Ron Patozz: Glenn Beck- 'Road To Communism'

Source:Rob Patozz- Glenn Beck, talking about communism.

"Glenn Beck road to communism.... Letter to my Senators:Educational Revolution. Campaign For Liberty." 

From Rob Patozz

What I respect about socialism, as someone who's not a Socialist in any form, I'm not a Marxist-Socialist or a Democratic Socialist and I'll explain those terms later( if you are still awake) but I'm not a Marxist- Socialist or a Democratic Socialist, but a Liberal but what I respect about socialism as an ideology and myself as a political junky, is its diversity. There are multiple forms of socialism, just like there are multiple forms of conservatism and libertarianism. 

See, with the more diversity in an ideology, the more creativity that it has and the less predictable it is. And the more ideas that can come into it. There are Marists-Socialists that believe that the State meaning the Central Government, in the United States case the Federal Government, that believe the State should own the means of production in society, meaning the economy. That there is no such thing as a private sector, because the State owns the economy and all the property. That there are no such thing as property rights because the State owns everything. 

North Korea or as I like to call them the Communist Republic of Korea, is the perfect example of a socialist state, because there's no such thing as a private sector in North Korea. 

But then there's social democracy which is very common in Europe and even Canada but perhaps to a smaller degree, that believe the country should have a capitalist economy, but that where the people are essentially highly subsidized. They believe in the welfare state, something that Marxist-Socialists believe in as well. 

But in most if not all social democracies there's  a large private sector where people have property rights. But that its highly taxed and regulated (by American standards) to finance a very large and generous again (by American Standards) welfare state. That provides health care, which isn't free, health insurance, which isn't free, pension, which isn't free, education, which isn't free, transportation which isn't free, and other state-owned human services. Provided by the Central Government that financed by high taxes by once again American Standards. 

Sweden is a perfect example of social democracy. A lot of Americans and American politicians, especially in Congress but in other places as well have been labeled as Socialists and there are also other people and American politicians who've been labeled as liberal but who are actually Democratic Socialists: the House so-called Progressive Caucus, Representative Dennis Kucinich from Ohio, Senator  Bernie Sanders. There's actually a political party in America called the Democratic Socialist Party, that I believe Senator Sanders is a member of. 

And as a Liberal I find this insulting because I have a lot of policy differences with Socialists. (Marxist or  democratic) Liberalism and socialism are two different ideology's. Democratic Socialists in America would essentially like to see America become like Sweden. Where the State provides the health insurance and health care, education, pension, and so on. 

So I'm not a fan of socialism except for the fact they believe in protecting workers rights and having a safety net that people can go to when they need it. But as a political junky I find it fascinating and wouldn't even mind seeing it grow in America to the point that the Democratic Socialists in the Democratic Party, leave my party and move to the Democratic Socialist Party.

Fire Dog Lake: The Young Turks With Cenk Uygur- 'Jane Hamsher, and Jonathan Capehart - Medicaid Cuts Pre-Factored in HC bill'

Source:Fire Dog Lake- Jane Hamsher, talking to Cenk Uygur, about the House Republicans health care bill.

"Hamsher, Trevino, and Jonathan Capehart appeared on Uygur's MSNBC news hour Thursday.

Visit:Fire Dog Lake." 

From Fire Dog Lake

I'm not a fan of cutting Medicaid just to cut it even in a broader deficit reduction package, because of the fact that so many people depend on it for their health insurance. Low-income workers, the unemployed, low-income senior citizens who have to depend on both Medicaid and Medicare for their health insurance. 

And this adds up around 70M Americans unfortunately in America obviously, not Canada, Brazil, Sweden. (Hopefully you get point) But I'm also not for throwing millions of more people as what happened with the Affordable Care Act of 2010, at least until we reform it in a way to make it more cost- effective. Since the Federal Government doesn't even want to fully fund the portion of Medicaid it's required to under its own Medicaid Law of 1965 because of how expensive it is. 

Which means states because they are required by law from the Federal Government to fund its portion of the program. But they also get stuck having to fund what the FEDS don't come up with the revenue to fund. Making Medicaid an unfunded mandate for the states, an unfunded mandate is a mandate that the Federal Government puts on the states, without providing the funds to pay for it, which creates an unfunded mandate. 

