Learn Liberty: Antony Davies- 'Who Favors More Freedom: Liberals or Conservatives?'

Source:Learn Liberty- Antony Davies, talking about Liberals and Conservatives.

"Prof. Antony Davies analyzes the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives.  He then proposes an alternative method of viewing political issues, which looks at policies and their respective impact on individual freedom.  Prof. Antony Davies concludes that the conventional liberal/conservative dichotomy encourages us to ignore first principles, and hence, overlook contradictory views.

Want to advance liberty?:Learn Liberty."

From Learn Liberty

One of the things I don't like about American politics is that it tries to take complicated issues and philosophies and tries to divide them into two factions as if those factions are in sink on all of the issues and that the left and right is only made up to two political factions that agree on everything and all of the issues even though we do have a left and a right and so does every other country at least in the democratic world.

But the left and right are basically just the two ends of the political spectrum. But both sides of the political spectrum have multiple and diverse factions on both sides. It's not just About liberal vs conservative, but the left and the right where the left is made up of more than just Liberals, but the left has Progressives, Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists, as well as Communists. And the left has people who describe their politics as Socialist-Liberal or Socialist-Libertarian. People who Are socialist or social democratic on economic and perhaps foreign policy, but liberal-libertarian on social issues.

Whereas the right has Conservatives or Conservative-Libertarians, but they have people who are more classically libertarian and they have people who are neoconservative and religiously conservative. (Which is different from politically conservative) People who may be conservative on economic policy, but more statist on social issues and foreign policy.

So left vs right is not just about liberal vs conservative. And Liberals and Conservatives at least Liberals and Conservatives in a classical sense generally don't view themselves as liberal vs conservative in the sense that they are enemies, but competitors who have competing political ideologies. But not out to destroy the other side and they also have more in common than I believe Americans tend to think.

And they both have the same goals and see their philosophy as the best to achieve their goals which is individual freedom for all Americans. The ability to chart one's own course in life and be able to live their own lives as they see fit. As long as they aren't hurting innocent people with what they are doing.

Which is one example why Liberals and Conservative-Libertarians hate the War on Drugs (to use as an example) because we both believe in economic freedom as well as social freedom, we both believe in limited government and a limited foreign policy and national security. That our military can't be everything for everybody. And that it should be limited to protecting our own national interests and helping others that deserve it when we can, but that we can't do everything.

Where Liberals and Conservatives tend to differ is government's role in helping people who can't take care of themselves and need a hand up to be able to do that. Conservatives tend to be more hawkish on foreign policy and Liberals tend to be more internationalist, but we both believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility. But Liberals and Conservatives are the two dominant political factions in America. Center-Left and Center-Right where most Americans tend to be on one side or the other, rather than being Far-Left or Far-Right.

Roger Dolittle: Revolution Volume I: The Late 60s

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

Radicalism is certainly not new in American history. This country was certainly not founded by Moderates. But radical Liberals and Libertarians who wanted to be free from the United Kingdom and set up a Democratic Republic. Where the people would be free to live their own lives and not be subjects of the state or monarchy. So it was Liberal-Libertarians versus the British Monarchy in the late 1700’s that probably would’ve never given the British in the American colonies their freedom. And these new Americans were tired of living under the dictatorship of the British Monarchy and fought back and we had the American Revolution.

So back then radicals were part of the radical left. This crazy idea back then of individual freedom, was so foreign to really anywhere else in the world. And that’s how the American Republic was founded. So we’ve had radicals on the Left back in the 1700’s as well as the 1850s and 60s. Liberals pushing for freedom in the 19th Century they were pushing for freedom for all Americans. And fought to free the African slaves, which is one reason how the Civil War came about. Where Liberals wanted the African slaves free. Right-wingers wanted the Africans in the South to remain as slaves and property and the Federal Government trying to keep the union together.

Radical leftism went from a form of liberalism or libertarianism in the 1700 and 1800s to a form of socialism in the 1900s. And creating a safety net or even welfare state which started with the Progressive era in the early 1900s. And graduated to the New Deal in the 1930s and Great Society in the 1960s, to the anti-war movement of the 1960s. And then Liberals came back in the 1950s and 60s with the civil rights movement for racial minorities as well as homosexuals. And of course the environmental and women’s movement of the 1960s and 70s.

The establishment is sort of like the center the people with the power and anyone in this country whether they are Center-Left or Right. And the fringes of the wings are seen as radical because they are pushing for change and reform. And when the establishment is unwilling to change and even listen to the concerns and demands of the radicals, things can get very violent as we saw in the 1960s. But radicalism and violence in this country is certainly not new, but something that we’ve been able to tolerate.

We have a country the size of the United States both physically and in population, we are simply a huge country and power that has all the freedom that we have, both socially and economically. Including the constitutional right to self-defense and determination. So violence is always a possibility when people are unhappy and frustrated with the establishment to the point that they feel the establishment needs to be taken down.
Roger Dolittle: Revolution Volume 1: The Late 1960s

Foreign Affairs: Lauren C. Bell: Fixing the Filibuster: Congress Needs a Battle Place of Ideas not Obstructionism

Fixing the Filibuster: There is less consensus than many realize about the damage caused by increased use of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate. Ambiguity over what constitutes a bona fide filibuster has allowed both Democrats and Republicans to demagogue the problem over time, usually in order to suit their short-term partisan interests. Don't hold your breath waiting for effective reform.

You would think in a Federal Government that has three branches and checks and balances including a Bi Cameral Congress. Where the upper chamber of Congress has an equal amount of members for each state meaning the US Senate. And in a government that has a two party system that Americans would have a choice and two competing visions. In who to vote for and who to support but thats not what we get, what we have instead is a House of Representatives. Where the majority party whether its the ruling or in the Republicans case the opposition party rules over the House. They set the agenda and the rules as far as how legislation gets debated and how it can be amended and what. Can be offered to amend the legislation and we have a Senate where the majority party meaning the Democrats. Wants to rule the Senate the way the House is ruled and the minority party because the Senate does have minority rights. Unlike the House when Democrats say take it or leave it, they respond by not only leaving the legislation but. Blocking it all together because you need a consensus to get anything done in the Senate which means the leaders. Of both parties have to work together to accomplish anything when the minority party is large like it is now.

Of course the Senate need to be reformed but Congress as a whole both the Senate and the House for it to ever. Function properly and for Congress to be able to confront the issues that faces the country and they aren't. In a very good position of doing that right now, both parties House and Senate are in the do it my way or. We are not going to do anything because both parties in Congress have the power to stop each other but they don't have the power. To pass anything out of Congress on their own which means both chambers in Congress need to be reformed. Where the majority parties both House and Senate control the agenda meaning these are the issues. That the House and Senate are going to deal with in this session and in this Congress but then have the responsibility. To draft legislation to deal with the issues that the majority leadership feels need to be dealt with in that session and Congress. And either markup and draft legislation on their own or work with the minority party but where the minority leadership. Would be able to not only offer but get votes on relevant amendments to all legislation but where they can offer. And get votes on their relevant alternative legislation as well.

