Thom Hartmann: Mark Williams- 'Taking Back America'

Source:Thom Hartmann- author Mark Williams book: Taking BackAmerica.

"Progressive radio talk show host Thom Hartmann hosts Mark Williams, National Radio, television, print and on line news/commentary / Former Chair-Tea Party Express / Author, "Taking Back America...One Tea Party At A Time", as they discuss "What is the Tea Party plan to take over the GOP?". 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 the Thom Hartmann Show

If the Tea Party Movement and that's what it is right now a political movement not a political party, is truly about limited government not just about expanding economic freedom (for wealthy people and corporations) and fiscal conservatism, as well as protecting individual liberty, not just economic liberty (for wealthy people and corporations) but individual liberty in general which includes personal freedom, the ability for people to live their own lives as they see fit as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom, then the Tea Party has a real future in American politics. Either as the conservative-libertarian wing of the Republican Party, or merging with the Libertarian Party.

If the Tea Party is not about discriminating and punishing people because they are gay or are single parents or divorced or are interested in pornography and want more limitations to the First Amendment and want to make the adultery illegal, all things that the Christian-Conservatives in America want to do, then the Tea Party has a big future in American politics as either the Libertarian or Conservative- Libertarian faction of the Republican Party. 

Perhaps the Tea Party merges with the Libertarian Party in the future or or creating their own political party thats about individual liberty and protecting constitutional rights and limited government. Things that the Republican Party was truly about up until twenty years ago or so. And not about corporate welfare, then the Tea Party movement could have a bright future in American politics. 

But if the Tea Party is not about conservative-libertarianism and instead is in bed with the Christian-Right but with an economic message, like the Michele Bachman's, Sarah Palin's, Jim DiMints's of the World, then they will just be seen as another fringe movement by voters outside of the GOP. 

But if the Tea Party is truly about limited government and conservative-libertarianism and just anti- regulation and fiscal conservatism, then the Tea Party movement could do what the Libertarian Party has never been able to do in American politics which is be taken seriously by Independent voters and by Republicans and Democrats. 

Independents tend to be somewhat liberal to libertarian on social issues and don't like to be told by government how to live. And want their low taxes and want government to be fiscally responsible and not waste tax payer money. Things that the Libertarian Party have always been in favor or but never been able to get across to Independent voters, up until Ron Paul of the last few years. 

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- 'Supreme Court Ruining Democracy?'

Source:The Young Turks- The five Republican nominated Supreme Court Justices.

"MSNBC host Cenk Uygur on the Supreme Court voting 5-4 to strike down an Arizona law that gave public financing to political candidates to match what rival candidates were raising over the spending limit." 

From The Young Turks

How Chief Justice John Roberts makes the argument that a state matching campaign contributions of political candidates as unconstitutional, because it limits what third-party Groups can do, is beyond me. And sounds like more of an ideological argument to me than anything else. 

What Chief Justice Roberts is essentially saying here: "Look, we really don't have a credible justification for our case and this is the best we can come up with. We are really making this argument because this is how we want things to be but we don't want to say that at least in public." It's sort of a because I said so argument (no offense mom and dad) that you make when you can't think of anything else to say. 

I'm really sick in tired of hearing the states rights argument, especially from so-called Conservatives who don't believe a damn thing that they are saying. And only make the argument to prevent the Federal Government from making them do something that they don't want them to do. Whether it's constitutional or not and they use it purely as a convenience and nothing else. 

When states pass a law that right-wingers don't like, like with the Arizona campaign law, they throw the states rights argument in the trash and come up with whatever argument they need that they feel will suit their needs and interests at the time. Especially as a Liberal myself who believes in states rights (as a Federalist) but actually understands what states rights is. (Which is federalism) That the States essentially have the authority to pass any law that they want as long as it complies with the U.S. Constitution. 

As a Liberal I'm not a big fan of centralization and the establishment and prefer to see more diversity with power and lean towards more personal liberty. Every time a court strikes down a campaign reform law it's just more evidence to me that the only campaign reform that could ever be passed and stand up to constitutional scrutiny. 

Full-disclosure, meaning that political candidates and incumbents as well as third-party groups, would have to disclose where they are getting the financing for their activities. Because every other reform that restricts campaign financing, generally gets struck down by some court. Whether the argument is credible or bogus.

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.