Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Individual Freedom For Everyone

Friday, May 31, 2013

NFL Films: NFL 1968-Super Bowl 3-Baltimore Colts vs. New York Jets: Highlights

Source:NFL Films- Broadway Joe Namath, saying goodbye to Miami, after leading the New York Jets to victory in Super Bowl 3.
Source:The Daily Journal

"Two future Hall of Fame quarterbacks faced off on the grandest stage of all as the Baltimore Colts and Johnny Unitas took on the New York Jets and "Broadway" Joe Namath, who guaranteed victory for his team."

From NFL Films

With all due respect to the 1968 New York Jets, Super Bowl 3 is a much different game had Colts QB John Unitas who was still the best QB in pro football at this point, been healthy and at full strength against the Jets and not dealing with a sore throwing arm. Because the Colts with Earl Morral who was a solid, but journeyman NFL QB, drove the ball up and down the field against the Jets defense in the first half. But the Colts had to settle for a short field goal attempt that they missed. And Morall missed Colts WR Jimmy Orr in the end zone and under the ball that was picked off by a Jets DB. A healthy Unitas hits Orr in the end zone.

The Colts should’ve had 10-14 points if not more in the first and you are looking a much different game going into the second half. With the Colts having a 10 or 14-7 lead knowing they can move the ball up and down the field against the Jets. And knowing their great defense can shut down the Jets.

Juan Traverus: 1979 Jordache Denim Jeans Commercial

Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal Plus

I just want to say thank God I was born in 1975 and I’m old enough to remember the tight dark wash denim designer jeans revolution of the late 1970s, that went up to 1984 or 85 or so. Before 1977 or 78 jeans on women tend to be baggy and real thin and loose in the legs and in many cases the pant would hit the ground. If you are familiar with the early 1970s and even the mid 1970s, or the hippie era, you know what I’m talking about.

In 1977 and 78 that changed and women’s jeans denim leather became tight and reveling. Showing your legs and butt as a sexy women became popular. And you started seeing a lot of women in their tight dark wash designer denim jeans on TV a lot and in the movies and out in public and you saw sexy female celebrities showing off their hot bodies in them. The jeans in boots look started in the late 1970s, not 2005-06.

The designer denim jeans for women sort of went out of style by 1986 or so and unfortunately were replaced with acid wash and unfortunately I’m old enough to remember that as well. But smart enough to never where them. And then in the late 1990s the dark wash designer denims came back into style and have been with us ever since and have just gotten tighter with skinny denim trend.
Juan Traverus: 1979 Jordache Jeans Commercial

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Poli Pop: Video: Caffeinated With John Fugelsang: Barack Obama is a Bad Socialist

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress

I agree Barack Obama may be the worst Socialist ever for the simple reason he’s not a Socialist. And the same thing could be said about George W. Bush being the worst Conservative ever because he wasn’t very conservative if you look at his record when it came to fiscal policy especially spending and civil liberties. To be a Socialist you, you must be a Socialist. I know that sounds crazy, but to be tall, you actually have to be tall. A man can’t just say one day, “now dammit (or something stronger) I’m tired of being 5’7 and short. So today I declare myself as 6’1 and tall”. Why, because that man will still be 5’7. Calling yourself something doesn’t make you that. A police officer can’t just make themselves a sergeant and call themselves that. They have to be promoted to sergeant first.

Calling yourself something or calling someone else something, doesn’t make them what you’re calling them or yourself that, if you or they aren’t actually that. If I’ve lost you on that, I’m not surprised, I’m feeling dizzy from just writing that. To be a Socialist, you must have a socialist record and socialist policies and ideas. Which is just not there in Barack Obama’s case. Unless you want to play guilt by association, in other words Joe McCarthy. Meaning people Barry has been associated with in the past, Bill Ayers comes to mind, the guy hosting this show, Al Sharpton now here’s someone you could make a serious case about being a Socialist.

