Kire Schneider Online

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Father of American Liberalism

Sunday, March 31, 2013

Baltimore Sports Report: Matt Lund: Ravens Are Vegas Favorites To Land Chicago Bears MLB Brian Urlacher

Ravens Are Vegas Favorites To Land Brian Urlacher

Long term at 35 this wouldn't be a good move for the Raven but for a team thats looking to win another Super Bowl in the short term. 2013 or 2014 or both seasons, if healthy this would be a great pickup for the Ravens and fill a need for Brian Urlacher to win his first Super Bowl.

Saturday, March 30, 2013

Dante Fung 99: AWA 1981- Jerry Lawler vs Hulk Hogan




More of a fight than a wrestling match. Jerry Lawler and Hulk Hogan, didn't like each other in the ring and what made this such a great matchup is that even though King was giving up fifty-plus pounds of muscle and 6-7 inches in height going up against one of the strongest men to ever wrestle in Hulk Hogan, he was a bring strong guy himself. 6'0-6'1 250 pounds or so, but he knew how to use all of the size he had. And was a very good wrestler who could also punch with any professional boxer and could knock you out as well.


Sunday, March 24, 2013

Crooks and Liars: Politics: John Amato: What Ross Douthat Overlooks About President Bush's Failures: What Reunited The Democratic Party in America

What Ross Douthat Overlooks About Bush's Failures

Pre 2003 President Bush had already laid the groundwork for not only getting reelected in 2004 but getting reelected in 2004 in a landslide. By what he was doing to not only secure the right, with tax cuts and helping the poor with non profit sector and so fourth. But was reaching out to independents on things like education reform, his initial response to 9/11 and his handling of the Afghanistan War. Upfront this is how Republicans won back the Senate in 2002 to give Congressional Republicans a united Congress for. 2003-04 because he had his entire party behind him as well a Independents and a Democratic Party that was in the opposition. They didn't want to get behind President Bush obviously but at the same time weren't sure how to confront a popular President who at one point had an approval. Rating in the eighties especially Senate Democrats led by Leader Tom Daschle, who controlled the Senate for President Bush's first two. Years and weren't sure how to confront both President Bush and House Republicans with and agenda of their own.

After Democrats lost the Senate in 2003, they were left pretty much out of the dark as far as the agenda that Congressional Republicans and President wanted to offer. How to confront a Republican President, a Republican House and a Republican Senate when you can't set your own agenda. They weren't even sure how to counter what Republicans were trying to do because their members especially in the Senate. Were divided as well so what you do is obstruct as best as you can. The problem with that is you end up with no agenda going up against an agenda with a President behind it who was still fairly popular in. 2003 it really took the Democratic Party all of 2003 to figure out not only how to fight Republicans but to push a. Positive agenda of their own and in a lot of ways the divisive President primary season of late 2003 and early 2004 was the best thing for the Democratic Party. And made John Kerry a better candidate in the primary season against Howard Dean. Instead of Democrats just automatically nominating Senator Kerry without much of an opposition.

President Bush should've lost in 2004. The economy was still not very good, rising debt and deficits thanks to two wars that weren't paid for, two tax cuts that weren't paid for, Medicare Advantage not. Paid for, by late 2003 the Iraq War already looking like a bad mistake and something the. Bush National Security Council looked completely unprepared for. But the Democratic Party had John Kerry who I believe is a great man and a great Liberal-Democrat and someone who I was proud to vote for. But who was a Vietnam War veteran, a real war hero who saved lives in Vietnam and didn't do everything he. Could to avoid military service unlike his opponent whose also from the baby boom generation. And yet he didn't seem to be able to defend himself and was a punching bag for a lot of that general election and. Election he should've won but it was really 2004 that reunited the Democratic Party that just needed a leader. Who would defend himself and lead the party to victory.

Today's Democratic Party was born politically in 2004, we've seen what Republicans have to offer. We not only don't like it but know it doesn't work and have our own agenda and know what does work. Based on experience from the Clinton era and we have George W. Bush to thank for that.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Salon: Politics: Steve Kornacki: Is Rand Paul The Next Robert Taft?: How Rand Paul Represents The GOP's Shift Back to Conservatism

Is Rand Paul the next Robert Taft?

The mainstreaming of Rand Paul, interesting title for an article. I saw another article in the magazine The Week with the title, does the rising of Rand Paul mean and end to social-Conservatism. Which are the two things to focus on as well as laying out what social-Conservativsm actually is and how that differs. From religious-Conservatism and they may sound like the same thing but they are actually different.

