The McLaughlin Group: The State of The Union, Economic Mobility, Syria, Liberal vs Progressive

Posted on January 25, 2014 by kireschneider

.
Source:The New Democrat 

As far as the State of the Union if I’m President Obama or he could hear my advice for him, I would say use this speech to kickoff the 2014 Campaign to Save Congressional Democrats. Keeping the Senate majority and keeping the House Democratic Caucus at about where it is right now. “And this is how we are going to do that by making 2014 all about the economy and the Liberal Democratic vision to move the country forward economically.” If he’s successful in doing that, he could take sixty percent of the country with him who tend to like Democrats more on these issues than Republicans.

Economic mobility is about making 2014 about the economy. Again the Liberal Democratic vision.

1. Extend Unemployment Insurance so people struggling so hard just to go back to work at least have some income while they are doing that. And what we are also going to do is expand job training for these unemployed workers, but also for low-income low-skilled workers. So they can get the skills they need to either go back to work at a good job, or get an even better job from what low-income low-skilled workers are doing right now.

2. We are going to create a ten-dollar an hour minimum wage to make work pay more than not working. And so these workers can purchase more which will help drive consumer spending and economic growth.

3. We are going to create a National Infrastructure System and actually add to that. With a national public/private corporation or National Infrastructure Bank with the simple task of prioritizing infrastructure projects that either have to be rebuilt or built. That would reward contracts to private construction companies to do the work and bring in private investors to pay for the projects.

What President Obama could say to Congress that is the Republican House that isn’t really interested in doing anything that may need Democratic support to pass. And a Democratic Senate that has a Republican minority that is only interested in winning back the Senate. “I’m offering my hand and if you want to be my partner in helping to put Americans back to work and jumpstart the economy. You can either work with me on this, or I’m going to do as much as this by myself as I can. In case you try to stonewall me with the Republican House not doing anything. Or Senate Republicans trying to block anything that the Senate Leader Harry Reid brings to the floor to address these issues.”

As far as Syria the United States lost whatever opportunity it had a year ago or two years ago to knock out the Assad Regime. And at least give the Syrian Opposition a fighting chance to not only defend themselves, but to try to do the job themselves. And now as a result we are at a point where we are trying to prevent the worst from happening with Bashar Al-Assad still as President of Syria. And both sides already know this.

Liberal vs. Progressive or even Social Democrat as I prefer to call it. Is really about the two Democratic economic visions coming from the Left. Liberals want to empower Americans who need it to be able to create their own freedom for themselves. Which is why President Obama is going to focus so much on education, job training and infrastructure. Today’s so-called Progressives are essentially saying that, “the wealthy have too much and what we really need to do is take a lot of money from them so the Federal Government has enough money to take care of everyone else.”

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

Thom Hartmann: ‘Time to do Away With The Second Amendment?’

Posted on January 25, 2014 by Derik Schneider

.
Source:The New Democrat

From what I’ve read over the last two weeks and blogged about, I’m starting to get the idea that I should write a new section or create something called something to the effect The Big Government Report. Or This Week in Big Government or Today in Big Government. The last two weeks alone I’ve read a Far-Right blog The American Thinker arguing in favor of tobacco prohibition. And that link with a counter reply to it is on this blog and why that would be a brain-dead idea. Last weekend I read a piece in Salon arguing for nationalizing the news in America. Another brain-dead idea and I wrote the counter reply to that which is on this blog. And now a proposal to outlaw the Second Amendment.

As far as outlawing the Second Amendment and by the way good luck with that and I’m sure Thom Hartmann has much better things to do. And won’t spend much time on this losing cause. Because the Second Amendment is popular in liberal democratic states as well. Not just country bumpkin redneck states. And I happen to live in one of those liberal democratic states. The Free State of Maryland and also keep in mind the United States Constitution is a liberal democratic document.

But for the hell of it why don’t we imagine the Second Amendment get’s repealed. Perhaps the whole country, or all of our state legislatures are drunk when this happens. Why not because that might be what it takes to accomplish this. Next what will come from these big government far-leftists is repealing firearms in the hands of private citizens and institutions. And leaving only government which has never had and will never have the resources to defend everyone. With any ability to defend the people from violent criminals and acts of crimes.

