Cato Institute: ‘Daniel Shapiro on the Welfare State’

Posted on August 19, 2015 by Ederik Schneider

Daniel Shapiro

Source:CATO Institute– Daniel Shapiro on the so-called welfare state.

Source:The New Democrat

“In his new book, Is The Welfare State Justified?, philosopher Daniel Shapiro insightfully combines moral and political philosophy with contemporary social science to argue that proponents of the welfare state — egalitarians, communitarians, and liberals alike — have misunderstood the implications of their own principles, which in fact support more market-based or libertarian institutional conclusions than most people realize.”

From the CATO Institute

I’m not sure that Daniel Shapiro understands what Social Security is. And even though the title of his talk is about the so-called welfare state, this video only covers Social Security. Social Security, is not a retirement system. It would be very difficult for someone to pay their bills and not live in poverty if Social Security was their only income. Social Security, like most social insurance programs, is exactly that. Social insurance for retirement. To help people fund their retirement, but not be the sole income of their retirement.

For most Americans unless they have a government job, if they have a pension its a private pension. That either they funded them self, or they funded with help from their employer. Social Security, is not only not only the national retirement system, but it isn’t a retirement system at al. It is insurance that people pay into through their working lives and then collect from once they retire. To go along with any private savings and perhaps a pension plan that they picked up during their careers. So when people talk about privatizing Social Security and creating private savings accounts, private savings accounts already exist. And they’re talking about privatizing retirement insurance.

Posted in CATO Video, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

USA Today: Your Say- Legal Prostitution Poses Problems

Posted on August 19, 2015 by Erik Schneider
Sex Shop

Sex Shop

Source:The New Democrat 

I look at prostitution the same way that I look at gambling, homosexuality, marijuana, alcohol, tobacco and perhaps a few other things that come with real risks. These are not activities and things that I would personally get involved in, because they are not for me and the risks outweigh the rewards in my case. I look at these things as far as how they would affect me and society as a whole. Murder, rape, robbery and go down the line as far as activities I wouldn’t be personally involved in as far as the contributing party. Those things should be illegal, because you’re talking about crimes with real victims involved. The first group of activities whatever you think of them don’t have victims in them.

The reason why we have a prison population and criminal justice system that looks like something from the Eastern third world, is because we lock up so many people for non-violent victimless crimes. As well as sending people to prison when the offender and society would be better off if that person did their time in county jail, a halfway house, rehab, supervisory probation, or a combination of all of those things. Sure, their real victims in the prostitution business itself and no one is denying that. Prostitutes, who aren’t healthy and spread disease to their customers who didn’t know the condition of the prostitute. And of course trafficking and abusive pimps. But their victims in all sorts of business’s legal and otherwise.

The debate is not whether prostitution is dangerous, or not and does it come with risks. The debate is what to do about it especially since we now have and overcrowded criminal justice system with a huge national debate and a budget deficit that looks like it can never be balanced anytime soon especially with the current makeup in Congress and current President. Prostitution, should be looked at the same way as the War on Drugs. Legalizing and regulating marijuana and treating the addicts who are addicted to the hard narcotics. Legalize and regulate prostitution.

Force people who work in the business to be licensed and registered. Same thing with the customers and make sure everyone is healthy and gets medically checked and have to pass those medical tests in order to continue to work, or be a customer in the business. As well as show people in the business that they don’t have to do this and empower them to work in other professions. As well as encourage people to not become customers in the business. And make sure that customers and employees are paying taxes for what they’re making and consuming.

The criminal justice system should be for criminals. People who intentionally hurt innocent people and hurt people in general and make their living by victimizing other people. Not people who are simply selling themselves to make a living. Where there’s a contract involved and that people get what they paid for and where everyone knows what’s coming going in. Prostitution, is not a good business and perhaps not a business that anyone should be involved in. Unless they’re uneducated and really only have their bodies that they can use to make a living. But that is different from locking people up simply for consensual sex, because there’s money involved.

