NBC News: YouTube Democratic Debate

Posted on January 17, 2016 by Erik Schneider

Bernie, Marty, Hill

Source:The New Democrat

If you’re familiar with what I wrote about Hillary versus Bernie on Friday, you should know where I’m coming from here. Hillary, wants to be the pragmatic Progressive in this race who knows how to get things done, because she’s already done them. The pragmatic Progressive is someone with progressive goals, but is willing to settle for less than the perfect if it means the compromise moves the ball forward on the issue and makes things better than they already are. That is basically her message so far and she wants Bernie Sanders to be seen as a Far-Left idealistic Socialist, who sees things as he wants them and whose not in touch with reality. And because he doesn’t see the world for how it is does not know what is possible and what can actually get done. That is Hillary’s message in this debate.

Watching the two-hour debate which I thought was very good and NBC News’s Lester Hold and Andrea Mitchell, other than the Bill Clinton’s and women’s issues, I believe did a very good job. After watching the debate I saw it as a draw with Hillary scoring big on gun control. With Bernie still being unable to answer why he believes voting for the Charleston loophole which you could make a case was a reason for the tragic shootings in Charleston last year. Not Bernie himself, but the loophole and he’s still unable to answer why voting for that loophole was a good idea. Bernie, came back on health care to a certain extent. But Hillary now being a very effective counter-puncher (similar to Muhammad Ali) hit him back with, ‘the Affordable Act, was the best that we can get right now. Lets not scrap it and try to start over especially when we might fail. Instead lets build on the ACA, like with a public option for Medicare and prescription drugs and make it better.’

Bernie, scored again on Wall Street and Wall Street reform. Mentioning that Hillary has received a lot of money from Wall Street. But again Hillary, is the only one up there with a plan to reform Wall Street that Progressive economist and columnist Paul Krugman, has endorsed. Professor Krugman, hardly a right-winger, (and the sun is hot and water is wet in the world of obvious) who has a lot of support with both Progressives and Democratic Socialists. And they get to foreign policy and national security, where I believe they all do well when it comes to civil liberties. At least in this debate, but of the three Democratic candidates, Senate Sanders comes out number three behind Secretary Clinton and Governor Martin O’Malley. And he’s been in Congress now for twenty-five years and unless he wins the presidency, will be a member of the next Congress as well. I mean calling the King of Jordan, whose a dictator, a hero, is hard to back up and explain to put it mildly. Putting Cuba in the same class a Iran, which is a state-sponsor of terrorism, is also hard to back up.

So on second reflection this was not a draw, but a clear victory for Hillary Clinton. Not a blowout, but maybe 10-14 points, (hey it’s NFL Playoff season) because again she knows where both the Democratic Party is and where general election voters are. And is putting herself in the position of a mainstream Progressive very similar to President Barack Obama. Who knows where the country is what she and the Democratic Party can do and get done. Who has both the Congressional and foreign policy background to be President of the United States, because she knows how the real world works in Washington. Going up against an idealistic Vermont Democratic Socialist who apparently believes the rest of the country is as Far-Left as he is. And believes the country as a whole wants what he wants and will pay the taxes for it. And I think she did an excellent job of framing the debate as a pragmatic Progressive who understands how government works. Going up against an idealistic Socialist, who sees things as he wants them and doesn’t know how to work in the real world.

Posted in Democratic Party, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Jonathan Turley: Hardball With Chris Matthews- ‘Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Answer The Difference Between a Socialist & Progressive’

Posted on January 15, 2016 by Erik Schneider

HRC

Source:MSNBC-Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary R. Clinton, on Hardball With Chris Matthews in 2016.

“There was a curious moment recently in an interview with Hillary Clinton that might interest our political science and philosophy majors. Chris Matthews asked Clinton on MSNBC what a socialist is and the difference between a socialist and a Democrat. Clinton appeared unable or unwilling to answer that question. Given the fact that the Clinton campaign has referred regularly to Bernie Sanders being a socialist and distinguishing Clinton as a “progressive Democrat,” it would seem a fair question. It is not like asking for the difference between a “raven and a writing desk”, but it received the same unclear response.

