Thom Hartmann: Dr. King's Economic Bill of Rights

Source:The New Democrat   

President Franklin Roosevelt had an Economic Bill of Rights that he released to the public after the New Deal. He tried to pass it in I believe 1944 and it had similar goals to what Thom Hartmann was talking about in Dr. King’s Social and Economic Bill of Rights. Right to a job, right to a good income, right to not want. I guess meaning not to be selfish. Right to health care and probably health insurance as well. And a right to education. President Roosevelt didn’t get his bill passed, but this was to be the next phase of his administration. But he died before he could get it passed through Congress.

And Thom Hartmann in what he was saying about Dr. King was basically the same goals. Past racial equality under law the next goal of the United Sates was to achieved economic equality as well. That regardless of race that all Americans should be have a good life in America and not to have to live in poverty at all. That these things are so important and critical to American democracy that the Federal Government should guarantee these things when American capitalism fails to achieve them.

This wouldn’t be my approach as a Liberal. I’m all for equal treatment under law regardless of race. And other classes as well and I’m also for the right to a good education. That we all deserve as Americans the right to be able to go to good schools and have good teachers. And those are really government’s main two roles when it comes to the economy. To see that everyone has a good opportunity to be able to do as well as they can and what they do with those opportunities is up to them. And have to live with the consequences of their decisions for good and bad.

Salon Magazine: Fred Jerome: 'Lets Nationalize Fox News, Imagining a Very Different Media'

Source:The New Democrat

Imagine a country where the state meaning the central government controlled all the news and media. I know in the 21st Century that is very hard to imagine with so much of the world moving in a least in a Democratic direction if not a liberal democratic direction. And even countries in the Middle East and not just Turkey and Israel can people there get access to non-state-owned media and Saudi Arabia is one of them thanks to satellite TV, the internet and smart phones.

So this is really not possible anymore, but let’s say somehow the United States nationalized the media here at least the domestic media. And now you have the Federal Government with the National Security Agency and everything else now in control of even more information. And who get’s to see it and when. Even if you can forget about the fact that this would be unconstitutional because of our first amendment. Meaning this could and would never happen.

All of that power and information inside of the hands of the people with the power in the country getting to decide for the most part what we can read and listen to or watch. And when we could do those things. Now if you are going to imagine these things, you might as well imagine living in jail because the same thing happens there. You can’t have a Democracy especially a liberal democracy something that is covered a lot on this blog, without Freedom of the Press and the ability for people to get the information they need to be able to managed their own lives. It is really this simple, you put the power of media in the hands of government, you get what they want you to hear, when they want you to hear it.

What I just asked you to do, was to imagine a nightmare. Unless you are a fascist and statist who is so power-hungry that you can’t imagine anyone especially not with your government and political faction having any real power of their own affairs. That you see people as stupid, who can’t control things like information and how they get it and can’t manage their own affairs. What Fred Jerome is proposing here, especially to nationalize Fox News simply because it is kicking MSNBC’s butt in ratings, is nothing more than pure leftist statism and fascism. That the Far-Left likes to accuse the Right of all the time.

Campaign For America's Future: Terrance Heath: Utah Is Ending Homelessness By Giving People Homes

Source:The New Democrat

I gotta admit, the Utah approach to deal with homelessness in this country is a hell of a lot better than locking these people up who really do not pose any real threats to anybody away in jail. Or waiting for them to come down with some serious illness and then they end up in the emergency room. This wouldn’t be my approach because it still costs taxpayers in Utah or anywhere else actually a hell of a lot of money to simply give away free housing even if it is cheaper than jails or hospitals.

What I would like to see nationally and what some big cities are already doing, like Sacramento and San Antonio, is to create public/private partnerships that create life building centers. For lack of a better term designed to bring people off of the street into these centers. Where they would get a short-term studio apartment or motel room inside of the center. Where they would live short-term as they are getting the healthcare that they need. As well as vocational skills and help finding a job all provided by the center they are staying at. And then would leave the center with a good job and their own apartment and become self-sufficient.

The beauty of the life building center approach is that we wouldn’t need government really at any level to run it. So you are really not talking about needing new tax revenue to pay for this. Because the money people at these centers would need to stay there as they are building their own lives, could be paid for out of current public assistance budgets. Medicaid, Welfare Insurance, Public Housing, Food Assistance, educational grants. That could go to tenants at these centers to pay for their stays. As well as you could put these people to work at these centers so they could earn their own keep.

