check, not only would you not get that gun, but you probably end up back in jail.

But the gun control debate has never been something that’s unified the country. The crime bill passes in 1994, Republicans take control of Congress for the first time since 1952 in November that year. And a reason for that had to do with the crime bill, the Far-Right woke up in America and decided that they not only needed to vote, but vote Republican and get Congressional Republicans in their pockets. So they don’t have to worry about gun control again.

What I was hoping to see instead of jumping into gun control, a debate where we generally get nowhere and as long as we have a divided Congress, we won’t get anywhere, that we could talk about ways of preventing these tragedies in the future. That we could come together on instead of using another tragedy to play gotcha, that we as a country would look into the details of this tragic case.

All of the innocent victims that died that night, who thought they were doing nothing, but having a good time that night, see a movie that they were waiting to see and perhaps doing other things that night. Expecting to have a good time that night and at the very least, expecting to survive the evening. Look into the details of the suspected murderer and what possible motivation he could’ve had committing such tragic acts with so many innocent people dying as a result and how we can prevent this as a country from happening in the future.

But instead by 3-4PM Friday afternoon on CNN, 15-16 hours after the shootings, Brooke Baldwin and her guests were already jumping into the gun control debate. All of those innocent people who were killed and what does the media do, talk about an issue that just puts another wedge between the country.

With people who don’t believe the 2nd Amendment should even exist and people who believe the 2nd Amendment shouldn’t be subjected to any regulations, as well as people who are more reasonable who are talking about common sense regulations, where I tend to be, not evening mentioning the fact that the shooter snuck into the theater through the emergency exit. And had the theater had done its job as it relates to security, they could’ve prevented this tragedy from happening in the first place. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Senator George McGovern: 1972 Democratic Convention Speech

Source:EFAN- U.S. Senator George McGovern (Democrat, South Dakota) 1972 Democratic Party nominee for President 

"Here is Mcg's convention speech from 1972. He was about up the creek as you can get at this point, but a little bit more drama was on the way over his VP choice. It also did not help much when he made his speech at 2:00, unless it's Election Night that's bad."

Source:EFAN

One thing that I respect about George McGovern, was that he didn’t meet all the stereotypes that have been thrown at so-called Progressives (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) at least when he ran for President in 1972, but ever since. 

George McGovern was a man who grew up in South Dakota and was proud of it and represented South Dakota in Congress for twenty-two years. Winning five Congressional elections, two in the House and three in the Senate. He was not from Boston, or New York, or Washington, or Chicago, or San Francisco, or Los Angeles, stereotypical left-wing cities in America, where many so-called leftists either come from, or live now. 

Senator McGovern, was an American Patriot, who served his country proudly in World War II, not a Pacifist. He was a devout Christian, not an Atheist. And also simply because of his honesty and consistency, he was against the Vietnam War when it was popular in the mid 1960s and was against it when it was unpopular the rest of the way.

George McGovern’s legacy in the Democratic Party, is a positive one, at least in this sense because of his political judgement. And he knew how the civil rights laws and the Great Society of the 1960s were going to cost the Democratic Party in the South. That the Democratic Party were going to need new voters. Similar to the Republican Party of today and they were going to need new voters. 

What George McGovern and his campaign did was change the rules of the Democratic Party to get more Democrats represented in the party: African-Americans, Latinos, Jews, women and others and making the Democratic Party a true national party. That didn’t have to have the South to be a competitive party nationally.

Human Rights Watch: ‘Sex Workers At Risk’

Source:Human Rights Watch- this woman could end up in prison for selling her sex.

Source:FreeState MD 

“Sex Workers at Risk: July 19, 2012 News Release – US: Police Practices Fuel HIV Epidemic

Condoms as Evidence of Prostitution in Four US Cities”

From Human Rights Watch 

“Police in New York, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, and San Francisco are confiscating condoms from sex workers and transgender women, undermining health department campaigns to reduce HIV. Human Rights Watch reports from Jackson Heights, Queens.”

Source:Human Rights Watch- this woman could end up in prison for selling her sex.

