Intelligence Squared Debates: 'Is Health Care a Right?'

Source:Intelligence Squared Debates- Dr. Adam Gaffney acknowledging that health care is not a right in America.

"Sally Pipes and Dr. Adam Gaffney weigh in on whether health care is a right. An excerpt from the debate "Replace Private Insurance With Medicare for All." 

FOR THE MOTION:

Dr. Adam Gaffney - President, Physicians for a National Health Program

Joseph Sanberg - Co-Founder, Aspiration & Chair, CalEITC4Me

AGAINST THE MOTION:

Nick Gillespie - Editor-at-Large, Reason

Sally Pipes - CEO & President, Pacific Research Institute" 

From Intelligence Squared Debates

When you say that someone should be a right, you are also saying (perhaps unintentionally that it's not a right. There is no statue of law in the United States that says that Americans are entitled to health care in America, other than health care that we receive at the emergency room. And nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say that Americans are entitled to "free health care" or health care in general. I guess we could debate whether or not health care should be a right in America. But the fact is that it isn't and is treated just like every other service that we receive in the private market.

Intelligence Squared Debates: 'Replace Private Insurance With Medicare For All'

Source:Intelligence Squared Debates- U.S. Senator and 2020 Democratic Socialist presidential candidate: Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist) Socialist Republic of Vermont)

“Medicare for All,” or a single-payer system, is being championed by many on the progressive left, with advocates arguing that it will cut costs by reducing overhead and promote overall health by giving all Americans access to preventive health care.Their opponents argue Medicare for All is a political non-starter that would force Americans off employer-based plans, reduce incentives for doctors and providers, increase bureaucracy and inefficiencies in the system, and lead to worse care overall, all the while inflating the already swelled federal deficit. Should private health insurance exist? Or is it time for Medicare for All? 

FOR THE MOTION:

Dr. Adam Gaffney - President, Physicians for a National Health Program

Joseph Sanberg - Co-Founder, Aspiration & Chair, CalEITC4Me

AGAINST THE MOTION:

Nick Gillespie - Editor-at-Large, Reason

Sally Pipes - CEO & President, Pacific Research Institute" 

From Intelligence Squared Debates 

Just to correct the moderator John Donvan: a government-run, Medicare For All health care system would replace the private health insurance system in America, but the Federal Government wouldn't pick up the costs of everyone's health care. Those costs would instead be picked up by the taxpayers. Instead of paying for our health care through our private insurance or out-pocket, we would pay for our government-run, socialized health care, probably through payroll taxes. So a government-run health care system, even if it's just government-run health insurance, would of course not be free for anyone. 

Not to go to far down the road here and to sound like I'm picking on John Donvan, but every time I hear someone argue that government services are free, it reminds me of the great quote by the Classical Liberal economic professor Milton Friedman who said there's no such thing as a free lunch. What he was talking about was government services (or if you prefer public services) and arguing that everything that government does come with a cost. 

Socialists (or Social Democrats, if you prefer) argue those costs that government will impose would be cheaper and better (at least in the long-term) than anything that you can get from the private sector. Fine, you can argue that, but you're being intellectually dishonest honest or you are simply just ignorant about how government is financed in this country. 

I could layout the case for why I'm against a government only run health care system in America (even if it's just government-run health insurance) but that's being done for me in this video by Nick Gillespie and Sally Pipes and I don't think I can improve on that. 

I will close with this point and suggestion: for people who who want a government-run health insurance system in America, they need to be intellectually honest with Americans and tell them how would they finance that government-run health insurance system. And tell people how much it will cost them and how it would be paid for. Because even people who want government-run health care pays taxes and understands how government is paid for. 

George Carlin: Political Correctness Gone Mad

Source:Proper Gander- the great comedian George Carlin on left-wing political correctness.

"George Carlin: Political Correctness Has Gone Mad.

'In an earlier book 'Brain Droppings', I wrote some things about politically correct language.  But I left out a few areas.  I neglected three important groups of people who have had this awkward dishonest language inflicted on them by Liberals.  I omitted those who are crippled, ugly, or stupid.  So, to address these earlier omissions, I'd like to make a brief return visit to that playground of guilty white liberals: Political Correctness.'

George Carlin was an American comedian, social critic, actor and author. Carlin was noted for his black comedy and thoughts on politics, the English language, psychology, religion, and various taboo subjects. Carlin and his "seven dirty words" comedy routine were central to the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, in which a 5–4 decision affirmed the government's power to regulate indecent material on the public airwaves.