Matthews gave Clinton a fairly friendly interview and asked this reasonable question for a distinction between the two main rivals for the Democratic nomination. Clinton responded by saying that he should ask Sanders which is a bit odd since she is obviously half of the comparative question. When Matthews refused to backdown and asked “You see, I’m asking you,” Clinton simply replied, “I’m not one.” That makes the issue more confused. When Matthews pressed again, Clinton responded…

You can read the rest of Jonathan Turley’s piece at Jonathan Turley.Org.

“Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton gives her first national television interview of 2016 to Chris Matthews. She discusses President Obama’s executive action on gun control today and why the echo chamber around Donald Trump and the anti-immigrant rhetoric “undermines our values.”

YouTube_ MSNBC_ Hillary Clinton On Guns, Donald Trump _ Hardball (January 2016) - Google Search

Source:MSNBC– Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton, on Hardball With Chris Matthews.

From MSNBC

I’m going to answer the difference between a Progressive like Hillary Clinton, who I do consider to be a Progressive Democrat and even a Progressive Feminist and a Democratic Socialist like Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein or any other far-leftist out there in and out of Congress. And I’ll try to not be insulting here, but no promises.

I think main difference between progressivism and socialism or even democratic socialism as Bernie Sanders prefers to be viewed as, has to do with realism and pragmatism, versus idealism and utopianism.

It also has to do with negotiating with people you don’t agree with perhaps on a lot of issues, versus people who believe that the only way to really get what they want is to always be in the fight fighting. And the only the way to get what they want is to defeat the other side first and never settle, at least on the issues like health care and the broader economy.

Progressives believe in progress and always moving forward and making things better, making people’s lives better, even if that means having to work with others and not getting everything that you want on any particular issue. Socialists are a lot more ideological and partisan and their philosophy is built around the state, especially the national state and the collective and the welfare of everyone. And Socialists believe there’s a big, national government solution to every problem known to man or woman.

There are a lot more differences between Socialists when it comes to economic policy and national security, what type of government America should have and that sort of thing. But if you look at someone like a Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson, Robert F. Kennedy, and then look at someone like George McGovern or a Henry Wallace from back in the 1940s, none of these men were moderates or Conservatives.

But FDR, LBJ, HST, LBJ, and RFK, always wanted to move the ball forward and make things better. Not always looking to expand government to try to run people’s lives for them. Whereas McGovern and Wallace and go up to Bernie Sanders today, always have a national government solution to every problem and issue that comes up.

Posted in Democratic Party, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Marmar: Jane Fonda interview With Barbara Walters in 1978

Posted on January 14, 2016 by Derik Schneider

Jane Fonda

Source:The Daily Review: 

Jane Fonda, I believe giving Barbara Walters an interesting interview in 1978. Whatever you think about her politics she’s very honest and open about them and her life as well. Like losing her mother at the age of 12, her somewhat distant relationship with her father Henry Fonda. Her political activism in and outside of the Democratic Party and I could go on. I believe that is what people like her whether they like her or not they at least respect her realness. And that there really isn’t anything fake about her. And as a result the characters that she plays in her movies come off as so real as well. California Suite, where she plays a somewhat cold and distant mother, is a perfect example of that.

Whatever you think of Jane’s politics I think even her strongest opponents will give her that she’s a great actress. Perhaps would prefer her to stick with acting and leave political activism to people who know more about the issues that she campaigns on. But she’s a great actress and I at least believe if there wasn’t an actress named Elizabeth Taylor, I believe we’re talking about the greatest actress at least of the Silent Generation. And that includes women like Sophia Loren, Angie Dickinson, Kim Novak, Karen Black, to use as examples. When it coms to acting she’s in the same class as Liz Taylor, Lauren Bacall, Ava Gardner, Rita Hayworth, Susan Hayward and many other great actress’s. And that should never be misunderstood and forgotten about Jane Fonda. Regardless of what you think about her politics.

