Barbara Walters Special: Elizabeth Taylor 1999 Interview

SourceABC News anchor Barbara Walters talking to Dame Elizabeth Taylor in 1999.

Source: The Daily Review

I think survivor or perhaps the Silent Generation’s version of the drama queen as far as someone who really has lived the life of a Hollywood character. With all the ups and downs that she’s gone through in her life and gotten through all of that and perhaps came out stronger each time. All of the failed marriages, the alcoholism, the obesity, the tragic deaths of close people in her life. The life that she’s lived looks very similar to that of Ava Garner. Another Hollywood Goddess who lived her own life and lived her life her way, there was even a song made about that.

Liz Taylor, lived a life that you would think anyway could have only had been written by a very good Hollywood screenwriter. Perhaps writing the script that made them the star. Similar to Ava Gardner, I think what made Liz Taylor such a great actress is that she in many cases lived the life of a Hollywood star. She didn’t have to play roles and parts, because those parts in many cases were very similar to how she was in real-life. She was born to so soap operas and would have had a great career there has soaps not been too small of a stage for her.

Butterfield 8, which she did with Laurence Harvey in 1960, where she plays a model whose not really working, but goes from man to man and not sure who is the real man for her and not really committed to anyone. But relies on several different people to help her get through, is a pretty good example of what I’m talking about here. I believe she was such a great actress, arguably the best ever and the best of her generation, because she was a great actress, with a keen wit and intelligence, but she played women who were very similar to who she was in real-life.

Salon: Walker Bragman: 'More Like Ronald Reagan Than FDR: I'm a Millennial and I'll Never Vote For Hillary Clinton'

Salon:Bernie- Hillary.

Source:The New Democrat

You know to say that Hillary Clinton is more like Ronald Reagan than Franklin Roosevelt, I'm not sure if Democrats who will mostly likely overwhelmingly nominate Hillary Clinton for president, should be insulted by that, or take that as a complement. President Reagan, didn't lock up German, Italian and Japanese-Americans during World War II simply because of their ethnicity and for fear they would be loyal to their former homelands over the United States. President Reagan, doesn't serve as an inspiration for Neoconservatives today with the Patriot Act and national security over liberty. But Franklin Roosevelt does.

President Roosevelt, did say, 'we have nothing to fear, but fear itself." But he didn't practice that beautiful line himself. President Reagan, didn't try to stack the U.S. Supreme Court with friendly justices, because he thought that he was losing too many cases. President Reagan, paid reparations to Japanese-Americans, because of the Roosevelt Administration's unconstitutional internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. As much as today's so-called Progressives say they love FDR, there's a lot about him that is not even worth liking.

Today's so-called Progressives, like to point to Franklin Roosevelt as their political icon, but the fact is President Roosevelt was way to the right of them on civil liberties issues. And would be what we would call a Neoconservative today when it comes to civil liberties and national security. Meaning civil liberties wasn't a major concern to him, at least if he thought they interfered with national security. And was more than willing to bypass Americans constitutional rights in order to protect our national security. And probably not as Far-Left as today's Progressives who are really Democratic Socialists in actuality, on economic policy.

President Roosevelt, wasn't anti-wealth, anti-business, anti-capitalism, anti-private enterprise. He believed in all of these things, but was a Progressive in the sense that he believed all Americans should have an opportunity to succeed in life. And not just people who are born to wealth. Today's Progressives, should be looking at Eugene Debs, Henry Wallace, Norman Thomas and other Democratic Socialists, who ran for president in the early and mid 20th Century, but came up way short. Not someone who created the National Security State and Military Industrial Complex. Which is what President Franklin Roosevelt did in the 1940s.

As far as saying that Hillary Clinton is more like Reagan than Roosevelt, is that supposed to be an insult, or a complement? I guess when it comes to economic policy for Democrats that would be an insult. Especially since President Reagan didn't have much if any role for government when it came to economic policy and helping people who are struggling. But when it comes to national security, foreign policy and civil liberties, you know again Reagan believed in those things. Not as strongly as I do and neither does Hillary, but they both have much better records when it comes to civil liberties than FDR could even dream of having.