He is widely regarded as one of the most important and influential stand-up comedians: One newspaper called Carlin "the dean of counterculture comedians." In 2004, Carlin was placed second on the Comedy Central list of "Top 10 Comedians of US Audiences" compiled for an April 2004 special. The first of his 14 stand-up comedy specials for HBO was filmed in 1977. From the late 1980s, Carlin's routines focused on sociocultural criticism of American society. He often commented on contemporary political issues in the United States and satirized the excesses of American culture. He was a frequent performer and guest host on The Tonight Show during the three-decade Johnny Carson era, and hosted the first episode of Saturday Night Live in 1975. His final HBO special, It's Bad for Ya, was filmed less than four months before his death. In 2008, he was posthumously awarded the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor. In 2017, Rolling Stone magazine ranked him second (behind Richard Pryor) on its list of the 50 best stand-up comics of all time." 

From Proper Gander

Crash Course: Craig Benzine- 'Political Ideology- Government & Politics'

Source:Crash Course- talking about political ideology.

"So today Craig is going to look at political ideology in America. We're going to focus on liberals and conservatives and talk about the influencers of both of these viewpoints. Now, it's important to remember that political ideologies don't always perfectly correspond with political parties, and this correspondence becomes less and less likely over time. So, sure we can say that Democrats tend to be liberal and Republicans tend to be conservative, but we're not going to be talking about political parties in this episode. It's also important to note, that there are going to be a lot of generalizations here, as most peoples' ideologies fall on a spectrum, but we're going to try our best *crosses fingers* to summarize the most commonly held viewpoints for each of these positions as they are used pretty frequently in discussions of American politics."

Source:Crash Course 

This is what liberalism really is: "Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on limited government, economic freedom, and political freedom. It was developed in the early 19th century, building on ideas from the previous century as a response to urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and North America.[1][2][3]

Notable liberal individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[4] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Robert Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on classical economics, especially the economic ideas as espoused by Adam Smith in Book One of The Wealth of Nations and on a belief in natural law,[5] progress,[6] and utilitarianism." 

From Wikipedia 

This is what conservatism really is: "Conservatism in the United States is a political and social philosophy which characteristically prioritizes American traditions, republicanism, classical liberalism, and limited federal governmental power in relation to the states, referred to more simply as limited government and states' rights. Conservative and Christian media organizations along with American conservative figures are influential, and American conservatism is one of the majority political ideologies within the Republican Party.[1][2][3] On social issues, American conservatism typically supports Christian values,[4] moral absolutism,[5] traditional family values,[6] American exceptionalism,[7] and individualism,[8] while opposing abortion and same-sex marriage.[9] On economic issues it is generally pro-capitalism[10] and pro-business while opposing trade unions. On national issues it often advocates a strong national defense, gun rights, free trade,[11] and a defense of Western culture from perceived threats posed by communism[12] and moral relativism.[13] Conservatives are substantially more likely than moderates and liberals to distrust science, particularly medical science, climate science, and evolution, and to believe in Creationism."  

From Wikipedia

This is what progressivism really is: "Progressivism is a political philosophy in support of social reform.[1] Based on the idea of progress in which advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition, progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from uncivilized conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[2] Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread around the world from Europe.[2]

The early-20th century concept of progressivism emerged from the vast social changes brought about by industrialization and the Second Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century. Progressives took the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality; minimally regulated monopolistic corporations; and the intense and often violent conflict between laborers and economic elites, arguing that measures were needed to address these problems.[3]

The meaning of progressivism has varied over time and differs depending on perspective. Early-20th century progressivism included proponents of eugenics and the temperance movement, both of which were promoted in the name of public health and as initiatives toward that goal.[4][5][6][7][8] In modern politics, progressivism is generally considered part of the left-liberal tradition.[9][10][11][12][13] In the 21st century, a movement that identifies as progressive is "a social or political movement that aims to represent the interests of ordinary people through political change and the support of government actions." 

From Wikipedia

This is where I disagree with Craig Benzine: I'm not interested in what classical liberalism is, versus modern liberalism or conservatism is. I'm just interested in what liberalism and what I would at least call constitutional conservatism, for people who think that conservatism is about religious fundamentalism and fighting some nationalistic cultural war with everyone who doesn't share the cultural and religious values of people who are now called Christian Nationalists, who a couple years ago were called Christian-Conservatives. 

Liberalism and conservatism in their real (or classical, if you prefer) are both based on what's called classical liberalism, or what some Center-Right parties in Europe, like in Germany, call liberal conservatism. 

But in America Liberals are supposed to be antiestablishment, revolutionary, hippies. who want to transform America into some type of socialist state, who see freedom as dangerous and selfish. 

And in America Conservatives are supposed to be Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, fundamentalist, rednecks, who are anti-women and minority and who believe Anglo-Saxon-Protestant men should be running the country, with everyone else being servants. 

But in the rest of the developed world, Liberals and Conservatives are Center-Right. Not Far-Left and Far-Right, as they look in America. 