Posted in Hollywood Goddess, Jane Fonda, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Federalist: David Harsanyi: Republicans, Don’t Be Hypocrites On The Filibuster

Posted on January 14, 2016 by Rik Schneider

Mitch & Barack

Source:The New Democrat

Senate Republicans, have all the motivation in the world to not only be in favor of the filibuster, but to want to keep it even though they’re current in the majority in this Congress. They could easily be in the minority in the next Congress next year. They currently have a better shot at losing their majority than keeping it if you look at how many more seats they have to defend and how many of those seats are in blue states. Illinois, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, to use as examples. Senator Rob Portman, will have a tough reelection campaign in Ohio which is swing state. 2016 presidential election where they’ll most likely be facing Hillary Clinton, where there will be a huge Democratic turnout. And their candidate might be Donald Trump. And I can’t wait to see every ad against him.

Senate Republicans, need to ask themselves a question. Do they really want to be in the 115th Congress with another Democratic president, a Republican House with a much smaller majority and a Democratic Senate with 52-53 seats or more, that doesn’t have a filibuster to deal with. With Senate Democrats passing bills that they and Hillary ran on in 2016. With a Republican House that is now divided because they lost a bunch of seats and aren’t sure where to go from there and perhaps just waiting on the 2018 mid-terms and hoping a President Hillary Clinton is unpopular then. And this is all before you get to the whole hypocrisy of the so-called Senate filibuster debate from both sides. Where there isn’t a Democratic, or Republican position on the filibuster. But a majority and minority position. The majority is against the filibuster. The minority is in favor of it.

Senate Republicans under Mitch McConnell, had eight years in the minority. And in that time became not only very skillful with the filibuster, but Senate rules in general. To try to obstruct and stop Senate Democrats on practically everything in hopes of winning back the Senate. So it’s very hard for them to make the case that the filibuster is a bad thing, because it slows down not only the Senate, but Congress as a whole. Because when the House passes something generally on party-lines the Senate is unable to act on it, because they end up debating what amendments should be allowed and how long to debate. And one side accusing the other of obstruction, with the other side accusing the other of being overly partisan and not allowing for enough amendments. And people wonder why Congress is so unpopular.

The Senate filibuster, is kind of like Unemployment Insurance. You don’t want it and rather not have it, but you’re sure as hell glad it’s there if you become unemployed and you don’t think you’ll be working again anytime soon. At least not making the type of money that you’re accustom to making. The Senate filibuster is there to hold the majority accountable and even the administration accountable when one party holds the White House and Congress. But with the opposition having enough seats in the Senate to slow things down if not obstruct them. When the majority is overly partisan and doesn’t want to work with the opposition and even allow for amendment to bills. Senate Republicans, in 2017 if they’re at around 45-47 seats in the Senate, are going to be glad they didn’t abolish the filibuster.

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

Cliff Michel Moore: Ginger Rogers Interview (1968)

Posted on January 13, 2016 by Erik Schneider

Ginger Rogers Interview with Cliff Michelmore, 1968

Source:Recording Singer– Hollywood Babydoll and comedian Ginger Rogers, being interviewed by Cliff Michel Moore, in 1968.

Source:The Daily Review

“In the last post, I mentioned something about a 1968 interview Ginger did with Cliff Michelmore. Lucky for us, it’s available on YouTube and I’ve embedded it below.

It’s quite a fun interview to watch. Ginger was in her late 50’s by then, but she still looked as gorgeous as ever. She spoke very comfortably and confidently about her life and career, and it is just a nice look at how she saw herself. The interview was done at her California house, so perhaps this contributed to how comfortable she felt. Also, she’s quite a storyteller, too. It’s definitely not boring to hear her speak.

