POLITICO Magazine: Paul Starr- Why Democrats Should Beware Bernie Sanders’ Socialism

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: POLITICO Magazine: Paul Starr- Why Democrats Should Beware Bernie Sanders Socialism

The main point I get from Paul Starr’s column are the differences between socialism and liberalism. And they’re not the same thing whether you’re talking about communism which of course is different from liberalism. Because liberalism is based on individual rights and equality of opportunity. Communism is based on the collective and what is best is for everyone in society generally. Or democratic socialism which again is based on the collective, but through democratic means. Instead of having the state completely in control of society.

Hillary Clinton actually gave a great definition of what economic liberalism is at the South Carolina townhall on Tuesday. Where she said she wants an economy where everyone can succeed and make the most out of their potential and be able to enjoy the rewards of that. I’m paraphrasing here, but that is very close. Socialists again are interested in welfare rights and the collective. An economy where no one has to go without the necessities to live well in life and where no one who works should have to live in poverty. Socialists aren’t so much interested in individual opportunity, as they are economic equality where everyone is the same and no one is rich or poor. Because they believe individual freedom leads to income inequality and people becoming super rich and they see that as bad things.

What Bernie Sanders wants to do is apply the Scandinavian economic model to the United States. The whole region of Scandinavia is roughly twenty-five-million people. With a lot of land and a lot of natural resources, including resources that Social Democrats tend not to be in favor of like oil and gas. And they invest heavily in those resources and use them to finance their welfare states. Along with high income and consumption taxes, but as Paul Starr said low taxes on capital and business, trade. Senator Sanders wants to bring the Scandinavian model of taxation and welfare, to a country of three-hundred-twenty-million people that still imports oil and gas to power this huge country. But have taxes in general much higher than Nordic Socialists would ever even dream of.

Socialists are interested in Utopia and creating some perfect world where there’s no such things as sickness, poverty, war, bigotry, crime, etc. Liberals want the real world to work for as many people as humanly possible. And for everyone to be able to live their own dream in life and be productive and live in freedom. Quality education and infrastructure for all. a tax system that encourages economic success, a safety net that empower people to get on their feet and not to live off of taxpayers indefinitely, a regulatory state that protects workers and consumers, as well as business’s from predators. But doesn’t try to protect people from themselves. Which is why Liberals are still Center-Left in America, but Center-Right in Europe and other places. While Socialists are still considered Far-Left in America. Because of their heavy reliance on central planning and central government.

The Politics of Writing: 'The Value of Comedy'

Source:IZ Quotes- U.S. Senator (Democrat, Minnesota) and political satirist Al Franken.

Source:The Daily Review

"Comedy is often in our lives for reasons we don’t stop to think about. There’s comedic movies, stand up comedians,  television shows, and then there’s just those funny people we l…’

From The Politics of Writing 

“Bill Maher and John Cleese discuss the comedic value of human stupidity, political incorrectness and religious fundamentalism in this clip from November 21, 2014.” 

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- John Cleese making the case for free speech.

From Real Time With Bill Maher

I agree with most of what this blogger said. Who will go nameless simply, because the blogger doesn’t have a name. (My first joke) But I would put it different and I seem to be doing that a lot lately when I share other people’s pieces. The value of comedy is to make people laugh especially if they’re having a bad day or things aren’t going well for them.

I do that all the time to make people feel better. Someone tells me they lose their job and I’ll ask them: “Where did you lose it? Maybe you should try to look for it. Don’t worry, you’ll find another one and a better one. And will do a better job of hanging on to it.” And this is sort of extreme example, but that’s my point. Comedy should make people feel better even if it’s just for a moment before reality kicks back in.

I love comedy about life (as if there is any other comedy) but that is what funny people do. They share stories about what’s going on in their own life and what’s going on in the world and look for the comedic angle. Anyone whose spent more than five-minutes in America knows there’s always something to make fun of. Take our U.S. Congress, to use as an example: The oldest comedy club in America and the National Comedy Club going back to 1776.

