Ron Paul Liberty Report: Chris Rossini: ‘Who Pays For All The Government Free Stuff?’

Posted on April 24, 2019 by Ederik Schneider
Image result for Who Pays For All The Government Free Stuff?

Source:Ron Paul Liberty Report– U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and U.S, Representative Alecandria O. Cortez: the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Congressional Free Stuff Caucus. LOL

Source:The New Democrat 

“Benjamin Franklin said that: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” How prescient and true. Once theft and redistribution by government is considered acceptable, the downward spiral of civilization begins. It can last for decades, or even centuries. But the end result is always bankruptcy as countless factions ruthlessly fight with one another to be on the receiving end of the heist. When theft by government is no longer considered acceptable, the upward march of civilization resumes.”

Source:Ron Paul Liberty Report

This blog is perfect timing ( if I may say so myself ) because CNN had a marathon of town halls on Monday with like 5 Democratic presidential candidates including Senator’s Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders ( the two farthest left Democratic presidential candidates ) and they’re both making the basic argument that the rich has too much money and everyone else doesn’t have enough and are struggling to pay their basic bills like college, health care, paid leave, etc and that it’s the job of the Federal Government to come in and somehow correct that. And say that it’s wrong for rich people to even be rich to begin with, especially when we have so many Americans who are struggling just to pay their own bills.

There are two questions that any voter and taxpayer should ask any politician or candidate who is seeking reelection or a new office, when they make a lot of promises to people about new government services, especially if they argue that these new services would be free:

How are you going to pay for all of these so-called free services? If they say the rich are going to pay for it with some new wealth tax ( lets say ) then you should ask especially if you’re familiar with the Internal Revenue Service, our tax code, and how the wealthy avoid paying taxes ( including these so-called Hollywood Leftists ) who is going to pay for these new and current government services when the wealthy avoids paying their new taxes. The only way that government can pay for anything when they’re short on revenue like through tax avoidance are two ways: pass those taxes onto the middle class. Or just just borrow that money from China or another country and add to their budget deficit and debt.

I would have a lot more respect for these Socialists running for office ( whether they’re self-described Socialists or not ) if they were just upfront and candid about how they would pay for their new government services and just say: “you middle class taxpayers are going to pay for these new government services through new payroll taxes or other new taxes.” Or they could say that they believe that deficits and debt doesn’t matter and therefor we could just borrow the money from other countries and add to our deficits and debt. But don’t overpromise and pander especially to young voters, especially young Democrats who tend to be overly idealistic to begin with and believe that government can solve every problem itself, if you just give it the money to do that.

Posted in Ron Paul, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Kennedy Institute of Politics: Professor Brandon Terry- Interviewing Professor Noam Chomsky: The Future of Leftist Politics in America’

Posted on April 23, 2019 by Derik Schneider
631e8fea5cf51efab8b7082afea1586f

Source:Kennedy Institute of Politics– Professor Brandon Terry, interviewing Professor Noam Chomsky at Harvard 

Source:The New Democrat 

“A discussion with:
Noam Chomsky
Institute Professor of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Political Theorist and Activist
Brandon Terry (moderator)
Assistant Professor of African and African American Studies and Social Studies, Harvard University.”

Source:Kennedy Institute of Politics: Professor Brandon Terry- Interviewing Professor Noam Chomsky: The Future of Leftist Politics in America

As someone who is not a psychic or a leftist, I would say the future of The Left ( as it’s called ) and I would argue Far-Left ( at least in an American sense ) will be about identity politics, the welfare state, big government in general, and I guess self-honesty. ( For lack of a better term ) Where you’ll have millions of young Americans especially who are proud to be Leftists ( let’s call them Socialists ) who no longer feel the need to hide who they are politically and even hide their own political labels.

This event was in late 2015 about 3 1/2 years ago but just go up three years later to November, 2018 and we now have a class of Democrats or at least prominent Democratic freshman in the House who are not just proud to be Leftists, but proud to be Socialists. Who just a few years ago would’ve felt the need to run in the Green Party to run for reelection and to have any shot at winning the nomination for the office they’re seeking, who today can run as Democrats and not just run as Democrats, but run as Socialists and Democratic Socialists.

