Thom Hartmann: Shane Brooks- 'From Tea Party to Coffee to Democracy'

Source:Thom Hartmann- talking to Shane Brooks, about the Coffee Party.

"Thom talks to Shane Brooks, a reformed Tea Party member, Whiskey With My Coffee on his transition from Tea Party to Coffee Party to Democracy 2.0." 

From Thom Hartmann

When the Tea Party started off it had a very clear message: the Federal Government spends too much, its too big, we have to get the debt and deficit under control. They were also anti-corporate bailouts and had very strong libertarian leanings and didn't care about social issues. 

The Tea Party movement before the Christian-Right hijacked it, was a conservative-libertarian movement. But then the Michele Bachmann's, Sarah Palin's, Herman Cain's of the world merged with them. Which continued to push a certain fiscal policy message, but still likes corporate welfare and brought back social issues and brought back the politics if you disagree with me then you're not a real American. And went back to being anti-muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-gay go down the line (if you have way too much time on your hands) including anti-pornography, and anti-adultery. 

Now the so-called Tea Party is trying to make anything that they don't like illegal just because they don't like it and trying to tell people how to live their own lives. The original version of the Tea Party with the libertarian leanings I respected as a Liberal, even though my approach on these issues is much different. The original version of the Tea Party had a chance to become a major political movement in American politics and perhaps even be able to merge with the Libertarian movement. 

But this new theocratic Tea Party will go no farther than the Christian-Right and be seen as another fringe movement in American politics, because Americans especially independent voters don't tend to like big government authoritarianism.

Back in late 2009 early 2010 and they didn't get started early enough to be a major factor in the 2010 mid- term elections. Just look at the Ed Schultz rally, I believe in October 2010. Another movement began to come from the Democratic Party calling themselves the Coffee Party. That was what I would describe as the democratic socialist (or social democratic) version of the Conservative-Libertarian Tea Party. That saw their role as to defend the American welfare state especially during deficit reduction. And if anything expand the welfare state and use government to promote so-called progressive policy's to create jobs in America. When you have 9.2% unemployment, no better time than to try to create jobs. 

I don't see the Coffee Party becoming much of a factor in the Democratic Party to create positive change in as far as winning elections and taking back the House of Representatives. 

The Coffee Party is not big enough and there are not enough of them in Congress. The so-called House Progressive Caucus (Democratic Socialists and DSA members, in actuality) are 40 members (give or take) and maybe 5-10 in the Senate. If they were to decide to take on Democratic members of Congress in an election year when the economy will probably still be weak or worst take on the President with their own candidate, Democrats will lose everywhere, they'll have a hard enough time getting reelected on their own. 

If the Republican Party nominates Mitt Romney for President and the economy is still weak, President Obama will have a hard enough time getting reelected. Because the election will be about his record.

What the Coffee Party can contribute to the Democratic Party in a positive way, is recruiting House and Senate candidates where the incumbents are Republican. Which I believe will get the Democratic base out to vote for Democrats whoever the candidate is, as well as the get out to vote operations for the fall. To get as many Democrats to vote as possible. 

Otherwise you'll see another divided Democratic Party, just like 1988, 84, 80, 72 and 68 that loses in a landslide to Republicans in Congress and the White House: "United we stand, divided we fall."

Peter DeFazio: 'Let All The Bush Tax Cuts Expire'

Source:CNN Politics- President George W. Bush (Republican, Texas) 43rd President of the United States.

"Democrat Peter DeFazio of Oregon mocked Republicans in the House. "Let all the Bush tax cuts expire!" DeFazio said. "That's 4 trillion dollars. It's not too complicated! It would take us back to those bad old Clinton years when rich people paid taxes. The 'job creators,' they call them," he said in a mocking voice. "They can't make the 'job creators' pay taxes -- it will ruin the economy!' "  

From CNN Politics 

"DeFazio on the Bush Tax Cuts and the budget" 

Source:U.S. Representative Peter DeFazio (Democrat, Oregon) speaking on the floor of the U.S. House about President Bush's tax cuts.

From Peter DeFazio

I'm a little reluctant to criticize Representative Peter Defazio even in a constructive way, because he's one of the most articulate, honest and humorous members of Congress, in both chambers and both parties. (Which is like saying someone is the best ballet dancer in Wichita) And if he ever got around to running statewide in Oregon, I believe he would get elected and I would support him. But he's dead wrong as far as letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire even on the middle class. 

I believe the main reason and its certainly a reason for our weak economic recovery is because of the low- demand in our economy, because people aren't spending enough money to create big enough economic growth to give us enough job creation to create enough jobs to bring down our high unemployment rate. Pass a middle class tax hike on people who perhaps right now are just barely middle class and are worried about whether they'll have a job tomorrow, if they still have one. 

The lack of consumer demand in the economy means middle class Americans spend less money and because they'll have less money to live on and have an even tougher time paying their bills. Which would mean our economic growth would be even weaker and we would lose more jobs and have a higher unemployment rate as well. 

The so-called House Progressive Caucus (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) and its allies make the point, that we had a much better economy in the 1990s especially in the late 90s (97, 98, and 99) so since the economy was stronger then, we should go back to those tax rates which were higher. What they don't mention and I'm sure they are aware of this because they talk to their constituents on a regular basis if nothing else, is back then we had a very strong economy, perhaps the strongest in our history. Which is completely different from today with the weakest economy in at least thirty years. 

Back in the 1990s we could afford higher tax rates on even the middle class because the economy was much stronger then it is 10-20 years later. Higher tax rates can work on high-earners because they already have plenty and aren't looking to spend money just to survive, because they already have plenty. They are not the people that we need to spend more, they rather save and invest. Its middle and low-income people that we need to spend more money and to encourage them to spend more, to generate enough economic and job growth to bring down our unemployment rate to a much more manageable level. 

Tax hikes on people can't afford them and are struggling just to survive, will just make life more difficult for them, because they'll have even less money to live on. And would be even worse for our economy and debt and deficit outlook. 

What we need to do is pass tax hikes on the upper class, to help pay down our debt and deficit. And encourage middle and low-income people to spend more money to generate more economic and job growth. 

Senator Bernie Sanders: 'Congratulations Tom Coburn'

Source:Senator Bernie Sanders- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) talking about Senator Tom Coburn and the Gang of Six's deficit reduction plan.

"Senator Sanders speaking about the disaster that would ensue if the American economy were to default, how to address the crisis that we now face with long-term deficit reduction, and the "Gang of Six's" proposal which include major cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and  Education." 

From Senator Bernie Sanders 

Senator Tom Coburn is not as far to the right as people can get or he would be a member of Congress who no one in Congress would be able to work with other then the Far Right (Senate or House) but he's as fiscally conservative as they come in the sense that he believes that the Federal Government should pay its bills and only pay for things that it should be doing and cut back on things that he believes we shouldn't be doing. Which I believe would qualify as common sense to most sane people. 

Senator Bernie Sanders isn't as far to the left as people can get but there isn't much room on the left to be to the left of him. (Communists and that's about it) He is an admitted Democratic Socialist (for crying out loud) and proud of it and believes in the welfare state and collectivism and that government, especially the Federal Government should play a big role in looking after the welfare of the people. 

Senator Sanders also believes that private enterprise, even though I don't believe Senator Sanders believes in nationalizing most industry's, can't be trusted to look after people and that the Federal Government should step in and provide a lot of these services. Everything from education, Health Care, Health Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, transportation, energy, and there's probably a lot more. (But in the interest of time...)

So when you are comparing a fiscally Conservative Senator like Tom Coburn who believes in limited government and there's a limit to what government especially the Federal Government should be doing and a big believer in private enterprise and private markets and is actually against corporate welfare and those tax loopholes, with a Democratic Socialist Senator like Bernie Sanders, two men who I don't tend to agree with a lot on but two men who I have a lot of respect for, you're talking about the opposites of political spectrum. A Socialist (in Bernie Sanders) versus a Christian-Conservative, who is also a fiscal Conservative. (In Tom Coburn)

Both Senators have admitted that deficit reduction has to be done for the good of the economy, you're going to see much different approaches in how to accomplish this. With Senator Coburn who actually believes in fiscal responsibility and there's a limit to what the Federal Government should be doing including on defense. 

