Robert Wenzel: ‘Happy New Year from the Freedom Socialist Party!’

Happy New Year from the Freedom Socialist Party! (2014) - Google Search

Source:Freedom Socialist Party– proud American Socialists.

Source:The New Democrat

“Freedom and socialism appear to me as exact opposites, but that doesn’t seem to bother the Freedom Socialist Party. They have high hopes for 2014.”

From Robert Wenzel

“The Freedom Socialist Party works to replace the ugliness and unsustainability of capitalist rule with international workers’ democracy.

We fight as one for all who are exploited and oppressed and for a healthy future for the planet.”

Socialist Feminist Revolution _ Freedom Socialist Party - Google Search

Source:Freedom Socialist Party– proud American Socialists.

From the Freedom Socialist Party

“Emily Woo Yamasaki of New York, NY and FSP National Comrades of Color Caucus coordinator continues the panel “Beyond the Myth of a Post-Racial Society: Talkin’ ’bout a Revolution” by discussing the Freedom Socialist Party’s position on race issues.

This discussion took place at the Freedom Socialist Party National Convention 2010 on Saturday, July 10th in Olympia, WA. To learn more about the convention and the Freedom Socialist Party, visit:Freedom Socialist Party.”

Race Panel, Emily Yamasaki - Freedom Socialist Party National Convention 2010 (2010) - Google Search

Source:Freedom Socialist Party– the people at this convention would not take offense being called Socialists.

From the Freedom Socialist Party

The Freedom Socialist Party, hum that is a title that makes me want to go well, hum. Yes, I know there are Democratic Socialists and Bernie Sanders comes to mind pretty quickly. But when I and a lot of other Americans and myself perhaps less than the average American think of socialism at least the economic form of it, I think of really high taxes, lots of regulations, huge centralized government, huge welfare state. And that’s is assuming that the private sector and private enterprise is left in place.

In most socialist countries today there is a private sector and private enterprise. But every other socialist characteristic is also in place. So I don’t tend to think of freedom when it comes to socialism, at least not economic freedom.I think of all sorts of centralized government programs and services. With people not being able to decide for themselves how they receive these services.

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

Harvard University: ‘Reform Conservatism: The Future of the Republican Party?’

Reform Conservatism_ The Future of the Republican Party_ _ Institute of Politics

Source:Harvard University– Ramesh Ponnuru, at Harvard talking about the future of conservatism.

Source:The New Democrat

“April Ponnuru, Policy Director of the Young Guns Network; Ramesh Ponnuru, Senior Editor of the National Review; and Pete Wehner, Senior Fellow in the Ethics and Public Policy Center joined moderator Kristen Soltis Anderson, Fall 2014 IOP Fellow and Co-founder of Echelon Insights, in a discussion on reforming American conservatism. The panelists discussed ways for the Republican party to appeal to disenfranchised demographic groups and to make gains in the upcoming midterm and presidential elections.”

From Harvard University

I’m going to write what a conservative government should look like at least in mind and go to the Barry Goldwater school of conservatism. To do this because this is the most accurate way to explain what conservatism is and what conservative government looks like. And no this won’t be a libertarian government or a theocratic government Christian or otherwise. But how Classical Conservatives would govern if they had all the power. Keep in mind I’m a Liberal so this is not what my form of government would look like. Even though I agree and respect a lot of the conservative principles of limited government. But this is how a Barry Goldwater conservative government would look like.

I’ve always said that Conservatives shouldn’t be so much anti-government, but anti-big government. And what is big government, well that is the story for another blog, but the idea of big government is government especially the Federal Government trying to do too much. And interfering into the personal and economic affairs of the individual. The whole Barry Goldwater line of I don’t want big government in my boardroom, bedroom or classroom. So what should government be doing, be limited to only the things that we need government to do.

And of course you may say can I be less specific, well I can. But it means you want government doing the things for the people who people can’t do for themselves, or do as well. To give you examples you want government doing things like law enforcement, national security, foreign policy. Handling interstate crimes, regulating interstate commerce and these things would apply to the Federal Government. What you want the states to do is law enforcement within their state, regulating business’s in their state, education and applying private market principles to all of these governmental affairs. And goes to things like accountability.