But the charges against President Obama are just Tea Party propaganda trying to make a man they hate, seen as Un-American as not one of them and must be defeated and stopped at all costs. So they use one of the most unpopular words in the American-English dictionary which is socialist and socialism and so-forth, trying to make Barack Obama seem as worst then he is to scare people. Thats the modern GOP divide and conquer when you don’t have a popular message of your own.
Barack Obama

Monday, May 20, 2013

Mitch: Chicago 1968- The Democratic Convention

Source: Mitch- The 1968 Democratic National Convention-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeStates Plus

1968 is when the Democratic Party changed and no longer became a Northeastern progressive party with a Southern coalition. Made up of people who basically make up the Religious-Right and Neoconservative wing of the Republican Party today. With Liberal Democrats spread out all over the country. By 1968 the Democratic Party was moving away from the South and becoming the party of the Northeast, Midwest and West Coast, as well as the Mid Atlantic.

With the emergence of what I call the Green Party wing of the Democratic Party, that is represented by the Progressive Caucus in Congress. That you see today in the Green Party, but also in Occupy Wall Street. And this is how the Democratic Party lost the White House in 1968 because Liberals and Progressives on the Center-Left in the party were now divided between the New-Left in the party made up of Socialists Anarchists as well as Communists. The group called Students For a Democratic Society then was what Occupy Wall Street is of today. “That some things are so awful about America that sometimes it takes violence and people getting arrested to show Americans how bad this country is.”

The Democratic Party lost in 1968 because they were divided by their two mainstream wings on the Left. The FDR/LBJ Progressive coalition and the JFK Liberal coalition, with this new coalition that’s called the New-Left. People who are against war, but are in favor of using violence to get their message across. Who are against American capitalism and corporate America, but in favor of the New Deal and Great Society. But would expand into what’s known in Europe as the welfare state. What the Green Party today calls the Green New Deal.

The Green Deal would be a whole host of new Federal Government social programs to finish off of what the New Deal and Great Society didn’t accomplish. The New-Left then made up of Students For a Democratic Society and Occupy Wall Street today, are not Pacifists in the sense that they are against violence and would never use violence. They just don’t want violence coming from their government, but are more than willing to use it against government or people in society. That represent what they do not like about America, like private corporations.

1968 is basically when the Democratic Party basically became three political parties. New Democrat Liberals where I am, the FDR Progressives or what’s left of them and Occupy Wall Street today or the Green Party. That sees the Democratic Party and the Republican Party as the same party, but with different names. And even as split as the Democratic Party was back then, they still came within a state or two of winning the 1968 presidential election. But they would’ve done much better without the split happening all in one party.
Mitch: Chicago 1968- The Democratic National Convention

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Joey Teefizz-Sockers-TV: MISL 1983-11/05/82-San Diego Sockers @ St. Louis Steamers: Highlights

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal Plus

Two of the best franchises in the history of the Major Indoor Soccer League and pro arena soccer in general regardless of which league you want to talk about. And there have been several pro arena soccer leagues in America, which I believe has been one of the reasons why the sport hasn’t caught on and become a major pro sport by now. The Sockers are sort of like the Los Angeles Lakers of the MISL. And the Steamers are like the Boston Celtics or Philadelphia 76ers, franchises with long histories of winning and playing for league championships. And they’ve both been so successful winning so many championships each, because they play this sport the way it should be played. Both on offense and defense. Moving the ball on offense and constantly attacking, while at the same time playing with discipline so they aren’t hurt defensively. And with solid goaltending as well.

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Scott Scherer: Video: The Last Days of the Old Cleveland Browns

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

This looks more like the story of the 1990s Browns before they relocated to Baltimore and became the Ravens and. The New Browns came into existence in 1999. To me this looks like the story of the Bill Belichick Browns which is a good story. Because it’s about a guy who was getting his first shot as a NFL head coach and something he deserved, but he inherited a bad football team in 1991.

His first season where the good days of the Browns of the 1980s were gone and they had become a team that you could expect to lose ten plus games every year. And Bill Belichick didn’t get off to a good start in Cleveland. And started with three straight losing seasons from 1991-93 where progress was slow, but where it finally paid off.