The Democratic Party today thanks to Bernie Sanders in 2015-16 now has a significant Socialist faction in it. Whether that’s 20% or 30%, the Democratic Party today now has a significant, hard core Socialist base who believe that government can solve any problem that has ever been known to man, if it just has the money to do so. Which is very different from where the Democratic Party was just 10 years when they were basically just a Center-Left progressive party with a Far-Left fringe in it. 10 years later the Socialists in the party now look more mainstream with Democrats who just 10 years ago would be viewed as solid Progressive Democrats ( like Barack Obama ) , now are viewed as centrists or even Conservative Democrats. ( At least by the Socialists in the party )

What I just laid out looks very mainstream at least when you’re talking about the left-wing ( to say the least ) about the Democratic Party today. People who believe in social democracy or democratic socialism, who want a large centralized national government and welfare state there to meet the economic needs of all the people.

If the left-wing of the Democratic Party was just Henry Wallace or George McGovern wing of the Democratic Party and if that’s all the left-wing of the Democratic Party represented today and represented people of all races and ethnicities, male and female and they weren’t about racial or identity politics, but a pluralist political faction that was about social democracy or democratic socialism, they wouldn’t look that radical today especially with young Americans, especially with the more militant faction of this movement that wants to make race, ethnicity, and gender issues about everything not just in politics and government, but in American life in general.

But the left-wing ( or Far-Left ) in and outside of the Democratic Party today are not all pluralists and don’t care for liberal democracy. It’s not just social democracy that they want, but believe that men aren’t necessary, ( at least Caucasian men ) that women aren’t just superior to men, but should be running everything, and generally view Caucasians especially men as ignorant and bigots, unless they come from the West Coast or Northeast and were educated there.

And that’s the growing faction in the Democratic Party that you have to worry about if you’re a mainstream Democrat who is part of the Democratic leadership, because as the Far-Left grows in the party, the less Far-Left they’ll look and more mainstream that they’ll look in the party. But they’ll still look very radical outside of the party and mainstream Democrats will have to figure out how to get elected and reelected with this faction on their back that they’ll need to win elections, but still be able to appeal to mainstream Democrats and Independents.

Posted in Noam Chomsky, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Economist: Daniel Franklin: ‘What’s The Point of NATO?’

Posted on April 22, 2019 by Erik Schneider
4edb2b652cbdb495744da218d84aaa64

Source:The Economist– Uploaded by The Economist

Source:The New Democrat 

“NATO was set up in 1949 to counter the Soviet threat. Its North American and European members must continue to change the alliance if it is to remain relevant in the 21st century.”

Source:The Economist

If there is anything that I actually agree with President Donald Trump on and if there is one thing that he’s gotten right in his two years as President, it’s NATO and the fact that the United States is essentially responsible for the national defense of the entire West, or at least the northern part of the west. With Britain, France, a certain extent Germany playing major but much smaller roles in the defense of Europe. And this is as someone who is in favor of the concept of NATO and view is as the most successful international organization not just in the world today, but in world history.

Just as an American who comes from a country that values individualism and that everyone should at least try to take care of themselves if not support themselves, why should American taxpayers be forced to subsidize the national defense of other developed countries: it would be one thing if Germany was poor, but they’re a country of 80 plus million people, with an economy of over 4 trillion dollars, with 4th largest economy of the world. Their gross national domestic product is about as large as Japan’s and they have 50 million fewer people than Japan, without nearly as much territory as Japan and without the natural resources of Japan.

Germany, has roughly the same per-capita income as America without the national debt and budget deficits that we have and yet we as Americans are forced by international law to subsidize the national defense of another entire large developed country. Why is that? If there is anything that Americans dislike more than crooks, liars, and hypocrites, its freeloaders. The reason why we do this is because Germany sees itself as a great social democracy that doesn’t believe in national defense, at least not as a large priority and more than willing to let someone else especially a superpower that has a great relationship with ( at least pre-Donald Trump ) to take care of their national defense for them. But as an American that’s not a good enough reason for me.

With the rise of nationalism both in America, Britain, and Europe now is the perfect time for Europe ( especially Germany ) to step up to the plate ( or step up to the ball, to use a soccer phrase ) and knock one out of the ballpark ( or kick one in the net ) and handle their own national defense. Which would be great for Europe’s security, as well as economy. They would no longer have to worry about whether American taxpayers will continue to subsidize their national defense. And they would create millions of good jobs in their countries in their defense industries, because their militaries will now be first world, with first world defense resources and money to secure their own countries.

A new European defense alliance that could either replace NATO or go along with it with the Euro states now responsible for their own national defense and be partnered with Britain, America, and Canada in the West would make Europe a world power and keep them relevant especially with the rise of Vladimir Putin’s Russia who are looking to bring back the Russian empire, as well as China in the Far East that wants to be the next superpower in the world.

Posted in The Economist, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Emperor Tigerstar: Huey Long: ‘The Dictator of Louisiana’

Posted on April 19, 2019 by kireschneider
Huey Long_ The Dictator of Louisiana

SourceEmperor Tigerstar– If the title fits.

Source:The New Democrat 

“See the rise and fall of the Kingfish Governor of Louisiana. He’s more than a Kaiserreich meme, and has left quite a lasting legacy.”

Source:Emperor Tigerstar

I mentioned in my Huey Long piece last week that Huey Long had a lot in common with Senator Bernie Sanders today as it created to wealth redistribution and a socialist populism that was about high taxation on the wealthy to be used to help everyone else. And all of that is true, but as I also mentioned last week Huey and Bernie aren’t ideological twins.

Senator Sanders at least as far as how he speaks, what he proposes, and his political positions all suggest that he’s a Democratic Socialist. Governor Long, you could call him a Democratic Socialist on economic policy, but even as the guy in this video admits to Governor Long was essentially the dictator of Louisiana as far as how he was able to centralize a lot of state power for himself, but then the guy in this video says that Governor Long used all of this state power to benefit the people of Louisiana, not himself necessarily.

I’m going to argue that Huey Long wasn’t a Communist even though he did have dictatorial socialist leanings as Governor. But only because he didn’t close down private media organizations and churches, banks, that sort of thing where people can get to together and create their own private power. But he did centralize a lot of power within his own state to the point that if you tried to cross him, he could hurt your badly politically and professionally. And to work for his Administration in Louisiana, you have to donate part of your state salary to his political machine in Louisiana. At one point Huey, was both Governor of Louisiana and then U.S. Senator from Louisiana. Even when he was in Congress, he still had a lot of power in Louisiana.

A better way to describe Huey Long is say that he was a crook, but with good intentions and as long as you didn’t try to cross him, life could be very good for you in Louisiana. And again Huey wasn’t a Communist, but he did have things in common with Communists and Socialist dictators around the world. People who come into power promising the populist that he alone can make their lives better if they just give him all of this power. ( Remind you of any current President today? )

We saw this with Fidel Castro in Cuba, Hugo Chavez and now Nicholas Maduro in Venezuela. Men who have way too much self-confidence and probably couldn’t look up or define words like modesty and humility even if they saw them in a dictionary. Which is dangerous for any society to have which are leaders who have so much faith in themselves, because they see themselves as invincible and that it’s somehow treason for anyone to even try to question them. And when someone does that, they face cruel repercussions. That’s the type of leader or Socialist that I see Huey Long as.

Posted in Huey Long, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Daily Signal: Fred Lucas- Rallies: ‘What’s The Legacy of The Tea Party?’

Posted on April 18, 2019 by Rik Schneider
b36e964cb5fca604c10b7d7459203433

Source:The Daily Signal– “Then-Representative Mike Pence, R-Ind., addresses a tea party rally March 16, 2010, near the Taft Memorial in Washington, D.C. Pence, now vice president, was an early supporter of the decade-old movement. (Photo: Douglas Graham/Roll Call/Getty Images)”

Source:The New Democrat 

“It was Tax Day 2009 when citizens gathered in 850 cities across the nation for tea party rallies protesting the recent $700 billion federal bailouts of banks and automakers, an $800 billion economic stimulus package, and, more broadly, government deficits and debt.

On April 15 this year, Tea Party Patriots, one of the largest tea party groups, will sponsor “Stop Socialism, Choose Freedom” rallies across the country.

On the movement’s 10th anniversary, the phrase “tea party” is seldom used, but organizers there at the beginning say the spirit and principles continue—even as the country continues to face mounting fiscal challenges.

One reason tea partiers aren’t “outside protesters” today is that many of the citizens who never before had been involved in politics rose to prominence in the Republican Party. ”

Read the rest at The Daily Signal

To completely honest here, ( for a change, LOL ) when the Tea Party first started during the spring or summer of 2009 after Barack Obama became President with large majorities in Congress ( House and Senate ) the Obama Administration and Democratic Congress was working on health care reform after passing their stimulus, during last stages of The Great Recession, I as a Classical Liberal ( the real Liberals ) had a mild respect for what was called the Tea Party.

