Tuesday, March 5, 2013
To know that Hubert Humphrey was a great man, all you have to do is look at or watch his 1948 Democratic National Convention speech. On civil rights and to know that he was also ahead of his time, just look at or listen to Hubert Humphrey's civil rights speech. And this was even before he was elected to the US Senate, Humphrey wasn't in Congress at all when he gave this. Speech House or Senate but a 1948 US Senate Candidate and also to know how far ahead of his time he was. The civil rights movement didn't exist at all in the late 1940s at least as a national movement. But to a large extent at least on civil rights, Humphrey wasn't governed by what was popular at the. Time when he was the Deputy Leader of the US Senate in 1964 and pushing the civil rights laws then. Civil rights was still not very popular in this country and he probably already knew and Lybndon Johnson certainly knew. That passing civil rights laws was going to hurt the Democratic Party in the South and thats exactly what happened.
Leadership is not about what's doing what is popular at the time but what's the right thing to do at the time. And thats exactly what Hubert Humphrey did with this civil rights speech in 1948 and what he did in his entire career in Congress. In the 1940s, 50s and 60s and civil rights is just an example of that.
I don't want to sound cold here and I apologize if I do and you are offended by this in some way. But the death of Hugo Chavez could and I believe will be a good thing for the Bolivar Republic of Venezuela. And I say this for a few reasons because President Chavez was essentially a dictator. Who held elections where non Socialists could run for office but as much as he talked about the need for Socialism and equality in the country. He essentially governed like a Neo-Communist dictator, President Chavez was not a Democratic-Socialist. He was not the Bernie Sanders of Venezuela but the Fidel Castro with a little more freedom for the. Venezuelan people but where the Federal Government controlled most of the media, where the Liberal opposition was essentially physically put. Down even if they weren't violent and where the Federal Government there basically controlled most of the media and resources in the country.
Venezuela similar to Cuba could be a great developed country if the government gets out of the way. And only does the things that the people need it to do and sees that there's good opportunity for all of the people. And not try to centralize all power with just one administration or sector in the country but allows the Venezuelan people live their own lives. And thats not what Hugo Chavez was about but what he was about was centralizing all power with himself. So he do for the people what they can do for themselves and so he could stay in power.
Politzane: Video: "Wealth Inequality in America": How Liberals and Social-Democrats Differ When it Comes to Income Distribution
I wrote a blog about so called income inequality last night and basically laid out what I believe about that and why I don't even believe in the term. This post is sorta about so called income inequality so I'll try to write it in a way that doesn't sound exactly how it did last. Night so you don't think you are watching some rerun of a cable TV show you saw a couple hours ago. And blog about income distribution which goes to the same thing but its a little and about what. Americans are entitled to make in this country and how Liberals and Progressives or Social-Democrats differ on these issues.
Social-Democrats and again if you disagree with this especially if you are Social-Democrat. You are free to write me a reply on this blog and I'll be happy to post it for you. But Social-Democrats, Progressives or Democratic-Socailists however you want to define the. Progressive-Left in America, believe in high taxation across the board for several reasons and they are. All for good reasons meant to do good for for the country. I just disagree with it but one of the reasons why they believe in high taxation, is so government can collect all of this. Revenue and then invest it in the country so one has to go without enough or have what they would call too much. That essentially the Federal Government collects all of the resources of the country and puts them. In a huge pot and then gives those resources back to the people based on what they believe the people need to live a good life. Which is sorta the old Swedish-Socialist model but even Sweden has been moving away from that with more Conservatives or. Liberals even coming to power there.
What Liberals such as myself believe in is that all Americans should have a good opportunity to be successful in life. And what we do with these opportunities is up to us and then be able to enjoy the benefits of our success. But that Americans don't have a Constitutional right to be successful and live a good life. That life is basically what people make of it and what they do with the opportunities in front of them. And that if we had a real Liberal economic policy in. This country more Americans would have access to a good education. And fewer Americans wouldn't live off of public assistance and more Americans would move off of public assistance faster. And that no American would be trapped in a failing school because we or our parents would be able to make these decisions for ourself. And not government doing that for us and thats a big difference between Liberals and Social-Democrats when it comes to economic policy.
Liberals believe for people to be successful in life, they simply need the incentive to do so. Thats a big part of human nature at least in America and that means government not taxing most or a lot of our income from us. And we being able to make a lot of our own decisions for ourself. Which is different from Social-Democrats who believe there should be no such thing as rich or poor or in between. That all Americans should be the same and that government needs to collect a lot of the resources in the country to see that is what happens.
RT: Video: The Big Picture: Thom Hartmann: "Taking Control of Corporate America": How to Create an Economy That Benefits More Americans
Is it bad for a Chief Executive to make I don't know five hundred times more then their workforce. Not if the Chief Executive is worth that much more then their workforce, meaning they are worth that much more to the company. Might sound harsh but thats just a cold hearted fact about Capitalism and if you don't like Capitalism. Find an economic system that works better and show me a country where that system is working and you are free to send that to me. Now if a Chief Executive is doing a lousy job or a mediocre job or a good job but not to the point where they are worth that. Much more then their workforce, then no that person probably deserves a serious pay cut. And maybe the Chief Executive no matter how much they are worth to the company shouldn't decide how much they. Make just like Congress shouldn't decide how much they make as well. That these decisions should be left to the Board and the committee that oversees compensation and perhaps the stockholders. Should have a say in that as well.
But my real point goes to this notion of income inequality that I believe doesn't exist and I'll explain why. And if you are further left to me, you probably think that sound crazy or I'm some type of sellout to corporate America. Or a corporatist or fill in the labels yourself but I'll explain why I don't believe so called income inequality doesn't exist. For people who are well educated, work hard and are productive in any Capitalist economy, those people are simply. Going to do a lot better then the people who aren't, thats just part of economics 101. If you look at the education levels of the people who are part of the so called 1-10% of the country. And you look at the education levels of the people who aren't doing very well. Whether they live in poverty or are in the lower middle class, perhaps struggling to pay for healthcare. That sorta thing but don't qualify as poor, you are going to find that this population isn't very well educated. Or don't have the skills to do much better then they are currently doing.
Capitalism is based and built around what people bring to the table. Their skills set and how they apply those skills to the job they have and if you look at the very wealthy or just. Wealthy in this country, you are going to see Americans who bring a lot of skills to the table and who apply those skills very well. Thats exactly why we have few Americans doing great, a few other others doing very well, a few others doing well. A lot of other people doing okay and too many people not doing well at all and where survival for them is literally a struggle for. Them everyday so if you want to lower what I call the success gap in America, few people doing great at least compared with a lot of other Americans. Who aren't doing very well at all, the people who aren't doing very well simply need to get better skills in this country and then. Take advantage of those skills they just received.
We don't have income inequality in America except for CEO's who are way overpaid. But there are ways to deal with that without passing huge tax hikes by simply employees, stockholders and. Consumers using the power that they have and passing regulations to empower Boards and stockholders more. But what we really have is a success gap with few people doing very well because they've gotten themselves the skills. And applied those skills very well and then we have a large population of people who aren't doing very well. So to close the success gap, we simply need a better education and job training system in this country.