In 1994 the Browns becoming winners and a playoff team for the first time in five years. But financial problems in Cleveland with the Browns playing at a mammoth aging stadium in Cleveland Municipal Stadium and these issues were real and the Browns simply wouldn’t have been successful in Cleveland playing in that stadium.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Jesse Shipp: Video: NFL Films: Don Coryell, The Air Coryell Chargers

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

I wouldn’t put the 1981 San Diego Chargers on the NFL Films list of teams that didn’t win Super Bowls, that would’ve and what they call Missing Rings. For the simple fact that they didn’t have a Super Bowl team, they had a Super Bowl passing game. But so did the San Francisco 49ers, Los Angeles Raiders, Washington Redskins all teams that had Super Bowl passing games. But all teams that won Super Bowls in the 1980s because they had Super Bowl teams. They all had great running games as well as great defenses so they didn’t have to score 30-35 points a game and get into shootouts to win.

Great are able to put up a lot of points, when their defense has a bad game, or when they are blowing their opponents away. that much it was because they were blowing teams. The Chargers at least of 1981 and look at their playoff games of 1982, 1980 and 1979 and when they became playoff contenders in 1978, they were a passing team without a great running game, at least at playoff time that struggled on defense in the playoffs as well. So I would put the Chargers in the level of the Miami Dolphins of the early and mid-1980s. Great quarterback and receivers, but not much else that stands out as being part of a great team.

I would put the 1981 Chargers on a list of teams that what would’ve been if they had a good defense as well. And then maybe we are talking about the 1981 Chargers like we are talking about the 1999 St. Louis Rams. A team with basically the exact same offense, but with a great running game as well and also one of the best defenses in the NFL in 1999. What Air-Coryell was, is basically what I call the Spread Vertical Offense. Where basically everyone on offense except for of course the QB and offensive line, are receivers and targets in the passing game where you throw the ball to everyone all over the field.

Forcing the defense to cover the whole field, but where there’s at least one deep option on every pass play sending at least one corner back to go downfield. And hopefully a safety as well leaving the rest field open to other players for the QB to get the ball to. The problem with the Air-Coryell version of the SVO is that it was a warm dry weather offense. That once the weather goes bad, the Chargers running game wasn’t good enough to pick up the slack for the passing game struggling. When the defenses know that you have to run the ball.

The reason why the Chargers lost the 1981 AFC Final to the Cincinnati Bengals in what’s known as the Freezer Bowl, horrible football weather is because the Bengals were a big running team that got their big pass plays off of play-action with QB Ken Anderson. That were better defensively and a tougher team than the Chargers and well-suited to win in bad weather. The Chargers were too single-dimensional, too reliant on the passing game to win. With not enough of a running game and defense to pick up the slack when the passing game was off.

Monday, May 13, 2013

The New York Times: Room For Debate: Can Diversity Survive Without Affirmative Action?

The New York Times: Room For Debate: Can Diversity Survive Without Affirmative Action?

You only achieve a colorblind, or racial-blind, which is what this is really about, or ethnic-blind, or gender-blind society, if you actually practice those things. And simply say dammit, (or use your own word) we are simply not going to tolerate people being denied things in America based on their race, ethnicity, color, gender and I would add sexuality. That’s why we have civil rights laws, to punish racist actions in this country that literally prevent people from succeeding in America. Of course all Americans are entitled to racist beliefs, or racist ideology in this country.

The First Amendment protects bigotry, but we simply do not have a constitutional right to practice those beliefs. In the name of hate, or for whatever reasons without any consequences coming for that. To use as a hypothetical, Joe could hate Tom because of his race. Whatever Tom’s race is and let’s say Joe and Tom are of different races. But Joe does not have the right to physically assault Tom because of Tom’s race. Or deny Tom a job, or a home for the same reasons. Just like Tom doesn’t have the right to deny Joe the same things or assault Joe based on Joe’s race.

And the same thing goes with government, that government can’t reward people, or deny people no matter their race, ethnicity or gender. Based on race, ethnicity or gender even if it’s only one factor. If the Equal Protection Clause means a damn thing. So my point is the way you stop racist actions is by enforcing the law and punishing people for when they do it. And you hit them hard enough that it hurts so they pay a steep price for it and even if they are bigots. The price for their bigotry might be so high that they may consider not doing it. That they’ll look for legitimate ways that are actually real to deny people who are of a different race, ethnicity, or gender. And they wouldn’t recruit people of different backgrounds to work for them.