Posted in Freedom of Choice, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ray Red Spider: ‘Why Vote Bernie?’

Posted on August 18, 2015 by Derik Schneider

Democratic Socialist

Source:Ray Red Spider– U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

“Sen. Bernie Sanders holds a Senate hearing on health care systems around the world.”

IMG-4847

Source:Bernie Sanders– (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

From Senator Bernie Sanders

I saw a blog post with the link to that blog up here, arguing about why people should vote for Bernie Sanders for president. The case being that he wants to give Americans all of these free services. And I’ve made this point before on my blog, but anytime a politician especially someone from the Left, especially Far-Left says: “Vote for me and I’ll give you all of these free services.” your question should be how are you going to pay for all of these free services?

Government’s aren’t business’s, or any other private organization. They get their money by taking money from their people, their taxpayers. And then give that money back in public services. Schools, roads, military, law enforcement, etc. At least that is all developed countries fund their government’s. So when Bernie Sanders, or any other so-called Progressive (Social Democratic candidate in, realty says) they’ll give free public services, they’re either lying, or simply don’t know better.

Anyone in the world who pays taxes knows that government is not free, including Socialists, because they know they’re giving up some of their income to fund the government. Not out of charity, or generosity.

Generally speaking people expect their taxes to pay for infrastructure, education, even if it is not for their kids, because their kids go to private schools, law enforcement, national security, social insurance for people who fall on hard times, etc.

For Bernie Sanders and other Socialists or so-called Progressives who are running for office would serve their own movement’s and people well, if they were simply more frank and accurate with what they say government can do for people and how it would be paid for.

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

The National Interest: Paul R. Pillar: Right & Wrong Lessons From the Iraq War

Posted on August 18, 2015 by Rik Schneider
2003 War in Iraq

2003 War in Iraq

Source:The New Democrat 

I believe I know how Peter Beinart, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and John Kerry, feel about the 2003 Iraq War. See, I supported it to. I thought it would be a good opportunity to one, eliminate a brutal Middle Eastern dictator in Saddam Hussein. Perhaps one of the top three most evil dictators of the 20th Century. I at least would put him in the same bastard class as Joe Stalin and Adolph Hitler. And the idea of Saddam being allowed to continue to had weapons of mass destruction to be used against his own people, or use them against others, or perhaps sell them to terrorists, was unacceptable to me.

I wish I had the foresight of Dick Durbin. Who when was one of I believe twenty-two Senate Democrats who voted against the war. Sometimes it helps to be in Congress especially with a national security role and serving on one of those committees. And then maybe I would’ve seen the same lack of evidence that Saddam still even had WMD and a competent military, let alone a nuclear weapons program. Remember, the original justification for invading Iraq in 2002-03 and original being the key word here, is to prevent Saddam from obtaining nuclear weapons. Not to save a large country from a brutal dictator.

The lessons for Iraq, I think are pretty simple. Don’t invade a country unilaterally without a plan for the aftermath. What the country could look like in the short and long-terms after the regime is kicked out. Once you eliminate another country’s government, you then have the responsibility for governing that country until they can do that for themselves. That is what occupation is about.

If you’re going to invade another country simply to eliminate a brutal authoritarian regime and that country is not currently a threat to you, don’t do it unilaterally. Make the case the case to the country’s neighbors and your allies that the regime has to go, so we can save the people there from future murders and a genocide. Build a coalition to not only take out the regime, but to occupy the country in the short-term in the aftermath. Work with the opposition on the ground if you can and get their assistance.

The last lesson and I think might be the most important, other than believing the current evidence on the ground and not taking out the weapons inspectors before they’ve completed their work and this has more to do with the Iraq Civil War than anything else, is don’t try to fight for a country that won’t fight for themselves. One of the reasons why we’re still trying to assist Iraq twelve years after we knocked the Hussein Regime out of power, is because the Bush Administration set no deadlines. They said we would be there as long as we need to be. The new Iraq Government took that as forever and didn’t do their part to make sure that their country could be secure.

