Roll Call: Report: Steven Dennis: Senator Tim Kaine, President Obama Must Get Congress’s Approval Before War on ISIL in Iraq

Posted on June 25, 2014 by Ederik Schneider
U.S. Senator Tim Kaine

Roll Call: Report: Steven Dennis: Senator Tim Kaine, “President Obama Must Get Congress’s OK Before War on ISIL in Iraq”

Even though technically President Obama may not need Congressional approval to take the country back to war with the War Powers Act. As long as he reports back to Congress within I believe ninety days after sending the country to war. President Obama really needs to go to Congress before he commits this tired and broke country that sill is struggling to recover from the Great Recession back to war. Especially fighting for a country that doesn’t seem to want to defend itself. Which is the situation that Iraq is in right now.

We are still at the very early stages of anything substantial from a military perspective of America doing anything when it comes to the Iraqi Civil War. The President doesn’t seem to want to send the country back to war and it seems like only the Neocons the inventors of the preemptive War in Iraq want to see us go back to war. And why would any intelligent person take their advice on anything anymore when it comes to foreign policy. But military involvement in Iraq from an American perspective is still on the table. And no one really except for the Neocons want us involved in someone else’s war.

And for all these reasons even if they are just political President Obama assuming he’s still interested in governing this country and not just surviving the last thirty months of his presidency. President Obama needs to come to Congress and for the House and Senate to give him approval to take us back to war. And what he’ll see there is similar to what happen in Syria which is very little if any support in the House or Senate from either party except for the Neocons. Because America is tired of protecting, defending and occupying other countries for them.

Posted in Foreign Affairs | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Washington Examiner: Opinion: Cal Thomas: The Difference Between Republicans and Democrats

Posted on June 25, 2014 by Rik Schneider
Laptop Party

Washington Examiner: Opinion: Cal Thomas: The Difference Between Republicans and Democrats

The Republican Party and Democratic Party are so politically diverse inside their party and even to a certain extent are both culturally diverse. Both parties represent states and districts all over the country even though both parties are stronger in some areas and weaker in others. So it is hard to layout what are the differences a Republican and a Democrat since there are so many different Republicans and Democrats in both parties.

But if you want to say the Republican Party is the conservative party and the Democratic Party is the liberal party even though the Republican Party is made up of Conservatives, Libertarians, Neoconservatives religious Conservatives which are different from political Conservatives and Libertarians. And the Democratic Party is made up of Liberals, Progressives and Socialists. And both parties have centrists that are more conservative than liberal and vice-versa, but aren’t that hard-core and partisan as others in their party. Putting all of that aside and you might be able to explain and see the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

I believe the better way to tell the differences between Republicans and Democrats is to look at the differences between Conservatives and Liberals. Who both are supposed to represent the main reasons why we have a two-party system. Because one party gives you the conservative viewpoint and the other party gives you the liberal viewpoint. And at least in a classical sense it is not so much policies and goals that separate Conservatives from Liberals. Because both sides tend to believe in and want the same things. But the role of government as it relates to the private sector and how involved government should be.

Conservatives and Liberals at least in the classical sense both believe in individual freedom. Both believe in personal responsibility. Both believe in opportunity, believe in law enforcement and a strong defense and even limited government. But where we differ is where does government come into these areas and how they it should be limited and what should it do.

What is government’s role when it comes to opportunity for Americans who need it?

What should government do when it comes to law enforcement and where should it stop?

How strong should our defense be and what role does foreign policy and diplomacy have in making sure our country is as secure as possible?

How limited should government should be and when does it become either too small and not having what it needs to serve the country? And when does to become too big and intrusive and stopping freedom for the individual?

It is not so much that Conservatives and Liberals are different because again we tend to have similar goals and believe in similar things. The War on Drugs and criminal justice and sentencing reform, privacy and another War in Iraq are perfect examples of that. Where both sides are coming and working together to get the same outcomes on these issues. But where we differ is what is government’s role in these areas and what should it be doing and how much should be invested in it.