If you look at Rand Paul's political background whether you want to call it Conservative or Conservative-Libertarian or just flat Libertarian. He's always been in the mainstream in America as far as someone who believes that big government shouldn't interfere in our economic or personal lives. Meaning that government shouldn't try to control us or run our lives or even try to protect us from ourselves. Not that it shouldn't tax but not tax us to the point where we lose the freedom to control our own destiny and not be. Dependent on the state for our economic well being but that government shouldn't interfere into our personal lives as well. And what we do in the privacy of our own homes, what we watch on TV, who we sleep with and marry as adults. How we spend our own money as long as we aren't hurting innocent people with what we are doing. There's nothing radical about this and this view of what government shouldn't be doing is a shared viewpoint on both the. Right and left in America which is why its mainstream.

Social-Conservatism and Religious-Conservatism aren't the same thing. What is Conservatism, well in a political sense its about conserving social-freedom. So if you are a social-Conservative you believe in. Social-freedom, Barry Goldwater was a social-Conservative, so was Gerry Ford, Ron Reagan and so fourth and so is Rand Paul today. All of these men believe in social-freedom not subtracting from it or restricting it and forcing all Americans to live a certain type of life even for their own good. Kentucky in a lot of ways is a perfect state for Senator Rand Paul because there are a lot of real social-Conservatives. Who live there and represent how Rand got elected to the U.S. Senate and perhaps is the strongest voice in the Kentucky Congressional delegation right now. Religious-Conservatism at least in America is our version of a Theocratic political ideology where religious-Conservatives. Base their politics on a strict interpretation of the Bible and want to force all Americans to live a certain way.

Religious-Conservatism is not about conserving freedom but conserving a certain way of life that was fairly common in America up until the 1960s. And forcing all Americans to get back to that lifestyle because they believe we have too much individual freedom and our freedoms are sending America. Down a wrong track that will lead to our demise and thats not the wing of the Republican Party that Rand Paul represents. But he represents the Conservative-Libertarian wing of the party.

Monday, March 18, 2013

The Nation: Economics: George Zornick: A Truly Progressive Budget Vision: The Back to Work Budget Plan

A Truly Progressive Budget Vision | The Nation

I love the idea of infrastructure investment as both part of an economic recovery and jobs plan but also a deficit reduction plan. If its paid for because of the amount of people it would put back to work. Which is why I'm in favor of a National Infrastructure Bank, which was one of the last major pieces of legislation. That Senator John Kerry wrote before leaving Congress to become Secretary of State. Which was coauthored by then Senator Kay Baily Hutchison in the 112th Congress. This is a Bi Partisan proposal and is something that even Congressional Republicans as far to the right as Senator Tom Coburn and. Senator Jim Inhoff, as well as I'm sure some House Republicans like Speaker John Boehner support as well. But you can't invest 500B-1T$ in infrastructure or anything else in this country without paying for it without. Having long term if not short term damaging effects to the economy with our national debt where it is. Which is something Progressives even though they seem to like high taxes and believe in them, they seem to like high debt and deficits as well. But what happens as a result, the economy gets hit in two places at once.

I'll give the Congressional Progressive Caucus credit, they have moderated a little from 2011. Two years ago their budget plan called for eliminating all of the Bush tax cuts including those for the middle class. And using all of that money on infrastructure and creating new Federal Government New Deal era programs. But even some of their members now see how bad of an idea it is to pass middle class tax hikes in a struggling economy. So now what they've done instead is put all of that new tax burden on wealthy individuals and business's. Leaving our high corporate tax at 35% in place and closing a lot of corporate tax loopholes. So short term that may sound fiscally responsible because you are attempting to pay for new government spending. But are the results instead, business's move that money out of the country to avoid paying those high taxes.

The so called Back To Work Budget Plan from the CPC is as dead as disco or high water pants. Why because very few people in Congress believe that government should have all of that power to when it. Comes to job creation that what we should be doing instead is freeing up capitol in the private sector. So they have work to do and have a need to hire new employees which is the best part of. Infrastructure investment, government sets priorities and then rewards contracts to private companies to do the work. Rather then government or the private sector having most of the power and why its the ultimate private/public partnership.


Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Bi Partisan Policy Center: Staff Writers- U.S. Representative Paul Ryan’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget

Source: BPC-
Source: Bi Partisan Policy Center: Staff Writers- U.S. Representative Paul Ryan’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget

If the 2013 Ryan budget is anything like the 2012 and 2011 Ryan budget, we are not talking about a balanced budget. Which would be a budget that eliminates the budget deficit, or actually fixes our fiscal problems. Because once again except for Medicaid, it does nothing to bring down our budget costs. Repealing the Affordable Care Act won't do anything for the budget deficit either, because we'll see more people as a result without health insurance and getting free health care at the emergency room, well free for them. But expensive for anyone with health insurance who has to pay for that health care. So again we are talking about a budget plan that goes after 15% of the Federal budget roughly and over a ten-year period thats only around 600B$. And thats assuming you eliminate all of that spending that goes to people who live in poverty. Which I believe not even Representative Ryan is interested in doing and does nothing for the big three. Which is so-called entitlements, defense and the tax code where most of the money on the Federal budget is.
PBS: NewsHour- U.S. Representative Paul Ryan Releases 2014 Budget Proposal

Monday, March 11, 2013

Chicago Tribune: Opinion: Charles Krauthammer: Why We Give Foreign Aid: How Foreign Aid Should be Looked at as an Investment For America

Why we give foreign aid

As Charles Krauthammer argued in his column this is probably not the best time to be blogging about foreign aid. Because its the most unpopular part of the Federal budget, perhaps more unpopular the corporate welfare or pork barrel projects, money for favors that sorta thing. But is important and it only represents around 2% of the entire Federal budget or twenty billion dollars a year for all of you non math. Wizards and is not something that should be cut to shrink the Federal budget. Because there's not a lot of money there and it would cost us more in the future had we no cut it at all.

I look at foreign aid as I look at public assistance, an investment in people and in human capital. Not charity which is completely something else but when done and invested right. Foreign aid benefits American tax payers because it prevents Authoritarians from taking over third world countries. And builds a larger middle class in those countries so they have the resources to not only buy domestic products in. Their countries but also able to purchase American products which is good for American companies as well as consumers. If foreign aid is invested in things like infrastructure, education, healthcare things that all countries need to be successful economically. As well as security and not invested in things like crony Capitalists or funding terrorists or funding Authoritarian regimes. That have no interest in developing their countries but simply use that money to stay in power. Foreign aid should be looked at as loans or investments and when invested well they payoff for the countries giving it.

Friday, March 8, 2013

Politico: Congress: Dylan Byers: Remainders Filibustery: The Return of the Talking Filibuster to the U.S. Senate

Remainders: Filibustery

Whatever your position is on the Senate filibuster is and I would liked to see it eliminated but replaced with something that protects both minority rights. But also the majorities responsibility to govern in the Senate and whatever you think of Senator Rand Paul's thirteen house filibuster on Wednesday. And the long speech as far as the content of his speech, you gotta admit at least it was an actual filibuster. And not what minority Senators have been doing in the Senate since the change to the cloture rule back in. The mid 1970s where a Senator who doesn't like the proposed legislation from the majority, simply blocks the legislation. By saying they object and then in a lot of cases leaving the Senate floor with the Senate Leader trying to find. Sixty votes to overturn the objection from the minority but what we got from Senator Paul on Wednesday was an actual talking filibuster. Where Senator Paul took the floor and spoke as long as he wanted with Democrats knowing they had the votes for John Brennan, they had at. Least sixty allowing for Senator Paul to speak his mind that entire day. And voting to confirm John Brennan for Director of CIA on thursday.

What Senator Paul did is what Progressive Democrats have been trying to do since the filibuster reform debate in the Senate from February. Which is to force Senators majority or minority to actually hold the floor as long as they can until they are stopped. If they are doing it to delay legislation and what Senator Paul did I believe on Wednesday was to open back up that debate. And showed how to filibuster in the Senate, come prepared and ready to yield to other Senators for questions about what you are talking. About so you are not there speaking the entire time and wearing yourself out but you really need to be prepared. And be able to get your entire case out on what you are trying to say and if the filibuster is to remain part of the Senate rules. And again I would eliminate it because it makes it very difficult for Congress to get its work done. If the Senate can't get their share of the work done in Congress, because the minority keeps blocking them on everything.

Don't expect the Senate filibuster to be changed in this Congress with the Senate and House already having plenty of things they want to do. Including working with each other when it comes to the debt, deficit, immigration, infrastructure to use as examples. But what Senator Paul did was to teach his colleagues how to filibuster and what you need to be prepared to do. When you feel very strongly about something.

