Russia Today: The Alyona Show- 'Can US Compete w. China on Infrastructure?'

Source:Russia Today- talking to Ryan Avent.

"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 

"President Obama gave his jobs speech last night announcing a $450 billion plan. But to what extent will initiatives like an $80 billion infrastructure plan create jobs for some of the 14 million unemployed Americans? And how would this plan help the U.S. stack up with a country like China. The Economist's Ryan Avent weighs in." 

From Russia Today

I'm really getting tired of hearing this notion that China is passing America economically and perhaps in every other important category. 

Here some facts: America has a population of 313M people and a GDP of 14.78T$ and a per-capita income of 47K$. 

China has a population of 1.33B people and a GDP of 5.87T$ and a per-capita Income of 4,382$. China has a population of over four times as America and America has an economy 2.5 times the size. And our PCI is almost twelve times the size. 

China has come along way, but they have a hell of a long way to go. They have beautiful infrastructure in their big cities, where most of their wealthy and middle class people live. But we are still talking about a developing country where with about 1B people who live in awful poverty in their rural areas. Our poor rural areas are probably rich compared to China's. 

China probably within 10-20 years will have the largest gross domestic product in the world. (Or GDP) But unless America continues to slide our per-capita income which is more important, because that gets to purchasing power will probably still trample China's. 

Russia, Mexico, and Brazil all have PCI that are at least twice the size of China's. These are all still developing countries that are moving in the direction of becoming developed nations with a long way to go.

The White House: 'President Obama Presents American Jobs Act'

Source:The White House- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) addressing the 111th Congress about his proposed American Jobs Act.

"Shares plan to create jobs with joint session of Congress. August 8, 2011." 

From The White House

Actually, I would prefer to call this post:President Obama Finally Goes On The Record, but I'm limited as far as how many characters I can share when it comes to titles on posts with social networks. And you really need to be a social networker to understand what that means. And if you are absolutely dying to know what that means, send me an email and I may answer that for your you. But keep in mind, I might ask to see proof that you are actually dying, so I don't expect seeing any emails on social networking. But so be it I can put the full title of my post. LOL

I would give President Obama 9.5 tonight which would be like a three run home run (for you baseball fans) on tone, substance, and length. My only problem with the President's Speech would be him pushing for tax credits to encourage business's to hire. It's not that business's don't want to hire right now, it's that they don't believe they can afford to hire, because of the lack of demand. Any tax credits should relate in encouraging people and business's to spend money because of our lack of demand. Which would lead into more hiring to meet the new demand. Something like a payroll tax cut, or consumer tax credit that people would have to spend and not save. 

President Obama was very strong on infrastructure spending without actually mentioning infrastructure. Coming out in favor and going on the record for a National Infrastructure Bank which would pay for itself after it gets start up capitol. And the figure is good as well 447B$. I would put most of that money in a NIB and let them do their work. Start rebuilding and building schools, bridges, airports, dams, highways, buildings, etc, to start putting our construction Workers back to work. 

President Obama not only talked about an extension in Unemployment Insurance, but empowering these people to go back to school and get additional skills. As well as subsidizing their employment as they go back to work for free as far as where they work. But they would still have their Unemployment Insurance and be able to keep their skills in check, especially for the long term unemployed. 

President Obama talked about passing the three trade deals that he hasn't pushed very hard or even sent up to Congress: Central America, Columbia, and Korea. So American business's can sell their products oversees and we can have the same trade access in foreign markets as they have here. 

I believe the President went into this speech knowing that the House Republican Leadership won't pass it as it currently stands. But with how House Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor have reacted to it, not calling it DOA and being in favor of some type of payroll tax credit as well as infrastructure spending.  

The President has been talking about creating jobs for thirty three months now, without actually putting anything in writing and sending something up to Congress. And tonight he finally went on the record and put a jobs plan on the table.

MSNBC: Herman Cain: 'The Word Privatization Is Used To Kill An Idea'

Source:MSNBC- businessman and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, at the MSNBC debate.

"The word privatization is used to try and kill the idea before it takes off. With all due respect, sir, it`s personal retirement accounts. And that`s what I'm proposing. LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC... 

From MSNBC

First of all, Al Sharpton doesn't belong on any serious program which I believe this MSNBC program intends to be covering political debates. Sharpton interviewing presidential candidates who are in these debates might as well have a National Enquirer or Hollywood Reporter up there instead. But this is the quality or lack of if when it comes to MSNBC right now, but perhaps thats a different post.