If you can’t find something funny about Congress, you either never drink, or are broth blind and death at the same time. Perhaps you live as a tomato while impersonating a human being and you’re simply not aware of the world that is right in front of your own face. Take the cloture rule in the Senate where 41 votes beats 59. Anyone familiar with math knows that 59 is more than 41. But not in the U.S. Senate and that is just one funny example about Congress.

The only thing about comedy when it comes to life and current affairs is that first it has to be funny and then it has to be accurate. Or at least not out of the ballpark where it doesn’t make sense. Like if you’re going to make a fat joke about someone, at least have the decency and intelligence to know that person is actually fat, meaning clearly overweight. And not just a large, muscular ,person, who is very curvy.

There are plenty of three-hundred-pound football players who are just very big, because they have huge bones and are incredibly strong and can probably bench press someone’s car. (Hey, Yugo and Beatles are still cars) If you’re going to make a joke a politician, it should make sense and be in the ballpark. Make fun of Donald Trump, because any joke about him is probably true at this point.

When I finally get off the computer and done at my office and have some time to do things that have nothing to do with writing and blogging, generally the first thing I do is eat and try to relax. But after that I’m generally looking for something funny to watch. Not looking to read a book unless it’s something that I’m about to blog about.

Besides half of my job revolves around reading other people’s material anyway. I just want to relax and laugh at something that had nothing to do with my day and job. That is the value of comedy. That little escape that tells you that there’s another world out there that’s much different from your reality. And a chance to just kick back and take a deep breath. Before I have to get back to work.

Democratic Socialists USA: 'Social and Economic Bill of Rights'

Source:Democratic Socialists USA- If Democratic Socialists were ever in charge of anything in America.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Americans are familiar with the language of political and civil rights – one person, one voice, one vote; equal treatment before the law. We are less familiar with the justification for the social rights that have been at the center of our great political and social movements over the last century. For all citizens to flourish in a democratic society, they must be guaranteed such basic human needs as high-quality education, health care and security in old age. These goods are provided to every member of most democratic societies not by purchase on the private market, but through equitably financed, high-quality public goods and social insurance."  

From Democratic Socialists USA 

"This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty... 

Source:Peace Takes Courage- President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat, New York) talking about a proposed Economic Bill of Rights, in 1944.

From Peace Takes Courage

When you look at the New Deal from President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s, you see the creation of the American public safety net. 

Things like retirement insurance, which is what Social Security is. 

Unemployment Insurance, for people who lose their jobs. 

Welfare Insurance for people who don't have real skills and also have kids. 

Public Housing for people who can't afford a home. 

And there were other social programs and protections like that and go up to the Great Society of the 1960s under President Lyndon Johnson and you see programs that build on the New Deal with more help for the poor. Medicaid, medical insurance for low-income workers and non-workers who aren't retired yet. Medicare for all retired seniors and seniors who haven't retired yet and other programs.

In 1944-45, President Roosevelt introduced what he called the Economic Bill of Rights. Which was phase two of his New Deal which would have gone much further than simple  social economic insurance, but to move us to a Scandinavian welfare state. 

Health insurance for everyone, a guaranteed quality education from government, guaranteed retirement income, guaranteed good jobs. If people can't find a job, then government would give them one working for the government. 

President Harry Truman had similar proposals in what he called the Fair Deal in the late 1940s.  But by the time Lyndon Johnson becomes president in 1963 and he moves to his Great Society agenda in 1964, he's not looking at the Scandinavian welfare state as the economic model for America. But more social insurance to deal with poverty. Not a welfare state to manage everyone's lives for them.

What Democratic Socialists USA and other democratic socialist and social democratic groups and parties would do in America, is create that Scandinavian welfare state for America. To go way past the safety net and import Denmark or Sweden as far as our economic model. 

