The Atlantic: Bourlee Lam: America's Unemployment Insurance Programs Need to Be Re-Imagined

Source:The New Democrat

I agree with everything that was said in this Atlantic article. Which is saying something, because generally when I read The Atlantic, the writer is a bit left of me to put it mildly. And sometimes reading The Atlantic can be like reading The Nation or Salon. But we need to get proactive in how we deal with unemployment and Unemployment Insurance. And instead of just having that program there for people to who are out-of-work and need help paying their bills, use that program to actually put people back to work. With things like retraining, subsidize unemployment, small business capital and perhaps other steps.

That instead of collecting financial assistance while you’re on unemployment and looking for work at the same time, that if you’ve been unemployed for a long time, whatever that figure is and you’re about to run out of Unemployment Insurance, that instead of cutting you off, you would get an extension. And with that extension would come job training, like at a community college or seminars. Subsidize unemployment where you would take a job that pays a lot less than are used to making, but you would keep your UI to make up the difference up to a certain point. Lets say ninety-days and then your employer would get to decide to keep you on or not but at full-pay.

Something else we could do would be to turn long-term unemployed workers into small business owners. That if other companies won’t hire these workers, the workers would be eligible for small business loans to start their own business. And perhaps link people up who are in a similar situation in similar fields to work together and start their own business’s. Instead of just giving these workers unemployment checks while they look for work, or forcing them to take the first available job that is offered to them. Even if it doesn’t allow for them to pay their bills. And make all of these benefits available to people once they are on UI, so they don’t become long-term unemployed.

Congress should’ve extended Unemployment Insurance a year ago, because of all the workers who’ve been unemployed for so long. And yes they should’ve paid for it as well and could’ve done that several ways without hurting anyone. But the way to extend UI is to do it in way that actually puts those workers back to work. And doesn’t leave them unemployed with more UI checks. And while extending UI, they could’ve made these reforms so we would have not just fewer unemployed workers, but fewer long-term unemployed workers. Which is even worst and worst for the economy to have so many people who haven’t worked in a long time and not ready to retire.

Michaels Backporch: NBC Nightly News- Charles Manson Family Trial (1970-71)

Source:Michaels Backporch- The Manson Family learning about the Los Angeles justice system. 

Source:The New Democrat

“Description: Raw Footage Charles Manson Family trial 1970-71 NBC news footage. Charles Manson Raw Trial Footage NBC Tate LaBianca Murders.” 

From Michaels Backporch 

I couldn’t dream up a stranger trial then the Manson Family trial of the 1970s. It’s not just that you had so-called Hippies involved, but criminal hippie, dope addicts who were kicked out of their parents homes or were runaways, who were looking for a leader and got the worst leader imaginable in Charles Manson.

What California or I guess Los Angeles County had against Charles Manson was the facts. And an army of witness’s that could back up the facts. Including Manson’s own soldiers former soldiers.

Now, since Manson never physically acted in the murders except for ordering them, the prosecutors led by Vince Bugliosi had to prove that Manson ordered them. And prove which solders that he selected to carry out these murders of actress Sharon Tate and several others. And that is where the witness’s come in and all the evidence that they left at the Spawn Ranch where the Manson Family lived.

Not a conventional case where you have lets say one murderer whose guilty of murdering at least one person. And you basically know the defendant is guilty based on the current evidence at hand. And it is just a matter of showing and proving how murder or murders by the defendant happened. The motive, the opportunity, the weapon and everything else. And looking at things like DNA, witness’s if any, lack of an alibi and everything else.

With the Manson Family case you have to prove that one man ordered a certain group of people to murder several others. Without the leader actually saying, “go murder these people over here and at this time.”

Real Time With Bill Maher: U.S. Representative Ron Paul (2008)

Source:Celebrity Universe-Bill Maher & U.S. Representative Ron Paul R, Texas.

Source:The New Democrat

Based on this interview and the fact they were talking about Rudy Giuliani the way they did, I would have to think this show was done in 2007-08, when Representative Paul ran for president the second time. And I mention that because Bill Maher I believe was still calling himself a Libertarian back then. And I think he even called Ron Paul his political hero. How four years or less can really change your political philosophy, or at the very least how someone displays what is supposed to be their politics.

Because Maher is still pretty liberal when it comes to free speech and defending the right to speak hate and say really insulting things and is still anti-political correctness. And some other key social issues involving civil liberties and personal freedom. But he’s way over the left now on economic policy and even calling for caps on how much money Americans should be allowed to make. And that we need a European sized superstate to take care of everyone. And that government should be completely running things like health care, health insurance, education and I’m sure some key areas of the economy.

I’m not sure how someone can say that government should stay almost completely out of people’s affairs as long as we aren’t hurting people, which is where Bill Maher was 7-8 years ago, can then say that government doesn’t mind the business of the people enough. And that we have too much choice and individualism to manage our own economic affairs at least. Wait, I got it, I know how someone can do that because it has been done before. Just ask Arianna Huffington. Who made a very similar political transition just 10-15 years ago.
Source:Celebrity Universe

Roll Call: Emma Dumain: 'New Democrat Coalition Wants Bigger Role in Party's Message'

Source:Roll Call- U.S. Representative Ron Kind (Democrat, Wisconsin) one of the leaders of the New Democrat Coalition in the House.

Source:The New Democrat

"Members of the New Democrat Coalition have struggled for years to make their centrist message heard in the larger, and distinctly more left-leaning, House Democratic Caucus.

The 46 self-described “moderate” and “pro-growth” House members in the coalition say they agree with the rest of their caucus on “90 percent of the issues” — it’s the remaining 10 percent that’s harder to summarize.

How difficult? Rep. Derek Kilmer, D-Wash., shares a joke he tells about the group to illustrate the point.

“The New Dems’ message doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker,” he told CQ Roll Call. “So I said we should stand on the steps of the Capitol and shout, ‘What do we want? A comprehensive approach to job creation that includes tax reform, investments in infrastructure and a pro-growth budget that invests in our future! When do we want it? Well, we want to work in a collaborative way to bring people together!’

“I should probably have thrown education in there, too,” Kilmer added. “That would be a part of the chant, too.”

The New Democrat Coalition members have long bemoaned their exclusion from the leadership table that’s typically — especially now — skewed to the left.

But with Democrats of all stripes evaluating what went wrong in the 2014 midterms and wondering how to win back seats in 2016, members of the group see an opening to really be heard — and hopefully taken seriously.

That’s why, for the first time in its nearly 18-year history, the group is putting out a comprehensive legislative agenda.

The two-page document, obtained early by CQ Roll Call, lays out what the New Democrats think the party needs to do to compete in moderate swing-districts around the country, where Democrats have suffered major losses.

“There is a role for us to play,” said New Democrat Coalition Chairman Ron Kind of Wisconsin. “We’ve got to have a more active role and meaningful voice, or these districts are going to be harder and harder to defend going forward.” 

The two-page document, obtained early by CQ Roll Call, lays out what the New Democrats think the party needs to do to compete in moderate swing-districts around the country, where Democrats have suffered major losses.

“There is a role for us to play,” said New Democrat Coalition Chairman Ron Kind of Wisconsin. “We’ve got to have a more active role and meaningful voice, or these districts are going to be harder and harder to defend going forward.” 

The New Democrat Coalition’s “American Prosperity Agenda” highlights policy areas that mainstream Democrats have largely glossed over. The “innovation” platform urges members to talk about ways to ensure the United States “lead[s] in the next great discoveries” and “become[s] the global magnet for the world’s top talent.”

Then there are the areas where members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus — who currently make up the largest demographic of House Democrats — are likely to flat-out balk.

The New Democrat Coalition says the party ought to “fix the tax code to create American jobs and help American businesses compete” — or support a tax overhaul that would be friendly to the business community, which progressives increasingly regard with skepticism.

The members often use phrases preferred by Republicans, such as “lower regulatory obstacles” and “hold our schools accountable for results.”

And then there’s the reference to Trade Promotion Authority, an issue that is already dividing House Democrats and could be the source of some of the biggest intraparty fissures in recent memory.

The Blue Dogs also were frequent thorns in leadership’s side. The New Democrats say they don’t want to be that, either.

But many stakeholders say the coalition needs to be more aggressive when it comes to fighting against campaign tactics they say have cost Democrats their majorities in both chambers, and they hope the “American Prosperity Agenda” is a step in that direction.

“Look,” said Jim Kessler, a co-founder and vice president of policy for Third Way, an outside group that works closely with the New Democrat Coalition. “I think on the one hand, there’s never been more interest in what the New Dems and moderates are saying within the caucus and throughout Washington. At the same time, there’s never been more hostility.”

Kessler said that while the New Democrats want to “govern,” the progressives represent the “advocacy wing of the party that often times is happy having the fight rather than coming to some sort of conclusion.”

Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, said that House Democratic leaders ultimately have a responsibility to represent the ideology of the majority of their members.

“The leaders have to reflect the caucus, right? And numerically speaking, the people in the caucus now have the lefter-tilt,” Marshall explained. “To the extent that there’s resistance [to the New Democrats], I don’t think it comes from the leaders as it does from the left wing of the party. Folks that are in very safe Democratic districts, very urban districts that produce supermajorities, people who are not vulnerable, they’re just under a different set of incentives and frankly they have closer ties to groups that are happier with the party’s status quo than the moderates are.”

New Democrats speaking with CQ Roll Call wouldn’t insert themselves into the fray. “It’s awfully easy when you don’t win an election to start turning on each other,” Kind said.

New Democrat Whip John Carney of Delaware just hopes the “American Prosperity Agenda” proves to be a useful tool, in many ways, in the months ahead.

“We’re developing a vision and something that we can all rally behind and understand,” he said. “Here’s what we’re all about. Here’s our area of focus. These are a series of things that we bring to the table and our caucus can build on, our common values and objectives.

“It’s a message we can take to constituents back in our own districts,” he said. “We can use it to pick up districts as we try to expand our caucus.”

From Roll Call 

"Congressman Jim Cooper and the New Democrat Coalition urge bipartisan action to address our fiscal situation." 

Source:Jim Cooper- and the House New Democrats.

From Jim Cooper

If you look at the two-party system in America, you'll see a Democratic Party that's supposed to represent the center-left (not left-wing) coalition in America and a Republican Party that's supposed to represent the Center-Right (not right-wing) coalition in America. And by in-large that's still true even today. 

There are still more Progressives (in the classical sense) in the Democratic Party, than in the Republican Party. And there are still more Conservatives (in the classical sense) in the Republican Party, than in the Democratic Party. But two-party system are the key words here. Not every American is either a Progressive or Conservative, politically. We are a lot more ideologically diverse than that and you see that both in the Democratic Party and in the Republican Party. 

Pre-1970 or so and you can go back as even 1965, the Democratic Party was essentially made up of center-right Liberal Democrats and center-left Progressive Democrats in the North. And you had right-wing, Dixiecrat, Neo-Confederate Democrats in the South. 

The center-right in the Democratic Party, were the JFK Liberal Democrats and people like Senator Henry Jackson (Democrat, Washington) people who were very pro-civil rights and believed in a safety net for people who truly needed it, but were also very strong believers in liberal democracy (which is why they're Liberal Democrats) and were very hawkish on foreign policy and national security. The so-called Neoconservatives, who are Progressive Republicans today, were Liberal Democrats in the 1960s and 1970s. 

Thanks to the mainstream media and their ignorance of political philosophy and terms, as well as Far-Left Democrats who call themselves Liberals, The New Democrat Coalition in Congress today, who are mostly in the House, but who have a few members in the Senate as well, get called centrists or moderates. But in actuality, they're JFK Liberal Democrats, who get called Neoconservatives or centrists today by the so-called mainstream media and others. 

Roll Call: Bridget Bowman: House Republicans Investigating Washington D.C. Marijuana Legalization

Source:The New Democrat

First of all to dare to correct Roll Call, this is not about the U.S. Congress or even Congressional Republicans against the City of Washington when it comes to legalizing marijuana. Which they already have and marijuana is now legal in Washington for adults. This is about a group of House Republicans on the Government Oversight Committee led by Representative Jason Chaffetz who is Chairman of that committee and other members of that committee who want to put Uncle Sam’s big foot in the way how Washington deals with marijuana in their city.

Apparently the party that is supposed to be anti-big government and Uncle Sam and pro-federalism which is what Republicans have traditionally advertise them as, is now Uncle Sam’s favorite nephews and nieces. And marijuana in Washington is just one example of that. Same-sex marriage and pornography are other perfect examples of that. But the problem that House Republicans have as it relates to marijuana in Washington is that Congress the House and Senate together passed their bill that would throw out marijuana legalization that President Obama signed after the city passed their legalization bill.

The thirty-day period that Congress has to review and overthrow laws that Washington passes themselves has already expired. With neither the House or Senate acting on anything that would overturn the city’s law. So the Washington marijuana legalization law goes forward. And House Republicans led by Representative Chaffetz are left to hold hearings over the Washington law, but without much if any ability to actually overturn it. Because they decided to act against the law after the law was already passed.

Tom Woods: 'Murray Rothbard: How Interventionists Wrecked The Old Right'

Source:Tom Woods- on the Old Right.

Source:The New Democrat

“Murray Rothbard’s posthumously released book The Betrayal of the American Right is the subject of episode 349 of the Tom Woods Show… 

From Tom Woods 

There's always been national security hawks in and outside of both the Democratic Party and Republican Party and people who not only see America's role as defending democracy and defending the developed world, but expanding liberal democracy and freedom around the world, to the point that they believe America should knock off dictators and replace those regimes with American friendly regimes. But those people haven't been in The White House before or have been running the Department of Defense, or have served as President and Vice President of the United States. 

Thanks to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, as well as 9/11, the Republican Party went from people who were strong on defense and against communism and Islamism, to a party that believed it's not good enough for America to just protect itself and their allies, but to make the world safe for liberal democracy outside of America and Europe. Which is how we got not just the War in Afghanistan in 2001-02, but the occupation of Afghanistan to try to build a democratic, responsible government there. And then the same thing with the War In Iraq in 2003. 

The Tonight Show With Jay Leno: Bill Maher (2012)

Source:Celebrity Universe- Real Time With Bill Maher, on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno, in 2012.

Source:The New Democrat

“Bill Maher on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno – Must watch this!”

From Celebrity Universe

Going back three years here so I have to dig deep into my memory bank and see what is still there. Oh wait 2012 was an election I lived through and was somewhat active in it as a voter and blogger. So I guess this shouldn’t be so difficult.

But the fact that someone like Rick Santorum could actually challenge someone like Mitt Romney tells you have screwed up the Republican Party is. If this was 1980 or 84 Rick Santorum would’ve been taken as seriously for president as Don Knotts or Rich Little or Artie Lang, some comedian like that. Because he would’ve been seen as a joke who probably needs to finish high school and grow up before he tries to do anything big.

If I’m Barack Obama I’m not hating my opposition, but getting down on my knees and thanking God everyday for the opposition that I do have. And writing them a check everyday for all the stupid and outrageous things they do and say.

Like with defunding of Homeland Security to use as an example. Because when the GOP’s support goes down, President Obama goes up and even if Americans regardless of race and party are not in love with the man as President. But he looks like God in comparison to especially the Tea Party wing of the GOP. Because Americans have basically said that: “Yeah, Barry is not great and makes mistakes. But look I’m glad he’s there instead of Ted Cruz or the House Tea Party.”

But with the Tea Party in power especially in the House of Representatives and with the economic recovery now feeling like it is real with solid economic and job growth and with the falling deficit and with President Obama having the country on his side against ISIS, he looks pretty good.

But without the Tea Party, perhaps President Obama is still Senator Obama sitting in on Senate committee hearings about agriculture spending or looking into the spending on school lunches and how much protein kids get from them. Which I’m sure is important, but a big step down from being President of the United States.