JFK Library: President Harry S. Truman's Criticism of John F. Kennedy in 1960

Source:The New Democrat

I find the lack of experience criticism of John Kennedy from President Harry Truman interesting. Especially considering that by the time Senator John Kennedy ran for president in 1960, he had already been in Congress for thirteen years both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. And by the time he became President of the United States, he had been in Congress for fourteen years. His Vice President Lyndon Johnson served in Congress for twenty-four years including as Leader of the Senate. For six years and yes Senator Kennedy was a young president, but someone with who had been in Congress for a while and also someone who served in the U.S. Navy.

The biggest job that Harry Truman had before becoming President of the United States a job he got because he was Franklin Roosevelt’s Vice President for a couple of months and was out of the loop on all major decisions made by the Roosevelt Administration, his most important job before becoming President was as U.S. Senator from Missouri. Where he served for ten years. Jack Kennedy actually served in Congress longer than Harry Truman before he became President. Jack Kennedy fourteen years in Congress and Harry Truman ten years in Congress all as a Senator.

So the lack of experience argument from President Truman about Senator Kennedy, even though I’m sure President Truman meant well and was looking at from the perspective of a former President, just doesn’t fly. Since Jack Kennedy had more experience before becoming President of the United States than himself. Because before becoming President, Harry Truman’s first big job came at the age of fifty years old. And the first time he ever experienced real success in his professional life.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- 'President Obama Sets Bear Trap, Republicans Walk Right Into It'

Source:The Young Turks- perhaps someone who actually watches Fox News (who isn't currently high or drunk) could tell you who these three people are.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Following President Barack Obama's State of the Union address on Tuesday, where he called on Congress to end discriminatory workplace practices that "belong in a Mad Men episode" Fox News host Martha MacCallum proclaimed on the program American's Newsroom that women did not want special laws ensuring equal for equal work because they already were compensated "exactly what they're worth." On the Fox program, two men, liberal radio host Alan Colmes and Fox News host Tucker Carlson, debated equal pay for women. Carlson assertedthat women actually made more than men if the time they "voluntarily" took off work to raise children was factored in. "The numbers don't lie," he insisted...".* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down." 

From The Young Turks

The current Republican governing policy is, “if Democrats are for it, we are against it, even if we are for it, or were once in favor of it”. And even offered it in health care reform a perfect example of that where the Affordable Care Act actually has a lot of good conservative ideas like the health care mandate and the health care market place in it. Which is the main reason why there hasn’t been much compromise in Congress between the House and Senate because when Democrats say okay we’ll agree to that, the House GOP just moves the ball further to get more compromises. 

Then instead of Republicans saying okay let’s do that, Republicans just move the ball and say well, “if Democrats are willing to give us this, we can get them to give us this as well and hold off on a deal”. The deficit reduction negotiations are a perfect example of this where Democrats have put entitlement reform on the table and what Republicans is do is to say well, “if they will do that, then they’ll take exactly what type of entitlement reform we are interested in”. Like cutting Social Security benefits to future retirees or cutting benefits to current beneficiaries. 

The only goal Republicans have right now is absolute power. And to accomplish this, they need to hold onto the House and 2014 and retake the Senate in 2014. To give them a united Republican Congress and to win back the White House in 2016 as well. While hanging onto Congress and the hard right partisan Republicans in the House and Senate have one clear strategy. “If Democrats are for it, it must be a bad idea even if it is our idea. So we are only going to put policies that are as far to the right as possible to get our partisan right-wing base behind us to avoid primary challenges”.

Which leaves us with gridlock when you have the Republican Leadership saying no to anything that the Democratic Leadership especially in the Senate and White House say yes to. Because now Democrats are in a position where they are only negotiating with themselves. Trying to find more moderate members in Congress to go along with some of these more conservative ideas in broader packages, while not losing any of their more, well lets say progressive members. Instead of negotiating with their own caucus’ in the House and Senate, along with Congressional Republicans. 

Thom Hartmann: 'Without Government, There is Mo Middle Class'

Source:The New Democrat

Any good business person whose in business to make a lot of money and be very profitable and be able to provide very well for themselves and their families even if they are the only people they intend to benefit, it is in their best interest to have a well-skilled educated productive workforce. Even if that means paying them very well with benefits. Why because the more productive workforce you have, the more profitable the company you’ll have. And it is a hell of a lot easier for people to do good jobs and be productive if they know there’s something in it for them. And getting good money and benefits out of it.

Buy a cheap car or a cheap lawyer to use as examples and I’m not talking about a car that was discounted, or someone is basically giving you the car as a gift with a large discount, or a lawyer who agrees to work for less, or at a much lower rate than they normally do. But a cheaply made car, or an inexperienced lawyer with not much of a success record. You are going to get what you paid for those services and have to deal with the consequences of not having a good car. Or a lawyer with the experience and judgement to represent you well. And this applies to any business.

But if you invest a good deal of money in a car or lawyer, but do it in a smart way, “this is what I want and need from a car, or lawyer and this is what it’s worth to get those services” and you put the money into it, you are going to get back probably more than what you put in. Especially if you have a good case, or you take care of your car. Same thing with employees that if you invest in them and make it clear they could do well for you working for you and they are good employees who know exactly what the job is about and what you expect, that is what you’ll get plus what you put in. It’s the difference between do you see employees as a cost of doing business, or an investment in your company.