From Human Right Watch

I know I wrote a post about our over expensive criminal justice and corrections system in January, but I found another example of why it’s so expensive: Confiscating condoms, as if we don’t have enough unwanted pregnancies in America. People raising kids before they are ready to and raising them in poverty. Or we don’t have enough people with sexually transmitted diseases in America. Or we don’t have enough people in our corrections system. Or we don’t have again what Milton Friedman called bad laws.

Bad laws are laws designed to protect people from themselves. Rather than protecting innocent people from the harm of dangerous criminals. Laws that Uncle Sam or some other big government uncle passes that says: “Your Uncle Sam knows what is best for you. Even though I never met you or don’t even know you exist. I’m Uncle Sam, which is another way of saying God and I know what is best for you”.

Laws are supposed to be for to protect the innocent, especially children from the harm of predators. Especially in a liberal democracy like America. And another big government presidential candidate Rick Santorum, the Big Government King (at least as far as I’m concern, sounds like a burger restaurant or something) now coming out for banning condoms, which would make these issues even worse.

There’s piles and piles of evidence in America that if you try to force people to stop doing something that they want to do, marijuana, gambling, and yes prostitution are all perfect examples of this, that if they want to do something bad enough, they’ll find a way to do it. And screw the consequences if they want to do it bad enough. And if you don’t believe me about the piles of evidence, just ask a parent, especially a parent with more than one kid and especially with at least one teenager. And ask them about what it is like for them to try to get their kids to do something that they don’t want to do, or stop doing something that like doing for their own good.

Prostitution being of course the oldest profession in the world, enough said is a perfect example of that. Crimes should be things that hurt other people. Not what people do with their own lives. And that’s exactly what bad laws are, or the Uncle Sam Big Brother Nanny State micromanager is about, trying to manage other people’s lives for them, because you think they are too stupid to do that for themselves. Trying to control what people do with their own lives, even if they are not hurting anyone with what they are doing.

I’m not going to pay for sex and would never by choice work as a prostitute. But there are many other things that I wouldn’t do. Doesn’t mean I want to outlaw them for everyone else. Because I don’t want to do them and believe they would be bad choices for me. Doesn’t mean I believe these activities should be illegal. Just means I believe people should have the freedom of choice to make these decisions for themselves.

The way to make these activities as safe as possible, is not by outlawing where they go underground and are still done anyway, but through regulation and taxation to make them as safe as possible.

Sam Seder: Michele Bachmann: 'Anthony Weiner's Wife, Huma Abedin, is a Secret Undercover Muslim Agent!'

Source:Sam Seder- U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (Escaped Mental Patient, Minnesota) making the case for requiring everyone who runs for office, to first have to pass a sanity, as well an IQ test, before they are eligible to run for office in the first place.

"From the Majority Report, live M-F 12 noon EST and via daily podcast at:The Majority Report Michele Bachmann believes the US government is being 'deeply penetrated' by the Muslim Brotherhood and she's pointing the finger at Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's aide and Anthony Weiner's wife... 

From Sam Seder

I guess my first response about this latest Michele Bachmann story is: don't you just love American democracy? I mean without American democracy, we would never see the Michele Bachmann's of the world, people who don't even have the mental qualifications to serve on a town council in some rural town, or to even serve on a local PTA, let alone to not just hold a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, but to serve on the House Intelligence Committee, where apparently intelligence is not even required to serve on that committee in the first place. 

No serious, honest, decent person, would ever appoint someone Michele Bachmann to serve on or serve in office where's their a high level of intelligence and responsibility that's required to do that job well. If even George W. Bush appointed her to serve to a cabinet position when he was President, especially a national security post, she wouldn't even get through a Republican Senate back then, if all her out in right field statements and views were known back then. You would have Republican senators too embarrassed to support her back in the 2000s.

If Representative Bachmann were truly an American patriot or wanted to be one in the first place, she would go back home to Minnesota and check into the best available mental institution that's available and get the help that she needs and deserves. Or at the very least, just shut the hell up about any serious issue and person that the U.S. Government is currently involved in. She embarrasses her district and state almost every time she speaks about anything or anyone that's serious in this country.

Media Matters For America: 'Does Truth Matter At Fox, Megyn?'

Source:Media Matters For America- Fox News commentator and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.

"Megyn Kelly wants you to think she's very concerned about the truth in the political process. If so, she needs to starting cleaning up a little bit closer to home." 

