Sony Pictures Classics: 'Inside Job- Official Trailer (2010)'

Source:Sony Pictures Classic- from the trailer of Inside Job.

"From Academy Award® nominated filmmaker, Charles Ferguson ("No End In Sight"), comes INSIDE JOB, the first film to expose the shocking truth behind the economic crisis of 2008. The global financial meltdown, at a cost of over $20 trillion, resulted in millions of people losing their homes and jobs. Through extensive research and interviews with major financial insiders, politicians and journalists, INSIDE JOB traces the rise of a rogue industry and unveils the corrosive relationships which have corrupted politics, regulation and academia. Narrated by Academy Award® winner Matt Damon, INSIDE JOB was made on location in the United States, Iceland, England, France, Singapore, and China." 

From Sony Pictures Classics

The best way to sum up the American economy the last ten years, can be done in two words: Cowboy Economics. What that is (in case you were wondering) is an economic system with essentially no rules, or where the rules that are necessary like anti-monopoly laws aren't enforced, where people can make as much money as they can essentially get away with, no matter how much people screw innocent people out of their money. With rotten investments that plummet and then resign with huge bailout check from either the company or from taxpayers. 

I'm speaking of the Enron scandal of 2001-02 and the of course the Wall Street scandal of 2008 that led into the Great Recession. Cowboy economics along with supply side (that I call borrow and spend economics) were the economic policy's of the George W. Bush Administration. That to a certain extent the Obama Administration has continued on both fronts in their first two going on three years. So there's no wonder why three years later we are still trying to recover from the Great Recession. 

There's also no wonder to why we have a national debt and deficit of 14T$ and 1.8T$ respectfully. Because we haven't regulated the people with a lot of the money and the Federal Government hasn't been paying its bills going back to 2001. And as a result as a country we are paying a heavy price for it that we are still trying to as a nation, figure out how to get out of it. 

Look, I'm a Liberal Democrat and I believe in American capitalism and our private enterprise system and people being able to go out and make as much money as they can earn without any limits on how much money they can make, after taxes, of course, as long as they do it as individuals. Which separates me from Socialists who believe in collectivism, that no one should have a lot more money than others. But just as long as they earn that money and that they don't screw others out of making a living and that they have unlimited, free and fair competition and that there's a referee. Meaning government to step in when others hurt people by screwing them, which is what separates me from Libertarians. 

Socialists (Democratic as well as Marxist) put too much faith in government. Libertarians on the other hand put too much faith in markets and private enterprise. So what we need instead is to have private enterprise, the ability for company's and individuals to go out there and make as much money as their production will allow them to earn. To earn, not to take, earning the money you make, not screwing others out of making a living on their own. And walking away with a huge payoff for your work, big difference. 

Private enterprise is the ability for individuals and business's to go out and makes as much money as they can earn. So long as they have free and fair open competition as well as anti-monopoly laws. And where government is there to not try to protect people from themselves, but to protect innocent people from the harm of others. 

The problem with America is not American capitalism our private enterprise system. The problem with America is that we've gotten away from it. And moved to a system of cowboy economics and corporate socialism where we subsidize company's just for making a profit. And then bail them out when they fail. The whole notion of "Too Big To Fail" is the whole problem right there. The point being they should've never been "Too Big To Fail" in the first place. 

Russia Today: Pepe Escobar- 'Bye-Bye Gaddafi, welcome Al-Qaeda?'

Source:Russia Today- welcome to Libya.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[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 

"While Tripoli is celebrating the end of a dictatorship, analysts are skeptical democracy is next in line for Libya. Journalist Pepe Escobar told RT, Al-Qaeda is already effectively in power in the capital. 

RT on:Twitter. RT on:Facebook."  

From Russia Today

Knocking the Gaddafi Regime out-of-power in Libya is great, but Libya still needs a national government. as well as provincial and local government's to govern this very large country, as well as defend it from foreign invaders and Gaddafi fighters. 

