Russia Today: The Alyona Show- 'Buddy Roemer: President Without Special Interests, Free To Lead'

Source:Russia Today- Governor Buddy Roemer (Republican, Louisiana) 2012 presidential candidate.

"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 

"Former Governor of Louisiana and Republican Presidential candidate Buddy Roemer joins the show to discuss how he's been left out of the debate, his jobs plan and his stance on foreign policy." 

From Russia Today

To start on a casual note: if you look at Buddy Roemer and Senator Tom Coburn two men I respect a lot and I'm not saying this to put either of them down. And you know who both of them are, you seen and heard both of them, you are fairly familiar with both of them. You would think that they are a lot alike and perhaps even related and I believe would at least make a very interesting GOP ticket in 2012. 

Tom Coburn and Buddy Roemer both pretty much represent what the Republican Party used to be: fiscally conservative pro-military, but only use it in our national interest, pro-federalism, that the Federal Government should live within its means and within the U.S. Constitution. Something they both believe that the Federal Government has moved away from. They both believe, I believe except for abortion, want Americans to be able to live their own lives. They are both Classical Conservatives what used to dominate the Republican Party up until twenty years ago or so. 

Thats why former Governor Buddy Roemer and now private businessman and Republican presidential candidate, can't get into the GOP presidential debates, because he's not a Religious-Conservative or a Neoconservative that dominates the Republican field right now. Except for Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and, John Hunstman. To a certain extent Newt Gingrich who's apparently lost all of his political skills which is a shame because he used to be a great politician. And I mean this in the nicest way possible. Might as well call Newt an asshole, Derik) But he's apparently lost the ability to communicate without offending the Republican establishment and communicate his ideas. 

But only Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Mitt Romney if you listen to the  political analysts, have a credible shot at winning the presidential nomination. And then there's Mitt Romney who I call Mr. Fair Weather Candidate: if it works politically, he's for it. But you get rid of the entire of the entire Republican field and just leave in Paul, Johnson, Huntsman, and Roemner and perhaps throw in some more candidates like them, you have a hell of a Republican field, because they would be liked economically and not scare Independent voters on social issues. 

Buddy Roemer represents what the Tea Party used to be before it merged with the Religious-Right, when it started out, the Federal Government is too big, spends too much and they want it out of our lives. And just be there to protect us and when we need, but not try to control how we live  And especially don't bail out people can companies that failed and hurt the people and laid them off because they don't know how to run a business. And of course I'm thinking of TARP on 2008, awarding bad behavior as they see it. They were anti-corporate welfare, that all companies should be able to succeed or fail on their own, etc. 

But since the Religious-Right still dominates the Republican Party and to a certain extent Neoconservatives still have influence there, the Dick Cheney's of the world, candidates like Buddy Roemer, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and John Huntsman, can't even (except for Ron Paul) get enough respect to even be included in the presidential debates. But Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann are, because of who now runs the Republican Party today. 

If this is 1988 or even 1992 and let's say Democrats control the White House (for a minute) Paul, Johnson, Huntsman, and Roemer would all be considered the leading candidates to win the Republican nomination. Because they would all fit in very well with what used to be a Classical Conservative Republican Party. Not a Religious or Neoconservative Republican Party that we see today.

Russia Today: The Alyonya Show- Alyona Minkovski: 'State vs. Defense: The Cost of Militarization'

Source:Russia Today- author Stephen Glain, talking about the U.S. Military.

"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 

"After a two year inquiry, the Commission on Wartime Contracting released its final report today and found that more than $30 billion has been wasted from U.S. funded contracts for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The report also predicted that unless the government brings significant changes to the ways it plans, awards and oversees those contracts, the number could grow to 60 billion in waste. Stephen Glain author of "State vs. Defense, the Battle to Define America's Empire" joins the show to explain." 

From The Alyonya Show

Here's another reason why the Congressional Join Committee on Deficit Reduction (the long way of saying The Joint Committee on Doing Nothing)  because groups on the Far-Left, just look at this video have already bought the Democratic members of this committee not to do a damn thing to reform the Federal Government in general, because they know that would come with spending reductions. Especially in the areas of entitlements and other social insurance programs, where of course they believe there is no waste. Either they actually believe that or just want to believe that, but that represents a big enough problem to entitlement reform to kill it. 

And then of course you have groups on the Right who've already bought the Republican members of the Joint Committee, to not consider any tax hikes especially on the wealthy who can afford but no one in general. Including in areas of tax reform, including doing such common sense things like closing wasteful tax loopholes and corporate welfare. This won't work because the Far-Left believes that even if there's such a thing as government waste, that everyone else on the political spectrum believes is obvious and the only question is where and how much. 

But the Far-Left are Socialists, so they won't be seen as putting down government as much as possible. Except for in the areas of national security, law enforcement, and tax subsidy's, anything that takes money away from their social insurance programs. 

And then of course you have people on the Right, Neoconservatives who don't believe there's such a thing as defense waste or law enforcement waste, won't even acknowledge terms like corporate welfare or tax loopholes, except for tax credits that help the working poor, to keep them working and not collecting more public assistance. 