The whole idea of the safety net is a social insurance system for people who need it when they fall down in the private enterprise system. The welfare state is there to take care of everyone regardless of income level. 

Welfare state- Government provided education for everyone, government provided health care for everyone, government provided health insurance for everyone, government provided retirement for everyone, government provided leave for everyone, etc. All of these programs would become universal regardless of income level in a democratic socialist model.

So when I hear things like Economic Bill of Rights, I hear about government guarantees so people don't have to starve, go homeless, go without health care, always will have a job even if it is working for government. At least that is the plan under these proposals and I would argue about whether we should do this or not. And instead offer an alternative that is based on empowering more Americans to have the skills to get the jobs and make the money to have the freedom to make the decisions for themselves in the private market. 

But what Democratic Socialists advocate that everyone shouldn't have to go without and they would argue the way to guarantee that is to have the central government not as the last provider of human services, but the sole provider. Which is a much different economic philosophy from what Americans are use to seeing.

TruthDig: Jim Sleeper: 'The Blame The Campus Far-Leftists Campaign Aims at Yale'

Source:TruthDig- Welcome to Yale, which you would think would be an institution that promotes free thought and speech, since it's a college where people are supposed to learn.

Source:The Daily Review

"On February 7 The New York Times published two jaw-droppingly credulous and/or duplicitous accounts, linked below, of Yale childhood psychologist and student-residence associate master Erika Christakis’ supposed martyrdom on the altar of free speech by censorious liberal students and colleagues. The truth is that a national campaign to blame campus distempers on politically correct liberals had found yet another target in angry students and anxious administrators and an unlikely heroine in Christakis. The Times and too many well-meaning professors have gone along for the ride. If you think that our political commentariat has lost its compass along with our party establishments, wait till you see what writers about colleges are missing, as are the colleges themselves."

From TruthDig

"As part of a nationwide protest and discussion of what is acceptable on college campuses, a Yale professor sent a letter out asking is it ever okay to be provocative or even offensive. John and Hannah discuss if this letter led to her resignation from the university. Let us know what you think about her resigning and the current state of political correctness on college campuses."

Source:Think Tank- another victim of PC?

From Think Tank

I'll put it this way: if you are a far-leftist in America, (Democratic Socialist or otherwise) you believe you have (even though it's not written anywhere in the U.S. Constitution or in any statue of law) not to be offended by someone who you disagree with. It's like they woke up one day and found themselves living in another country (or planet) thinking they're still home. They literally believe that they have a right that simply doesn't exist, which is to hear and see things that they don't like. That's what I think of this photo and caption.

Source:The Daily Review- a campus far-leftist partying like it's still 1969.

I swear to God (even as an Agnostic) that the technological revolution of the last 20-25 years has really made America a lot dumber. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that America’s public education system fas fallen in the same time. And keep in mind America elected Dan Quayle Vice President in 1988 and Floridian Jews accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan for President in 2000. So that’s pretty stupid and then add America went to war with Iraq over bogus (to be kind) evidence in 2003. 

But take that up more than ten years and we now have a generation of Americans who believe that minority Americans have a right to not be offended and critiqued. Even though they live in a liberal democracy that has a guaranteed constitutional right to free speech under the First Amendment. 

I guess Millennials were too busy texting their classmate who was sitting next to them, or got lost at Starbucks when they should have been learning about the U.S. Constitution. What the hell are you doing at college and drowning in student loans (because you never learned how to swim) if you don’t like debate and you can’t handle politics that go against your own?

God (again, I'm Agnostic) help us if any of these Millennial’s ever become constitutional lawyers. Because they’ll look at the Constitution based on how they want it to read. Where their political correctness is the law of the land and there’s no such thing as Freedom of Speech, if it goes against their politics. Where the Right to Privacy doesn’t exist if people are engaged in behavior they disapprove of. 

I mean if I’m in college right now and I know I’m in student debt somewhere around fifty-thousand-dollars or more by the time I graduate, I’m busting my own ass (not my professor’s) to graduate and to learn as much about America and how the real world actually is. Not how I want it to be so I don’t think everything is swell (to use a 1950s term) when I enter the world. That I know everything won’t be paradise for me when I leave college.

But that is not the attitude of these Millennial goody two shoes who I guess got lost at a Karl Marx convention and gobbled up everything that Mr. Marx ever wrote and said. And now believe that is how the world should work if not currently works. 

God help us all if these kids ever to bother to graduate. Because they may end up dumber than when they went in, but now they won’t be a threat just to themselves. But if they were to ever get into power they’ll be a threat to anyone who believes in individual freedom both personal and economic. But especially when it comes to Freedom of Speech. But at least they’ll always have the latest smartphone, or computer, I’m sure paid for by someone else. And everything will still be awesome in their little worlds.

The American Prospect: Harold Meyerson: 'Bernie Sanders & The New Left'

Source:The American Prospect- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) campaigning for President of the United States of America. Not Prime Minister of Scandinavia.

Source:The New Democrat

"What's with these kids?

In the wake of the Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton supporters are surely wondering how a previously obscure 74-year-old senator seems to have captured the imagination and support of millions of young people. Generations often have distinct political profiles, but seldom, if ever, has a presidential race polarized generations more than that between Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Since exit polls first popped up at the end of the 1960s, we've never seen one quite comparable to the one that emerged from Monday's Iowa Caucuses: Sanders's strength was at its greatest within the youngest age group (84 percent among caucusers under 30) and then declined in each successively older age band. Clinton's, of course, was the reverse: peaking among caucus attendees over 65 at 69 percent and then declining in each successively younger group. Sanders had a clear majority of voters under 45; Clinton, of those over.

A generation gap as wide as the Grand Canyon seems to be opening up in the Democratic Party and American liberalism more generally. To some in the opposing camps, the divisions appear rooted in incompatible ideologies and counterposed strategic conceptions of how to promote the progressive cause. Look more closely, however-as both sides must-and the divide appears less fundamental, less socialism-versus-liberalism, less idealism-versus-pragmatism. The Democratic Party as a whole is moving left, but at two different speeds. What makes these differences seem so intense is less a sharp clash of beliefs, and more that the divisions have emerged in the course of an almost unimaginably high-stakes presidential contest."

From The American Prospect

Back in 2008, when then Senator Barack Obama was running for president, the New-Left in America which were predominantly Millennial’s in their twenties and Gen-Xer’s in their thirties and forties, overwhelmingly supported Senator Obama’s presidential campaign. Why? Because they saw him as one of them, a Socialist. Instead of supporting an actual McGovernite Socialist like Representative Dennis Kucinich, they supported Senator Obama for president.

An obvious case of high school students not doing their homework, or perhaps giving their homework to their dogs and then using that as an excuse for not doing their homework. Go to a bad enough high school and you might pull that off with one of your teachers. But Barack Obama is obviously not a Socialist. Even if the whacked out Tea Party believes otherwise. What President Obama has been, is a true Progressive. In someone who believes in using government to create progress across the board. But is very practical in how to accomplish that progress.

Now, go up eight years later to today and the New-Left has finally found their McGovernite Socialist. Someone who wants to almost completely transform the American economic system short of nationalizing it. Which might be somewhat disappointing for some on the New-Left. As well as Senator Bernie Sanders not being on board when it comes to political correctness, outlawing private ownership of guns and the broader nanny state in general.

If you want to call Bernie a Liberal, fine! But add Socialist to that and you got a Socialist Liberal, whose very liberal on social issues. Meaning someone who believes in limited, if not small government when it comes to personal freedom issues. But someone who is very socialist on economic and foreign policy. Big believer in big centralized national government. With high taxes across the board to finance it.