Kyungho Dean: Documentary - Edward R. Murrow vs. U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy

Source:The New Democrat

What was so brilliant about Ed Murrow and his See it Now broadcast which was CBS News’s nightly newscast before the CBS Evening News was created, what was so brilliant about Ed Murrow and See it Now in how they handled the Joe McCarthy hearings, is they just reported what Senator McCarthy said. And then Ed Murrow would give his commentary on what the Senator said, but they didn’t put words in his own mouth. “This is what the Senator said and what we think about it.” They didn’t put words in Senator McCarthy’s mouth or what his investigative committee in the Senate that he chaired said and what they were up to. They simply listened to what the Senator said and then used his own words against him. Which is very different from listening to what someone said and then trying to make it sound worst than what it really. Which is what partisan news organizations do today and back then as well.

Thom Hartmann: President Obama's 2013 State of The Union: A Report Card

Source:The New Democrat

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in his first speech in the 111th Congress back in 2009, laid out the Senate Republican strategy at least if not the Congressional Republican strategy as a whole, both House and Senate when Minority Leader McConnell who may be leaving Congress if he’s not reelected in 2014, because he’s going to have a very strong Democratic challenger, but he said his number one goal was to prevent President Obama from being reelected.

The Senate minority party obviously has the power to slow and block legislation. Especially if they are a large minority that Republicans have had in the last three years. The House is a little different obviously, but what the House Minority Leader can do is tell his or her caucus, “you are not to work with the majority party on anything”. And get that memo out to their caucus. “Because we want to use everything they pass and try to pass”, that is the House majority party in this Congress, “against them whether the legislation becomes law or not.” Which is what John Boehner who in President Obama’s first Congress did as the House Minority Leader.

The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the world. Yet that person whoever they are, are limited to what they can do both constitutionally and legally. But politically as well and when you have an opposition party that is strong enough to at least slow you down in Congress and they tell you, “we aren’t going to work with you on anything. And just want to win more seats in Congress and are waiting for you to leave office one way or the other”, it makes the President’s job very difficult to get much done through law.

David Pakman: MSNBC Interrupts Jane Harman On NSA For Report on Justin Bieber

Source:The New Democrat

MSNBC- "This just in Justin Bieber arrested for drunk driving which of course is our top story today. Also in the news on our backstory, New York City has just been hit by a nuclear missile attack. Hundreds of thousands of people reported dead. Several of our staff are here at NBC News World Headquarters including reporters and producers, have been unable to check in to give us a full report on that yet. Luckily our reporters and producers on the Bieber story were here all night working non-stop to give you the first breaking news footage of the Bieber story.

Our real news reporters and producers are only human and needed to go home before coming back to work. We hope to bring you coverage of the NYC nuclear missile attack on our late night insomniac news  coverage. If there isn't any Bieber related or other pop culture related breaking news. We are also following the latest Khloe Kardashian nightclub fight. And what shoes her sister Kim wore when she was out shopping last Saturday".

I already knew MSNBC was a joke when it came to news. They use Michael Moore as an actual news commentator and analyst and actually take him seriously. The prime time lineup is really nothing more than far-left commentary and a lot of their afternoon drive is that as well. And they really only seem to interested in what anti-corporate, anti-capitalist Socialists in the country think about news. Even though MSNBC is as pro-capitalist and pro-corporate as they come. And I don't believe they are fooling a lot of people, but that is what they do.

The Justin Bieber story just sort of takes the monster huge monster size cake to use an old expression, about what the so-called mainstream news media is about and interested and what the American people are interested in. And how our country and culture is so dumbed down now that they feel the need to know all about their favorite pop culture celebrities and as little about things that actually affect their real lives. Like their privacy, civil liberties, the ability to download, photos, videos, and other information of their favorite celebrities and whether their government monitors their online activities. And also little things like how much they are going to have to pay in taxes. Just  to use as examples.

Thom Hartmann: 'Time to do Away With The Second Amendment?'

Source:Thom Hartmann- with a look at the 2nd Amendment.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Thom Hartmann says Second Amendment was added to keep Virginia from backing out of ratifying the U.S. Constitution.

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 

From what I’ve read over the last two weeks and blogged about, I’m starting to get the idea that I should write a new section or create something called something to the effect The Big Government Report. Or This Week in Big Government or Today in Big Government. The last two weeks alone I’ve read a Far-Right blog The American Thinker arguing in favor of tobacco prohibition. And that link with a counter reply to it is on this blog and why that would be a brain-dead idea. Last weekend I read a piece in Salon arguing for nationalizing the news in America. Another brain-dead idea and I wrote the counter reply to that which is on this blog. And now a proposal to outlaw the Second Amendment. 

As far as outlawing the Second Amendment and by the way good luck with that and I’m sure Thom Hartmann has much better things to do. And won’t spend much time on this losing cause. Because the Second Amendment is popular in liberal democratic states as well. Not just country bumpkin redneck states. And I happen to live in one of those liberal democratic states. The Free State of Maryland and also keep in mind the United States Constitution is a liberal democratic document.