Keep in mind American government at the federal, state and local levels, all have histories of using violence against their own people. As well as covering up violence against their own people. Look no further than the civil rights movement and we could also go back to slavery in this country. Is this really the big government collectivist state the Far-Left in America wants to create? Where we are all dependent on the big state for everything. Including law enforcement that they aren’t capable of providing everyone with. Which is a reason why we have the Second Amendment.
We The People

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

Los Angeles Times: A New Way to Attack Social Programs: Pay For Performance Projects

Posted on January 25, 2014 by Ederik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

Here’s an area where the public sector can work with the private sector and it is in the area of self-improvement for convicted inmates. So they can build up their lives and have a real shot at succeeding on the outside making a good living legally. And never needing to go back to jail or prison. It is pretty clear that locking up prison inmates and simply just keeping them there until their sentence is over, or just simply releasing them on the outside expecting to fit back into civilized society on their own, does not work. And that we need a new approach and this is where a public/private partnership could work.

If you want to talk about what happens to ex-inmates once they get out of prison as far as empowering them to build a successful life for themselves, we should say that all ex-inmates upon release from prison would then have to serve at a halfway house at their expense. Which would be like an apartment building or hotel for ex-offenders where they would stay and get help finding a job. And whatever rehabilitation service they may need as well so they can function successfully in society. Where they would have an outside job while still staying at the halfway house. Plus having a job inside the halfway house to help keep the place running.

The way this would work would be pretty simple. A prison releases inmates and then finds a halfway house for those inmates based on applications these places send to prisons. And then they get rewarded with the contracts to manage these ex-inmates in their houses. Until they are completely ready to be independent and live completely on their own. And the beauty of this approach is that the ex-inmates would pay for these services themselves. With money they get paid from their jobs outside of these homes.

Posted in Crime & Punishment, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Channel 4 News: 50p Tax Rate, Do Britons Think it Will Make a Difference?

Posted on January 25, 2014 by Rik Schneider

.
Source:The New Democrat 

I guess New Labour is going back to being Old Labour and talking about fifty percent tax rates. If you think taxes are too high in America whatever income level you are at, try living in Britain and you’ll think the taxes in America are almost nothing. Top tax rate in the United States currently is thirty-three percent. United Kingdom it is somewhere in the forties right now and then you add up all sorts of other taxes to pay for all the public social services in the country all run by the national government there and you could be paying as much seventy percent in taxes if not more. Even Britain which is one of the most socialist democracies in the world, puts limits on how much they want government, especially their national government doing for them and how much they’ll pay for it. As we’ve seen in the last four years of the David Cameron government there.

Posted in The New Democrat, U.K. News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Foreign Affairs: Kevan Harris: How to Reform Iran’s Theocracy

Posted on January 25, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

Before the Islāmic Revolution in Iran in the late 1970s Iran was already an authoritarian state, but in the form of a monarchy under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi who was the Shah of Iran. Who was basically their king who ruled this large country for about forty years as a dictator. His governing style was similar to that of Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, but Shah Pahlavi was more progressive on economic policy. And did a lot to develop this very underdeveloped country when he came to power. And gave the country a functioning economy and infrastructure system. But this guy was hardly a Liberal or a Democrat, but an autocrat who believed in economic development.

Again Iran was certainly not a liberal democracy or a democracy in any form before 1979. They had a dictatorship that went out of their way to squash any form of political opposition whether it was democratic or theocratic. And some of the Iranians who came to power in 1979 as part of that Islāmic Revolution did time in Shah Pavlavi’s jails and prisons and victims of his secret service and other security services that the West helped finance. Because they did not want to see these Islāmic Theocrats come to power in Iran. But what Iran did have was a functioning economy and a growing middle class and an education system that allowed for everyone in Iran to succeed in life. And one more thing, they weren’t under economic sanctions from the West because the Shah was a partner.