I know I said last lesson already, but I’ll close with this. And you can talk about hindsight all you want, but we had weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003. They were finding nothing and again I go back to the original justification point for the original reason to invade Iraq which was to eliminate their WMD and nuclear weapons program. But as the years went on the Bush Administration kept coming up for new reasons for invading Iraq.

And they finally settled on Saddam was evil and brutal and needed to go. If they took that to Congress even with a Republican House and a divided Senate, their Iraq War Resolution would’ve have never gotten approved. The American people wouldn’t have backed it. We know now that the original reason for invading Iraq that Congress and the country backed was never justified and backed up even at the time of the war.

Posted in Foreign Affairs, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reason Magazine: Stephanie Slade: ‘Why I Am a Pro-Life Libertarian’

Posted on August 17, 2015 by Ederik Schneider

Abortion

Source:Reason Magazine– I think you know what this picture is about.

“There’s a belief on the American left that says it’s impossible to be both a principled libertarian and a principled pro-lifer—that the two positions are somehow intellectually incompatible. It’s been popping up more often lately as liberal writers look for ways to criticize Sen. Rand Paul, as in this Salon piece, where the author says Paul and his father “have always played fast and loose with their libertarian principles when it comes to reproductive health.”

The unstated premise on which that statement relies is that No True Libertarian could also be against abortion. But in reality, it’s not the case that all libertarians believe women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy. More to the point, it’s flatly incorrect to suggest that opposition to legal abortion is irreconcilable with the belief system that places a person in the libertarian camp.

What is true is that most libertarians—at least historically—have held pro-choice views. In their 2012 book The Libertarian Vote, David Boaz, David Kirby, and (former Reason Foundation polling director) Emily Ekins looked at the data and confirmed as much. “According to our analysis of 2008 [American National Election Study] data, 62 percent of libertarians are pro-choice versus 37 percent pro-life, similar to percentages of the national population,” they wrote. Stated otherwise, as recently as 2008, a six-in-ten majority of libertarians thought women should be able to legally get an abortion.”

From Reason Magazine 

“As a political philosophy, libertarianism stresses concepts such as self-ownership, voluntary consent, and non-agression. In many areas of human activity, the application of such ideas seems relatively straightforward. In others, reaching clarity is far more difficult.

On Tuesday, May 21, from 2pm to 3pm in Washington, D.C., Reason hosted a discussion tackling one of the most controversial and debated issues of the day: abortion. Among self-identified libertarians, there’s a wide variety of positions, ranging from support for all forms of abortions to the prohibition of the same.”

_ (80)

Source:Reason Magazine– I think you know what this is about.

From Reason Magazine

One thing that Stephanie Slade said in her Reason piece is that if she didn’t believe that fetus’s were babies and that life started at conception, she would be pro-choice on abortion. I have the opposite position and say that if I believe life started at conception, I would be anti-choice on abortion. I would be against a right to choose an abortion to end pregnancies. Other than to save the life and health of the mother.

This is exactly where the abortion debate is: when do you believe life starts, at conception, or when the fetus is born and becomes a baby.

I’m not a Libertarian, but I don’t believe being anti-choice on abortion is anti-libertarian. Especially if you believe that life starts at conception and you have consistent libertarian views both on economic policy and social issues. Which is what Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul both have.

And one thing I would give anti-choice Libertarians on abortion credit for is that when they say their pro-life, they really mean it. They also tend to be against the death penalty and the use of drones.

So I think it’s hard for today’s so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) to make the case that anti-choice on abortion and argue Libertarians are now pro-big government, because they want government involvement when it comes to health care. Because when they also tend to support same-sex marriage, prostitution, gambling, pornography, marijuana, gambling and are pro-choice on other issues. But that won’t stop Salon, AlterNet, The Nation and many other New-Left publications, from trying to make that case anyway.

Posted in Originals, Reason | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

President Jimmy Carter: One Ounce: Proposing Marijuana Decriminalization in 1977

Posted on August 17, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat


President Jimmy Carter: One Ounce: Proposing Marijuana Decriminalization in 1977

President Jimmy Carter in 1977, proposing what even now some Conservative Republicans, like Senator Rand Paul and a few others in Congress support today. Which is decriminalizing marijuana at the Federal level and allowing for states to make the decision of whether to decriminalize marijuana, or not. And if they decide to do that, their residents wouldn’t have to worry about the Feds arresting them for marijuana possession, or usage. Remember, this is back in 1977. You didn’t even have a majority of Progressive, or Liberal Democrats who thought this was a good idea.

President Carter, gets labeled as a centrist Democrat who was almost a President without a party and base. When the fact is he has a quality back then and today that a lot of so-called Liberals say they have to today. Which is foresight and the ability to see things happening in the future and take steps now to prepare for what was going to happen in the future. I think he and his administration even when they entered office in 1977 could already see the harm from the so-called War on Drugs. And the fact that so many African-Americans were being locked up for just possessing small amounts of illegal narcotics.

The Nixon Administration, officially declares War on Drugs in 1971. By the early and middle 1980s the Reagan Administration escalates this so-called war and beefs up law enforcement against. By the way, an administration that was supposed to be against big government and yet all they did as increase the size of the Federal Government. The George H.W. Bush Administration, increases law enforcement to fight the War on Drugs and the Clinton Administration does the same thing in the 1990s. And you see why we have so many people in prison in America.

What if we went down the road that President Carter proposed in 1977 that the Obama Administration got the country back on when they came into office in 2009. And say the Feds won’t interfere with states that decided to either decriminalize, or legalize and regulate marijuana including medical marijuana. And instead used those law enforcement resources against violent criminals and other real criminals. People who make a living profiting from their victims and who hurt people intentionally. Maybe today we have half the prison population that we have today. At least when it comes to non-violent offenders.

Posted in Carter Presidency | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Salon: Scott Timberg: ‘Stop The Hand-Wringing Over Campus PC Culture’

Posted on August 15, 2015 by Derik Schneider
Jerry Seinfeld & Chris Rock

Jerry Seinfeld & Chris Rock

The New Democrat

Scott Timberg, in his column in Salon, which might be the Federal Chief of the Political Correctness Police, wrote the best piece I’ve seen from a New-Left generally pro-political correctness publication about PC. He basically said, “yeah we might do it. But so do they and they’re better at it than we are.” Which is sort of a childish sophomoric argument, but he least he admits his side believes in political correctness. And then he also goes onto say that comedians and other commentators should have free-will in what they’re allowed to talk about. Which is all I argue for in this debate. Free expression and personal responsibility for what you say.

I don’t see what political correctness warriors are fighting for. Do they want a world where everyone whose not male, Caucasian and Christian to not have to be subjected to criticism and humor, even when the criticism and humor is dead on? You’re not going to find that planet in the American galaxy outside of New York City, Boston, Seattle, San Francisco and parts of Los Angeles? Americans, believe in free speech and free expression. Regardless of political affiliation. That is all Americans between the Far-Left and Far-Right. Which is eighty-percent of us. Liberals, invented free speech, so of course they’re in favor of it. Conservatives in the real sense, support free speech. And so do Centrists and Libertarians.

When someone uses humor in an accurate funny way to describe the shortcomings of someone else even if that person is from another group, religion, ethnicity, race, whatever it might be, what do the targets of the humor and criticism have to complain about? It would be one thing if the people doing the criticism and humor, just target one group of people, while they defend their group, or groups to the hill. But even then the commentator is subjected to criticism and reaction about what they said. And if the person is inconsistently critical that will come out and be made public. Especially if a lot of what they say is inaccurate.

But don’t try to shut people up in a liberal democracy of three-hundred and fifteen-million people who has the most liberal guarantee of free speech in the world. At least among large counties and one thing that truly makes America the number one country in the world, our right to be heard, but also our right to listen and to hear what others have to say about what we’ve said. Political correctness warriors, really need to take up pot and vacation in Hawaii. Perhaps start smoking Cuban cigars since they’ll be legal in America again and learn to chill. They’ll live a lot longer and better for it.

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

The Week: Opinion: Sam Fragoso: How The Riveting Vidal v. Buckley Debates Paved The Way For an Era of Idiotic TV Punditry

Posted on August 15, 2015 by Ederik Schneider

Buckley V. Vidal

Buckley V. Vidal


The Week: Opinion: Sam Fragoso: How The Riveting Vidal v. Buckley Debates Paved The Way For an Era of Idiotic TV Punditry

I think people need to be careful when they compare with Bill Buckley-Gore Vidal debates with modern partisan talk TV. Where the host of some so-called news talk show has a clear political slant and simply brings on guests to back up what they are already saying. And when they do bring on an alternative point of view, they cut the person off every time the guest contradicts the host. Buckley-Vidal, is not Bill O’Reilly, or Rachel Maddow. Buckley-Vidal, is also not the old CNN Crossfire either. Where you would have 2-4 all talking at the same time and not knowing what someone else on that show said during the whole. Because they were too busy spilling hot air out of the big fat mouth.

The Buckley-Vidal debates, were between two men who hated each other and yet respected each other enough to hear what the other said and actually think about what they said. Before they tried responding to them. These debates were sort of like The Kennedy-Nixon debates of 1960. Where the two leading presidential nominees, were at the top of their game. And knew exactly what they thought and wanted to do and what their opponents knew as well. And actually listened to each other.

The only placed that would put on a Buckley-Vidal debate, or that type of talk and debating show, would be PBS, or C-SPAN. Because the rest of the country when they get home from work, are only interested in mindless entertainment, like so-called realty TV and the other tabloid shows, for the most part. And if they’re going to watch something that presents itself as news, it has to be entertaining. Because if it isn’t, they fall asleep on the couch from watching it, because getting something out of a real news show, or news magazine, or documentary, requires actual thinking. And not thinking about which jail their current favorite celebrity is currently being held at.

The Buckley-Vidal debates, weren’t supposed to be that. They were brought on by ABC News, Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal to offer opposite points of view from the other about the 1968 Republican and Democratic national conventions. I guess ABC News, was small, or cheap, that they couldn’t afford a research staff. Because if they did their homework they would’ve known that Buckley and Vidal hated each other. ABC News’s lead news anchor, was supposed to moderate their discussion, but he acted more like a U.S. Senate presiding officer, (sorry for the Congressional joke) than a moderator. Because Buckley and Vidal did all the talking. But it made for every entertaining as well as intelligent TV.

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

The National Review: Amy Schumer and The Creepy Politically Correct Police

Posted on August 15, 2015 by Rik Schneider
Free Speech Advocate

Free Speech Advocate

Source:The New Democrat 

Cenk Uygur, from The Young Turks, who is about as far-left as someone on the New-Left can get in America, I believe had the best line in this video. When he said that political correctness makes actual racism and real racial issues look small and non-important. He used the boy who cried wolf analogy. Which is really what a lot of this is about. It is one thing to disagree with what someone said about this person, or this group, but it’s another to say that person is a racist, or what they said was racist. Especially when what they said is accurate and funny at the same time.

If someone, or a group of people, whoever the person is, or the group of people is, has an issue, or weakness and someone accurately points that out and does it in a humorous way, what does the target, or targets of the critique and satire have to complain about. All the comedian, or commentator is doing is making an accurate statement and doing it in a humorous way. Also if someone says something that isn’t true about a person, or group, are they bigot, or are they just wrong? I mean when people have problems with the truth and reality, that is when they need to either become alcoholics and escape reality on a regular basis, or improve themselves and work on their shortcomings.

If I say that a lot of Southern Anglo-Saxon Christian-Conservatives got stuck in a time machine and were taken out of the year 1952, when women stayed at home and served their men, gays were locked in the closet and African-Americans, were second class citizens and served as servants to Caucasians. And brought up to 2015 when all Americans were free and able to live their own lives and were no longer partying like it was 1952 and instead lived in the real world that is modern America, would that make me a racist, or anti-Christian, or would I just be stating a fact and using humor to do that? Well that statement is right and there’s humor there. So what do Anglo Christian-Conservatives have to complain about?

Now use that analogy about Saudi Arabia as a country. A very conservative Muslim country, to say the least, just as water is wet and the North Pole is cold. If I said that Saudi-Muslims were stuck in the 1500s and view women as property of men. Women , aren’t even allowed to show their faces and bodies in public, they are not even allowed to drive and I could go on, but it would be very depressing. Now if I say this, am I a racist for making fun of Middle Eastern people and am I anti-Muslim, for making a joke about Muslims, or am I simply just stating a fact? Well again what part of that statement to you disagree with. Of course that statement is accurate and even funny.

The whole political correctness movement and their political correctness warriors, sound like a bunch of con men and con women. They’re not political correctness warriors, but fascist bullshit artists. On Planet PC. You can make fun of Christians, especially if they’re Caucasian and Southern and rural. You can make all the accurate and inaccurate jokes about them that you want to, but if you say something that is funny and correct about non-Caucasian-Christians, even if you’re correct, they label you as a bigot. And try to get you shut down. You can make all the fat men jokes you want, unless that man happens to be a racial, or ethnic minority. But it you make a fat women joke, you’re a sexist. Unless that women is a right-winger.

Political correctness warriors, need to go back to The Valley, or San Francisco, or New York City and sit down and smoke a joint. Just don’t buy it from an undercover cop, unless you’re in Washington State, Colorado, or Maryland. And chill, as well as develop a sense of humor. And learn that Caucasians and Christians, aren’t the only people who can be made fun of in a liberal democracy of three-hundred and fifteen-million people with all the diversity and liberal free speech protections that we have. Funny accurate jokes, aren’t bigoted. But they’re funny and accurate regardless of the people who they’re targeted at.

Posted in National Review, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

NFL: Remembering Hall of Famer Frank Gifford: A Giant Living Legend

Posted on August 15, 2015 by Erik Schneider

A Giant Legend

A Giant Legend


NFL: Remembering Hall of Famer Frank Gifford: A Giant Living Legend

Frank Gifford, was truly one of a kind. I don’t believe we’ve had another Hall Fame football player and Hall of Fame sportscaster in one person. Frank Gifford, was the voice of Monday Night Football. Howard Cosell, was the comedian of that show, but Frank made that show with deep knowledge of the game. As a Hall of Fame player for the New York Giants, his intelligence and his great voice. He was both an announcer and an analyst and did both jobs at the same time. His main role was as the announcer, but the way he would call what he was seeing was from an analyst’s perspective. Because he knew exactly what he was seeing and why he was seeing it.

Growing up as a kid, I couldn’t wait for ABC’s Monday Night Football. Still the best football show on TV, at least prime time show. I couldn’t wait to hear Frank do the intro for that show. Because he brought such passion, intelligence and humor to that show and brought the audience into the show as if you were going to a football party at someone’s house. With the host welcoming you in as you were at home. That’s what it was like listening to Frank call games. It was like as if you were there with him. The only NFL announcer I would take over Frank Gifford would be Pat Summerall and maybe be Al Michaels. But Frank is in the same class as both of those men.

As far Frank Gifford the NFL player, when you talk about hybrid players today, guys who could play running back, or wide receiver and are so good at both you have to use them at both positions, Frank Gifford was the first great hybrid NFL player on offense. He would’ve been a great running back, or receiver. Because he had great hands, quickness, footwork and size. He could’ve played quarterback as well. Very similar to a Paul Hournung with the Green Bay Packers. Frank, was the leader of those great Giants teams of the 1950s that went to five straight NFL Championship’s. But he was also the leader of ABC’s Monday Night Football the best prime time NFL show of all-time.

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