So we have a problem where the White House and Congressional Democrats throwing more people on to Medicaid without providing the resources to pay for it. And now we have Congressional Republicans going out-of-their-way to cut back the safety net in America, with apparently Medicaid being their next target. Which creates a new problem for Medicaid and the 70M people who depend on it. 

So what would I do with Medicaid is leave in place as far as the health insurance service its provides but change the structure of its management. By getting it off the backs and budgets of the states and FEDS and make it an independent, but publicly owned. Either by the Federal Government or we could set up a state Medicaid system, where each State would have their own Medicaid health insurance service. Where there would be a national Medicaid office in Washington that would serve to provide oversight but not to manage each Medicaid service. 

So each Medicaid service in all fifty states, would be independent not run by government, with its own management and board of directors that they would select. And be self-financed as well so the states and FEDS would no longer have to worry about how to finance it. I would finance Medicaid through its patients and their employers. 

And the low-income workers on Medicaid who can't afford their share of their Medicaid costs, would get their EITC (or Earned Income Tax Credit) expanded to pay for their share of their Medicaid coverage. Or these workers could use their health insurance credit to pay for their share of private health insurance. 

And people on Welfare, Unemployment, Disability or Social Security insurance would get their checks expanded to pay for their share of their Medicaid Coverage. 

Let's not ruin Medicaid by throwing too many people on it without paying for the coverage. And let's not cut it to peaces without an alternative for its patients. Let's reform it in a way that finally saves the program for everyone that depends on it instead.

Thom Hartmann: Governor Chris Christie- 'Orders For Profit Corps To Take Over Failing Schools'

Source:Thom Hartmann- Governor Chris Christie (Republican, New Jersey) ordering an all you can eat meat lovers buffet, just for himself.. Actually, I don't know why he's pointing. 

"Thom debates with Dan Gainor, Vice President & T. Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow at the Business & Media Institute, on school choice. If you liked this clip of The Thom Hartmann Program, please do us a big favor and share it with your friends... and hit that "like" button!" 

From Thom Hartmann

I love the idea of public school choice that parents can send their kids to the school thats best for their kids. Instead of being forced to send their kids to a school based on where they live. And if they live in a low-income area, that means sending their kids to rotten public schools. I also love the idea of charter schools (independent public schools) that are owned by the public school system, but operated independently of the public school system. 

I love the idea of non-profit private schools, that private schools raise enough money just to cover their expenses. And everything in their system is about having the best school possible and delivering the best education possible for their students. 

But what I'm not a fan of is for-profit private schools, not that I would be for passing some law to outlaw them, because again the market the people should decide where parents send their their kids to school and for-profits private schools are just an option that parents have to select. 

It's not an education option thats forced down anyone and I especially don't like the idea of privatizing public schools which of course are non-profit and turning them into for-profit schools. Which is what Governor Chris Christie is apparently trying to do in New Jersey. 

Public schools are just that, public and non-profit for the public and are public goods and services and that of course aren't doing very well in America right now. But that doesn't mean we turn them into private corporations. We reform them to make them work better and we give them competition to force them to work better in order to stay in business. 

One way to make public schools work better is to bring in competition to them. Force them to do a good job in order to keep receiving students and to stay in business. And the public schools that aren't able to compete with good public school and private schools, will end up going out-of-business. And the public schools that do a good job, will of course thrive and end up receiving plenty of students every year. Because parents will see how good those schools are and will want to send their kids to those schools. 

If states and localities want to fund private school choice, (meaning vouchers for low-income students who are stuck in bad public schools to go to private schools) fine, thats their tax revenue and they can do that. I'm personally not in favor of that because I believe that public school revenue should be used for public schools. Money thats going to finance private schools, can go to pay for public school choice, Charter schools, pay raises for quality teachers, better starting pay for teachers, money to build new public schools or to finance crumbling schools, which also creates more jobs, etc. 

Money by itself can't repair our public school system. It's about how that money is spent and what its spent on that matters. Last time I checked New Jersey, yes has a Republican Governor but a Democratic Controlled Legislature. So Legislative Democrats in New Jersey should be able to stop what Governor Christie is trying to do in some of these areas. 

Governor Christie to me represents exactly what the Tea Party stands when it comes to economic policy: privatizing public schools is an excellent example of this and you would think he would be their perfect Presidential candidate. But apparently he's smart enough to realize that he's not ready to be President of the United States. And this plan to privatize public schools is a perfect example of that.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- 'Republicans Don't Get The Constitution - Con Job'

Source:The Young Turks- Glenn Beck and company talking about the U.S. Constitution, on FNC.

"MSNBC host Cenk Uygur breaks down clips of 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain (along with House speaker Boehner) making numerous incorrect statements regarding the United States Constitution." 

From The Young Turks

I find it funny, well sad when, well funny and sad when so called Conservative Republicans speak in favor of the U.S. Constitution and how much they believe and support it, when a lot of them don't even understand what they are talking in favor or misrepresent what they claim to be in favor of. 

There are Conservatives who support and believe in the U.S. Constitution, because they understand the Constitution for what it is and know what they are talking about. 

Back in the day and even today where the Republican Party of now is more of a theocratic or authoritarian party, people who I would view as Conservative Libertarians not pure Libertarians like the Ron Paul's of the world, but people who are conservative in a libertarian sense, people who are constitutionalists who believe conservatism's job is to protect and defend constitutional rights not some of them, but all of them. 

Real Conservatives (in the constitutional sense) don't believe conservatism should be used in an authoritarian sense like the Far-Right, that government's job is to enforce morality and how people live their own lives. But that conservatism should be used to liberate people. Something that Barry Goldwater, Ron Reagan, Bill Buckley back in the day. And people like George Will, Rudy Giulani, John Huntsman Mitt Romney, Kay Bailey Hutchinson even from today. 

Republicans who would've represented the overwhelmingly majority of the Republican Party thirty years ago, but today find themselves in a party today dominated by theocratic and Christian-Fascists. Mainstream Conservatives (the real Conservatives) are Conservative-Libertarians not Classical Libertarians and there's a difference. 

The Far-Right when they speak in favor of the U.S. Constitution, the Sarah Palin's, Michele Bachman's, Rick Santorum's of the world, either don't understand what they claim to be in favor of, or are only actually speaking in favor of parts of the Constitution that they like. Like right-wing political speech, Freedom of Religion (for Christian-Protestants) the Right to Bare Arms, and the 11th Amendment. That limits what the Federal Government can do. 

With the rightward drift of the Republican Party, there's been a real brain drain where today they look more like a Far Right fringe party, where candidates like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, are taken seriously, when thirty years ago they would've seem like fringe candidates like Pat Robertson. 

Where back in the day candidates like Rudy Giulani, Mitt Romney, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, John Huntsman would all be the front line candidates seeking the Republican nomination for President. They would be conservative on economic and foreign policy, but at least tolerant to moderate on social issues. Where homosexuality and abortion wouldn't be driving issues to them. 

I mean Mitt Romney introduced civil unions for gay couples back in 2003-04 as Governor of Massachusetts. John Huntsman and Rudy Giulani still support gay rights today for crying out loud and they are Republicans. 

So when you hear Conservatives speak in favor of the U.S. Constitution, ask what parts or are they in favor of or the document as a whole. Because if they sound like they know what they are talking about and speak in favor of the Constitution broadly, then they probably understand what they are talking about. 

But if they only speak in favor of parts of it or speak in sound bites, then they probably don't have much of an idea of what they are talking about.

CSPAN: President Barack Obama- 'At The 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner'

Source:CSPAN- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) speaking at the 2011 White House Correspondents dinner, in Washington.

"President Obama at the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner. View the complete program here:CSPAN. 

Source:CSPAN- comedian Seth Meyers. 

From CSPAN

Ever since the mid-term elections of 2010, the President has been in full reelection mode. Thinking that if Democrats can lose the House, he could lose the White House just as easily.

And every decision and policy position and speech President Obama has given, has been based on that. Only when President Obama has to take a stand on anything, it's after endless concentrated thought on every possible proposal and idea that's out there. Libya being a perfect example of this and then after finally taking a position on anything.

Watching Barack Obama make up his mind on anything, (from a distance, anyway) is like watching a midget try to tackle an elephant: it is really difficult and painful thing to see that you want it to end and for some resolution to the matter: "If we do this, than that will happen and that will be bad. But if we don't do this, then this could happen and that might be worst". Politicians who try to please everybody tend to be the most unpopular. Because they end up offending everyone. And that is sort of where President Obama is right now.