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Rand Corporation: Karl Lorenz- Palliative Care: Improving Quality of Life for the Seriously Ill

Source: Rand Corporation-
Source: Rand Corporation: Karl Lorenz- Palliative Care: Improving Quality of Life for the Seriously Ill

I believe before we talk about how do we improve the quality of healthcare for the seriously ill in America, we should first talk about how do we improve the funding of our over bloated and ineffective health care system. As well as talk about preventive care which would also help us not only bring down our healthcare costs, but improve the quality of our healthcare, because we wouldn't have as many Americans with chronic health conditions that are very expensive to treat. Like diabetes to use as a perfect example, because we would have more Americans in this country who would be taking care of themselves and not getting as sick as they do today, because more Americans would be eating better and exercise because they would have the financial incentive to do so. And not has the serious diseases that way too many Americans suffer from in this developed country. As well as talk about how we can encourage more seniors to be treated at home rather than living in hospitals and nursing homes. And finding ways to fund this.

We fix the problems with our health care costs and the 2010 Affordable Care Act took a big step forward by requiring all Americans to get health insurance and pay for their health care, but we need to go further than that and have real preventive health care. By incentivizing Americans to get regular checkups, so health conditions are found earlier before they get out of control and become very expensive to pay for. As well having people who choose to live unhealthy to be forced to pay for those bad choices up front like with higher healthcare premiums, taxing junk food and drink and so- forth. If we did basic things like that then we wouldn't be as unhealthy as a country that we are because more Americans would choose to live healthy and the ones who don't would be paying for it not only with their bad health, but out-of-pocket as well. And not be able to past those costs onto healthy Americans and we would have more resources to provide better health care in this country.

Before we talk about improving current healthcare of the Americans who need it, we need to talk about how to pay for the current health care that we have and how to pay for healthcare down the road. And making our public health care programs more affordable and expanding hospitals, clinics and other health care professionals in this country. And we accomplish these things, then we'll have the resources to provide better quality health care in this country.
Giffords Productions: Palliative Care- What is it and Who is it For?

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Crooks and Liars: Philosophy: Mike Lux: The Real Mission of Government: To Protect and Expand Individual Freedom

The Real Mission of Government: Protecting People, Not Banks

I agree with Progressive blogger Mike Lux that there are two philosophies in the Democratic Party I'm a member of and believe Mike is a member of as well. About what the role of government should be in America, we just disagree on what those roles are. As a Liberal-Democrat I believe the role of government is to protect individual freedom for people who have and still deserve it and expand. Individual freedom for those who don't have it but need and deserve it and I'll get to what I mean by that later. The Social-Democratic philosophy of what the role of government should be that I believe Mike Lux subscribes to as. A Progressive, is that governments main job is to protect people even at the expense of individual freedom. So that no one has too much and no one has too little and that means having high tax rates across the board. So government not only has the resources that it need to prevent anyone from having too much or too little . But to invest on the peoples behalf to provide the services that Progressives don't trust the private sector to provide or provide as well.

The Liberal model that both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton subscribe to is that all Americans should have a good opportunity to be successful in life. And what we do with these opportunities is up to us but its not governments job to guarantee that all Americans will be successful in life. Because it simply can't do that but what it can do is insure that we all have the opportunity and tools that we need to be. Successful in life and that Americans should have as much incentive as possible to do everything that they can for themselves. Which is the different from the Progressive or Social-Democratic model of governments role is to protect people even at times from themselves so they don't make mistakes. Which is one reason why Progressives believe in high taxes so much, the less money that people have, the. Fewer mistakes they can make with their own money which from a Progressive point of view is really the governments money to spend on behalf of the people.

The Liberal-Democratic economic model is built around infrastructure, domestic energy, education, job training. And temporary financial assistance for those who need it as they work themselves off of public assistance. That if everyone has access to and gets themselves a good education that we can all be successful in life. Which is different from the Progressive economic model of governments job is to make sure that no one has too much or too little. And that government needs most of these resources to spend on everyones behalf.

Fiscal Times: Economy: Amy Fieldhouse: The U.S. Economy Really Needs a $2 Trillion Stimulus: How to Move the American Economy Forward

Forget Spending Cuts, the U.S. Economy Really Needs a $2 Trillion Stimulus

I've been blogging for about four years now and have been arguing the whole time as it relates to the American economy. That we need to invest about 1-2T$ in the economy to put people back to work. A couple problems with the 2009 American Recovery and Investment Act better known as. Obama stimulus is despite its title, it only had around fifty billion dollars in it that went to infrastructure even. Though we have an over one trillion dollar hole in infrastructure. According to the U. S. Core of Engineers, the other problem being that the ARIA was only around 800B$ when the economy was. Contracting at seven percent and seven percent in an economy of sixteen trillion dollars is 1.12T$, so 787B$ over two years. Is simply not big enough to fill that hole, 787B$ might of been fine for one year but the ARIA should've. Been around two trillion dollars over two years and invested at least half of twenty five percent of that into infrastructure. Which would've not only saved a lot of jobs in the construction and manufacturing industries but created new ones as well.

The economic situation today is better but the fiscal situation is much worse with an additional five trillion dollars added to the national debt. Even though budget deficit has falling which is good news. But we still have around eight percent unemployment, an economy thats not growing but plenty of work that could be. Done around the country right now, we just need someone to prioritize that work because the private sector is not going to do it by themselves. We don't need the Federal Government to rebuild the country but what we need it to do is making the rebuilding a priority and at least help finance this. Effort and we need not a 1-2T$ stimulus package but we need a 1-2T$ investment package and put a lot of that money in. Infrastructure investment and tell our construction and manufacturing industries we have a lot of work for you to do. And bring in the states and locals and private sector even with something like a National Infrastructure Bank.

We need to bring in the states and locals and get their input on what need to be built and repaired. That benefits the economy and puts people back to work and start awarding around 1-2T$ in contracts to do. This work which would also be boom for our manufacturing industry because of the parts that are going to be needed to do the work. And we need to encourage American as well as foreign companies to invest in this country and bring that money here. And that means lowering our business taxes and making us more competitive and we need to pay for this package over a 5-10 year period. And we could do this by closing wasteful tax loopholes and raising taxes on gas and oil and so fourth. And not hurt the economy and we could put millions of Americans back to work.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Crooks and Liars: Satire: Bill Maher: Presents His Thoughtful Sequester Solutions: How to Solve The Sequester

Bill Maher Presents His Thoughtful Sequester Solutions

I have my own solutions to this problem and they seem funny but they are actually realistic as well. Lock House Speaker John Boehner in a room with Senate Leader Harry Reid together in a super max prison. In a prison cell and treat them like prison inmates doing their time in solitary confinement with the difference. Being they are together, with just enough water and food to survive. And don't allow them to shave to or take a shower or even leave the cell, I know make them share the same cot. Until they come up with an agreement to end the sequester and force either President Obama or Vice President Biden. The only two leaders out of these four who actually have to work for a living and now allowed to take weeks to. Celebrate Federal holidays and don't get to decide how much money they maker per year and so fourth being members of Congress. I would say working in Congress but I don't like giving people too much credit. Speaker Boehner and Leader Reid are essentially members of a club of just 535 people one of the most exclusive clubs in America.

To make it worse for the two Leaders of Congress, for each day they don't reach an agreement on how to end the sequester. They have to listen to either Britney Spears or Roseanne Barr sing the national anthem in a glass room. These conditions might sound harsh and would put President Obama in the same cell with Speaker Boehner and Leader Reid. But like I said the President of the United States actually has to work for a living and produce results. A difference between being an executive and a legislature and if people are dumb enough to to try to deal with a debt and deficit. By cutting things that work well and are needed as much as things that don't work well and aren't needed. Then they should suffer the consequences.

U.S. News: Video: Ken Walsh: The Presidency Column: "A Revival of the Culture Wars": How The Left Has Already Won The Culture Wars



I disagree with Ken Walsh here who is someone I like and respect but the culture wars are similar. To the civil war of the 1860s where won side clearly won, meaning the Unionists but of course paid a heavy price for it. The other side knowing they've already lost but deciding to fight on to see how much damage they can do. Which is why some historians believe that the Unionists won the civil war but the Confederates won the peace. Meaning there really wasn't much of a peace after the civil war was over with the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and other. Anglo terrorists groups in this country and thats similar to what's going on here but the battles. Following the culture wars and who wins the peace and so fourth aren't over yet. America has essentially become what Barry Goldwater wanted when he was in Congress. A big government out of our wallets and bedrooms country, the classical Conservatives and I would argue the. Classical Liberals as well have won this war, Americans by a majority don't like government taxing them. High and telling them how to live their lives.

The left and center-right have already won the culture wars. Just look at issues of civil rights, women's role in the country, feminism, Gay rights, tolerance for other Americans. Race relations and so fourth, the Far-Right or Confederates that I call them now have already lost. These wars, immigration would be another one, pornography, War on Drugs especially marijuana. The left and center-right in America have already won these wars. With a majority of Americans now believing in things like, equal rights including for Homosexuals, tolerance again for. Homosexuals as well, individual freedom but that it should be for all Americans and not just people who live in the Bible Belt. Generation X and Generation Y have already won these wars for the rest of the people on the left and center-right how have been fighting them. And the Far-Right still fights on because they have nothing better to do.