Stabilizing Libya will be the main issue that the Libyan Transitional National Council, essentially Libya's interim national government will have to manage as they work to form a long term government both from an interim basis and then once the Libyan people writes a national constitution and forms its own form of government. Hopefully a democratic, responsible, constitutional government to govern the country thats respectful of human rights. 

But of course the TNC is only made up of, I don't maybe 50K people and a lot of their members are the Libyan rebels themselves that successfully fought to knock Moammar Gaddafi and his regime out-of- power. The Gaddafi military was 100K people that the new Libyan Government is going to have to rebuild and have a military that size or bigger. 

The entire Gaddafi Regime was maybe 500K people, so the TNC has a lot of work ahead of it without the manpower to do it on their own. And to be able to govern the country in the short-term and then later long- term, they are going to need international help to accomplish this. 

Where the Arab League especially Egypt can play a big role, with security and then later forming a long- term government in Libya. And this is where NATO and the European Union, United Nations, perhaps even the African Union and to a smaller extent the United States can step in and play a positive role. 

The number one thing that Libya needs and this of course is coming from a Western outsider, is security and stability. One of the biggest mistakes that happened in Iraq during the Iraq War, was that they moved to national elections and forming the new government and constitution before security and stability were established in this big country of 25M people at the time. 

The United States didn't have enough forces to secure Iraq and they moved to eliminate the Hussein Regime and its armed forces and security forces, without having anything to replace it. Which left Iraq wide-open for attacks both domestic and foreign and became a country that didn't have any Al-Qaeda members pre-2003 Iraq War, to a country with perhaps the largest Al-Qaeda membership during that Iraq War. 

Iraq has all of the different ethnic and tribal groups as well as religious groups that hated the Hussein Regime, that wanted their revenge against them. So what Libya is going to need is security as well as respect for human rights and to move past the Gaddafi Regime and stability as they work to write a national constitution and form a more lasting national government that can govern and secure Libya in a responsible way that the Libyan people and international community can respect. 

Thom Hartmann: Will Bunch- 'The Decline Started With Ronald Reagan'

Source:Thom Hartmann- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) 40th President of the United States.

"Thom Hartmann and Will Bunch, Senior Fellow-Media Matters / columnist-Philadelphia Daily News / author-Tear Down This Myth: How the Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future (His latest book is  The Backlash: Right-Wing Radicals, High-Def Hucksters, and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama"), discuss Ronald Reagan, and the myth of his legacy

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

If you want to look at the decline of the American economy, it actually goes back to the late 1960s with the Vietnam War and the Great Society entitlement programs, where Federal Government spending went up way more then our Federal Government has traditionally spent. 

Pre-1970 it wasn't uncommon for the Federal Government to balance its budget but starting in 1969-70, balancing the Federal budget became uncommon. Because of all of the money that we were spending at home and oversees. 

The 1970s was probably the worst decade we had economically pre-Great Recession and it came after the 1960s which was one of our best decades economically. President Nixon inherited a slowing economy and the Nixon Administration didn't do much to help with expanding the Vietnam War, price controls and the energy freeze. The Ford Administration which inherited a recession with high unemployment and inflation. As well as an energy freeze but at least they tried to address these issues without much success. 

The Carter Administration inherited a bad economy as well in 1977 again with high unemployment, which of course got worse in 1978 with another recession in 1980, with high unemployment, high inflation, high interest rates. As much as you want to criticize Ron Reagan as President and I criticize him a lot for his supply side economic policy, not paying for his tax cuts or government expansion, the American economy did dramatically improve under President Reagan's watch in the 1980s. 

The economy approved in the 1980s: we went from low economic growth to high economic growth by 1984. From 10% unemployment to 7% by 1984 and 5% by 1989 when he left office with low inflation and interest rates. 

The Reagan Administration inherited a bad economy and left office with a good economy, but left office with the highest national debt and deficit in American history, due to President Reagan's supply side economic policy. The tax cuts and defense spending would've been fine fiscally, had he paid for them. 