As far as writing in Bernie Sanders for president once he overwhelmingly loses to either Hillary, or my preferred choice Martin O'Malley, good luck. Bernie will probably say no to you, because he doesn't want Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio to be the next President of the United States with a Republican Congress controlling both the House and Senate. You want to go third-party and go with the Green Party and Democratic Socialist Jill Stein, by all means. You want to create Sanders-Stein 2016 Democratic Socialist ticket for president and vice president, I suggest you consult with both Bernie and Jill first. Because Bernie probably won't be interested.

But just take all of the Democratic Socialists in the Democratic Party who prefer the political correctness fascism over free speech, who believe middle class Americans are under taxed and that Americans aren't smart enough to decide what we should eat and drink and need a nanny state to make those decisions for us. While Democrats bring in Center-Left Independents who aren't Democrats, because they see us as a big government party that wants to spend most of our money for us and shut us up when we say something that is offensive, or critical about minorities. And the next president will be another Democrat in a landslide.

Eldridge Edison: U.S. Representative Bernie Sanders on The Earned Income Tax Credit in 1993

Source:Eldridge Eddison- U.S. Representative Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat

Anyone who actually interested in helping to move people out of poverty in America would be in favor of the Earned Income Tax Credit. Unless you're an Ayn Randian who says that government has no role in dealing with poverty in America. Why? Because the EITC encourages low-income and low-skilled adults to actually work and not just get, or stay on Welfare, or Unemployment Insurance. Because it takes roughly twenty-million people off of the Federal income tax rolls and tell those workers that if they work, they won't have to pay Federal income taxes and instead get about two-thousand-dollars back in the paychecks every year. Which of course they'll spend, because they can't afford not to, because they have bills that have to be paid and struggling just to survive to begin with.

If you're against the EITC from either a Far-Right perspective where you believe that government has no role in dealing with poverty, or that everyone should pay income taxes even if they can't afford it, or come from a Far-Left perspective in opposition that says big government is entitled to tax all income and that government should encourage people to work, because that would just encourage independence from government, then of course you would be against the EITC. But the two most successful as well as bipartisan policies that have passed Congress and were signed by the President in the last forty-years, are the EITC and the 1996 Welfare to Work Law. Because again both policies encourage people to work. And says that being low-skilled and being low-skilled with kids, is not a good enough excuse to go to work and at least try to take care of yourself.

Conservable Economist: Timothy Taylor:- 'Capitalism for Growth, Government for Fairness'

Source:Conservable Economist- liberal democracy vs socialism.

Source:The New Democrat

“When I hear discussions of how to encourage economic growth, along with equality and fairness, I sometimes feel as if the discussants are in the grip of a category confusion, like someone who rinses their vegetables in the shower and then tries to bathe in the kitchen sink. Here’s the confusion as expressed in an October 1990 opinion column by Donald Kaul, who was a prominent opinion columnist, mainly with the Des Moines Register, from the 1970s through the 1990s. Kaul wrote” 

From the Conservable Economist 

You need a healthy private enterprise capitalist economic system for any economy to do well. That has been proven for a hundred-years now. Marxist state-control of the economy simply doesn't work. A big reason why the Soviet Union collapsed is that they ran out of money and their republics wanted a different life for themselves free from Moscow's central planning and economic control. The People's Republic of China, figured that out as well forty-years ago and moved to a more private enterprise economic system. And the same thing with Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Communist Republic of Cuba ten years ago under Marxist dictator Fidel Castro.

So the question is not whether you should have a capitalist private enterprise economic system, or not, but what type of private enterprise system you should have. And what is the role of your national government in the economy to make sure that as many people as possible have the tools that they need to do well in live on their own and paying taxes and not just payroll taxes so when people are struggling, you have the resources to help out the people who truly need it. Instead of having a superstate designed to take care of physically and mentally able people. Who could take care of themselves if only given the opportunity.

You don't want government managing industries. You don't want government doing practically nothing either. You don't companies to be able to legally pollute the air and water, or pass those costs onto taxpayers. Or get away with not paying their workers for the work that they do. You also don't want taxes so high that encourages people not to work and be successful at work. What you do want is as many people as possible to be as economically successful as they can be. You want to encourage people to finish and further their education.

You want to encourage people to do well at work. The larger your middle and upper classes are and the lower your low-income class is, the stronger economy you'll have. Because the more people you'll have that can afford to purchase the products they make. Pay their bills, have a good time like vacationing and eating out and so-forth, putting money away and the stronger economic growth that you'll have.

The reason why I believe in limited government is because I only want government what it should do based on what its good at and what we need it to do. Government, should just be a referee, national insurance system and investor. Laying out the rules for how companies and individuals should relate to each other and the people who work for them and their consumers. But not try to run their business for them.

An insurance system for people who truly need and are out-of-work. Help them get back on their feet and get a good job, but not try to manage their lives for them. Investing in things like education, infrastructure, trade, job trading, people, by empowering people in need to get themselves on their own feet. The more people you have doing well in your economy, the stronger your economy will be, because of all of the workers and customers that you'll have who are independent, on their own and living in freedom and not off of government.

Washington Free Beacon: This Week With George Stephanopoulos: Bernie Sanders On Tax Policy

Source:Washington Free Beacon- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat

"Bernie Sanders Promises To Raise Taxes On All Americans"

From the Washington Free Beacon

ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos, with his questioning here did a very good job at getting Senator Bernie Sanders to admit that everyone’s taxes will have to go up if you want to pay for all the Senator’s new Federal programs without borrowing the money from Russia, Saudi Arabia, or China. Because we’re talking about trillions of new Federal spending to pay for his new programs. 

Medicare For All alone, would be a couple trillion a year because now the U.S. Government would become the sole provider for health insurance in America. We have a population now pushing three-hundred and twenty-million people and we’re only getting bigger.

And Senator Sanders can say he wants to tax the rich all he wants to pay for his programs. But if somehow we did see a hurricane in Minnesota tomorrow, (in November by the way) and Democrats not just win back Congress, but most of those new Democratic Senators and Representatives are at least as far to the left as Senator Sanders, the rich won’t pay most of those new taxes. Why? Because most of them can afford to live in other countries where they wouldn’t have to pay 60, 70, or 80 percent, or whatever the new top tax rate would be under a President Sanders. Plus, on top of that all of their subsidies disappearing as well.

So who gets stuck paying for all of President Sanders free government programs? The people who are supposed to benefit from them. Middle class Americans for the most part who can’t afford a sharp tax attorney to can find them all sorts of tax breaks. And can’t afford any new tax hikes right now even with the payroll tax. 

Bernie, wouldn’t have to raise payroll taxes to guarantee Family and Medical Leave. He could get a bill passed out of Congress (an institution he’s very familiar with serving now almost twenty-five years there) that says all employers, or at least all employers with income’s of a certain amount, have to give all of their employees Paid Family and Medical Leave. Of course middle class taxes would go up under a President Sanders and he’s at least smart enough to understand that

Biography: Grace Kelly

Source:Biography- The Amazing Grace Kelly.

Source:The Daily Review 

“American actress Grace Kelly starred in such movies as ‘Dial M for Murder’ and ‘The Country Girl,’ before leaving Hollywood to marry Prince Rainier III of Monaco.

Grace Kelly rose to fame as a leading Hollywood actress following her prominent role in High Noon. Along with her Academy Award-winning performance in The Country Girl, she starred in the Alfred Hitchcock films Rear Window, Dial M for Murder and To Catch a Thief. Kelly left Hollywood behind after marrying Prince Rainier III of Monaco in 1956, thereby becoming known as Princess Grace. She died in her adopted home country in 1982, following a car accident.” 

From Biography 

“Grace Kelly Biography.” 

Source:Dylan Young- The Amazing Grace Kelly.

From Dylan Young

Source:Words Of Flowers- The Amazing Grace Kelly and her children. 