Posted in American Politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Brookings Institution: Up Front: Melissa S. Kearney & Benjamin Harris: Fighting Poverty Should be a National Priority

Posted on June 25, 2014 by Erik Schneider
Clinton Initiative on Poverty

Brookings Institution: Up Front: Melissa S. Kearney & Benjamin Harris: Fighting Poverty Needs to be a National Policy Priority

This blog covers and writes about poverty a lot as it should. But writing about something a lot can make it difficult to put things in a new an interesting way and makes it difficult to sound repetitive and boring. So this post will be different in the sense and look at poverty simply and purely as a public investment pure and simple. “We as taxpayers give people who aren’t able to make it on their own in life this amount money and this is what we expect in return from the money that we give you”. Instead of looking at public assistance almost entirely from a public charity perspective.

The question for me at least as a New Democrat and Liberal is not whether or not we should have public assistance in America. But what is it for and what we should get in return. Yes what we should get in return that public assistance is a hand up and not a handout. Again “we give you money to help you sustain yourself in the short-term and this is what we expect you to do while you are getting our money”. That is where the hand up and public investment function kicks in. The money people on public assistance yes receive money to survive in the short-term, but they are also getting help improving themselves as people.

Preparing themselves to not only reenter or enter the workforce, but reenter or enter the workforce with the skills needed to get themselves a good job. Which is what Welfare to Work from 1996 was about at least from the Clinton Administration and other New Democrats. “You get help to pay your immediate bills and cost of living with a wide variety of assistance. But what you do in return is finish your education and making sure your kids are not only in school, but getting a good education as well. So you get the skills you need to get yourself a good job and so do your kids if you have any”.

If we simply look at public assistance from the perspective of public investment and investing in human capital included in that immediate cost of living instead of looking at simply, or mostly as public charity then public assistance would be popular in America. Because hardworking Americans who perhaps struggle just to pay their bills, but who are not poor would support these policies. Because they would not only see them as public investments in their fellow Americans, but the country .

Posted in War on Poverty | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Politico: Kenneth Vogel & Tarini Parti: The Existential Crisis of the Liberal Millionaire

Posted on June 24, 2014 by kireschneider

Politico

Just so we are clear that Liberals and Democrats (and I mean real Liberal Democrats) aren’t against millionaires and wealth. How I know that because the Democratic Party if anything may have more wealthy millionaire individual donors than the Republican Party. It was Barack Obama who had the most contributions from Wall Street in 2012. Not Mitt Romney in case anyone wasn’t familiar with that. Wall Street doesn’t back incumbents and candidates they believe are against them, or trying to put them out of business, or being wealthy.

There are plenty of Liberal Democrats who are multi-millionaires and if anything worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Hollywood is a perfect example of that and Democrats always get more contributions from Hollywood than Republicans. And the Hollywood types who are all in favor of being economically successful and being wealthy. But tend to be very liberal if not libertarian on the social issues. As well as tend to like liberal economic policies as it relates to education and infrastructure investment.

And these liberal donors back Democrats that they like who tend not to be on the Far-Left. They back center-left Liberal Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry in 2004. And are very friendly with the Bill Clinton’s in the Democratic Party. So when you hear things that “Liberal Democrats are against wealth and being rich”, you should look at the Democratic donor list and where Democratic politicians get their political contributions. You’ll see a lot of union contributions, but you’ll also see a lot of contributions from very wealthy Liberals as well.

Posted in Classical Liberalism, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Nation: Katrina Vanden Heuvel: ‘My Real Family Values’

Posted on June 24, 2014 by Derik Schneider

Source:

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

Liberty Pen: John Stossel: Alan West & Alex McFarland on Personal Freedom

Posted on June 24, 2014 by Ederik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

I have a real hard time listening to people who claim to be against big government and essentially say that “big government is essentially bad except when we are in favor of big government”. So they say basically “go ahead and make all the money you want and well and go spend that money any way you want just as long as we approve”. And we they are confronted on that they say “well we don’t allow people to murder or rape or hurt innocent people in any other way”. As if that is what the issue is when it is not.

The whole notion of personal freedom is exactly that. It is personal and as long as you aren’t hurting innocent people with your personal choices and invading some innocent person’s personal freedom and space and living up to your responsibilities that come with your personal choices, we are still talking about personal freedom. So when so-called Conservatives say they believe in freedom and against big government and then of course are talking about these economic policies I question them about how they feel about personal choice and social issues. To see how much they are against big government, or do they just say they are against big government when it is convenient for them.