This is not possible at least in this political climate: the Democratic Party still has to deal with Socialists in their party. And the Republican Party still has to deal with Neoconservatives and theocrats in their party. And the two fringes of American politics, the Far-Left and Far-Right will kill whatever possible deal that could come from the Joint Committee. 

But if it somehow started snowing somehow in South Florida tomorrow during one of their heat waves and you were to get some reasonable Democrats and Republicans together, people who understand that a 14T$ National Debt and 1.8T$ Deficit is too high and that everyone in the Federal Government who deserves to be punched in the face and take a hit should do so because there's plenty of waste all over the Federal Government but this problem, you could probably get a real, balanced solution, to a real problem. 

We need to essentially transform our entitlement system into a Welfare system that would only be for people who need it. And demand that people who can afford to pay more into it. 

We need tax reform, tax hikes on the wealthy in the short-term, but long term close most if not all tax loopholes and tax more but at lower tax rates on everyone in the long-term. 

Our debt and deficit problem as far as I'm concern is fairly simple to solve: you go where the money is and get more out of what you are spending by doing less. But the problem is thats not possible because the adults aren't in the room of the Joint Committee. Except for John Kerry and Max Baucus. And the fringes are in charged instead. 

Russia Today: The Alyona Show- Alyona Minkovski: 'How To Pay For Irene'

Source:Russia Today- Alyona Minkovski, talking about Hurricane Irene, courtesy of President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today Network.

"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.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an "autonomous non-profit organization", founded by the Russian news agency, RIA Novosti, on 6 April 2005.[3][8] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO "TV-Novosti" on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia." 

From Wikipedia 

"We have seen a lot of brave stand-ups from the mainstream media during hurricane and now it's on to cover the costs of the damages. But we'll take a look at Eric Cantor discussing the savings. And Alyona will break down areas of bloated government spending, where some of these funds could go to relief." 

From The Alyona Show

I have a wild idea: instead of waiting for natural disasters to occur every year, which are as predictable as having to pay your taxes in April every year orr snow in Minnesota or heat eaves in Texas, hurricanes in the Southeast and then borrowing the money from China or Russia to pay for the disaster relief, let's pay for these things up front. And yes, that actually means putting money down. 

I'm about to use an evil term in America: tax increases, plural because not just one but two tax increases even in this rotten economy. And I would be fine with cutting taxes and spending somewhere else to make up the difference. 

All rational people in America (as few as that may be) know there's plenty of waste in the Federal Government to make up the difference. And I'm not advocating for a middle class tax increase, at least not a plus-tax increase, but revenue-neutral. And anyone who reads my blog, knows that I'm not a Socialist. I would actually be an insult to Socialists and socialism. And so this is not why I'm advocating for two tax increases to pay for disaster relief, not just for Hurricane Irene but all natural disasters in the future. 

I'm doing this because I believe in fiscal responsibility and I know what that term means as well: paying for what you do and only doing what you need to do and can afford. And if you can't afford to pay for what you need, you go get the revenue somewhere else. Thats what fiscal responsibility is and disaster relief is clearly something we need. 

We can't as a country let our people suffer, especially for no fault of their own, that would just be immoral. Government clearly has a role but limited here in addressing the suffering and damage of disasters like this, Hurricane Irene was actually pretty mild compared with its potential. 

I live in Maryland in the Washington Area and all we got out of it, was some rain and wind on Saturday. And I didn't even lose power except for thirty seconds. Then it was back to warm humid and sunny which is normal for this area on Sunday. I believe in fiscal responsibility so much that I don't even believe government should borrow money to pay for disaster relief or wars. 

If we get a disaster or get attacked, of course we should respond, but we should pay for it and actually put the money down up front, so it's there exactly when we need it. Instead of cutting something or raising taxes later on. This is what I'm for in dealing with disaster relief, set up a national emergency management system to replace FEMA, as well as whatever disaster insurance programs, Flood Insurance being an example of that. 

This Natural Emergency Management System (or NEMS) would be a cooperative between Federal, state and local government's, as well as the private sector. The Federal Government would just regulate this system, not manage it. The states and locals would manage it, the part of it thats in their jurisdiction. So when they get hit by a disaster, they would then have the resources at their disposal to respond to it, instead of coming to the Administration or Congress for the money. And then they would contract out to let's say non-profit community services to do the work of the disaster cleanup that they would also regulate. 

I would pay for this with like I said two tax increases and then like I said I would cut taxes and spending somewhere else so this is deficit-neutral. It would probably actually save the Federal Government money in the future, because they would have one less agency that they would have to administer. 

These two tax increases would be a property taxes on all homes and places of employment to fund the disaster cleanup, that anyone who owns or rents these property's would pay into. And they would pay the tax based on how much the property is worth and much they are at risk to disaster. 

And then a payroll tax to cover disaster insurance that people and organizations would be able to decide for themselves from who they pay for their disaster insurance with a non-profit public option thats run independent of government being in each state as well. Again that tax would be assigned based on worth and risk. 

We are past the days hopefully for good that we can afford borrow and spend economics. The Bush Administration left office two in a half years ago. And it's been time we put that fiscal policy to bed and never wake it up again. We have an economy of over 14T$ and can more than afford to pay for things like disaster relief without borrowing the money to do it. 

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.