Professor Noam Chomsky: 'Anarchism, Capitalism, Socialism, Free Markets (2013)'

Source:Remember This- Professor Noam Chomsky, speaking about anarchism, capitalism, socialism, and free markets, in 2013.

"In practice Chomsky has tended to emphasize the philosophical tendency of anarchism to criticize all forms of illegitimate authority. More Chomsky:Amazon... 

From Remember This

If Noam Chomsky is talking about an economic system where the workers own the company that they work meaning the central government, meaning state ownership of the means of production of society, meaning, or economic Marxism, then I think he’s dead wrong. There isn’t a large developed country in the world with a Marxist economic system. 

But if Professor Chomsky talking about an economic system where the workers each own a percentage of the company that they work at, like with private stock options, not just for executives, but the entire workforce, then I believe Dr. Chomsky is on to something.

In a system like that no CEO would make a hundred or thousand times more than the workforce. Each CEO would be paid based on the job they are doing good, or bad and wouldn’t set their salary. The Board of Directors made up of the stockholders and the workforce would determine this. 

And no one person or a small group of people would own an entire corporation. But the CEO like the entire management and workforce would own a piece of the company based on what they contribute to it. So they would all get a base salary, plus their stock options. When the company is doing well, so are they, when the company is doing poorly, so are they. Which would give plenty of incentive for the entire management and workforce to work as hard and be as productive as they possibly can. Because there’s plenty of financial incentive for them to do that. 

I could see an economic system developing like this in America if there enough people who want it bad enough and will work hard and well enough to make it happen. The Green Bay Packers of the NFL have a similar system to this. Where essentially all the Green Bay residents own at least a piece of the club. Not the city government, but the individuals each own a private share of the club.

They don’t have one person whose the owner of the club or the general partner of a small group running the club, but a CEO who has to report to the Board of Directors and the stockholders in the club. And they have been not only one of the most successful NFL franchises since they’ve been in existence, but in pro sports in general. 

What I would like to see in America is that we move away from cowboy capitalism, where there’s basically no taxes and regulations for company’s and wealthy people and a lot of corporate welfare. But instead where company’s are able to stay in business by the quality of services they provide.

A system of individualism that I would call American capitalism, where people can make as much money as their skills and production will allow. Pay taxes based on how much they make with the wealthy paying the most and going down. But where taxes aren’t so high that there’s not enough incentive for people to work hard, be productive and earn a good living. And where the economy is not over regulated or under regulated, or where regulations aren’t enforced like the last ten years. But where the economy is well-regulated to protect company’s and individuals from abusing each other.

I could like to see an economic systems where we have a public education system producing enough good workers for the highly skilled jobs. And a safety net that catches people who fall through the cracks, but helps them get up on their own feet to be self-sufficient. 

If companies on their own, or new startup company’s want to move to a system where the entire management and workforce owns a piece of the action (so to speak) great. Thats their call, but that shouldn’t be forced on them. Let the market decide how these companies are run. Instead of state planners and have government there to help people back up who fall and prevent and punish company’s and individuals who abuse others. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Russia Today: 'Louisiana - The World's Prison Capital'

Source:Russia Today- with a look at private prisons in Louisiana.

"Louisiana's for-profit prison system has guaranteed it more prisoners than anywhere else on the earth." 

From MACC

"RT (formerly Russia Today or Rossiya Segodnya) (Russian: Россия Сегодня)[9] is a Russian state-controlled[1] international news television network funded by the Russian government.[16][17] It operates pay television and free-to-air channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in Russian, English, Spanish, French, German and Arabic.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an autonomous non-profit organization founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[8][18] 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.[19][20][21] RT operates as a multilingual service with 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 (2010–2022),[22][23] RT UK (2014–2022) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[6][7]

RT has regularly been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[58] and conspiracy theories.[65] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast "materially misleading" content.[72]

In 2012, RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Russian Ministry of Defence.[73] Referring to the Russo-Georgian War, she stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[17][74] In September 2017, RT America was ordered to register as a foreign agent with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[75]

RT was banned in Ukraine in 2014 after Russia's annexation of Crimea;[76] Latvia and Lithuania implemented similar bans in 2020.[77][78] Germany banned RT DE in February 2022.[79] After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Poland and then the entire European Union as well as Canada announced they were formally banning RT as well, while independent service providers in over 10 countries suspended broadcasts of RT.[80][81][82] Social media websites followed by blocking external links to RT's website and restricting access to RT's content.[83][84] Microsoft removed RT from their app store and de-ranked their search results on Bing,[85][86] while Apple removed the RT app from all countries except for Russia." 

From Wikipedia

I don't agree with everything that they're saying here President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today. (I guess China'a China Central Television wasn't available for this video) But I'm against locking people up for profit, keeping people in prison in longer, just so these private prisons can make more money at taxpayers, as well as at prison inmates expense. 