Economic freedom is not worth much without personal freedom. Because without personal freedom we won’t have the freedom to be able to make personal decisions with our own money. Because big government Right or Left or in between will always be they’re saying “no we don’t approve of those personal choices and we must stop you”. What you need for a society to be free is to have both economic and personal freedom because they go hand in hand.

Posted in Liberty Pen, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Washington Examiner: Gene Healy: The Iraq War Was a Bipartisan Disaster

Posted on June 24, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

I actually agree with Gene Healy on this even though I put most of the responsibility for the War in Iraq on President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and their supporters. But the fact is the War in Iraq never happens without Democratic support in Congress. Because President Bush wanted a bipartisan vote for the Congressional resolution that gave the authorization for the War in Iraq  that passed both the House and Senate with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. And Democrats under Leader Tom Daschle controlled the Senate for President Bush’s first two years. And then of course all of those appropriations bills and the mountain of debt that was created to fund the War in Iraq and the occupation following the 2003 invasion.

Democrats in the Senate could’ve said one word that would’ve prevented the War in Iraq from ever happening. The word is no and said no “we are not going to support this because we do not believe the case has been made for the War in Iraq and do not support this rush to war. Especially in an election year 2002 with both the House and Senate in play”. Now of course Democratic loyalists are going to say that “President Bush had a very high popularity rating and going up against him in an election year would’ve been bad politics”. Fine that is the political argument for supporting the war a political argument that has played a big part in millions of Iraqi’s being dead and thousands of Americans being dead.

Of course war has consequences, but so does politics especially when political decisions are made that affects human lives. Like whether or not to send American soldiers to a country we certainly weren’t very familiar with pre-2003, but I’m not sure we’ve are very familiar with now. Especially since a country that looked fairly stable just a few months ago now looks like they are in the early stage of a civil war. With the argument being that “we must do this to prevent Iraq from arming terrorists who would kill Americans”. And argument that still have never materialized with any credible evidence. Especially since the Hussein Regime in Iraq at the time didn’t even have weapons of mass destruction.

American Neoconservatives deserve most of the blame for the War in  Iraq and I’m not trying to take any of that deserved blame away from them. But the fact is we are not there today had Congressional Democrats not of backed that war. And they had the opportunity to prevent this war from happening in the first place. And instead decided to back a popular Republican President. And we’ve paid a heavy price for the decision ever since.

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

The New Republic: Danny Vinik: President Obama’s Promise to Not Raise Taxes on the Middle Class Makes Governing Harder

Posted on June 24, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

I’m just going to be real here and say that Socialists have this belief that if government especially the federal government or central government (depending on the country) is not doing something or running something that is supposed to benefit the country than that program or policy is not ‘substantial’. They also believe that there’s no such thing as a bad tax increase except for maybe when it comes to the poor. Because all taxes and tax increases benefit the people because it goes to government to serve the people. Now whether you call yourself a Socialist or not and I doubt Danny Vinik from The New Republic does, these are socialist beliefs.

So when Danny Vinik says that anything that President Obama does that doesn’t increase taxes on the middle class as well as the wealthy, or is not a Federal Government run program is not ‘substantial’ as Mr. Vinik says in his New Republic column today he is just making that point for me about how Socialists view taxes and the role of government especially the national government. If you want paid family leave in this country is is very simple to do without raising taxes on anyone. It is called a paid family leave law and you have a paid sick leave law as well. You just pass a law that requires to pay their employees these benefits once they are eligible for them. Instead of having a new government program to run them.

As far as raising taxes on the middle class. The last thing you want to do in a struggling economy especially with a struggling middle class is to make the lives of these people even harder and make it harder for them to pay their bills. Especially as they see their income falling and their bills and cost of living rising. Which is exactly what would happen with a middle class tax increase either through the income tax or payroll tax. And neither Democrats or Republicans are interested in doing this at least at the leadership level. And only the socialist left believes this would be good policy.

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

National Post: An Historical Look at How Iraq Was Formed

Posted on June 23, 2014 by kireschneider

National Post

Back in 2006-07 then U.S. Senator Joe Biden as he was then Ranking Member of the Foreign Relations Committee in 2006 and then when Democrats won back Congress in 2006 he became Chairman of that committee proposed a radical idea about Iraq which was beaten down by both Republicans and Democrats in the last few years. His idea was that Iraq would remain a one independent country, but that three new states would be created inside of Iraq. Kurdistan in the North. A Sunnistan or Sunni-Arab state in Western Iraq. And a Shiastan or Shia-Arab state in the South.

Well since Iraq reached a certain level of sustainability and competence under the Maliki Administration the last seven years or so with a real federal united republic being formed there. So Senator Biden’s idea about breaking up Iraq into these three ethnic and religious states or divisions similar to Britain looked well cooky if not radical. Since Iraq seemed to have reached some level of legitimacy and sustainability as a united federal republic.

Well over the last few weeks thanks to the ISIS now in control of parts of Iraq, ISIS being the Islamic terrorist group Iraq’s future as an independent united nation looks at best up in the air. With the idea of Northern Iraq breaking away from the rest of the country now seems to look credible if not definite. And Senator Biden’s idea about a three state Iraq not only looking less radical, but a strong proposal that had it gone through in 2007-08 maybe Iraq is a unified country now not looking at a civil war. With all the competing factions having the power and responsibility over their own domestic affairs.

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

Campaign For America’s Future: New Populism Conference: U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren

Posted on June 23, 2014 by Derik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

Campaign For America’s Future: U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren: The New Populism Is A Fight For America’s Values

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren at the New Populism Conference