Part of the problem with right-wing rhetoric whether it is conservative or libertarian today, is even though they make it very clear what they do not want government to do anything. Especially the Federal Government, they don’t seem to be able to communicate what they want government to do. Especially the Federal Government so when they talk about cutting taxes and government spending, they don’t seem to know what they want to cut and how much revenue they need government to raised to perform the public services that they want government to do. But with a conservative vision of government and now you know exactly what Conservatives want from government, then you’ll know what taxes you need to have and what levels to raise the revenue for the government you need and nothing more.

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

Campaign For America’s Future: Heather Digby: ObamaCare is Up And Running , But That’s Not The End of The Story

Campaign For America’s Future: Opinion: Heather Digby: Obamacare Is Up And Running, But That’s Not The End Of The Story

The New Democrat

For all of you Progressives out there or people who define your politics as progressive who may read this post, federalism is not about centralizing more power with the Federal Government and having less for the states, locals and individuals. The opposite is true, but for you Progressives who like to see some type of public healthcare system available to all Americans, whether it be single payer or something else, federalism is the route you should be looking at. Because it could actually accomplish your goal instead of you running to the Federal Government and holding protests and rallies at Congress and the White House and other places demanding that they pass Medicare For All single payer. Just so we clear that up.

One of the public option proposals that I’ve seen that I’m in favor of comes from perhaps the two least federalist members of Congress. From Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Jim McDermott two of the most progressive members of Congress. However they have a single payer proposal Medicare for all, but what they do is to say, “that we’ll allow each state. To set up their own Medicare plan and system that would have to meet basic federal standards. But each state would be able to run their own Medicare system and manage their health insurance system themselves coming from Medicare.”

Most of the single payer proposals have been Medicare For All run completely by the Federal Government. But the Sanders-McDermott plan would be a federalist Medicare For All single payer plan and each state would have their own Medicare system. Which is probably the only way we’ll ever get Medicare for all. Meaning no other form of health insurance in this country private or public. We are already seeing states trying to pass something like this.

Vermont and California to name a couple of states and the public option that I’m in favor of that I mentioned last night, would be done with a federalist system. Meaning the states would be able to run their own Medicare public option. And this is how you get a country behind you. Instead of trying to force things down their throats, you give them choices and options and the freedom to manage their own affairs.

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

TruthOut: Cliff O’Connor & Michael Steven Smith: Imagine, If Mayor Bill DeBlasio Really Were a Socialist

Source:The New Democrat 

Here some examples of why I would never live in New York City unless was making north of ten million dollars. And could actually afford it even with the NYC taxes and New York State taxes. Because there are New Yorkers and perhaps Bill De Blasio is one of them, we’ll find out soon enough who agree with. These Socialist ideas I guess proposed in this TruthOut column. As far as what they wrote, this I believe were supposed to be about NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio whose been. On the job for what two days now and what he should do if he were really a Socialist.

Yet most of the ideas being proposed like Medicare For All Single Payer can only be done by the Federal Government. Granted New York is a city roughly of eight-million people but it is still one city in a country of three-hundred. and ten million people the Mayor of New York may have more influence than any mayor in the country. Big or small city but mayors whatever the city are still very limited in how they can affect the country as a whole. And a lot of the ideas that Cliff Connor and Steven Smith are proposing can only become law from the federal level.

But just for the fun of it lets imagine a Socialist administration of New York with Mayor Bill De Blasio. And what could they do and I’ll put out my own possibilities if Mayor De Blasio is a real Socialist.

1. Increase taxes across the board to pay for all sorts of new municipal investments that I’ll mention later.

2. A new Wall Street tax of course especially on Capital Gains about fifty percent.

3. City takeover of all private schools including public charter schools.

4. Of course a city version of Medicare For All but it would be called something like NYC Care or something. With an outlaw of private insurance companies in New York.

5. The tax hikes I was talking about would go to cover most of these public investments. Including new investments in public infrastructure like in new schools and hospitals that of course would be run by. The NYC Government.

The suggestions that I’m talking about that of course I disagree with as a Liberal. But they are socialistic and could actually be passed at least in theory by New York City. The Mayor would need to propose then and the Council would have to approve them or vice-versa. But these would be things that New York could do legally because they run their own city affairs.