It's the weakest position possible designed to offend the very least. It's Independent voters that the President is targeting. Meaning that he can’t seem too strong on anything, because he might offend those who look for the middle ground on everything­.

Which means that President Obama ends up doing what he wants the least, which is looking weak. Because he can't figure out what the hell he should do. Right now President Obama who’ve I tended to agree with on foreign and economic policy, is the On the Other Hand President.

President Barack Obama: "Well, if we do this, it could work, but on the other hand if we do this instead, it might work better. And costing the country economically because we have a weak economy that needs strong action".

Sometimes you just got to say, screw it! And do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they may. That is what leadership is about and what being President of the United States is about. The On the Other Hand Presidency might turn out to be effective leadership in the long-term, but it's definitely weak leadership in the short-term. And costing President Obama popularity and the ability to lead a large divided country.

AlterNet: David Morris- 'Why You Want Government Running Health, Education an d Defense'

Source:The FreeState MD- People buried under big government?

Source:FreeState MD

“President Obama on why the private sector is more efficient than government” 

Source:Jeff Duncan- President Obama, talking about the 2013 government shutdown.

From Jeff Duncan 

The title of this article from the AlterNet that I read is called: “Why You Want the Government Running Health, Education and Defense”. No, for real, just look up top incase you missed it. Yet the whole article is about comparing the American health care system with foreign health care systems.

This article had nothing about education and defense. Because I believe this writer understands that the American public education system isn’t very good right now. We’re ranked I believe by the United Nations, and organization that the Left especially the Far-Left puts a lot of faith in, 39th in the World. And no one is calling for privatizing the Defense Department. Except for perhaps Dick Cheney, Ron Paul and Libertarians in the Tea Party.

Another issue I have with the AlterNet article is some of its so-called facts: I know, why would the AlterNet care about fact or let them get in their way of a good ideological argument. But saying that in America the private sector runs our health care system and in the rest of the developed world the public sector runs their health care systems,  is purely false.

Holland, Switzerland, France, Germany, Italy, Taiwan and Japan (to use as examples) France, Germany, Italy and Japan all being large countries, all have private/ public health care systems. America has a private/public health care system. It’s just different and not nearly as effective as these other countries, with its health insurance.

Socialists like to say that government ownership or management of the economy and other key services, is the best way to go to have the best country possible. And they point to Sweden as their example of how well this system works. Not recognizing or realizing the fact that Sweden has a very large private sector and a lot of their economy is privatized.

What Sweden does have and why I call it a social democracy, well because that is exactly what it is. (Speaking of facts) But what they have is a very large welfare state (at least by American standards) with very generous benefits financed through high taxes. (Again, at least by American standards) In other words, the Swedish Government or Swedish Socialists tax most of their people’s money away, so they can give that money back to take care of them. Or another way of putting it, they tax people to death and them bring them back to life with their own money.

The economy’s that work best are the economy’s that privatize most of their economy, but regulate them well to prevent and punish abuses. That has unlimited fair and open competition and a substantial and affordable safety net for people who fall through the cracks. That empowers them to get on their feet.

America used to have an economy like this, but we moved away from it and look where we are now. What doesn’t work well in an economy are monopolies, whether they are public or private. Where Big Government, “my people are essentially if not officially, because my public school monopoly doesn’t teach them very well. So what I have to do is take most of their money from them to prevent them from spending it unwisely, to take care of them”. And you can just look at the former Soviet Union, or Cuba or North Korea today.

What also doesn’t work well is what I and others would call “cowboy capitalism”. Which is capitalism with essentially no rules or the rules aren’t enforced. Or the referees are paid off and essentially taking coffee breaks over at the closest Starbucks from the stadium the whole game and they allow whatever to happen to happen, the free market being everything that is. Except that it is not free when the government at taxpayers expense pays these companies for the hell of it, who play by no rules. And I give you the Bush Administration of 2001-2009 as the only example I need. And look at where we are today.

Government should let the people be free to live their own lives as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. Thats the economy that works the best, freedom with responsibility.

