RT America: Heather Cirmo & Michael Prysner- 'Occupy Wall Street - Capitalism to blame?'

Source:RT America- Michael Prysner talking to President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today America, about Occupy Wall Street.

"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 

"Occupy Wall Street continues to voice its disdain for the economic system. The movement's voice has gone global and people all over are tired of corporations influencing government actions worldwide.  So who's to blame - Wall Street or Washington? Heather Cirmo, a conservative political commentator and strategist, and Michael Prysner, an Iraq War veteran, help us answer that question." 

From RT America

Is Occupy Wall Street just that or is there more to it? Is this a group of people that just want to voice frustration, or are they looking for progressive change in America? What's clear is that this movement is diverse and not centralized. That it has Socialists, Liberals, and even Libertarians in this movement. So of course they are not united in how to replace what they are against, because these are three different political factions. That all have different approaches and different visions in where they want America to go. 

If you want to blame anyone for current state of the economy, look at Wall Street for running all of those big banks and companies into the ground and as a result we've seen millions of American jobs lost in the last few years. And then look at Washington for their lack of oversight of Wall Street and Corporate America, as well as all the borrow and spending that they've done in the last 10 years alone.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Russia Today: 'Thom Hartmann vs Herman Cain- What Those Dreaded Liberals Have Done'

Source:Thom Hartmann- talking about 2012 Tea Party presidential candidate Herman Cain.

"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 

"Herman Cain says Liberals are out to destroy this country....In my Daily Take - I'll make Herman Cain wish he was out delivering pizzas again." 

From Russia Today

Thom Hartmann is right in this sense, a lot of the progress that has been made in America has been fought for by Progressives (not exactly Liberals) but people who believe in moving America forward. 

Calling Franklin Rossevelt a Liberal is a bit of a stretch. I mean this is a man who didn't give a damn about civil rights, or was even a borderline racist, and as a Liberal myself I find that a bit hard to take. FDR was sure a liberal on foreign policy, but unfortunately was a Nationalist on national security with the detainment camps of Japanese, German, and Italian-Americans during World War II, because of their ethnicity. Nothing liberal about that. 

Thom Hartman's problem with liberal and progressive, is that he associates liberal and progressive with everything that government does to move the country forward. That for something to be liberal or progressive, government has to be doing it. And generally that means through new social programs and tax increases or expanding current programs, or passing new regulations or expanding current regulations. 

When the fact is the only that Liberals believe in is expanding freedom for everyone, not contracting it, whether that means more or less government intervention. And Progressives believe in progress, whether that means more or less government intervention. 

It's Socialists who always believe in more government and that the only way to make society better is for government to be doing more and spending more of the people's money for them. Which is what Thom Hartmann seems to believe, whether he calls himself a Socialist (or even Social Democrat) or not. 

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- 'Debt Relief For Banks, Not Homeowners'

Source:The Young Turks- Cenk Uygur on government bailouts.

"The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur talks about Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae will screw homeowners." 

From The Young Turks

Wow! I actually agree with The Young Turks on something, or at least Cenk Uygur. Damn, sign me up for a head examination immediately, I must be overdue now. 

I agree with Cenk in this sense (and hopefully I didn't misspell that, its only four letter for crying out loud) that the wrong people were bailed out in 2008. The people who blew most of their wealth away, meaning their corporate wealth, I'm sure the people running these company's were doing great personally, but their company's were bankrupt thanks to them. And the people who did business with them, were left bankrupt or drowning in debt as a result of the Great Recession of 2008 and the housing crisis. They didn't get any bailed out and had they did or get bailed out soon, like having the debt forgiven. 

The Real News: Paul Jay- 'A Real Challenge to Corporate Power'

Source:The Real News- the U.S. Department of Justice.

"Arthur MacEwan: Opposing bail out of bankers and fighting for Universal Health Plan challenges corporate power." 

