Monday, January 30, 2012
President Obama and the Obama Campaign knows at least one thing very well, I'm sure they know more then one thing. But start with this one thing for now and maybe later we'll move up from that. They have to get Progressive Democrats to the Voting Polls on Election Day and not only vote but for the President. And not vote for whatever Socialists are running for President instead. Whether it the Green Party, Socialist Party, yes there's actually a Socialist Party in America. In the Land of the Free, that not only knows who they are but proud of it. Or the Progressive Party or whatever Socialist Party may have a Presidential Nominee. President Obama needs all of these Socialists who are still registered as Democrats, to vote for him and not a Socialist Party. These are people who voted for Candidate Obama overwhelmingly in 2008 and he needs them again. Because the President is going to have to run on his record, whether he wants to or not. This is what we've accomplished and this is what we can accomplish in the future if you reelect me. And if the President brings the Progressive Democrats back, he then can concentrate on electing and reelecting Congressional Democrats. So they can hold on to the Senate and take back the House as well. Which would make it much easier to pass the rest of the Obama Agenda. And they were able to pass a lot of it in 2009-10, paid a heavy price for it politically. In the 2010 Mid Terms but on policy they got a lot done. But the President and Congressional Democrats can't do this, if they are not reelected.
In 2008 Progressive Democrats voted for Barack Obama overwhelmingly, instead of backing Rep. Dennis Kucinich for President. Because they thought he was a Socialist, this idea that he was in contact. With Bill Ayers, Saul Olinsky and other Progressive Activists was appealing to them. When Republicans of course use that to make Obama look like an extremist. It took Progressives about six months to a year to figure out he wasn't one of them. With the 2009 Recovery Act, that wasn't the 21st Century version of the FDR New Deal. Or the 2010 Affordable Care Act, that didn't Socialize the Healthcare System. Or the Wall Street Reform Law that didn't socialize Big Banks or the General Motors and Chrysler Bailouts. That didn't socialize those Auto Company's but he accomplish all of those things. Just not in the way that Progressives wanted him to but what they forget. Is that their man was not in the White House and if they were looking for a Progressive. They should've backed Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader, they backed the wrong person from their ideological perspective. But if you look at what Barack Obama campaigned on in 2008 and what he's accomplished so far. He has a great Batting Average as far as what he wanted to pass and what he did pass. Oh by the way our troops are also coming home from Afghanistan and Iraq.
My point being and yes I have a point here, is that the President has come through on a lot of what he's promised so far. And he's been in office for three years and has had a Republican House for one year. But listening to Progressives talk about President Obama, you would think they were talking about George W. Bush. They haven't given President Obama much credit for anything, even though what he said he was going to do during the 2008 Campaign. And what he wanted done and what he wanted in those bills. Is basically what he ran on. So if Progressive Democrats liked Barack Obama in 2008, they should be able to like him in 2012 as well.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press
If you look at both America and Canada, you see two gigantic countries, the 2nd and 3rd largest countries in the world physically. And in America's case the 3rd largest population in the World with three-hundred-million people. We have basically the same people both ethnically and racially, a lot of people from Europe. But African and Asian minorities, Middle Eastern minorities and in America's case a lot of Latin-American minorities. Canada might have more Asians, especially in British Columbia. America has more Latin-Americans, two of the largest and most developed nations in the World.
Both countries have strong capitalist economies with a lot of economic freedom. But Canada has a welfare state with a lot of socialism with its welfare state in the economy. But perhaps not as much as Europe. We both love sports and similar sports. We both like football, baseball and hockey. One country loves hockey, hopefully you can figure out which one on your own. The other country is starting to love hockey. We eat similar foods because again we have similar ethnic groups living in our countries. We both speak English and sound similar speaking English, but with slightly different accents.
America depending on where you live, almost has a distinct accent for every state. And especially every region of the country. Canada perhaps the same for their provinces, but my experience with Canadians, is that they tend to sound like they are from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois or Michigan. To me anyway Canadians sound like they are from the upper Midwest of the United States. Culturally America and Canada have a lot in common, which is why a lot of Americans go to Canada. And why a lot of Canadians come to America, but I would argue that Canadians come to America to work and live.
Perhaps Canadians come here so they don't have to see blizzards or snow in April and October. Or to do some of the things they see Americans do on TV. Because they get all of our TV Networks and are very familiar with our culture and news. And are constantly reporting our own news and entertainment and sports. As if they don't have enough going on in their own country. But whatever as the saying goes, all news is good news. In America though, unless you have Direct TV or satellite or live in New England or the Northwest, you don't get the Canadian networks. You don't get to see The National from CBC News, which would be like NBC Nightly News in America.
But Canadians get to see Nightly News, ABC World News, the CBS Evening News etc. We are very similar, which is why America has this old joke. That we see Canada as the 51st State, because if you fly or drive there from the United States, you might not know you're in a different country. Until you see advertising or street signs, something like that. But even though America and Canada are very similar, we are very different, especially politically. I'll bet you anything that the average Canadian knows as much about American politics, thats today's politics than the average American.
But that most Americans probably don't know a damn thing about Canadian politics. I'm not one of them, I'm fairly familiar with Canadian politics and again because Canadians follow American news. And we are different because Canadians have a universal single payer health care system. Health Insurance provided by their Federal Government at taxpayers expense. And somehow think its crazy that Americans get to decide where to get their own health insurance. And that fifty-million Americans roughly don't even have health insurance, I agree with them on the last part.
And that America except for our Far-Left and Far Right, has this liberal-libertarian view of politics. Of get government out of my wallet and bedrooms. Where Canadians pay their high tax rates with smiles on their face and celebrate Tax Day. One thing that Canada has on America though, they don't have a Religious-Right. I'm jealous of Canada as American of that. They don't have people that combine their religion with their politics. America and Canada two great countries, there isn't another country in the world I would want to share a three-thousand mile border with.
Even a country that says oot, aboot and agenst, oot and aboot, that says please for everything, even if they are cops. That says a as much as Germans say yah. And because of this Canadians would be the last people we would try to deport, not that we really deport anyone, with about fifteen-million illegal immigrants. But as any good friendship goes, we have plenty in common that makes us friends in the first place. But enough differences so we have things that we can learn about each other and reason to stay friends in the future.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on Blogger
In many ways its easier to get attention these days, especially in the era of the information technology revolution, by saying things that make you sound like you’re from another planet. Or in Michelle Bachmann’s case, sound like you’re running for President, of another planet. Who wants to hear a politician say, “I’ll do what I believe is in the best interest of the country. I’ll make decisions based on what I believe is the best thing to do”. Every time there’s a politician or candidate who speaks like that, you can hear insomniacs snoring in the background, getting the best sleep of their lifetimes. Perhaps introducing their brains to sleep for the first time in their lives.
