The Real News Network: Paul Jay- 'Is Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialism, Socialism?'

Source:The Real News Network- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat

"Sanders says that medicare for all, a living wage, and other reforms is the socialism that’s possible, but is he too reserved on strengthening public ownership? - with Jacqueline Luqman, Eugene Puryear, Norman Solomon and host Paul Jay"

Source:Fortune Magazine- U.S Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont: speaking at Georgetown 

From The Real News Network

Source:C-SPAN- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont: speaking at Georgetown in 2015

Apparently we need and the people from the so-called Real News Network need a refresher course on Socialists and socialism, because there are Socialists and then there are Socialists and none of these factions are the same as the other except when it comes to Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats. Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats, are the same faction.

Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats both believe in a democratic form of socialism or socialist form of democracy and neither wants to eliminate the private enterprise or even capitalism. They just want the national government to provide the people's workers benefits. Things like health care, health insurance, pension, child care, education, etc. Services that a country like America you would get those services from the private sector, or at the very least would have the option in getting those services from the private sector.

Senator Bernie Sanders, believes in democratic socialism/social democracy. He's not looking to government to come in and close down private business's ( except for perhaps health insurers and hospitals ) or have government come into people's homes and other properties and kick people out and have the properties taken over by the government.

Under a Bernie Sanders Administration if a President Sanders had his way let's say, the private sector in America would remain in place, but the public sector at least at the Federal level would be a lot larger. Trillions of dollars would be added to the Federal public sector every year in new social programs and in expansions in current Federal social programs, but the private sector would remain in place.

I'm not explaining this because I'm a fan of Senator Sanders, because I'm not even though I respect his candor and honesty, but to explain his own politics so people know what they're getting when they hear about Socialist Bernie Sanders. He doesn't represent the Communist or Marxist wing of socialism and looking to turn America into a gigantic Cuba, but instead if he had his way America would become like a gigantic Sweden or gigantic Scandinavia. Where the national government would be a lot larger and more expensive, taxes on everyone would be a lot higher, but the national government would provide a lot more social services and individuals would still own their own properties.

The Real News: Paul Jay Interviewing Peter Kuznick- 'Undoing The New Deal'

Source:The Real News- President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat, New York) 32nd President of the United States.

Source:The New Democrat

I actually agree with Paul Jay on something here. ( For a change ) President Franklin Roosevelt, his Administration and Congress, didn't create a socialist economic system in America for good reasons. They left the American capitalist system in place but added regulations to it, as well as creating a public safety net in America which is the New Deal. FDR and the Democratic Congress's back then didn't even create a social democratic system where workers get most if not all their employment benefits like pensions, health care, etc, from the national government but where business is in private hands. But a public social insurance system that people could collect from when they're out-of-work, or don't have the skills that they need to get themselves a good job and aren't able to pay their bills. As well as Social Security for people who don't have a pension or a big enough pension.

If you look back at it now and I would argue if you look at this in the 1930s, the New Deal was actually the centrist approach compared with what was also on the table and being offered in response to the New Deal. You have Hoover Conservatives and Libertarians arguing that the Federal Government shouldn't do anything in response to the Great Depression. And you had Socialists in some cases Democratic Socialists, as well as Communists who were arguing that the American capitalist system was the problem. And what should be done instead is to start nationalizing private industries, along with a socialist welfare state to provide workers the benefits that they had been getting from the private sector in the past. What FDR did was save the American capitalist system but make it better and stronger than it was before the Great Depression.

In President Roosevelt's last term he moved further left on economic policy and became more interested in expanding the New Deal to create the Scandinavian social democratic welfare state. When he proposed his economic bill of rights that would've put the Federal Government in charge of guaranteeing workers benefits for all American workers. But what he was able to get passed into law as President was the New Deal which wasn't a welfare system, but and insurance system for people to collect from, but only when they need it. Similar to how Americans use their auto insurance when their car is in an accident. But not to help them pay their everyday bills. FDR was a Progressive because he was very pragmatic in how believed government should respond to problems in the country. But didn't govern in a way that would've put government in charge to solving every problem that every American ever faced.
Source:The Real News

The Real News: Paul Jay Interviewing Peter Kuznick: 'Undoing The New Deal: The 1944 Coup Against Vice President Henry Wallace'

Source: The Real News- Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace & President Franklin Roosevelt. 

Source:The New Democrat

The division between in the Democratic Party between the Hillary Clinton, even though I don't believe she's that strong of a Democratic leader anymore, but her New Democratic Theodore Roosevelt progressive wing of the party and the Bernie Sanders social democratic wing of Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists, is not new. Which might be the only thing that I agree with Paul Jay and Peter Kuznick on.

There were Socialists in the Democratic Party in the 1930s and the 1940s which was a Dixiecrat party with some Northern Progressives led by Franklin Roosevelt, but there were people even further left than FDR and his wing of the Democratic Party led by Democratic Socialist Henry Wallace who was President Roosevelt's Vice President from 1941-45. But there were also Neo-Confederate right-wing Dixiecrat Democrats who represented the Bible Belt South of the Democratic Party. That fought against desegregation, civil rights laws, and even the New Deal, but supported President Roosevelt's liberal internationalist anti-Communist foreign policy.

The extremely unfortunate assassination of President John Kennedy, is where you see the Democratic Party change. The Democratic Party up until the 1980s or so was never a pure left-wing party that was dominated by Social Democrats. They always had a Far-Left which was made up of Socialists, but they also had a Center-Left of JFK Liberal Democrats and the FDR Progressives. And I mean liberal and progressive both in the classical and real sense. Not the stereotypical sense of someone who believes in big government across the board and doesn't believe in national defense or law enforcement and sees individualism and freedom as dangerous. But liberal and progressive in the sense as people who believe in individual rights, equal rights, and progress.

The 1960s and 1970s is where you see the old Henry Wallace New-Left Socialist wing of the Democratic Party come to life. Thanks to the Baby Boomers growing up and becoming very politically active. And they were so powerful in the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s that Senator George McGovern (the Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialist of his generation) wins the Democratic Party presidential nomination. Gets trounced by President Richard Nixon, but that is only because there weren't a lot of Socialists in America back in the early 1970s.

The Democratic Party is exactly that. People who believe in democracy. In some cases that means liberal democracy, the JFK Liberal Democrats which is the wing of the party I'm from. But you also have Democrats who believe in social democracy and democratic socialism. Which is the wing that Bernie Sanders now leads, that Henry Wallace led in the 1940s and George McGovern led in the 1970s. But the Democratic Party has never been a purely liberal democratic party or social democratic party and pre-1960s or so the Democratic Party was a Dixiecrat Neo-Confederate party. Which is one reason why the Democratic Party has always been fairly divided.
Source:The Real News

The Real News: Jessica Desvarieux: Decriminalization vs. Legalization of Marijuana

Source:The New Democrat

As a Marylander, if I was a member of the State Assembly, House or Senate, I would've voted for the marijuana decriminalization bill  because that was the only good option.  We could either continue the prohibition of marijuana or decriminalize possession so that people caught  with ten grams or less would pay a fine instead of going to jail.  This was a good bill because it diminished the so-called War on Drugs, both in Maryland and the United States.

Marijuana decriminalization is a good first step in Maryland and the best the Assembly could do this year.  Next year, Maryland will have a new Assembly and governor.  They will have the opportunity to see how marijuana decriminalization is working and consider possible next steps.

2014 is a general election year for the Maryland Assembly and governor's office.  I believe that the legal status of marijuana will be an issue in all of these races.  

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

Source:The New Democrat

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

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

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

The Real News Network: Jeff Cohen: Preaching to The Choir

Source:The Real News Network inside The Situation Room at The White House.

"Jeff Cohen: Illusions about Obama and the myth of the need for bipartisanship are reasons why progressives and liberals must have a vigorous debate - there really is no choir." 

From The Real News

I think Paul Jay makes a good point here when he says that there really isn't any one position on anything, at least as far as what to actually do and what the final policy should be, on any given issue that's debated in America, on the Left (or as I would call it, the Far-Left of American Socialists) in America. 

But, when you only talk to yourself and I'm talking about people who already tend to agree with you on the major political issues, and you are buried in the minority politically, even in your own political party (which is where the Far-Left is in the Democratic Party) you are not going to move forward. You either have to convince members of your own party that are more moderate than you, that they're simply wrong, or you have to moderate your own positions, if you want to accomplish anything politically.

The Real News: 'Breaking Up The Big Banks is Not a Solution'

Source:The Real News Network with a look at the American private banking industry.

"Leo Panitch: Global capitalism needs massive banks, but big private banks have the power to prevent regulation and threaten more crisis; the solution is not breaking them up but making them public." 

From The Real News Network

Paul Jay and Leo Paitich are literally talking about nationalizing the American banking industry. They're arguing that the only way to save the banking industry, is to make them part of the U.S. Government, owned by the U.S. Government. 

You think private big banks are too big to fail now, make them part of the U.S. Government. Right now every Federal agency that Americans have to have for their lives to be as good and as secure are possible, whether it's defense or the regulatory state, is too big to fail. 

The Socialist answer to every problem not just in America, but the rest of the world, is always a bigger government, especially a bigger national government.

The Real News: Socialists Sweep Venezuelan State Elections As President Chavez Recovers in Cuba

Source:The Real News- left to right: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez & Vice President Nicolas Maduro.

"Greg Wilpert: It's likely Chavez will not remain in office and Maduro will head into elections" 

From The Real News

It's easy to win elections for the Chavez Socialists in Venezuela when the Chavez Administration prevents the Liberal Democratic opposition from getting their message out to the people and being the real opposition. 

The Real News: Paul Jay- Interviewing Bill Black: 'Drums Beating to Privatize Social Security'

Source:The Real News Network- TRNN., talking about Social Security reform.

"Bill Black: A group of Democrats called "The Third Way" are working with President Obama towards the "grand betrayal" on social security."

From The Real News Network

I'm not for full privatization of Social Security. I want to guarantee all money thats paid into it to be paid out to the people who paid into it once they retire, meaning I wouldn't allow workers to take money out of current payroll taxes to invest in their own Individual Retirement Account or IRA. But what I am in favor of is what's called Social Security Plus, something that Congressional Democrats proposed about ten years ago.

Under Social Security Plus, current payroll taxes the way they are as it relates to Social Security, but allow workers to voluntarily increase their own payroll taxes by let's say an additional three percentage points to let's say 9%, where they could take 1/3 of that which would be matched by their employer. If they work for themselves , then they could increase their own payroll taxes by 6% and people could use this money to create their own IRA out of Social Security Plus, to invest as they see fit through another job or other investments, stock market and so-forth. Tax free but they wouldn't be allowed to spend any of that money until they are eligible to retire.

We have two problems as I see it as it relates to Social Security: a long-term funding issue with Social Security. And a problem with our pension system where Social Security is still being depended on to keep retirees out of poverty. Where what we could be doing instead is empowering people to set up their own pensions and be able to retire more comfortably. So we don't have so many people on Social Security in the future who can't live without it.

The Real News: Phyllis Bennis: 'Sanctions Against Iranian Banks is Economic Warfare'

Source:The Real News Network with a look at American & European sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

"Phyllis Bennis: Excluding Iranian banks from the SWIFT system of interbank transfers helped cause a devaluation of Iranian currency and great hardship for ordinary people." 

From The Real News

If you are familiar with the term collateral damage, you know the consequences of economic sanctions. When a rogue state, like the Islamic Republic of Iran, is sponsoring private terrorists organizations, that target the West, you have to expect the European Union, United Kingdom, and the United States, are going to have real issues with that and will respond with real consequences against that rogue regime. 