If there were any Republicans at all that were concern about President George W. Bush’s and his Republican Congress’s borrowing and spending, it was these hard core fiscal Conservatives. Who didn’t like borrowing 700 billion dollars to expand Medicare. Who were concern about all the borrowing that they were doing for Afghanistan and Iraq. Who didn’t like Federal Government’s increase role in public education with No Child Left Behind Law. Who didn’t believe the two Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 would ever pay for themselves. The problem that they had and that the rest of the country had was that there weren’t simply enough of them in Congress to stop the Republican Party’s borrow and spending during the Bush Administration.

I still had a mild respect for the Tea Party movement during the first two years after Republican won back the House in 2010, because the national debt and deficit were huge issues for them. Without the Tea Party Caucus in the House, the budget deficit that was already a trillion-dollars when Barack Obama became President, doesn’t get cut in half during President Obama’s term. Because the Obama Administration weren’t interested in those issues for the most part. They were concern with economic and job growth and getting the economy back to full recovery and not believing that you can do that while doing deficit reduction at the same time. It was the Tea Party that gave us those real budget savings and reforms in 2011 that allowed for the deficit to come during the final five years of the Obama Administration.

But go back to 2013 and ever since, the Tea Party or whatever is left of it is nothing more than the hard-core, rabid and hyper-partisan wing of the Republican Party, that only seems interested in winning elections and electing as many Republicans as possible. And they don’t care what they have to do to win those elections including voter suppression and intimidation to prevent young Democrats ( especially ) from voting in competitive elections. And they’ll do anything to win including working with foreign nationals to get dirt on their opponents, or throwing out their conservative constitutional principles like having to do with fiscal conservatism, limited government, the rule of law, checks and balances, morality even. ( Death to the family family values Republican Party ) Today the Tea Party, is nothing more than part of Donald Trump’s Far-Right Nationalist base, along with The Heritage Foundation and that’s where whatever respect that I ever had for them dies and won’t come back.

5ac650820689b269922870ed5d986e4e

Source:Tea Party Patriots: ’10 Year Anniversary of Tea Party Patriots’– Jenny Beth Martin: Chairman of Tea Party Patriots

Posted in New Right, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tom Mullen: ‘Words and Phrases To Avoid April 15’

Posted on April 17, 2019 by Ederik Schneider
Image result for tax day 2019 Uncle Sam

Source:USA Today– “Tax Day 2019 Coundown Calendar”

“We hear a lot about words and phrases we should or shouldn’t use these days, politics having crept into virtually every area of our lives. At the risk of promoting even more political correctness, here are some terms that can legitimately be considered micro-aggressions when used in the presence of net taxpayers on April 15:”

The rest of Tom’s piece at Tom Mullen

“Tax season is upon us, and it’s time to reconsider your politics… unless you don’t make six figures.”

From College Humor

Everyone's a Republican on Tax Day

Source:College Humor– on right-wing taxes.

I have a different take than Tom on this, ( who I’m friends with on Facebook and follow him on Twitter ) because I believe that to have a civilized, developed society you need some type of functioning, responsible, but limited government there to insure that. Not to run our lives for us, but protect us from predators foreign  and domestic and to perform our basic, but limited services like infrastructure. And for government whatever level it is to perform these necessary services, it needs revenue to do that. Government’s are financed through taxes,  at least when they’re run responsibly and when they’re not or their economy is going rough times they’re funded through borrowing. That’s just how government is able to operate regardless of the jurisdiction or country.

No one enjoys paying taxes, ( except honest Socialists ) but who enjoys paying for groceries or whatever else that we pay for? And the Libertarian is going to say that we don’t have a choice to pay for the government that we receive and don’t get to decide on what government services that we  receive: they’re just wrong on that since as Ronald Reagan once said people vote with their feet. We choose where we live and what level of government and taxation that we get based on where we live. We’re not forced to live in any country, state, county, or city. We make the decisions based on what we do for a living and our economic conditions and choose the best place for us to live based on these factors. If you don’t want to live somewhere where you have to pay taxes, move to a country where they don’t have a government, or at least a functioning government. I hear Haiti and Somalia are open for new residents everyday.

Now, where I believe Tom Mullen and I might agree hear and have somethings in common here ( he as a Libertarian and myself as a Liberal ) is having to deal with let’s say the opposite of people who are known as Anarcho-Libertarians, which of course are Socialists.

The only people anywhere in the world who pays taxes not just gladly and proudly, are Socialists.

The only people you’ll ever find filling out their taxes with smiles on their faces, are Socialists.

The only people you’ll ever find not just asking or demanding, but begging Uncle Sam and his nephews and nieces at the IRS for more taxes and higher taxes, are Socialists.

And I’m not talking about corrupt Socialist dictators who are some of the wealthiest people in the world, while half of their people or more have to beg for food and money in order to pay their bills. And I’m not talking about these so-called Hollywood Leftists who act like they hate wealth and capitalism, even though they personally enjoy being wealthy and have benefited greatly from capitalism. I’m talking about honest to goodness, ( to use a corny phrase ) down to earth, honest Socialists. Who when they have any extra money at all they always donate that money to their favorite charity like Uncle Sam or perhaps another charity, but who generally live simple lives. Who are very generous with their time and money.  ( Not someone else’s time and money )

These are the people who believe that tax day should be a holiday and always get together and celebrate tax day together with wine and cheese or coffee house coffee, listening to French poetry and folk music. Whatever you think of their politics, at least they’re honest about it, which is more than can say about most politicians. Especially the wealthy ones who are always calling for higher taxes on everyone else.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Posted in Big Government, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Bitchy Pundit: ‘Bernie Sanders is Rich’

Posted on April 16, 2019 by Derik Schneider
1667caa27a147ff012cc808cb82a60b0

Source:U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders– Maybe Senator Sanders had himself in mind when making this statement.

From The Bitchy Pundit

“I’m going to veer off course for a minute to say that I don’t believe that any society should allow billionaires to happen. Billionaires are toxic to a society because they can’t spend a big enough percentage of their money to actually help an economy. Millionaires on the other hand, are great for societies and I’m all for creating more of them. Millionaires are in that sweet spot of having enough money to spend on significant amounts of consumer goods and investing just the right amount to help seed businesses. But millionaires aren’t rich enough to play fast and loose with their investments, since it can all disappear overnight. They are not (for example) rich enough to create mortgage backed securities or naked credit default swaps. I believe that our tax code should be designed to stop anyone from becoming a billionaire, just like it was for nearly forty years. We need a top tax rate of 90% not only to prevent billionaires from happening, but also to force reinvestment in American companies. There’s no point in looting a company if you’re going to have to pay 90% of what you loot back to the government.”

From The Bitchy Pundit

“Jimmy Fallon’s monologue from Wednesday, April 10, plus Hodor from Game of Thrones remixes pop hits, like Lady Gaga’s “Shallow.”

18467e1337fdf7a170a1cbbf531f5707

Source:NBC– Jimmy Fallon, on Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders becoming a millionaire.

Just to respond to The Bitchy Pundit: saying that she is OK with millionaires, but thinks billionaires should be outlawed, in other words being rich is OK, it’s superrich that’s the problem: that’s like calling someone a little fat, or saying they have a slight drinking problem: “Tom and Susan, only get drunk twice a week, three times during a holiday. Bob, is only 20 pounds overweight, but that doesn’t make him obese. Jane, is a little pregnant, but it’s not like she’s going to have the baby tomorrow.” I mean do the really have to wait for the extreme to happen before we call a problem a problem and say if we act now, it won’t become a major issue later on?

I mean, if you really think that wealth is a problem and people being independently wealthy is a problem, than why attack billionaires, but leave the millionaires alone? You don’t think people who are worth 20, 50, 100 million dollars aren’t investing their money oversees and doing what they can to avoid high taxation in America? If you do, you’re not that familiar with our tax code and our economic system and economy.

This is not about Bernie Sanders being rich in the sense that being rich and wealthy is a bad thing, simply because  I don’t believe wealth and being rich are bad things. Otherwise I would be a Socialist myself. This is about a Socialist from Vermont who before 2019 was the only self-described Socialist in Congress ( but not the only Socialist ) who is only famous in America because he’s spent his entire Congressional career ( House and Senate ) demonizing what he is which is rich and wealthy. We’re talking about a man who is a multi-millionaire who’ll never have to work again ( thanks to his personal wealth and taxpayer funded Congressional pension ) who attacks the wealthy in America simply because they’re wealthy and use their money and connections to avoid paying high taxes.