The way you eliminate racist beliefs is simply through education. You educate the ignorant, so even if kids who have racist parents let’s say, you have them go to school and allow them to grow up with people from different backgrounds. So they can learn how foolish their parents are about other people. As I’ve said before you do not fight bigotry by practicing it yourself and you treat people as individuals. Not as members of groups and not assuming that someone from a certain background is going to need some special advantage. Just because of whatever group, or groups that they are members of. That the way to achieve diversity in America is through better education where everyone in the country has access to a quality education. No matter their race, ethnicity, or gender and no matter their income level, or their parents income-level. So we have as many Americans as possible regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender living up to their human potential.

Sunday, May 12, 2013

Syrinix Temple: Video: ABC Sports: FBS 1984-Sugar Bowl-Nebraska Cornhuskers @ Louisiana Tigers: Full Game

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

An interesting matchup for a Sugar Bowl, because you have a power football oriented Big 12 football team in the Nebraska Cornhuskers, on both sides of the ball. Where they probably ran the ball seventy to eighty percent of the time, including their quarterback. With a big strong offensive line as well and big and strong on defense. Against essentially a spread offense Louisiana Tigers team. That spread the defense out with three receivers or more looking for one on one mismatch advantages that they could take advantage of. With their speed receivers and running backs and throwing the ball quickly. So in a matchup like that where both teams move the ball very well and score a lot of points, but does it differently, it is the defense that plays the best and adjust the best that generally wins the game.

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Janet Jackson Vevo: The Pleasure Principle

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal Plus

To be completely honest with you, if you were to judge The Pleasure Principle as just a song and listened to Janet Jackson just sing the song standing in front of a microphone and without the dancing, we are not talking about a very good song. And I’m a Janet fan, the song itself is not that great and maybe that is just part of the era that it came from which is the 1980s, which wasn’t a very good decade for American music rhythm and blues, or anything else. And I think this song is somewhat cheesy compared with the 1990s which was great decade for American music.

I’ve seen this video and heard this song countless times and I’m still not sure what this is about. But if you judge the song by just the video, this is a great video, song or no song. The music to the lyrics are very good and you throw in Janet herself and I don’t know if there is a better singer/dancer than Janet Jackson. Easily one of the best musical dancers of all-time and one of the sexiest as well if not the best of all-time. A very attractive beautiful baby-face women with a great body. Who almost thirty-years later after this song came out, she hasn’t lost a thing anywhere. And if anything she is a better entertainer now than she was in 1986.

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Chuck Collins: George McGovern’s 1972- The Peoples Campaign

This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress: Chuck Collins: George McGovern’s 1972- The Peoples Campaign

The 1972 Democratic National Convention, was real Amateur Night at the Apollo. Or in this case Amateur Night at the Miami Convention Center. Just because Senator McGovern didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the 1972 presidential election because of how popular President Nixon was then and with his foreign policy success. Including ending the Vietnam War and opening Russia and China. And with the state of the Democratic Party thanks to the emergence of the New-Left in it that became todays Green Party. And Occupy Wall Street movement. It was as if what Democrats were saying with George McGovern, “we’re not going to win anyway. So we might as well nominate our heart and go down big, but swinging.”

Just because you probably aren’t going to win an election, it doesn’t mean you mean you prove to the wold how unqualified you are to not just govern a huge divide country, but to even win the presidency. And go out-of-your-way to do what you can to make that happen for yourself. And not run the best campaign that you can. Otherwise you might as well not have bothered running for president in the first place. And stay in the Senate and continue be part of the loyal opposition in Congress instead. But what happened with the McGovern Campaign is that they never gave themselves much of an opportunity to win this election. And neither did the Democratic Party with the division between the center-Left and far-Left in the party.

I have a lot of respect for how George McGovern as far as how he managed his life and career. He truly was a public servant and a people’s politician and always believed in doing what was in the public’s interest. Also as far as what he accomplished politically and moving the Democratic Party from being dependent on racists anti-minority Dixiecrats to win presidential elections. By bringing in ethnic and racial minorities, as well as women and men. And making the Democratic Party very competitive in the North. But his presidential campaign represents what can happen to the Democratic Party when their leadership is weak. And they don’t have a strong center-left establishment. And as a result they become divided and their Far-Left takes over. And they nominate George McGovern as their leader in 1972.

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Classic Vol Video: ESPN: FBS 1992-Hall of Fame Bowl-Boston Eagles @ Tennessee Volunteers: Full Game

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

An interesting coaching matchup with Tom Coughlin of Boston who would later lead the expansion Jacksonville Jaguars to the 1996 NFL Playoffs, including the 1996 AFC Championship and the 1999 AFC Championship. But before Jacksonville, he rebuilt the Boston Eagles football program. That hadn’t been very good at all since Doug Flutie left in 1985. And of course Coughlin goes on to the New York Giants and has won two Super Bowls and probably headed to the Pro Football Hall of Fame by the time he retires. And of course Phil Fulmer at Tennessee who took over for the great Johnny Majors in Knoxville and would lead the Volunteers to the first ever BCS National Championship in 1998 and win the first ever BCS National Championship. The year after Peyton Manning left for the NFL. So two very well coached teams at great schools playing in each other in a bowl game.

Carl Milton: Video: ESPN: FBS 1988-Tennessee Volunteers @ Georgia Bulldogs: Full Game

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

One of the better rivalries in the SEC Tennessee-Georgia. Even though both teams arch-rival plays in Florida and perhaps you know the same of the school. Also two of the best and traditionally two of the best football programs in the SEC. Seems every year the last twenty-years or so either Georgia, Florida or Tennessee has won the SEC East. And gone on to play in one of the BCS bowl games. And in Tennessee’s and Florida’s case have won national championships. Something Georgia is still trying to win again for the first time since 1980. So these are not only two of the best football programs in the SEC, but also perhaps the two best schools in the SEC. Whether you have to be a real student and do the work as a student to play there. So this is always a great matchup when these two teams play each other.

Efan 2011: U.S. Vice President Hubert Humphrey’s 1968 DNC Nomination Acceptance Speech

This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress: Efan 2011: U.S. Vice President Hubert Humphrey’s 1968 DNC Nomination Acceptance Speech

Hubert Humphrey, didn’t lose the 1968 presidential election because he was a bad candidate or ran a bad campaign or wasn’t qualified to be President of the United States. The opposites are true and even though as it turns out 1968 was his best shot at being elected President of the United States, something he had been thinking about at least since 1957 after Dwight Eisenhower was reelected President in a landslide, Vice President Humphrey was caught in a perfect political storm for both the Democratic Party because of how much damaged it did to the party. That lasted at least until 1976 and came back again in 1980 the same political divisions that reemerged again in the late 1970s.

But it was also a perfect political storm for the Republican Party. Because it not only brought them back to power with Richard Nixon, but made them a real competitive conservative national party again. Where the Republican Party represented the right-wing in the country. And the Democratic Party now representing the left-wing in the country. 1964 and 1968, even though only one of those elections resulted in short-term success and if you count 1966 and that would be two elections for the Republican Party which they won made them a conservative national competitive party. That would fight communism and other authoritarianism. That would promote economic freedom and business and be a fiscally conservative party. These were the positive aspects of the GOP merging with the South.

What these elections did to the Democratic Party, was create chaos for them. Because it meant they could no longer count on the South for votes and to win elections with them. Plus, they had this emerging young more social-democratic than progressive, anti-military New-Left, coming into the party. That pushed the Democratic Party to the Far-Left on many national issues through the 1970s and even into the 1980s. Which they didn’t recover from until 1992 when the Democrats nominated Bill Clinton for president and of course he wins that election and Democrats keep control of Congress as well. But what 1968 along with 66 and even 64 did, was realign both the Republican Party and Democratic Party.

