National Center For Public Policy Research: The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann- Affirmative Action Debate: Horace Cooper vs Hilary Shelton

Source:National Center For Public Policy Research- The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann, courtesy of President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the Russian federal tax budget.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"Horace Cooper of Project 21 debates the merits of affirmative action policies in general and recent Arizona policy in particular with the NAACP's Hilary Shelton with host Thom Hartmann.  This segment comes from the 11/15/10 edition of "The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann."

The Project 21 black leadership network is a program of The National Center for Public Policy Research." 

From the National Center For Public Policy Research

If you believe in the notion that all people are to be treated equally under law under under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, then great, I'm with you. We should never as a society treat people by anything other than their character and their merit when it comes to employment, education, housing, etc. 

If you believe in Dr Martin Luther King's I have a Dream speech, that he has a dream that one day his children would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin and you take that to mean that all children should be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin, then great, I'm with you on that as well and thats exactly what we should be doing. 

We shouldn't be discriminating people in the private or public sectors based on their race, ethnicity, color, gender, religion, sexuality, or any other non-relevant factors. And judge people by what they bring to the table, what are their skills and abilities and punish people when they commit bigoted actions against innocent people at the benefit of the people who were bigoted and society at the expense of the bigots. Bigotry has no place in a free society. 

And we also need an education system that allows for all people in our society to get the skills that they need to be successful in life. So once they are out of school and in the employment market, they have the skills that they need to get a good job. And not be dependent on public assistance to survive. 

I've just laid out my alternative to Affirmative Action which is what I see as public sponsored discrimination, because one of government's role is to protect society equally. But with Affirmative Action you have government benefiting groups of people benefiting at the expense of another group. 

What Affirmative Action is saying that European-Americans (especially Anglo-Saxon-Protestant men)  have had it real good for a long time now, now its time for you step back even though you might have the skills to continue to be successful. And you might have better skills than the people that we are going to let benefit from society at your expense. 

What we should be doing instead is having an economic and education system that empowers everyone in society to benefit from it based on what they put into it. A system that would empower everyone in society to get the skills that they need to be as successful as what they put into the economy. 

And then having strong anti-discrimination laws that are truly color-blind and racial blind, ethnic blind for the benefit of the victims of bigotry and society as a whole. So everyone is judged by their merit and nothing else, what they bring to the table that would benefit the employer or school or whatever that they are applying too. 

If we want to have truly color-blind society, then the only way we can get there is actually being color blind. As well as racial blind, ethnic blind, gender blind, etc. And just treat people by as Dr. King called the: "Content of their character not, by the color of their skin." And you don't get there through government discrimination. You get there by practicing what you preach.

Liberty Pen: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Thomas Sowell: 'Class Warfare'

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Thomas Sowell, talking to Peter Robinson, about class warfare.

"Professor Sowell address deceptive arguments from the class warfare crowd. Liberty Pen"

From Liberty Pen

I not a fan of the whole notion of class warfare whether it comes from the left or right. Attacking wealthy people because they make a lot of money coming from the right, cutting taxes in a way that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy. Or cutting their taxes to the point with tax cuts and tax loopholes that they are essentially paying such a low tax rate, that they are paying less than the middle class.

What we should do as a country is have an economic system, that benefits everyone by what they contribute to it. Where everyone has the opportunity to get the best education and get the best skills possible and then be able to benefit from their skills as much as possible by what they contribute to the economy.

What  we should have is a tax system thats based on how much people can afford to pay, with the wealthy paying more in taxes than anyone else. And go down from there but where we don't have tax rates so high, that there isn't enough incentive for people to work hard and produce, because of how much government would end up taking away in taxes.

What we shouldn't be doing as a society which is what the Far-Left does, all the time is essentially bashing people for making a lot of money. Especially when they earned by being very productive. Or having tax rates up so high and giving a lot of that money to people who don't have the skills to go make a good living on their own.

What we should do especially for our low-skilled people and workers, is empowering them to get the skills that they need to go out and earn a good living on their own. By empowering them to go back to school as well as furthering their education with things like vocational schools. So they can get themselves the skills that they need so they can be productive enough to go out a make a good living on their own. Which would be good for our economy, because there would be more high-skilled workers in the economy and there would be less people in need of public assistance and more people paying into it.

We don't need to redistribute wealth in the Economy to take care of the less-fortunate. But what we need to do instead is create more wealth so the less-fortunate can take care of themselves.

But  class warfare does nothing more than make a divided nation even more divided and what we should do instead is celebrate our productive workers who put in the work they needed. To go out and earn a good living and empower the less-fortunate to go out and do the same thing for themselves and create more wealth not take from what's already there.

US Chronicle: Peter Schiff- 'Talks At Libertarian Party Event'

Source:US Chronicle- Libertarian economist Peter Schiff, speaking to a Libertarian Party event.

"Economist and investor Peter Schiff talks at Libertarian Party event." 

From US Chronicle

Despite all the progress that the libertarian movement has made in American politics the last 3-4 years, that Ron Paul has played a big role in making with the Libertarian Party actually being a small part of this libertarian movement, which tells you the sad shape of the Libertarian Party right now. 

The Libertarian Party is still a third-party in American politics. Perhaps the largest third party but still a distant third from the Democratic and Republican party's. Because of this I believe Libertarian Peter Schiff (and I'm talking about his politics, I don't know his party affiliation) has suggested that what the libertarian movement should do is instead of trying to build the Libertarian Party, take over the GOP.

Peter Schiff arguing that Libertarians should instead try to take over the Republican Party. And they had some success in 2010 by electing Rand Paul and Ron Johnson to the Senate. And Mike Lee is either a Libertarian or a Conservative-Libertarian, but those political factions are similar. Something that the Ron Paul movement has been trying to do. 

But does anyone who looks at this objectively, actually believe Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination in 2012: of course not. The Christian-Right which Representative Paul would need to win the Republican nomination, would never back a Libertarian candidate.

And why would the Christian-Right back Ron Paul: Paul is a Libertarian and the Christian Right are theocratical authoritarians. (Small government vs big government) And the Christian-Right still has a big say in who the Republican Party nominates for President. And Republican presidential candidates can't get elected President without them. Just ask George H.W. Bush and John McCain. 

But the Libertarian Party is still fairly small maybe a million members, clearly not enough to challenge Democrats and Republicans anywhere outside of those party's. So what can the LP do and more importantly what should the libertarian movement do in America to have a bigger voice and elect more of its members?

What the LP and the broader libertarian movement has going for them, is a lot of its members used to be Democrats and Republicans. Democrats who were fed up with big government socialism in the party and Republicans who were fed up with big government authoritarianism from the Christian- Right and Neoconservatives. Thats the first thing the LP can build off of, because I don't see how Libertarians take over the Republican Party thats dominated now by the Tea Party thats gotten in bed with the Christian-Right or at least some of its members.

I believe neoconservatism has lost a lot of ground in the Republican Party, all you have to do is look at the debt deal vote in Congress. Where that deal includes 1T$ of defense cuts over ten years and 170-242 Republicans voted for it in the House. And 28-47 Republicans voted for it in the Senate. 

But the Christian Tea Party which might be safe to call them now, currently runs the Republican Party. Leaving a lot less room for Libertarians in the party, even Conservatives-Libertarians as well. 

But what the Libertarian Party I believe could do is recruit Classical Liberal Democrats who are fed up with the big government socialism in their party. And recruit Conservative Republicans who are fed up with big government theocratical Republicans in the Republican Party. Making the LP a hell of a lot bigger than it is today in the future.

The libertarian movement has a big future in American politics if they want it but they have to decide in what direction they want to go and with what party. To give them as big as a political force as possible. But more importantly give themselves enough members so they recruit enough candidates to get elected into high office. And actually be able to make policy in government.

Liberty Pen: John Stossel- 'Feeding The Monster'

Source:Liberty Pen- John Stossel, talking about Uncle Sam's Big Government.

"Washington politicians continue feeding a monster hell-bent on the destruction of our economic liberty. Grover Norquist (Americans for Tax Reform) and Gretchen Hamel (Public Notice) are John's guests. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

I don't know of any American who's not a Socialist or an authoritarian and I'm not calling Socialists authoritarians (so Socialists you can breathe easier now) who likes taxes. But I believe most Americans (except for Libertarians and Anarchists) see taxes as a necessary evil to paying for the government that we need. 

But I believe most Americans (again, except for Socialists) believe what government should be doing, especially the Federal Government, with state and local government's having limited roles. Libertarians and Conservatives as well as Liberals also have limited role for government, especially the Federal Government.

And when you have limited government which is what America generally has (putting the last ten years aside where both Republicans and Democrats have made the Federal Government less limited) you can keep the tax rates down. And the people will have more freedom to live their own lives because they'll be able to keep more of their money. 

And of course with money comes freedom and the more money the more freedom people have. But even with these anti-tax waves that became real big in the late 1970s especially in California, California is still one of the highest tax states in the union, ironically.

The last thirty years or so except for a few years in the 1990s, there's been this "starve the beast" theory. The beast being of course the Federal Government in the eyes of supply side Republicans and others. That since you don't have the power to eliminate certain Federal agencies, that what you can do instead, is not give them enough money to do their jobs and cut taxes instead. 

During the eight years of the Neoconservative Bush Administration, where they brought their own version of big government as it related to national security, education and Medicare Advantage, they went with this theory of:"Look, we have all these things that we want the Federal Government to do in Homeland Security, the Education Department, two wars, Medicare Advantage, etc.  But if we make taxpayers pay for it, we are going to lose power and they lost all their power anyway."

In 2006 and 2008, back to back landslide elections losses for the Republican Party. But free-2006 the GOP Leadership decided  instead is to borrow all of the money and put it on the National Credit Card. Some 7T$ worth in the Bush Administration alone. And we are now suffering the last ten years of borrow and spend economics a policy that the Obama Administration has kept in place its first two years.

My whole point is that the whole notion of limited government is, what do you want government to do and figure out what it does well and better than the private sector. And have it do those things only and fund it well enough so it can do its job properly without hurting the economy.

And for me the whole notion of limited government to me means, that government is pretty limited in what it can do well. And should just concentrate on those areas. And for me that means protecting individuals constitutional rights to be free and that you have to have taxes low enough so they be free to live their own lives. And have laws that are designed to protect innocent people from the harm of others, not from themselves.

That means effective national security, law enforcement, and help people who aren't making it on their own. Help themselves become self-sufficient and thats really it. Everything else can be up for discussion.

Streaming Liberty: Professor Milton Friedman- 'United States Is Not a Democracy'

 

Source:Streaming Liberty- Professor Milton Friedman, talking about American democracy.

"Compare the Attributes of Liberty vs. 'Soft' Tyranny at:Streaming Liberty." 

From Streaming Liberty

What is America? This is a question thats been debated as long as we've been an independent nation but it's a good question, because a lot of Americans have their own answers to this important question. 

Conservative-Libertarians have always seen America as a constitutional republic that protects individual freedom and I believe Libertarians believe the same thing. 

Liberals see America as a democracy where we have constitutional rights to protect our individual freedom. 

Democratic Socialists (or Social Democrats) of course wished we should be a socialist democracy with a Constitution that protects our individual freedom, except for the economy, but with a welfare state in the form of Sweden thats a lot a lot larger then ours. 

Christian-Nationalists, I believe would like to see us become a Christian Theocracy or a Christian Republic where their interpretation of the bible becomes our Constitution. 

Actually, I see it were are none of those things but we have aspects of what Conservatives, Liberals and Libertarians see America as. We are not a majoritarian democracy, where everything is ruled by majority vote, just look at the Electoral College or the U.S. Senate as proof. I believe Democratic Socialists would like to see us move in that direction and they would see a lot more of their policies become law. Things like Congress or just the House deciding who the President (to use as example) and Congress essentially becomes a Parliament and we perhaps even eliminate the Senate. 

We're clearly not a theocracy (thank God! pun intended) in any form which is a great thing from my perspective and we do have Separation of Church in State, whether its written in the Constitution or not. We are clearly a constitutional republic where we have a working Constitution that works very well from my perspective, with civilians not military leaders, or religious leaders or monarchs running our government. And we clearly have check and balances in our government, which again from my perspective is a good thing. 

So what is America what type of country are we with what type of government? I see America as a liberal democracy and I'm not just saying that because I'm a Liberal Democrat but because its true. We are a country with a Constitution that governs how our government can operate, which is good and protects our individual freedom which is what we have protected by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. 

Because of our constitutional individual rights, this means that we can essentially live our own lives (at least free adults) as long as we are not hurting any innocent person with our freedom. I actually believe we should have more individual liberty but thats a different posts. We are individualist not collectivist that Socialists prefer as a society and we can make our own decisions with our own lives. Everything from where we work to making our own health care decisions to where we shop and live, etc. Government doesn't make these decisions for us but we make them for ourselves. 

Thats what liberty in a liberal democracy looks like: that people can live their own lives, even if a majority of the people believe we shouldn't do certain things in our lives because they don't like them. 

America is republic in the form of a liberal democracy meaning we are not completely run by majority rule that you would see in a majoritarian republic. But where we can live our own lives because we have the constitutional rights to do so and where we can live our own lives. Without being harassed by government because of our constitutional protections.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- William Voegeli: 'The American Welfare State'

 

Source:Hoover Institution- Claremont McKenna College scholar William Voegeli.

"A visiting scholar at the Henry Salvatori Center at Claremont McKenna College, William Voegeli is a senior editor of the Claremont Review of Books and the author of Never Enough:  America's Limitless Welfare State.

Voegeli reveals the stunning growth of the American welfare state since its inception, growing exponentially between World War II and today, and describes the intellectual groundwork of the modern welfare state -- a program sold to the American people in disguise.  He asserts, "The only remaining constraint on the growth of the welfare state is the problem of paying for it."  Finally he insists that we cannot undo the welfare state.  "We need a welfare state we can live with, one even that we can admire.... But not limitless." 

From the Hoover Institution

The State of the Welfare State at least in America as well in several other developed nations, is not good in the sense that we are all thinking about how to reform them to make them more cost-effective and save money on them. Because at least in America's case we are currently facing a huge generation of people that are going to be eligible for them and we don't currently have the resources to pay these obligations, even though these people have been paying into them their whole adult lives if not longer. For people who worked jobs as adolescents for example and most of us including myself probably have. 

This is good news in a sense from my point of view as a Liberal who believes in individual liberty and limited government. And that the welfare state (or as I call it the safety net) should be exactly that, only for the people who need it and that everyone who can take care of themselves and are financially self sufficient on their own, should stay that way and take care of themselves. That taxpayers shouldn't be funding the retirement, health insurance, health care Unemployment Insurance, etc, of millionaires and billionaires, unless they worked in public service for a lot time, let's say twenty years. 

This is good news from my perspective, because it's just more evidence that America will never have a Swedish style welfaresState. Americans who can will always be expected to take care of themselves. Americans who can finance their own health insurance will be expected to and so-forth. That Americans who can will be expected to take care of themselves will have too. That we'll never see in America 50, 60, 70% Tax Rates especially on the middle class or overall tax bills like that on Americans. 

Our government will always be limited and smaller than Europe and hopefully more limited and smaller in the future. Having said all of that, I not in favor or never have been in favor of slashing our safety net (as I call it) and throwing people off of it who actually do need these social insurance programs. And how can we do this and have a Federal Government more limited and smaller. 

Everyone who needs these programs now and into the future will keep collecting from them but the people who are physically and mentally capable of working, will be expected to do so and if they are not working because they lack the skills that they need to get a good enough job to become self-sufficient, then they would get help in getting that by going to school and getting those skills. 

But here's a major reform: I would take the safety net off the hands and backs of the Federal Government. And unlike what Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson wants too, which is essentially hand the safety net over to the state and local government's, I would give all of these social insurance programs their independence. (So to speak) And make them independent of the Federal Government but still owned by them at least in the short term. But they would be operated independently with their own revenue sources, as well as management and board of directors that they would select on their own. 

The State of the American safety net (as I call it) as far as the financing of it in the future is not good, in the sense that it's another problem we have to fix. But its good at least in my perspective that we'll probably never expand it in any significant way at least from the Federal level. And this gives us an opportunity to rethink what the purpose of our safety net is and how best to reform it.

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- Free To Choose: Thomas Sowell: Welfare (1980)

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Thomas Sowell, as part of Professor Milton Friedman's 1980 Free To Choose series, talking about Welfare.

"Thomas Sowell debates the dynamics of welfare with Pennsylvania Secretary of Welfare, Helen O'Banion (1980:Liberty Pen" 

From Liberty Pen

I've been writing a lot about poverty lately and how I feel we can as a society finally win the so-called War on Poverty that we as a country declared in 1965. Long time ago, there were actually Gen Xers born in 1965, so if your getting tired of hearing my thoughts on poverty, I apologize but its been in the news a lot lately and I've seen a lot of things about it. 

Plus, I really care about the subject and this is a so-called war (similar to the War on Drugs) we shouldn't be losing as a country as great as we are. If we are capable of an unemployment rate 4.5% which we had just three years ago before the Great Recession of 2008/2009, we can have a poverty rate of 4.5% as well. Other developed nations have poverty rates of that level and with our wealth we can definitely achieve that as well. But I'll try to be as original as possible with this post as I can but no promises. 

Libertarians and Democratic Socialists who read this post will disagree with it but for different reasons: one side thinking government (especially the Federal Government) has no role in addressing poverty in America. And one side will disagree with me saying that your approach isn't government centered enough especially from the Federal Government. 

Debate is great and since we live in a Liberal Democracy and people can agree and disagree and have a constitutional right to do so. And they can tell me why they think if I'm right or wrong and how or not say a thing their choice. Small preview this post will again be centered around freedom. 

Education reform, temporary financial assistance, and job placement, and not exactly in that order. Again in the 1930s when the Federal Government officially took on poverty in America. It was very government centered especially from the Federal Government. 

The 1930s FDR New Deal vision behind it that these people are poor, can't take care of themselves and don't have the skills to take care of themselves. So society (meaning the Federal Government) has a moral responsibility to literally take care of these people and there were religious feelings behind this. And that you help low-income people by giving them Welfare checks and let them be and this approach if anything was expanded in the 1960s with the Great Society. 

This is the approach that Democratic Socialists prefer, government giving low-income people money so they can support themselves. Well, seventy-five years later, we've seen how this approach has worked. If anything poverty in America is a bigger problem in America today, then it was back then. 

The New Deal and Great Society if anything created a "culture of dependency", making low-income people the working poor and unemployed if anything more dependent on public assistance, because instead of empowering these people to get out of poverty and again if gets back to temporary financial assistance so these people can survive in the short-term. 

Education, empowering these people to go back to school and finish their education and go on and further their education, so they have the skills that they need to get themselves a good job and become self -sufficient. And then finally job placement helping these people find good jobs. 

 Going forward to finally winning the so-called War on Poverty, we need to empower adults to get the skills that they need to get a good job and become self-sufficient, so they can have as much freedom as middle class people or better. 

But then for the future we need to empower their kids that they need to get a good education that they'll need to get good jobs in the future. And I believe thats centered around holding educators and schools accountable for good and bad. As well as paying them well up front so they have enough incentive to go into and stay in the education profession. And then public school choice, so parents will have the ability to send their kids to the best school possible, as well as charter schools. 

We can win the so-called War on Poverty in America, but to do that, we have to empower people who are in poverty so they can finally get out of poverty. Not just giving them Welfare checks.