Bernie Sanders attacking someone for being wealthy, is like an alcoholic speaking out about the dangers of heroin and cocaine. And perhaps doing that while they’re drunk. Perhaps when they’re sober, they’re not as hypocritical. And if we ever see that person sober, maybe we’ll know for sure how hypocritical they are. A smoker who bashes people for eating junk food. Or the radical hippie vegan, who calls someone an animal killer because they eat cheeseburgers and calls people animal killers for eating meat while wearing a leather jacket. If there’s any one thing that American voters hate the most about politicians other than they are politicians to begin with and just hate their profession, it’s hypocrisy.

Socialists, like to say that America has socialism for the rich and capitalism for everyone else. Meaning that we subsidize wealth in this country and don’t do much as a society at least the government for people who are poor. They have a point there, but the problem that they have is that they might have had one of their icons in mind in Bernie Sanders, when they argue that.

If Bernie Sanders really was as Socialist and believed in socialism as much as he claims he does, he wouldn’t be a millionaire to begin with. He would just live off of his Congressional salary, while donating his wealth to his favorite charities like Uncle Sam. Because Socialists don’t believe in material wealth and believe that people should just have enough money to live a quality life and not have to be poor of course, but not be rich either, while Big Government takes care of the rest of what we need to live well. At our expense, of course.

When it comes to politicians, Bernie Sanders is about honest as they come. Which I know sounds like saying Joe is the best hockey player to ever come out of El Paso, Texas. Or Mary is the best ballet dancer to ever come out of Mobile, Alabama. But generally speaking I get the impression when Senator Sanders says something and proposes something, he actually believes what he’s saying. But when it comes to wealth in America and being rich, Bernie now sounds like Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Jane Fonda, or any other so-called Hollywood Leftists who attacks people simply for being what they are, which is rich and financially successful in America thanks to American capitalism, while they attack our capitalist economic system. It’s more than a little much and more like enough to make people vomit when they hear that hypocrisy.

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on Blogger.

Posted in Bernie Sanders, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Economist: Lane Greene: ‘The Truth About Lies’

Posted on April 15, 2019 by Erik Schneider
788bd3f0624dafbc00c08d7c58c0681b

Source:The Economist– President Barack Obama: 44th POTUS and no more dishonest than any other politician or voter.

Source:The New Democrat 

“From little fibs to big fat whoppers, lying is part of human nature. Lane Greene, our language guru, examines the difference between lies, falsehoods and plain nonsense.”

Source:The Economist

From Dictionary

A lie is a: “a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.”

Similar to terms like racist or bigot, Islamophobe, antisemite ( and unfortunately I could go on ) liar is a real word with real meaning and shouldn’t be misused especially by people who are simply trying to score partisan points for their team and make the other side look as bad as they can get away with by spinning convenient facts to make their arguments. So if you’re going to call someone a liar, you better know that they’re deliberating making false statements with the intent to deceive and you better know that they tell lies, otherwise you’re just falsely libeling that person.

If I told someone that I was 7’0 tall, I would obviously lying there, but only because I’m a half foot short. ( Or more ) But if I told someone I was 6’5 when I’m 6’4 3/4, I wouldn’t be lying there especially if I believed I was 6’5, or just rounded it up. People make false statements all the time, doesn’t mean they’re lying all the time. Most if not all of us lie anyway, but tell real lies or flatter people because we want them to feel good. The only difference between the average Joe or Mary on the street compared with famous people on the street like politicians, is most of the country doesn’t know when we’re lying, because most of the country hasn’t heard of us.

What makes politicians different is that they’re public people and have to be public people to accomplish anything in their current job, or to get elected to higher office. And of course politicians lie, the question is do they lie more than the average Joe or Mary or any other average non-famous American. And I would argue that they don’t simply because politicians are no more or less American and human as anyone else other than they’re famous and are very ambitious people.

And politicians tend to represent people who say they want honest people and yet they elect and reelect people who in many cases are dishonest and see lying as a way to avoid taking tough stances on positions and to coverup their less than honest behavior. ( Let’s say ) So in that sense at least voters are liars as well because when polled they say they want honest, moral people representing them while they elect and reelect dishonest and crooked people. So who do voters have to blame for that other than the person that they see in the mirror?