When a rogue regime first decides whether to not to take action, like sponsoring private terrorists groups, to hit western targets, or western allies in the Middle East, they first decide if their regime, not the people, can afford the negative reactions that will come from their sponsorship of terrorism. 

Phyllis Bennis is right about one key point here: it's not the Iranian theocratic regime that's suffering from western sanctions against Iran. It's the people that are suffering from the bad decisions of their own government (as I would put it) and the international sanctions that have come as a result. But the Iranian regime probably already took into the costs of their sponsorship of terrorism, before they decided to do that and decided it was worth it for their regime, even if their people can't afford it.

The Real News: Paul Jay & Robert Pollin: 'The Full Employment Debate'

Source:The Real News Network- talking about full employment.

"Bob Pollin, author of Back to Full Employment, begins a series examining whether full employment is possible and how to get there." 

From The Real News Network

To jump into this discussion with Paul Jay and Robert Pollin: my definition of full employment, is 0% unemployment. Which means that every adult and juvenile in America who wants or needs a job, any job, has a job. 

But to achieve full employment, you might as well wipe out poverty and cancer, and perhaps get started on wiping out racism and sexism, while you are at it. Hopefully Santa Clause is having a slow year and can help you out with that, because that's what it would take to eliminate all of these negative conditions in society.

But what I think Robert Pollin is actually talking about, is acceptable unemployment. When unemployment and poverty are down, (and he pointed to the 1990s) the economy is much better, because a lot of people are not just working, but earning a good living as well. 

At risk at sounding conservative: when the national debt and deficit is low, at least compared with the size of the economy, the economy is much better as well, because the government is borrowing less or perhaps not borrowing at all, like in the late 1990s, which means real interest rates and inflation are also low, which makes everything that we consume in society, as well as borrowing in the private sector, a lot cheaper. 

But again, I think the real discussion is here, is low unemployment, versus high unemployment. As well as good jobs, versus jobs that people only take, when that's the best available job for them and perhaps they have to take another job as well, just to survive financially.

The Real News: Paul Jay & Gerald Friedman: 'How To Pay For Single Payer Health Insurance'

Source:The Real News- talking about a proposed government-run health insurance plan in Maryland.

"Gerald Friedman Pt 3 of "What a Single Payer Health Insurance Plan Looks Like" 

From The Real News

If there is anything that I like and respect about Gerald Friedman's health care plan for Maryland, is that he's honest about it. He's not one of these partisan leftists whose saying that we need free health care now and that government should give it to us, without having any idea how to pay for it. Friedman acknowledges publicly, that of course government-run health insurance wouldn't be free. It would have to paid for, probably through payroll taxes. 

I think I've been clear that I'm not in favor of a government-run health insurance plan, at least as the only option to pay for health care in this country. If states want to do that, they can do that, if they can get a plan passed and into law and find a way to pay for it themselves. 

I'm not in favor of government only health insurance plans for multiple reasons:

all the examples of government-run only health insurance plans, comes from countries that are very small and simply don't have the diversity and economy that we do. America is not the only even large country in the world with private health care systems. Just look at Germany, look at France, look at Japan, just a few examples. 

Not every person, let alone every country is the same. The larger the country, the more the people, the more options and choice that individuals have to have, in order to have the most efficient health care system. You put everyone on the same plan in a large country, now government is the only option not just for insurance, but now health care, because only the national government would get to decide what health care people can have, because only they get to decide what would be paid for. 

The other part of the Friedman plan that has a big hole in it, is one way that it would be paid for. It would not just eliminate a major personal responsibility component out of the existing health care system in Maryland (a state where I grew up and still live) by charging people for their health care based on their income, instead of the health care that they receive. Which means we would be incentivizing low-income people to live unhealthy, because they would always be taken care of by taxpayers with means. They wouldn't have to cover the costs of their own poor decisions. 

The Friedman plan would also be de-incentivizing people to earn a good living in a state where the cost of living is already pretty high, because of the high quality of life in Maryland and all the wealthy and well-educated people in this state, because you would be telling them even if they're very healthy, that they would now have to pay more for their health care, simply because they have means. 

So, no, I couldn't support this plan. But more importantly it will never pass in a state like Maryland, even with a Democratic Governor in Martin O'Malley, with a Assembly that has a House and Senate, that both have larger than 2/3 majorities, because most Maryland Democrats even, aren't left-wing Democrats and they would know the problems with the Friedman plan as well.

The Real News: Paul Jay Interviewing Gar Alperovitz: 'Is Public Ownership the Solution?'

Source:The Real News- with a look at state ownership of the economy.

"Gar Alperovitz: When it comes to banking and other critical sectors, public ownership is the only solution" 

From The Real News

What they're talking about in this video are the big banks in America. With Gar Alperovitz arguing that the big banks in America are too big, that eventually the U.S. Government will have no choice but to nationalize them, because they're too big to regulate and are too important to let fail. That's simply not true. 

If banks become too big, there are two big things that government could do to solve that problem: you break them and create more competition and pass a law that says banks can control no more than this percentage of the banking market. And you force them to buy bankruptcy and financial insurance, so when they're facing financial difficulties, they don't get taxpayer funded bailouts, but instead collect from their insurance that they pay into, to get them through their crisis. 

My only other point here is that Gar Alperovitz was throwing around socialist, liberal, and progressive, as if they're all the same things, when he was talking about government nationalizing the big banks in America. 

The fact is the basic, classical definition of socialist (at least) is someone who believes in nationalizing private property and state ownership of property, at least as it relates to the economy, 

A Progressive is someone who believes in progress. Not the same thing as Socialist. 

A Liberal is someone who believes in liberal democracy and the individual rights that come with liberal democracy. Basically the opposite of state ownership of private property.

The Real News: Paul Jay: 'Barack Obama's Education Policy'

Source:The Real News- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) apparently visiting a public school.

"First in a three part series about education policy in the US Presidential elections" 

From The Real News

Very early on back in 2009 in the Obama Administration, President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan concluded that the 2001-02 bipartisan education reform bill that President Bush pushed through Congress called No Child Left Behind, wasn't working and was in much need of reform or even be scrapped.

Part of the 2009 American Recovery Act, the President put in a provision called Race To The Top, which is the Obama Administration's version of No Child Left Behind. Which rewards certain school districts and states for meeting certain educational standards with new funding and deny them funds when they don't. In other words: awarding good schools and punishing low-performing schools.  

It's understandable why teacher unions and the left-wing in America would not like this, because it would cost them jobs and that means money. Because low-performing teachers and schools would essentially be fired for not doing their jobs, which is to educate our students. But if you want a free society, which I believe most Americans still do want, you need an educated society. That means having as many people as possible in America to be able to read, write, do math, etc, at grade level or better.

The Real News: Paul Jay Interviewing Margaret Flowers: 'Supreme Court Sides With Corporatization of Medicine'

Source:The Real News- with a look at SCOTUS & the ACA.

"Dr. Flowers: Decision strengthens the role of private insurance companies and makes the fight for Medicare for All more difficult" 

From The Real News

As I said yesterday on FreeState MD, what Dr. Margaret Flowers doesn't seem to have a problem  with, if the Affordable Care Act was thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court today, 20 million Americans would ,lose the health insurance that they have today and we would go back to pre-2010, that left out 45-50 million Americans without health insurance. With no replacement available or able to pass the Congress (House & Senate) signed by President of the United States, whether that's President Barack Obama today, or perhaps a President Mitt Romney next year. 

I can understand someone being against a law or policy, but to throw out a current law simply you don't like it, that currently benefits 300 plus million Americans, with no ability to pass a new law simply because you don't have the political support and votes for it, you are hurting people (even unintentionally) to try to save them in the future. 

Dr, Flowers and her supporters are essentially telling a country of 300 hundred plus Americans that even though you like what you currently have, since we think it's not good for you, we're going to take it away from you now and perhaps give you something better and different down the line. Even though in the meantime they have to go back to a system where they couldn't afford health care that they need now. 

The Real News: David Daugherty: 'In Chicago, Nurses Rally For Robin Hood Tax'

Source:The Real News- covering a pro-Robin Hood Tax really in Chicago.

"National Nurses United calls for international campaign for financial transaction tax"

Source:The Real News

This week so-called Progressives (organized labor, and other socialist organizations, really) will be rallying in Chicago in favor of new tax hikes. Actually, rallying for tax hikes and no not in Sweden, but in America. Only Socialists pay taxes with smiles on their faces and consider Tax Day to be a holiday worth celebrating. As well as protesting against NATO and the G8, the group of developed nations in the World. Not rallying for tax hikes, because they are concern about the Federal debt and deficit, now 16T$ and 1.8T$ respectfully. But to pass a tax hike, to do the things that Socialists (to be real) are always stereotyped as and for good reason, as tax and spenders.

Socialists believe government can spend people's money better than the people who make the money. You probably won't see the President or any other Democratic leader at these rallies and for good reason, they don't want to be linked with them. The so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus (another way of saying Democratic Socialists of America) and others who believe in this fiscal policy, may be there, but they agree with this strategy and can afford to be seen supporting it, because they represent for the most part, only people who tend to agree with them. They represent House districts, (not states) and they don't have to campaign in Florida or Illinois, just a section of those states.

These rallies will be calling for a global financial tax on corporations, that do business on Wall Street. Handing over American independence to make these decisions for ourselves and giving this power to the United Nations or World Bank, or some international organization. 

I understand the need for Socialists  to organize and get out there and lay out exactly what they believe. And I respect them for that. They are Big Government Democratic Socialists and are proud of it, who believe in democratic socialism. But they also represent a lot of the negative stereotypes of the Democratic Party, that cost the Democratic Party 5-6 Presidential Elections from 1968-88. That Bill Clinton worked so hard to erase and to tell Americans that we are a center-left progressive party. But they are not a socialist party, looking to tax people so much, that there isn't much left for Americans to do on their own.

Had these so-called progressive organizations gotten together to call for a new tax on Corporate America, so that they and the wealthy pay their fair share in deficit reduction, then they would have a broader base to speak to. And people who don't think exactly like them would get behind that and they could broaden their base. But when you call for tax hikes, for more tax and spending , you just feed into the stereotypes of tax and spend Socialists.

The Real News: Paul Jay- Paul Weeks: 'A Deeper Crisis is Coming, We Must Control the Banks'

Source:The Real News- New York City: the Capital of Corporate America. I guess NYC isn't as left-wing as it gets blamed for.

"John Weeks: Obama gave the banks time to rally opposition to severe regulations; another banking collapse is on the way." 

From The Real News 

We'll never nationalize the banking system in America. Thats a socialist pipe dream that so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) will never accomplish. Nor should we because the Federal Government doesn't do a very good job of what it's runs now. Besides, the banking system represents too much of the American economy, so that would never happen. 

Give the Feds the banking system one day, then they can get the auto industry the next day, airline industry the next day and so on, making the United States look like the Soviet Union which never had a very strong economy, despite its population, land, and educated class, but we can have a much better banking system in America. 

It's not illegal in America to be a Socialist or even a Marxist, it's just very unpopular. (Regardless of whatever Millennial polling suggests) If nationalizing huge chunks of the American economy whether you're talking about health care, banking, autos, pensions, whatever it might be, if you believe nationalization is what's needed to get the American economy back to strong health, then how come you just won't come out of your political closet and admit that you're a Socialist, or even a Marxist-Socialist, because nationalization is what Marxist-Socialists have always believed in and still do.

The Real News: Paul Jay- Thom Hartmann on Barack Obama (2009)

Source:The Real News- left-wing radio talk show host Thom Hartmann, talking about President Barack H. Obama.

"Radio show host Thom Hartmann on the critique of Obama. More at:The Real News." 

From The Real News

As Thom Hartmann says in this interview, Barack Obama is not what the left-wing (to be kind) in America calls a Movement Progressive. Which is someone that not only believe in progress and that government can play a constructive role in American life and even in the economy, but someone who wants to radically change the face of American government and even change our form of government. 

What American leftists call Movement Progressives, the rest of the developed world calls Social Democrats or even Socialists. But because of the negative stereotypes that come from Socialist and socialism in America, because of the Cold War, as well as Communists and communism, American leftists live by Progressive or Liberal, because they're generally terrified of being known as Socialists in America. 

Barack Obama wasn't a so-called Movement Progressive when he ran for President in 2007-08, or when he was in the Senate. Mr. Obama comes from the Bill Clinton-Robert F. Kennedy faction of the party, people who are the real Progressive Democrats of the party. Which is different from the Democratic Socialist wing of the party, that Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders essentially leads today. That Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader (if he was still a Democrat) the so-called Progressive Caucus and others in the party, that want to make America like Europe.

The Real News: Paul Jay- Ed Schultz on Barack Obama (2009)

Source:The Real News- left-wing talk show host Ed Schulz, speaking to Paul Jay about President Barack Obama, in 2009.

"Schultz: If the President waivers on public health care and jobs, he could be a 'one term wonder'

From The Real News 

Ed Schultz sounding very practical and pragmatic about his analysis about President Barack Obama (the pragmatic Progressive: if you will) and arguing that President Obama inherited a huge mess in 2009 and he's doing the best with the hand that was dealt to him and that he's made real progress so far. Talking about the Recover Act and SCHIP. (State Children's Health Insurance Program) Which is what you generally don't get from left-wing political commentators in America, especially about President Barack Obama. 

What you got from Paul Jay in this interview was the usual Far-Left talking points that President Obama is simply not doing enough, that he's not progressive enough (which is code for not socialist enough) and arguing that Democrats have The White House and Congress with large majorities in both the House and Senate and that Democrats should be doing a lot more. That they're not left-wing enough. 

Generally when you get a discussion like this between two leftists when they're talking about mainstream Democrats, is they are both talking like Democrats are selling them out or screwing them over and they're really just moderate Republicans. (To paraphrase Noam Chomsky) What you get here is one of the leftists (Paul Jay) essentially arguing that the Democrats aren't left enough, with Ed Schultz showing some real patience and practicality. 

The Real News: Paul Jay- Thom Hartmann On Leftist Democrats (2009)

Source:The Real News- left-wing talk show host Thom Hartmann, on the left-wing in America, in and outside of the Democratic Party.

"Radio show host Thom Hartman on progressives and the Democratic Party." 

From The Real News 

To put it simply and to risk sounding insulting to leftists (Socialists and Communists) but to pick up on what Thom Hartmann was talking about the difference between leftist-Democrats and rightist-Democrats: is that Republicans regardless of political ideology believe in wealth, individual success, and money. When the right-wing (or Far-Right) of the Republican Party wants something, they organize, they raise a hell of a lot money, because they know how to get it and where to get and then recruit candidates and people who are already in office to deliver on whatever their platform at the time says and wants.  

Leftists tend to be hipsters and hippies from the 1960s who are so antiestablishment, that they believe getting involved with the establishment (meaning government and politics) only feeds the beast and the man (as they would put it) and they believe they have better things to do. 

And again we're talking about Socialists by enlarge, who don't know where to go to get the money that it would take to put together a political movement or organization, that's even big enough to take on the mainstream establishment in the Democratic Party, or form a leftist party that could at some point compete with the Democratic Party. 

Plus, again we're talking about leftists (meaning Socialists) and they just don't access to the big donors that they would need to back their movement to take over an organization as large as the Democratic Party in America, because wealthy people, especially Democrats don't believe in what the Far-Left wants to do and is trying to accomplish. 

Rich Democrats love their freedom, wealth, and lifestyles, and don't want big government taking that away from them. Especially the so-called Hollywood Leftists who talk like Socialists, but live like liberal-democratic, capitalists.