The same thing should be going on in the Senate where the majority party there whoever is in charge sets. The agenda and gets to decide what issues are brought up but also has the responsibility to markup in committee. Legislation to deal with the issues that the majority leadership decides should come up and bring it to the floor. Once its passed out of committee but where the minority leadership has the ability to offer relevant amendments. And relevant substitutes to bills the majority leadership brings up when the majority and minority leaderships decide. Not to work together on issues and what the majority leadership would get in return for an open. Process to relevant amendments and substitutes is the minority party being able to obstruct less frequently. That only final votes on legislation could be blocked by the Leader or Minority Leader, which would replace the filibuster. With a motion to table that could only come at the end of the debate, when the majority or minority leadership. Decides the legislation is not worth passing.

The Senate needs to be reformed but so does the House, Congress as a whole needs to be reformed, we need. Less obstructionism in the Senate but the Senate and House also needs to be able to work its will and this doesn't. Mean forcing both parties to work together but having a system in the House and Senate where both parties. Would have input on issues and legislation that the majority party brings up meaning both parties would have. Skin in the game and incentive to offer ideas and new proposals when they see legislation they don't like.

The New Republic: Opinion- Geoffrey Kabaservice: Reviews Robert O. Self's All In The Family

Source: The New Republic-

Source: The New Republic: Opinion- Geoffrey Kabaservice Reviews Robert O. Self's All In The Family

It is true that Liberals had their way in the 1960s and even to a certain extent we had our way in the 1970s on social issues. And individual freedom in America this idea that Americans shouldn't be forced to live some traditional American life that was common in America up until the 1960s when the boomers started going to and graduating from college.

Baby Boomers deciding that the life that their parents and grandparents were living wasn't the life for them and they rebelled. And also saw the plight and the discrimination that minorities and women were going through in America. And decided to do something about it which is how we got the civil rights laws of the 1960s. And homosexuals started to make themselves vocal in America along with women, African and Latin Americans that didn't have a big role in American life just in the previous decade.

I'm not going to get into the Great Society because that came from a different faction in the Democratic Party. People who are far more lets say progressive (social democratic really) and want a bigger role for the Federal Government in American life and would go even further than the New Deal and Great Society today.

But as Liberals were coming forward and making the case that individual freedom should not just be for the majority of Americans racially, but that individual freedom should be for the whole country. That there isn't just one type of American and one type of American life. That one type of lifestyle where we all get married, all have kids, the father works and the mother stays home doesn't work for everyone. And that there are other ways to live as Americans and still allowing all of us to be good people and represent America very well along with civil rights. That individualism was the cornerstone of liberalism in the 1960s. And our greatest triumph that empowered millions if not tens of millions of Americans in this country.

Not so much the Great Society that had some positive aspects to it. But a lot of the Great Society was this collectivist top-down centralized Federal Government has all of the answers approach that we tend to see from so-called Progressives to problem solving in America.

But what Liberalism brought in the 1960s that I believe Bill Clinton and other Democrats built off of in the 1990s, Bill Clinton and other Boomers of course being products of the 1960s, was this idea that individual freedom should work for all Americans. And we should all have access to it, rather than freedom just being available to a majority of Americans or for even most of the country. But it should be able to work for all of us and we should all be empowered to be able to live our own lives and be able to live our lives as we see fit short of hurting the innocent. And not be discriminated against based on our race, ethnicity, gender or sexuality.

And that all Americans no matter their economic background and their parents economic background should be empowered to get themselves a good education and be able to live in the middle class and not be forced to live off of public assistance their whole lives. But be empowered to chart their own course in life. Something the Great Society failed to accomplish.

The Religious-Right a lot of them coming from the 1950s generation and even older than that and we are still seeing that today as part of the Tea Party, believed that the so-called traditional America that they grew up with was disappearing. And decided it was time to stand up and fight back and take on issues like abortion, homosexuality, pornography and other things they see as immoral. And the Republican Party decided to bring these voters in. And thats how the Republican Party became a governing party again in the 1960s and 70s.
C-SPAN: Robert O.Self- All in The Family

The Hill: Elise Viebeck & Sam Baker: 'Advocates for Mental Health Have Momentum After Connecticut Massacre'

Source:The Hill- Newspaper.

"The mental-health community has begun a major lobbying effort for federal action in response to last Friday’s school shooting in Newtown, Conn. 

Major advocacy groups are already meeting with Capitol Hill offices and formulating an agenda that they say has forward momentum as a result of the new public dialogue on mental illness.

{mosads}“The field as a whole has agreed. There is a lot of interest among other national organizations in getting something done,” said Rebecca Farley with the National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare. 

Advocates say the most important objective is strengthening community-based mental health services. They are also focused on early diagnosis and treatment of ill children, and efforts to erase the stigma that surrounds mental health problems.

The advocates already have a number of bills to rally behind.

The Excellence in Mental Health Act, from Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), would create federal standards and oversight for community mental health providers. 

Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.) has sponsored legislation to support new mental health services in schools.

And Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) have a bill to encourage first-aid-style training on mental health in colleges. 

Outside of Capitol Hill, advocates are preparing their own efforts. Wayne Lindstrom, president and chief executive of Mental Health America, said a coalition of mental-health groups would soon be sending a proposal to the White House and congressional leaders.

That letter will ask lawmakers to double the country’s capacity to provide mental-health services.

“It’s probably going to be a hard one to bite off and chew, but we feel a strong need to put it on the table,” Lindstrom said.

Polls taken since last Friday’s massacre have found that the public supports a renewed emphasis on mental health treatment." 

From The Hill

"If you're uninsured, you can get mental health care from Sacramento County, but there are narrow parameters you need to meet." 

Source:KCRA-TV News- with a look at mental health care in Sacramento, California.

From KCRA-TV News

This is something that should've been taken care of during the healthcare reform debate of 2009-10 that produced the 2009-10 Affordable Care Act. This should've been part of that law that was finally passed and signed in 2010 by President Obama and maybe we could've avoided some of the tragedies that have happened since. Because these shooters could've gotten the mental healthcare that they needed under their health insurance. But hopefully this will be taken care of in 2013.

The New Republic: Adam Winkler: Franklin Roosevelt: "The Father Of Gun Control": FDR's Legacy on The Democratic Party

Franklin Roosevelt: The Father Of Gun Control | The New Republic

Pre FDR the Democratic Party for the most part was a Conservative-Libertarian Party basically with a growing. Progressive/Social Democratic base that wanted to grow the Federal Government to have a bigger impact on Americans lives. And in society, the creation of the safety net but they wanted to go even further and create what's known in Europe. As a welfare state that would have a big role in literally taking care of people in the country, from anything from. Healthcare to childcare to pensions and so fourth, as well as Federal regulations in how Americans live their lives. Mostly when it came to the economy but even on things like gun control with a proposal of a national record. Of all guns in America which to me sounds like a national DMV on steroids or something but this is how Progressives. Tend to think they put a lot of faith in central power to take care of people and even at times protect us from. Ourselves and this movement was really the post Progressive era of the 1920s and even earlier in the 20th Century.