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Daydream Interlude: Video: Mariah Carey Singing Happy Birthday to The Greatest of All-Time

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

I’m going to be real blunt here and say that Muhammad Ali’s rocket took off to the moon once Mariah not only came on the stage. But as she approached Muhammad, his rocket than took off to another galaxy. I could put it more direct than that, but I think you get the idea. I mean seeing Mariah live is not a birthday present, but a lifetime of birthday presents and may prevent Muhammad from developing Alzheimer’s . Because he’ll never forget this performance. She’s the goddess of my generation I believe at least in the music industry. A hot baby-face adorable goddess with a body of a goddess and she knows all of these things and uses them os well. And oh by the way, the best singer in the business at least when it comes to her voice post-Whitney Houston and Frank Sinatra.

Sunday, May 5, 2013

CBS News: Face The Nation With Bob Schieffer- The Confident Defeat That Wasn't

Face The Nation-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal

The fact is there wasn't any Democrat who could even beat President Nixon in 1972, or even give him a tough race, was because of the disarray in the Democratic Party between it's center-Left and Far-Left. Similar to how the Republican Party is today. And there wasn't a Democrat who could bring those two sides together. But even without the emergence of the McGovernites that put all of their support behind Senator George McGovern in 1972, I think they would have a hard time defeating President Nixon. Because of the emerging Southern base in the Republican Party and that the Democrats hadn't locked down the Northeast and West Coast, as well as big Midwestern cities as far as their base. African-Americans and Latinos, were still voting Republican in 1972.

Compared with the late 1960s at least 1972 looked like a fairly peaceful and establishment friendly year. And when that is the case the party in power and that is the party with the presidency, tends to do well. Even if the young Baby Boomers and the broader New-Left in the Democratic Party felt differently. The Vietnam War was ending, America was negotiating with Russia and China and opening up a relationship with the People's Republic of China. The country by in large felt pretty good. The Great Deflation of the 1970s that basically hammered the American economy from really 1973 on, hadn't happen yet. So when the country is like this they tend to feel fairly good and aren't looking for a change in leadership.
CBS News: Face The Nation With Bob Schieffer- The Confident Defeat That Wasn't

Public Resource: Longines Chronoscope: Dr. Norman Thomas From 1952- Democratic Socialist Foreign Policy

Democratic Socialist-
Public Resource: Longines Chronoscope: Dr. Norman Thomas From 1952- Democratic Socialist Foreign Policy

What I respect about Norman Thomas even though he was a Socialist and we probably agree on almost nothing as it relates to economic policy, is that he was a real Democrat. A real American Democrat, a real Democratic Socialist. Who was probably against communism as much as any Conservative, or Liberal and spoked out against communism. Which is different from socialism. Socialism, is democratic and communism is authoritarian. At least in how its been practiced around the world. He wasn’t one of these far lefties that spoke up in favor of Communists and other authoritarians, who were dictators around the world. For a couple of reasons. One, he was against communism, but also because of how badly socialism has been made to look like.

Thanks to the success of right-wingers, going back at least since the late 1960s in America, socialism has been made to look like communism. As if they are part of the same philosophy, because they are not. And Democratic Socialists like Norman Thomas tend to believe in at least a certain level of capitalism and private enterprise. Just not at the expense of the people and what want as many people as possible to benefit from private enterprise. Norman Thomas, was the Bernie Sanders of his time. He and Henry Wallace, another Democratic Socialist, who ran for president for the Progressive Party in 1948, were very similar when it came to economic policy. But Thomas, was perhaps not as much as a dove when it came to foreign affairs and national security.

If you pay attention to this video, you consistently hear Norman Thomas criticize the Soviet Union, totalitarianism and even communism. That the Russian people, were essentially subjects of the Russian Government in the Soviet Union. You didn’t hear him unlike others on the Far-Left in America, try to claim that Russia was misunderstood during the Cold War. Or even try to suggest that America might have been the bad guys in that war of words. Or even the wrong country won that war. Thomas, was a Socialist in the European sense. Democratic in nature and even supported capitalism and private enterprise. But wanted a big central government to manage the resources of the country and support the people with a welfare state. So no one would have to go without, or have too much, according to him.

Friday, May 3, 2013

RT: Video: The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann: How Big Should Government Be?

