Thom Hartmann: Caller: How Big Should Government Be?

Source:Thom Hartmann debating a caller on his talk show.

Source:FreeState MD

“Thom Hartmann talks with a caller who wants to know the purpose of government and how big Thom thinks it should be. Thom shares what the Constitution has to say.”

From Thom Hartmann

“Thom Hartmann will be leaving The Big Picture TV show (on RT TV and Free Speech TV) at the end of September. We’ve had a great run with The Big Picture and earlier this summer we decided to discontinue that evening show so we could focus more directly on our daily 3-hour midday show, The Thom Hartmann Program.

Having complete editorial control over a TV show syndicated internationally into more than 700 million homes was a great (and rare) opportunity. We worked hard not to do “sports” or “soap opera” when covering politics, and instead focus on issues; we believe we accomplished a lot in that regard. We’re grateful to RT for the opportunity, and for fully honoring our contractual independence at all times.

You’ll still be hearing and seeing me on The Thom Hartmann Program, which is growing weekly in the noon-3 PM ET daypart." 

From Thom Hartmann 

Source:Russia Today is Vladimir Putin's Russian funded news network.

“How big should government be” 

From Thom Hartmann

In this editorial, Thom Hartmann said that government should be big enough to insure that all Americans have access to quality affordable health care. And I guess that means health insurance as well and education.

Does that mean that Thom believes that the Federal Government should be running the entire healthcare and education systems in this country? I know he’s in favor of Medicare For All, which would basically make Medicare the sole provider of health insurance in this country. I disagree with him on that, but I know he’s in favor of Medicare single-payer for all. But my question would be for Thom, does that mean he’s also in favor of the U.S. Government running the entire health care system in this country, or just as it relates to health insurance?

The purpose of any government in any free society, especially a liberal democracy like America, is to protect the innocent in society from both foreign and domestic predators. And to ensure that everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, culture, is treated equally under law and that everyone has a real shot to succeed in society and make it in America.

The purpose of government in a free society, especially in a liberal democracy like America, is not to run our lives for us, or to protect the party in power from the people, or to try to guarantee total equality, so there are no rich or no poor. But to see to that as many innocent people as possible are protected from predators, that predators are justly punished for their crimes, and that everyone has a real shot in society to make it in America on their own and live in freedom.

This post was updated 11/03/2023.

NBC Sports: NFL 1980-AFC Final-Oakland Raiders @ San Diego Chargers: Dick Enberg Intro

Source:NBC Sports intro for the 1980 AFC Championship.

Source:The Daily Journal

“Battle of the Bay. Chargers and Raiders. AFC Championship Game. The great Dick Enberg on the mic with the late great Merlin Olsen. Also notice the fan showing a poster with the N logo even though NBC already switched to a new logo (not bright) 

I OWN NOTHING!! EVERYTHING BELONGS TO NBC/COMCAST/NFL AND ONLY THEM!!”

From Jean

Dick Enberg with a real good intro here. Not his best, but I believe he was one of the better announcers at the intro because of his voice, his passion for sports, perhaps especially football and he knew what he was talking about as well. So he brought a realness to his work.

As far as this game, I wish I could’ve found something more than just this intro, but this was all that was available at this time. But the Raiders-Chargers AFC Final was a classic matchup of a very good and talented, well-coached intelligent team in the Raiders. Against a very explosive offense especially in their passing game in the Chargers. Who also had a good running game, but never played enough defense to get actually get to a Super Bowl. And still have only been to one Super Bowl in their entire history.

National Review: The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell- 'Margaret Thatcher Was a Good Socialist'

Source:The National Review- The Last Word With Lawrence (never call me Larry) O'Donnell.

Source:National Review

I’m glad to see MSNBC produce an editorial in favor of socialism, because it goes to my overall argument of how far to the left of American liberalism that they tend to be and represent more of the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party. Or the Democratic Socialist Party or Green Party, than they do Liberal Democrats. But having said that I’ll give credit where credit is due. And give Larry O’Donnell (as I call him) credit for when he says that Margaret Thatcher didn’t eliminate British socialism as Prime Minster of the United Kingdom.

But what Prime Minister Thatcher did was simply reformed socialism by getting rid of the sad socialism in the British economy and government. By privatizing industries and requiring people who can work and take care of themselves, to actually do that for themselves and nat be able to collect public assistance indefinitely. But left the Socialism that works in Britain as it has to do with their welfare state like their National Health Service. But things like government spending went up when she was Prime Minister and never had to deal with an opposition controlled Parliament, which is what American president’s have to deal with on a regular basis.