If there's a central role of government (federal, state, local) criminal justice and law enforcement, as well as national security, and foreign policy (to name a few) are obviously the roles of government. 

You want to make prisons cheaper, put inmates to work and educate them so they can cover their own incarceration, as well as stop locking up nonviolent offenders who are simply incarcerated because they're addicted to a dangerous substance or have committed other victimless crimes.

Ana Kasparian: Robert Reich- 'Reigniting the Economy'

Source:Ana Kasparian- left-wing political economist Robert Reich, talking about the American economy.

"Currently, the president is asking for Republicans to help him in finding more spending cuts and revenues. But actually, he should be focussed on jobs and growth. Robert Reich (Professor of Public Policy at UC Berkeley, and former Labor Secretary) explains why we shouldn't fixate on the deficit, but instead on reigniting the economy -- getting jobs back, improving wages, and restoring growth. How does deficit reduction and laying more taxes on the middle class move us in the opposite direction? Robert Reich explains." 

From Ana Kasparian 

What Robert Reich seems to be arguing is that if America (meaning the national government) just spent a lot more taxpayers money and we nationalized the health care system (at least the health insurance system) that we could get the American economy moving again. And that of course deficits don't seem matter and yet keeps arguing that we need to tax the rich more. But if deficits and debt aren't big issues in America, why does Uncle Sam need more of our revenue? If deficits and debt don't matter in the American economy, wouldn't Uncle Sam just have unlimited borrowing authority to pay for all of its government spending? Of course not, but that's what the Far-Left in America always argues. 

Thom Hartmann: 'It's Time to go 'Nuclear' on the Filibuster!'

Source:Thom Hartmann- U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (Republican, Texas) Chairman of the Talk Your Head Off Until You Have To Go To The Bathroom Caucus. No, not really.

"Thom Hartmann says it's time for Senate Democrats to change the filibuster rule in order to approve President Obama's judicial nominees." 

From Thom Hartmann 

As a Liberal Democrat (meaning someone who believes in liberal democracy, not so much the Democratic Party) I'm a strong believer in checks and balances, protecting minority rights, etc. But not to the point that it basically puts the opposition party, at least in the Senate, where Republicans are both the opposition and minority party over there, basically in charge of everything. 

Under current rules, under Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans get to decide for themselves what gets debated, what comes up for a floor vote, what nominees get voted on, even though Barack Obama was reelected President of the United States last year, Senate Democrats picked up 2 seats and now have a bigger majority in the Senate, than they did last last year, in the last Congress. 

There even needs to be a check on minority rights, otherwise the opposition whether it's 45% of the vote, which is what Republicans have now in the Senate, or whatever the number would be in the future, will always be in charged, even though they lost and aren't supposed to be in charge under the U.S. Constitution, if American democracy means anything. 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Democrats, need to end the filibuster on all executive nominations, as well as the motion to precede rule. And this is something that Mitch McConnell, or whoever the next Republican Senate Majority Leader is, could use to their advantage in future Congress's, when they have a Republican President and Senate, and even a Republican President and united Republican Congress (House and Senate) to their advantage) because American elections have to have consequences, if they're to mean anything.

Brave New Foundation: Beyond Bars

Source:Brave New Films- a man being interviewed for this documentary.

"Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) is the country's biggest for-profit prison company and calls human beings in lock-up a "revenue stream." Don't let them profit off imprisoning even more. ACLU  

This video is part of the Prison Profiteers series produced by Brave New Foundation's Beyond Bars campaign in partnership with the ACLU and The Nation. Narration by Henry Rollins. Research help provided by Prison Legal News." 

From Brave New Films

I like this approach because rehabilitation is sort of like learning a different language. The earlier in life you do that, the easier it will be and once someone is already part of the criminal justice system, it's hard to get them out and prevent them from going back in. 

But if you can prevent so called risk at youth from going into the criminal justice system, through what's called crime prevention which targets risk at youth, making sure they are getting the education that they need, with things like extra tutoring that they may need or after school programs, again so, they can get extra help, supporting their parents so they can do the best job possible in raising their own kids, helping them get a job or a better job through job training, so they don't have to live in high crime neighborhoods with high poverty, we can prevent risk at youth from having to go into the criminal justice system in the first place.

U.S. Representative Jim McDermott: Affordable Care Act

Source:U.S. Representative Jim McDermott- talking about the House Republicans 37th attempt in 3 years, to repeal the Affordable Care Act. (Also known as ObamaCare)

"Rep. McDermott on Republicans' 37th Vote to Repeal the Affordable Care Act" 

From Representative Jim McDermott

You would generally have a better chance of seeing bird fly a real plane or win the Indianapolis 500 in a race car, then to see me agree with Representative Jim McDermott (Democrat, Washington State on anything. Perhaps a January heat wave in Wisconsin or a blizzard in South Florida, happens more often than I agree with Representative Jim McDermott on anything. 