Here are some of the highlights that are definitely good reasons to check out the video:

Ginger fixing up an ice cream soda for Michelmore is the most adorable thing you’ll ever see. We know by now she’s crazy about ice cream soda, but in this she also said that she liked it with “lots of chocolates”. Her kid-like personality shines through in this part.

Ginger considered herself a good business woman, but didn’t see money as the most important. She said, “I don’t want material things. I want those things that are needful in life, but not necessarily the most valuable according to dollars and cents.”

Ginger discussed her relationship with Fred Astaire, noting that “we’re very definite about what we like and we dislike”.

Ginger recounted the time she reunited with Astaire during the 1967 Oscar ceremony, where they did a little dance before walking to the podium to announce a winner. This is the part that compels me to say that Ginger is a good storyteller. She looked and sounded so excited to tell Michelmore about every little detail.

Ginger talked about how influential her mother, Lela, was to her and defended that Lela didn’t push her around like a typical “stage mother” does.

Ginger spoke about her love of painting and how she could lose hours and days just to paint.”

Ginger

Source:Marmar– Hollywood Babydoll and Comedian Ginger Rogers, being interviewed by Cliff Michel Moore, in 1968.

From Recording Singer

I’ve always thought at least since I started becoming pretty familiar with her career, that Ginger Rogers is one of the cutest and funniest actress’s and perhaps women of all-time.

Ginger was so quick-witted and always had perfect comedic timing whether she was off script, like in this interview, or on script. And even when she was on script she was very adept at adding her own humor to lines and scenes.

If you ever see the movie Monkey Business from Howard Hawkes where she plays Cary Grant’s wife in that movie, they were an incredible comedy team in that movie. And I believe a lot of that had to do with them always being on the same page when it came to the wisecracks and physical comedy. She was the cutest woman in that movie that had Marilyn Monroe in it.

I love women who can make me go: ‘Aw! you’re so cute!’ But who can also make me laugh and she was very adept at both. She was an actress who was a hell of a dancer, who could sing, but also give a great comedic performance all in the same role.

Had Marilyn Monroe lived a natural life in years, maybe we’re talking about her the same way we’re talking about Ginger today. Someone who could sing, dance, act, make you laugh, looked great and everything else. That was Ginger Rogers, but she did it for a whole career.

Ginger was always as cute as baby physically, but always had the intelligence and maturity of a great woman. Someone who didn’t need money to be happy, but made a lot of it anyway, because she so good at what she did. And is one of the best entertainers we’ve ever produced.

Posted in Hollywood Goddess, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The New York Times: President Obama’s 2016 State of The Union Speech

Posted on January 12, 2016 by Derik Schneider

SCOTUS

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: The New York Times: President Obama’s 2016 State of The Union Speech

I believe President Obama, gave one of his best speeches tonight. Because it wasn’t a laundry list of issues that he wanted Congress to address and pass bills on. But instead he focused on issues where there’s actually bipartisan support in Congress. Criminal justice reform, mental health improvement, addressing poverty, to use as examples. While at the same time laying out the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Like gun control, to use as an example. The Affordable Care Act would be another, defeating ISIS. And giving Americans an opportunity to decide for themselves who has the better approach on the issues where Democrats and Republican disagree in 2016 to decide who should be in power next year. Who the next president should be and who should control the House and Senate.

A lot of what President Obama wanted to accomplish he already has and did it in the first two years as president. Dealing with the Great Recession, Wall Street reform, small business tax relief. And the next two years which were about the reelection and foreign policy he was able to address those issues without having to get much input from a divided Congress that still had a Democratic Senate, but with a Republican House. Like Libya, taking out Osama Bin Laden, ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The last three years really have been all about foreign policy and an expanded War on Terror. That now includes Syria and Libya will be next as ISIS is taking a beating in Syria and will move to Libya. And America will need to respond to that as well.

In 2015 alone he got Congress to end sequestration when it comes to the Federal budget and get that paid for. Was able to get a major trade bill passed out of Congress. Middle class tax relief made permanent. The American economy continues to grow and jobs continue to be produced. Unlike in Europe and even Canada now. So this speech I believe he wanted to focus on a few areas where he might actually get some bipartisan coöperation in Congress. Like criminal justice reform, additional Welfare reform, job training opportunities for the underemployed, unemployed, and low-skilled employed. Mental health reform, so we see fewer shootings that involved mentally impaired people in the future. And even regulation reform. And we’ll see what kind of success he has in these areas this year.

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Johnny Machine: Bugsy (1991) Starring Warren Beatty & Annette Bening

Posted on January 12, 2016 by Rik Schneider

Source:The Daily Review

Bugsy from 1991, is one of not my favorite films, but also one of my favorite gangster films. Right up there with Goodfellas, which could be my favorite gangster movie and Casino. This is a great film and even though it is not completely accurate and it doesn’t advertise itself that way anyway, this is a very funny film. Warren Beatty, makes Benjamin Bugsy Siegel, seem like a very funny charming guy. Not sure if Bugsy was that way in real-life, or Beatty just makes him look that way in the movie, because that is how he wanted to play him, because he’s a very funny charming guy. But Beatty makes Bugsy look like a cold-blooded killer with another side to him. That loves his family and the people he cares about as well. But won’t stop to kill someone who gets in his way.

Bugsy, is about the career of Benjamin Bugsy Siegel. Who is a Jewish mobster from New York who operates out of New York, who is sent to Los Angeles on business. To become partners with Italian gangsters over there. To actually buy out their business there and take it over with those people working for him and his bosses back in New York. When Bugsy gets to Hollywood, he can’t find anything he doesn’t like about it and decides he wants to go into films as well. Which is where he meets his long time mistress Virginia Hill, played by the beautiful and adorable Annette Bening. She’s not just an actress and mistress, but becomes his business partner as well. That is the legitimate side of his business dealing with gambling.

Bugsy, is then sent to Las Vegas, which was still a hick Southwestern town in the early 1940s when this movie first takes place. To check out a casino there and to report back on it. And instead passes on that dump of a casino there and discovers that he could develop a casino industry with his own casino-hotel there. And make millions if not billions of dollars there and make Las Vegas a gambling mecca. All this stuff in the movie is completely true. Bugsy Siegel, had a lot to do with the development and economic success of Las Vegas. And a big reason why it goes from a town of maybe ten-thousand people back in the 1940s, to a big city of over five-hundred-thousand people today and one of the fastest growing cities and metro areas in the country now.

Bugsy Siegel, was not a good guy at all. He was a cold-blooded killer who had witness’s whacked and personally murdered perhaps twenty people or more himself for getting in the way of his illegal business’s. But Warren Beatty, does a great job of giving Bugsy a very likable charming funny side. That people could actually like especially if they don’t know he’s a gangster and personally responsible of the murders of so many people. This is a two and a half-hour film that is worth every minute. With a lot of great lines, with a lot of humor and not just from Beatty, but Annette Bening does a great job and so does Harvey Keitel as Mickey Cohen and so many other great character and actors in this movie. This is truly one of Barry Levinson’s best movies.

Posted in Classic Movies, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

BookTV: Lesley Stahl Interviewing Gil Troy- The Age of Clinton: America in the 1990s

Posted on January 11, 2016 by Erik Schneider

BookTV

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: BookTV: Lesley Stahl Interviewing Gil Troy- The Age of Clinton: America in the 1990s

I guess I generally agree with Gil Troy about Bill Clinton, but perhaps I would put it differently. I don’t see Bill Clinton as either a Centrist, or a Conservative, or a Center-Right Republican. Someone who would be mainstream on the Right, but certainly not Far-Right. Like Ronald Reagan, to use as an example, or Senator John McCain today. Clinton, was and still is a Liberal, but he’s a true Liberal. Not part of the New-Left that is part of the Baby Boom Generation. But someone who wanted to use government to empower people in need to be able to get themselves up. But also have government do the basics that we need it to do. National defense, foreign affairs, infrastructure investment, law enforcement, promoting American trade. All while being fiscally responsible and operating under a budget and protecting Americans personal freedom and civil liberties.

Pre-Bill Clinton, Liberals were seen as soft and socialistic in nature. That had a new tax, or tax increase as well as new big government program to take care of everyone’s problems for them. While believing government shouldn’t do the basics and its first responsibility was to protect the country from predators. Protect the nation from terrorists and invaders, but also from hard-core criminals that needed to be in prison. Liberals were seen as people who put the rights of criminals over their victims, who had an excuse from every criminal for why they shouldn’t do hard-time in prison. That American defense policy was the problem and not something we should do. That poor people shouldn’t have to finish their education and work, because government should just take care of them.

I believe that then Governor Bill Clinton, ran for president in 1991-92 to not only save the Democratic Party and win back the White House, but to save American liberalism and Democratic liberalism, from the New-Left and even the Far-Left in the Democratic Party. That were more social democratic, if not socialistic in nature. That didn’t believe in national defense and law enforcement, that there was no such thing as government being too big and taxes being too high. Because the people would just get that money back in government services anyway. Bill Clinton, wanted to not just bring liberalism back in the mainstream where it should always be. Not not some dovish big government philosophy, but wanted liberalism and Liberal Democrats to be seen that way as well.

It’s not called the Reagan Revolution for nothing. Pre-Ronald Reagan, America was still in the Progressive Era of the New Deal and Great Society, but Americans were starting to get tired of paying for all of those taxes to fund all of those government programs. Especially if they were out-of-work, or not working enough and seeing their incomes go down and their taxes go up. Which is the 1970s from an economic standpoint. Ron Reagan, capitalized on that and brought a new Center-Right alternative to New Deal progressivism. What Clinton wanted to do, was to do what Reagan did against progressivism with his conservative philosophy of personal responsibility and freedom. But respond to the Reagan Revolution from the Center-Left. With a limited government philosophy that was about having government do the basics well. While at the same time helping people in need help themselves so they wouldn’t have to stay on Welfare indefinitely.

Bill Clinton, is not an FDR Progressive and sure as hell not a George McGovern Democratic Socialist. But a Jack Kennedy New Democrat Liberal, who believed that government could be a positive force in people’s lives. But to help them help themselves as they’re helping them survive in the short-term. But that government shouldn’t replace individual freedom and responsibility and that government again had to do the basics well. Defend the country, fund infrastructure, arrest, prosecute, and lockup criminals and do these things in a fiscally responsible way that promotes economic and job growth. If you look at Governor Mike Dukakis and his failed presidential bid of 1988, ideology Dukakis and Clinton, are very similar ideologically. But Clinton didn’t run away from his liberalism, but instead sold it on what is truly is and not how it was stereotyped. Which is why he was politically successful.

Posted in Bill Clinton | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Forward With Roosevelt: Paul M. Sparrow: ‘FDR’s Four Freedom’s Speech Remastered’

Posted on January 8, 2016 by Derik Schneider

Four Freedoms

Source:FDR Library– with a look at President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms speech.

“There is only one speech in American history that inspired a multitude of books and films, the establishment of its own park, a series of paintings by a world famous artist, a prestigious international award and a United Nation’s resolution on Human Rights.

That speech is Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1941 State of the Union Address, commonly known as the “Four Freedoms” speech. In it he articulated a powerful vision for a world in which all people had freedom of speech and of religion, and freedom from want and fear. It was delivered on January 6, 1941 and it helped change the world. The words of the speech are enshrined in marble at Four Freedoms Park on Roosevelt Island in New York, are visualized in the paintings of Norman Rockwell, inspired the international Four Freedoms Award and are the foundation for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948.”

Source: Forward With Roosevelt

“January 6, 1941: President Franklin Delano Roosevelt addresses a joint session of Congress in his “Four Freedoms” speech.”

Forward With Roosevelt_ Paul M_ Sparrow_ 'FDR’s Four Freedom’s Speech Remastered'

Source:Classic News Clips– President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat, New York) addressing a joint session of Congress, in 1941.

From Classic News Clips

President Franklin Roosevelt with his Four Freedoms speech, was essentially arguing for a society where everyone would be free not to have to go without. Because there would be a big federal government big enough to prevent that and be able to take care of everyone. Because everyone would have what they need to live well, because it would be provided for by government. At least for people who didn’t work, or simply didn’t make enough money to support themselves on their own.

If you’re familiar with this blog, you know I’m a big believer in both Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. But this idea that we would have freedom from want, or freedom from fear, sounds very utopian and like someone’s fantasy. Perhaps a fantasy that comes from drinking too much, or smoking pot that is stronger than you thought it was before you smoked it.

I don’t make fun of people who want a world where there is no poverty and fear. But coming from and living on Planet Earth my whole lifetime, I’ve learned that it helps to have a healthy sense of reality in life. What’s possible and what might be out-of-reach and what is the best that we can do at the given time.

To create a society where there’s no such thing as poverty and fear, you got to create an economy where everyone has the ability to succeed.Where everyone can get themselves a good education, where their good jobs and modern infrastructure in every community. Where people have the, yes freedom to succeed and even take risks even if some risks don’t pay off. And then you have an insurance system for people who truly need it to help them when they fall down. And need help getting by in the short-term, but also get help to get themselves up and live in freedom on their own.

You create a society where everyone is essentially dependent on government to take care of them and people won’t feel the need and freedom to succeed on their own and more people will end up dependent on big government to take care of them. And people can point to Scandinavia all they want to, but very small countries in population, with a lot of land, that are not just energy independent, but export their energy and use those resources to fund very generous big centralized welfare states. America, is obviously not like that. Which means for this country to succeed the people need have to have the ability to succeed on their own.

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

Posted in American Presidents | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

AEI Ideas: James Pethokoukis- Ben Carson’s Flat Tax Plan Represents Many of The Least Helpful Impulses in GOP Tax Policy

Posted on January 8, 2016 by Rik Schneider

Ben Carson

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: AEI Ideas: James Pethokoukis- Ben Carson’s Flat Tax Plan Represents Many of The Least Helpful Impulses in GOP Tax Policy

During really the last six years or so of the tax cut and deficit reduction debate in Washington, people who call themselves Conservative Republicans, have argued that they wouldn’t support a tax increase, or a tax hike under any circumstances. The so-called fiscal cliff and the extension of the Bush tax cuts in late 2012 was part of this. However Representative Michelle Bachmann, when she ran for president in 2011, her campaign didn’t make it to 2012, or she ran for president in a non-presidential year, argued for increasing taxes on low-income workers. Adding an income tax to their payroll taxes. Ben Carson and others, now support a 15% flat tax that would be a fifty-percent tax increase on lower working class workers who currently pay 10% in federal income taxes before refunds and so-forth.

If you’re truly against tax hikes at any point, then you’re against any flat tax that raises taxes on anyone. Every flat tax that has ever been proposed has been both a lower and middle-income tax hike. I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who call them self even a fiscal, or economic conservative, when they support a flat tax. Because they’re supporting a lower and middle-income tax increase, but also on the people who American economy depends on the most to drive economic growth. You pass a lower-income tax on people and they’ll stop working and become completely dependent on public assistance, because they can’t afford your tax increase. We need to encourage these people to not only work, but further their education so they can get a good job and no longer be low-income. Not discourage them to work at all.

Posted in Fiscal Policy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment