SPOT TV: Stevie Wonder's Happy Birthday to Martin Luther King

Source:The New Democrat

I can’t think of someone more qualified to sing Happy Birthday to our most effective and greatest American. At least when it comes to equal rights in America and applying our United States Constitution and the constitutional rights that we all have as Americans and applying the principles of our Founding Fathers to all Americans equally than Stevie Wonder singing Happy Birthday to of course the late, but still great the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King.

There will be plenty of more posts on this blog in the future about what the rest of the life of Dr. Martin L. King could’ve looked like. Had he been able to live a normal life at least as far as years. But what we would’ve seen is phase two of his national campaign for equality and justice in America. The Poor People’s Campaign would’ve had a real agenda and policy initiatives behind it that was sort of dropped after he was assassinated that would’ve moved onto into the 1970s. Giving millions of Americans a very good idea of what Dr. King’s complete political brain would’ve looked like.

About MLK’s birthday today keep in mind he would’ve been eighty-five today had he lived. And not saying he would’ve still been alive today had he not have been assassinated, but a lot of men in his generation are not only still alive in their eighties, but a lot of them are still working as well. And it is very likely he still would’ve been a major political force at least into his seventies. Had he not have been assassinated in 1968, or not have been assassinated at all.

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 Young Turks: John Iadarola: Brian Schweitzer 2016? Will Hillary Clinton Move to The Left?

Source:The New Democrat

Brian Schweitzer is the perfect liberal alternative to Hillary Clinton because he’s an actual Liberal. And he would prevent her from running to the middle from day one and trying to convince voters to vote for her simply because she’s a women. And this would be a chance to vote for the first female president etc. And prevent her from running for president without an agenda and vision and simply trying to make the case that Democrats should simply vote for the first female president and that she’s also the most electable as well.

Brian Schweitzer would be a very strong presidential candidate because he’s a real Liberal both as it relates to personal and economic freedom. And someone with a strong record as it relates to fiscal responsibility. Eliminating the possible tax and spend label and someone who could win well in Montana for one, but outside of the Northeast and Northwest. And would put states like Indiana and North Carolina in play as well. With his ability to communicate to working class voters.

Crash Course: Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter: The Economic Malaise of the 1970s

Source:The New Democrat

The Great Deflation of the 1970s as it is more commonly known. Really lasted that entire decade with the economy taking a big hit in 1973 thanks to the energy crisis of that year. Because of the 1973 Middle East Oil Embargo and it was actually President Richard Nixon who was going, through some really tough political issues that year for well-known reasons. (Anyone old enough to remember Watergate) Who made a big push to move America to energy independence and had almost no success with that. 

But the energy crisis of the early 1970s crisis followed by the 1974-75 recession, followed by a mild recovery of 1976 that had weak economic and job growth. The economy taking a big hit in 1978 with rising interest and inflation rates. Followed by the recession of 1979-80. The American economy was in transition in the 1970s. Because the Vietnam War was finally ending which is a good thing. 

But the defense budget gets cut in that decade with defense industry losing money as a result. Taxes going up thanks to the Great Society of the 1960s. America becoming more dependent on foreign oil from an unstable area of the world. The Middle East pumping less oil making our energy prices and cost of living with the high interest rates and inflation, very expensive in this country.

Thom Hartmann: What Does Socialism Mean to You?

Source:The New Democrat

One of the things if not issues with socialism is the ideological diversity of socialism. There are still Marxist or Statist Socialists who believe in the state owning the means of production for society. In simple English that means the state meaning the central government owns the economy. With the central government managing and operating the entire economy. No private sector, no capitalism, probably no property rights other than maybe one’s home or automobile.

Then there  are people who I could call Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists. Like U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders the only self-described Socialist in Congress who believe in a certain level of capitalism. But that it is heavily taxed and regulated to benefit the people and to finance a very large welfare state. If not superstate designed to provide people with the services that they need to live well. Social services like education, health care, health insurance, pension to use as examples. As well as a safety net to help people who fall through the cracks of the capitalist economic system.

Outside of maybe New York City, New England, the Northwest and the San Francisco Bay Area, for Socialists to succeed at all in America as well as the places I’ve mentioned, the more progressive social democratic route has to be the way they go politically. Because Americans like the idea of the safety net and basic regulations to protect workers and consumers. And don’t mind generally paying the taxes to support those programs, but there is a limit even in the more socialist areas of the country of what we want government at any level trying to do for us. And we like our freedom including economic freedom as well.

Bernie Sanders: The War On Poverty

Source:The New Democrat

Senator Sanders giving several examples of federal programs that have been created to help people in poverty pay their bills and so forth. But didn’t give any examples of how these programs have moved people from poverty and into the middle class with the skills, tools and freedom to be able to take care of themselves. Or are people struggling back fifty-years ago now seeing their kids and grandkids struggle as they are still struggling themselves today. Or are their lives collectively better today than they were then. 

Has the trillions of taxpayer dollars that have been spent on the so-called War on Poverty fifty-years later, has it created more economic freedom for people so they can take care of themselves and not need public assistance? Which is what the War on Poverty section of this blog focus’s on. How are are these programs working to move people out of poverty and off of public assistance with the freedom to take care of themselves. 

I would argue that at best the so-called War on Poverty has a mixed record. Yes it has prevented things like starvation and further homelessness that would've gone on top of the homelessness that we are dealing with today as a developed country. And yes of course those are good things. But the War on Poverty has failed to lessen poverty to the point that we see real reductions of poverty in this country. Other than in the 1990s which was a boom decade economically for America. 

LBJ Library: President Johnson's 1964 State of the Union address, 1/8/64

Source:The New Democrat

This is the speech where President Lyndon Johnson calls to continue President John Kennedy’s agenda. Putting his tax cut plan through Congress that President Kennedy badly wanted. As well as calling for the Civil Rights Act it be passed that was finally passed in the summer of 1964. As well as calling for medical insurance for the elderly and poor which became Medicare and Medicaid. As well as all sorts of new programs to help low-income Americans that became part of the so-called War on Poverty. Late 1963 and 1964 was about finishing President Kennedy’s agenda in that Congress. Because again remember Lyndon became President, because President Jack Kennedy was assassinated and LBJ was Vice President at the time. So LBJ didn’t become President under his own mandate. If he had a mandate in 63-64, it was full fill President Kennedy’s agenda.