But for the hell of it why don’t we imagine the Second Amendment get’s repealed. Perhaps the whole country, or all of our state legislatures are drunk when this happens. Why not because that might be what it takes to accomplish this. Next what will come from these big government far-leftists is repealing firearms in the hands of private citizens and institutions. And leaving only government which has never had and will never have the resources to defend everyone. With any ability to defend the people from violent criminals and acts of crimes.

Keep in mind American government at the federal, state and local levels, all have histories of using violence against their own people. As well as covering up violence against their own people. Look no further than the civil rights movement and we could also go back to slavery in this country. Is this really the big government collectivist state the Far-Left in America wants to create? Where we are all dependent on the big state for everything. Including law enforcement that they aren’t capable of providing everyone with. Which is a reason why we have the Second Amendment.

PBS NewsHour: Poverty and Politics: How Strong Is Safety Net For Poor Americans?

Source:The New Democrat

The perfect debate for the mainstream Left in America to have that Liberals and Progressives should be debating about. The future of the safety net and it exactly what it is for. Is it really a safety net in its purest form, there to catch people who fall down in life in a liberal capitalist economy and give those people temporary financial relief to help them get by as they are struggling, as well as help them get back on their feet so they no longer need public assistance?

Or do we want to create a real welfare state and perhaps write a paper called something to the effect, Of Moving Past the Safety Net and Into the Welfare State. In other words transforming from America to Europe and creating a super-sized superstate there to meet most of our economic needs for us and there to take care of everyone. So we don’t feel the responsibility or freedom to have to take care of ourselves. Because we have big government to do that for us.

Well that last example isn’t so much center-left as it is far-left and a more socialist economic system. So maybe the other version of the safety net in America coming from center-left Progressives, would be to still have these social insurance programs targeted for the needy. But to spend a hell of a lot more on them without having work requirements or anything else for people on them. And have the Federal Government completely run all of them itself. But not try to create a welfare state in America.

Again if you are familiar with this blog you know where I come down on these issues at least as a Liberal. That a safety net is exactly that and nothing more and that to have the strongest economy possible, you need the most educated and productive people as possible to be able to meet their own economic needs. And that the safety net is there for the few who for a temporary amount of time aren’t able to do that for themselves. With the safety net also there to empower those people to be able to take care of themselves in the future.

The Ed Sullivan Show: Jim Morrison & The Doors (1967)

Source:Television Vanguard- The Lizard King Jim Morrison and The Doors, on The Ed Sullivan Show, in 1967.

Source:The New Democrat

"In part 2 of our two part clip of the Doors 1967 appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show, Doors keyboardist Ray Manzarek provides wonderful commentary on his and bandmates fateful visit to the Ed Sullilvan Show on Sunday night, September 17, 1967.

The Doors of course went on to great fame over the coming years.  Truly one of the recording industries most influencial bands, the foursome of Jim Morrison (lead vocalist), Ray Manzarek (keyboardist), Robby Krieger (guitarist) and John Densmore (drums) made the Doors remarkable in their groundbreaking approach to rock and roll music in the late 1960s and early 1970s.  From Light My Fire, to Riders On the Storm, the Doors were unique and one of the very best.

This video clip has been edited down to ensure we comply with any copyright requirements regarding the song 'Light My Fire.'

This video clip is presented here on YouTube for the entertainment and informational value of the viewer, and no copyright infringement is intended." 

From Television Vanguard

"The Doors "Light My Fire" performed on The Ed Sullivan Show on September 17, 1967. Subscribe now to never miss an update:The Ed Sullivan Show. The full performance by The Doors is available on "Ed Sullivan's Rock & Roll Classics", "The Very Best of The Ed Sullivan Show Vol. 1" and "Rock'n'Roll Forever" DVDs at:Ed Sullivan." 

Source:The Ed Sullivan Show- The Lizard King Jim Morrison and The Doors, on The Ed Sullivan Show, in 1967.

From The Ed Sullivan Show  

"Jim Morrison's leather pants get much higher" 

Source:Bod Mas- The Lizard King or The Leather King Jim Morrison, on The Ed Sullivan Show, in 1967.

From Bod Mas

Don’t get me wrong here, because I believe Jim Morrison and The Doors gave an excellent performance here and I completely agree with The Lizard King (or Leather King) about leaving the lyric higher in the song on free speech grounds. But one of the reasons why this performance is so memorable, is because you have the lead vocalist with a big boner sticking out of his skin-tight, black pants. Apparently Jim Morrison got excited right before he went out on stage or perhaps saw a beautiful, sexy woman while he was on stage during the performance. But that is what can happen when you are a man who perhaps is not completely sober when you go out in public and you wear skin-tight, black leather jeans almost everywhere you go in public.

Source:The Ed Sullivan Show- The Lizard King Jim Morrison performing on The Ed Sullivan Show in 1967. I guess he was excited to be there. After this performance Morrison should've been known as The Leather King, because this is the outfit that he made famous in rock and roll with his leather jacket, leather jeans, western belts, and cowboy boots, that gave him national exposure.

Good reason not to wear skin-tight leather jeans on national TV when you aren’t sober, as Jim Morrison did on a regular basis for visual effect and he wanted especially women checking him out. But the risk is you end up showing more of yourself than you perhaps intended. Especially when you get excited and you are right there for the whole world to see.

Unless no one actually saw The Lizard King go out on stage right before he went out and especially saw him up front and perhaps noticed something about his pants that his, well his thing lets saw was sticking out and he had a boner sticking out of his leather jeans. Or Morrison got excited as he was already on stage and perhaps saw a sexy woman or something. 

For the life of me I can’t figure why someone didn’t walk up to Morrison and say: “Uh Jim, you should go to the bathroom or back to the dressing room before you go out on national TV. Because you have a boner sticking out of your pants that everyone is going to see on national TV." 

Thom Hartmann: Caller: Could Restitution For Slavery Work?

Source:The New Democrat  

One big problem with restitution for slavery and that will be the one problem I’ll focus in this post, because it is a big enough problem by itself to make it a bad idea, is that it would open up new holes and other avenues for other communities to jump in. And say, “hey what about us, we’ve been discriminated against by the United States Government because of our race or ethnicity as well. Where’s our compensation?”

I’m not trying to put this lightly, but has the African-American community been through the worst or racial or ethnic bigotry in America? Maybe, but the American-Indian community who has it worst and has had it worst since the African slaves were officially freed hundred and fifty years ago. Could say, “the Europeans stole all of our land and we want to back.” They would be right to with that and they could say, “this is our country and we are going to decide who get’s to stay and who has to go.”

Japanese, Italian and German-Americans could say, what about us? How about World War II and being forced to live in those detainment camps simply because of our ethnic heritage and the Roosevelt Administration holding us against our will because they thought we were on the side of Japan, Italy and Germany during World War II.” Their motherlands even though a lot of these people had been loyal Americans for over hundred years at that point when they started immigrating to America from Japan, Italy and Germany.

Is racism still a problem in this country and do we still have racists? Sure and by the way not all racists in America can track their roots back to Europe. No race of people has a monopoly on racism or tolerance. But the bigger problem and an issue that can be addressed by government that we could all fix together is empowering people regardless of race and ethnicity to be able to live in freedom. Making liberal democracy work for all Americans and that get’s to things like infrastructure. Having a real national infrastructure system that builds up the communities that have been left behind. And a quality education and job training system for everyone so we all can have the skills needed to live in freedom.

Thom Hartmann: Dr. King's Economic Bill of Rights

Source:The New Democrat   

President Franklin Roosevelt had an Economic Bill of Rights that he released to the public after the New Deal. He tried to pass it in I believe 1944 and it had similar goals to what Thom Hartmann was talking about in Dr. King’s Social and Economic Bill of Rights. Right to a job, right to a good income, right to not want. I guess meaning not to be selfish. Right to health care and probably health insurance as well. And a right to education. President Roosevelt didn’t get his bill passed, but this was to be the next phase of his administration. But he died before he could get it passed through Congress.

And Thom Hartmann in what he was saying about Dr. King was basically the same goals. Past racial equality under law the next goal of the United Sates was to achieved economic equality as well. That regardless of race that all Americans should be have a good life in America and not to have to live in poverty at all. That these things are so important and critical to American democracy that the Federal Government should guarantee these things when American capitalism fails to achieve them.

This wouldn’t be my approach as a Liberal. I’m all for equal treatment under law regardless of race. And other classes as well and I’m also for the right to a good education. That we all deserve as Americans the right to be able to go to good schools and have good teachers. And those are really government’s main two roles when it comes to the economy. To see that everyone has a good opportunity to be able to do as well as they can and what they do with those opportunities is up to them. And have to live with the consequences of their decisions for good and bad.

Salon Magazine: Fred Jerome: 'Lets Nationalize Fox News, Imagining a Very Different Media'

Source:The New Democrat

Imagine a country where the state meaning the central government controlled all the news and media. I know in the 21st Century that is very hard to imagine with so much of the world moving in a least in a Democratic direction if not a liberal democratic direction. And even countries in the Middle East and not just Turkey and Israel can people there get access to non-state-owned media and Saudi Arabia is one of them thanks to satellite TV, the internet and smart phones.

So this is really not possible anymore, but let’s say somehow the United States nationalized the media here at least the domestic media. And now you have the Federal Government with the National Security Agency and everything else now in control of even more information. And who get’s to see it and when. Even if you can forget about the fact that this would be unconstitutional because of our first amendment. Meaning this could and would never happen.

All of that power and information inside of the hands of the people with the power in the country getting to decide for the most part what we can read and listen to or watch. And when we could do those things. Now if you are going to imagine these things, you might as well imagine living in jail because the same thing happens there. You can’t have a Democracy especially a liberal democracy something that is covered a lot on this blog, without Freedom of the Press and the ability for people to get the information they need to be able to managed their own lives. It is really this simple, you put the power of media in the hands of government, you get what they want you to hear, when they want you to hear it.

What I just asked you to do, was to imagine a nightmare. Unless you are a fascist and statist who is so power-hungry that you can’t imagine anyone especially not with your government and political faction having any real power of their own affairs. That you see people as stupid, who can’t control things like information and how they get it and can’t manage their own affairs. What Fred Jerome is proposing here, especially to nationalize Fox News simply because it is kicking MSNBC’s butt in ratings, is nothing more than pure leftist statism and fascism. That the Far-Left likes to accuse the Right of all the time.