It’s the politicians and candidates, who say things, just to use Michelle Bachmann as an example who says things like, “same-sex marriage is the biggest threat to our national security”. I guess sometime before she said that, the United States won the War on Terror. I could’ve swore the War on Terror was a bigger threat. Or the national debt or deficit, unemployment were bigger threats. Perhaps Representative Bachmann misses the House Intelligence Committee meetings that she’s a member of, that released that information. But perhaps Barack Obama actually is God and fixed all these problems and hearing rumors that President Obama was God in disguise as a human being and President of the United States, was not a rumor, but a fact.
So now the biggest threat to American civilization is actually same- sex marriage. If you’re having a hard time reading that with a straight face, imagine how hard it was to write it. You know with the typing and everything, but hey maybe Representative Bachmann’s gay husband Marcus can fix the same-sex marriage issue, by converting gay people to straight. Its much easier I would say especially in America, because of our size and wealth, 310M people, the largest economy in the world and how far advanced we are technology wise and everything for Mentally Unbalanced people lets say to be nice, to get attention for themselves and whatever they think they are trying to accomplish.
The reason for is this is because of how abnormal the mentally handicapped are and they do and say things, that sane people just wouldn’t say or do. Mitt Romney only gets media attention for one of his speeches, when he says something that makes him seem out of touch. Like when he said he only made 400K$ giving speeches. Well 90% of the country would love to only 400K$ a year. But generally people don’t remember much if anything that Mitt said in one of his speeches.
And one of those reasons is, because Mitt one of the sanest people to ever run for President. The guy is about as exciting as a bowl of oatmeal, which might be insulting to oatmeal. But when someone lets again use Michelle Bachamann, says something that sounds so far out in left field, or right field in Michelle’s case, that they couldn’t see centerfield with binoculars or a telescope, it gets reported right away. Because its crazy, interesting and provocative. And gives the “mainstream media” something else to make fun of.
If you’re lonely and feel like you’re not receiving your fair share of attention, give a crazy speech, say things like “America should be less Socialist like China”. Take pictures of your sensitive area and post them on Twitter, especially if you’re a Public Official. It will always work and you’ll always get attention for doing, excuse the term doing crazy shit like that. But one thing it just might not be the kind of attention you’re looking for. But as the saying goes, all free media is good media. I know I said no more blogs about Michelle Bachmann until she runs for reelection for House. But this popped in my head.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Mitt Romney is a Presidential Candidate who's also a very wealthy businessman that would put in the top 1% as far as Personal Income in America. He's been very successful in life to the point where you would think he wouldn't have a problem with that. Saying I'm a very successful businessman, I've run company's. That when I took over weren't doing very well and within a few years. Turned them around and made them profitable, this kinda of thing happens all the time in Corporate America. Company's run into financial trouble, perhaps they hire too many people. Or are too generous with their Compensation Packages, General Motors being a perfect example of that. And they have to lay people off and reduce their Compensation Packages. In order to save the company and avoid laying people off in the future. And also so they can hire people in the future and be able to attract the best talent as possible. And be able to offer them the best Compensation Package they can afford. Not whatever it takes to get them to work for the company, which are two different things. If Mitt Romney were somehow to be elected President of the United States. And that the Christian Right were lose their memory or something and forget that Mitt is a mormon. Then Mitt would be the wealthiest person ever elected President of the United States. As far as income he generated on his own and didn't inherit. Franklin Rossevelt may of had more money when he became President, if you adjust for today's dollars. But he was a Public Servant for most of his career. Nothing wrong with these things.
What you hear from Mitt's opponents that are running for President, except for Ron Paul. Is them almost bashing Mitt for how he made his money and that he can't communicate with Average Voters. Because of how wealthy he is and they have a point there, for example when Mitt said he only made 400K$ from Speaking Fees. 400K$ sounds like a pretty good living for probably 90% of the country and statements like that make Mitt seem out of touch. But all they are doing and these are Republicans by the way, in Newt Gingrich's case. A Conservative Republican in a lot of areas. Is setting up Mitt Romney for what he's going to hear in the General Election if he wins the Republican Nomination. From Progressive Democrats with their Class Warfare rhetoric, basically saying its a bad thing that one person. Has made so much money, when a lot of the country is struggling. Essentially attacking Mitt for being successful in life, I'm a Democrat and you won't hear me make those charges. And because Mitt has a tendency to speak with only one of his lips or half of his brain. He's going to have a hard time speaking up for his success in life and how he earned his money.
Mitt Romney reminds me a lot of George HW Bush, the good George Bush as far as I'm concern. The man who was very intelligent and could speak in complete sentences. And was clearly qualified to be President of the United States and who was very successful in life. I actually believe overall he was a good President. But except for Foreign Policy, he was a lousy communicator, especially when he was talking about himself. And what he wanted to do and his Business Career where he became a billionaire by starting and Oil Company. Mitt doesn't seem to be able to say, you what I've been damn successful in life. And I'm damn proud of that and I have a great wife and great family. And because of my success, they'll never be hungry or without resources. And I'm running for President to empower the Less Fortunate to be able to be successful in life as well. He hasn't shown that Human Touch yet and be better find it soon.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
America has a Healthcare System where we spend roughly 3T$ in an economy of 15T$ or 17-18% of our Gross National Product or GDP. We by far spend more of our GDP on our Healthcare System then any other Industrialized or Developed Nation in the World. And one of those reasons why, is that we don't take care of ourselves very well as a country. We eat too much, we don't eat healthy enough, we don't exercise enough. And then we wonder why half of America is either overweight or obese. Obesity is a disease that leads into other diseases that are even worse like diabetes or cancer. So if we just took better care of ourselves as a country, that alone would bring down our Healthcare Costs down. Because we would have less obese people, less people going to the Emergency Room with things like Heart Attacks, strokes. And other Preventable Emergencies, people consuming less Healthcare in America, because they would be healthier. And not have to consume as much Healthcare. Which would also make Safety Net Programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Public Hospitals more affordable. It would also make our Private Health Insurance and Healthcare System more affordable. Because they would end up treating less people with Life Threatening Conditions. Like obesity, diabetes, cancer and others, because we wouldn't have as much people. With these conditions, because they would be taking better care of themselves.
