Real Time With Bill Maher: 'Bill Maher on France'

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- talking about one of the favorite countries for Socialists, France.

"Bill Maher blasts conservatives who dismiss everything French as if it's somehow now "the ultimate argument winner" (see: "Kerry looks French" or Bill O'Reilly's boycott), then goes off on how conservative social issues tarnish the political process. I don't want any bitching on this page, against anyone, thanks." 

From Euro Trash? 

To paraphrase the great economics Professor, as well as one of my favorite Classical Liberals, Professor Milton Friedman: there's no such thing as a free lunch. When Professor Friedman said that, he wasn't referring to restaurants, cafeterias, and other eating establishments that don't give out free food (especially during mid day) he was talking about government services. Everything that we get from government, we pay for it one way or another. Whether its up our ass, through taxes, interest payments on the national debt, inflation, or having to live in poverty to receive those services. Every taxpayer in France, America, or any other country in the world (including Bill Maher) already understands this. 

Conservatives as well a Libertarians like to use France as an insult or as Bill Maher said an argument a winner. And Maher mentioned that France has a very good health care system and that as Maher said we should steal it. 

What Maher didn't mention and I believe why he didn't mention it, because it would've offended his socialist audience, is that France does not have a single payer health care System. They have a public- private health care system, similar to Germany, Switzerland, Holland, Taiwan, and Japan. Where the French get to decide for themselves where to get their health insurance and health care. 

What France does in health care, is similar to what the Obama Administration and the then 111th Democratic Congress wanted to do in health care reform. In 2009/2010 before they settled for the Affordable Care Act which was basically just private health insurance reform and a tax credit for health care. 

Another thing that people who say America should be like France argue, is that America should be more like France because they provide all of the social services for so-called free, health care, health insurance, pension, education,  etc. Which is completely false. They do provide for all these services but none of them are free. Anyone in France who pays taxes, pays for these services in Federal taxes, probably in the form of a payroll tax. 

Anyone who pays taxes, not only pays for everything they receive in society but they also pay for things that other people receive in society. As well as pay for the services that people who don't pay taxes receive in society. (Are you dizzy yet?)

People who want to see America become more like France, need to ask themselves do they really want to pay 50-70% in taxes to the Federal Government) Income taxes plus all of the additional payroll taxes that they would end up paying with to finance all of these additional social services? 

My answer is that most if not all of the Democratic Socialists in America (including millionaires who could afford a steep tax hike likeMichael Moore) would say yes. Well, thats the easy part, the problem is that they only represent around 10-20 of the general population in America. 

For Socialists in America to accomplish what they want they would also have to convince and additional 30% or more just to get to a majority, just to have a shot of making this happen. The problem for them, is that high taxes with everyone else who's not a Socialist, are very unpopular in America. 

France is a beautiful country with beautiful women and a lot of things to do and would makes a great place for a vacation. Especially in Southern France (from my perspective) and they do have a great health care system in a big country of around 65M people. 

But what also needs to be examined when someone says "lets make America more like France" is how have they built their welfare state and is that something America would want to do, not just a certain part of the country or can we come up with out own solutions that work best for America. 

Russia Today: The Aloyna Show- Armand Biroonak: 'US Uncut- Progressive Tea Party?'

Source:Russia Today- Armand Biroonak, on The Aloyna Show talking about a left-wing Tea Party.

"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 

"US Uncut, a new movement, organized protests at more than forty different Bank of America branches across the country to bring light on the tax evasion of multi-billion dollar corporations, corporate tax avoidance and theatrical "bail-ins."  Armand Biroonak, a DC Uncut Co-Founder joins the show with details." 

From Russia Today

The Coffee Party (or as I would describe as the democratic socialist version of the Tea Party) is a left-wing populist version, of the right-wing Christian-Nationalist/Conservative-Libertarian Tea Party. You're talking about Occupy Wall Street, the Green Party, Democratic Socialists of America, and the Far-Left flank of the Democratic Party, that wants to form their version of the Tea Party, but for the Democratic Party.

The Coffee Party believes in democratic socialism, which means protecting the welfare state and if anything expanding it. Expanding the Federal Government to solve America's problems, not cut it. That the debt and deficit is not the issue, that lack of economic and job growth is the real crisis. And that one reason why America's economy has struggled now. is because the Federal Government is not big enough and doesn't spend enough money. Even though we are at now 3.7% or 25% of GDP and borrow 40% of every dollar that the Federal Government spends. 

The Coffee Party wants to move America to Sweden (economically, culturally, and politically)  and be more like Sweden or Britain, that spend 50% of their GDP's on its central government. And they say a lot of our economic problems would go away. That would be the thinking like the social democratic left. 

So you have two competing political ideology's here. You have more of a libertarian or conservative-libertarian Tea Party that says the Federal Government spends too much and if they just cut back and taxed less and gave people more liberty.

The Tea Party saying that if Uncle Sam was smaller and consumed less, than his nephews and nieces could solve their problems on their own. Which is coming from the right. 

And then you have a social democratic Coffee Party on the Far-Left that says our main problems is that the Federal Government doesn't spend and tax enough and should do more of that on everybody. Not just the wealthy, they have more of a collectivist approach instead of an individualist approach to politics. 

These are two competing factions that could hold both the Democratic and Republican parties hostage. (So to speak) In the sense that if they don't do exactly what they want, they could destroy the major parties within. Or threaten to leave the major parties all together and walk out and from their own political parties. 

The debt ceiling debate is a perfect example of this potential chaos, obstruction, and political revolution. The problem that a Coffee Party has is that they represent the Far-Left of the country. And there's a short ceiling to what they can do in America and the type of support that they can come up with.

C-SPAN: Professor Noam Chomsky- On Welfare

Source:CSPAN- Professor Noam Chomsky, talking about Welfare in America.

"Public programs that provide funds for rich people are not called 'welfare', but in fact that's what MOST of the public funds are." 

From Professor Noam Chomsky 

“The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people. 

There are few genuine conservatives within the U.S. political system, and it is a sign of the intellectual corruption of the age that the honorable term ‘conservatism’ can be appropriated to disguise the advocacy of a powerful, lawless, aggressive and violent state, a welfare state for the rich dedicated to a lunatic form of Keynesian economic intervention that enhances state and private power while mortgaging the country’s future.” 

Source:AZ Quotes- Professor Noam Chomsky I believe talking about Welfare in America in 1996.

From AZ Quotes

What is Welfare at least to me and how I define it and what would it look like if I had the power to reform it? Perhaps a scary thought for some. Pretty simple: Welfare is something that comes from what is a safety net, something that people can turn to when they’ve fallen through the cracks of the economy and can’t support themselves. 

Welfare is essentially public assistance for people who can’t support themselves at the time and need temporary income to support themselves while at the same time getting help. So they can get on their feet and support themselves and become productive income tax paying citizens.

I believe we need a new definition for "Corporate Welfare" because Corporate Welfare goes to people and company’s that are doing great. And don’t give anything in return for the Welfare that they are getting through taxpayers, that also fund public Welfare for the people who actually need the Welfare. Perhaps they should just be called corporate subsidies instead which is actually a real term to describe Corporate Welfare, because that’s what it is: giving money to people and business’s for doing their jobs essentially. Producing good and services for people to buy and use.

Welfare Insurance is for people who are not working and don’t have the skills that they need to get a full-time job as well as a good job to support themselves and their families. And because Welfare Insurance was reformed in 1996, people on that program now have to either be looking for work and they get help with that, or going to school to get the skills that they need to get a good job and become self-sufficient, as well as seeking work. And they get help with both of those. Food Assistance is essentially grocery insurance that people who don’t make enough money to be able to feed themselves adequately.

Unemployment Insurance is pretty self-explanatory. Money for people who are out-of-work and need temporary assistance while they are looking for another job. 

Medicaid is health insurance for low-income people who can’t afford health insurance on their own, or their employers health insurance. 

Public Housing is for people who can’t afford a home on their own and they get vouchers to help pay for a small apartment. And there are many other public programs. All these programs meet my definition of Welfare.

Public assistance which is really what this is about, are designed to help people with that actually need the help. 