If you look at the Coburn Back in Black deficit reduction plan, you'll find major defense cuts in it. As well as closing tax loopholes and entitlement reform, a means testing approach. With an approach from Senator Sanders thats more centered around defense cuts, closing tax loopholes,  and tax hikes probably on everyone, not just the wealthy.

Senator Tom Coburn and Senator Bernie Sanders both represent one thing thats right about the Federal Government, Congress, and Washington, because they represent their viewpoints and constituents as well as they can be represented because of their honesty. They say what they mean, what they believe and back up their views as well as they can be backed up.

Al Jazeera: 'President Obama- Backs Gang of Six' Deficit Plan'

 

Source:Al Jazeera- Speaker of the House John Boehner (Republican, Ohio) and the House Republican Leadership.

"Al Jazeera (Arabic: الجزيرة‎, romanized: al-jazīrah, IPA: [æl (d)ʒæˈziːrɐ], literally "The Island", though referring to the Arabian Peninsula in context)[3] is a state-owned[4] broadcaster based in Doha, Qatar, owned by the Al Jazeera Media Network. Initially launched as an Arabic news and current affairs satellite TV channel, Al Jazeera has since expanded into a network with several outlets, including the internet and specialty television channels in multiple languages... 

From Wikipedia 

"The US president has announced his support for a bipartisan deficit-reduction proposal aimed at averting a debt default, saying time was running out for an agreement to raise the US borrowing limit.

Barack Obama said the ambitious budget plan brought forward on Tuesday by the "Gang of Six" group of senators could provide new ideas for breaking the impasse in Congress over raising the federal government's credit limit by August 2.

Al Jazeera's Kimberley Halkett reports from Washington." 

From Al Jazeera

Glad to see President Obama finally show some leadership and take some action on the deficit reduction and debt ceiling issue. And actually come out in favor of a plan, the plan introduced by the "Gang of Six" in the Senate a bipartisan group of Senators led by Senator Kent Conrad Chairman of the Budget Committee and Senator Tom Coburn a very important Republican Senator and fiscal Conservative. 

This plan closes tax loopholes, cuts military spending but in a strategic way. But it sort of punts on the tax cuts for the wealthy and entitlement reform, where we could save hundreds of billions of dollars every year without hurting anyone. But apparently this is a 4T$ deficit reduction plan over ten years, with serious budget cuts and revenue raisers. And if this were to come true, would get our Federal debt and deficit under control and I believe be a jump in the economy and strengthen our dollar. Which would also be a boost to the Stock Market. 

This is not the plan that I would've written, because it does nothing on the tax cuts for the wealthy, entitlement reform or closing some of our foreign bases in developed countries that can afford to defend themselves. That we can no longer afford to defend with our debt situation and our own foreign policy issues. We'll have another opportunity within a year or so to save an additional hundred billion dollars a year to pay down our debt and deficit by bringing our troops home from Afghanistan and Ira. (knock on wood, as the saying goes) 

This is a hell of a lot better than the McConnell punt from the Senate Minority Leader or Crap Carry and Bounce from the House Tea Party. And it shows that there are still some Members of Congress (at least in the Senate) that understand the debt issue, what needs to get done and which is as important. What can pass at least in the Senate and if the House GOP ever wakes up, what should be able to pass in the House as well. Because both sides will be giving up plenty to get plenty in return, budget cuts and revenue raisers, without having to make tough political choices on entitlement reform and tax hikes on the wealthy. Which is why this wouldn't of been the plan I would've written. 