If somehow Minnesota were to go through an August heat wave next week and see temperatures of a hundred degrees in February and Seattle were to run out of both coffee and water as well during the same week and Uncle Sam were to outlaw all taxation, again in the same week and Bernie Sanders somehow managed to win the Democratic nomination for president in what is still a Center-Left progressive (not socialist) Democratic Party and not the Far-Left Green Party, some of his supporters might actually be disappointed in him.

We’re not talking about a Communist here who wants to outlaw all forms of individual freedom and individualism here. But a Socialist-Liberal or Democratic Socialist, who is down with the New-Left perhaps on 99% of the economic and foreign policy issues. But someone who is a big believer in personal freedom. Which is something for the New-Left to think about. We’re not talking about a Communist candidate for president, but a true Democratic Socialist. Like Norman Thomas, Henry Wallace, or George McGovern.

Conservable Economist: Timothy Taylor- Twenty Years Since The Welfare Reform of 1996: The Next Stage of Welfare to Work

President Bill Clinton-

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: Conservable Economist: Timothy Taylor- Twenty Years Since The Welfare Reform of 1996: The Next Stage of Welfare to Work

Tim Taylor, makes some great points about the timing that Welfare to Work was done in 1996. The economy started booming again in 1994. The budget deficit was falling, unemployment was dropping. But we’ve had good economic booms where poverty didn’t fall at all and if anything went up. In the 1980s homelessness, became a national issue. Poverty went up and the prison population boomed. In the 1990s the economy boomed after the 1990-91 recession, unemployment dropped dramatically, crime dropped dramatically and poverty which is the most critical issues in any Welfare reform, also dropped dramatically. Eleven-percent poverty level by 2000. The budget deficit didn’t just fall, but we had four balanced budgets in a row by 2001 and actually started paying down the national debt.

And yes the poverty level in America is now twenty-percent again, but that isn’t because of Welfare to Work. It would be higher without Welfare to Work. You might remember 2008-09 pretty well when we had this little economic disaster called the Great Recession. Which sent middle-income working families into families on Unemployment. You don’t get rich collecting Unemployment Insurance. People on Unemployment Insurance have lost their homes. Plus there was another recession from 2001-02 from another stock market collapse and thanks to 9/11. The only way you get out of poverty which means off of public assistance for non-retired workers is with a good job. You need good skills to get a good job. If you’re a single-parent without good skills you’ll need childcare and health insurance as well. That is all part of Welfare to Work.

As much as today’s so-called Progressives (New-Left in actuality) want to paint Welfare to Work as a racist scheme to kick minority families off of Welfare and force them to fend for themselves, you couldn’t be further from the truth if you were on Planet Pluto. Welfare to Work and going further with that, with more childcare assistance, a higher minimum wage and make it more like 10-12 bucks an hour, forcing neglecting parents to at least take financially responsibility for their kids and making even low-income work pay more than Welfare, are the best things we can do for low-income families. Work should never be an option on public assistance, but instead a requirement. Along with education and childcare, requiring parents, to keep their kids in school, would be big help as well.

Welfare Insurance, or cash payments, is only the first part in a new campaign to defeat poverty. That once you’re on WI you receive it but in a real short-term and take the first job that you’re qualified for. If you didn’t finish high school, you would do that as a condition for receiving Welfare. If you have a high school diploma now you’re in community college, or some other job training. Even if you have a job, but especially if you have a job and would get childcare assistance so you would have the time to get an education and work. So instead of Welfare just being a net that catches people before they end up homeless or in jail or something, it instead is a vehicle to help people move themselves out of poverty. And once they finish their education they would even be eligible for small business loans and go into business for themselves.

Welfare and Public Housing, shouldn’t just be tools to prevent people from homelessness and starvation. But again vehicles to transport people out of poverty along with their kids. If we truly want to fight poverty in America and I sure as hell do as both a Liberal and actual Progressive who wants to use government to empower people and create real progress, then homelessness and starvation prevention insurance, is not enough. You can’t just have people living a little more comfortably while still in poverty, but instead empower them to move themselves out of poverty. And even make it a requirement that people self-improve themselves. So we know who wants to work and be productive and who simply wants to live off of hard-working taxpayers.

Plato Shrugs: The Suspension of Disbelief: Bernie Sanders as President

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review on WordPress: Plato Shrugs: The Suspension of Disbelief: Bernie Sanders as President

I disagree with the blogger who wrote this piece over at Plato Shrugs on two key points. And I think we probably agree on the rest. But Bernie Sanders, is not the ‘liberal Ron Paul’. Bernie, is the Democratic version of Rick Santorum. Rick, being the Far-Right Big Government Neoconservative Republican, who even flirted with the idea of outlawing gambling from the Federal level. To go along with outlawing pornography and same-sex marriage in 2012. Bernie, might be liberal compared with Rick, but who isn’t. That would be like saying a politician is consistent compared with Mitt Romney. Or someone is short compared Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, or Yao Ming. You know, who isn’t. You might have to send out a search party to find anyone who isn’t consistent, or short compared with these people.

Rick Santorum, represents the Far-Right fringe of the Republican Party. The Christian-Right and Neoconservative wing of that party. Bernie Sanders, represents the Far-Left Socialist wing of the Democratic Party. That wants to transform this Center-Left party that I’m proud to be a member of, into the Democratic Socialist Party. Where what’s mine and what’s yours, is no longer mine and yours, but now subjected to our nightmare of an Uncle Sam. To decide for everyone what we should have and be forced to give up. And I’m talking about money here and not physical property. Because Bernie is not a Communist but a Democratic Socialist who wants a big centralized national government. To go along with a highly taxed and regulated private sector.

I also disagree with Plato about Bernie Sanders having no shot and even being a long shot to win the Democratic nomination. Bernie, has been an underdog his whole life starting with being the son of poor Jewish-European immigrants in 1940s New York. And then making it all the way through college in the 1960s and being part of the civil rights movement. To becoming Mayor of Burlington, Vermont in the 1980s as an Independent Socialist. To being elected to the U.S. House in 1990 and being reelected there seven times. To being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006, again as an Independent Socialist. To being reelected there in 2012. The longest-serving Independent in Congress in his 26th year in Congress. To underestimate Bernie and root for his defeat. Is like sticking your hand in a full shark tank with your eyes close. Not worth the risk.

The Democratic Party has had a socialist wing in it and mostly democratic socialist, since the late 1960s with the emergence of the New-Left. And you could go back to the 1940s with Henry Wallace and others and people who worked for the Roosevelt Administration. The Democrats have always had a wing that believes American capitalism is immoral, that wealth and success are selfish. That the only such thing as the people’s money is money that belongs to Uncle Sam to give out to his nieces and nephews in allowances. That believes masculinity is somehow bad and that men are inferior to women. That there’s no such thing as racism towards Caucasians and perhaps even the wrong country won the Cold War. And now this movement is big enough starting with Occupy Wall Street in 2011 to have a major presidential candidate who represents them.

And I’m not putting Bernie down, because I actually personally like the man and respect him for his honesty and actually believing in what he says and his politics. And fighting all of those losing battles in Congress for over twenty-years as a result. There’s something to respect about a person whose willing to fight the lost causes, because he believes they’re right and everyone else is stupid. Sort of like the Chicago Cubs fan who refuses to root another club, because they can’t move on from the Cubs even after 50-100 years of praying for another World Series championship. Or watching games at some place other than Wrigley Field. But not only that, Bernie is a moderate compared with most of his supporters. He’s the liberal in the movement who believes in free speech and even Freedom of Choice when it comes to social issues. And not down with fascist political correctness movement on the New-Left.