Campaign For America's Future: Terrance Heath: Utah Is Ending Homelessness By Giving People Homes

Source:The New Democrat

I gotta admit, the Utah approach to deal with homelessness in this country is a hell of a lot better than locking these people up who really do not pose any real threats to anybody away in jail. Or waiting for them to come down with some serious illness and then they end up in the emergency room. This wouldn’t be my approach because it still costs taxpayers in Utah or anywhere else actually a hell of a lot of money to simply give away free housing even if it is cheaper than jails or hospitals.

What I would like to see nationally and what some big cities are already doing, like Sacramento and San Antonio, is to create public/private partnerships that create life building centers. For lack of a better term designed to bring people off of the street into these centers. Where they would get a short-term studio apartment or motel room inside of the center. Where they would live short-term as they are getting the healthcare that they need. As well as vocational skills and help finding a job all provided by the center they are staying at. And then would leave the center with a good job and their own apartment and become self-sufficient.

The beauty of the life building center approach is that we wouldn’t need government really at any level to run it. So you are really not talking about needing new tax revenue to pay for this. Because the money people at these centers would need to stay there as they are building their own lives, could be paid for out of current public assistance budgets. Medicaid, Welfare Insurance, Public Housing, Food Assistance, educational grants. That could go to tenants at these centers to pay for their stays. As well as you could put these people to work at these centers so they could earn their own keep.

The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann, America's Real Welfare Queens

Source:The New Democrat

The way to get corporations to pay their fair share in taxes, is to have them pay in taxes what they do not pay their low-skilled workers in income that get’s passed down to middle class taxpayers. To pay for low-income workers Food Assistance, Public Housing and Medicaid. Have them pick up half of the costs for these public assistance benefits. And workers of all income levels pay the other half sort of like another payroll tax. But we would be talking about one-two percent tax to pay for these benefits. And tell corporations they can get that money back by paying it to their workers instead.

I’m not a Socialist or a Social Democrat unlike Thom Hartmann here. And I’m not anti-capitalist, anti-for-profit, anti-private-enterprise either. But it is completely unfair for corporations or any employer to be able to past their employees cost of living on to middle class taxpayers who work very hard for a living just to pay their bills. Especially as the big employers are making record profits while everyone else is struggling to pay their cost of living.

I’m not interested in taxing business’s out of business either. And would like to see a much lower tax rate in this country on private enterprise. But not as long as we are paying out all of these subsidies to American business’s and being stuck with the bill to cover their own employees cost of living as well.

SPOT TV: Stevie Wonder's Happy Birthday to Martin Luther King

Source:The New Democrat

I can’t think of someone more qualified to sing Happy Birthday to our most effective and greatest American. At least when it comes to equal rights in America and applying our United States Constitution and the constitutional rights that we all have as Americans and applying the principles of our Founding Fathers to all Americans equally than Stevie Wonder singing Happy Birthday to of course the late, but still great the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King.

There will be plenty of more posts on this blog in the future about what the rest of the life of Dr. Martin L. King could’ve looked like. Had he been able to live a normal life at least as far as years. But what we would’ve seen is phase two of his national campaign for equality and justice in America. The Poor People’s Campaign would’ve had a real agenda and policy initiatives behind it that was sort of dropped after he was assassinated that would’ve moved onto into the 1970s. Giving millions of Americans a very good idea of what Dr. King’s complete political brain would’ve looked like.

About MLK’s birthday today keep in mind he would’ve been eighty-five today had he lived. And not saying he would’ve still been alive today had he not have been assassinated, but a lot of men in his generation are not only still alive in their eighties, but a lot of them are still working as well. And it is very likely he still would’ve been a major political force at least into his seventies. Had he not have been assassinated in 1968, or not have been assassinated at all.

The Real News: Jaisal Noor Interviewing Annelise Orlick: A True War on Poverty Would Place Poor Place Poor People on The Forefront

Source:The New Democrat

I love what Annelise Orleck is talking about here. Which is sending money out of Washington the Federal Government, directly to the communities that the money is intended to serve so these communities can build their schools, their health clinics, their housing especially for homeless people. Their day-care centers so single parents can get themselves the skills that they need to get themselves good jobs. Their private non-profit job training programs. Encouraging business’s to hire in these communities so good jobs can be created.

I probably blogged this last week but what America actually needs instead of this experiment. With fifty years of the so-called War on Poverty that at best has produced mixed results for us. What would be better is a national campaign to end poverty and this would be done by actually empowering people in poverty to get themselves out of poverty inside the communities they live with the resources they need to make these things happen for them inside of their communities. Getting help from people who actually live in these communities. And perhaps came from poverty themselves as Annelise Orleck said in the video. The real experts of poverty are the people who live in poverty.

This is what we should be doing creating a bottom up grassroots approach. That brings in the people who are on the front lines so to speak when it comes to poverty in America. And empowering them to tackle this huge problem with the resources that they need. To empower the people who are in poverty to get themselves out of poverty and off of public assistance. All together and into the middle class.

The Young Turks: John Iadarola: Brian Schweitzer 2016? Will Hillary Clinton Move to The Left?