From Media Matters For America

Unless you agree with Fox News and like their commentary, when you hear that label of Fox News "Fair and Balanced" how you not laugh at that when you hear it, I mean just think about what advertising is. 

False advertising is something you say that you do or sell, that you actually don't and in most cases you know you don't sell what you say that you do. And example of that would be like someone selling gasoline as a healthy drink or McDonalds Big Macs and fries to help reduce obesity. Things that are completely false. Or CSPAN claiming to be the worldwide leader in sports news, would be another example. 

Fox News is in the business of selling what's left of the brand name of the Republican Party and to speak to and speak up for allies of the GOP, pure and simple.

Fox News are obviously not going to admit this: they do for right-wingers what MSNBC tries but isn't as nearly as successful for leftists in America. As well as putting down the other side, underplaying positive things from the opposition and overplaying negative news from the opposition. 

So to hear FNC's Megyn Kelly claim that Democrats and the Obama Campaign lie, is hard to take seriously when no one knows when was the last truthful thing she said about Democrats.

Thom Hartmann: 'Disclose Act - Jeff Merkley'

Source:Thom Hartmann- U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley (Democrat, Oregon)

"Thom Hartmann talks with Senator Jeff Merkley, U.S. Senator (D-OR) Website:Senator Jeff Merkley about the Disclose Act, which would force groups like those run by Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, and Sheldon Adelson to disclose who their donors are." 

From Thom Hartmann

Just for the record: I'm in favor of full-disclosure of all Federal election contributions, Congressional and presidential. If that's what in the Merkley bill, I could probably support it, or at least vote for cloture and offer some amendments to the bill. 

I think this is another opportunity for Democrats to hit Republicans where it hurts, which is their corporate and wealthy individual pocketbooks, by saying that they want full-disclosure on all corporate contributions, but not labor contributions. Otherwise you would probably see some Senate Republicans in favor of it, people like Senator's Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, perhaps Ron Johnson, and maybe a few others, if this was actually a full-disclosure bill.

As far as the filibuster: Democrats complain about it when they're running the Senate, Republicans complain about it when they're running the Senate. So this just sounds like more Washington politics to me. A couple things that never change about Washington summers: the heat and humidity, as well as the partisanship and one party trying to hit the other and then the other party trying to hit back. 

If you want real filibuster reform, you have to do it in a way that helps, as well as hurts both parties: For example: 

Any bill in the Senate that has bipartisan support and co-sponsors on it, would bet an up or down vote. 

Any bill that has first passed through committee, is paid for, would get an up or down vote. 

The minority party could not only offer amendments to any Senate bill that doesn't need 60 votes to pass, but they could offer and alternative bill to what's already on the floor and those amendments and alternatives would also get up or down votes.

No votes pass midnight and before 9AM, so the media can the voters can see what their members of Congress are doing with their tax dollars. 

40 hours of debate, instead of 20 hours and no debate after midnight or before 9AM, so again the media and voters could see what their members of Congress are doing with their tax dollars. 

But as long as you legislation in Congress (Senate or House) that's specifically designed to help or hurt one party or the other, in favor of the other, it will die in the Senate faster than fish out of water, on a hot day, on a concrete road.

The Real News: Paul Jay Interviewing Gar Alperovitz: 'Is Public Ownership the Solution?'

Source:The Real News- with a look at state ownership of the economy.

"Gar Alperovitz: When it comes to banking and other critical sectors, public ownership is the only solution" 

From The Real News

What they're talking about in this video are the big banks in America. With Gar Alperovitz arguing that the big banks in America are too big, that eventually the U.S. Government will have no choice but to nationalize them, because they're too big to regulate and are too important to let fail. That's simply not true. 

If banks become too big, there are two big things that government could do to solve that problem: you break them and create more competition and pass a law that says banks can control no more than this percentage of the banking market. And you force them to buy bankruptcy and financial insurance, so when they're facing financial difficulties, they don't get taxpayer funded bailouts, but instead collect from their insurance that they pay into, to get them through their crisis. 

My only other point here is that Gar Alperovitz was throwing around socialist, liberal, and progressive, as if they're all the same things, when he was talking about government nationalizing the big banks in America. 

The fact is the basic, classical definition of socialist (at least) is someone who believes in nationalizing private property and state ownership of property, at least as it relates to the economy, 

A Progressive is someone who believes in progress. Not the same thing as Socialist. 

A Liberal is someone who believes in liberal democracy and the individual rights that come with liberal democracy. Basically the opposite of state ownership of private property.

The Real News: Paul Jay: 'Barack Obama's Education Policy'

Source:The Real News- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) apparently visiting a public school.

"First in a three part series about education policy in the US Presidential elections" 

From The Real News

Very early on back in 2009 in the Obama Administration, President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan concluded that the 2001-02 bipartisan education reform bill that President Bush pushed through Congress called No Child Left Behind, wasn't working and was in much need of reform or even be scrapped.

Part of the 2009 American Recovery Act, the President put in a provision called Race To The Top, which is the Obama Administration's version of No Child Left Behind. Which rewards certain school districts and states for meeting certain educational standards with new funding and deny them funds when they don't. In other words: awarding good schools and punishing low-performing schools.  

It's understandable why teacher unions and the left-wing in America would not like this, because it would cost them jobs and that means money. Because low-performing teachers and schools would essentially be fired for not doing their jobs, which is to educate our students. But if you want a free society, which I believe most Americans still do want, you need an educated society. That means having as many people as possible in America to be able to read, write, do math, etc, at grade level or better.

Russia Today: Abby Martin- Adrienne Pine: 'DEA Agents Out of Control in Honduras'

Source:Russia Today- Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today, talking about U.S. DEA agents in Honduras.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[1] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[15][16] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an "autonomous non-profit organization" founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[10][17] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO "TV-Novosti" on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia.[18][19][20] RT operates as a multilingual service with channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[21] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5][6][7] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[8][9]

RT has been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[42] and conspiracy theories.[48] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast "materially misleading" content.[55] RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Ministry of Defence and stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[16][56] In September 2017, RT America was ordered to register as a "foreign agent" with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[57] RT has been banned in Ukraine since 2014,[58] and in Latvia[59] and Lithuania[60] since 2020." 

From Wikipedia 

"The war on terror isn't the only battle claiming innocent lives: the war on drugs in Latin America continues to rage on. In the past month, officers with the US Drug Enforcement Agency have shot and killed several innocent people in Honduras. To talk more about this, Adrienne Pine, professor at American University, joins us to discuss." 

From Russia Today

It's not just America and Mexico where the War on Drugs is now being fought but its also a regional war in Americas as well. Central America and in South America, as well as parts of the Caribbean as well that the United States is involved, as well as helping to fund governments who don't have a great record as far as spending other people's money like in Mexico and in Columbia that have a history of corruption, at American taxpayers expense, as well at the taxpayers expense of the people in these countries. 

What the United States has been doing is giving these countries money to fight our War on Drugs in their countries, as well as sending our drug warriors into their countries to fight this war there. And for what use of narcotics are up in America as well as in these other countries, we are still fighting the War on Drugs not only in America but in these other countries as well. 

Forty one years later, at a cost of over 1T$ and we are eliminating a possible economic boost for a lot of these third and even fourth world countries like Afghanistan. Money they would be able to generate on their own and need less foreign aid from us and other developed nations in the future.

What the United States and Latin America should be doing instead right now and in the future is stop fighting this war, admit that its failed and cut our losses and develop a new policy in how we deal with narcotics in America and in Latin America as well, thats based on realty that we still have millions of people who want narcotics and instead of arresting people for being addicted to something they want. 

What we should be doing instead is try to convince narcotics addicts that they should no longer want they are addicted to, get them in drug rehab at their expense, instead of jail or prison. Stop fighting marijuana and legalize it and treat it like alcohol instead and decriminalize possession or use of cocaine and heroin. As long as people aren't hurting other with their use or possession of these narcotics. Have them pay a fine for the amount they have, instead of putting them in jail for it.

We have forty one years of evidence that the War on Drugs has not only failed in America but in Mexico and Latin America as well. And in these tough economic and budget times with high debt and deficits, you would think we would find much better ways to spend taxpayer dollars. That would give us a much better bang for our bucks and invest the dollars that we should be spending in things that payoff and make sense instead.