If I had to coin this deficit reduction and debt ceiling plan, I would call it The Comeback Drive, that got us back in the game (so to speak) and bought Congress and the White House more time to deal with the tougher issues to win the game. And I'm done with sports analogy's. (At least football for this post) It's that time of year.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- 'Debt Ceiling Offer From McConnell'

Source:The Young Turks- Cenk Uygur on the debt.

"Will president Obama and the Democrats go along with the debt ceiling proposal offered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell? Cenk Uygur shares his take." 

From The Young Turks

Just when I was starting to believe that Mitch McConnell was one the most skillful Senate Minority Leaders of all time and perhaps the most skillful Senate Republican Leader, at least going back to Bob Dole or Howard Baker: he offers a Debt Ceiling plan that manages to offend Center-Left Democrats (and I'm one of those people) as well as right-wing and Far-Right, people he actually needs in order to keep his job and hopefully one day for him get promoted to Senate Leader instead of Minority Leader. 

The McConnell plan is as dumb as it's simple: says that if the President and Congress, don't reach a debt ceiling agreement by August 2nd when we are currently scheduled to default if an agreement isn't reached, that the President unilaterally could raise the debt limit on his own. Be able to borrow the 2T$ thats needed to raise the debt limit. And I believe there is actually a catch to the McConnell plan, that by October Congress would be able to weigh in again on the debt ceiling that the President of course would have to approve. 

The President has already made it clear that he doesn't want to use the constitutional option on the debt ceiling (so to speak) that instead wants to reach a grand bargain with Speaker John Boehner and Leader Harry Reid on a debt limit increase, but also a deficit reduction deal with Congress as well. But would use the constitutional option if he's not able to reach an agreement with Congress and he's well within his right to do that. But also it would look bad politically and sort of make the President look like a dictator, if he unilaterally borrowed and additional 2T$. Especially since he and Congress have already put 4T$ on the National Debt in 2 1/2 years. 

The only reason why I could see Minority Leader McConnell offering this plan, is to have something else to use against President Obama to make him look like a big spender. The problem though that it would be McConnell's idea that he would be acting on. 

The McConnell plan is another example of DOA and would never pass either the House or Senate or get signed into law. In just the last week we've seen leaders from both the House and Senate offer debt ceiling plans that they know or should know have no shot in hell of passing and becoming law. Instead of working together to find a solution to the Federal Government's debt issue, which is one of their jobs to help solve problems that the Federal Government faces. And right now no one in Congress in leadership is earning their six figure salary for their part-time jobs. 

Democracy Now: Amy Goodman- Interviewing Naomi Klein: 'Anti-Union & The Budget Crisis, Bills & Shock Doctrine American Style'

Source:Democracy Now- author Naomi Klein, on Democracy Now talking about her book Shock Doctrine.

"As a wave of anti-union bills are introduced across the country in the wake of Wall Street financial crisis, many analysts are picking up on the theory that award-winning journalist and author Naomi Klein first argued in her 2007 best-selling book, "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism." In the book, she reveals how those in power use times of crisis to push through undemocratic and extreme free market economic policies. Democracy Now! interviews Naomi Klein to discuss how the shock doctrine is being used by politicians pushing drastic cuts and reforms as a response to the financial crisis.

"The Wisconsin protests are an incredible example of how to resist the shock doctrine," Klein says. 

For the video/audio podcast, transcript, to sign up for the daily news digest, and for more interviews with Naomi Klein, visit:Democracy Now." 

From Democracy Now

I'll admit, I'm not very familiar with Naomi Klein. But the few times I've heard her speak, I've disagreed on every point she's made, but found her interesting every time. Which is why I've listen to her multiple times. 

But apparently snow is falling in South Florida in July because I've found something that I agree with Naomi Klein on. Not that I've looked very hard which is why am I for worker rights. I believe this is a simple question and to be somewhat flip. Which I'll admit won't be my first time, I'll answer that with a question: imagine what America would be without workers rights, workers would literally be at the knees of management, whether its coming from the private or public sector. 

I'm not anti-management, far from it. I'm a big fan of American capitalism when it actually is American capitalism and not cowboy capitalism. But without workers rights, management could essentially do whatever they want to do to their workforce.

With no checks on management like in a corporatist state, the employees wouldn't have a way to appeal what management is doing, perhaps not even be able to complain to management about the working conditions. Without their own recourse to be able to leave their job. Which might not make any other sense, because they might need the exact job that they have. So that wouldn't be much of a choice for them. 

Labor unions are there to essentially fight for their members to give them the best benefits as possible. That is essentially their only job at all if you think about. Teacher unions the perfect example of this and they do this by keeping management in check so they don't go too far. 

It's actually in the self-interest of management to have the best pay and benefits as possible, to have the best workforce possible. So they work as hard as possible and are productive as possible to make the company or government as effective as possible. And in the private sectors case as profitable as possible.

But management doesn't always understand this and they look straight at their bottom line and look to cut costs as much as possible to save as much money as possible. Not realizing that they are actually hurting their company or agency in the long run. Because high-skill people won't want to work their because of the low pay and poor benefits. 

Another thing about labor unions and workers rights if we didn't have them, think about it: no weekend, no overtime pay, no Social Security, no Unemployment Insurance, no forty-hour workweek, no pensions, so safe working conditions. I mean you could go down the line. 

Labor Unions aren't perfect and of course they have their weakness's, but neither is management, but together when they are both doing their jobs and working together, they form a partnership for progress in America. "You give this and we'll give you that. You give up this and we'll give up that." Just because something is not working perfectly, doesn't mean you have to eliminate it. You can always try to reform as well which is another option.

Russia Today : The Alyona Show- Aloyna Minkovski: 'Massive CA Prison Hunger Strike'

Source:The Aloyna Show- Clyde Young, former California state prison inmate.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the Russian federal tax budget.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"This is the second week of a prisoner hunger strike taking place at Pelican Bay State in California that some fear may lead to deaths. The SHU in Pelican Bay Prison is one of the oldest and largest isolation units in the country, with over a thousand prisoners in isolation. Some of the prisoner demands include an end to long-term solitary confinement, and adequate and nutritious food. Clyde Young, a revolutionary communist and former prisoner discusses." 

From The Aloyna Show

On sort of a casual note: I'm glad to see these prison inmates showing some initiative and leadership and had they showed these skills when they were free in a constructive way, perhaps they wouldn't be in prison and had they behaved themselves when they got to prison, perhaps they wouldn't be in isolation today in prison. Prison isolation is for inmates that represent a threat to other inmates and prison staff, as well as gang leaders. Isolation is not for white-collar criminals who are in prison for credit card fraud.

If inmates in isolation behave themselves while they are in insolation, they can get out of it and return to general population and have more opportunities to make their prison sentences more constructive for them, the prisons, and society in general. With education and vocation so when they get out of prison, they can have skills to make themselves successfully legal in life. So they never have to come back to prison.

I'm a Liberal, but not an Anarchist, which is different so of course I'm concern with civil liberties and other liberties, but at the same time I'm also concern with public safety. Because without freedom and public safety we have neither. Because without public safety people don't have as much freedom to live their lives, because of the fear that their public safety and life are in danger. So when inmates who represent a threat to the prison as well as other inmates are sent to isolation. 

I don't have the attitude of throw them in jail, which is what isolation is in prison, another jail in prison essentially. And throw away the key and expect these inmates to learn their lesson the old fashion way with strict treatment. 

I believe these inmates should be treated with mental health experts to get their behavior and temper under control. As well as the ability to have recreation while in their isolation, reading and writing materials for example, more food, more time out of the cell lets say four hours a day. And let them spend that time with other isolation inmates. Perhaps even visits from family and other inmates thats monitored. So their friends and family can see how they are doing. Better beds and even music and TV, as long as they behave themselves while having all these privileges.

Isolation in prison yes should be to keep the dangerous inmates who represent a major threat to staff and other inmates away from general population. But isolation should be designed to make these inmates better and not worst and if it were designed this way. Isolation could become a form of prison rehabilitation for inmates, something as a society we've moved way too far away from.