Source:The New Democrat

Brian Schweitzer is the perfect liberal alternative to Hillary Clinton because he’s an actual Liberal. And he would prevent her from running to the middle from day one and trying to convince voters to vote for her simply because she’s a women. And this would be a chance to vote for the first female president etc. And prevent her from running for president without an agenda and vision and simply trying to make the case that Democrats should simply vote for the first female president and that she’s also the most electable as well.

Brian Schweitzer would be a very strong presidential candidate because he’s a real Liberal both as it relates to personal and economic freedom. And someone with a strong record as it relates to fiscal responsibility. Eliminating the possible tax and spend label and someone who could win well in Montana for one, but outside of the Northeast and Northwest. And would put states like Indiana and North Carolina in play as well. With his ability to communicate to working class voters.

Crash Course: Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter: The Economic Malaise of the 1970s

Source:The New Democrat

The Great Deflation of the 1970s as it is more commonly known. Really lasted that entire decade with the economy taking a big hit in 1973 thanks to the energy crisis of that year. Because of the 1973 Middle East Oil Embargo and it was actually President Richard Nixon who was going, through some really tough political issues that year for well-known reasons. (Anyone old enough to remember Watergate) Who made a big push to move America to energy independence and had almost no success with that. 

But the energy crisis of the early 1970s crisis followed by the 1974-75 recession, followed by a mild recovery of 1976 that had weak economic and job growth. The economy taking a big hit in 1978 with rising interest and inflation rates. Followed by the recession of 1979-80. The American economy was in transition in the 1970s. Because the Vietnam War was finally ending which is a good thing. 

But the defense budget gets cut in that decade with defense industry losing money as a result. Taxes going up thanks to the Great Society of the 1960s. America becoming more dependent on foreign oil from an unstable area of the world. The Middle East pumping less oil making our energy prices and cost of living with the high interest rates and inflation, very expensive in this country.

Thom Hartmann: What Does Socialism Mean to You?

Source:The New Democrat

One of the things if not issues with socialism is the ideological diversity of socialism. There are still Marxist or Statist Socialists who believe in the state owning the means of production for society. In simple English that means the state meaning the central government owns the economy. With the central government managing and operating the entire economy. No private sector, no capitalism, probably no property rights other than maybe one’s home or automobile.

Then there  are people who I could call Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists. Like U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders the only self-described Socialist in Congress who believe in a certain level of capitalism. But that it is heavily taxed and regulated to benefit the people and to finance a very large welfare state. If not superstate designed to provide people with the services that they need to live well. Social services like education, health care, health insurance, pension to use as examples. As well as a safety net to help people who fall through the cracks of the capitalist economic system.

Outside of maybe New York City, New England, the Northwest and the San Francisco Bay Area, for Socialists to succeed at all in America as well as the places I’ve mentioned, the more progressive social democratic route has to be the way they go politically. Because Americans like the idea of the safety net and basic regulations to protect workers and consumers. And don’t mind generally paying the taxes to support those programs, but there is a limit even in the more socialist areas of the country of what we want government at any level trying to do for us. And we like our freedom including economic freedom as well.

Bernie Sanders: The War On Poverty

Source:The New Democrat

Senator Sanders giving several examples of federal programs that have been created to help people in poverty pay their bills and so forth. But didn’t give any examples of how these programs have moved people from poverty and into the middle class with the skills, tools and freedom to be able to take care of themselves. Or are people struggling back fifty-years ago now seeing their kids and grandkids struggle as they are still struggling themselves today. Or are their lives collectively better today than they were then. 

Has the trillions of taxpayer dollars that have been spent on the so-called War on Poverty fifty-years later, has it created more economic freedom for people so they can take care of themselves and not need public assistance? Which is what the War on Poverty section of this blog focus’s on. How are are these programs working to move people out of poverty and off of public assistance with the freedom to take care of themselves. 

I would argue that at best the so-called War on Poverty has a mixed record. Yes it has prevented things like starvation and further homelessness that would've gone on top of the homelessness that we are dealing with today as a developed country. And yes of course those are good things. But the War on Poverty has failed to lessen poverty to the point that we see real reductions of poverty in this country. Other than in the 1990s which was a boom decade economically for America. 

LBJ Library: President Johnson's 1964 State of the Union address, 1/8/64

Source:The New Democrat

This is the speech where President Lyndon Johnson calls to continue President John Kennedy’s agenda. Putting his tax cut plan through Congress that President Kennedy badly wanted. As well as calling for the Civil Rights Act it be passed that was finally passed in the summer of 1964. As well as calling for medical insurance for the elderly and poor which became Medicare and Medicaid. As well as all sorts of new programs to help low-income Americans that became part of the so-called War on Poverty. Late 1963 and 1964 was about finishing President Kennedy’s agenda in that Congress. Because again remember Lyndon became President, because President Jack Kennedy was assassinated and LBJ was Vice President at the time. So LBJ didn’t become President under his own mandate. If he had a mandate in 63-64, it was full fill President Kennedy’s agenda.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur: The Only Group Opposing Racial Equality

Source:The New Democrat  

Not sure if America is a center-right or center-left country and not sure how Cenk Uygur gets that. But we certainly aren’t a country that goes very far right or left even though we certainly have a Far-Right and Far-Left in this country. That at times I believe has too much power, but that is really a different discussion. But we certainly are a county that believes in a high degree of both economic and personal freedom. And a big reason why I believe Jack Kennedy, Ron Reagan and Bill Clinton were so successful as presidents politically as well, because they all believed in both of those things and connected very well with average voters.