The Democratic Party at least as I see it is made up of three political factions at least as I see it. Classical Liberals not Libertarians but Liberals in the real sense and not modern sense people who tend to be called. Progressives today who are really Social Democrats that are common in Europe, who are left of center in Europe. But would be lets say further left over here to be nice and then there are centrists or Moderate-Liberals who. Who tend to have clear Liberal leanings on social issues but tend to be less ideological and more Bi Partisan. And able to work with other Democrats but also Republicans as well. The Liberals are people like me and John Kerry Senator from Massachusetts, the Progressives are the Dennis Kucinich's. And Bernie Sanders of the World, a Representative from Ohio and Senator from Vermont respectfully. The Centrists are the people like Joe Lieberman retiring Senator from Connecticut. The Democratic Party is the Liberal Party in America but we aren't the Social Democratic Party and there's a difference.

What FDR did was bring Democratic Socialism to the for front in American politics and give Progressive Democrats a voice in America. With the New Deal and even on issues like gun control where he wanted to create a national record for. All guns that are purchased in America but the Democratic Party didn't go from being more of a Conservative Party. To the Green Party or the Democratic Socialist Party, because the Wendell Willkie Liberal Democrats still existed in the party. And these Liberals are still in the party today so what FDR did was give Progressives a voice in the. Democratic Party but not to the point where they run the party but represent a solid faction in it.

James Miller Center: President Clinton- 'On Columbine and Gun Control

Source:James Miller Center- President William J. Clinton (Democrat, Arkansas) addressing a joint session of Congress, about the Columbine shootings.

"In his 2000 State of the Union address, President Clinton talks about the Columbine tragedy and gun control." 

Whenever there's some type of tragedy, especially one involving kids being murdered and gun down especially in places where you would think they would be safe, gun control advocates use it as another opportunity to call for gun control. They don't even bother to mention that young people who had their whole lives ahead of them were murdered for no reason other than to use that tragedy to call for more gun control. 

What we should be doing in a time like this is taking life one day at a time if they can even do that. It's not gun control that I have a problem with, as long as its common sense gun control and its constitutional. It's the timing of people who make their advocacy. Especially people if they probably had their way would repeal the second amendment all together and outlaw guns in the hands of private citizens all together and completely leaving the power of guns in the hands of government. Which is a scary thought for anyone who believes in liberal democracy, because that type of thing happens in authoritarian states.

Do we have too many gun tragedies in America, of course we do and do we need better smarter regulations. As well as do a better job of enforcing the laws on our books, yes we do but this tragedy just happened on Friday. I'm writing this post on Saturday literally twenty four hours after this tragedy occurred. 

Imagine if you lost a relative to gun violence, especially a kid son or daughter who was at school of all places, what you would be thinking about twenty-four hours after your son or daughter was murdered, gun control, probably wouldn't be the thing you would be thinking about. You might still be in shock at this point or doing whatever you can to help law enforcement investigate this tragedy and find out exactly what happened. And if there's anything you can do to help them, there will be a time to take up gun control and deal. 

There are times to push for policy positions and politics, tragedies are not the best time to do that. Thats the time for the victims and again their friends and families to cope with the tragedy as best as they can. And for everyone else to do what they can to help those people through that tragedy, we are going to have. 

A brand new Congress in less then a month and a President who just won reelection to work with that Congress with a Democratic Senate that just added seats and with a Republican House that will have about ten more Democrats. Right now we still have the fiscal cliff to deal with, so before we start to address new issues, how about we finish what's left to do in the current Congress first.

Foreign Affairs: Prosperity Isn't Free: Robert Greenstein: What We Need Government To Do

Prosperity Isn't Free: To get out of its economic hole, the United States needs to cut spending and increase revenue. But policymakers must not let new taxes harm low-income working families, who have the fewest resources to contribute to reducing the deficit anyway.

There really isn't a better time to reexamine what the role of government should be in America and what exactly. Do we need it to do for us at our expense, then when we have a so called crisis where we have to look for new savings. In order to advert the fiscal cliff and look for ways to make the Federal Government more efficient and cost effective. Thats really what we should be doing what we need not want the Federal Government to do for us in this great huge country. And then we gotta figure out how to finance without borrowing what exactly we need the Federal Government to do for us. In an economically and fiscally responsible manner that puts us on a path to finally getting our fiscal house. In order, we obviously need a strong national defense, including a strong intelligence agency, strong. Homeland security, a strong foreign service, we need to be able to regulate the economy and have a strong. Currency and a strong justice system, these are the basics that we need the Federal Government to do for us. And then we need to figure out what else the Federal Government should be doing as well.

As former US Comptroller David Walker said the Federal Government has made more promises to its people. Then Americans are willing to pay for, so if thats the case then we need to find a way to finance what we are willing to pay for. And then go from there and this mainly relates in the social insurance areas but we have a national defense thats committed. To defending developed countries around the World that can afford to defend themselves, while we are borrowing. Money from them to pay them to help defend their own countries, so to me that would be a great place to look for savings. And then of course we are compassionate country that looks out for our poor and so fourth but for people who live. Off of public assistance whether they are working or not and who are physically and mentally able, we should. Be looking for savings here as well, not by kicking them off and on the streets but putting them to work and. And to education and job training so they can get themselves good jobs and no longer have to live off of public assistance. We could save hundreds of billions long term by doing this.

These are long term savings and would be part of a broader Federal Government reform plan but short term. We also need to look for savings in entitlements and in defense, as well as new revenue to avoid the fiscal cliff. Where we don't see a huge middle class tax hike and across the board spending cuts that would put us at a severe risk. Of going back into recession, like having the wealthy pay more for entitlements and having them pay more in taxes. Perhaps not starting at 250K$, perhaps 500K-1M$ would be more appropriate, as well as tax reform and savings in defense. Like the draw downs from Afghanistan and Iraq as well.

FRSFreeState: The New Republic: Richard D. Kahlenberg & Moshe Z. Marvit: "Right To Work Isn't A Civil Right. But Unionizing Should Be

"Right To Work" Isn't A Civil Right. But Unionizing Should Be | The New Republic

The saying elections have consequences applies here, as far as I'm concern Michigan is getting what they voted. For in 2010, a what I would call at least a Neoconservative Republican Governor in Rick Snyder, whose interested. In concentrating most of the power in the state in the state's capitol, with the ability to hire and fire local governments and so fourth. And with a Tea Party Republican Legislature who probably like to outlaw organize labor all together and centralize all power. With private business and government working in tandem together, this is the people that Michigan voted for in 2010. And now they are paying the price for it, as a Liberal I believe people have the right to make mistakes, that when. You vote for people who don't have your best interest at heart and are there to serve the big money that put them in. Office then the people who voted for those politicians should get to deal with the consequences of those decisions. Rather then government trying to protect people from themselves.

I agree that the term "Right to Work", is a bogus term there's no such term as "Right to Work" in America none. Of us are guaranteed a job in this country, we all get or don't get jobs based on our skills and qualifications. And in some cases the other people we are competing with for those same jobs, I do have some feeling for people. Who say that workers shouldn't be forced to pay union dues to unions they aren't members of and have some feeling. As well for Progressives who say that non union workers shouldn't enjoy the benefits of being a member of a union. For free I agree with that they shouldn't and I have an answer for that, union members should get the benefits. That they pay for and non union workers shouldn't get those same benefits and instead be left if they choose to. To be able to negotiate their own compensation and benefits with the employer they work for. But if they want the benefits that come from being a member of a union, they should have to join that union and pay for those dues.

I don't feel bad for the people in Michigan right now because they are getting the people they voted for and. Have put the trust in the Tea Party to run their State Government for them, good luck with that and had. They made better choices in who they voted for and voted for more Democrats instead and at least elected a. Democratic House or Senate, then a good compromise could've come out of this like the one I just propose. Which would a right to unionize or not unionize, joining a union and paying the dues or not  and negotiating. Your own pay and compensation which would be a good system and force all workers to think about what. Would be the best deal for them, solidarity or being a free agent and negotiating your own contracts.

David Spada: Video: Slingin Sonny Jurgenson: The Redskins Gunslinger

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on Blogger

To look at some of the shortcomings of former NFL QB Sonny Jurgenson, before I get into why he’s one of the top 10 QB’s of all time, maybe top five, those shortcomings are more about the teams that he played for. He played for very good teams in Philadelphia in the early 1960s and they started sliding by the mid 60s. The Eagles were annual losers by the late 60s and early 70s and Sonny gets traded to the Redskins in 1964. Who hadn’t had a winning season even since 1955, which would go on for another five seasons in Washington.

I’m not making excuses for Sonny, because he did play a long time without leading a team to a championship. Eighteen seasons from 1957-74 but for the most part, he played for a lot of mediocre teams. Where a good year was 7-7 or 7-5, 8-6. These are records that generally doesn’t get teams to the playoffs. So even as Sonny was playing for mediocre teams, he was a great QB on those teams, the best player on these teams. Doing every he can for teams that weren’t very good, had good players, great even, but not very good all around teams. Teams that struggled to win every week.

The way I describe Sonny Jurgenson, was a championship caliber QB who played on a lot of mediocre and even bad teams. I still believe that had Sonny played in Super Bowl 7 against the undefeated Miami Dolphins the Redskins would’ve given the Dolphins only loss that year. Because the Redskins did have a great team on both sides of the ball and I believe a better all around team than the Dolphins. That at least had more talent.

But of course Sonny was hurt with a busted ankle, so that didn’t happen, but the Redskins didn’t win championships in the 1960s and 70s because of Sonny Jurgenson. They weren’t very good in the mid and late 1960s because of the players they had around Sonny. No running game, a weak offensive line and a defense that probably gave up more points than Sonny and those great receivers put up every week. To where they were one of the highest scoring teams in the NFL every year, despite not having much of a running game.

I believe Dan Marino is the best QB of all time as far as just throwing the football. And had he had the running game and defense that Joe Montana had in San Francisco with the 49ers, Marino leads the Dolphins to four Super Bowl championships or more in the 1980s and 90s. We’ll never know that of course, but that’s how great Dan the man was. But no one handled the ball better than Sonny, as far as play action and knowing exactly when to throw the ball. And what to put on the ball, than Sonny.

I don’t believe a QB ever had better eye-hand coördination than Sonny. The ability to pick spots on the field as far when to throw the ball, how much to on the ball and where to throw the football. He was sort of like the Larry Bird of the NFL when it came to ball handling. And had great eye-hand coördination which is why he was such a great QB. Even though he never led a team to winning a championship.

Brookings Institution: Russ Whitehurst- 'Explaining the Education Choice and Competition Index'

 

Source:Brookings Institution- Senior Fellow Russ Whitehurst, talking about education reform.

"Parents need to have a lot of information about schools—not just test scores—but information on a school's athletic, music and other programs so they can make an informed choice on where to send their children to school, says Senior Fellow Grover J. "Russ" Whitehurst. Learn more and explore the Brown Center's 2012 Education Choice and Competition Index at:Brookings." 

From Brookings

When people speak about school choice, they are generally talking about vouchers that would go to parents who live in an area where their kids are forced to go to a bad school and can't afford to send their kids to private schools. So they would get a voucher to be able to send their kid to a private school, 

I'm not in favor of private school vouchers. If states and localities want to do this, then thats their business, unless it's Maryland or Montgomery County where I live, then that would become part of my business. 

But school choice is really about being able to send your kids to the right school for them, no matter where you live. Instead of students being assigned to a public school based on where you live. And there is something called public school choice that would allow parents to send their kids to the schools of their choice, that they believe is the right school for them, again no matter where they live, which is something I'm in favor of.

I'm in favor of public school choice because it would bring needed competition to public education in America. And have public schools literally competing with each other for students every year, rather than automatically being assigned students no matter the of level of education that they provide for their students. 

So if schools do a good job, there are, going to be plenty of students that are going to want to go to that school. But if a school is failing, then that school would end up losing a lot of students, the students they currently have. As well as new students they normally would have in the future. 

If schools were still a monopolies, choice and competition is one answer to how we reform public education in America because it would literally. Put schools against each other and make competitors out of them and force them to go a good job or end up losing students, money, and perhaps even educators in the future, because it would end up being a place where people don't want to go.

You can still be in favor of teachers unions and the right to organize, as a Liberal or Progressive and still be favor of quality public education, as long as you are in the business of public education. Rather than teacher unions and be in favor of reforms that would bring about better schools in this country. And school choice is just one example of a reform that would improve our public schools.

FRSFreeState: The Hill: Opinion: Judd Gregg: "Time for President Obama and GOP Leaders to Stand and Deliver on Deficit Deal"

Opinion: Time for Obama, GOP leaders to ‘stand and deliver’ on deficit deal - The Hill

If I had the opportunity to write what the final deficit reduction package would look like, that would finally get. Our deficit and debt under control, so America could move onto other issues or at least could write it with Liberals who think like me. It would look something like what's called the grand bargain, which essentially means taking on core groups. On both the right and left, that unfortunately for some Democrats and Republicans who can't imagine their lives. Outside of Congress and Washington as a whole and because of that are always looking for the next election cycle. Even if they were just reelected themselves and because of this, these groups on both sides scare the hell out of them. And are so worried about offending them, that they won't do a damn thing that may cost them support. So as former US Senator Judd Gregg says, these groups aren't interested in governing but only interested in campaigning. And because of this it makes a grand bargain almost look impossible.