What most of the country or at least an overwhelming majority of the country has moved onto. Is what I call economic wars, what's governments role especially the Federal Government as it. Relates to the economy and how much should the Feds be taxing and spending and what exactly should it be doing. Which is why we are talking about things like sequester, debt and deficits, immigration, climate change and how best to grow the economy. But the culture wars of the last century are already over.

NHL History: Video: Montreal Canadiens 100 Years & 100 Stars



To say the Montreal Canadians are the New York Yankees or Boston Celtics or Green Bay Packers of the National Hockey League or even Canada. Is to a certain extent true but doesn't go nearly far enough because hockey to Canada is probably more important then baseball or basketball or. Football to America not that those sports aren't critical to America but America is surrounded by distractions. Not just sports but across the board and America also has nine times as many people as Canada so one great franchise is a lot more important to them then one franchise in America.

But the level of success that the Canadians have had compared with the Yankees or Celtics as well as Packers. Is very similar, the Canadians have won twenty four Stanley Cups and a lot of conference championships as well. Plus a lot of divisional championships but those twenty four Stanley Cups were accomplished by 1993. The Yankees have won thirty I believe World Series but they won one in 1996 and two more in the late 1990s. The Celtics have won seventeen NBA Finals but their last won was in 2008, the Packers have won 11-12 Super Bowls if you combine what use. To be called the NFL Championship with the Super Bowl and the Packers won their last Super Bowl in 2010. The Canadians won what twenty four Stanley Cups in what their first eighty years. No other franchise has matched that type of championship success in any North American pro sports. League which is how they standout from every other pro sports franchise in North America.

The Canadians obviously have not been as dominant as they were in the 1980s or seventies. Haven't won a Stanley Cup since 1993, not sure why considering the market they play in with the fan base and arena and so fourth. They haven't even been back to the Stanley Cup since 1993, I don't believe they've even been to the conference finals since. They haven't been a championship contender since but none of this take away from what they've accomplished and. What they mean to Canada.

Monday, March 4, 2013

The Independent Institute: John C. Goodman- What is Liberalism: How Liberalism is Different From Socialism

Source: The Independent Institute- John C. Goodman-
Source: The Independent Institute: John C. Goodman- What is Liberalism

I'm not sure that progressivism is a good thing to compare to liberalism. For one, and I don't agree with this but there are Progressives and others who view progressivism and liberalism as the same thing. That some Liberals call themselves Progressives, because of the negative stereotypes that come with being a Liberal. When the fact is the stereotypes that make Liberals look like dovish socialist-statists or something. Which fits, well Socialist today and back in the day, at least Social Democrats.   And then there are Socialists (Social Democrats if you prefer) like lets use Michael Moore to use as an example, where these stereotypes that tend to get thrown at Liberals, fit Socialists like him very well. And the other reason being that socialism like conservatism or libertarianism, is a very diverse political ideology. Where you have Socialists who look like classical-Socialists who are Marxists basically. And then you have Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists like Senator Bernie Sanders, who is a Democratic Socialist, but also believes in a certain level of private enterprise and capitalism mixed in with a very large welfare state. Similar to Franklin Roosevelt.

What's called "modern-Liberalism" or what I prefer to call the New-Left in America emerged in the 1960s. As a reaction to the Great-Society and Vietnam War of baby boomers who came to age of that decade. And formed organizations like Students for a Democratic Society and other lets say New-Left groups of people who backed the FDR and LBJ social insurance policies, but had their own policies when it came to national security, foreign policy and law enforcement. Similar to how Libertarians look at those policies today. The terms Socialist-Libertarian, Progressive or Socialist on economic policy, but Libertarian-Anarchist on national security, foreign policy and law enforcement. That's what so called 'modern-Liberals' believe in, but again this is also a very diverse group of people as well. Because there are also so called 'modern-Liberals' who are Statist on some key social issues like gun control, hate speech, pornography and others and then you have so called 'modern-Liberals like Noam Chomsky, who are Liberal-Libertarian on those issues, but share the same views on economic, foreign, national security and law enforcement policy.

To get to actual liberalism which is the political philosophy I believe in. Liberals simply believe in liberal democracy and that liberal democracy should be there for all Americans, not just some of us. Where we all have the constitutional right to live our own lives and chart our own course in life. As long as we aren't hurting innocent people with how we are living. And that government's role is too see that there's an environment there where equality of opportunity  (not result which is different) for all Americans to be successful life. But then it's up to us as individuals to make the best of the opportunities. That we have with no guarantees. This is not libertarianism, progressivism, or socialism, but liberalism. Liberals look like Libertarians on social issues and what I at least like to call personal choice, or freedom of choice issues, but we look like classical Progressives on economic and foreign policy. That government's role is to see to it that everyone has an opportunity to live in freedom. And that you also have to be strong enough to defend and promote freedom around the world. In a bi-lateral way working with your allies.
The Independent Institute: The Road to Freedom and Prosperity- John C. Goodman, Peter Ferrara & Lawrence McQuillan

Chicago Tribune: Opinion- Jonathan Alter- Why Democrats Must Get Smart on Entitlements

Source: Jonathan Alter-
Source: Chicago Tribune: Opinion-Jonathan Alter- Why Democrats Must Get Smart on Entitlements

Jonathan Alter makes a very good point about the so-called entitlement programs and that the language about how they are talked about. Or what they are called should be changed and that social insurances would be a better way to describe them. That people would collect these social insurances simply when they need them rather than when they reach a certain age. And that if the wealthy who don't need these programs receive these benefits, that they should be taxed on them. Not at hundred- percent, but based on how they would be taxed if that was their total income without the earned income tax credit. And that these should be done for a couple of reasons.

One, for the good of the programs so the finances of them are sured up.

Two, because the wealthy can afford to pay the tax without hurting the economy. Social Democrats (what I call so-called Progressives) don't like talking about reforming the social insurance system, unless it's about taxing more and spending more on them. But what they don't seem to understand that if these programs aren't eventually reformed, rhey aren't going to be around to support.
Sam Seder: Jonathan Alter On His Call For Democrats To Embrace Entitlement Cuts

Sunday, March 3, 2013

Stefan Molyneux: Video: "Canada Is More Free Than the United States!": Canadian Libertarianism



Its interesting to here about Canadian Libertarianism since Canada is stereotyped as a Big Government Social-Democracy. In the tradition of Europe especially Scandinavia when the facts are Canada is probably more like America then Europe. With a more generous social insurance system then in America but with more economic freedom then in Europe where taxes aren't as high. I still rather live in America especially with a Liberal not Socialist or Social-Democracy economic. Policy that President Barack Obama is trying to bring to America where more Americans would be empowered with economic freedom. But Canada or Germany would be the next two countries that I would prefer to live in rather then moving. To Britain or Scandinavia or France but Canada certainly looks more economic free then most of Europe and Canada certainly looks a lot more like. America then it does Europe which is something that Progressives or Social-Democrats in America should think about. Before they try to make the argument that America should look more like Canada.

Fiscal Times: North America: Via Reuters: Mexico’s Ruling Party Opens Door to Tax, Energy Changes

Mexico’s ruling party opens door to tax, energy changes 

The question regarding Mexico as far as it going from a developing country with high rates of poverty. To a developed country thats an economic giant not just in North America and Latin America but in the rest. The World has never been about potential or resources because it has all of those things as it relates to natural resources. But the issues with Mexico relate to how they utilize their resources so they benefit more of the country and issues relating to corruption and crime which it has way to much of. For them to develop into a developed first world country instead of a second world country. And privatizing their oil industry while taxing and regulating it responsibly so they have the resources to develop more human capital. And empower millions of Mexicans out of poverty are the things this county of well over a hundred million. People should be doing and then they would have the resources to develop the education and infrastructure systems. As well as an energy sector that would move this country to first world status.


Saturday, March 2, 2013

Samuel Wilson: Video: Ross Perot 1992: Balancing the Budget & Reforming Government: How Ross Perot Contributed to American Politics



The main contribution that Ross Perot brought to the American political system. Was that he showed Americans how serious our debt and deficit situation was and how big of a threat it was to our economy. Without Ross Perot, President Bill Clinton probably doesn't take the debt and deficit situation as seriously as he did. In 1993 and drafting the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act and getting it through that Democratic Congress. And even in 1992 as Presidential nominee Bill Clinton and making deficit reduction a big part of his economic plan and message. Not saying he wouldn't of done anything about it in 1993 but the comprehensive approach of budget cuts basically all over. The Federal Government and new revenue with tax hikes on the wealthy, reforming the Federal Government so its more efficient with less employees. So without Ross Perot the United States Government doesn't get its fiscal house in order as early as it in the mid and late 1990s.

Social Justice Now: Video: James K. Galbraith: On "Inequality and Instability": How to Achieve a Better Distribution of Wealth



I really don't like the term income inequality because that simply doesn't exist in an economy. Where the amount of money and ability for people to be successful in life. Depends on how much you know and how qualified you are to work and then what you do with the skills that you have. Another words how productive you are in the economy that you operate in. Which is the case in all Capitalist economic systems, whether its in America, Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia. Where ever it is in the developed world. People with good educations who apply those skills well. Are simply going to do better economically then people who don't, its that simple. So income inequality simply doesn't exist, I'm sure there are people who believe it does which is. What the Progressive Social Justice movement is about but the fact is that income inequality simply doesn't exist. Anywhere in the developed world.

A problem that the United States has as it relates to the rest of the developed world. Is not income inequality but the fact that are economic scale is kinda tilted towards the bottom. That is we have roughly 1-5 Americans who live in poverty or collect some type of public assistance. That they have to have in order to pay their bills and then we have about ten percent of the country whose doing very well economically. And then roughly seventy percent of the country thats doing well but not great, good education, owns a home or paying off a mortgage. Cars, some money in the bank but then a certain percentage of that seventy percent, perhaps 1-5 out. Of those people who aren't officially poor but perhaps a paycheck away of living on public assistance or being in poverty themselves. Who have the skills to get them to the point that they are now but not enough skills to advance beyond that.

The solution to this economic problem that America has is not tell the wealthy that they are doing too well. So that government is going to take a chunk of your wealth to take care of the people who aren't doing very well indefinitely. But the solution is to create more wealth and have a better economy that benefits more people where poverty and unemployment aren't as high. And yes economic growth has to be part of that but without a better education for our low or moderately skilled workers. As well as the low skilled unemployed, these people won't benefit from any new economic growth thats created. So we simply as a society not necessarily government but we need to provide eduction and job training opportunities to our people who. Simply don't have the skills to be very successful economically in life. Which will benefit everyone to have a better skilled workforce with more money to spend which benefits all of us.

Income equality is simply people getting out of society what they put into it. That might sound unfair or harsh but its not, its simply the cold hearted truth. So to have more people who are able to contribute a lot of society and then be able to enjoy the benefits of their production. We simply need a better education and job training system to produce a better skilled workforce in this country.

One Two Try New Things: Video: Outfit of The Day: Jeans in Boots



Sexy outfit

Sexy Subscribe: Video: The Beautiful Sexy Curvy Tight Jeans Walk



Moves very well

Friday, March 1, 2013

Chicago Tribune: Opinion: Jonah Goldberg: CPAC Unwise to Snub Christie, Gays: What CPAC Actually Stands For

CPAC unwise to snub Christie, gays

Its not often that I agree with Jonah Goldberg to state the obvious, he's a Conservative and I'm a Liberal. I think we both have the same idea of what individual freedom should be and both believe in it. But we differ on the role of government, oh by the way to state the obvious. There are a lot of Evangelical-Americans who vote Republican and very few African-Americans who vote Republican. Since I'm stating the obvious but to talk about things that are less known and more interesting and put some new. Thoughts out there, I knew ten years ago that the Republican Party was no longer a Conservative Party. When they got in bed with George W. Bush and passed more spending from the Federal Government then drunken. Sailors could only wish to have on a two week drunken fantasy spending spree or a shopaholic who was just given one of Bill Gates credit cards. And the Tea Party that started four years ago has only enforced my opinion with how the Republican Leadership now stands when it comes to. The defense budget, twenty percent of the Federal budget that according to so called fiscal-Conservative Republicans can't afford any. Cuts anywhere at anytime, even though the Defense Department disagrees with them.

So to see a group like CSPAC not C-Span which is suppose to stand for the Conservative Political Action Conference. And I'll get to later what it should stand for instead, snub an actual Conservative-Republican who can actually get elected in a state. Thats as blue as the New York Giants uniforms, meaning New Jersey doesn't surprise me because this is an organization. That calls people like Rick Santorum and Ann Coulter Conservatives and invites them to CSPAC to speak. People who believe that the the Federal Government should outlaw pornography and regulate marriage, what happened to. States rights and Federalism on those two issues, to go along with limited government. And in Ann Coulter's case is someone who believe women shouldn't be allowed to vote in America. Chris Christie is a true Conservative because he believes in economic and fiscal-Conservativism and doesn't push the social issues. Or at least believes they should be left up to the states.

What CPAC should really stand for is the Confederate Political Action Conference. The far-right in America who are still stuck in the 1950s and represent exactly why Republicans have lost 4-6. Presidential elections and the last four Senate elections to decide who controls the US Senate the upper chamber in Congress. Because of voters who would probably otherwise vote Republicans but who Confederates scare the hell out of them when it comes to social issues.