Corporate Welfare to me is not Welfare, because it’s public assistance for company’s and individuals who are doing very well, which is a good thing. I’m clearly not a Socialist, but since they are doing so well, they clearly don’t need public assistance. 

And if we want to be a real capitalist economy, then let the haves support themselves and let’s help the have-nots become self-sufficient. And Welfare designed in a certain way that doesn’t make people dependent on public assistance can do that. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

ABC News: 'Political Activist Michael Moore'

Source:ABC News- filmmaker and New-Left political activist Michael Moore.

"Filmmaker and political activist Michael Moore didn’t want you to vote for Al Gore. While he said he thinks Gore is “a decent guy,” he also took the vice president to task in an open letter: “I have spent the last eight years doing what I could, in my own small way, to try and stop the hemorrhaging that your administration caused.”

And Michael Moore really didn't want you to vote for George W. Bush. He told the Texas Governor, “Your possible victory on Tuesday is a threat to our national security.” He went even further, calling Bush “a banal, despicable, and corrupt human being.” 

From ABC News

I actually agree with Michael Moore on something. (Maybe it does snow in South Florida in July) America a country of 310M people the third largest population in the world, we are by far the largest country in the world, to just have a two-party system. 

We are also one of the most diverse countries in the world if not the most diverse country in the world politically. We have large segments of our population that represent the entire political spectrum. From already over to the Far-Right, all the way over to the Far-Left. 

We have Liberals, Libertarians, Democratic Socialists, and Marxist-Socialists on the Left. We have Conservatives, Neoconservatives (who are Progressive Republicans) and Christian-Nationalists on the Right. And we have Independents who basically represent centrism in America, but they are a mixture of liberal and conservative in their ideology. 

This all means that we are left with a Democratic Party thats suppose to represent the left-wing in America and be the liberal party. And Liberals tend to run the Democratic Party, but liberals aren't the only people on the left. And the Democratic Party is made up of more people than just Liberals. 

Democrats have Democratic Socialists on the Far-Left and Progressive-Liberals in the middle. So the Democratic Party is essentially made up of three different factions and when the Socialists and Progressives don't like what the other is doing, they threaten to leave the party of destroy it within. 

The Republican Party thats supposes to represent the right-wing in America and be the conservative party and Conservatives used to run that party and to a certain extent still do, but there are a lot less of them in the Republican Party right now and they are probably in the minority in that party now. And of course the Republican Party is made up more than just Conservatives, but Neoconservatives and Christian-Nationalists and they still have some moderate Conservatives left as well in the Northeast especially. 

Not trying to sound partisan as a Democrat to make it official, but the Republican Party thats supposed to be about limited government and individual freedom, now has an authoritarian factions in it now, Christian-Nationalists, who want to make government bigger and limit freedom. (Conservatives, don't you miss the Grand Ole Party?) So the Republican Party is now made up of three competing factions and when the two factions on the outside don't like what the leadership is doing, they threaten to leave or destroy the party inside as well. 

What America a country of 310M people needs politically, is more major political parties that represent our entire political spectrum. There's more than enough of a movement and people who want this to happen and it could easily happen. Especially if you look at the approval ratings of both the Democratic and Republican parties that are in the 20s or 30s. 

We need the Democratic Party to be the progressive party, not a socialist party, which in the past have done a very good job doing. We need the Republican Party to be the conservative party and not a Christian-Nationalist party. And we need the Libertarian Party to step up to the plate and act like a major political party and represent the 10-20% of Libertarians in America. 

The Socialists need their own party that represents the socialist view in American politics. And the Democratic Socialist Party and there is such a thing and they could do this if they formed a coalition, with the Green Party and the so-called Progressive Caucus (DSA Democratic Socialists, in actuality) in the Democratic Party. 

And the Christian-Nationalists could leave the Republican Party and form their own party. 

And the Independents could have their own party as well that would be the Reform Party and others. 

We are a huge country we are more than capable of supporting all of our political factions and do it in the way where we would still have majority parties in Congress. But they would have less special interests to answer to. 

We officially have a two-party system, but in actuality we have two parties that are both made up of at least three parties each, but they are all under the same roof. (So to speak) In a marriage made for hell because they all have their own viewpoints and special interests they have to answer to. And it makes governing almost impossible because the leaders in both parties not only have to worry about the other party, but what other factions are doing in their own party. 

PBS NewsHour: Jeffrey Brown- 'Watch President Obama's, Speaker Boehner's Full Debt-Ceiling Remarks'

Source:PBS NewsHour- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) talking about the debt ceiling agreement that was reached with Congress.

"The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor.[6] It is a nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational television programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience, America's Test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Arthur, Barney & Friends, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Downton Abbey, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, Nature, Nova, the PBS NewsHour, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping up Appearances and This Old House." 

From Wikipedia 

"President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner addressed the nation Monday about the approaching debt-limit deadline and the political stalemate between top lawmakers over deficit-reduction proposals. Watch their full remarks plus analysis from Gwen Ifill and Political Editor David Chalian. Read more:PBS." 

From the PBS NewsHour

I believe the President did as well as someone even with his vast communication skills, could do with a national debt ceiling address. Especially with this material sounding very dry for today's reality TV audience and with Speaker Boehner countering him with a false statement where he said the House vote on "Cap Cut and Balance" being bipartisan last week. With only five Democrats voting for it and at least ten Republicans voting against it. There was actually more bipartisan opposition to "Cut Cap and Balance" than bipartisan support. 

I was a little worried Monday afternoon when I heard that President Obama came out in favor of Leader Reid's plan in the Senate, that cuts the debt and deficit through cuts only even though he includes 1T$ in defense cuts, coming from ending military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. According to a left-wing blog Think Progress, the House switchboard has been flooded with phone calls and emails, all about tonight's speeches. I'm guessing hopefully in favor of President Obama's speech. But we'll probably see within the next few days. 

I believe though that enough people did listen to President Obama's speech. And hopefully enough of them liked it enough, to tell enough Republican Representatives, that it's time for the House GOP Leadership to make a deal with the President and Senate. But there's a much different team in the House now, thats not in business to negotiate. 

I believe however that Speaker Boehner is an adult who wants to put the debt and deficit debate aside or at least getting something accomplished on it. And start to move on to other things which I'm sure the Speaker and House Leader Cantor have on their agenda. Even though the House GOP only controls one chamber of Congress and one institution in the entire Federal Government, they believe they hold all the cards because of the 2010 mid-term elections. 

But what the House GOP Leadership doesn't understand is that the voters didn't give them the Senate for a reason, because they didn't like enough of their Senate candidates to give them the majority there. Which left us with not only a divided government but a divided congress as well. 

What Leader Reid did in the Senate on Monday was to offer the House GOP a chance to say yes and move on but they still said no. I'm glad the President has left tax hikes on the wealthy on the table to go along with entitlement reform and budget cuts including in defense. And let's see within the next few days if he was able to move enough Americans to tell enough of their Reps thats its time to make a deal with the Senate and President and compromise so we can finally move on. 

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- '10th Anniversary of Bush Tax Cuts (Analysis)'

Source:The Young Turks- Cenk Uygur, talking about President George W. Bush's tax cuts.

"10 years after president George Bush and Republicans in Congress pushed forward with tax cuts for the rich Cenk Uygur breaks down the damage." 

From The Young Turks

When George W Bush became President in 2001 he an inherited a projected budget surplus of 1T$ over ten years including 100B$ a bank for his first year. And a national debt of around 4T$ and we were talking about actually paying down the debt and deficit "too fast." Probably the first time we've ever had that debate in our history. 

President Bush left office eight years later with a budget deficit of 1T$ and a national debt of 10T$. President Bush did have a couple of recessions in his presidency, 2001-02 and you can make a case that he inherited the first one. Because the economy did start to slow down in 2000 but the Great Recession of 2008-09, clearly happened on his watch and he didn't fix the problem and you can argue that he made the problem worst with his own fiscal policy. 

You have to go back to the 1930s with FDR to find a President that served at least two terms that had an economy that did as bad as President George W Bush. Seventy years, which will be a big part of President Bush's presidential legacy, along with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

But how did he put this record together, during President Bush's tenure? He had a Republican Congress for four years. Democrats controlled the Senate for the first two years and a Republican House for six years. During this period the Bush Administration decided that they could get two 1T$ tax cuts through without paying for them. (Supply side economics) The two wars without paying for them, 3T$ to this point, the first time we've ever borrowed all the money to pay for wars. And a 500B$ Medicare prescription drug benefit, again, all borrowed money. 