I don’t know of a another woman where the name and word Grace better fits than Grace Kelly. Their parents named her perfectly and I’m not sure there’s a woman who looks more like a princess than Grace Kelly. Perhaps Queen Noor of Jordan, who I believe at least is a better looking Goddess than Grace, looks more like a princess.

The only word I have for Grace Kelly is more. I wish she was in Hollywood longer and did more films and perhaps worked in television where there would have been so much great work for her in either.

And I wish she had lived longer, because similar to Diana Dors, (speaking of goddess’ and princess’s) they both died in their early fifties. Two Hollywood Goddess’s from the Silent Generation, both dying in their early fifties and both women by most accounts living responsible lives. And not big consumers of alcohol and other drugs.

Grace, was a great actress, with a great face, great voice, very charming, good sense of humor. Never looks more than half her age with one of the sweetest baby-faces and voices you would ever see and hear. Who was in great Alfred Hitchcock movies like To Catch a Thief and Rear Window. Where she was the lead actress in both movies where when you see her in those movies it was hard to concentrate on anyone else. Because she was so sweet and well, graceful and just grabbed your attention and made it difficult for you to think about anything else.

In the chase scene in To Catch a Thief where she’s driving with Cary Grant, she looks like a teenage girl going out for a drive with her daddy. That is how sweet she always was and never did anything to suggest she wasn’t that sweet in real-life and not just fooling people with her appearance.

Grace Kelly, not the sexiest actress of all-time and not very sexy compared with a lot of other Hollywood Goddess’s and I believe, because she had a tendency to come off as a kid, because she was so adorable. But other than Elizabeth Taylor I believe Grace is the best actress of her generation. Someone who would have remained a star through the 1960s and even longer than that had she simply wanted that. But I guess it is hard to turn down the opportunity to be a European princess especially in a beautiful country like Monaco.

And again Grace was a woman who looked like a princess and had the personality to match. She was someone of many talents including that as an actress and I wish she just had done that a lot longer.

In These Times: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders- 'My Vision For Democratic Socialism in America'

Source:In These Times- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat 

"In order to create a more egalitarian society, we must take back the reins of our government from the billionaire class and provide democratic socialism for working families—not just Wall Street and giant corporations.  

The fol­low­ing is the tran­script of a speech Sen. Bernie Sanders deliv­ered at George­town Uni­ver­si­ty on Novem­ber 19th out­lin­ing what the term demo­c­ra­t­ic social­ism means to him, as well as his plans to deal with the nation­al secu­ri­ty threat posed by ISIS." 

From In These Times 

"Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont spoke at Georgetown about democratic socialism in America."  

Source:Georgetown University- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) speaking at Georgetown University, in Washington.

From Georgetown University

What Senator Bernie Sanders laid out in his socialism speech is what I’ve argued that democratic socialism is (not Marxism and economic state-ownership) he was talking about American private enterprise (or capitalism) that's combined with what's common Europe (at least Britain and Scandinavia) the welfare state. And that the private sector would subsidize the welfare state to provide employees with their employer benefits, that are generally provided to employees by their employers, not government.

Keep in mind, nothing that government does in a free society is free. Especially socialism and that all of these new government social programs like college, childcare (to use as examples) would all come with a cost. A big cost in taxes especially in new payroll taxes, but perhaps a cost in higher income taxes across the board. 

This socialist notion that the bottom ten-percent income tax rate could stay that way in American social democracy, not likely. There’s only so much the wealthy are willing to pay to pay for other people’s lives. What Senator Sanders is arguing for is to bring Sweden and the Nordic social democratic economic model to America.

The difference between democratic socialism and Marxism, is that in a social democracy, the economy is in private hands. Meaning business’s and industries and people own their own property and even business’s. But again with a welfare state to insure that no one has to go without in the private enterprise system. 

In a Marxist system, the state (meaning the central government) owns everything. The means of production in society, as well as all other property. With no guaranteed individual rights other than being taken care of by the state. But as every Marxist state that this world has ever seen, the people generally aren’t taken care, because of badly the state manages the economy. What Senator Sanders wants to create is a large welfare and regulatory state, to go with a welfare state. On top of the private enterprise system.