The New Populism Conference“Thank you, Bob Borosage and Roger Hickey for all your hard work, for inviting me here today, and for featuring my book, “A Fighting Chance.”
I wrote this book out of gratitude – gratitude to my parents who worked so hard and had so little. And gratitude for an America that gave a kid like me a fighting chance.
I’m told you’ve spent much of the day talking about populism – about the power of the people to make change in this country. This is something I believe in deeply.
In 2009, I was fighting hard for a new consumer agency that would level the playing field for families, by preventing the big banks from pushing people into loading up on credit cards and mortgages with tricks and traps. As you probably remember, the big banks hated the idea. For over a year, they spent more than $1 million dollars a day lobbying Congress to stop financial reforms.
But we were able to fight back. We were able to fight back because people like you – along with people across the country – said: we’re in this fight, too.
And because the people were with us, we won that fight.
And it matters. That little agency has been up and running for only a couple of years, but already it has forced the largest financial institutions in this country to return more than $3 billion to people they cheated. That’s how we can make government work for people!
Our uphill, against-the-odds, can’t-win battle for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau wasn’t unique. In every fight to build opportunity in this country, in every fight to level the playing field, in every fight for working families, the path has been steep.
Throughout our history, powerful interests have tried to capture Washington and rig the system in their favor. From tax policy to retirement security, the voices of hard-working people get drowned out by powerful industries and well-financed front groups. Those with power fight to make sure that every rule tilts in their favor. Everyone else just gets left behind.
Just look at the big banks. They cheated American families, crashed the economy, got bailed out, and now the six biggest banks are 37 percent bigger than they were in 2008. They still swagger through Washington, blocking reforms and pushing around agencies. A kid gets caught with a few ounces of pot and goes to jail, but a big bank breaks the law on laundering drug money or manipulating currency, and no one even gets arrested. The game is rigged – and it’s not right!
But it isn’t just the big banks. Look at the choices the Federal government makes: Our college kids are getting crushed by student loan debt. We need to rebuild our roads and bridges and upgrade our power grids. We need more investment in medical research and scientific research. But instead of building a future, this country is bleeding billions of dollars in tax loopholes and subsidies that go to rich and profitable corporations. Many Fortune 500 companies, profitable companies, pay zero in taxes. Billionaires get so many tax loopholes that they pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. But they have lobbyists – and their Republican friends – to protect every loophole and every privilege. The game is rigged – and it’s not right!
Or take a look at what’s happening with trade deals.
For big corporations, trade agreement time is like Christmas morning. They can get special gifts they could never pass through Congress out in public. Because it’s a trade deal, the negotiations are secret and the big corporations can do their work behind closed doors. We’ve seen what happens here at home when our trading partners around the world are allowed to ignore workers rights and environmental rules. From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters, and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the upcoming trade deals in their favor.
Why are trade deals secret? I’ve heard the supporters of these deals actually say that they have to be secret because if the American people knew what was going on, they would be opposed. Think about that. Real people – people whose jobs are at stake, small business owners who don’t want to compete with overseas companies that dump their waste in rivers and hire workers for a dollar a day – those people, those people without an army of lobbyists – would be opposed. I believe that if people across this country would be opposed to a particular trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not happen.
The tilt in the playing field is everywhere. When conservatives talk about opportunity, they mean opportunities for the rich to get richer, for the powerful to get more powerful. They don’t mean opportunities for a young person facing $100,000 in student loan debt to start a life, for someone out of work to get back on his feet, for someone who worked hard all her life to retire with dignity.
The game is rigged. The rich and the powerful have lobbyists, lobbyists and lawyers and plenty of friends in Congress. Everyone else, not so much.
Now we can whine about it. We can whimper. Or we can fight back. Me? I’m fighting back.
This is a fight over economics, over privilege, over power. But deep down, this is a fight over values. Conservatives and their powerful friends will continue to be guided by their age-old principle: “I’ve got mine, the rest of you are on your own.”
But we’re guided by principle, too. It’s a simple idea: We all do better when we work together and invest in our future.
We know that the economy grows when hard-working families have the opportunity to improve their lives. We know that the country gets stronger when we invest in helping people succeed. We know that our lives improve when we care for our neighbors and help build a future not just for some of our kids – but for all of our kids.
These are progressive values. These are America’s values.
These values play out every day. These values are what we’re willing to fight for.
We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.
We believe no one should work full-time and live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage – and we’re willing to fight for it.
We believe people should retire with dignity, and that means strengthening Social Security – and we’re willing to fight for it.
We believe that a kid should have a chance to go to college without getting crushed by debt – and we’re willing to fight for it.
We believe workers have a right to come together, to bargain together and to rebuild America’s middle class – and we’re willing to fight for it.
We believe in equal pay for equal work – and we’re willing to fight for it.
We believe equal means equal, and that’s true in the workplace and in marriage, true for all our families – and we’re winning that fight right now.
We – the people – decide the future of this country.
These are our shared values. And we are willing to fight for them.
This is our fight!”
The New Democrat
Seems to me at least that today’s Progressives need a New Populism because the old FDR progressive wing of the Democratic Party seems to be dying off and disappearing and even moving left of the FDR/LBJ progressive wing of the party. And instead of being that mainstream progressive wing instead is doing all it can t live up to the negative Democratic stereotypes of being against everything that a solid of majority of Americans support. And being in favor of a lot of things that a solid of majority of Americans opposed.
During the FDR and LBJ years President Roosevelt and President Johnson didn’t seek to end American capitalism and create some type of socialist superstate. Or eliminate personal responsibility, or seek to end law enforcement and our military. The opposite was true and they were in favor of all of those things. What they wanted however was for freedom economic and otherwise at least in Lyndon Johnson’s case to work for all Americans. And for none of us to have to live in poverty. Or live without personal freedom, but have a real shot at making it in American and living in freedom.
Today’s so-called Progressives want to go further than the means-tested safety net. And create a society where all Americans regardless of income would live off of the central state. Instead of having the independence to take care of ourselves even if we can. Which is why the Dennis Kucinich’s, Ralph Nader’s and in 2016 Bernie Sanders never have any shot at winning the Democratic nomination for president because they want to create a Federal Government so big that most Americans wouldn’t be willing to pay for it.
What the progressive movement in America needs is for the real Progressives to stand up and reclaim that FDR/LBJ vision of progressivism and America. That is not about using government to replace freedom, capitalism and personal responsibility. But say we believe that government can be used as one tool that could help Americans achieve all of those things for themselves. Not run their lives for them, but to see that all Americans have the opportunity to live well in America.
They get back to that and someone like a Elizabeth Warren could win the Democratic nomination for president and even be elected president. Because Americans would see that Democrat as not someone who wants government to run our lives for us. But use government as a tool to help people who are struggling to be able to make it on their own in America. And someone like that could do very well politically in this country.

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