Anyone who looks at the Federal Government's fiscal issues and problems seriously and are actually interested. In solving these issues, whether it helps them politically or not, understands that its going to take something like a grand bargain. To get the debt and deficit under control, so this economy can finally take off again and American business's can. Finally invest a more in this country again and so we can start rebuilding the country's infrastructure again. We have to strengthen entitlements and make them a lot more cost effective and so they are prepared to deal with. The changing demographics but not do anything that would weaken the benefits of these programs for the people who need them. Which is fairly simple as far as what the solutions are but a hell of a lot harder to pass, it basically means having the wealthy. Pay more for their benefits, are defense department is simply overcommitted and doing too much around the World. And we need to scale it back and have it play a bigger role in North America.

Are tax code is stuck in the 20th Century and is over bloated and way too complicated and we need to eliminate. Some deductions and to cap the amount of deductions that wealthy people can take, I would scrap the tax code all together. And create a new one, as well as scrap the income tax all together and move to a Progressive Consumption Tax. We don't have to do that now but long term we should move into that direction, because its a much more efficient way to collect revenue. Because its almost impossible to escape paying it, we would all have to pay the tax as a country. Based on what we takeout of society, instead of how much we create for the country and as long as we have this huge. Debt and deficit, the wealthy are simply going to have to pay more in taxes, as long as we have the income tax. Until we can at least start to pay down the debt and deficit.

The solutions to these problems are fairly simple as far as what needs to be done, the problems are how do. We get the solutions passed when the two parties and their Leaders are so committed to their core bases. That aren't interested in doing anything thats not exactly what they want, which is where strong leadership from both sides. Has to come in and start being the adults in this process and tell their kids to sit down and shut up.

Shout Factory: Video: Joshua Tree 1993 Trailer: Cops Are Bad, Bad Guys Save the Day

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

I gotta admit, Joshua Tree or Army of One and this movie for some reasons has two titles depending on how you see it, or what network it is on, but this movie is not a very good movie. Sure it has a decent car chase and there are some pretty good action scenes and perhaps I'm just not much of a Dolph Lundgren who is mostly famous for Rocky 4, (sorry, I'm horrible with Roman numerals) fan. But this movie is worth watching for other reasons. George Segal is his usual smartass funny self. And Cristian Alfonso plays a great sexy tough cop, looking for her big case.

Dolph Lundgren plays an escape convict who of course is innocent of why he was put in prison. But he's hardly innocent of much else and gets a break and manages to escape from prison when their bus breaks down. He is a career criminal and learns that his best friend and partner has been murdered by the crooked cop, sergeant or lieutenant that put him away played by George Segal. So while he's out of prison he's on the run and kidnaps a rookie or somewhat inexperienced police officer played by Cristian Alfonso who it out of uniform and steals her pickup with her in it.

They are on the run together because he doesn't want to go back to prison and has her as her hostage. He won't hurt her though if she doesn't give him any reason to. She later takes his side even after attempting to escape from him and gets ditched by him in the desert when he believes he doesn't need her anymore. But she now believes that he's innocent of why he was put in prison and that the crooked cop and his crew are the bad guys here and does what she can to help him as a cop.

Not a good movie except for a few parts, but Cristian Alfonso simply looked great in it. The hot sexy baby version of Cristian that I wish she brought out more on Days of Our Lives is the Cristian we see in this movie. And she looks great and adorable kicking ass in her classic Levis denim jeans and boots and plays a hot sexy cop that I can't imagine any man his right mind would want to ditch. And she and Dolph save the day sort of and the bad guy and gal put away some bad cops.

CBS: CSI Miami- Rest in Pieces, Raquel Welch Stars on CSI

Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

Raquel Welch would've been in her early 70s at this point and I guarantee you she was the best looking women on the show, at least that night. And CSI Miami has Eva Larue, who is also gorgeous and baby-face and well-built. And Emily Proctor, very attractive with a nice body, whose as cute as a little girl and at times at least sounds like one. But what makes Raquel a goddess for all-time, is that she doesn't seem to age, at least in public. She's always been hot and has always been baby-face adorable. Its just that the years she's lived have gone up every year.

I haven't actually seen this show, so I couldn't tell you how Raquel did on it. But I can tell you how she looked and the star power she still has on it, or CBS doesn't promote the show the way it did. An actress at this point when this episode came out in her early 70s, who still commands that much attention and who is still a goddess physically, looking better than beautiful women young enough to be her daughter and perhaps even her grand daughter, was probably unheard of twenty-years ago. But Raquel makes it seem so natural.

AP: Mark Hamrick: US Economy Adds 146K Jobs, Rate Falls to 7.7 Pct

Even despite Hurricane Sandy, the United States did add 146K jobs in November, a lot of that probably. Had to do with the start of the 2012 holiday season, people spending more as a result and employers looking. For seasonable help to meet the new consumer demand but its also another sign of what economists have been saying. That the American economy is about to takeoff and that we could be looking at robust economic growth in 2013. Which would be followed by robust job growth, with the unemployment rate falling, allowing us to finally move past. The Great Recession and back into strong economic times but thats if we can avoid the fiscal cliff. A bad combination of steep middle class tax hikes and deep budget cuts, that would affect public sector jobs. As well as private sector jobs, because of all of the private employers that do business with the. Federal Government, which would send us back into recession, as economists on both sides of the isle. Agree would happen, so the President and Congress we need to avoid that.

US Senate Democrats: "Senate Minority Leader McConnell Objects To His Own Bill To Lift Debt Ceiling"

If this is about letting the President of the United States, whoever the President is, now or into the. Future given the ability to lift the debt limit on his own, which apparently some Democrats has said that would be a good idea. Then of course I'm against that but if this is about the Senate being able to raise the debt limit with s simple majority. Like under what's called budget reconciliation, if you don't follow the US Senate, legislation generally needs. Sixty votes to pass the Senate, whether Democrats or Republicans are in control, otherwise the minority. Whoever the party is will be able to block the legislation but since the 1974 Congressional Budget Act. The Federal budget can now be passed with just fifty one votes in the Senate, meaning the minority can't block votes. On the budget on their own and apparently Senate Democrats will now like to be able to lift the debt ceiling. With just fifty one votes and since we have a Republican House, that will be good enough and that would prevent. Tax and spend Progressive Democrats from being to lift the debt ceiling on their own, because they want to tax and spend more.

ABC News: Video: Good Morning America: Robin Roberts Interviews Raquel Welch, Then and Now

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

Raquel made one interesting point that stood out with me in this interview. And perhaps she made others, but one thing definitely which is really true and perhaps especially in her case, is that men have a tendency with women to not so much listen to what they are saying, but how they say it and watch them say what they are saying. I simply love watching Raquel talk, because she’s still hot and always has been, but then you look at that big baby-face, with those beautiful round eyes and big cheeks and dimples and sweetie pie voice. She just makes guys want to go, awe!