So-called Progressives in America (like the Thom Hartmann's of the world) who are actually Democratic Socialists in America, like to blame Ron Reagan more then even George W. Bush for today's Great Recession and perhaps every other problem were facing as a country. And not grant President Reagan the fact that he inherited a horrible economy that had just come out of recession. Like the third one of the 1970s and about to go into another one in 1982, because he cut taxes from 70% to I believe 36-39% somewhere in there. 

And of course the Far-Left in America (Socialists and Communists) have this overall economic view that the main problems with our economy is that Americans including the middle class, don't pay enough in taxes and the Federal Government doesn't do enough. Our problems have to do with fact that we don't have 50-60% tax rates like in Britain and Sweden. And our Federal Government doesn't spend enough, that our private sector is too large and that our public sector isn't big enough. Where its spending around 50-60% of our GDP like in Europe. 

But we tried a similar approach with a 70% Tax Rate from the mid 1960s to 1981 and our economy didn't do very well in that period. Plus with the Vietnam War and the explosion in entitlement spending, Ronald Reagan has become for Socialists what FDR is for Conservatives and Libertarians: their favorite whipping boy. 

Thom Hartmann: 'The Republican Plan to End Social Security?'

Source:Russia Today- is Thom Hartmann talking about Social Security or President Lyndon B. Johnson)

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[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 

"How Republicans are cleverly turning social security into a soon to be phased out welfare program!" 

From Russia Today

Why should millionaire and billionaires be collecting from Social Security, people who've done very well for themselves and can finance their own retirement? How can we call a pension insurance program (Social Security is, not a pension program) when we don't let everyone who pays into it, collect from it?

Social Security. when it only pays out for the people who actually need it, about 66% of the Federal poverty Rate (around 14K$ a year) save taxpayers money and keeps poverty down.

What we need to tell people and empower those who do need it, is that they need to plan and finance their own retirements. And the Social Security will still be there, especially for people who actually need it.

These two reforms alone would save both Social Security and Medicare and be a big help in the U.S. Government getting its debt and deficit under control and we can stop borrowing from countries that don't like us to fund our governmental operations. Including things like Unemployment Insurance that we've been doing in the Great Recession and Grocery Assistance.But these are just a few reforms that I would like to see in Social Security and our broader safety net. 

I would actually like to end our safety net by phasing it out, but replacing it with something better, so no one who depends on these programs in order to survive gets hurt by my reforms but is actually helped by them. 

I mentioned this several times already in a few other posts, but I would do this by first reforming the financing of them, as I've already mentioned. But them taking them off of the Federal and state budgets and turning them into independent, semi-private, non-profit, community services, all of them. The ones that already have their own revenue source would keep it but be reformed. Like Unemployment Insurance, Social Security, Medicare. (To use as examples) 

The social insurance programs that don't have their own revenue sources, would get one. Like Welfare Insurance, Medicaid, Agriculture Insurance (to use as examples) and then they would all help the people who are eligible for them. Unemployment and Welfare Insurance would help the people who are on them get by but also put them to work so they can support themselves. (To use as examples)

I believe there's a faction of the country, people who I would call the Socialist-Left in America (like Thom Hartmann, for instance) believes that all social insurance programs should almost never if ever be reformed, because then they would have to admit that there's something wrong with them. That there are areas in the safety net that are actually not perfect and could work better than they already are. Except to give them more money and this is a big reason why they are so hard to reform.

The Real News: Paul Jay- 'Should Banks be a Public Utility?'

Source:The Real News- interviewing Yves Smith.

"Yves Smith: Finance sector controls the regulatory process - there needs to be a publicly controlled alternative to the private banking system." 

From The Real News

As a Liberal who has no interest in making the Federal Government any bigger than they are and actually wants to make it smaller both the budget and workforce to make it smaller and more efficient. But with the irresponsible behavior of our private banking system and the fact they can bring down our economy like in 2008 with their irresponsible behavior and how large they are and important they are to our economy, they literally have a part of our entire economy. Ao we have to have a healthy banking system that the banks and consumers benefit from in order for us to have a health economy and we don't have either right now. 