I don’t and I imagine most Americans don’t want a Federal, or for that matter a state, country or municipal babysitter (meaning government) to take care of us, for us, at of course our expense. Big Government to its taxpayers: “Give me your money, so I can take care of you for you.” Uh no, just give the people the tools they need in life to be successful and allow for them to take care of themselves. Freedom and responsibility: reward good behavior and discourage bad behavior.

Mary Queen of Shops: 'Designer Jeans Advice From Mary Portas"

Source:Mary Queen of Shops- designer jeans advice.

Source:The Daily Journal 

“Mary Portas takes Diana, the owner of fashion store 117, to find a high end designer jeans market for her shop. A great pair of jeans is the staple of any fashionable woman's wardrobe.” 

From Mary Queen of Shops

I found this photo on Flickr or Photobucket. It’s not directly related to the Mary Portas video, except for the designer jeans. It also adds the jeans in boots look that’s been with us for the last 5-6 years with so many sexy women in and out of America tucking their skin-tight or skinny jeans into their long boots. And the jeans over boots looks is still with us and very popular as well where women now are wearing their skinny jeans over their boots even to work not and when they out to dinner and dress up their denim that way. 

Source:The Daily Journal- jeans in boots.

This photo is also not directly related to Mary Portas's video about designer jeans. But you do see a beautiful, sexy woman, with great curves, in her 21st Century designer denim jeans, that's she's wearing in her black, leather boots. Which is a look that came back in 2005-06 and has been around with us ever since. Designer jeans or skinny jeans aren't designed for skinny girls or women, but for women with meat on their bones who like to show off their legs and butts. As you see with this woman on the left.

Source:The Daily Journal- jeans in boots on the left.

The jeans denim explosion especially since the late 1990s and which went even further in the last decade and has probably gotten even bigger in the first two years of this decade especially with skinny denim and leather jeans for women. And with skinny jeans for women that have been around since 2005 or 06 which as guy I gotta admit I think it's great checking out sexy women who love their tight jeans. Especially checking out sexy female celebrity's in their tight jeans. And now that even tight jeans have become such a versatile pant for women, no longer considered just a casual pant. It has completely changed how sexy women dress in and out of work.

With women now wearing skinny jeans to the office, not just on Casual Friday, as well as out on the weekend and at night. And wearing them in all weather not just in the fall or winter. But during hot humid summers, like in the Mid-West, Mid-Atlantic and Southeast. Wearing tight jeans not just with t-shirts and tank tops, but with sweaters, blouses, suit jackets it's become very important for women to make sure that when they are out in tight jeans or shopping for tight jeans, that they are wearing the tight jeans and buying the tight jeans that show off their bodies as best as possible.

That they don't wear tight jeans that make them look fat, skinny or look like hookers. Like with the famous ass crack jeans of 2001-02. Where if a women sat down or bended over, she was at risk of revealing her ass crack and perhaps seeing it on TV or the internet or both. Especially with the camcorder revolution and people being able to record video on their cell phones. Low-rise jeans, skinny jeans good. Ass crack jeans bad, women should find the balance that makes them look sexy in them. And shows off their figures but doesn't make them look like prostitutes looking for a man to pay their bills.

Perhaps this video can help women find that right balance. Also for me anyway, not a fan of trouser jeans, they might be stylish for a women and make them feel like they can wear jeans to work and still look dressy or professional. But the office far as I'm concern might be the only good place for them. I'm not going to get the feeling to check out a women, I don't care how sexy she is physically, just because she's wearing trouser jeans. I would get the same satisfaction checking out a women wearing baggy sweatpants or slacks.

Denim to me on women anyway, like leather are meant to be tight. One reason why there are both denim jeans and leather jeans and a lot of women and men shopping for both denim and leather jeans that are the tightest possible without sucking the blood from their legs so they can no longer walk. Sort of like that Seinfeld episode (sorry I watched the show a lot) where Kramer was wearing designer jeans from like 1982 or something that were so tight that he literally couldn't move his legs in them.

So low-rise and skinny jeans great, jeans with boots, whether they are under or over the jeans are great. The tight dark wash designer jeans explosion for women in the late 1970s, the greatest advancement in style for women I believe ever. As far as sex appeal goes, but women should where the jeans that are best for their body and don't buy jeans that are for another body. That just causes problems.