When Reverend Sharpton mentions that one of the purposes of the Federal Government, is to keep states from getting too strong, what he failed to mention or understand, is that we have state government's and states rights and a Constitution for one reason: from keeping the Federal Government from being too strong. And we have limited government to keep government in general from getting too strong. So the people can have their individual freedom and not be harassed by government. 

Also, picking the panel that MSNBC did from the left with Gene Robinson to the Far-Left with Al Shaprton, to cover a Republican presidential debate, would be like FNC picking Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, moderated by Sean Hannity, to cover a Democratic presidential debate: they might have all been wearing signs on their heads (or bags) that said: "We hate Republicans and are here only to screw them." Very bias, to put it mildly. Of course they are not going to like what these Republicans have to say. 

Russia Today: The Alyona Show- 'Show & Tell: Limiting Campaign Contributions?'

Source:Russia Today-The Sexy Blonde?

"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 

"We told you about Republican Presidential Candidate Buddy Roemer who has capped his campaign contributions at $100 so that no special interests can interfere with his political message. Find out if our viewers think Americans should be limited in how much they can donate to political campaigns? Now we want to know with the economic and political turmoil which has rocked the European Union, do you think the EU as we know it, will survive the next couple of years?" 

From Russia Today  

For anyone who is actually familiar with the U.S. Supreme Court and the current ideological makeup of the court and is actually interested in fixing the American campaign finance system, I have some suggestions that could not only pass Congress (because it would hurt both parties and both chambers) but could also stand judicial scrutiny, because it would also be constitutional. 

My plan is not only constitutional, but it would actually fix the problem, which is not common in Washington, perhaps especially in Congress: full-disclosure on all political financial contributions to all incumbents and candidates. Every Federal incumbent and candidate would have to report all of their political contributions (within 24 hours) to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) and post those contributions on their campaign website. Incumbents would also have to report their contributions on their official websites, as well as current elected office holders who are running for another office. 

And then you have to eliminate all partisan gerrymandering in the U.S. House and require the states to draw up their U.S. House districts that represent their state, not what's in the best interest of the current party in power in that state. 

The left-wing in America will never be able to outlaw private money and contributions to political campaigns. I believe honest, intelligent leftists, actually understand that. And they don't want full-disclosure, because American voters will see just how Far-Left and controversial they are. But again if government is about problem solving (with the current political situation you would have to be high and drunk to believe that) this is a solution that could actually fix the problem. 

Al Jazeera: Nazanine Moshiri- 'Somalia Famine Spreads Beyond Reach of Aid'

Source:Al Jazeera- reporter Nazanine Moshiri.

"Al Jazeera (Arabic: الجزيرة‎, romanized: al-jazīrah, IPA: [æl (d)ʒæˈziːrɐ], literally "The Island", though referring to the Arabian Peninsula in context)[3] is a free-to-air international Arabic news channel based in Doha, Qatar that is operated by the media conglomerate Al Jazeera Media Network. The channel is a flagship of the media conglomerate and hence, is the only single offering to carry the name as simply "Al Jazeera" in its branding.

The channel's willingness to broadcast no holds barred views, for example on call-in shows, created controversies in the Arab States of the Persian Gulf. One of the station's office was the only channel to cover the War in Afghanistan live." 

From Wikipedia 

"Famine has spread to a sixth area of Somalia and tens of thousands of people have died as a result of severe food shortages, the United Nations has said." 

From Al Jazeera

If you look at what nation building is and what it's supposed to be, go into a country thats never really been a country, with a government thats capable of governing the country in a responsible way. Somalia being the perfect example of that.

Nation building at its best, looks something like the Balkan region, where NATO, the European Union and the United States to a certain extent, took out ruthless dictators and terrorists who were murdering people because of their ethnicity: Albanians, Bosniaks, Serbians, Croats etc, and then sent in supplies and resources and gave them to the responsible people of these new countries, to build their new countries. 

In the African Horn thats prone to terrorism and is very diverse ethnically with different peoples that don't like each other. The good news is that they don't have an authoritarian regime like the Assad Regime in Syria. The bad news is that they don't really have a government of their own at all that can defend and govern this large country. And they are going to need an international coalition that can help them get there. 

And this is where the African Union and Arab League, can help Somalia, is right in their region can help. And the European Union, NATO and the United Nations as well as the United States with resources can be a big help as well. 

The Real News: Paul Jay- Interviewing Gerard Dumenil: 'The Crisis of Neoliberalism'

Source:The Real News- The Great Depression.

"Dumenil: Neoliberalism imposed a new discipline on worker, cutting the progress of purchasing power. Watch Pt.2 of this story at:The Real News." 

From The Real News

From the early 1930s to the late 70s, progressivism pretty much ruled not only America while democratic socialism ruled the rest of the developed world. With Classical Conservatives like Senator Barry Goldwater when he ran for President in 1964, breaking in to a certain extent to offer a new agenda a new politics that was about individual freedom. Economic and social freedom that was about lowering taxes and regulations and letting people live their own lives. And do for them what government was doing for them up to a point.

But of course Senator Goldwater lost in a landslide to President Johnson in 1964, but did manage to lay down the building blocks for the conservative movement. That came into power in the late 70s and Ronald Reagan did become Governor of California in 1967 and reelected in 1970. And almost won the Republican nomination for President in 1976 and I believe would've been elected in 76 against Jimmy Carter.

Then you have the Thatcher Revolution in 1979 in Britain, the Reagan Revolution in 1980 in America. The Brian Mulroony Revolution in Canada in the 1980s, you had all of these conservative revolutions happening in the West. The Helmut Kohl Revolution in Germany in the 1980s. 

And you saw all of these conservative government's come to power in the West. And not exactly because all of these Conservatives came to power, but also the economy's in the countries took off and became powerful again after stagnating in the 1970s. 

People did not vote these Conservatives into power because they hated the welfare state. But they did because their economy's were weaken and felt they were overtaxed and perhaps the government was doing too much. And wanted more freedom to live their own lives and take care of themselves.

Progressivism made its mark in America in the 1930s with the New Deal, as a response to the Great Depression. But not to destroy American capitalism, but to be a soft landing when people fell through the cracks and to provide a basic standard of living. 

And countries that used to be Communist Republics like in Eastern Europe and some of the Slavic States, saw these countries economy's take off. And decided that they wanted their economy's to look like that as well. Britain and Germany didn't go from being democratic socialist to American capitalist, but more socialist to European capitalist.

European Conservatives didn't destroy their welfare states, neither did America. But they did provide their people with more economic freedom. And then when Bill Clinton became President of the United States in 1993, Democratic Socialists I believed were expecting President Clinton to destroy the Reagan Revolution and bring back the high tax rates. And if anything expand the welfare state, which of course he didn't in eight years.

President Clinton with help from a Republican Congress, only created one new entitlement program in his eight years: the State Children's Health Care Program, but thats run by the States. What President Clinton brought in was a progressive economic policy instead that would be centered around economic freedom, low taxes, free trade, education, and a tight fiscal policy. With deficit reduction and balanced budgets and government being there to help the people who fall through the cracks. But help them get up not take care of them with Welfare to Work in 1996.

So when Democratic Socialists talk about "neoliberalism", they are actually talking about progressivism instead. (Classical liberalism, if you prefer) Which is different from socialism that had dominated western politics for about fifty years. That we as a country have moved away from. And they are not happy about that, they would like to see us go back to the future.

Thom Hartmann: Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders

Source:Thom Hartmann- Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) on the Thom Hartmann Radio Show.

"Thom Hartmann hosts Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Part 1

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 

Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) making some good points about when the nation is in crisis, whether it's an economic, national security, or a natural disaster, that the country should come together to deal with it and that you need a responsible and limited (as I would put it) there to take action against whatever the national emergency is. 

I believe my only disagreements with Senator Sanders and I'm sure Thom Hartmann as well, is how government should respond to these issues and how they should be paid for. 

Senator Sanders and Mr. Hartmann will always lean on the side of government (especially the Federal Government) to deal with these crisis and that taxes should be raised on the rich, or just borrow the money from China to deal with the crisis, or gut the military to pay for government's response to these crisis's. 

I believe that since we are a country, even with a Federal Government that everyone who seeks or gets taxpayer services to deal with their own problems, should pay for the services that they get. And that the people on the ground themselves, including the state and local government's should get the first response and responsibility to deal with their own issues, as well as the individuals themselves. 

What Senator Sanders and Mr. Hartmann would do instead or Uncle Sam (or in this case Uncle Bernie) with his topdown, big government, nationalize approach to dealing with every issue known to man, or making up new issues that they believe that big government should deal with by itself. At the expense of all of his nephews and nieces across the country.