Not that I don't like Jim McDermott, because I actually do, because at the very least you always know what the man is thinking. Which makes him as special as the Cleveland Indians winning the World Series. That just doesn't happen very often in Congress (House or Senate) so when it does, you meed to give the member credit for it. 

My broader and more serious point here is (and yes, I have one) is that Jim McDermott is not just right here, but he's damn right. House Republicans made the whole 112th Congress about reducing the deficit and repealing the Affordable Care Act. They won on deficit reduction and I give them credit for that. But even the U.S. Supreme Court believes the ACA the law of the land. 

House Republicans didn't gain seats in 2012, they lost 8. The Republican Party didn't win back The White House in 2012, they lost it again. Not only that, but Senate Democrats not only held the Senate, but picked up 2 seats. So what's the point on voting to once again repeal the ACA, when you know the legislation will never even get out of Congress, let alone get to The White House? 

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.

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.

Real Time With Bill Maher: Gun Control & Dumb Gun Laws

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher talking about the lack of gun control in America.

"A recent "New Rules" from Bill Maher's HBO series, "Real Time." Bill takes defenders of stupid gun laws to task regarding idiotic pro-gun legislation." 

From Pariah 2001

Intelligence Squared Debates: 'The Two-Party System is Making America Ungovernable'

Source:Intelligence Squared Debate moderator John Donvan.

"The Republican and Democratic parties are entrenched in calcified partisanship, where politics is played as a zero-sum game. The rise of the Tea Party, liberal backlash, and the exodus of moderate voices from Congress all point toward the public's growing discontent. Has our two-party system failed us? Is this a call to change our two-party system of governance?" 

From Intelligence Squared Debates

Think Progress: Michael Waldron: ‘More Proof That America Doesn’t Have A Spending Problem’

Source:Think Progress- with a look at the United States Federal budget.

“The idea that the United States has an out of control spending problem has gripped Washington D.C. for most of the economic recovery, and nowhere is that more evident than in recent budget negotiations, where the conversation has been almost solely about when budgets will balance and by how much they will reduce the debt. […]/p…

From Think Progress 

Leave it up to Think Progress to only report half of the story, which is why I only use them to gage what so-called Progressives (who aren’t very progressive) are thinking in America.

Michael Waldron only covered the discretionary side of the Federal budget. For anyone who that might sound like Greek who doesn’t speak Greek: the discretionary side of the Federal budget is non-national security and so-called entitlement spending. Things like infrastructure, research, education funding, and so-forth. Which is about half of the Federal budget. (Give or take)

According to Michael Waldron of Think Progress, the Federal budget has fallen over the last two years, which is true thanks to the Budget Control Act of 2011. But he didn’t take into account or report how much the Federal budget has grown overall since 2001.

When President Obama took office in 2009, the Federal budget represented around 22% of the American economy. Thats if you don’t include Afghanistan and Iraq, its much higher than that if you do. But the Bush Administration never bothered to put those wars on budget or pay for them.

What the Obama Administration along with their efforts to respond to the Great Recession with the American Recovery Act of 2009-10, they also put the wars on budget and the Affordable Care Act of 2010 on budget which was paid for. So I would argue that they were correct to increase the Federal budget over that period to deal with the economy and healthcare. And we’ve seen the benefits of both but Federal spending under President Obama went up in his first two years.

This is according to the Congressional Budget Office, when President Clinton left office in 2001: the Federal budget represented around twenty percent of the American economy. Under President Bush, we grew to twenty two percent thanks to Medicare Advantage, No Child Left Behind, Hurricane Katrina. But again if you include Afghanistan and Iraq it’s higher the 22%.

The last two years, the Federal budget has come down by roughly ten percent thanks to the Budget Control Act, but we are still at a higher level than we were in 2001, when the economy was still in good shape with more people working. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

MSNBC: ‘U.S. Senator Jon Tester Backs Marriage Equality’

Source:NBC News- U.S. Senator Jon Tester (Democrat, Montana)

“The march towards marriage equality among Democrats is quickly becoming a stampede. Sen. Jon Tester (D) of Montana posted this message to his Facebook page this.

The march towards marriage equality among Democrats is quickly becoming a stampede. Sen. Jon Tester (D) of Montana posted this message to his Facebook page this afternoon:

“Montanans believe in the right to make a good life for their families. How they define a family should be their business and their business alone. I’m proud to support marriage equality because no one should be able to tell a Montanan or any American who they can love and who they can marry.”