Where I agree with Cenk Uygur is that Americans believe in things like equality of opportunity. And of course some Americans will always start off life better than others because of how they were raised. But equality of opportunity and not results which is different and a topic for another blog, is about all Americans having the opportunity to be successful in America. And that starts with education growing up that all Americans have the opportunity to go to good schools. Regardless of their parents incomes and even the ability to go to college as well. And that our low-skilled workforce has the opportunity to be successful as well with educational and job training opportunities to move up and do well in life.

So maybe Cenk is right in the sense that America is a Center-Left country. But Center-Left not being as far to the left as he would like it, but more about expanding freedom to more Americans. And having more Americans with real economic power in this country so they do not need public assistance to pay their bills. But not a country that expects government to provide a lot if not most of the services that we need to do well. Just there to see that we all have those opportunities for success in life on our own.

Our Future: Heather Digby Parton: 'ObamaCare Is Up And Running. But That's Not The End Of The Story'

Source:Common Dreams- Blogger Heather Digby Parton.

Source:The New Democrat

"When Capitalism: A Love Story came out I was lucky enough to be at a screening with Michael Moore present and there was, as you might imagine, quite a bit of discussion about the Health Care Reform that was ending its way through congress since Moore was so influential in raising the public consciousness about the horrors of the system with his previous film Sicko. He was, at the time, very positive about President Obama and optimistic about the eventual outcome.

But he's been watching the law unfold with clear eyes and is unsparing about the shortcomings of the new program. In an op-ed in the NY Times he pointed some of them out including this one:

For many people, the “affordable” part of the Affordable Care Act risks being a cruel joke. The cheapest plan available to a 60-year-old couple making $65,000 a year in Hartford, Conn., will cost $11,800 in annual premiums. And their deductible will be $12,600. If both become seriously ill, they might have to pay almost $25,000 in a single year. (Pre-Obamacare, they could have bought insurance that was cheaper but much worse, potentially with unlimited out-of-pocket costs.)" 

You can read the rest of Heather Digby's article at Our Future

"In Vermont, incumbent Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin has nearly been unseated in a shocking upset. In a process unique to Vermont, projections now show the governor’s race will be decided by the state Legislature after neither Shumlin nor his Republican challenger reached the necessary threshold of 50 percent. The state Legislature remains solidly Democratic, so Shumlin will likely keep his seat. But Shumlin was not considered a vulnerable candidate before last night, and Scott Milne, his challenger, was a relative unknown. The election is seen as a possible referendum on healthcare reform after Shumlin has vowed to make Vermont the first state with a single-payer healthcare system. The state’s embattled health insurance exchange implemented under Obamacare has been down since September." 

Source:Free Speech TV- Governor Peter Shumlin (Democrat, Vermont)

From Free Speech TV

Heather Digby, who is no one's centrist or conservative, is making the case for federalism when it comes to health care and health insurance in America. She's saying that blue states should offer the health care plans that they want, including a public option and that if red states continue to decide to leave millions of their own people without affordable health care, then that's on them. And perhaps democracy will take care of that for them. 

For all of you so-called Progressives out there (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) or people who define your politics as progressive (even if you are not vert progressive) who may read this post: federalism is not about centralizing more power with the Federal Government and having less for the states, locals, and individuals. The opposite is true. 

But for you leftists (Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats) who like to see some type of public healthcare system available to all Americans, whether it be single payer or something else, federalism is the route you should be looking at. Because it could actually accomplish your goal, instead of you running to the Federal Government and holding protests and rallies at Congress and the White House and other places demanding that they pass Medicare For All single payer. Just so we clear that up.

One of the public option proposals that I’ve seen that I’m in favor of comes from perhaps the two least federalist members of Congress. From Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont and Representative Jim McDermott (Democrat, State of Washington) two of the most leftist members of Congress, that leftist hippie could possibly dream of, on his best marijuana high. 

Senator Sanders and Representative McDermott have a different Medicare For All proposal.  What they do is to say: “We’ll allow each state to set up their own Medicare plan and system that would have to meet basic federal standards. But each state would be able to run their own Medicare system and manage their health insurance system themselves coming from Medicare.” Instead of the Federal Government running the health care system for everyone in the country on their own. 

Most of the single payer proposals have been Medicare For All run completely by the Federal Government. But the Sanders-McDermott plan would be a federalist, Medicare For All, single payer plan and each state would have their own Medicare system. Which is probably the only way we’ll ever get Medicare for all. Meaning no other form of health insurance in this country private or public. We are already seeing states trying to pass something like this like in Vermont and California. 

Vermont and California (to name a couple of states) are trying to set up their own  public option plans, that I’m in favor of, that I mentioned last night, would be done with a federalist system. Meaning the states would be able to run their own Medicare public option. And this is how you get a country behind you. Instead of trying to force things down their throats, you give them choices and options and the freedom to manage their own affairs.