What I'm talking about, in case it isn't obvious enough, is called Preventive Care. Thats what First Lady Obama was talking about today, she was promoting a form of Preventive Care. Which is eating healthy promoting Healthy Meals in our Public Schools, children are the easiest and most important group to address first. When we are talking about eating healthy and exercising while in school and out of school. So they can avoid developing Unhealthy Conditions once they become adults. Again obesity and your going to hear obesity a lot in this blog and if your currently obese. Its not to make fun of you but just because I care a lot about it. I have a Chronic Obese good friend, my Maternal Grandmother died from Colon Cancer. She was something like 100 pounds overweight, so its something that I care a lot about. Obesity, there it is again is a Preventable Disease, of course there are people who inherit that condition. From their parents and grandparents but obesity also comes when you don't take care of yourself. When you overeat, you don't eat well, a lot of Junk Food and Drink, you don't exercise, you don't even like to exercise. And focusing on children who aren't obese yet or are headed down that road. Is a great place to start and then we can help Obese Adults as well.
So if we were just to get Junk Food and Drink our of all of our Public Schools and just ban them. Establish k-12 Physical Education and force students to pass twelve years of Public Education. And actually require them to pass it and not just show up, participate in the activities and give their best effort. Tax Junk Food and Drink high, encourage people to eat healthy with discounts. And encourage exercise with Tax Credits, these things alone would bring down our Healthcare Costs. Because we would be healthier as a country and not have to consume as much Healthcare in the future.
Talking Points Memo: Video: Representative Michelle Bachmann, "We Should be Less Socialist Like China"
This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on Blogger
About three weeks ago after Representative Michelle Bachmann did Minnesota and the United States a favor by dropping out of the Republican race for president and then announcing a few days later that she wasn’t going to run for reelection to the House. That because of these things and that Michelle Bachmann would hopefully go home go back to the mental hospital, go back to high school and take a class on American history. Take a course about foreign policy and get the help that she needs. So in the future she’ll say less ignorant things and present them as fact.
Well that all sounds like a dream now and after she announced she’s running for reelection to the House. Hopefully House Democrats will give her a tough run this time, especially now that Representative Bachmann is very unpopular. Not only in her home State of Minnesota, but in her House district, thanks to her presidential campaign. After making a short story longer, I told myself that I was going to layoff Representative Bachmann, at least until her general election campaign in the fall. In the House and that’s assuming she wins the Republican primary, that might not be a safe bet after her presidential campaign, which is why she’s so unpopular in Minnesota right now.
So I found another ignorant thing that Representative Bachmann said in one of the November debates. When her presidential campaign was already on life support, something her political strategist Ed Rollins figured out. Which is why he resigned, but she didn’t figure out until January after getting just 5% of the vote in Iowa. During the November debate, Scott Pelley anchor of the CBS Evening News, asked the candidates something about the economy. And basically asked Representative Bachmann what is her economic policy, or something to that effect. She said in her own words, first she goes off about the LBJ Great Society and said that China doesn’t have things like cash transfers and Food Stamps as she called it. It’s no longer called Food Stamps.
And then Representative Bachmann said that “America should become less socialist like China”. Apparently according to Michelle Bachmann, America is more socialist than China. China being a country with state-owned industries. What’s the classic definition of socialism. The state owns the means and production of society. State-owned industries fits that like a glove. Now of course the People’s Republic no longer fits the classic definition of socialism. Which is good for them and the main reason why their economy is now the 2nd largest in the world, sorry Japan. Because they’ve privatized their economy and now have probably the largest growing private sectors in the world.
Representative Bachmann also said that China doesn’t have a welfare state unlike America. This is a person who serves on the House Intelligence Committee by the way. If being intelligent was a requirement to serve on that committee, Michelle Bachmann wouldn’t be qualified to serve on that committee. Article 14 of the P.R. Constitution China’s version of the U.S. Constitution, but obviously a hell of a lot different, states that the state meaning the P.R. Central Government builds and improves a welfare system that corresponds with the level of economic development in the country.
China has a Ministry of Human Resources and social welfare. That oversees a safety net that has programs like, cash transfers. Sounds like welfare or unemployment insurance right. Food assistance, sounds like Food Stamps right. Money for education for people who can’t afford to send their kids to school. Vouchers for health care and I’m sure other things as well. Representative Michelle Bachmann is a three term U.S. Representative from Minnesota, elected in 2006. The year Congressional Democrats took back Congress.
Michelle serves on the House Intelligence Committee, but she knows so much that isn’t true or just makes up things. As she goes along, she’s extremely partisan by nature, so maybe that’s her issue and that’s the closest thing I’ll say to being nice to her. Yet she’s constantly saying things that aren’t true. And hopefully as a result she won’t be back to serve in the 113th Congress next year.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
President Obama Delivers the State of the Union Address: The Official Kickoff of the Obama Reelection Campaign
Last night we saw and again I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm a physic or anything. In case thats not clear enough but we saw what I was expecting, a Campaign Speech. In case anyone is not aware of this yet, President Obama is running for reelection in 2012 and wants to get reelected. I'm glad that President Obama didn't say, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, the State of the Union is strong. He said that the State of the Union is stronger, which is different. He was very honest and upfront about that, as well as truthful, because the State of the Union is stronger. Then it was in 2009, 2010 and 2011 as much as Republicans try to convince people otherwise. But then he got into what he wants to do as President in 2012 and beyond that. And other the Extension of the Payroll Tax Cut and Unemployment Insurance. And coming out for requiring Unemployed Workers who are collecting Unemployment Insurance. To get Job Training, he didn't offer anything to House and Senate Republicans. That they could work with him and Senate Democrats on and what we saw in 2011, we'll see in 2012. What the President wants to do as President is simply a hell of a lot different then what Congressional Republicans. And their Presidential Candidates want to do and for one side to put their agenda through. They are going to need Absolute Power to get that done, that means a United Government. For you english speakers, that means both control of the White House and Congress. Thats both Chambers of Congress and the White House.
President Obama last night talked about closing Tax Loopholes, Tax Hikes on the wealthy to close the National Debt and Deficit. Energy Independence thats built around Clean Energy and expanding Oil Drilling. Infrastructure Investment, incentivizing Job Creation at home, all things I support as a Democrat. But areas where Congressional Republicans who control the House and have a large Senate Minority. All strongly disagree with the President. And the only uniting aspect of President Obama's speech was how he started it off. By relating how people in the military work together to accomplish the task at hand. Because if they don't work together, they'll lose their lives and saying that Congressional Republicans and Democrats. Should have the same attitude, approach your job in Congress as working to accomplish the task at hand. To get that done and to do that,since neither party controls Congress but just 1/2 of it. That they should work together to accomplish the task at hand. So they can send President Obama legislation that the country needs and he can sign. And that was really the only unifying aspect of the State of the Union Speech last night. Where President Obama was speaking to the whole country.
President Obama kicked off his 2012 Reelection Campaign with the biggest audience he'll get at least until his Convention Nomination Speech. So politically his speech made a lot of sense there but this wasn't a speech and perhaps done on purpose. That was designed to bring Democrats and Republicans together to work for America. And put Partisan Politics behind us, be uniters not dividers so to speak. Because for the most part the President was speaking to the Democratic Party and some Independents. Reelect me and this is what I'll do in a 2nd Term.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
I hope President Obama will just lay it on the line tonight and explain exactly where we are as a country. And refrain from saying things like, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President. The State of our Union is strong, because we are not there yet. The State of the Union is certainly stronger then it was in 2011, 2010 and much stronger then it was in 2009. But we haven't completely recovered from the 2008 "Great Recession" yet. So what President Obama should do tonight is lay out the situation of where the country was when he came in office in 2009. Without sounding very partisan, where we are today and where he wants to take the country this year. Where he can work with Speaker Boehner and House Republicans and where he wants to take the country in the future. If he is reelected in 2012 and this a speech like that, he would win a lot of credibility with American Voters. Especially Independent Voters that he needs to have to be Reelected President. Instead of giving a glass is completely full speech and that everything is Paradise and Reelect me . And things will only get better, if I"m still President and you vote those damn Republicans out of the House. And let Senate Democrats keep their majority but what I'm expecting tonight is instead. Is a Campaign Speech a preview of his DNC Speech in the Summer when he gets renominated by the Democratic Party. This is my agenda, this is what we should be doing as a country and I can't do it with a Republican House. And if the GOP House wants to work with me, its on them.
Assuming this is a Campaign Speech we'll here tonight and not I'm not physic in case thats a mystery. But this is what the President should focus on tonight, jobs, jobs, jobs. He should try to remind the Democratic Base as well that he has to have to get reelected. Progressive Democrats who are so high right now, they actually see Barack Obama. As a Moderate Republican, a man who's been known to hangout with known socialists. He should remind Progressives that America is pulling out of both Afghanistan and Iraq and cutting the size of the military and budget. But President Obama's main focus should be on the economy, Economic and Job Growth. Where we've seen some positive progress in the last few months. And to create more Economic and Job Growth in 2012 as well as in a 2nd Term. And focus on keeping jobs in America, like in the Manufacturing and Construction Industries. Like eliminating the Tax Credit that encourages sending jobs oversees. But instead focus on creating a Tax Credit to encourage creating jobs at home. Put more focus on Infrastructure Investment and Energy Independence. Retraining Unemployed Workers and putting those people back to work.
Expect a preview of the 2012 Obama Reelection Campaign and what President Obama wants to do in a 2nd Term. Because he understands this is an Election Year, especially with a Divided Congress. That its almost impossible to pass big things that have a major impact and are remembered. So this speech will be about where we been, where we are now and where he wants us to go. And we'll see in the next few days, what impact tonight's speech has.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Senate Leader Harry Reid gave a speech on the Senate Floor today saying that he hoped to work with Congressional Republicans. This year to basically work on the issues that confront the country. I would like a Vacation Home in San Diego, I'm not expecting that to happen anytime soon. One can hope for anything, a midget could hope to be six feet tall, a fish could hope to fly. A cat could hope to bark, Orlando could hope for snow. The thing about hope though is that its limited but what's reasonable, which is what Leader Reid is hopefully more focused on. As I'm sure he hopes to be reelected Leader of the Senate in 2012, which is one hope thats realistic. But what's reasonable or what former Vice President Hubert Humpfrey once called. "The Art of the Possible", are two different things and Senate Democrats led by Leader Reid. Especially as they face a General Election thats coming up where they have 23 Senate Seats up for reelection. And an Election where victory means holding on to the Senate, even with a 51-49 Majority or 50-50 even. If the President is reelected instead of actually adding to their 53-47 narrow majority. And they'll have another big debate ahead of them with Senate Republicans and House Republicans coming up. Over extending the Payroll Tax Cut and extending Unemployment Insurance, if both sides get through that. Without a huge Partisan Fight. Not expecting that, then maybe thats a sign. Of Divided Government working well in 2012.
What to expect in 2012 especially with the President's State of the Union Speech Tuesday Night sounding like a Campaign Speech. And an Announcement for his Reelection Campaign, well if your familiar with the year 2011. Then you already know the answer to that question, especially with another Debt Ceiling debate coming up. House and Senate Republicans trying to position themselves around the eventual Republican Nominee for President. And their Nominee doing the same with Congressional Republicans. Congressional Democrats doing the same thing with President Obama. In this is how American Politics tends to work especially during Election Years. With both parties trying to make the case in why they should get both Congress and the White House. Democrats want to retain the White House obviously, retain the Senate and take back the House. Republicans want the White House back, retain the House and take back the Senate. And in order to do this, both parties have to convince American Voters. That they not only have the right agenda for the country and that they are different from the other party. And to do that, there's only so much compromising you can do with the other party to make that case.
So again you know take Senate Speeches for what they are for, I guess if you listen to anything long enough. You might find some truth and something that makes sense in it. And that even applies to the Senate but thats not the most reliable place for sense and truth. And you got know that Senators have a habit of speaking to empty rooms. To lay down goals in what they are trying to accomplish and that if they can find support on the other side. Great but what they are really interested in is passing their agenda, whether it has Bi Partisan support or not. And thats what Leader Reid's speech today was about.
|Source:C-SPAN- Right-wing radio talk show host Dennis Prager: speaking at the Western Conservative Summit -|
Source:C-SPAN: Dennis Prager's- 'Top 10 Ways Liberalism Makes America Worse'
The Left (as Conservatives like to call it), is wide-range group of political ideologies, ranging from liberalism where I am, to state socialism. (Meaning communism and Marxism) People especially on the Right, like to call communism part of the Left. But it's actually a mix of Far-Left on economic policy and Far-Right on social policy. Authoritarian across the board.
And a lot of times when the right-wing critiques the Left and liberalism, they lump the entire Left into one package. The Center- Left where I am, with the Far-Left Democratic Socialists and Communists. And when the right-wing critiques the Left, as far as the role of government and claim how much we are in favor of big government, (by the way I find it hysterical when Christian-Nationalists put down big government because they criticize something they support. The right-wing likes to say how much we are in favor of the welfare state and want to make America like Europe.
When you critique the Left and you want to be accurate and honest, explain what part of the Left you're targeting. Because when you go after the welfare state and the so-called self-esteem movement, that we all people need to feel good, whether we deserve to be or not, you're not talking about Liberals, you're talking about Socialists. And when you go after the Left for being soft whether it's crime, welfare, defense, terrorism etc, you're talking about Socialists or Anarchists. But you're not talking about Liberals and Progressives who created the National Security State. The institutions we used to combat and win the Cold War, as well as World War II. Socialists, yes believe in big government, but mostly as it relates to economic policy. But tend to be liberal when it comes to social issues and believe in freedom of choice, at least on some issues. Unlike Christian-Nationalists, who support big government on social policy.
The right-wing, unless they are Conservative-Libertarians, really have no business when it comes to critiquing liberalism. Because they tend to lump the entire Left into one pot. It would be like left- wingers saying that all Conservatives are bigots and hate minorities. And want to take America back to the 1950s and outlaw a lot of activities that are legal. And take away a lot of our individual liberty. Which is what a lot of Christian-Nationalists want to do. Just take a look at Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann.
Friday, January 20, 2012
When I think of the late great US Senator and Public Servant Pat Moynihan a Progressive Democrat from New York. I think of someone who had clear political leanings being a Progressive Democrat from New York. But someone who said what he believed and knew, who had a lot to say because he knew so much. He basically spent his whole career in Public Service, serving in four consecutive Presidential Administrations. Starting with the Kennedy Administration and ending with the Ford Administration. To run for US Senate from New York in 1976, where he was elected. And reelected in 1982, 88 and 94, retiring in 2001, which opened the door. For Hillary Clinton to run for his seat in 2000 and get elected herself. He spent his whole career in Public Service studying, learning, writing and speaking out issues that he cared about. He had a big focus in Poverty in America, when he served in the Johnson Administration and had a role in creating the Great Society programs. Similar role in the Nixon Administration working on Domestic Affairs. And then moved to Foreign Policy in the Ford Administration, serving as US Ambassador to the United Nations. And had his keen knack of telling the truth and being honest about it. And could say things about, especially about Poverty in America. That if a lot of other caucasian men said those things, like the crumbling of the African American Family. Others would be seen as racist but Moynihan could say those things, because he saw it up front and knew what he was talking about. And people trusted him.
Pat Moynihan represents how Public Officials use to be, not all of them of course. But more then we have now, Public Officials and former Public Officials. People who say what they are thinking and what they know and aren't just some Talking Head. Speaking up for the person they work for but would speak up in private. When they disagree with their boss and offer advice in what they would like to be seen done. They wouldn't speak out against their boss in public, at least not while they are still working for them. But they would do it in private and when they strongly disagree with them. And feel the need to speak up about it because they believe what their boss is doing. Is dangerous for the country, they would resign their position. And then speak out, through the media, an Op Ed, and article, do interviews, write a book etc. I believe today we have more then we use to, Public Officials who are there. Because they feel the need to backup their boss and to make their boss look as good as they can. Because they either have a lot of respect for their boss or they feel working for that person. Whether they like them or not, will lead to bigger things for them down the road. Perhaps a Cabinet Position, Running for Office, or a big job in Corporate America. And doing that would just be unacceptable to Pat Moyninhan.
Pat Moynihan represents what America needs more, someone who looks and analyzes facts and situations. For what they are and not look at them to make them look as good or as bad. As they want them to in order, to push their Political Agenda. Or to make the current person in office looking as good or bad as they can. From their perspective to make their side look as good as bad as they can. To obtain more power then they have. Pat Moynihan was pre Spin Zone and the original author of the No Spin Zone. Because he saw facts for what they are, this is what the situation is as he knows it. And could also offer where to go from there.
|Source: Real Libs-|
I've been asked and been labeled several different things since I've been blogging now three years about how I would describe my politics.
When I speak about things like individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom of choice, people automatically assume I'm a Libertarian.
And when I speak in favor of things like decentralization of the Federal Government and I express concerns about big government and speak against things like single payer Medicare For All health insurance, or creating a 21st Century New Deal or speak in favor of American power even in a limited way like being in favor of the Libyan no fly zone, people assume I'm a Conservative. I've actually been called a Conservative on YouTube. I was called that to be insulted, which I wasn't, not that I'm a Conservative. But because I actually know what conservatism is and can differentiate between conservatism and neoconservatism or religious conservatism or even libertarianism.
I've been labeled a Classical Liberal, which so far has been the most accurate way to describe my politics. Especially if classical liberalism is used to differentiate from what's called "Modern Liberalism". Which I just call democratic socialism and I'll explain why later. To give you a clue about about I would describe my politics, just go to the link of the blog site. FRSFreeState.Blogspot.com . The name of the blog site is called FRS FreeState, thats what my politics are.
I believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility, as well as limited government, which leads to good government. And no you don't have to be a Libertarian to believe in these things. A lot of Libertarians today tend to be anti-government and I'm not one of those people. And I don't want government out of the economy all together as well.
Yes I have respect for Ron Paul and Milton Friednman and perhaps you've noticed. I've quoted Professor Friedman on this blog several times. But thats just because liberalism and libertarianism are similar and share certain values. But we are different and I just laid out a few differences. Liberalism is not libertarianism and it's certainly not socialism. Even though we have some things in common, as it comes to social issues.
Dennis Kucinich is no more a Liberal, than Rick Santorum is a Conservative. There what people call "Modern Liberals" and Neoconservatives. I'm a Liberal because I believe in liberal democracy, which is why I'm also a Liberal Democrat. Again because I believe in liberal democracy, individual liberty, personal responsibility, freedom of choice and limited government, equality of opportunity. These are all liberal values.
When you think libertarian, think of someone that yes believes in individual liberty, personal responsibility and freedom of choice. But all think of someone who wants to return the Federal Government, back to only what's laid out for it in the 10th and 11th Amendments. Meaning we would only have a State Department, Defense Department, Treasury Department and a Justice Department and thats about it. Thats what you call small government, which is different from limited government.
When you think of a Socialist, think of someone who believes in big government in the form of a welfare state. Socialists believe we need a large welfare state and high taxes to promote economic equality. And when you think of a Liberal, think of someone who believes in individual liberty, personal responsibility, freedom of choice, equality of opportunity, rule of law, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. And limited government and that government should be used to empower people who need help but not take care of them.
I really blame the so-called mainstream media and our public education system for the lack of education that a lot of Americans have when it comes to American politics. And why Americans get Liberals mixed up with Socialists and Libertarians. And Conservatives mixed up with Libertarians and Neoconservatives. And why people who are Democratic Socialists, like Senator Bernie Sanders or Representative Dennis Kucinich, are labeled Liberals, when we are really different from these other political factions.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
|Source:FORA-TV- Professor Daniel Lowenstein: on the Electoral College|
The Electoral College was developed by our founding fathers and enshrined in the Constitution as a system of checks and balances to ensure a fair outcome in the choosing of our presidents.