From The Real News

The problems with TARP of 2008 (or the Temporary Asset Relief Program) is that we borrowed about 800B$ to pay for it, to go on top of a 400B$ Federal budget deficit and a 10T$ Federal debt and we bailed out failing banks we essentially bailed them out for their bad behavior. While the victims of their bad behavior the people who did business with their banks, remained victimized. And three years later they are still struggling from the banks bad behavior. 

We bailed out banks that were "too big to fail" first of all we allowed them as a country to become "too big to fail" in the first place. And then we bailed them out for their bad behavior, which is a double-edge sward for the country. We suffered for our government's bad behavior of letting banks become "too big to fail" in the first place. And then we suffered from these banks and their bad behavior. 

What we should've done instead is force these banks that are "too big to fail" breakup as a result of becoming too big, as a condition of getting their bailout money, as well as forcing these banks to come up with new management, as another condition of receiving TARP, as well as forcing them to buy Bankruptcy Insurance. So they would never need to be bailed out again at all, because they would have their insurance that they could go to when they are failing.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: James B Carey- 'Labor Unions and American Freedom (1969)'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- talking to American labor leader James Carey, in 1969.

"Episode 154, Recorded on June 12, 1969. Guest: James B. Carey. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"Mr. Carey, as Mr. Buckley tells us, had, with the help of John L. Lewis, launched a counterattack when his union, the United Electrical Union, had been taken over by the Communists. Host and guest sometimes talk past each other, but even so we get a clear idea of what is at issue between Mr. Carey's notion of "an effective union -- a union that represents the views of the people effectively and can deal with management on a basis of equality" and Mr. Buckley's observation that, in the aftermath of the New York City newspaper strike, "the few who survived ... did indeed get their 10, 15, 20, 25 per cent raises, but a lot of other people who would otherwise have survived, went from let's say $250 a week to welfare." 

From the Hoover Institution

One thing I think about when I think of labor unions organized labor, is what working conditions would be like for the American workforce without them. Because with organized labor we have weekends, Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, Unemployment Insurance, Cobra, safe working conditions, etc. 

It's sort of how I think about Lyndon Johnson a man as a Democrat I have a lot of respect for, without President Johnson, how much longer would African-Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities, have to wait until their constitutional rights were enforced. Probably at least until President Carter. who had a large majority in both chambers of Congress and President Carter being a big believer in civil rights. But did he have the political skills to get civil rights legislation through Congress. 

Al Jazeera: Inside Story:- 'Is The Promise of Democracy Fading in Egypt?'

Source:Al Jazeera- talking about democracy in Egypt. They might as well be talking about sunburn in Antarctica, while they're at it.

"Al Jazeera (Arabic: الجزيرة‎, romanized: al-jazīrah, IPA: [æl (d)ʒæˈziːrɐ], literally "The Island", though referring to the Arabian Peninsula in context)[3] is an 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 

"The country's ruling military council is facing criticism after a violent crackdown on Coptic Christian protesters." 

From Al Jazeera

What looked like a real shot at bringing democracy to Egypt and finally ending authoritarian rule in this large country of 80M people, looks like its stagnating, as the military establishment in Egypt has become its effective ruler. And they are starting to have crackdowns on the democratic protesters in Egypt, as well as crackdowns on Coptic Christians in Egypt, a religious minority in Egypt. Instead of returning Egypt to civilian rule. 

The Real News: Paul Jay- Interviewing Professor Michael Hudson- 'Occupy Wall Street to a Bank in The Public Interest'

Source:The Real News- OWS taking on American banks

"Michael Hudson: A public option in banking will be a structural answer to the power of finance."

From The Real News

All of these protests on Wall Street that are going on around the country, could be positive for the country. If it leads to real reforms in our economy, that reforms our banking system in a way that we stop bailing out banks and other company's, regulate their bad behavior. And lets them keep a lot of their profits instead of subsidizing them when they are successful. And thats not what we have right now. We have so many tax loopholes, that a lot of our business's end not paying much if anything in taxes like General Electric. But tax them at a rate that allows them to be profitable and encourages them to be profitable.

You can also see this post on WordPress.