Howard Dean when he was running for the Democratic nomination for President and when he served as Chairman of the Democratic Party, dubbed the Bush fiscal policy: Borrow and Spend Economics. You figure out what you want to do, how much it will cost and then borrow all the money to pay for it. Instead of having a list of priorities: "This is what we need to do, this is the money we have. Let's figure out how to make it work the best and if we don't have enough money." 

We cut in other areas or we raise the revenue, that would be called PAYGO, you pay for what you spend. As much as the Bush tax cuts have failed ten years later, because of how bad the economy is right now, the last thing we should be doing right now is passing middle class tax hikes on people who can't afford them and are struggling just to get by. 

And one of the last things we should be doing is adding top our debt and deficit situation as well. So what we should do is raise taxes on people who can afford them, use that revenue to help pay down the debt and deficit. 

Reform the Federal Government entitlements, defense and other places. Cut back in areas we don't need to spend as much. Defense, agriculture, tax subsidy's, and Loopholes and invest in the economy like in infrastructure and energy. But do it in a way that doesn't add to our debt and deficit and start paying for everything that the Federal Government does going forward, including defense and natural disaster relief.

C-SPAN: Washington Journal With Susan Swain- Christopher Hitchens & Tom Davis (1996)

Source:C-SPAN- British writer, columnist, author, political satirist Christopher Hitchens. 

"Hosted by Susan Swain. Rep. Thomas Davis and Mr. Hitchens talked about current issues including the re-election of President Yeltsin and issues pertinent to the Clinton and Dole campaigns. Credit to CSPAN:CSPAN." 

From C-SPAN

To put it simply: the best way to help poor people move to the middle class and become self-sufficient and not need public assistance for their daily survival, is to give them temporary financial assistance and child care, so they can survive in the short-term, yes, but to move them out of poverty, they need education to give them an  opportunity to get their GED or go back to high school, as well as go to college like a technical school, so they can get the education and skills that they need, so they can get a good job to support themselves and their family's. And then finally job placement, help them find a good job that they are qualified for. So they can support themselves and their family's on their own and no longer need public assistance.

Along with deficit reduction and balancing the Federal budget, Welfare reform of 1996, is President Bill Clinton's biggest achievement. It moved millions of people who would probably still be on Welfare Insurance today or working multiple minimum wage jobs just to barely survive today. 

Had it not been for the 1996 Welfare To Work Law, millions of people who were on Welfare Insurance twenty years ago, now have good jobs today and some of them even own their own business's or manage a business. 

Then Governor Bill Clinton who made Welfare reform a big part of his 1992 presidential campaign, didn't make a big push to pass a bill out of Congress his first two years. When he had a Democratic Congress, including a forty-seat majority in the House.

Even though President Clinton had good ideas on Welfare reform, like education, job placement, and child care, so these single parents could leave the home to go to school or look for work, his calculation was probably that he would never get the votes at least in the House, because the Far-Left flank in the Democratic Party there would never go along with a bill that had time limits for Welfare deficit reduction, the crime bill, Family Medical Leave and of course the nightmarish debacle of health care reform. All things he passed in his first two years except for health care reform. 

It took a Republican Congress for President Clinton to finally incorporate his ideas as well as Republican ideas to make it law. And it was by far the best legislation that a Republican Congress in modern times has ever passed.

What we tried in the 1930s and 1960s with anti-poverty programs, where you essentially just give low-income low-skilled people money and expect nothing from them, that the "cycle of poverty" would just go away on its own, clearly did not work. 

Sixty-years later poverty was still a big problem in America which is why it was reformed. But in the 1990s we finally saw record reductions in poverty down to as low as 13%. One of those reasons being the economic expansion of that decade. But if you're low-income and low-skilled, you won't see the benefits of any economic expansion. Which is a big reason why Welfare reform was so important, because it empowered low-skilled people to get the skills that they need to get themselves out of poverty and into the middle class.   

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on WordPress.