American Film Institute: 'Michael Moore- Talks About Socialism'

Source:American Film Institute- Successful, wealthy filmmaker Michael Moore, talking about socialism.

"Michael Moore talks about socialism while speaking after a screening of his film CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY at the AFI Silver Theatre in Silver Spring, MD." 

From The American Film Institute

I find it ironic that someone who speaks out against American capitalism and perhaps capitalism in general (which is what filmmaker/comedian Michael Moore does) a man who I have lets limited respect for, speaks out against an economic system that works so well for him. Michael Moore speaking out against capitalism, would be like Michale Jordan speaking out against the National Basketball Association, a league that has done so well for him and with him: you're going after your own bread and butter, meat and potatoes (Of what have you) 

Mr. Moore is not a government filmmaker or a government or a government comedian or a government actor, he's a private citizen who's had all of his professional success in life in the private sector. And yet he claims to be either a Socialist and if America were to give up on capitalism and move to a Marxist-Socialist economy, Mr, Moore then would become a state propagandist. 

Mr. Moore would no longer be a private filmmaker (in a Marxist-Socialist system) working for himself, he would be working for the Federal Government. He's not a dumb guy and rather intelligent actually but a lot of his facts are just wrong. Like when he says that America should move our economy towards France, because their services are all free, like health care, health insurance, education, transportation, pension, etc. He's simply dead wrong: none of those services are free, because the French either pay for them in taxes from the Federal Government there, or pay for them in fees in the private sector. 

Apparently Michael Moore never saw or read Milton Friedman's lecture about there's no such thing as a free lunch: we all pay for what we get or somebody pays for it for us. Mr. Moore is also wrong about the French health insurance and their health care system in general. They don't have a single-payer health care system that he would like to see in America. They have a public-private health care system that includes both their health care and health insurance. 

I don't believe Mr. Moore is a Marxist-Socialist for selfish reasons: I don't believe he would want the Federal Government being able to censor his movies. (For example) Can't blame him for that. I see Michael Moore as a Democratic Socialist, someone who believes that government especially the Federal Government should play a big role in providing services for people in society: health care, health insurance, education, pension, transportation, housing ,etc. Meaning the welfare state, because he believes yes, it's the right thing to do, but also so he can continue to make his own private movies. 

The Young Turks: Michael Shure- 'Ban Porn! Michele Bachmann 2012 Pledge'

Source:The Young Turks- U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota) hard against porn.

"2012 Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann signed a Christian-Right pledge that slams porn, gay people and sex before marriage. Michael Shure explains." 

From The Young Turks

Normally I wouldn't hit this story twice: I blogged about it on Friday, even though that post was about Representative  Michele Bachman's broader view on social issues. But since this is Michele Bachmann and she has a hypocritical streak going (longer than Joe Dimaggio's hitting streak, if she stays at this pace) when it comes to big government and it's Saturday, the slow news day (of all slow news days) I'm going to hit this story again and go out-of-my-way not to sound repetitive on this story, but no promises. 

This is what big government, anti-constitutional conservatism at its worst, but that would be an insult to conservatism, because conservatism is about conserving constitutional rights, not abolishing them. Which apparently with Representative Bachman's views on social issues, she's trying to eliminate some of our constitutional rights and making America a less free society and no longer a liberal democracy. 

This is more like theocratic, fundamentalist, authoritarianism than conservatism: essentially using government meaning (the Central Government) and in America's case the Federal Government, to protect people from themselves as well as others, but protect us from ourselves as well. That if people have too much freedom (in an authoritarian's mind) that they won't know what to do with it and might hurt themselves with it. 

So things like pornography, certain types of movies and other forms of entertainment including fashion would be illegal. That certain forms of speech thats not political thats also protected by the U.S. Constitution with the First Amendment, would no longer have those protections if the Federal Government doesn't approve of it. 

So if the Federal Government doesn't personally like porn, let's take that first just because thats Representative Bachmann's latest public position (not because I have or don't have some special affection for pornography) instead of the FEDS just making the choice that they would have in a liberal democracy, the freedom of choice to look at or not look at porn, they simply make that illegal, punishable by jail time for everyone else. And would make that choice for the rest of the country on their own. 