So when you think of Bernie Sanders for president think of Uncle Sam, but change the name to Bernie. Our new Uncle Bernie who our parents sent us to, because they were tired of dealing with us and all of our demands that they simply couldn’t afford and we didn’t deserve anyway. So they send us to our father’s brother lets say to take care of us and we think that is going to be horrible until we get there. But then we’re there and Uncle Bernie has all of these goodies for us that he says are free. Until we find out that we’re doing all sorts of chores around the house (meaning taxes) to pay for all of these supposed goodies. That is Bernie Sanders for president. A Democratic Socialist who’ll promise you everything that you’ll pay for. As well as more stuff that you don’t want or need. And leave you with a tax bill for that as well.

Democratic Socialists USA: Myths About Democratic Socialism

Source: Democratic Socialists USA-

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

With this piece, I’m going to layout as someone who is not a Socialist in any form, even in what I at least would view as the best form of a Socialist which are Socialist Liberals, what socialism is and what it isn’t. And again if you’re familiar with my blogging I’m more interested in the social democratic form of it, not the Marxist-Communist state-control form. I’m going to do this, because people who are Socialists, don’t own the label of their own politics. And prefer Progressive, or in Bill Press’s case Liberal. And all Socialists tend to get lumped in with Marxists. Which is something different.

Democratic socialism, is not about complete state-control. Sweden, is a successful social democracy with a very large welfare state and we can argue why they’re successful and why their system wouldn’t work here. But they have a large private economy with property rights and take home pay and a lot of other economic freedoms that every other developed Western country has. The world is really down to one Marxist state as far as state-control of both the economy, as well as social policy and politics and that of course being North Korea.

Democratic Socialists, aren’t Liberal Democrats. This is where I’m in complete agreement with DSA. Liberal democracy, is based on a guarantee of individual rights. Free speech, equal justice and equality under law, privacy, freedom of choice, personal responsibility even, rule of law, a national defense that defends the country, property rights, limited government, etc. As well as a safety net for people who truly need it, quality education for everyone and modern infrastructure. Liberal democracy, is truly about the individual. With a limited government there to protect everyone’s freedom equally.

Democratic socialism, is about welfare rights. Having a government big enough to make sure no one has to go without the basic necessities that everyone must have to live well in society. Health insurance, health care, education, pension, childcare, etc. And having a big centralized government with a lot of the power and responsibility in the country. Instead of the federal system where you have layers of government that each have real responsibility over their own affairs. Democratic socialism, is not just very government-centric, but big government-centric. And sees an entire country as one community. Instead of individuals living their own lives.

Democratic socialism, is not just an economic policy, but a political ideology. They have their own foreign and national security policy, as well as criminal justice policy. Which tends to be a lot more dovish at least compared with Liberals, Conservatives and even Libertarians. At least with criminal justice policy. But this is where even Democratic Socialists are somewhat diverse. Because you have Socialist Liberals, that sound like Liberals and Libertarians on social issues, even with free speech and personal choice. But are Democratic Socialists on economic policy. And you have the paternalists, who aren’t crazy about either economic, or personal freedom. Especially freedom of choice and free speech that can be offensive. And want government to regulate and prohibit.

If you look at the left side of the political spectrum, you have Liberals, or Social Liberals, who are Center-Left. Lets say FDR Progressives, who are more left, but still in the political mainstream in America. But move further left and you get to the New-Left, or even Far-Left with Democratic Socialists and even further left with Marxist-Communists. These are all different political factions and on the left, but they aren’t all the same political animal with four different political labels. They are separate political factions with things in common, but are very different ideologically.\
NYC Internationalist Socialist Organization: Socialism, Bernie Sanders, & The Democratic Party

Gata Bella: 'Ava Gardner's Private Moments'

Source:Gata Bella- Hollywood Goddess and  Babydoll Ava Gardner: perhaps being amazed by her own beauty and adorability.

Source:The Daily Review

"She was absolutely ravishing - no film had ever done her justice. And as a model, no one in my experience with mannequins and professionals surpassed her." ( Man Ray, painter, photographer)

Photos of Ava Gardner in her private life, with her men, friends and co-stars.