I'm someone who believes in competition, not monopoly whether it's a private monopoly or a public monopoly. To me monopolies look like what Microsoft used to look like before it was broken up. Or what a state DMV looks like today and to a certain extent our public education system in America. If a large organization (again, private or public) doesn't have enough competition, it's going to perform and be efficient as it should be because it doesn't have the financial incentive in order to succeed. 

One of the reasons why I'm not in favor of single payer health insurance where the Federal Government controls our entire health insurance system like with Medicare or a single payer pension where the Federal Government controls our entire pension system like with Social Security, large organizations or any organizations need competition in order to succeed, or they get complacent and greedy thinking: "Why do we need to improve our service or even perform a good service, our customers don't have any other choices to turn to." 

Our public education system is an excellent example of a public monopoly where most of our students are stuck going to certain schools based on where they live and not what's the best school for them. 

I'm not in favor of having the Federal Government taking over the banking system in America or even allowing our states to do so either. But what I am in favor of is leaving our current private banking system private and even for-profit (if they choose to stay that way) but regulating it better so they are no longer "Too Big to Fail". As well as providing the private banking system with more competition, similar with my position on health care reform, with a public option in the banking system, but not a new Federal Bank but what I would do is set up a new Federal banking system. 

With a public banking system we could allow all fifty states, plus the territories to open up their own public banks that would all be operated independently of the Federal and state government's. That would be regulated by them and be non-profit as well and then let the consumers decide for themselves what bank they want to use: stick with their current private bank, pick another private bank, or choose a public bank. And let the market the people decide for themselves and give them the freedom of choice to decide who they do their banking with. 

The market is a beautiful thing when you let it operate properly. Community banking is a great idea to provide more competition not less in the banking system. Just as long as you don't end one monopoly by creating another and having less choice in the market. And giving people less freedom of choice in where they do their banking, but have maximum freedom of choice instead.  

On a personal note: this is my 100th post for The FreeState MD. 

The Real News: Paul Jay- Gilbert Achcar: 'Boots on the Ground" in Libya?'

Source:The Real News- Libyan boots on the ground?

"Gilbert Achcar: NATO wants an "Egypt solution", but to achieve it, they may try to put international UN troops in Libya." 

From The Real News

I'll put this as simply as I can: no American troops on the ground in Libya! We have way too many problems as it is and are already over committed around the world and need to start bringing troops home from around the world. And not just in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Korea, all developed nations that are more than capable of defending themselves and have the financial resources to do so. Which is a big reason why we have a 14T$ national debt because of all the money we've borrowed over the years to defend these developed nations. 

Libya is probably going to need foreign troops now and into the future to help the Transitional National Council, but thats going to have to come from other sources. The Arab League being a great start, as well as perhaps the African Union. If Libya could handle having African (not Arab troops in their country) as well as the European Union, with the NATO No Fly Zone already being popular there. As well as perhaps a United Nations force and allow other foreign troops to go along with this. With the approval of Libya of course. 

It's the Libyan People's nation now especially with Moammar Gadhafi out of power. Libya physically is a very large country, about the size of Algeria which is just next door. Saudi Arabia and Iran and the Gadhafi Regime had a military of 100,000 troops even in a country of 6M people. And a fairly well developed military as well that was professional and even had weapons of mass destruction. 

Libya is going to need foreign troops there in the short-term to defend the nation and to try to prevent civil war. And to prevent foreign terrorists from invading the nation to try to take it over. They are also going to need foreign troops to help rebuild the Libyan military and retrain them, because they'll probably need a military of around 100,000 troops in the future as well because of its physical size, it's neighborhood and especially if the new government in Libya ever develops the nation and its population expands. Which could definitely happen. Iran similar size physically to Libya was a country of 20M people in 1979. Less than twenty years later they had a population of 75M people. 

The United Nations, European Union, Arab League, African Union should all step into Libya with troops (with Libya's approval) to help defend that nation in the short-term as Libya builds its new government and why these people are helping to rebuild the Libyan military so they can leave Libya and Libya can once again defend itself, while the United States can help with resources, like weapons, planes, etc, as well as foreign aide, so Libya can build up its country. 

America is already over committed as a military and its time we bring our troops home because we are already over committed. And rebuild our own country instead as Libya builds its own country and their new form of government. 

Vila Web: Naomi Klein- 'On Democracy vs Neoliberalism'

Source:Vila Web- Left-Wing author Naomi Klein, talking about neoliberalism (which is really liberal democracy) I believe in 2011.

"Naomi Klein on democracy and neoliberalism." Originally from Vila Web, but the video has since been deleted or blocked.

In 1989 or so a new Center-Left movement emerged in the Democratic Party. People who are called New Democrats who are Liberal and Progressive Democrats, who wanted to take the Democratic Party back from the social-democratic New-Left McGovernites who emerged in the party in the late 1960s and early 1970s.  Who saw the Democratic Party just loose three-straight presidential elections for the first time in like sixty years. 

There were a group of Progressive Democrats (the real Progressives) who were somewhat moderate, led by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Gary Hart, Dick Gephardt to a certain extent, Bob Kerry, Joe Lieberman, etc. Who in the 1990s would get dubbed as New Democrats. Who saw their party get hammered in election after election and decided it's time they fought back. They concluded that the Democratic Party was still a viable party, but that it started to move out of the political mainstream of American politics.

The Democrats became unelectable as a party on the national level, because they were seen as tax and spenders, soft on crime, soft on defense, soft on welfare, soft on corruption, etc. You can go down the line perhaps you've heard these terms before. And decided to put organizations together to promote their new way of thinking and their policy's and recruit political candidates who think like they do. 

Organizations like the Progressive Policy Institute that's still in business (notice that word progressive) that's still business today thats not a social democratic institute (as that name might indicate) but a Center-Left institute. As well as the New Democrat Coalition and they wanted to promote a new way of thinking to deal with the issues that the country was facing. And then recruit the political candidates to run on these policy's and try to put them in place once they are elected. That wasn't government-centered and focusing on creating new Federal social insurance programs. But that was people centered focusing on empowering people to handle their own problems. The 1996 Welfare to Work Law is a perfect example of this.

Center-Left Democrats (the real Progressives)  wanted to promote a new agenda that wasn't government- centered, but still hold true to the progressive values of the Democratic Party. Using government to help people in need help themselves and move past the days of indefinite public assistance and empower people in need to get themselves on their feet. 

Welfare to Work wasn't the New Democrats (the real Progressives) only objective. Things like fiscal responsibility and government living within its means, the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act being a perfect example of this, that had a lot of budget cuts in it as well as tax hikes on the wealthy. Getting rid of the soft on crime image that killed the Democratic Party in 1968, 72, 80, 84, 88 by getting tough, but smart on crime, by having violent offenders serve out their sentences and serving long sentences for serious crimes. But also measures to prevent crime and addressing at risk youth with after school programs so they could be constructive after school. 

The New Democrats (the real Progressives)  well as free but smart trade so we can sell our products oversees at low tariff rates: NAFTA and GAT in 1993. And national security, so we can still be strong, but be intelligent in how we send our troops. And not send them everywhere.

The Democratic Socialist-Left in the Democratic Party saw this movement and saw New Democrats take over the Democratic Party and saw their power and influence diminish. Because New Democrats were getting elected governor and to the Senate and not Democratic Socialists. Where most of them are still in the House representing House districts and not being able to get elected statewide (for the most part) and especially not nationally. 

The last Democratic Socialist that won the Democratic nomination for President, was Senator George McGovern back in 1972. How the Democratic Party has changed and for the better for my perspective as a Democrat. So what Democratic Socialists like Naomi Klein and others, when they are critiquing neoliberalism, they are talking about New Democrats who are not socialist enough for their point of view.