There are 55 members of the Senate Democratic caucus, and according to Time magazine’s count, 45 of them have now publicly announced their support for marriage equality. That’s obviously short of 100%, but given the recent push, unanimity appears inevitable.

It’s worth noting that Tester is a “red”-state Democrat who was narrowly re-elected last year, as was Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who also endorsed marriage equality the other day. Some other recent announcements have come from “red”-state Democrats — Virginia’s Mark Warner and Alaska’s Mark Begich — who announced their support for same-sex marriage before their re-election fights in 2014.”

From MSNBC

This is not actually that surprising, if you are familiar with the State of Montana. Montana gets stereotyped (especially by left-wing Democrats) as a hillbilly, backwards, right-wing, redneck state. And sure, there are folks like that in the State of Montana. But in actuality, Montana matches up very well with the other Mountain West and Northwest states in the country, as a more center-right, conservative-libertarian state. Where Democrats (if they’re not left-wing) get elected statewide there on a fairly regular basis. Just not at the presidential level. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The American Prospect: Christopher Ketcham: 'U.S. Out of Vermont'

Source:The American Prospect- Is there such a thing as Federalists, in the Socialist Republic of Vermont:

“Last September, about 60 Vermonters met in the chambers of the house of representatives in Montpelier to celebrate the state’s “independence spirit” and to discuss the goals of “environmental sustainability, economic justice, and Vermont self–determination.” The speaker of the house had given up the space free of charge for the one-day conference. First at the podium was a Princeton-educated yak farmer and professor of journalism named Rob Williams, one of the organizers of the event, who at 9 A.M. opened the proceedings by acknowledging what he called “some unpleasant and hard truths.” Amid the twin global crises of peak oil and climate change, the United States was “an out-of-control empire.” It was “unresponsive to the needs, concerns, and desires of ordinary citizens.”

Williams, who wore a T-shirt that said “U.S. Out of Vermont,” did not advocate revolution. He was looking for a divorce. He wanted Vermont to secede. “Nonviolent secession,” he said, “the detaching from empire and exercising our rights to independence, a deeply American right first expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is a right that demands re-exploration today.” Williams noted that Vermont is one of only three states, along with Texas and Hawaii, that ever existed as an independent republic-in Vermont’s case, from 1777 to 1791-and that as “a national leader on progressive political issues,” the state was “uniquely poised to lead this national conversation on self-determination.”

The murmuring response from the crowd suggested they’d heard it before. Williams and his fellow travelers-who constituted not quite a movement, he said, but more “a network of critical observers”-had been calling for separation from the U.S. since 2003. They had gathered in the ornate rooms of the state house to spread the word in 2005 and again in 2008 and now in 2012. Vermont had not yet separated, but the secessionists who were calling for a “Second Vermont Republic” had gained notoriety, and some small influence, across the state.”

Source:The American Prospect

What I respect about Vermont is that even though they are basically the Socialist Republic or State of Vermont (and I’m not as far to the left of them on economic policy, but I probably tend to agree with Vermonters on social issues) is that they represent socialism in it’s best form. A democratic form in the sense that they aren’t trying to run people’s personal lives. And they believe in a good deal of personal freedom, even economic freedom. That is they aren’t trying to takeover industries with the state and have the state run them, but that they believe in a generous welfare state or safety net. Combined with economic and personal freedom. But the perhaps the thing I respect about them the most is that they are Federalists in a leftist sense: “We like socialism, but we don’t want it coming from the Federal Government. We can govern ourselves.”

Vermont is the roadmap for national leftist democrats in other states in their quest (or fantasy) to transform America into a social democracy, a socialist-federalist roadmap. Which means:

a high deal of personal freedom as long as you aren’t hurting innocent people with what you are doing.

A high deal of economic freedom with things like property rights, you just have to pay high taxes on them to finance a generous welfare state. But that the State of Vermont would be doing these things for Vermonters, not Uncle Sam with its top-down, Washington knows best approach. And they also aren’t going to try to force Vermonters to live a certain way even for their own good. And give Vermonters the ability to make decisions and take risks with their own lives.

Social Democrats in America having been trying to transform America into a social democracy at least since the New Deal era. Thinking that centralize planning and control at the Federal level works in these European countries that means it will automatically work here as well. And that Americans will accept it even if they didn’t vote for it. What they don’t understand is that America is simply a hell of a lot bigger and more decentralize and more individualistic. And that top-down tends to not very popular, but gradually moving state by state like in Vermont, could accomplish what leftist democrats have been wanting all along, which is basically a social democracy in America. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Nation: Rick Perlstein: ‘Why a Democratic Majority Is Not Demographic Inevitability’

Source:The Nation- "Protestors rally against SB1070 immigration bill in Arizona in 2010. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin.)" Also from The Nation Magazine.