RT: Video: The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann: How Big Should Government Be?

In this editorial, Thom Hartmann said that government should be big enough to insure that all Americans have access to quality affordable health care. And I guess that means health insurance as well and education. Does that mean that Thom believes that the Federal Government should be running the entire healthcare and education systems in this country? I know he’s in favor of Medicare For All, which would basically make Medicare the sole provider of health insurance in this country. I disagree with him on that, but I know he’s in favor of Medicare single-payer for all. But my question would be for Thom, does that mean he’s also in favor of the U.S. Government running the entire health care system in this country, or just as it relates to health insurance?

The United Kingdom use to have a nationalized healthcare system. Both health insurance and health care delivery. Before they started privatizing parts of their health care system and allowing for some private hospitals and health insurers. And my other question for Thom would be does he want to nationalize the education system in America as well? I agree with Thom Hartmann when it comes to regulation, to make sure we are consuming safe products. That won’t kill us, at least instantly, but that’s different from prohibition. My points about regulations would be about cars, toys, food inspection, so we do not get poisoned things that we have to use everyday. Or do use everyday, so these products are as safe as possible, even if they aren’t good for us. Like food to use as an example, but that we do not get poisoned from eating a meal or something.

And that we work under safe working conditions, just as long as the public sector isn’t trying to run the private sector and vice-versa. They both have different roles and both are needed for a country to become and remain a developed country. We agree that government shouldn’t be running the economy or running industries and I would add, or nationalizing any industries. Including education and healthcare. So the question for me at least not asking myself this question since I already know the answer as far as where I come down, is what should government be doing at all levels, not just at the Federal level? And it first starts with the United States Constitution and what authority does government at all levels have to do in this country.

And once you’ve figured that out, you meaning anyone, then it becomes about what should government be doing with the constitutional authority that it has. So for example, for me it starts with what government shouldn’t be doing. Because I believe there’s more that government shouldn’t be doing than what it should. So to me big government, is government that does too much trying to do for the people what they can do for themselves. Basically so I do not want government trying to run our lives and making decisions for us that we can do for ourselves. Like where we can send our kids to school, or what we can say to each other, as long as we aren’t libeling people or inciting riots. Or giving out classified information, that sort of thing. Or telling us what we can and can’t do with our own lives.

And after we cover what government shouldn’t be doing, then it becomes about what the states and locals should be doing. A bottom up approach rather, in a classically liberal, but still liberal direction. Rather than a top down heavy-handed socialist, or dictatorial direction. So I want the states and localities to run the things that they should be running basically that we do not need a national approach to be running. Things like education and public assistance, social insurance, to use as examples. I would block-grant most if not all the Federal social insurance programs to the states and localities. And let the Feds serve as regulators to see what’s working and that basic national standards are being met. And then leave the rest as far as what government should be doing for the Feds.

Like protecting us from foreign invaders, terrorists, national criminals in conjunction with the states and localities, protecting our borders, overall immigration policy, national-security, foreign policy. And also serve as a funding source in areas like education and job-training. So everyone has access to a quality education in America, including job training for low-income and low-skilled workers in this country. So they can live in freedom as well. So overall the Federal Government of my dreams would be smaller than the Federal Government of today. Including in defense and I do not want the U.S. Government trying to run the lives of Americans, or trying to police the world as well.

But I would invest more in infrastructure and rebuild this country, just not have the Federal Government run that. But approve a lot more new infrastructure-projects that need to be fixed, or built and invest more in like I said education and job training. Again, just not running those things, so that all Americans have access to a quality education in life. No matter how they start out, or the income level of their parents. But also so low-income low-skilled parents, can get themselves the skills that they need to live in freedom in life as well. And not be dependent on government for their economic survival, no matter the level of government.

When I blog about limited government, I’m actually blogging about limited government. Surprise surprise, it sounds too simple that it must be true. But I’m not blogging about what Libertarians would call small government. That I just want government limited to doing what we need it to do. Not trying to run our lives from an economic, or personal point of view. Or trying to tell us what we can do with our own lives, but there to do for us to serve us by doing the things that individuals can’t do for themselves.