Mariah Carey, speaking of hot baby-faces, has the same effect on me, but they are both interesting as well, so it is not as if I’m not hearing what they say. Raquel is gorgeous baby-face adorable women who still has a great voice and probably still sings very well, but she also has a great personality and is very funny and intelligent. And that is what she also wants the world to see, that even though she’s still a sex symbol and a Hollywood Goddess, that those things aren’t just physical with her, that there is more about her that people should pay attention to.

FRSFreeState: NGC: Hard Time: America's Toughest Prisons: Super Max

Super Max prions or Super Max units inside of prisons might seem harsh or even Unconstitutional especially. For people who tend to be more dovish when it comes to crime and punishment and law enforcement, people who believe in a. More softer approach when it comes to these issues, people who are viewed as soft on crime by right wingers in the country. And some people who might be on the right, lets say very far to the right might see these prions as not harsh enough. But the fact is we need prisons like this in this country and some people may say these prisons don't exist in. Europe, well actually they do the United Kingdom being an example of that but also Europe doesn't have. The same crime issues and don't have the same type of inmates, people who simply aren't willing to obey authority. And have the attitude that they can have whatever they want whenever they want it, including sex, even if the person. They want to have sex with, doesn't want to have sex with them or not, so for prisoners who are simply not willing. To obey rules, they need to be isolated to the point that the only people they can hurt are themselves.

Its not a question of whether we need prisons like this in this country or not, its a question of how. These prisons should be run and how we should house people who need to live in this environment. At least until their behavior improves to the point that they can function well in general population. Should we warehouse these people and expect they'll improve their behavior on their own, in twenty three hour. Lockdown single cell environment or not even care if they improve their behavior or not, as long as they aren't. Hurting staff or other inmates, or should we be working with them, so they have incentive to not only. Improve their behavior so they don't have to live this type of environment and be able to function back. In general population, especially if they have a scheduled release date, I believe prisons shouldn't just be institutions. To house criminals but rehabilitation centers so once inmates are out, they don't need to come back.

We need Super Max prisons and units but these places shouldn't just be used to isolate these inmates. Not just from general population but the outside World but also they need to be rehabilitation centers. For these inmates so they can improve their behavior and be prepared to live in general population. Especially for the inmates who have release dates, because those inmates are going to be back on the street. And we don't want them hurting anyone else, so we need to be working with them while they are in isolation.

FRSFreeState: The Hill: Opinion: US Representative Raul Grijalva: "What We Need is a New Deal": How We Can Avoid The Fiscal Cliff and Rebuild America

What we need is a New Deal - The Hill

What the Congressional Progressive Caucus is talking about, which is made up of roughly 70-80 members of Congress. Depending on how they did in the elections, from both the House and Senate, Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists. Depending on what you prefer, Progressive Democrats in the Democratic Caucus's in the House and Senate, what they are talking about led by their Leader. Representative Raul Grijalva, is creating a new New Deal from the 1930s and but using that type of economic plan. For now, investing roughly 1T$ in new infrastructure investment around the country, of course paid for with across the board. Tax hikes on everyone, at least thats what Green party Presidential nominee Jill Stein proposed this year, perhaps the CBC would only raise taxes on the wealthy to do this. Its back to the future for the Progressive Caucus to put millions of Americans back to work and then. Somehow the revenue from whatever would come from this would help us get our debt and deficit under control.

President Obama never proposed this even when he had a Democratic Congress, he understands that middle class Americans. Right now are over taxed and a 50% tax hike on them when they are struggling to pay their mortgage, car payment. Pay the bills for their business, could kill them financially even if it meant that more Americans would be working and they could get more customers as a result. We do need more infrastructure investment but we also need to pay for it in a way that doesn't make it harder for the. Middle class to pay their bills and doesn't make our debt and deficit any worse then it is, we could start to pay. Down our debt and deficit by eliminating and reforming things in the Federal Government to make it more effective. And less expensive and that means all across the Federal budget, as well as a millionaires taxes and closing wasteful tax loopholes.

What the President and Congress will have after they resolve the fiscal cliff in a responsible way, is to then. Have an opportunity to move to create some type of what President Obama calls the American Jobs Act. That would include new infrastructure investment, new investments in energy, cleaning up the tax code so companies. Are encouraged to invest in America, rather then somewhere else and more tax relief for consumers  and business's that encourages economic growth, rather then hoping it occurs. But this kinda Democratic Socialist model where they put all of the power in the Federal Government to. Achieve new economic and job growth, is not being considered by anyone who has the power to get it passed. Through Congress and signed into law.

President Harry S. Truman: First Speech To Congress (1945)

Source:History- President Harry S. Truman (Democrat, Missouri) addressing a joint session of Congress for the very first time as President, in 1945.

“On April 16, 1945, Harry Truman makes his first official appearance before Congress as president of the United States, after being sworn in following the death of President Franklin D. Roosevelt four days earlier. In his speech, Truman pledges to bring World War II to a victorious end.”

From History 

Source:James Miller Center- President Harry S. Truman (Democrat, Missouri) I believe meeting with his National Security Council.

“You can listen to the full speech at the Miller Center’s Presidential Speeches page…

From the James Miller Center

 Imagine living on a desert island all by yourself or locked up in solitary confinement for months and then suddenly being released one day and being told you have to run a very large organization. Like I don’t know, wait I got it: the Executive Branch of the United States.

Granted Harry Truman was only Vice President for a few months before he became President in 1945. But President Franklin Roosevelt and the cabinet didn’t keep the Vice President in the light when he was there. He didn’t know about the atomic bomb program and wasn’t getting briefings about what was going on in World War II that was still happening both in Europe and the Far East when Truman became President in 1945. Very few people had even ever heard of Vice President Harry Truman before he became President, even though he was in the Senate ten years before that.

So when our brand new President of the United States Harry Truman, goes up to Congress for the second time since leaving the Senate to speak to his former colleagues there, I don’t think anyone there knew what to expect from him and what President Truman might say.

Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, probably knew Harry Truman fairly well. at least in the Senate. But Truman at least before becoming President wasn’t a very highly respected man. He was basically seen as a small town hick from Missouri. Who had never seen a big city before he came to Washington in the 1930s.

Harry Truman was always a very under appreciated and underrated man who thrived on that, because even though he was never someone who commanded high confidence, was very intelligent and had good judgment and tended to make the right decisions.

So when President Harry Truman speaks to Congress for the first time as President in 1945, he was speaking 535 men for the most part in Congress and millions of Americans, who in Congress’s case didn’t know what to expect from him. And in America’s case was hearing from their band new leader who they never even heard of.

President Truman was also replacing perhaps the most popular president in American history in Franklin Roosevelt during a time when America was still at war, when the economy was still trying to recover from the Great Recession.

President Truman was a man who until he was fifty-years old, never had a job with much responsibility since leaving the Army after World War I. The U.S. Senate was his first major job where he had any real power and responsibility on his own. And he was 50 when he became a Senator. So this all made for a very interesting presidential address. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

US Senate Democrats: Leader Harry Reid: Filibuster Reform Will Be Pursued In The Next Congress

Today Senate Democrats are talking about reforming the cloture rule, which is the filibuster that allows. Senators to talk indefinitely about bills and it takes sixty votes to cut them off, which is what the minority party. In this Congress Senate Republicans uses to block bills they don't like from the majority party, in this Congress being Senate Democrats. Senate Democrats led by Leader Harry Reid want to reform how the filibuster is used, not eliminate it but prevent the minority. From shutting down the Senate and preventing them from doing anything, knowing that when Senate Democrats. Are back in the minority, Senate Republicans will have the same power to use as well. What Senate Democrats want to do is basically eliminate the motion to proceed rule, which is probably. The biggest problem the Senate has as far as it rules, only in the US Senate does it take sixty votes. To bring up a bill and start debating the bill, offering and debating amendments on it, you eliminate that rule. And just allow the Leader to bring up a bill using his power as the Senate Leader, then you would see the Senate at least debating and legislating again.

Senate Democrats don't want to eliminate the filibuster, thats not what this debate is about because. They know that they could end up in the minority again with a Republican President, what they want to is. Allow the Senate and stop the minority from stopping them from even bringing bills up to the floor in the first place. Senate Republicans would still be able to block legislation at the end of the debate, just not prevent the Senate from even legislating anything. Again this is not about stopping the minority from weighing in or blocking legislation they don't like. But allowing the Senate to actually begin and start debating and legislating again.

Manifest Media Networks: Malcolm X- Interview at UC Berkeley: Oct. 11th, 1963

Source:Manifest Media Networks- Minister Malcolm X, at California Berkeley, in 1963.

Source:The Daily Press

"Malcolm X - interview at UC Berkeley. Check out more at:Black University"

Source:The Daily Press- Minister Malcolm X, being interviewed at Berkeley in 1963. 

Part of Malcolm X’s message was about the right to self-defense. Which is in the U.S. Constitution, that Americans have. Which means that if you are under attacked, you have the constitutional right to defend yourself to your best ability to prevent your attacker from hurting, or destroying you. Which is a perfectly legitimate thing to believe in. The problem with this philosophy is that it was sort of short-term and a good thing for African-Americans is that more of them didn’t take this message to heart and I say that for this reason.

Martin L. King, was a pacifist all around. At least when it came to civil rights and part of that was because Dr. King thought long-term. He was a visionary in the civil rights struggle and understood the power of the media and that African-Americans were undermanned in this struggle as far as their own population. And that they needed the support of non-African-Americans to advance this cause. And that if they were seen as dangerous or violent in this struggle, it would be harder for them to gain additional support.

I believe that part of Malcolm X’s message rose from frustration as far as how Africans were treated in America. And that African-Americans had taken it too long and that it was time to rise up and fight back. He was right that it was time to rise up and to fight back. Which is what Dr. King believed in as well. But they just had different approaches in how to fight back, Dr. King’s approach was more about using the power of media and message. Malcolm had that as well, but it also came with the right to physical self-defense.

NFL Network: John Riggins: A Football Life

Source:NFL Network- the Washington Diesel.

Source:The Daily Press 

"John 'The Diesel' Riggins was fearless on the field and a fun-loving showman off it. He knew the power of his talents and achieved the ultimate prize with a Lombardi Trophy and Super Bowl MVP title.

'John Riggins: A Football Life' tells the untold story of a small-town Kansas farm kid’s rise from the unknown to being Super Bowl champion to Hall of Famer to actor following his retirement.

John Riggins was truly one of a kind. Known by Redskins fans simply as “Riggo” or “The Diesel,” the man was pure magic on the field." 

From NFL Fanzone

I guess I'm very lucky as a Redskins fan, because my first year as a Redskin fan and I'm not even seven years old, yet a couple months away from that, was in 1982 the year the Washington Redskins win their first Super Bowl. 

I still remember John Riggins touchdown run like I saw it yesterday. Him breaking through that hole, that was designed on purpose to have one free Miami Dolphin defender, who was a safety a guy named Don MacNeil, who may have weighed 200 pounds back then. It was designed this way because Redskins OL coach Joe Bugel tolled JR: "Look, there's going to be one free Dolphin defender who'll have a clean shot at you, but there isn't a DB in football that can tackle you by themselves." 

JR was called the Diesel for a reason, because thats the type of power he had. I think a better comparison would be a horse. Big, tall and strong, who could run like a horse. He would run through you or he could run by you. You try to tackle him, you have a better shot at hurting yourself.

When you think of John Riggins athletically, just don't think of the Super Bowl champion or the Super Bowl MVP or the Hall of Famer or even all of the records he held at least one point. Think of the athlete, think of the 18 year old who at the time was already 6'2  220 pounds, who was the Kansas state track champion in high school. Think of a fullback with tailback speed, who could out run WR's and DB's. And also think of JR from the perspective of a defender: "Even if I do catch this guy, if he's not at full speed, how am I supposed to bring him down. Maybe I should practice by trying to tackle a horse." 

A couple examples of JR's greatness, a regular season game against the Dallas Cowboys in December 1979. The winner of the game wins the NFC East and goes to the playoffs. It was the third or fourth quarter, QB Joe Theisman calls a trap play or a run up the middle. The problem is that JR out ran his OL and turns the play into a sweep and bounces outside and takes the play for a sixty yard touchdown run. No Cowboy in sight trying to catch him until the end when a little Cowboy DB makes light stab at him.

Jim Brown is the best RB of all-time, the power back of all time as well, but JR is right behind JB as the best power back of all-time. And if you are number two to JB in anything when it comes to football, you are a Hall of Famer. The only thing was that JR was under utilized for probably half of his career. The New York Jets were awful in the early and mid 1970s and the Redskins tried to make JR a FB in his first two seasons in Washington. So my question would be had JR been a full-time TB for his entire career, how great would he have been.

Leathered Life: Chrissie- in Leather Jeans

Source:Leathered Life- Chrissie, for Leathered Life. 

Source:The Daily Press

"Leathered Life Oldies: Chrissie in tight leather pants." Originally from Leathered Life. The photo was from a Leathered Life video, which has since been blocked or deleted on YouTube.

Great outfit, but the girl is a little too petite for me. Imagine a women 5'6-5'7 or taller or maybe only 5'4, which would make her average height, but with great legs. Strong thighs, tight round butt and everything else, wearing this outfit. Because that is what leather jeans which are basically skinny jeans, but made from leather instead of denim, are made of.

Skinny denim jeans, are common with beautiful sexy women especially if they're tall. Because it's a great way for women to show off their legs and show off their butt. "Check me out in my tight jeans, because I have a great body." Which I believe is what sexy women are saying when they wear those pants. Especially with boots and a tucked in blouse or short top.

They can also bring too much attention for women when they're in a more formal setting, but that's a different discussion. Leather jeans are also a great way for sexy women to show off their bodies. To bring positive attention to them, as well as negative.The woman in this video, great outfit, but a little small at least for me.

November Revolution Men: Professor Noam Chomsky- Neoliberalism vs Democracy: They Go Together

Source: November Revolution Men-Professor Noam Chomsky-

Source: November Revolution Men: Professor Noam Chomsky- Neoliberalism vs Democracy

If you look at what Progressives (or Social Democrats) call neoliberalism and how they describe it, that economies and societies would be liberalized, or as they would call it forced liberalization of these societies, that freedom, or liberty would be forced on them, individuals would be forced to live in freedom, rather than having a strong state that would determine how life should be lived in the country or economically, it's not really neoliberalism vs democracy. Neoliberalism vs statism, or authoritarianism. Are we going, to let individuals live their own lives and chart their own courses in life, or are we going to have the state do it for them. That's the choice, the title of the video however is Neoliberalism vs Democracy. As if neoliberalism is anti-democratic, but again what is so-called neoliberalism which I believe is a false term and I'll explain later, but what does neoliberalism actually advocates are liberalizing societies. The economy as well as how people live their personal lives.

Liberalization is about freeing people in what  they can do with their own time and how they live their own lives. And in the privacy of their own homes and what they can say in public and so-forth. So instead of neoliberalism being undemocratic, it's purely democratic in the liberal democratic sense, because that's what it advocates. Progressives (or Social Democrats) idea of liberalism is not really liberalism, but more like democratic socialism, or social democracy. But the social democratic idea of liberalism is that there's a strong centralize state that's there to take care of and look after people with a large welfare state. Where taxes are so high to not only finance this, but to prevent people from making too much money. And to prevent income inequality and that neoliberalism is this idea that we liberalize the economy and society. So people can live their own lives and look out for each other. Rather than the state doing that for them. But again there's that word liberalize which again is a liberal word. Not socialist, social democratic,  or communist, but liberal.

My point being that neoliberalism is actual a form of liberalism, but more from the Right. In the sense that it's about essentially un-regulating markets and total free trade. And where so-called Neo-Liberals and Liberals would disagree is that both factions believe in private markets and private enterprise, Liberals believe in commonsense regulations to protect workers and consumers, but not to run business's and tax them real high. But both sides are strong believers in personal freedom and accountability. Civil liberties, privacy, freedom of choice, etc. Liberalism is the idea of individual freedom and democracy. The freedom for people to live their own lives. Rather than living off of the state, or the state deciding how they can live. Rather than the state being so big and centralized and taxes so high to the point that people rely on it in order to pay their bills and get by. Liberals want people to be able to have the opportunity and freedom to be able to make their own decisions and pay their own way in life. 

Andy Greenshaw: 'Why We Should Let The Bush Tax Cuts Expire'

Source:Andy Greenshaw- Since when does the Left (especially the Far-Left) care about the budget deficit and national debt.

"I couldn’t agree more with Fareed Zakaria’s latest article in the Washington Post about the Bush Tax Cuts.

Republicans and Democrats both agree that the massive U.S. budget deficit looms as one of the most dangerous threats to our nation’s economy.  And Congress has the opportunity to immediately eliminate a fourth of that deficit by doing nothing.

The Bush Tax Cuts are set to expire this year, which will inevitably cut about $300 billion from the U.S. budget deficit.  These massive tax cuts – passed in 2001 and 2003 – lowered taxes for the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans." 

From Andy Greenshaw

"It’s been clear for a while that President Obama has all the leverage in the tax debate. Now it’s clear the Republicans know it.

On Friday, Obama met with congressional leaders for the first time since his reelection. The subject of discussion was how to handle the tax hikes and automatic spending cuts set to take effect on January 1. House Speaker John Boehner came with a proposal: Instead of racing to craft an alternative package before the new year, Boehner suggested, why not just pass a bill preserving the status quo for six more months, giving everybody a chance to work out a deal? But nobody expects Obama to go for it, unless Republicans agree to a deal on taxes that's largely to Obama’s liking. A senior Democratic aide on Capitol Hill thinks he sees a game of Texas hold 'em underway, with Obama winning... 

From The New Republic

This idea of letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire even on the middle class at least in the short-term, would be a disaster. 

Pre-2001 people in the bottom tax rate making up to I believe 75K$ a year, paid 15% in income taxes, after the Bush tax cuts and there were some actual good provisions in it, lower middle class and middle class workers were paying 10% in Federal income taxes, they've seen a 50% tax cut over ten years, so if you were a plumber or construction worker making 50K$ a year back in 2000, you paid, 7,500K$ a year in income taxes. After 2001 someone with the same income was now paying 5,000K$ a year in income taxes. They saw a 2,500K$ reduction in income taxes and with how badly the economy has done the last. 

Ten years with a lot of people in that income bracket out-of-work or working less then they would prefer or could even afford. That extra 2,500K$ a year could be the difference in someone making their car payments or mortgage payments, putting money away for their kids. College education and not being able to do that because the Federal Government is taking an extra 2,500K$ a year in taxes.

So raising or increasing taxes on people who can't afford it right now, is bad for the economy and deficit reduction. Because without a strong economy, with strong economic and job growth, we'll never get the debt and deficit under control. Because we'll never generate the revenue needed as a country to accomplish that. 

House Republicans will never go along with the 250K$ cutoff point to where we increase taxes in this Congress or in the next Congress, even if the Democratic Senate were to pass that. And going over to the fiscal cliff to try to prove me and others wrong on this, is not the way to find out, we need to avoid that. 

We need to come up with a balanced approach that will work that both Democrats and Republicans can agree to that that won't hurt anyone who can't afford to be hit right now and with how Speaker Boehner is talking right now, we can do this.

At some point whether it's in this Congress or not, Speaker Boehner will go along with something like a millionaires tax. As long as its used to pay down the debt and deficit and comes with serious budget cuts as well and thats what we need, new revenue and budget cuts that we can do, without hurting people who can't afford it and more importantly hurting the economy. 

We can get the debt and deficit under control by making entitlements stronger, as well as the broader safety net stronger and more affordable and reforming them in a way where we can actually put these people to work and get them off of public assistance all together. And have these people paying taxes because they can afford it and we can do more with the defense budget and get past a cold war strategy and more ready for the 21st Century, but middle class tax hikes doesn't get us there.

As the President says we need a balanced approach that works and doesn't hurt anyone who can't afford it and actually solves the problems in front of us and something like a millionaires tax and entitlement reform and more savings in defense. Will get us there and then of course something to spark new economic growth will get the job done but you. Don't increases taxes on people that you want to spend money, if you are trying to spark new economic growth.