Thats just one example, instead of moving America forward as a first world liberal democracy, they want to move America backwards as like a third world authoritarian republic or monarchy thats common in the Middle East. 

The next time I hear Representative Michele Bachmann claim that she's a Constitutional Conservative and anti-big government and I see her make that claim on TV or the internet, I'm going to treat those remarks as part of her daily monologue, because at the rate she's going she's turning into a first-rate comedian and a second-rate politician. Because she's doesn't know what the hell she's talking about and is a (pardon the term) a master of speaking out of her ass.

The Young Turks: Michael Shure- U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch- 'Poor People Don't Pay Enough Taxes'

Source:The Young Turks- U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (Republican, Utah) talking about poor people not paying taxes.

"Republican Senator Orrin Hatch argued that top income earners pay too much in taxes while the bottom 51% of Americans don't pay enough. Michael Shure explains." 

From The Young Turks

Senator Orrin Hatch who by the way is the Ranking Member on the Senate Finance Committee (the lead minority member of that committee) So hopefully he has some idea of what he's talking about when it comes to taxes. (Perhaps vague, though) 

Apparently Senator Hatch came out on Thursday for tax hikes on low-income people. I don't know the Senator personally but known of him for about twenty years now, since the Clarence Thomas Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Senator Hatch is still a member of that committee and has served as both Ranking Member and Chairman of that committee. He's been in the Senate so long that he's had both of those jobs twice. 

I don't know Senator Hatch personally, but what I've learned about him personally and politically, is that he's a very honest Conservative Republican. As a Liberal myself, you might be able to count on one hand and not need all five fingers, to count the number of things that we agree on. But what I've respected about him (and yes I mean that in past tense) is his honesty: you know where the Senator stands on all the issues. 

Senator Hatch has had sorta of a take it or leave it, this is who he is sort or  approach to politics. The same thing that Ted Kennedy had and why Conservative Republicans had so much respect for him. And the same thing can be said about Orrin Hatch with Liberal and left-wing Democrats. Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch are two of the most honest people to ever serve in the Senate as well as Congress as a whole. And one reason why I believe they were such close friends and worked so well together. 

So when Senator Hatch comes out for tax hikes for low-income people and protecting tax cuts for high- earners, when Senator Hatch who also supported the Earned Income Tax Credit in the past, a tax credit that I believe was created by President Reagan of all people, it tells me that Senator Hatch has more than fiscal policy on his mind but his political future as well. 

Senator Bob Bennet one of the most conservative members of Congress when he served, lost the Republican primary in Utah in 2010, which is why he's no longer in Congress, because he wasn't conservative enough and caught working with Liberal Democratic Senator Ron Wyden. That sounds simplistic, but thats most of the truth. 

There's talk that Senator Hatch who's up for reelection himself in 2012, will face a primary challenge from the Far-Right as well and we are talking about Utah. So thats about as conservative as conservative gets and I believe that Senator Hatch believes the best way of getting reelected to the Senate and going back to Congress, is to not face a primary challenge and win it if he gets one and look as far to the right as possible especially on fiscal policy. Even if that means taking positions he doesn't believe in and wouldn't take normally. 

I believe that Senator Hatch coming out for tax hikes on low-income people is pure politics and not leadership. One thing leadership is about taking positions that you believe in whether they are popular are not, because you believe in them and believe they are the right thing to do. Once a politician takes a position just for popular support, they are no longer a leader but a puppet for popular will.

Mike Stark: 'James Clyburn- On Deficit Commission, Means-Testing Social Security'

 

Source:Mike Stark- House Majority Whip James Clyburn, talking about Social Security.

"The number three Democrat in the US House of Representatives is widely perceived as being fairly liberal.  Here he says he has confidence in the President's deficit commission, does not believe that a Value-Added Tax is on the table and that social security should be means tested." 

From Mike Stark

Jim Clyburn who's one of the members of Congress in both the House and Senate that I respect the most in both party's, has this exactly right: Democratic Socialists in Congress and around the country should jump all over this potential deal. 

Means-testing for Social Security and Medicare and reforming it in a way for people who actually need it, meaning wealthy people paying more into Social Security and collecting less if anything and giving more benefits to the retirees who actually need Social Security income to pay their bills, making the program more of a Welfare Insurance program for the people who actually need it and eliminating early retiree income for high-earners as well, would save Social Security and Medicare.

We should also be reforming Medicare in a way that reforms it for the people who need it by increasing Medicare taxes on high-earners and having them pay more in premiums. In exchange Democrats would get an excise tax on millionaires as well as substantial, somewhere in the ballpark of 70-100B$ a year in defense cuts. 

Conservative Republicans are already on board for defense cuts and some of them are already on board tax hikes, but they would probably have to start at around a million dollars a year, not 250K$. They would probably also need tax reform including corporate tax reform, that eliminates tax loopholes and lowers rates. 

This for me would be a grand bargain for Democrats and their left-wing (if not Far-Left) base, because they would get a millionaires tax and serious defense cuts. Social Security and Medicare would be reformed, but not in a way that hurts anyone who needs it but helps us get our deficit and debt under control. 

Anyone who's truly interesting in moving the debt ceiling as well as the broader deficit and debt issue past us, so we can concentrate mostly on the economy again and bringing our troops home, should take this deal. Anyone who just wants this issue to fire up their base will of course say no. 

President Obama wants to make this deal, I believe House Speaker Boehner wants to make this deal and I believe Senate Leader Reid wants to make this deal. 

If people on Social Security and Medicare who need those programs aren't hurt by it, which they wouldn't be and then he could sell the deal to the Senate Democratic Caucus. The question is will the fringe bases in both party's allow the deal to happen or not.

Big Think: Katrina Vanden Heuvel- 'On The Modern Liberal'

Source:Big Think- The Nation Magazine publisher Katrina Vanden Heuvel, actually talking about modern Socialists. (Or Social Democrats, if you prefer)

"Katrina vanden Heuvel on the Modern Liberal" 

From Big Think

People who are called "Modern Liberals" today are actually Democratic Socialists and are not Liberals at all, really. Even though they have liberal leanings on social issues which I commend them as a real Liberal. 

People who would be called "Modern Liberals", call themselves that or Progressives. Instead of Democratic Socialists, even though Senator Bernie Sanders views himself as a Democratic Socialist and obviously the Democratic Socialists USA in America, views themselves as Democratic Socialists.

And if you look at the issues, people who call themselves Democratic Socialists and people who call themselves Modern Liberals, agree on almost everything. Especially the role of government and especially the role of the Federal Government. 

I can understand why Democratic Socialists who aren't comfortable with that term, because of how unpopular the term socialism is in America and the negative stereotypes that come with that. But thats a political calculation on their part, rather than a accurate description of their politics.

As an actual Liberal myself and not a Democratic Socialist or a Socialist in any form, I don't use the term Socialist or Democratic Socialist as a negative term or a partisan term. But a description of their politics. Whatever one's politics are and wherever they are on the political spectrum, they should know exactly what they are and be honest about it. If they are articulate and intelligent enough to sell their politics so to speak, to win popular support whether their political views are popular at the time or not.

If people can sell their politics, because they are articulate and intelligent, they'll at the end of the day be able to sell their political views and policies and win popular support. Because voters at the end of the day will look at them and say:"You know what, I didn't like this persons policies before, because I used to think this about them, but they actually make sense to me and I'll vote for them."

Liberalism (classical or modern or in between) is about freedom and responsibility for the individual as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. As well as limited government, equal opportunity for all. It's not about collectivism and the welfare state, which are socialist values. Democratic socialism and liberalism are two different political ideology's, not one in the same.

A few things that I like about what Katrina Vanden Heuvel said about liberalism is that its about equal opportunity, empowerment, equal justice, free thinking. That people should be able to think for themselves and not feel the need to agree with everyone or anyone else even if other people hold the popular views at the time. These values don't sound socialist at all. These are true liberal value and if The Nation Magazine and other New-Left social democratic publications actually held these views and promoted these values, then they would be truly liberal publications.

The Ring of Fire: Mike Papantonio- 'Heartland Institute Kicks Off Climate Change Denial-a-Palooza'

Source:The Ring of Fire- Mike Papantonio, talking about the Heartland Institute and climate change.

"The conservative Heartland Institute is holding their annual climate change summit, where they hope to convince those in attendance that climate change is just a liberal hoax. It should come as no surprise that Heartland was founded and is funded by some of the biggest polluters in America. Mike Papantonio talks about what's really driving Heartland's climate change denial with Brendan DeMelle, executive director and managing editor of:Des Moq." 

From The Ring of Fire

I don't believe anyone in their right mind believes that there's no such thing as climate change. Of course I'm not a mindreader but thats my feeling. All you have to look at the weather to see that, with longer summers and colder winters and with ice melting in areas with frigid weather. 

The question is at least from the United States point of view is, what should we do on our part about it to fix it. Should we pass cap and trade and force American business's to live under regulations and taxes that foreign business's don't live under, or should we do something that would make us more competitive in the energy industry both at home and globally, that would also benefit our economy. 

As a Liberal who believes in primate markets and capitalism, I lean towards making us more competitive, economically but that would also make us more competitive when it comes to energy policy as well as our foreign policy. A national energy policy for America, that moves us towards energy independence and finally off of foreign oil, would accomplish three things by doing several things. 

First, it would benefit our economy in multiple ways, because we would open up new energy industries which would create good jobs. 

It would get us off of foreign oil, because would be relying on domestic energy instead, which would create jobs. But it would also create more competition in the energy sector, because of just oil, gas and electricity which are the three main energy industries right now. 

With a comprehensive national energy policy, there would also be a solar industry, wind industry, natural gas would be bigger in America, nuclear would be bigger in America and so would clean coal. We will need to still drill for oil and gas in America for at least ten years after we create an energy policy. But at least we would be drilling for American oil and gas and no longer importing it. 

A comprehensive national energy policy would benefit our economy because of the good jobs it would create. It would benefit our foreign policy because countries that we are currently importing oil from. We would no longer have to do that, giving them lest leverage over us. And it would benefit our environmental policy because we would be finally using cleaner sources of energy. 

If we are going to have some climate Change policy, it should be a global treaty, so that everyone is operating under the same rules.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- 'Why Does Cenk Criticize President Obama?'

Source:The Young Turks- Cenk Uygur, taking on President Barack Obama.

"MSNBC/The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur addresses the people who despise the fact that he's critical of President Barack Obama." 

From The Young Turks

President Obama said in his press conference on Wednesday afternoon that leaders should lead. My response to the President would've been that starts with you, buddy! Now perhaps I wouldn't of called him buddy, don't know that for a fact, perhaps I would've said: "That starts with you, Mr. President! We'll never know and there's no point in discussing it. 

But my point is the same leaders have to lead or nothing gets done, successful President's don't sit on the sidelines and let others work it out and then weigh in later to see what the people who actually did the work came up with. Leaders don't look to compromise right off the bat, like the President's sorry excuse for a budget back in January. 

What leaders do when they know they have to compromise in the end to get anything done. Which is what President Obama obviously has to do with a divided Congress is put on the table what they want to do: "This is my plan, if you don't like, come up with your own plan." Then the other side puts down a counteroffer and lays out what they want to do if they had all the power. And then both sides come together at the end of the day and work out a final agreement. 

This is what lawyers do and this is what skillful negotiators do and this is why successful President's are successful. This is what President Clinton, President Reagan, President Eisenhower, President Truman, President FDR did and why they were able to accomplish so much in their presidency's. 

You don't sit on the sidelines laying out goals with no plan to accomplish it. Which is what the President has been doing on the deficit reduction and other issues since he's been President. Health care reform would be another one. President's have to be President, leaders have to lead or nothing gets done. 

President's are the chief executives for a reason because the buck actually does stop with them, its not just an expression. And that means taking a stand once in a while and taking heat for it to do what's right for the country at the end. And then they get rewarded for their right decisions.