Music: "Speak Low" (by Eileen Wilson) and "How Am I To Know" (by Ava Gardner)"

From Gata Bella

I think what I love and respect most about Ava Gardner is not her beauty, (not many prettier) not her adorableness, (not many women cuter) not her sex appeal even though she was this gorgeous baby-faced brunette with a sweet body and great personality and sense of humor. What I love about her the most was her realness. The woman you saw on stage and in her movies is the woman you saw off camera. The people who worked for her and gave her roles knew her so well and set her up so beautifully.

It was like she was never acting in her movies, because she was so natural in the roles that she played. She always said that the only thing that she wanted was to be happy. Those are the characters that she played. She had the reputation of a somewhat immature wild child who went too far and had too much fun and then would pout when she wasn’t happy. You see her first seen in the movie Earthquake that she did with Charlton Heston and they have an argument and she’s in early fifties at this point and still very beautiful and adorable and she runs to the bathroom almost like a little girl and takes a lot of pills. Heston, her husband in the movie finds her and saves her.

She was always playing a bit of a wild child who loved to have a great time and took it too far. Because as she would tell you life to her was about being alive and living and not just being around. And enjoying life and being happy as much as you can. She died at 68, but she lived her life her way (to paraphrase Frank Sinatra) and was Ava Gardner her entire life. This gorgeous baby-faced brunette with the personality and sense of humor to match. And I believe this is all part of why she’s so likable then and still so popular now. Because she was this goddess who was so sweet, charming and funny, but so real and you always knew who she was and what she wanted. Not a lot of mystery with Ava Gardner.

The New York Times: Andrew P. Kelly- 'The Problem Is That Free College Isn't Free'

Source:Now This World- what free college?

Source:The New Democrat 

“Free public college” is a great political talking point, but it is flawed policy.

First, free college isn’t free, it simply shifts costs from students to taxpayers and caps tuition at zero. That tuition cap limits college spending to whatever the public is willing to invest. But it does not change the cost of college, or what institutions actually spend per student. If the past is any guide, that cost will continue to grow, and an influx of federal money may lead profligate administrators to spend even more. Enrollments will also increase, further multiplying the cost of free college." 

From The New York Times 

"Should College Be Free?" 

From Now This World

I believe the main problem with many of these political debates has to do with language and how things are described. Whether it’s called free health care, free health insurance, free education, free college, free anything else that could be viewed as a positive thing that people should at least want to have. 

The fact is none of these things are free for everyone if they’re provided by government. Because who funds government? Of course the taxpayers and anyone who pays taxes. You even now have Democratic Socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders saying tuition-free college when he talks about his college plan. Because he knows he’ll have to have new taxes in order to pay for his so-called free college plan.

Just replace the word free with affordable and apply affordable to every new service that you want government to provide for people and now you’ll be telling the truth when speaking to voters. Instead of giving voters impressions that you would be giving them all of this free government stuff, you’ll be treating them like adults and taxpayers. 

The better way is to tell taxpayers that they would have a better deal for them (with deal being the key word) because better of course would be debatable, because it would depend on the plan. And then tell them how you would pay for whatever you want to provide for them. 

Democratic Socialists like Bernie, Jill Stein and whoever else, would earn credibility with Joe and Jane Average taxpayer who are already paying a lot in taxes who know the government services that they’re currently receiving aren’t free.

So of course Bernie Sanders so-called tuition-free college funding plan, sure as hell won’t be free. At least not for anyone who pays taxes including payroll taxes. Bernie will say he’ll tax corporations and rich people to pay for his plan. But then those business’s will raise the costs of their customers, because they don’t want to see their cost of business to go up. 

Rich individuals will take their business and investments somewhere else where taxes aren’t as high. And Bernie might come back with passing some new law that outlaws business’s from raising their prices to cover their tuition-free college costs. But again those business’s will just take their business somewhere else where their cost of business isn’t as high. 

Every service anywhere that comes with a cost in creating that service also comes with a cost in providing that service to their customers. Why would government be any different?