Even though the United Kingdom has a Conservative Party and a Labour Party, they are basically divided between two Socialist parties ideologically. At least how they would look in the United States. With the Conservative Party looking like FDR New Deal Progressive Democrats. Big believers in central government and the welfare state to take care of people. But also big believers in a strong national defense, a robust internationalist foreign-policy, strong law enforcement, rule of law, tough on terrorism and so-forth.

Things that McGovern Progressive Democrats in America today who are different from the FDR Democrats, tend not to be in favor of. Except as it has to do with the welfare state and the big central government. So Maggie Thatcher looks pretty conservative by British standards, but Britain is essentially a Socialist state whether the Conservatives or Labour’s are in power and they do not look very conservative in America.

As Larry O’Donnell said, Prime Minster Thatcher as much as she went off against socialism, she was really going after the bad socialism in Britain. But had strong socialist views herself and wanted to keep the socialism in Britain that works as it get’s to their welfare state. But eliminate the bad socialism in the country. Like the state-owned industries and indefinite public assistance for people who are able to take care of themselves.

BBC: Brian Magee Interviews Noam Chomsky- 'The Ideas of Noam Chomsky'

Source:BBC News- Professor Noam Chomsky, being interviewed by BBC News, in 1977.

Source:FreeState MD

"An old interview mostly on Chomsky's linguistics work, philosophy, and some remarks on political views near the end.

Note: the video is taken from Youtube, where it was broken into five segments, when I re-merged the segments the audio got a little strange, so that before the next segment's audio starts the audio from the last segment jumps in for a fraction of a second. Its tolerable though."

From  Supremo Ichigo

I was in a debate about a year ago with someone who self-describes their politics as libertarian. And we were talking about Professor Noam Chomsky and this person was describing Noam Chomsky’s politics as socialist. And I told this person that Professor Chomsky is a Libertarian Socialist. Which might sound like an oxymoron, because how can someone be both a Libertarian and a Socialist. Libertarians are always looking to shrink the size of government and Socialists are always looking to grow the size of government.

Source:BBC- interviewing Professor Noam Chomsky

Libertarians tend to think that government is way too big and Socialists especially in America tend to think that government is way too small. This person said that: “you can’t be both, it’s sort of one or the other”. And what I trying to get across to them and not believing I was successful, is that you can be both as long as you aren’t socialist or libertarian on both economic and social issues. That you have to believe in a high deal of individual freedom at least as it relates to personal or economic freedom.

So what is a Libertarian Socialist: It’s someone whose liberal libertarian on social-issues. Meaning they do not want government interfering with our personal lives including as it relates to prohibition. And in America are even in favor of gun rights, against the War on Drugs, censorship even as it relates to hate speech. Doesn’t really sound like someone who would be a Progressive today, but what they do have in common with Socialists  (again, Libertarian Socialists ) is they both have a big role for government in the economy.

People who are liberal-libertarian on social-issues, but socialist on economic policy. And believe in things like the welfare state, high taxes for social spending and so-forth. Big regulations on private enterprise, big believers in the right to organize and so-forth. Libertarian socialism is a form of socialism at least in its liberal not paternalistic form. That government shouldn’t try to run our lives, but be there to provide us the services that can’t be trusted to the private sector.

Libertarian socialism is the only form of socialism or that I respect as a Liberal. Because even though they believe in a big state as it relates to the economy, they do not believe that government should be trying to run our lives for us and are not pure statists at least. And even believe in a high deal of economic freedom as long as it’s highly taxed and regulated. So no one get’s left behind in society. This is not my philosophy, but it’s a lot better from what we are hearing from so-called Progressives today who seem to be believe in a big role for government in the economy, but also in our personal lives. As far as what personal choices we are allowed to make.

Joey Teefizz: MISL 1982-Baltimore Blast @ New York Arrows: First Half

Source:Joey Teefizz- New York Arrows.

Source:The Daily Journal

“MISL Soccer in New York-please see the great contest at halftime with Shep messing in goal with civilians shooting on him…then see Zungul go wild…”

From Joey Teefizz 

The New York Arrows were around in the early days of the MISL. Late 1970s to mid 1980s or so. Pro indoor soccer has never caught on in New York. Which is a shame, because New York is a great sports market. A great pro soccer market and the biggest sports market in America. 

And indoor soccer is a great sport when played well and is a very exciting fast-paced game. But only the New York Red Bulls of the MLS an outdoor soccer league has ever caught on and done well in the New York/North Jersey area.

Unlike the Baltimore Blast, that have been around since I believe day one in the MISL, which was 1979 and are still in business today. And like the San Diego Sockers are the class of American indoor soccer. As far as the type of fan support that they’ve had and all the championships that they’ve won.

Joey Teefizz: MISL 1985-12/22/84-New Jersey Cosmos @ Los Angeles Lazers: Highlights

Source:Joey Teefizz- you tell me who Wes McLeod is.

Source:The Daily Journal 

“MISL Soccer Cosmos at Lazers-good quality tape with some good goals…small crowd as usual in LA.” 

From Joey Teefizz

Two of the better clubs and better markets in the MISL. If soccer can’t succeed in Los Angeles and the New York/New Jersey area, it won’t make it in America, period. Because those markets are so big and they are very good soccer markets anyway for both soccer and arena soccer. 

I think the MISL knew this even back then, but for whatever reasons were never able to market their clubs very well. Similar to what the NHL went through up until the 1980s or so and a big reason why it took them forever to expand and become a big league. Which they didn’t do until the early 1970s. But the NHL figured it out and almost forty-years later the MISL is still struggling just to survive. 

But having successful clubs in New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, to go along with their traditionally strong markets would help a lot with that.

Center for American Progress: David Madland & Kira Walter- 'Top 6 Policies To Help The Middle Class That Won't Cost Taxpayers a Penny'

Source:Center For American Progress- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois)

"Strengthening America’s middle class should be elected officials’ top priority. Incomes are either stagnant or falling for the middle class, while the costs of life’s necessities continue to rise. As a result, the risk of the middle class falling behind economically is growing. A weak middle class hurts all of us by stifling our country’s economic growth and undermining our democracy.

Unfortunately, reducing the deficit has distracted our political leaders from this pressing challenge and has made it seem like little can be done, as Congress blocked or failed to act on important legislation to help the middle class. In reality, however, there are many things that the federal government can do to help the middle class.

Rather than make excessive short-term budget cuts as we are currently doing, we can and should make needed investments in the middle class, such as expanding access to preschool and child care, as part of a package that reduces the deficit over the longer term, as CAP has proposed on many occasions. Furthermore, there are a number of things that policymakers can do that won’t require any additional expenditures." 

From the Center For American Progress 

"In "The Green Collar Economy", Center for American Progress Senior Fellow, acclaimed activist and political advisor Van Jones delivers a real solution that both rescues our economy and saves the environment. The economy is built on and powered almost exclusively by oil, natural gas, and coal—all fast-diminishing nonrenewable resources. As supplies disappear, the price of energy climbs and nearly everything becomes more expensive. With costs and unemployment soaring, the economy stalls. Not only that, when we burn these fuels, the greenhouse gases they create overheat the atmosphere. As the headlines make clear, total climate chaos looms over us. The bottom line: we cannot continue with business as usual. We cannot drill and burn our way out of these dual dilemmas.

Instead, Van Jones illustrates how we can invent and invest our way out of the pollution-based grey economy and into the healthy new green economy. Built by a broad coalition deeply rooted in the lives and struggles of ordinary people, this path has the practical benefit of both cutting energy prices and generating enough work to pull the U.S. economy out of its present death spiral."

Source:Center For American Progress- former Obama White House advisor Van Jones.

From the Center For American Progress

Instead of taking the approach of how can we empower government to take care of everybody or take care of the people who are currently struggling and create all sorts of new government social programs, I'm going to take the approach (to quote Jerry Maguire) how can I (meaning government in this case) help you. And I would add to that what government do to empower the millions of Americans who need it help themselves. And have the same freedom both economic and personal that the rest of the country has.

And it gets to things like infrastructure investment rebuilding this country,

Universal lifelong education and job training so all Americans always have the ability to improve themselves.

Tax reform so we have more companies investing more money in America, especially American companies. And we tax people based on what they take out of society not what they contribute to society.

And a national energy policy that finally moves this country towards energy independence by utilizing our vast menu of natural resources.

So if you are looking for the Next New Deal, keep looking, I'm sure you'll find it.

If I were to write an Economic Bill of Rights for the United States and I may do that for this blog in the future, it would be about education and the right to organize for all workers, but that all workers would also have the right to not join a union and operate as a free agent. And not subjected to union dues, but just wouldn't get the benefits that come with being in a union as well.

The education part is also key that all Americans would have the right to a lifelong education no matter the income level or their parents. Always having the ability to get themselves the skills that they need to be successful in life. But then being held accountable for what they do with those opportunities for good and bad and in between. So what government would be telling the people that they everyone in America who is physically and mentally able would have the ability to be successful in life. No longer stuck in poverty because they come from and live in rural or inner-city America.

What government will also do is subsidize people's success and for any American who is working would always make more than Americans who are unemployed.

And universal access to education and job training would especially be available for people who are not working, but need to be, too young or without the resources to retire.

We have an economic system like this and real tax-reform that taxes everybody by what they takeout of society, instead of what they contribute to society and we would have a true liberal democracy (I know Social Democrats and right-wingers hate that term, but get use to it) Where all Americans would have access to both economic and personal freedom.

You can also see this post on WordPress.