However, the highly publicized 2000 presidential election, in which Al Gore may have won the popular vote but lost the contest to George W. Bush, galvanized those who wish to see the Electoral College scrapped in favor of a national popular vote.
Come hear our panel of distinguished experts discuss the merits and pitfalls of the two systems, and the wisdom of moving from a tried and true process to something new - The Commonwealth Club of California
Daniel Lowenstein teaches Election Law, Statutory Interpretation & Legislative Process, Political Theory, and Law & Literature. A leading expert on election law, he has represented members of the House of Representatives in litigation regarding reapportionment and the constitutionality of term limits. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the award-winning theatre troupe Interact and regularly brings the company to the School of Law to perform plays with legal themes, such as Sophocles' Antigone, Ibsen's Rosmerholm, and Wouk's The Caine Mutiny Court Martial.
Professor Lowenstein worked as a staff attorney at California Rural Legal Assistance for two and one-half years. While working for California's Secretary of State, Edmund G. Brown Jr. in 1971, he specialized in election law, and was the main drafter of the Political Reform Act, an initiative statute that California voters approved in 1974, thereby creating a new Fair Political Practices Commission. Governor Brown appointed Professor Lowenstein as first chairman of the Commission. He has served on the national governing board of Common Cause and has been a board member and a vice president of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights."
Source: FORA-TV: Daniel Lowenstein- 5 Reasons To Keep The Electoral College
Why do we have an Electoral College in the United States? To keep elitist Democrats and Republicans who believe people who live in small states are redneck and hillbilly's who don't matter and that their votes don't count, from ignoring them. If you're in a tight presidential race and it's going to come down to a few of states swing states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana matter and that forces you to campaign there.
And those voters get to see who'll be the next President of the United States as well who are also taxpayers. Instead of snobby Democrats just campaigning in the Northeast, Mid Atlantic, Florida, a few big States in the Midwest and California. And just speaking to the wine and cheese yuppie crowds. Now they have to campaign in Indiana, Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado.
Or snobby Republicans just campaigning in the Bible Belt Bible toting crowds and cherry pick a few states in the Midwest. In order to get elected President of the United States. Now they have to see if they can pick off Pennsylvania or Michigan or Illinois or Wisconsin or Minnesota. That's why we have the Electoral College, to prevent snobby presidential candidates from just targeting 50% of the voting public. Plus one vote in order to get elected President of the United States.
We don't live in a majoritarian democracy, where 50% plus one is all you need to get into power as far as being President. Or a parliamentary democracy where we let our members of Congress make these decisions for us. We live in a republic in a form of a liberal democracy and being President is harder to achieve. Is our Electoral College perfect? of course not, but I sure as hell would take over anything that the rest of the world has. But we could definitely improve it.
And if that probably takes a constitutional amendment to accomplish that, then I would be open to that. I have a problem with presidential candidates winning the popular vote in at least one case by a million votes with Vice President Al Gore back in 2000 and not winning the presidency. Even though a million more voters preferred that Al Gore be President of the United States, instead of Governor George W. Bush. I'm not saying that as a Democrat, I really have a problem with that and see that as small d and l anti-liberal democratic.
But not to the point where I'm willing to throw out the Electoral College. And replace it with a popular vote or move to a parliamentary social democracy like you see in Europe. I would like to see a political system that keeps the Electoral College, but amends it to be President of the United States, you have to win the Electoral College as well as popular vote. If there's a split decision, we would have a runoff a week later between the top two presidential candidates. Which would be decided by popular vote.
I would like to see other changes to our presidential electoral system as well. If you only win lets says 40% of one state but finish first with multiple candidates, you shouldn't be awarded with all the electoral votes. But instead they would be divided up for everyone. Based on what percentage of the vote they get.
If you win 60% of a state or more, then you can keep all of the electoral votes. That would be a better electoral system that would be more democratic. But not scrap the Electoral College because some people believe others have too much say based on where they live and don't like their culture and lifestyles.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
|Who is Mitt Romney?|
Mitt Romney’s father George Romney as Governor of Michigan and as a presidential candidate, he was basically a Center-Right Republican. Strong economic Conservative credentials, but moderate-liberal on social issues. His son Mitt Romney in his heart fits into whatever faction of that Republican Party that remains today. Mitt’s problem is that what he believes in politically, doesn’t fit in very well with today’s Republican Party. So positions he takes in the past, like when he ran for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts in 1994 and Governor of Massachusetts in 2002, doesn’t fit in with the rest of the Republican Party.
Where instead of contending with Moderates and Conservatives and even Liberals, he has to contend with Religious and Neoconservatives and now the Tea Party that has both of those political factions in it and even Libertarians. So when he’s running for Senate and Governor, he’s pro-choice on abortion. He was a moderate conservative Governor of Massachusetts. When he runs for President in 2007-08 and running in the Bible Belt, he decides to be the Christian Conservative Candidate. Because he knows Mike Huckabee is running and he’s going to need Christian Conservatives to be elected President of the United States.
Two problems that Romney had with that campaign, was that the Christian-Right didn’t believe him and they were correct. And that Mitt Romney is a Mormon and they see Mormonism as a cult. Anytime you try to appeal to a religious cult like the Christian-Right (as I would label them) you’re looking for trouble, but that also goes to your character, or lack of it. Trying to talk sense to cult followers, is like trying to take a shower without water. What’s the point.
I call Mitt Romney Flip Flopper because that’s what he does and what he is. The real Mitt Romney no longer fits in with the GOP. Those days are gone, this is no longer the Republican Party of Ron Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Barry Goldwater, Gerry Ford, Bob Dole and others. This is the party of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition, Family Research Council, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum and others. So Romney feels the need to make up these new characters. Moderate Romney in 1994 and 2002, Bible Belt Romney in 2007-08 and now the businessman with results Romney in 2011-12. He’s whoever he feels he needs to be to get the job he’s running for and his act is running dry.
Which is why the Republican Party is not sold on him yet and if you look at these GOP presidential debates a strong presidential candidate could knock most of those schmucks out. But because we are talking about Mitt Romney, he gets to appear on the same stage as Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain and the audience is left to wonder who won. Ron Reagan with this lack of competition, would’ve already had the GOP nomination in the bag by now. You ask Mitt Romney who is Mitt Romney and you get several different answers from the same person.
And you’re thinking, “he just described several different people. I’m not sure he knows who he is, if he gave you and honest answer.” He might say, “I’m who I believe I need to be in order to get to where I want to be.” (Under truth serum) Which would be true, but he doesn’t have the guts to say that and his political career, I mean his running for office career would be over. He’s only held one public office, because he’s lost almost every election he’s ever ran for. Again because of the multiple personality Mitt he’s become a career campaigner who rarely wins, but goes by the notion, “once you fail, try, try again.”
The Tea Party Movement could've become something very powerful when they started out in late 2008. To attack all the bailouts that the Federal Government were up to and then later moved on to Healthcare Reform. The debt and deficit, rewriting the US Constitution and so fourth. They could've been the Political Movement that replaced Bush Neoconservatism that had run the Republican Party the previous eight years. And moved the Republican Back to Reagan Classical Conservatism. That we are going to again be about Limited Government and Individual Liberty. Not try to outlaw things like Premarital Sex, or Adultery, Same Sex Marriage, Homosexuality all together. Pornography, non European Immigration, push for censorship of the Entertainment Industry. Things that the Christian Right have been pushing for, for over thirty years now. We were no longer going to invade countries that don't threaten us, a Limited Government and Foreign Policy. That best represents American National Security Interests, instead of basically where they are now. Combining the multiple Political Factions of the GOP into one Political Movement. The Tea Party now has the Christian Right, Neoconservatives, a few Reagan Classical Conservatives in it and even some Libertarians. They are trying to represent everyone in the Republican Party and have lost influence as a result. Without having a Presidential Candidate of their own and leaving that up to the Christian Right and GOP Establishment.
What happens when one Political Movement tries to bring everyone else in, they get divided. Which is where the Tea Party is now and as a result, the Republican Party is left with. King Flip Flopper himself Mitt Romney the GOP Establishments favorite choice but no one else's. Mr. I'll Say what I need to do to get elected. And do as President what I feel I need to and if people don't like it. Tough thats what you get for listening to a politician. Mr I was for when it was popular but I'm against it now because its unpopular. Why do think Mitt Romney scores so badly when the question is asked. Who would make a strong Leader and people like Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich score well. Because people believe Paul and Gingrich when they take positions. Because they are not afraid to take unpopular positions if they believe in them. Had the Tea Party just sticked to what they were in the beginning. The Federal Government is the problem because its too big and spend too much money. And not try to combine Economic Conservatism with Religious and Neoconservatism. With people like Sen. Jim DeMint and Rep. Michelle Bachmann. Maybe they have a Presidential Candidate today thats at least pushing Romney for the nomination. Maybe they get behind Ron Paul or Buddy Roemer instead.
I don't see the Tea Party as a major factor in the Presidential Race at least in the General Election. Except that Mitt Romney will of course need them to vote for him. To have any hope of defeating President Obama but they won't determine who the GOP Nominates for President. Thats pretty much already been decided but the Tea Party will play a big role in determining the Control of Congress next year. The House and Senate and thats probably what they are focusing on right now.
Friday, January 13, 2012
When Barack Obama became President three years ago, he had a lot on his plate because he inherited a lot of problems. From the Bush Administration, at least as many as President Reagan inherited from the Carter Administration. And perhaps as many as FDR inherited from the Hoover Administration. President Obama had a big agenda because he had a lot to do. With the "Great Depression", rising unemployment, losing 700K$ per month, negative 7% Economic Growth. Two wars oversees, 45-50M people without Health Insurance and he wanted to expand Health Insurance for those people. Failing Banking and Auto Industries, Wall Street plummeting and in need of reform. A National Debt of 10T$, a Budget Deficit of 1T$, these are the reasons why we have a Republican House right now. The President and Congressional Democrats getting blamed for not solving all of these problems in two years. As well as some mistakes they made in the Healthcare Reform Debate. And a lot of bad rhetoric from the Tea Party and Congressional Republicans, things like "Death Panels", that went unchecked. That people who probably voted for Barack Obama in 2008, took seriously and voted Republican in 2010. As well as Progressive Democrats not bothering to vote at all in 2010. Is why we have a Republican House and a Divided Congress right now.
President Obama didn't want to pass a version of the New Deal, the 2009 American Recovery Act. Was a two year bill of around 800B$ that was targeted and temporary. If you look at the New Deal, a lot of those programs are still in place today. Once you introduce Entitlement Programs, its almost impossible to eliminate them. Because they pick up Special Interest Groups that will fight for them, donate money to politicians and candidates that will fight for them. And donate money against politicians and candidates that won't fight for them. President Obama was not trying to pass what's been called the Fair Deal, that Progressives have been fighting for. At least since the Great Society was created in the 1960s. That would build off of the New Deal and Great Society, with things like Single Payer National Health Insurance and even Healthcare. Universal Higher Education, return to the old Tax Rates pre President Reagan and other things. President Obama has been trying to create and Economic System that works for everyone not just High Earners. But an Economic Systems that benefits Middle and Low Earners as well.
If you look at most of the Legislation that President Obama has passed, its really hard to label it a "Radical Socialist Agenda". Especially when people who are actually Socialists and Progressive. Don't call it a "Socialist Agenda", most of what the President has been doing. Is things to help the Middle Class and Small Business's help themselves. Not by passing new Entitlement Programs and but things like Middle Class Tax Relief and Consumer Protections. Healthcare Reform that expands Health Insurance through the Private Sector, as well as Consumer Protections. To actually regulate the Private Health Insurance Industry. So this notion that Barack Obama is some type of Radical or a Socialist, is Pure Politics coming from Ignorant People. Who probably don't know any better.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on Blogger
The leadership in the Republican Party in 2011 or so decided that Mitt Romney was going to become the presidential nominee in 2012. And that they decided that they were going to do whatever they could to make that happen. And now they are pardon the phrase, shitting bricks, because their guy, the supposed frontrunner Mitt Romney, has only won 1-3 of the first Republican contests. Hardly looking like a frontrunner.
Mitt Romney, someone who won't even defend himself. By saying that "I was in corporate America, I made a lot of money taking failing companies and turning them around. And sometimes that means you have to lay people off, in order to save the company. And so you don't have to fire more people in the future and be able to hire more people. And I made a lot of money because I turned these companies around, that are now successful". That's called American capitalism, there's nothing wrong with being successful in life.
Especially when others benefit from that success and you do it legally. Not by screwing people over, especially with a smile on your face. That's what Mitt Romney should be saying about his business career, but wait we are talking about Mitt Romney. Aka Flip Flopper, the man who feels the need to please everyone he meets, who can't come up with a simple answer to any question.
I hate to say this because I have a lot of respect for Senator John Kerry. He's one of my favorite members of Congress, but Mitt Romney in 2012, is looking like John Kerry from 2004. And because of Mitt's inability to communicate to Republican voters, you know we aint talking Albert Einstein here, Republican Voters are fairly simple people. "Keep my taxes and regulations down, cut them whenever possible, defend the nation, Jesus, guns and country". And Mitt doesn't seem able to speak their language.
And because of this, as well as being the master of flip flops and I'm not talking about feet, Mitt Romney finds himself in his political battle of his lifetime. Against someone with a 27% approval rating nationally and 56% negative rating in Newt Gingrich. On stage debating people like Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum and hasn't really won a debate yet. At least since he came back against Rick Perry in September. If Mitt Romney is a frontrunner, I sure as hell would like to know what the joke candidate looks like.
Well that would be Michelle Bachmann, but she's back in the nut U.S. House. So now we need someone else to take that role and that since Newt has already cut Mitt's big lead in Florida, the GOP establishment may be looking to replace Mitt and the GOP base which is different from the establishment. We are not there yet but if the Newter wins Florida and he'll have a couple of opportunities to do that this week, they are playing in Newt's territory with two big Florida debates, all hell could break lose in the GOP.
Which finally gets me to Sarah Palin who I said a year ago would not run for president in 2012. Even though she would be my favorite Republican candidate, to make fun of. And be President Obama's personal escort to reelection, but she's not going to do us that favor. And put the country through the pain and embarrassment of her presidential campaign. But I could see a post Mitt campaign, a call to the bullpen if you will, if the GOP establishment feels Mitt is no longer up to it. Will either be beat by Newt, or get pushed by Newt to the Republican convention. With no one knowing who won, until they actually count the votes. 1976 all over again.
Over the last thirty years or so, the wealth of High Earners has gone up while the Middle Class wealth has been somewhat flat. We did see a reduction of poverty in the 1990s after it rose in the 1980s. But thats now back up thanks to the recession of 2001-02 and the "Great Recession" of 2008. That we are still struggling to recover from and the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003. Where the Middle Class did benefit from but where High Earners have done extremely well. And have been the only Economic Class that has seen their wealth increase the last ten years. Has contributed to our Income Inequality but that hasn't been the only issue. The last 10-20 years our Education System has declined, to the point that we are now ranked 39th in the World. So we are not producing as many qualified workers as we use to. So now fewer workers have the skills that they need to get a good job, join the Middle Class and move up from there. But if your wealthy and you went to good schools, Public or Private. You either live in an area with excellent Public Schools or you can send your kids to Private Schools. And they can get the skills that they need to go on to college and of course you'll be able to afford to send them to college. And they can get themselves the skills that they need to get a good job, join the Middle Class and move up from there. These are the issues we face and why we have Income Inequality in America.
There's nothing wrong with having a lot of wealthy people in America, as long as they earned their money. By being very productive and not screwing people out of their money. But by producing Quality Products and Services that people can afford to buy and want to have. What is bad for a Liberal Democracy, is to have a lot of High Earners and a lot of Low Earners. And fewer and fewer Middle Earners, where the High Earners see their wealth skyrocketing. The Middle Earners seeing their wealth flattening or going down and the Low Earners seeing whatever money they have dropping. To the point where they become even more dependent on Public Assistance for their Daily Survival. And more of a drain on society, what we need to do instead. Is have an Economic System that encourages people to get a good education, work hard and be productive. Lets those people create a lot of that wealth that they created but for the people that didn't get the skills that they need. To be successful in life and become Self Sufficient where they are not collecting Public Assistance to survive. We empower them to get the skills that they need to become Self Sufficient. And climb the economic scale.
We'll never have what would be called True Economic Equality, we will never have that in a Liberal Democracy with a Capitalist Economy. We wouldn't get there if we were a Socialist Democracy either, look at Scandinavia. They have High, Middle and Low Income people as well, just fewer Low Earners as a percentage then we do. But we can have lesser and more manageable Income Inequality with a better Education System and retraining our Middle and Low Income Workers. By increasing the size of the pot not by shrinking it and taking from the few to support the rest.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Conservative Writer Jonah Goldberg actually has a point, even though the title of his book Liberal Fascism. Is a borderline Oxymoron, if you understand what Liberalism is. You know that Liberalism encourages Freedom of Thought and Speech, Liberals don't expect everyone to agree with them on everything. President Barack Obama and Dick Durbin the Deputy Democratic Leader in the Senate. Both Liberal Democrats but they don't agree with each other on everything. Just look at the War on Terror with the Patriot Act and Indefinite Detention, two perfect examples. I as a Liberal Democrat I disagree with President Obama on those issues as well but will vote for in November. Unless he invades Iran or something, then that will probably cost him and a lot of other Liberal Democrats our votes. Liberals love Freedom of Speech and Thought, we fight for it everyday, just look at the ACLU perfect example. So to call someone a Liberal Fascist, would be like calling someone. A Radical Moderate, those two terms don't really go very well together. But where Jonah Goldberg has a point is that there is an element of Fascism on the Far Left. In the Democratic Party and in Progressive Parties in America. That if you don't believe in Single Payer Healthcare, your automatically a sell out to Corporate Interests. Every time President Obama has made a decision that Progressive Democrats didn't agree with him on completely. They called him some type of sellout, even calling the President a Moderate Republican, Bush III and even the funniest charge a Neoconservative.
If you watch this video and listen to the people that Jonah Goldberg names, Naiomi Wolf, Joe Connoson, Major Owens. These are all Progressive Democrats representing the Far Left flank. Of the Democratic Party and the Political Spectrum, the Big Government Wing of the party. That have this attitude, you agree with us 100% of the time and do exactly what we want. Or your a sell out to the Progressive Movement and another spokesperson for Corporate America. Just look at the 2009 Recovery Act, the 2010 Affordable Care Act, Wall Street Reform, the Tax Cut Extensions, the Debt Ceiling bill. The Payroll Tax Cut and other Tax Cuts for the Middle Class, they were actually mad at President Obama for cutting taxes for the Middle Class. These are people who claim to be Fighters for the Middle Class. And even threaten a Primary Challenge to the President over these issues, basically seeing him as another Republican. This was a man they saw as God just three years ago, someone who was incapable of making mistakes. And now they see him as another spokesmen for Corporate America, how times have changed. So there is some Fascism in America but its on the Far Right and Far Left not amongst the adults in the room.
I always find it funny as a Liberal to hear people talk about books that they wrote about American Liberalism. When the people who write these books aren't Liberals themselves. And represent some of the characteristics that they are criticizing. Its like listening to a Political Fiction, if I lived in Dreamworld. And heard how Liberalism is talked about there, I wouldn't be a Liberal myself because I would probably see it as evil or socialistic. As its describe but since I live on Planet Earth, I see what Liberalism truly is and is why I'm a Liberal and always have been.