The New York Times: Michael Moore: 'The ObamaCare We Deserve'

Source:Michael Moore- should go back to Detroit and leave government to people who know how to govern.

Source:The New Democrat

“Today marks the beginning of health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act’s new insurance exchanges, for which two million Americans have signed up. Now that the individual mandate is officially here, let me begin with an admission: Obamacare is awful. 

That is the dirty little secret many liberals have avoided saying out loud for fear of aiding the president’s enemies, at a time when the ideal of universal health care needed all the support it could get. Unfortunately, this meant that instead of blaming companies like Novartis, which charges leukemia patients $90,000 annually for the drug Gleevec, or health insurance chief executives like Stephen Hemsley of UnitedHealth Group, who made nearly $102 million in 2009, for the sky-high price of American health care, the president’s Democratic supporters bought into the myth that it was all those people going to get free colonoscopies and chemotherapy for the fun of it.

I believe Obamacare’s rocky start – clueless planning, a lousy website, insurance companies raising rates, and the president’s telling people they could keep their coverage when, in fact, not all could – is a result of one fatal flaw: The Affordable Care Act is a pro-insurance-industry plan implemented by a president who knew in his heart that a single-payer, Medicare-for-all model was the true way to go. When right-wing critics “expose” the fact that President Obama endorsed a single-payer system before 2004, they’re actually telling the truth.

What we now call Obamacare was conceived at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and birthed in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney, then the governor. The president took Romneycare, a program designed to keep the private insurance industry intact, and just improved some of its provisions. In effect, the president was simply trying to put lipstick on the dog in the carrier on top of Mitt Romney’s car. And we knew it. 

By 2017, we will be funneling over $100 billion annually to private insurance companies. You can be sure they’ll use some of that to try to privatize Medicare. 

For many people, the “affordable” part of the Affordable Care Act risks being a cruel joke. The cheapest plan available to a 60-year-old couple making $65,000 a year in Hartford, Conn., will cost $11,800 in annual premiums. And their deductible will be $12,600. If both become seriously ill, they might have to pay almost $25,000 in a single year. (Pre-Obamacare, they could have bought insurance that was cheaper but much worse, potentially with unlimited out-of-pocket costs.)

And yet – I would be remiss if I didn’t say this – Obamacare is a godsend. My friend Donna Smith, who was forced to move into her daughter’s spare room at age 52 because health problems bankrupted her and her husband, Larry, now has cancer again. As she undergoes treatment, at least she won’t be in terror of losing coverage and becoming uninsurable. Under Obamacare, her premium has been cut in half, to $456 per month.”  

From The New York Times 

“Michael Moore marked the start of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate Wednesday with a blistering op-ed in The New York Times in which he admits something he says “many liberals” have been too scared to say out loud before now: “Obamacare is awful.”..

Source:Secular Talk- Michael Moore is the perfect example of a filmmaker, who should just stick with fiction and making films. Because he's not good with reality.

From Secular Talk

"Jared Bernstein says on CNBC that Obamacare is not a jobs program (March 8, 2013)" 

Source:GOP War Room- former Obama White House adviser Jared Bernstein, on CNBC. But for why, I don't know.

From GOP War Room

It is easy for Michael Moore living in Los Angeles or Michigan and never working for the Federal Government at least in Washington, to say what the Obama Administration should’ve tried to pass as it relates to health care reform in 2009-10. But as Progressive economist Jared Bernstein said who worked for Vice President Joe Biden during this period, who knows quite a bit about Congress and the Federal Government in general, there were never the votes in Congress for Medicare For All.

There were never the votes even in a Democratic Congress with large majorities in both the House and Senate, for a single-payer, Medicare for all program nationalizing the health insurance industry and eliminating the private insurance system. And telling Americans who tend not to like being told by government what they can do with their own money, that they have to take Medicare and have no choice in where they get their health insurance.

And if you are wondering why the votes were never there for single payer, I just explained why. You think the Affordable Care Act is now unpopular, pass single payer and take away Americans ability to choose their own health insurance. And we are looking at a total Republican Congress right now and not just a Republican House and perhaps a Republican president as well with single payer being repealed and we are back to square one on health care reform.

Single payer never had the votes and anyone who disagrees doesn’t know much about the U.S. Congress. Or Americans in general when it comes to their politics and spends most of their time in the Northeast or Northwest or California living in their socialist utopia’s. And not talking to the rest of the country. But the public option, had a real shot and it did pass both chambers of Congress in late 2009. But then got stripped away from the final bill by the Democratic Senate. Because some Democratic Senators perhaps worried about their reelection possibilities.

The public option is exactly that and would give Americans under sixty-five the ability to pay into Medicare. And use it as their main, if not sole health insurance plan. But at the end of the day, the same people would make that choice and not government telling them what they can have. You could even set up a Medicare public option that the states would like, even Republican governors, by allowing for them to run their own Medicare plan in their state. Which is something that Democratic states are looking into right now and creating their own public options.

The difference between fans and players when it comes to government, is that players have to govern and at the end of the day get something done in a liberal democracy like America. That means working with different people and different factions who do not agree with each other on everything. And coming up with the best plan that everyone can support and agree to and say: “This is a good plan and something that we should do.” Which is a big reason why we got the 2010 Affordable Care Act.