A lot of the economic progress that Iran made under the Shah is almost gone now. They still have a modern infrastructure system and education system. That includes for women and ethnic minorities and in many cases Iranian women are freer than Saudi women. But the country because of this socialist authoritarian regime that sort of mixes in autocratic rule under a theocracy where the elected president is not even the head of state and a socialist economic system that is more about state-control than progress with all sorts of state-owned industries failing. And of course with the Islāmic Republic’s continue support of Islāmic terrorists and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction their economy has gone backwards and their currency has lost a lot of value. And a lot of Iranians still live in poverty and have now moved into poverty.

I’m obviously not an expert on Iran, but know enough about the country that if you eliminated the theocratic state-sponsoring terrorist component from their national government and made the elected president the actual head of state with complete responsibility over their executive branch with the cabinet reporting to the president and not what is called the supreme leader who is the dictator of the country, Iran could become a great developed country and the economic power of the Middle East. Along with Saudi Arabia, because Iran is an energy independent country that could become a very reliable energy supplier for Europe and Asia. With an educated class that would further develop the country and create all sorts of new thriving industries in the country.

I believe the model for Iran is the Turkish model of having an independent executive accountable to no one but the voters who would have a Parliament and judiciary to hold each other accountable. A government that uses its vast economic resources to develop the country and empower the people. To be able to manage their own affairs where their people would be free to live their own lives. And not have to worry about their government when they disagree with them. But these are the decisions for Iran the Iranian people to make. But a successful small r republican model is out there for them to take.

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

PBS NewsHour: Shields & Brooks On Bob McDonnell, Income Inequality & Hillary Clinton

Posted on January 24, 2014 by kireschneider

.
Source:The New Democrat 

The so-called income inequality issue or what I prefer to call it the education gap that leads to the income gap, has to do with professional skills or the lack of them. People at the top or even upper middle class tend to be well-educated and the people at the bottom not so much. I would love to see an official statistic about the percentage of minimum wage or low-wage workers who even have high school diplomas. And I bet it is much lower than people even making fifty-thousand dollars a year who are not collecting public assistance at all.

The Bob McDonnell story is funny in a way just because of how stupid Governor McDonnell was. Just to be involved in something like this. He was the governor of one of the biggest states in the union that both parties try to win during the presidential election. A successful governor who was on course to a promising national political career. One of maybe two Republicans who has both the respect of the Far-Right and the mainstream economically oriented Center-Right. And that is all gone for him even if he doesn’t end up in prison.

Hillary Clinton will get a challenge from at least one Center-Left Democrat in 2016. The party wants that and quite frankly she needs that to get her out of this, “I’m going to be the first female President of the United States and I’m the most electable Democrat. Therefore I don’t have to offer a national agenda for the country and have strong positions on any of the key issues mode.” Which is where she is right now and that won’t get her to the White House. If the GOP puts up a real challenger.

Posted in Shields & Brooks, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

PBS: Video: NewsHour: Poverty and Politics: How Strong Is Safety Net for Poor Americans?

Posted on January 24, 2014 by Derik Schneider

.
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

The perfect debate for the mainstream Left in America to have that Liberals and Progressives should be debating about. The future of the safety net and it exactly what it is for. Is it really a safety net in its purest form, there to catch people who fall down in life in a liberal capitalist economy and give those people temporary financial relief to help them get by as they are struggling, as well as help them get back on their feet so they no longer need public assistance?

Or do we want to create a real welfare state and perhaps write a paper called something to the effect, Of Moving Past the Safety Net and Into the Welfare State. In other words transforming from America to Europe and creating a super-sized superstate there to meet most of our economic needs for us and there to take care of everyone. So we don’t feel the responsibility or freedom to have to take care of ourselves. Because we have big government to do that for us.

Well that last example isn’t so much center-left as it is far-left and a more socialist economic system. So maybe the other version of the safety net in America coming from center-left Progressives, would be to still have these social insurance programs targeted for the needy. But to spend a hell of a lot more on them without having work requirements or anything else for people on them. And have the Federal Government completely run all of them itself. But not try to create a welfare state in America.

Again if you are familiar with this blog you know where I come down on these issues at least as a Liberal. That a safety net is exactly that and nothing more and that to have the strongest economy possible, you need the most educated and productive people as possible to be able to meet their own economic needs. And that the safety net is there for the few who for a temporary amount of time aren’t able to do that for themselves. With the safety net also there to empower those people to be able to take care of themselves in the future.
FDR

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

TruthOut: Opinion: Joseph Natoli: Dark Affinities: Liberal and Neoliberal

Posted on January 24, 2014 by Ederik Schneider

The Wealth of Nations
TruthOut: Opinion: Joseph Natoli: Dark Affinities: Liberal and Neoliberal

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

You know I could write a blog arguing that these so-called ‘Modern Liberals’ of today who are supposed to be the Liberals of today and represent today’s liberalism are the ‘Neoliberals’. Because they do not represent liberalism at least as it was founded or liberalism of today. Liberalism is not about collectivism and having a superstate with its central planners making the decisions for the people or having the so-called popular will getting to decide what is best for everyone.

With this grand superstate getting to rule over the minority when it comes to decide how everyone should be able to get to live. But if you take ‘Modern Liberals’ seriously meaning they must be right about these things, you would get the idea that liberalism is about big central government and that the society as a whole should decide what is best for everyone instead of the people being able to make these decisions for themselves.

I really only need one example to show why so-called ‘modern liberalism’ is not liberalism at all, Liberals are taught to at least be skeptical about the establishment. That just because the majority says so, doesn’t always mean they are correct. Especially when it comes to personal-decision-making whether it is personal or economic. That the people tend to know what is best for them. Instead of some centralized authority that many times is far way trying to make these key decisions for the people instead. That for a developed society to succeed, you need an educated public so they can mange their own lives. Instead of one centralized authority trying to make these decisions for everyone as a whole.

If you are what is called a ‘Modern Liberal’ you are all about the state and superstate. That society as a whole meaning big government is better qualified to make these key decisions for everyone. Because they can collect all of this data and be able to decide what is best for everyone. Trying to manage the lives of people they do not even know. Sounds like a Communist society. But this is a far-left democratic form of collectivism. And these Collectivists can simply be voted out of office.

Liberals vs. the Collectivists is really about who get’s to decide and have the power over the people’s lives. The people themselves or government trying to make these key economic and personal decisions for the people instead. Should the people get to decide what they can read and what news organizations to follow. Or big government and can the people decide whether they should smoke or drink or not, or big government. And one final example should the people get to decide where they get their health care and who they pay for it. Or big government. And where you are when it comes to these key issues, determines whether you are a Liberal or a Collectivist when it comes to leftist politics.

Posted in Classical Liberalism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

National Review: FNC Special Report: Charles Krauthammer: ‘For God’s Sake, Why Do You Have to Talk About That?’

Posted on January 24, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

The easiest way for Republicans to lose the 2014 mid-terms and that would be for them to fail to win back the U.S. Senate and give Republicans a united Republican Congress at the least, is for their Far-Right to be leading their pack and brand and for them to look like they speak for the Republican Party. At least the GOP base and putting Republicans on the spot and having to take clear positions on what these radicals on the Far-Right says. And risk either having to offend the Far-Right. Or mainstream Republicans and Independents.The Far-Right wants to talk about abortion, gay marriage, homosexuality in general, women’s place in the world, Hollywood, as far as outlawing or restricting all of these things in the world. While the rest of the country which is most of the country wants to talk about the economy, foreign policy, terrorism and civil liberties.

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

Secular Talk: Video: Governor Rick Perry: Decriminalize Pot

Posted on January 24, 2014 by Erik Schneider

.
The New Democrat

Governor Rick Perry a true Federalist at least when it comes to marijuana and not one of these fake Conservatives who like to nationalize social and cultural issues which they see marijuana as one of those issues that must be defeated at all costs. But what Governor Perry is saying as a Federalist that this is an issue that the states can deal with. Since they are closer to their own people and their needs than the Feds and that the Feds should get out of the way. He’s not saying that he’s in favor of marijuana or that he’s suggesting that all states should legalize or decriminalize it. But what’s he’s saying is that this should be left up to each individual state. And states that decriminalize marijuana, the Feds should get out-of-the-way and not try to take over the marijuana enforcement there.

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