The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann, America's Real Welfare Queens

Source:The New Democrat

The way to get corporations to pay their fair share in taxes, is to have them pay in taxes what they do not pay their low-skilled workers in income that get’s passed down to middle class taxpayers. To pay for low-income workers Food Assistance, Public Housing and Medicaid. Have them pick up half of the costs for these public assistance benefits. And workers of all income levels pay the other half sort of like another payroll tax. But we would be talking about one-two percent tax to pay for these benefits. And tell corporations they can get that money back by paying it to their workers instead.

I’m not a Socialist or a Social Democrat unlike Thom Hartmann here. And I’m not anti-capitalist, anti-for-profit, anti-private-enterprise either. But it is completely unfair for corporations or any employer to be able to past their employees cost of living on to middle class taxpayers who work very hard for a living just to pay their bills. Especially as the big employers are making record profits while everyone else is struggling to pay their cost of living.

I’m not interested in taxing business’s out of business either. And would like to see a much lower tax rate in this country on private enterprise. But not as long as we are paying out all of these subsidies to American business’s and being stuck with the bill to cover their own employees cost of living as well.

SPOT TV: Stevie Wonder's Happy Birthday to Martin Luther King

Source:The New Democrat

I can’t think of someone more qualified to sing Happy Birthday to our most effective and greatest American. At least when it comes to equal rights in America and applying our United States Constitution and the constitutional rights that we all have as Americans and applying the principles of our Founding Fathers to all Americans equally than Stevie Wonder singing Happy Birthday to of course the late, but still great the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King.

There will be plenty of more posts on this blog in the future about what the rest of the life of Dr. Martin L. King could’ve looked like. Had he been able to live a normal life at least as far as years. But what we would’ve seen is phase two of his national campaign for equality and justice in America. The Poor People’s Campaign would’ve had a real agenda and policy initiatives behind it that was sort of dropped after he was assassinated that would’ve moved onto into the 1970s. Giving millions of Americans a very good idea of what Dr. King’s complete political brain would’ve looked like.

About MLK’s birthday today keep in mind he would’ve been eighty-five today had he lived. And not saying he would’ve still been alive today had he not have been assassinated, but a lot of men in his generation are not only still alive in their eighties, but a lot of them are still working as well. And it is very likely he still would’ve been a major political force at least into his seventies. Had he not have been assassinated in 1968, or not have been assassinated at all.

The Real News: Jaisal Noor Interviewing Annelise Orlick: A True War on Poverty Would Place Poor Place Poor People on The Forefront

Source:The New Democrat

I love what Annelise Orleck is talking about here. Which is sending money out of Washington the Federal Government, directly to the communities that the money is intended to serve so these communities can build their schools, their health clinics, their housing especially for homeless people. Their day-care centers so single parents can get themselves the skills that they need to get themselves good jobs. Their private non-profit job training programs. Encouraging business’s to hire in these communities so good jobs can be created.

I probably blogged this last week but what America actually needs instead of this experiment. With fifty years of the so-called War on Poverty that at best has produced mixed results for us. What would be better is a national campaign to end poverty and this would be done by actually empowering people in poverty to get themselves out of poverty inside the communities they live with the resources they need to make these things happen for them inside of their communities. Getting help from people who actually live in these communities. And perhaps came from poverty themselves as Annelise Orleck said in the video. The real experts of poverty are the people who live in poverty.

This is what we should be doing creating a bottom up grassroots approach. That brings in the people who are on the front lines so to speak when it comes to poverty in America. And empowering them to tackle this huge problem with the resources that they need. To empower the people who are in poverty to get themselves out of poverty and off of public assistance. All together and into the middle class.

The Young Turks: John Iadarola: Brian Schweitzer 2016? Will Hillary Clinton Move to The Left?

Source:The New Democrat

Brian Schweitzer is the perfect liberal alternative to Hillary Clinton because he’s an actual Liberal. And he would prevent her from running to the middle from day one and trying to convince voters to vote for her simply because she’s a women. And this would be a chance to vote for the first female president etc. And prevent her from running for president without an agenda and vision and simply trying to make the case that Democrats should simply vote for the first female president and that she’s also the most electable as well.

Brian Schweitzer would be a very strong presidential candidate because he’s a real Liberal both as it relates to personal and economic freedom. And someone with a strong record as it relates to fiscal responsibility. Eliminating the possible tax and spend label and someone who could win well in Montana for one, but outside of the Northeast and Northwest. And would put states like Indiana and North Carolina in play as well. With his ability to communicate to working class voters.