To paraphrase Lane Greene: there are liars and bullshitters and I would add idiots.

The liar consistently says things that they know aren’t true to deceive who they’re talking to.

The bullshitter is even worse because that person simply makes things up and could probably care less if people who they’re talking to knows that there bullshitting them.

The idiot, is the biggest asshole of the group, but not internally because they continually speak out of their ass about things that they know almost nothing about and believe that they’re a lot smarter than they actually are. And aren’t even smart enough to know what they’re saying is simply bullshit. (Nonsense or garbage, if you prefer ) Stay away from the idiot, because that person is probably the most dangerous of the group. Sort of like a drunk gunslinger with a loaded gun.

But not everyone who makes false statement are liars. And as we’ve learned from the Russia investigation the last two years, you don’t have to be lying to get in trouble with law enforcement officials. You can be arrested and prosecuted for simply making false statements to those officials even if you believe what you’re saying is the truth. Which is another reason why we shouldn’t call ever false statement a lie and every asshole a liar, because they might simply not know what they’t saying and what they’re talking about. And be no more dishonest than you’re average politician.

Posted in The Economist, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Frank Talk: Frank Colletta- Episode 1: What Does It Mean To Be a Progressive?

Posted on April 14, 2019 by FredSchneiderUS
e2a9708deabd6ca1ad46460c0abef3c3

Source:Frank Talk– Franklin Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt: two of our Progressive President’s

Source:The New Democrat 

“Welcome to Frank Talk episode 1. Join me as we explore the Four Pillars of Progressive Thought and what it means to be a progressive-minded individual. Special thanks to Think Progress for their article entitled: “What it Means to Be a Progressive”, written by John Halpin. His work was integral to the creation of this educational video. Thanks is also given to the American Values Project for their work on, “Progressive Thinking: A Synthesis of Progressive Values and Beliefs and Positions”.

Source:Frank Talk: Episode 1- What Does It Mean To Be a Progressive?

Source:Wikipedia

“Progressivism is the support for or advocacy for improvement of society by reform. As a philosophy it’s based on the idea of progress which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development and social technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition.”

I like Frank Colletta’s line about: “within every heart of a Conservative, you find hopes for a progressive tomorrow.” Which has always been one of the points about Progressive and progressivism, that it’s not partisan and in some cases it’s not ideological even. And people need to understand that if they really want to know what it means to be a Progressive and what progressivism is actually about, especially with the Far-Left who are really Socialists and in some cases even Communists, who try to adopt Progressive and progressivism for themselves, because they’re afraid to be labeled as Socialists or Communists depending on how far to the left that actually are.

As far as Frank Colletta saying that progressivism is about fairness and equality: sure, but most mainstream political philosophies whether they’re right or left believe in some level of fairness ( or as I prefer justice ) and equality. Progressives, don’t have the monopoly on justice and equality.

The First Pillar: Freedom and Opportunity

Again, most mainstream political philosophies believe in some level of freedom and opportunity. Where Progressives would differ from Conservative-Libertarians ( let’s say ) on the Right and Socialists as well on the Left, is that Progressives believe that government has a role in seeing that everyone had the ability and opportunity to live in freedom in America. Not just people who are born to wealth in America or people from a certain racial or ethnic background. Which is where Progressives would differ from Conservatives when it comes to freedom.

But Progressives differ from Socialists as well, because Socialists believe that opportunity doesn’t go far enough, because they believe that some people won’t take advantage of those opportunities and come up short. Or some people will do so well and have so much freedom over others and that to Socialists is somehow unfair. Progressives, don’t believe in total economic equality in the sense that everyone has the same basic income and standard of living, but that everyone has the opportunity to achieve real freedom in America.

My short, but simple definition of a Progressive in a political sense: is someone who believes in progress through government action. Progressive, is not another word for Socialist ( democratic or otherwise ) and Progressive is not another word for hippie or hipster: someone who is in on all the latest social trends and proud of that. You don’t have to to hip, cool, or awesome to be a Progressive: You just have to believe in progress and that government has a limited, but real role in achieving progress and that everyone’s constitutional rights are protected and that everyone has a real shot at succeeding in America. That everyone is protected from predators and predatory behavior, foreign or domestic.

A Progressive is not someone who is necessarily in on all the latest social trends and backs them, or has a big government solution and tax increase to solve everyone’s problems for them and take care of them. Or someone who believes that freedom is dangerous and selfish.

Posted in Progressive, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Senator Huey Long: Huey Long Collection- Share Our Wealth Societies: 2/23/1934

Posted on April 12, 2019 by kireschneider
Huey Long Collection | Share Our Wealth Societies | 2_23_1934

Source:Senator Huey Long– Governor Huey Long, D, Louisiana: the Bernie Sanders of his era?

Source:The New Democrat 

“Huey Long speaking with John A Simpson, President of the National Farmer’s Union, in 1934.
FORMER LOUISIANA GOVERNOR HUEY LONG, CALLED “THE KINGFISH”, SPEAKING WITH JOHN A. SIMPSON, PRESIDENT NATIONAL FARMER’S UNION, ON SHARE THE WEALTH MOVEMENT”

Source:Senator Huey Long: Huey Long Collection- Share The Wealth: 2/23/1934

Governor Huey Long’s Share The Wealth Proposal

Source:Wikipedia

1. “No person would be allowed to accumulate a personal net worth of more than 300 times the average family fortune, which would limit personal assets to between $5 million and $8 million. A graduated capital levy tax would be assessed on all persons with a net worth exceeding $1 million.[citation needed]

2. Annual incomes would be limited to $1 million and inheritances would be capped at $5.1 million.[citation needed]

3. Every family was to be furnished with a homestead allowance of not less than one-third the average family wealth of the country. Every family was to be guaranteed an annual family income of at least $2,000 to $2,500, or not less than one-third of the average annual family income in the United States. Yearly income, however, cannot exceed more than 300 times the size of the average family income.[citation needed]

4. An old-age pension would be made available for all persons over 60.[citation needed]
To balance agricultural production, the government would preserve/store surplus goods, abolishing the practice of destroying surplus food and other necessities due to lack of purchasing power.[citation needed]

5. Veterans would be paid what they were owed (a pension and healthcare benefits).[citation needed]
Free education and training for all students to have equal opportunities in all schools, colleges, universities, and other institutions for training in the professions and vocations of life.[citation needed]

6. The raising of revenue and taxes for the support of this program was to come from the reduction of swollen fortunes from the top, as well as for the support of public works to give employment whenever there may be any slackening necessary in private enterprise.”

I’m not saying that Huey Long both as Governor Long and then later Senator Long was the George McGovern, or take it up today and call him the Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren of his era, but only because Huey Long wasn’t so much a Democratic Socialist as he was just just purely a Socialist: someone who mixed both democratic and authoritarian views into his own politics. He was more like a Nicholas Maduro ( the President of Venezuela ) than Neville Chamberlain ( Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the 1930s ) as someone who believed in democratic socialism economically, but had authoritarian views when it came to how he governed.

Governor Huey Long, was as close to a dictator that we’ve ever had in this country when he was Governor of Louisiana and had so much power over the government there and didn’t believe in checks and balances and separation of powers. But on economic policy he was someone who had strong populist tendencies and someone who wasn’t a big city leftist or populist, but someone who could appeal to rural voters in the deep South, because of how poor they were and that he spoke about their poverty and promised to get them out of it with his economic populism that we would call democratic socialism today. Which is what he has in common with Senator Bernie Sanders today.

What Governor Long has in common with Senator Sanders is what again what was called economic populism in the 1930s that we call democratic socialism today: Bernie, doesn’t call his economic agenda Share The Wealth, but that’s probably more for political reasons than ideological. He’s already a self-described Democratic Socialist and one of just a few in Congress today and doesn’t want to be confused with Socialists who are even to the Left of him. But ideologically Bernie’s vision of democratic socialism is very similar to Huey’s when it comes to money and wealth. They would both essentially outlaw wealth in this country and use that money for their social welfare agenda.

Huey Long in the 1930s, was talking about old age pensions and what we call today a national basic income where every American would be given a financial allowance in this country to make sure that they don’t have to live in poverty. Bernie Sanders, believes that every single American has a right to go to college and get health insurance and health care provide to them from the government. And that the wealthy should be forced to pay for all of these services for everyone else. What Huey and Bernie have in common politically, is that they’re both anti-wealth and economic independence. And see it as the role of the U.S. Government to guarantee every single America and basically national income and quality living in this country.

Posted in Huey Long, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment