The Reason Party: Professor Noam Chomsky- On Libertarian Socialism

Source:The Reason Party- Professor Noam Chomsky, talking about I guess his favorite philosophy: libertarian socialism. Perhaps next he'll talk about conservative communism. LOL

"Noam Chomsky on Libertarian Socialism." 

From The Reason Party

As author Noam Chomsky has said, a Libertarian Socialist sounds like contradiction in terms at least in America. Because socialism is about collectivism and equality, making sure that no one has too much more than anyone else. And that government should be used to essentially take care of society so people don’t have to do too much on their own. 

Whereas libertarianism is about individual liberty, similar to liberalism. That the people should have the freedom to live their own lives and have maximize freedom both socially and economically. And that people should be able to make as much money as they can legally without paying high taxes.

Whereas Socialists believe that no one should make a lot more money than anyone and that they use high taxes to keep that from happening and give that tax revenue to the less-fortunate. And to finance a massive welfare state. (At least by American standards) 

A Libertarian Socialist would be a contradiction, if socialism was just about economic policy, but it's not. Socialism is not just an economic policy, but a developed political ideology that also has other political views. Like on social policy, law enforcement, and foreign policy.

Socialists and I’m not talking about Communists, because communism is a separate political ideology from socialism, tend to be liberal to libertarian on social issues. Just look at Sweden for example, a social democracy that has a lot of social freedom. And they tend to be dovish on law enforcement and foreign policy as well as isolationist on foreign policy like Libertarians. 

Classical Socialism or Marxism, tend to get mixed in with democratic socialism. Tends to get mixed up with liberalism. But liberalism is a different political ideology from both classical and democratic socialism. See, socialism is a diverse and multi-demential political ideology. It's more than an economic policy.

I’m not a Socialist in any form, classical, or democratic. Not even a Libertarian Socialist. I’m a liberal and been described as a Classical Liberal, but one thing that I respect about socialism is its diversity. 

There’s Marxist-Socialism, where the state owns the means of production in society. Meaning the economy. And then there’s democratic socialism with a private sector, but that’s highly taxed and regulated (again, by American standards) to finance a massive welfare state. (Again, by American standards) It’s not just an economic policy, but a developed political ideology. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Thom Hartmann: 'Private Prisons Lobbying For More Prisoners?'

Source:The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann- talking about the private prison industry in America.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the Russian federal tax budget.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"Amanda Carey, Reporter, Daily Caller.org, joins Thom Hartmann. We're number one! That is...in the size of our prison population. The United States boasts the highest rate of imprisonment than any other developed nation in the world. But that's not enough for some people - specifically the private prison industry. The Justice Policy Institute just released a report detailing how the private prison industry is spending millions of dollars every year to lobby lawmakers around the country to pass tougher laws to throw more people in prison - ideally - private prisons. And it's working. In the last decade - the number of people in prison increased 16% - but the number of people in private federal prisons increased 120%. That's massive profits. In fact - the two largest private prison corporations in the country - the Corrections Corporation of America and the GEO Group - raked in nearly $3 billion in revenue last year. So isn't this a problem in American that corporations have a direct interest in throwing more and more people in prison - shouldn't we be working on ways to keep people of prison?" 

From The Big Picture

If you look at what the role of government is, protecting society and law enforcement which includes corrections (meaning prison) is something that most if not all sane sober people can agree is a role for government. Whether you are left, right center, confused, blue, red, purple, green, whatever. 

Protecting society which is the main role of prisons, so inmates can't commit more crimes against society than they already have, is the number one job for government. If government can't even do that right, which is where they generally do a good job, then they are useless and we don't need government for anything. 

People should not be making money, that is have a profit motive to keep people in prison. Prison is designed to keep criminals off the street to protect society, not designed to be profitable. Private business should not have motive to lobby government to pass more laws that ends up incarcerating more people, just so they can make more money housing more inmates or to keep people in prison longer just so they can make more money incarcerating them. 

The idea behind behind private prisons and private for-profit prisons, is that the American corrections system is too expensive. The Federal, state, and local government's, are all under tight budget crunches and are looking everywhere to save money. Including in law enforcement and corrections. All right, point taken at least on my part. I'm not going to pretend I'm physic and speak for everyone else. 

But let's examine why, shall we: we have 2M people in prison in America where we are now spending more money on prisons than on public education and public infrastructure. An easy but correct answer would be that we arrest too many people for too many things. Things that are technically crimes but that don't hurt anyone. But since government feels the need to protect us from ourselves and show us the way so to speak, they arrest us for things for the good of our health but then throw us in prison which is bad for our health. Which is a contradiction the size of the Grand Canyon. 

Things like gambling our own money, smoking or possessing or selling marijuana and getting paid to have sex, meaning prostitution, major factors in why we have so many prison inmates. I agree that our corrections system is too expensive and a money pit in a lot of cases. Fine, but before you try to solve a problem and before a good doctor anyway writes a prescription for their patients medical condition, they give the patient a diagnosis first so they well uh, know exactly what the problem is they are trying to fix. Which is exactly what we should be doing with our corrections system. 

We arrest too many people for too many things that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. We don't prepare our prison inmates for life on the outside, so once they get out and most inmates do. They end up back in prison because they don't have the life skills that they need to be successful in life legally. 

For our non-violent offenders that need some type of public supervision, like robbery, shoplifting. (To use as examples) We send them to prison and in a lot of cases for long sentences and they take up space that should be saved for our actual dangerous criminals. 

All right, thats your diagnosis from Dr. Derik, here's my prescription: let's stop arresting people for crimes that don't harm others in society and I would start with the examples that I mentioned. Let's prepare our inmates for life on the outside, the inmates that we can work with. With education, job training and work, and make our prison industries exactly that: something that can benefit the prisons, inmates and society. 

And let's establish alternative sentencing for our non-violent offenders that don't represent a major threat to our economy. Like with drug rehab, halfway houses, boot camps. Things that would pay for themselves by the inmates themselves. 

Crime and punishment actually represents a role for government, because we are talking about public safety here and is something that we have to get right. And is not something we should be putting profit over safety. Which is what private prisons are about.

The Ring of Fire: Mike Papantonio- 'How Capitalism Has Failed Us'

Source:The Ring of Fire- talking to Justin Jones, from Political Voice.

"Protesters in Wisconsin have taken to the streets to protest Republican Governor Scott Walker and his disastrous plan for their state. These protesters have been at it since February of this year. But in other areas of the country, Republicans are working to strip us of our rights, but the streets are empty. We don't have protesters shining a spotlight on the corruption in other parts of the country, and because of this, the abuse just keeps coming. That's why my next guest is so inspiring -- Justin Jones is only 17, and yet he is more politically active than most people in this country, and we were pleased to have him back on Ring of Fire with us recently." 

From The Ring of Fire 

The reason why American capitalism hasn't worked very well the last ten years, is because we as a country and especially our government have moved away from what works well. 

America has stop paying for our government operations. We stop regulating American corporations and Wall Street. And we stopped educating our students. And we cut taxes for the wealthy thinking they would spread the wealth (so to speak) for the rest of society to the point that we no longer have enough well educated students in America and we now have to import foreign workers to fill the good jobs that are left, that 10-15 years ago would've been filled by well-educated American workers. 

10-15 years ago America had the strongest economy the world (not just the largest) because we did what we are currently not doing. And where our economy was growing around 4-5% a year, 4.5% unemployment rate, no inflation, and a Federal budget surplus, and actually talking about paying down our national debt too soon, because we paid for the government we had. We were well regulating American business as well as Wall Street, we had good public schools across the country and high-earners were paying their fair share of taxes. This is the system that works, why American capitalism works. 

Our current economic system is not American capitalism, its corporate capitalism. American capitalism is about maximize choice and fair and free well regulated competition. That puts the people in charge of how they live their lives and how much money they make, where everyone including high-earners pay low taxes compared with the rest of the developed world. But we all pay our fair share of taxes based on our income. 

American capitalism is where people can make as much money as their skills and production will allow while paying their fair share of taxes. Because we have a public education system and college system that produces enough high-skilled workers. 

What we shouldn't be doing as a country is move from Cowboy Capitalism, to democratic socialism with higher taxes and a larger welfare state, to the point where the people are dependent on government to pay their bills. Instead of having the Economic Freedom to make as much money as their skills and production will allow. We need to return to American capitalism, not move to democratic socialism.

Demo Crat: Robert Reich- 'Our Economy Problems in Under 3 Minutes'

Source:Demo Crat- Left-wing economist Robert Reich, talking about the American economy.

"Our Economy Problems in Under 3 Minutes" 

From Demo Crat

Economist Bob Reich is right as far the economy not improving for the middle class the last thirty years and that most of the benefits have gone to the high-earners. High-earners income has gone up substantially the last thirty years, while income for the middle class has been flat or has gone down overall.

He's also right that for America and probably every other country in the world to have a strong economy, they have to have a strong middle class. Because thats who most of the population is in a developed country. So for a country to do well as a whole overall, the middle class has to do well as a whole as well.

Where I disagree with Economist Reich, the so-called House Progressive Caucus and other leftists in America, is their prescription for fixing the economy. Which starts with increasing taxes on everyone, including the middle class, who we all know are struggling right now and can't afford a tax hike. Especially since they are already paying tax hikes in a lot of places at the state local and levels to close the budget deficit's there.

The New-Left in America (Socialists and Communists) don't want to return to the tax rates of the Clinton Administration, but go back to the Carter Administration in 1980. With a top tax rate of 70% and where tax rates on the middle class were also high as well. 

And the New-Left makes the case that since the economy was doing better then, than its doing now that we would be better off with those tax rates. Which is a simplistic argument because what they don't mention is that the middle class is already struggling right now and can't afford a tax hike.

We have a unique problem: a huge budget deficit, national debt, to go along with a weak economy. With the weak economy fueling our deficit and debt. And we need to fix them at the same time which can be done but isn't easy.

What we should be doing instead is raising taxes on high-earners, but go back to the Clinton Administration for them or go up to 40% as the top tax rate or even 45-50% for billionaires. But leave the other tax rates where they are. To pay down our deficit and debt while making strategic budget cuts and reforms in the Federal Government to make it more cost-effective.

As well as rebuild our economy, our infrastructure and manufacturing industry by encouraging things to be "Made in America". One of the reasons for the weak economic and job growth is because people aren't spending money like they did in the past and are spending a lot less.

Another reason for the weak economic and job growth, is because people aren't spending money. The demand in the private sector is very low, so what we should do instead of raising taxes on the middle class, is encourage them to spend more money instead with some type of tax cut or credit that encourages spending.

At first, don't make things worst then they are. So let's not raise taxes on the middle class, the people we need to spend more money. Instead let's raise taxes on people who can afford to pay them and rebuild the economy instead.

The Real News: Paul Jay- Interviewing Naomi Klein: Barack Obama (2008)

Source:The Real News Network- Left-wing writer Naomi Klein, talking about then U.S. Senator Barack Obama, in 2008.

"Klein speaks about Obama and the intellectual and political integrity of the progressive movement." 

From The Real News Network

When Barack Obama ran for President as back in 2007-08 as Senator Obama from Illinois Democratic candidate for President, most of the entire Far-Left, the social-democratic faction of the Democratic Party threw all of their resources into electing then candidate Obama President of the United States. Because essentially they saw him as one of them: a McGovernite Democratic Socialist a European style Democrat who was one of them. 

The Far-Left saw then Senator Obama as an anti-war, protecting the welfare state and if anything expanding the welfare state in America and making America more like Europe, breaking down what they see as the national security state, etc, leftist Democrat. 

But if you look at the presidential campaign then candidate Obama ran in the Democratic primaries he was running to appeal to that movement. But if you look at the policy positions he took even in the primaries, he was running more like a traditional Center-Left progressive Democrat in the mold of a John Kerry or Bobby Kennedy Kennedy or Fritz Mondale.

Barack Obama didn't run to the George McGovern Far-Left wing of the party. Like  a Dennis Kucinich, Jerry Brown (from 1992), a George McGovern Democratic Socialist. Then candidate Obama wanted to be seen as one of them. Someone who came from the leftist-socialist faction of the Democratic Party. Instead of someone who comes from the faction of the party that generally nominates the party's presidential candidates. 

The Center-Left Progressive faction of the party almost always nominates the Democratic candidate for President. (George McGovern being the exception) And these are two different political factions, that are similar on social issues, but are very different on economic and foreign policy. 

Remember, then candidate Obama ran on keeping the middle class tax cuts and expanding our role in the War in Afghanistan. Two things President Obama has already done. Whereas Democratic Socialists want all of the Bush tax cuts to expire and to get all of our troops out of Afghanistan now. 

Essentially candidate Obama wanted to be someone who would be seen as the Democratic Socialist candidate, but someone who was mainstream enough to appeal to the rest of the Democratic Party as well as Independent voters.

And then Senator Obama did that brilliantly. Winning something like 35 States in 2008. No one has ever accused Barack Obama of being an unskillful politician. He's clearly one of the most skillful politicians America has ever produced. He managed to unite both the Far-Left and the Dead-Center (as I put it) behind him running for president. Something he'll have a much harder time doing in 2012 as he runs for reelection as president. As the country has a much better idea of what type of politician he is as President Obama. 

I don't believe Democratic Socialists in America can accuse President Obama of misleading them. If you look at his policy positions that he ran on to become President back in 2008 and his policy positions he has as President, except for Guantanamo Bay, they are very similar. 

Barack Obama is clearly not a Democratic Socialist and never has been, as a U.S. Senator and now as President of the United States. His faith in the welfare state is clearly limited. He's not a dove on national security or law enforcement. He believes in tough enforcement in those areas.

If it's a Democratic Socialist that the Far-Left was looking for back in 2007-08, never existed. Even though Representative Dennis Kucinich was there for them the whole time. Both in 2003-04 when he was the strongest opponents of President Bush at least in the House if not Congress as a whole. Representative Kucinich should've been who they thrown their support behind. 

The Far-Left in 2007-08 had a couple of options in Representative Dennis Kucinich and former Senator Mike Gravel in the Democratic Party. But they selected then Senator Barack Obama, because he sort of talked like them and they saw him as a winner and the anti-Bush. It was a political calculation on their part. 

So Democratic Far-Left  really don't have anyone they can blame. But for one thing at least you can't blame the Far-Left in who they supported in 2008. Because their candidate wouldn't have gone anywhere. The Democratic Party is still a Center-Left party and not the social democratic Green Party that is a third-party. And maybe they decided that Barack Obama would run to the center and govern from the Far-Left.

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.