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

The Washington Post: E.J. Dionne: The Resurgent Progressives

Source:The New Democrat 

I agree with most of what EJ Dionne said in his column today. I thought his best line was “that to have a vibrant middle you need a vibrant Left and Right countering each other. To give the middle and again I’m talking about the American political spectrum if you are having trouble following along, you need both a strong Left and Right for the middle to be able to pick and choose what they like about both sides and put them into their own politics and how they look at the issues.

In the 112th Congress we were in a right-wing state of mind politically especially as it related to the economy. With the Right always on the offensive with the Left always on the defensive defending things they care about. And then settling for the best among bad alternatives to compromise with House Republicans. The 2011 debt ceiling known as the Budget Control Act that was all about budget cuts and no new revenue. Not even from tax reform is a perfect example of that.

So that is why I as a center-left Liberal Democrat, a real Liberal, I am not worried about the Progressives, or Social Democrats on the Far-Left lets say coming out strong in 2014. And pushing for things like. a minimum wage increase that I support if it comes with a tax break for small employers. Or talking about what I call the income gap that others call income inequality, because these issues give Liberal Democrats such as myself a big opportunity to talk about things like more job training.

Real educational opportunities for our low-skilled workforce so they can get themselves the skills that they need to live in economic freedom and be able to get themselves off of public assistance all together. Which is exactly what will happened if our low-skilled workers and low-skilled unemployed were able to do that. And they wouldn’t need public assistance at all which is the right way to make savings in public assistance. By having fewer Americans who actually need it.

I’m not worried about the Progressive-Left or the more socialist minded Far-Left emerging strong in 2014. Because unless they come from very strong Democratic or Progressive leaning House districts, or states, they won’t be on the ballot for the most part in 2014. And the center-left Liberal Democrats will be in those districts in the states. And these campaigns will give Democrats an opportunity and choices and decisions to make. About where we want to go as a party in the next few years. Remain as a center-left liberal party, or move further to the Left and become more of a social democratic party.

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

The New Republic: Russell Crandall: Uruguay’s Pot Legalization is Bad For America’s War on Drugs

Source:The New Democrat 

Then U.S. Senator John Kerry when he was up to be U.S. Secretary of State in I believe January or February 2013 during his Senate confirmation hearing was asked a question about the so-called War on Drugs as I call it. And Senator Kerry said something to the effect that it is not a real war. That words have meaning and if this was a real war we would surely be fighting it differently. I’m paraphrasing what he said he, but I’m pretty close. Keep in mind John Kerry is a Vietnam War veteran and from the Vietnam Generation, Baby Boom Generation even. So this is a man who knows what a real war is because he’s been in one and fought successfully in one for his country and the men and women he served with.

What Senator Kerry said about the War on Drugs is exactly my point. This is not a real war, but a big fat label that anyone fluent with the American English language can understand. What the so-called War on Drugs is, is a campaign against illegal narcotics in America. What the United States Government views as illegal and dangerous narcotics. This is not a War on Drugs because alcohol, tobacco, caffeine and many other drugs that have similar if not worst effects than marijuana are legal and could easily be viewed as narcotics.

Imagine if we had a real War on Drugs in America and I think this could probably be a satire or a comedy or a movie. All drugs in America would be illegal. We would have the military roaming all over the country and occupying every street in America. To make sure that no one is taking a drug that is at least could be viewed as dangerous. If not using the military to make sure that no one are using drugs period anywhere in the country. And would be arrested for what would be viewed as unhealthy behavior to themselves.

Just to be clear, we do not have a real War on Drugs in America. Marijuana is illegal, but still consumed all over the country. We have millions of Americans who drink like, excuse the expression like Irish sailors just coming home from the war. We smoke a lot of tobacco, we eat too much junk food that all have things in them that aren’t healthy for us. And yet it is marijuana, heroin, cocaine meth that are illegal even though a lot of our legal drugs are all worst than marijuana and perhaps some of the others as well.

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

The New York Times: Michael Moore: ‘The ObamaCare We Deserve’

MichaelMoore_com - Google SearchSource:Michael Moore– should go back to Detroit and leave government to people who know how to govern.

Source:The New Democrat

“Today marks the beginning of health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act’s new insurance exchanges, for which two million Americans have signed up. Now that the individual mandate is officially here, let me begin with an admission: Obamacare is awful.

That is the dirty little secret many liberals have avoided saying out loud for fear of aiding the president’s enemies, at a time when the ideal of universal health care needed all the support it could get. Unfortunately, this meant that instead of blaming companies like Novartis, which charges leukemia patients $90,000 annually for the drug Gleevec, or health insurance chief executives like Stephen Hemsley of UnitedHealth Group, who made nearly $102 million in 2009, for the sky-high price of American health care, the president’s Democratic supporters bought into the myth that it was all those people going to get free colonoscopies and chemotherapy for the fun of it.

I believe Obamacare’s rocky start – clueless planning, a lousy website, insurance companies raising rates, and the president’s telling people they could keep their coverage when, in fact, not all could – is a result of one fatal flaw: The Affordable Care Act is a pro-insurance-industry plan implemented by a president who knew in his heart that a single-payer, Medicare-for-all model was the true way to go. When right-wing critics “expose” the fact that President Obama endorsed a single-payer system before 2004, they’re actually telling the truth.

What we now call Obamacare was conceived at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and birthed in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney, then the governor. The president took Romneycare, a program designed to keep the private insurance industry intact, and just improved some of its provisions. In effect, the president was simply trying to put lipstick on the dog in the carrier on top of Mitt Romney’s car. And we knew it.

By 2017, we will be funneling over $100 billion annually to private insurance companies. You can be sure they’ll use some of that to try to privatize Medicare.

For many people, the “affordable” part of the Affordable Care Act risks being a cruel joke. The cheapest plan available to a 60-year-old couple making $65,000 a year in Hartford, Conn., will cost $11,800 in annual premiums. And their deductible will be $12,600. If both become seriously ill, they might have to pay almost $25,000 in a single year. (Pre-Obamacare, they could have bought insurance that was cheaper but much worse, potentially with unlimited out-of-pocket costs.)

And yet – I would be remiss if I didn’t say this – Obamacare is a godsend. My friend Donna Smith, who was forced to move into her daughter’s spare room at age 52 because health problems bankrupted her and her husband, Larry, now has cancer again. As she undergoes treatment, at least she won’t be in terror of losing coverage and becoming uninsurable. Under Obamacare, her premium has been cut in half, to $456 per month.”

From The New York Times

“Michael Moore marked the start of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate Wednesday with a blistering op-ed in The New York Times in which he admits something he says “many liberals” have been too scared to say out loud before now: “Obamacare is awful.”..

The New York Times_ Michael Moore_ 'The ObamaCare We Deserve' (1)

Source:Secular Talk– Michael Moore is the perfect example of a filmmaker, who should just stick with fiction and making films. Because he’s not good with reality.

From Secular Talk

“Jared Bernstein says on CNBC that Obamacare is not a jobs program (March 8, 2013)”

The New York Times_ Michael Moore_ 'The ObamaCare We Deserve'

Source:GOP War Room– former Obama White House adviser Jared Bernstein, on CNBC. But for why, I don’t know.

From GOP War Room

It is easy for Michael Moore living in Los Angeles or Michigan and never working for the Federal Government at least in Washington, to say what the Obama Administration should’ve tried to pass as it relates to health care reform in 2009-10. But as Progressive economist Jared Bernstein said who worked for Vice President Joe Biden during this period, who knows quite a bit about Congress and the Federal Government in general, there were never the votes in Congress for Medicare For All.

There were never the votes even in a Democratic Congress with large majorities in both the House and Senate, for a single-payer, Medicare for all program nationalizing the health insurance industry and eliminating the private insurance system. And telling Americans who tend not to like being told by government what they can do with their own money, that they have to take Medicare and have no choice in where they get their health insurance.

And if you are wondering why the votes were never there for single payer, I just explained why. You think the Affordable Care Act is now unpopular, pass single payer and take away Americans ability to choose their own health insurance. And we are looking at a total Republican Congress right now and not just a Republican House and perhaps a Republican president as well with single payer being repealed and we are back to square one on health care reform.

Single payer never had the votes and anyone who disagrees doesn’t know much about the U.S. Congress. Or Americans in general when it comes to their politics and spends most of their time in the Northeast or Northwest or California living in their socialist utopia’s. And not talking to the rest of the country. But the public option, had a real shot and it did pass both chambers of Congress in late 2009. But then got stripped away from the final bill by the Democratic Senate. Because some Democratic Senators perhaps worried about their reelection possibilities.

The public option is exactly that and would give Americans under sixty-five the ability to pay into Medicare. And use it as their main, if not sole health insurance plan. But at the end of the day, the same people would make that choice and not government telling them what they can have. You could even set up a Medicare public option that the states would like, even Republican governors, by allowing for them to run their own Medicare plan in their state. Which is something that Democratic states are looking into right now and creating their own public options.

The difference between fans and players when it comes to government, is that players have to govern and at the end of the day get something done in a liberal democracy like America. That means working with different people and different factions who do not agree with each other on everything. And coming up with the best plan that everyone can support and agree to and say: “This is a good plan and something that we should do.” Which is a big reason why we got the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

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

Ron Paul: Learn a Little Economics

Source:The New Democrat 

If you are talking about raising the minimum wage from $7.25 and hour to 10-12 dollars an hour without any relief for small employers especially people who run, lets say local restaurants or hardware stores, then I would agree with you that giving low-skilled workers making seven or eight bucks and hour would hurt those business’s. But that is not the minimum wage increase that I’m on favor of. What I want to do is raise it to 10-12 dollars an hour with a thirty-percent tax break at least for small employers.

Which means these employers payroll costs wouldn’t go up a dime based on the minimum wage. And for any minimum wage increase to come out of this divided Congress with a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, the tax break I’m talking about is probably going to have to be part of that minimum wage increase. Otherwise it probably has about a zero percent chance of passing and even with the tax break, the chances of it passing aren’t very good to begin with.

The economics of increasing the minimum wage to 10-12 bucks and hour again with the tax break that I’m talking about are very clear. You want more people working and fewer people collecting public assistance, then work simply has to pay more than not working. And that is not the case right now if you add up all the benefits that low-income people can make in dollars from public assistance. A low-skilled person can get more money not working at all and perhaps not even looking for work. Which doesn’t do that person much good or their kids much good or the economy as a whole much good.

The minimum wage isn’t a cure-all for poverty in America. You need more educational and job training opportunities for our low-skilled adult population as well. But you increase the minimum wage to the point that this population makes more money working whatever the job, than not working and you make education and job training available for these adults, they can get themselves good jobs and get off of public assistance all together which benefits everyone.

Actually having the minimum wage as low as it is right now at $7.25 an hour hurts the economy, because the taxpayers have to pick up the rest of the bill that these employers don’t pay to take care of our less-fortunate population. And that means keeping taxes high to the point to pay for those public assistance benefits. Which any real Conservative shouldn’t be in favor of.

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

President John F. Kennedy: Explains The Need For Medicare

.

Source:The New Democrat 

One of the advantages of Medicare is that when someone spouse gets hurt Medicare is there to make sure that all senior citizens at least will get the affordable health care that they need. So they do not have to go bankrupt in order to cover their health care bills. I just wish they went further in the mid 1960s and allowed for everyone if they choose to pay into Medicare. And use it as their health insurance as well if they chose to. And even let the states set up their own Medicare system so the program doesn’t become too centralized. Had they done that we wouldn’t have the expensive healthcare system that we do today. Medicare was never called Seniorcare or SenioCitizenCare, it was called Medicare. Which means medical care for people and that doesn’t have to be senior citizens necessarily.

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

TV Days: John F. Kennedy vs. Ronald Reagan on Medicare

.
Source:The New Democrat 

I have a lot of respect for Ronald Reagan, but he was simply dead wrong about Medicare. And by the time he was President of the United States at least, he was even a supporter of Medicare and spoke in favor of it. Were there members of Congress looking to nationalize the health insurance system, if not the entire health care system in the 1960s, I’m sure there were. But that is not what President Kennedy and then later President Lyndon Johnson were proposing. And what President Johnson then later got passed out of Congress in 1964, what they got out of Congress was guaranteed health insurance for senior citizens and the poor. Which is Medicare and Medicaid and I wish they went further and allowed for all Americans above poverty to pay into Medicare if they chose to. In other words the public option, but they didn’t even go that far.

Posted in JFK Presidency, Ronald Reagan, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment