CNN: Elliot Spitzer- Bill Maher: 'President Obama Never Blames Republicans'

Source:CNN- Elliot Spitzer, interviewing comedian Bill Maher.

"Comedian Bill Maher says many Americans do not vote in their economic interest and discusses the possible reasons why." 

From CNN

Apparently Bill Maher is making the argument that President Obama should forget about 40% of the electorate and act more like a party leader like in Europe with their parliamentary systems where the Prime Minister or President there just runs to keep their party happy, because they know they don't need 50% or more to get reelected. 

The problem with that is that only 53% of the electorate voted for him in 2008. You can't screw off 47% of the electorate and just concentrate on 53%, because that would leave the President without a lot of room for error. And with an economy that will still have an unemployment rate of at least 8.5% unemployment going into the 2012 general elections and with no President ever getting reelected with an unemployment rate higher than 7%. (At least in modern times) 

The President is going to have to broaden his base, not to win everybody but to get as many votes as possible. He's going to have to lock down the Democratic Party and win the Independent vote to get reelected. And it's possible that the President could get reelected with a Republican Congress. Especially since 2/3 of the Senators up for reelection are Democratic seats. 

And I believe the chances are good better then 50-50 that Democrats will win back the House, but with this economy, thats not a guarantee. The biggest thing that President Obama has going for him right now, is his competition. (Or lack of it) Which doesn't highlight a strength of the President but the weakness of the Republican opposition right now. 

The Republican Party right now doesn't have a presidential candidate that can both win the nomination and the general election. Their best candidate in the general election is Mitt Romney, but both the Tea Party and Christian-Right really dislike him (if not hate him) and probably believe he's as bad as Barack Obama. Which is why Mitt Romney has been going out-of- his-way to look like a Religious-Conservative, with coming out for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. But its all politics, he's Northeastern Republican and they tend to be moderate-liberal on social issues. 

The President's biggest strength is Republican weakness. But this is what President Obama can do to win the Democratic Socialist-Left back or enough of them to get reelected, make the next fifteen months about jobs. Along with the Democratic Senate, all they should be doing right now is pushing legislation to create jobs. And the President and Congressional Democrats both have a jobs agenda to do this. Infrastructure, energy, and Free Trade which would all be a boost to our manufacturing industry, because we would need new supplies for our infrastructure projects, repairing old ones and building new one. 

A comprehensive energy plan would be a boost to our manufacturing industry because again the supplies that would be needed. There's three trade deals stuck in Congress right now: Central America, Columbia, and Korea, which is a bipartisan problem that the President should try to fix. That would be a boost to our manufacturing industry as well, because we would be able to sell more products in foreign markets. 

The next fifteen months should be all about jobs for President and the Democratic Senate and the House Democratic Leadership should be pushing a jobs agenda as well. And using that against the House GOP by telling then what have you done to create jobs and what are you going to do. It would also be a great campaign issue as well. 

President Obama is clearly not going to win everyone back, the entire Republican Party won't vote for him most likely. But he can't get reelected without the Democratic Party united behind him and voting for him. And then communicating a jobs agenda to enough Independents to win the election. And to do that going forward is has to nothing other than about jobs, pushing jobs legislation through the rest of this Congress. And going forward on the campaign trail. 

Russia Today: Lawrence Korb- 'US Defense Budget Higher Than Ever'

Source:Russia Today- Lawrence Korb: Assistant Secretary of Defense, in the Reagan Administration.

"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 

"When it comes to making decisions about how to save the US from the economic crisis, many people claim the cuts should come from defense spending. 20 percent of the US total budget goes to defense spending, which has many Americans disgusted, but the US' Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, begs to differ.  Will cuts damage US security? Lawrence Korb, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, gives us his take on how defense cuts will affect the US. 

From Russia Today

Anytime you are involved in deficit reduction you have to look at the entire Federal budget to get the most savings as possible while hurting the least as possible. And you especially have to look at areas where you spend the most and the Defense budget represents around 20% of our Federal budget and 5% of our GDP. But you shouldn't cut defense in ways that hurts your national security obviously, but what you do is cut in areas that you don't need to spend as much or shouldn't be spending at all. 

According to GAO (Government Accountability Office) we can't even get an audit of the Defense Department and we don't know how large our Defense budget is. And the Defense Department also wastes around 100B$ a year in a 700B$ Budget which should be more evidence for the need to cut here. Because they are not very good with the money they get as far as spending it properly. 

What we shouldn't be doing is cutting in areas that directly relate to our national security if we were under attacked in some way. And we needed to respond right away but where we can cut is in some of the areas where we are currently responsible for the national security of other nations. And I'm talking about defending developed nations, Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Korea, and demand that they play a bigger role in their own national security. And bringing our troops home and using that revenue to help pay down the debt and deficit. 

Libertarians and Democratic Socialists believe that since the United States spends the most on defense than any other nation in the world combined, that we should move towards a European style defense Budget, where they on average only spend around 1.5% of their GDP on defense. But the problem with that is the reason why Europe only spends around 1.5% of their GDP on defense, is because they know America has its back in their own national security. If we took that money away from them, as well as personal and other resources, they would have to make up the difference or see their defense get weaken. 

I don't want to see America go down to 1.5% of our GDP on defense. We still have too many threats facing us and need to be strong. But we could get by with 200B$ a year less on defense 500B$ a year for our Defense budget or 3% of GDP and be fine. 

What America needs to do as a country is take a bigger lead in securing its own national security and deal with its own domestic problems, which we have plenty of. And let these other developed nations take the lead and responsibility in defending themselves. This saying is starting to sound old but thats because of only how true it is: America can no longer afford to be the sole policemen of the world. Other developed nations need to step up to the plate and play their part as well. 

Bernie Sanders: The Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer- 'Talks about No Vote on Debt Deal'

Source:U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders- CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer, interviewing Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) about the debt ceiling agreement.

"Senator Sanders explains why he voted "No" on the deficit reduction deal, as well as the deal's consequences, with CNN's Wolf Blitzer." 

From Bernie Sanders 

This will be the fourth time I'll say this in two days, but this is not a good deal that no one likes, that both the Far-Right and Far-Left dislike. But both sides got some things that they like. 

Here's the list, for Democrats and Liberals ( the real Liberals) An eighteen month extension in the debt ceiling, but there's still a possibility of a government shutdown in November and December, because the Federal budget of course is still not done, that can be blamed on both the White House and Congress. Democrats and Liberals also cut about a trillion over ten years in defense cuts, something we've been fighting for, for over four years now or since the start of the Bush Administration. And Democrats and Liberals were able to protect entitlement programs from drastic cuts. 

What did Republicans and conservatives get - 2T$ in budget cuts and cutting more than the Federal Government will be allowed to borrow with the debt ceiling. And they were able to keep tax hikes out of the debt deal including cutting tax loopholes and corporate welfare. 

Both sides get to be able to negotiate tax and entitlement reform in round two of deficit reduction, which both sides want, that includes cutting expensive tax loopholes and cutting corporate welfare, they'll be on the table.

What the Socialist-Left in the Democratic Party America as well as Senator Bernie Sanders, is that they got an inside seat and look at what divided government looks like. You don't want to compromise with Republicans, take the time out to vote in the next election, as well as elect more of your own ideological members. You don't want to compromise even with Center-Left Democrats, then knock them out of office and win those seats with your own people, instead of Republicans winning solid Democratic seats.

This is what happens when you put the Far Right in America in charged of the House Representatives, where the Speaker who's generally a responsible, adult but is now scared as hell of the Far-Right, because he doesn't want to lose his job, which means he's willing to go to the mat for them, even if that means risk sending the United States Government in default. Which is what happened here. 

The President and the Senate Leader had to give the Senate Minority Leader and the House Speaker a lot of what they were asking. Or the House would've never passed anything that would pass the House or get signed by the President. And the Senate Minority Leader with his 47 votes would've blocked anything that Senate Democrats would've tried to pass on their own that the President would've wanted.

If Democratic Socialists in America want more of their policy's in place and get to sit with the adults at dinner time (instead of sitting at the kiddy table) then they are going to have to get more members elected to Congress, including in the Senate where they only have a few out of 100 Senators. And get more members elected statewide. This is something the Far-Right has already done with people in the Tea Party (now Theocratic Tea Party) with Representative Michele Bachmann and others. 

Otherwise the Democratic Leadership is going to continue to take the attitude: "What can we pass without the Progressive Caucus if we need to." Thats how real Liberals (the adults on the room) treat the so-called Progressive Caucus (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) today and for a long time.

Real Time With Bill Maher: 'New Rules- Socialism'

Source:Mikael Sjogren- Real Time With Bill Maher.

"I admire this great mans courage, being so outspoken and so correct most of the time! I salute you, Bill Maher !!!" 

From Mikael Sjogren

If your definition of socialism is that anything that government does or is done by a society in a collective, commutative  way, then we're all Socialists at least to that extent. Most of (except for the handful of people that can fit into a fast food bathroom) believe there is some need for government in society and understand that in order for government to function it needs financial resources in order to function. And who better to pay for those government services than the people who receive them. (A long way of saying taxes) 

Even the Tea Party movement whether they are Libertarian, Christian-Nationalist (or drunk, dazed, and confused) believe in protecting things like Medicare and Social Security. After all, it was Tea Party folks back in 2009-10 during the ObamaCare debate saying that they don't want socialized medicine, but get your damn hands off their Medicare. But maybe they would eliminate Unemployment Insurance, Welfare Insurance, and Medicaid. 

So most of the country believes in some form of socialism, probably 80-90% with perhaps even some Libertarians mixed in with that group. The question is how much of it do we want of it and more importantly how much are we willing to pay for it, because in case anyone has missed the memo, socialism ain't free. 

Socialism is taxpayer funded public services from the government. And which form of socialism do we want? Do we want to move in the direction of democratic socialism that Europe has with a large and generous welfare state funded by high taxes (by American standards) but a large productive private sector or something different?

Probably 10-20% of the country would like to see America move to Europe economically, culturally, and politically. (Democratic Socialists of America) Or do we want to move in the direction of North Korea where the State owns the entire economy (state ownership of the means of production in society) I don't know anyone who wants that economic system for America. Who isn't drunk, dazed, and confused.

For people who say America should become more like Europe especially Sweden lets say the Socialist Utopia, for that to happen Socialists in America are going to have to convince a lot more Americans, especially the middle class where most of us live that our taxes are two low (even though you might be struggling right now maybe just to pay your taxes) and that your better off with less freedom to take care of yourself and set your own course in life and that you would be better off letting the Federal Government take more care of you. (Lots of luck with that political campaign)

For American Socialists they have a very tough political battle ahead of them if they want to convince a majority of Americans that we would be better off living in a socialist democracy like Sweden. And having the Federal Government take more care of us and living with less freedom, because we are a country that was founded by rebels that was trying to get away from a British system like this. And we like our individual freedom.

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.