“In February, I wrote the first part in a promised series about why today’s political conventional wisdom—that, as Jonathan Chait put it “conservative America will soon come to be dominated, in a semi-permanent fashion, by an ascendant Democratic coalition hostile to its outlook and interests”—may be premature. I cleared the decks by pointing to all those other moments—in 1964, 1972, 1974 (and, I didn’t note, 1992)—when equally confident prognostications of permanent Democratic majorities came a cropper. This time, I take on the most conspicuous this-time-it’s-going-to-be different argument: that the white vote in presidential elections has gone from almost 90 percent in 1980 to about 70 percent in 2012; that there are 24 million Hispanics currently eligible to vote and there will be 40 million by 2030; and that only 27 percent of Hispanic voters chose Mitt Romney for president (chart here)—and so, abracadabra, Democrats Über Alles!

Now, it might hard for us to wrap our minds around a different way of seeing things in these days of Joe Arpaeio and Jan Brewer—and Susana Martinez, the Latina governor of New Mexico who promises to repeal her state’s law allowing undocumented immigrants to get driver’s licenses even though her own grandparents were undocumented immigrants. But, taking the long view—and isn’t that the whole point of this exercise?—it has to be acknowledged: party identities aren’t passed on through the genes. Blocs of “natural Democrats” have become natural Republicans before. Indeed, in at least one instance, it happened with shocking rapidity. As I noted last time, in the 1960s, droves of white Democrat ethnics—Italians, Eastern Europeans, the Irish—started voting Republican in a backlash against the Democrats’ continued embrace of civil rights in the wake of a failed open housing bill and the urban riots. Only an eye-blink earlier, they had been considered the soul of the New Deal coalition.”

Source:The Nation

The worst mistake that you can make in American politics is to assume that anything is permanent especially when you are ahead. Or to relax when you are ahead and not look to continue to improve and think you’ve reached the mountaintop and will never  be knocked off. The second biggest mistake is to assume your opponents are dead when they are down and you’ll be in power forever. And I have some examples of that.

In 1964 the Republican Party led by Barry Goldwater failed to even get 40% of the popular vote for President which is a hard thing to do in a two-man Presidential race. And Democrats added to their landslide majorities in Congress (House and Senate) leaving Congressional Republicans with around 145 seats in the House and thirty-two in the Senate. Congressional Republicans bounced back by 1966 and won back a lot of seats in both the House and Senate and thanks to Richard Nixon won back the White House in 1968.

The smart political play when you are up is to continue to drive forward and climb the hill even if you are already at the top. You find a bigger hill or mountain try to climb up that as well by building your own party. Understand why you have the power that you currently have and the new voters you picked up and why you are out-of-power in places where you can win back.

And I’m thinking of the U.S. House of Representatives where Republicans are still in charge there and at the state level where Republicans currently hold 30-50 Governorships and a solid majority of both legislatures and legislative members even in places like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. All Democratic states and in swing states like Florida and Virginia that both voted to reelect President Obama.

We now live in a liberal democratic country at least as far as social issues are concern. With a solid majority of Americans who believe in a good deal of personal freedom with government not interfering in our personal lives. Gay marriage and marijuana are perfect examples of that and something Liberal

Democrats need to capitalize on the support for more personal freedom in America, but a social liberal message alone won’t be enough to win back the U.S. House and states like Virginia, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin ,all states where Democrats should do well there especially with our new voters.

Democrats are going to need a center-left, progressive economic message as well that’s about opportunity, freedom and responsibility and expanding those things to Americans who currently don’t have them for the Democratic Party to do as well as it can and should.

I’m happy that President Obama was reelected and reelected in an electoral landslide and that Senate Democrats not only held their majority, but added to it. But we still have plenty of work to do like taking back the U.S. House and giving the Democrats complete control of Congress again and winning back some state houses and legislatures so there aren’t as many Republican looking House districts in Democratic leaning states. Time to be happy, but never be completely satisfied. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Salon Magazine: David Sirota: 'How to Turn a State Liberal'

Source:Salon Magazine- Colorado Governor David Hickenlooper.

“As Colorado goes, so goes the nation. With the culture and demographics of the Intermountain West so rapidly changing, this motto about my home state has become conventional wisdom in national electoral politics, and for good reason. After all, the square state is the capital of the so-called Rocky Mountain Empire, a region that is fast becoming the political equivalent of a test market for the whole country. And if it is true that the way Colorado goes is the way the nation as a whole goes, then America better get ready for some extremely large changes.

Part of Colorado’s story of change comes from the statehouse where Democrats control both the governor’s office and both chambers of the Legislature. But as much of the story comes from outside the Capitol, where organic grass-roots uprisings are obliterating old political assumptions.

For decades, this was a state whose electoral topography was reliable Republican and whose politics was dominated by an unholy coalition of cultural conservatives and oil and gas interests. In the 1980s and 1990s, it became the national conservative movement in a microcosmic petri dish, passing socially conservative constitutional amendments and a so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights aimed at pulverizing the public sector.”

From Salon Magazine

I have this wild notion that David Sirota’s notion of what liberal and liberalism are, is a lot different than what mine are. Perhaps that’s because he writes for Salon Magazine, which is made of up New-Left columnists, people who are closeted Socialists, but in some cases are self-described Democratic Socialists. So maybe what I should talk about here is how to turn a state Democratic, especially Center-Left Democratic and make it more progressive, not socialist.

It’s changing demographics, not just ethnically and racially, but culturally and regionally, that’s reshaping the Democratic and Republican parties in America. The country, especially the West like Colorado, is becoming more urban and suburban. While you have a Republican Party that’s becoming more rural, Anglo-Saxon, more Protestant, especially fundamentalist Protestant, older, more male, more blue-collar.

While the Democratic Party has been reaching out to Latino-Americans since the 1990s, at least, you have a Republican Party with a strong faction in it calling those Americans Un-American and invaders. So we’re seeing more Latinos move to the Democratic Party, from the Republican Party, because they feel more welcome in the Democratic Party.

I’m not sure the country is changing so much ideologically, even though we’re seeing a higher percentage of Americans support more personal freedom as it relates to same-sex-marriage, marijuana, gambling, the right to privacy in general, as well as free speech.

I think the real changes have to do with racial, ethnic, and regional demographics, with one party meaning the Democratic Party embracing the New America, while the Republican Party is still trying to take us back to the 1950s culturally, racially, and ethnically.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

AlterNet: Chris Hedges: 'Gulag Nation USA'

Source:AlterNet- columnist Chris Hedges.

"If, as Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote, “the degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons” then we are a nation of barbarians. Our vast network of federal and state prisons, with some 2.3 million inmates, rivals the gulags of totalitarian states. Once you disappear behind prison walls you become prey. Rape. Torture. Beatings. Prolonged isolation. Sensory deprivation. Racial profiling. Chain gangs. Forced labor. Rancid food. Children imprisoned as adults. Prisoners forced to take medications to induce lethargy. Inadequate heating and ventilation. Poor health care. Draconian sentences for nonviolent crimes. Endemic violence.

Bonnie Kerness and Ojore Lutalo, both of whom I met in Newark, N.J., a few days ago at the office of American Friends Service Committee Prison Watch, have fought longer and harder than perhaps any others in the country against the expanding abuse of prisoners, especially the use of solitary confinement. Lutalo, once a member of the Black Liberation Army, an offshoot of the Black Panthers, first wrote Kerness in 1986 while he was a prisoner at Trenton State Prison, now called New Jersey State Prison. He described to her the bleak and degrading world of solitary confinement, the world of the prisoners like him held in the so-called management control unit, which he called “a prison within a prison.” Before being released in 2009, Lutalo was in the management control unit for 22 of the 28 years he served for the second of two convictions—the first for a bank robbery and the second for a gun battle with a drug dealer. He kept his sanity, he told me, by following a strict regime of exercising in his tiny cell, writing, meditating and tearing up newspapers to make collages that portrayed his prison conditions."

From the AlterNet 

Prisons are for to protect the innocent from people who've hurt them and would do it again, intentionally or unintentionally. The original punishment for being in prison is the lost of freedom and going through strict security requirements, like keeping weapons out of the prison. But prisons aren't supposed to be torture chambers especially in a liberal democracy and even for people who are serving life in prison. But there to keep criminals behind bars until they've paid their debt and society, as well as showing they can be successful legally once they are out of prison. Prisons should be a productive place for the staff, the inmates where they can benefit from their time behind bars, that benefits society, as well but prisons most importantly should benefit the people who pay for them.

So a productive prison system would be  a system where people enter as criminals but leave as people with the skills to succeed successfully on the outside. And now have given up their criminal careers because they simply no longer need to be criminals in order to survive and no longer want to hurt people.

For prisons to be successful, it means having rules that protects the staff as well as inmates and sanctions for inmates as well as staff for when they break the rules. But not torture, but you broke a rule and there's a price to pay for that but we aren't going to do anything to you to make you worst than you already are. That even includes solitary confinement for inmates who attack other inmates and staff. But isolation should be there to make those inmates better, not to torture them and make them harder to deal with.

So in a humane prison, inmates are following the rules, making good use of their time by educating themselves and using those skills to get a good job while in prison but doing a good job in prison. Contributing to their cost of living and even to their victims and family and once they leave prison they now have the skills to succeed on the outside.

You can also see this post on WordPress.