Monday, February 27, 2012

JFK: Church and State; What Rick Santorum doesn't understand

Once again my Political Hero then Sen. Jack Kennedy running for President of the United States in 1960 nailed it. On Church and State, just how he nailed it on Civil Rights and the threat of Communism. Separation of Church and State is exactly that, one won't interfere with the other. That Freedom of Religion as its laid out in the First Amendment is exactly that. The Freedom to Practice or not Practice Religion, which is our Constitutional Right. That we get for living in a Liberal Democracy and not some Authoritarian State. Whether its secular or theocratic, where religion might be illegal. Like for some people in China or where religion may be mandatory and your only allowed to practice one type of religion. Like in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Americans are able to make these decisions on our own. And government is not allowed to endorse or sponsor one religion over another. And the only book that our Federal Government needs in America to guide them. Is the US Constitution and nothing else, as long as the Feds are within the US Constitution. Then what they do is Constitutional and shouldn't be governing based on religion. But their own politics and how they feel about issues and all the best evidence at hand. Freedom to Practice or Practice Religion in America, is not just for Christians either. But for all Religions in America, its not the Freedom of Christian Religion but the Freedom of Religion. Meaning Jews, Muslims, etc have the same Freedom of Religion in America. As Christians and not to be discriminated against based on their Religion.

Rick Santorum running for President of the United States for the Republican Party. And being the accomplished lawyer that he is, apparently doesn't understand that. Meaning that we have one more lawyer not very familiar with the US Constitution. Or he's playing to Christian Zellets in America, that would like to see a Christian Theocracy. And he's playing to this base to get their votes, making him another pandering politician. Don't we have enough of those, have you seen Congress lately or even President Obama on Gas Prices. Which makes Sen. Santorum dangerous, because he's either ignorant about what he's preaching. And he believes his own rhetoric, or he's telling Christian Zellets just what they want to hear. Making him a panderer, someone trying to convince North Dakotans there are beach houses for sale in North Dakota. Either way what Rick Santorum is doing is trying to appeal to a certain less then sane and very ignorant. Group of voters in America that are on the Far Right. In order to get their support for the Republican Nomination. At any cost, even if it makes him look like a wack job to anyone not on the Far Right. Which is most of the country.

For Rick Santorum to say the Jack Kennedy's speech on Church and State from 1960, Makes him want to "throw up", he may feel the same way about the First Amendment as a whole. Because thats what Sen. Kennedy was talking about and laid it out perfectly what our most important Constitutional Right means.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Paul Krugman Blog: Paul Krugman & David Morris- Liberals Vs. Progressives

Source: Paul Krugman Blog- Paul Krugman & David Morris-
Source: Paul Krugman Blog: Paul Krugman & David Morris- Liberals Vs. Progressives

Going through the differences between Liberals such as myself and Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists such as, well Paul Krugman or Ed Schultz in the Democratic Party, is a great debate to have, because we are different.

Liberals aren't the same as Socialists (democratic or otherwise) or even Progressives. Liberals are closer to libertarian than socialist or even progressive. Democratic Socialists are Senator Bernie Sanders, from the Socialist Republic of Vermont. Just like Conservatives and Libertarians aren't the same either. Even though they are similar and thats a good debate the Republican Party is having right now. Should they be a party of Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan, should they become libertarian like Ron Paul, or should they keep moving in the same religious and neoconservative direction they've been on the last ten years. Liberals and Socialists aren't part of the same broader political ideology. Where liberal and socialist is another word for the other and even though they are both on the left with similar goals, we have different approaches in how to accomplish them.

Liberals prefer to empower people to solve their own problems and empower them to become self- sufficient. Socialists prefer to empower government to solve these problems for the people. Health care being an excellent example of this, but there are other issues as well. Liberals believe in things like individual liberty, limited government, these are some things we have in common with Libertarians. Socialists tend to believe in collectivism that we are all part of the same community. And one shouldn't be able to be more powerful than others. And they believe you need big government to ensure equality in society with high taxes and a welfare state to ensure equality.

Those are main difference on economic policy. Thats exactly what it's centered around, the role of government especially the Federal Government. And what size it should be and what it should be doing. Liberals tend to be realist and look at the world the way it is and try to make that world as best as it can.

Socialists tend to be idealistic, romantic even and look at the world the way they want it to be. Liberals tend to be more optimistic with a glass half-full approach to the world. Socialists tend to be more pessimistic with a glass half-empty approach to the world.

I'll give you an example of this. When the unemployment rate fell to 8.2% in January, Liberals said look at unemployment level, it's down to 8.2%, we are making progress. Socialists said we still have 8.2% unemployment in America, thats too much. Both are right, but with different analysis's. Liberals and Socialists are both very similar on social issues, but we are very different on economic and foreign policy. Liberals believe in having a strong private sector and free enterprise system. Socialists believe in those things as well to a certain extent, but would like to see everyone taxed much higher. With stronger regulations with the Federal Government providing a lot more public services.

Liberals and Socialists are also different on foreign policy. Liberals tend to be internationalist and believing in strong defense. Socialists would like to cut the defense budget at least in half. And tend to be isolationist and pacifist. We have similar goals but different approaches to accomplishing these goals. Liberals and Socialists are both on the left even in America. The difference being that Liberals are the Center-Left in America and would probably be Center-Right in Canada and Europe, where socialism and social democracy are a lot more popular than they are in America. Socialists tend to operate the Far-Left in America, because Americans tend to put hard limits on what they're willing to pay their government to do for them. And believe in things like strong defense and law enforcement.

I realize that the title of this piece is Liberals vs. Progressives. But that is because this is partially about Paul Krugman in how he distinguishes the two political factions. But Liberals according to him are establishment Democrats more interested in governing, even if that means working with Republicans. And Progressives are more hard-core and ideological and looking to blow up the entire economic system and replace it with a social democratic form of government an economic system. But the fact is a true Progressive is probably the most pragmatic of all the ideological factions. Yes, wanting to use government to create more progress, but in a limited way. And more interested in doing what works and less of a believer in other personal or economic freedom. But instead going step-by-step and issue by issue to determine what works at the given moment.

WMAR-TV: Report: Same-Sex Marriage bill Passes Maryland Senate: Maryland Becoming the Free State

Maryland’s State \nickname is the Free State. And to have a name like that for yourself to take that name and call yourself the Free State, to me at least as a Liberal, you have a lot to live up to. Because it suggests you believe that Marylanders should be free to live their own lives. And not have state restrictions on how you live your own lives. That we are a Free State with free adults, people who live their own lives. 
That big government is not in our bedrooms or wallets. As Barry Goldwater used to describe his own politics. That Marylanders would be able to live their own lives as they see fit. As long as they are not hurting anyone else with what they are doing. Maryland just took a big step today in becoming the Free State by the Senate passing the Same Sex Marriage bill. If you're a believer in individual liberty and limited government, as well as states rights, you don’t have a problem with same-sex marriage. 
Because unless you're gay yourself, it doesn’t effect you. And you believe the best government is the government thats closest to the people. And you don’t believe Uncle Sam should be telling states what laws they can and can’t pass, as long as they are within the U.S. Constitution. If you don’t believe in individual liberty, limited government and states Rights and you're a believer in what is called traditional values, then you would not only have  a problem with same-sex marriage. Even if states make this decision for themselves. 
That you believe government has a role in stopping people from living their own lives, if you don’t like how they live their own lives. Then you have a big problem with same-sex marriage. For Maryland to call itself the Free State, then it has to actually be that. Or Free State means nothing and it has to be a state where big government is out of our wallets and bedrooms.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Universal Newsreel: President John F. Kennedy Proposes Tax Cut in 1962: JFK Proposing Liberal Tax Cuts

Source: Universal Newsreel- President John F. Kennedy-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState Plus

In 1962, President Kennedy a Liberal Democrat, but an actual Liberal Democrat, not someone who’s called a Liberal Democrat, but who’s politics suggests they are something else instead, realized that economic growth was too low. And tax rates were too high and that the Federal deficit was growing too high and that we needed a strong economy to bring down the Federal deficit and put more people back to work. In order to eventually balanced the Federal budget. Which is something that was accomplished by President Lyndon Johnson. The last President with a balanced budget, until President Clinton in 1998. Thats why President Kennedy came out in favor tax cuts in late 1962, if not before and send his plan to Congress. Unfortunately he didn’t live long enough to see his tax cuts passed.

President Kennedy, understood to have a liberal democracy, people had to have the liberty to live their lives. And incentive to be productive with their lives. And not see government collect most of their production. That you had to incentivize people to be productive. For the most people possible to work hard and be productive. And that government spending and activity as it relates to the economy isn’t the only way to incentivize economic production. That you also had to incentivize the people themselves to be as productive as they can in the economy and produce as much as possible. And be able to keep most of what they produce. So they see the benefit of their production.

President Kennedy, wasn’t making a case for supply side economics. That George H.W. Bush before he became Vice President called “Voodoo Economics”. Where you cut taxes dramatically across the board without paying for them up front. The theory being that the new economic growth generated by the tax cuts will pay for themselves. President Kennedy, was also concerned about the Federal deficit. What he was saying was that the Federal Government had to be smart about how it spent money. Limit government waste and not spend money on things we shouldn’t be doing. Or spending too much on things that we should be doing. As well as incentivizing economic growth, with a tax code that doesn’t take too much of what people earn. Jack Kennedy, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, represent where Liberal Democrats should be on taxes. That no one should have to pay a lot in taxes. Meaning so much, that it harms economic growth. But we should all pay our fair share, in a progressive tax system.

Another thing that makes the Kennedy tax cuts from 1962 different from the Ronald Reagan tax cuts of 1981 and the George W. Bush tax cuts of 2001 and what makes the Kennedy tax cuts similar as the Barack Obama tax cuts of 2009, is that the benefit of the tax cuts were aimed at middle-income Americans. And also the Kennedy tax cuts, cut a lot of loopholes in the tax code. He cut rates across the board, but also got rid of a lot of junk in the tax code. For one, to help offset the tax cuts and help to pay for them. But also to get rid of a lot of junk in the code that wasn’t generating economic growth and tended to only benefit the wealthy. President Kennedy, brought down the top rate of the tax code from ninety-percent, to seventy-percent. And the bottom rate from twenty-five percent, to twenty-percent. This tax cut plan that was passed by Congress in 1964 and singed by President Lyndon Johnson and of course the Vietnam War, started an economic boom in America. That lasted the rest of the 1960s.
Universal Newsreel: Income Tax Cut- JFK Hopes To Spur Economy- 1962-63

Friday, February 17, 2012

"The Story of Two Men Trapped in one Body": Who's the Real Mitt Romney

Who is Mitt Romney the real person, the personality, what he believes and knows and so fourth. The answer to that question is only Mitt Romney may know the answer to that and he might not know. To put it simply as a politician, Mitt Romney is whoever he feels he needs to be. To win whatever Public Office he's running for, in 1994 when he was running for US Senate in Massachusetts. He was a Liberal Democrat registered as a Republican, because Sen. Ted Kennedy. Of course was a Democrat, in 2002 running for Governor of Massachusetts. Mitt Romney was a Center Left Democrat registered as a Republican and to hear him say he was an Extremely Conservative Governor. Is like a shark saying it can fly, not credible as GOV. Romney said he had a Democratic Legislature. Where 85% of the members were Democrat, GOV. Romney wouldn't of gotten anything done. As an Extreme Conservative, besides we are talking about Massachusetts, which aint Mississippi. This is not the Bible Belt, its a State thats as blue NYC Police Uniforms. Another way to think about who Mitt Romney might be, would to look at him like the Washington weather. The old joke in Washington, if you don't like the weather, wait ten minutes, because it will change. We've gotten Heat Waves in April that would follow a week of rain, so if you don't like Mitt's positions. Wait ten minutes, because he may change it.

If I had to guess and I'm trying to be positive about Mitt and looking at his background. He's an Old School George HW Bush Northeastern Conservative Republican. Right of Center hardly an extremist who's interested in Economic and Foreign Policy. And is moderate to tolerant if not liberal on Social Issues or doesn't care about them. The reason why then Vice President Bush made such a heavy play for the Christian Right in 1988. When he was running for President, because he wasn't one of them and they knew that. Same thing with Mitt Romney But to be completely honest, Mitt is who he feel he needs to be at the time. To win whatever Public Office he's running for at the time. Which is why he was for the Detroit Bailouts, TARP, Affordable Care Act. Which is the national version of Massachusetts Care that GOV. Romney supported and still supports. Gay Rights, where he's still fairly consistent there and other issues. Until he realizes they are no longer popular, especially in the Republican Party. Thats now so far to the right, Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan would be considered Liberals today. Which is bad for Mitt who would've fit in perfectly with that old GOP from that generation.

A good suggestion for Mitt Romney would be will the real Mitt Romney please stand up. The problem with that however, is at least three different characters would stand up. The Liberal successful businessman Mitt, the turnaround moderate guy, the Christian Conservative. And the Flip Flopper, the guy who was for things before he realized he was against them. Only Mitt may know who he is and the rest of us may never find out.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

The President's FY 2013 Budget Proposal: Ending Veterans Homelessness: How to do it

Its a tragedy that we have Homeless Veterans in America, these people risk their lives. For the United States and come back, either without a home or are so messed up from their Military Experience. Being in combat etc and didn't get the help that they needed while in service. And they weren't able to function when they got home. Unable to get a job or hold a job once they get home, unable to pay their rent or mortgage. Because they aren't able to hold a job, lose their home and are on the street. There examples of Homeless Veterans where their families don't even realize they are Homeless. They lost touched for whatever reasons, otherwise most likely they would've helped their relatives. So what we need to do as a country is making sure our Military Veterans are getting the Healthcare that they need. So we can avoid these situations in the first place. President Obama has a plan to employ Unemployed Veterans who don't have jobs waiting for them. When they get home, thats another step with things like Tax Credits for hiring Military Veterans. But before we get to that, we have to help these people get themselves in position. So they can have a place to live long term, thats not in a Housing Shelter. But like in an apartment or home, that they would pay rent or a mortgage. But for that to happen, they need to be working, they have to get the Healthcare they need. In order to be in position to be working again and get themselves a good job. So they can pay their bills, their housing etc and get back on their feet.

So what we need in America as far as dealing with homelessness, for Military Veterans and everyone else. Is a three step approach, the basic needs for homeless people. The Healthcare they may or may not need, a temporary place to stay, food obviously. Things like State ID if they don't already have one but then we need to take it a step forward. Things like Job Training and Education, which would lead to Job Placement, help them find a job. And then help them if they need it, find a home, if they land a good job. They probably won't need Public Housing, especially if they are functioning Military Veterans. We could these people back to work working on Public Infrastructure, which may be just a temporary job. But they would be up and working, which could lead to a permanent job. And then they can be Self Sufficient, no longer homeless and living in poverty. But able to take care of themselves and once again producing in society. And we can do this by creating what I would call Housing Centers. Which would be an improvement over Homeless Shelters, because these people would get a place to stay in the short term. But moving forward they would get help getting a job and their own place to live.

What we need in America to deal with homelessness, is Housing Centers a Non Profit Organization running these Centers. That are in the business to to help homeless people. But not just give them assistance but empower them to become Self Sufficient. Education, Job Training, Job Placement and Healthcare and the good news. Is we can finance organizations like this with current revenue. Through Public Assistance, Unemployment Insurance, Welfare Insurance, Disability Insurance. Housing Vouchers so they can finance their stay in a Housing Center, Food Assistance. Put the homeless to work at the Housing Centers but we need to get up and actually do these things. Instead of just complaining about the problem.

Monday, February 13, 2012

"President Obama Budget Proposal To Set Up Year-End Clash With Congress": What else is knew

President Obama's 2013 Federal Budget is not about passing a Federal Budget this year. That will be done the way its been done the last ten years unfortunately. With a 3T$ plus Appropriations bill, with Members of Congress not actually reading what they vote for or vote against. If your not going to bother to read a bill, you should vote against it. President Obama's 2013 budget is about, similar to his State of the Union Speech. This is what I'll do If I'm reelected, I don't have the votes in Congress to do what I want to do. But if you reelect me and give me a Democratic Congress, we'll be able to pass the things that you want. Which is exactly what the President should be doing and how your suppose to negotiate. A lesson that I wish the President learned a year ago, put your best offer on the table first. This is what I believe in and I'm going to fight for and if you don't like it. Put your own plan on the table and then we'll let the voters decide who has the best plan in the fall. Instead of laying out what your willing to give up, before the other side puts anything on the table. President Obama wants to make the 2012 General Elections a choice. Because if its a choice, between what he and Democrats wants to do, meaning the Democratic Leadership. Democrats will win but if its a referendum on the Obama Presidency, with at least 8% unemployment. And an economy not growing very fast, with a 15T$ Federal Debt and 2T$ Federal Deficit. Then the President probably loses reelection, except if Rick Santorum is the GOP Nominee. And I don't believe the GOP is dumb enough to allow that to happen.

If I was a President and I got a chance to send a Dead Duck up to Congress, especially the Senate. Where Leader Reid has already announced the Senate is not going to mark up a budget this year. I would send up the best budget I possibly can, because I know it won't become law. And then I can tell Democrats and voters, look I tried I sent them the best budget possible. They rejected it, so blame then we have Checks and Balances, I'm not a dictator. And this is what I would do, I would put a cap on the current Federal Budget. Meaning the Federal Government can spend no more then it did in 2011. The 3.7T$ figure, except in things that have to do with stimulating the economy. But for the economy like passing an Economic and Job Growth Act, as I would call it, instead of Jobs Act. Because if we really want to bring down the Unemployment Rate. Get it down to 7% or so and then go from there, we need much better Economic Growth. We need to get to 4-5% Economic Growth, not 2.8% but then I would pay for this plan. So a cap on all new Federal Spending, except as it relates to Economic and Job Growth. But pay for all of those things as well, but the rest of the Federal Government would get a clean shave. Which gets to cuts and reforms.

The President made the right moves today as they result to both politics and governing. Trying to make the 2012 Elections about a choice and also recognizing that he won't get a Federal Budget passed this year. So he might as well put his best offer on the table and so he can tell voters. That this is what he wants to do but he doesn't have the votes for it. And to do the things that we should be doing as a country. I need more Democrats in Congress.

Friday, February 10, 2012

End Prohibition with Dana Larsen: Even Canadians believe the War on Drugs is wrong

I was under the impression that marijuana was either legal or was legal at least at one point in Canada. Perhaps I was high when I was believing that myself but I guess I was wrong. Even Canadians now believe the War on Drugs is wrong, not saying all of them. But there seems to be a movement in Canada to end the War on Drugs. And treat marijuana like alcohol and tobacco, which is what I'm for and stopping there with marijuana. Not moving to legalize heroin and cocaine and I'll explain later why I stop at marijuana. And if your still awake by then, you'll be able to read it. But the point is why is there growing movements in both America and Canada, to end the War on Drugs. To legalize marijuana and then reform how we treat Heroin and Cocaine Addicts and taking a Mental Health approach. With those people, get them in Drug Rehab and I would even have them pay for Drug Rehab. Instead of forcing Tax Payers who made the smart decision to not get started with heroin and cocaine. To pay for the mistakes of these Narcotic Addicts but have these Addicts pay for their own Drug Rehab instead. Damn think of all the prison space we could save as a country, just by getting these Narcotic Addicts. Into Drug Rehab and out of prison and the prison space. We would be able to free up for people who actually need to be there. And I think its pretty obvious who should be there, to put it simply. The people who hurt society, who either victimized people intentionally or unintentionally by being irresponsible. Not punish people for what they do to themselves, which is what the War on Drugs is about.

The reason why there growing movements in America in States like, Connecticut, Colorado, California, Washington State and yes now even Montana. Not exactly known for Liberal or Libertarian thought, is because these people are recognizing the damage that the War on Drugs has done to our society. All the prisons and jails that its filled up, by people for possessing or using narcotics. There not in jail or prison for what they did to innocent people. Which is what jails and prisons are suppose to be for but for what they did to themselves. Imagine if we applied the War on Drugs logic. Assuming there is any logic to the War on Drugs, not a safe assumption. To junk food and drink, Bike Riding, tobacco, alcohol, gambling, Sky Diving, aviation, athletics. All activities that represent a certain amount of danger to them, thats actually part of the thrill in them. Who wants to live in a World without risk, what would be the point of getting out of bed. If we applied that same logic, to these other activities, most of the country would be in jail. Thats what happens in the War on Drugs, people get arrested for what they do to themselves.

I've lost count how many times I've said this, not that I was keeping count. But if people want to do something bad enough, they'll find a way to do those activities. And the hell with the consequences, telling someone they shouldn't do something. And then saying to them you'll punish them for those activities, is generally not a good enough reason. To get that person to stop what they are doing that you don't approve. If anything its just more motivation. For them to do whatever they were doing, just to piss you off. If you have kids, you know what thats like. Well thats what we are doing as a country with the War on Drugs and a big reason in why its failed.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Pat Robertson Laying out why The War on Drugs is Stupid: Pat Robertson coming out in favor of less Big Government

What I'm about to say might make me vomit right after I say this. But Pat Robertson is damn right on the War on Drugs and the broader Crime and Punishment. It makes no sense to arrest adults for possessing pot and represent no threat to anyone else. We spend 50K$ a year housing people in prison for possessing or using Illegal Narcotics. Money that could be spent on roads, schools, Law Enforcement, lowering taxes, Public Infrastructure. And when we send these people to prison, we do practically nothing for them. And when they get out of prison, they end up doing the same things that ended them up in prison. As Rev. Robertson made his intelligent statement on the War on Drugs and Crime and Punishment. Perhaps the first intelligent statement I've heard Rev. Robertson give on anything, in the same editorial. He blames Liberals for the War on Drugs and War on Crime in America. Perhaps Rev. Robertson forgot the Nixon Administration, President Nixon is the person who declared the War on Drugs. Crime went up during the Reagan Administration and the first Bush Administration. I don't say this to be partisan, just to counter Rev. Robertson. The Clinton Administration passed the 1994 Crime bill, crime went down during the Clinton Administration.

Rev. Robertson is also right that we arrest and put too many people in prison for crimes. That are yes technically illegal but Victimless Crimes. Meaning the crimes don't hurt anyone other then maybe the person committing the crime. So what we need to do is eliminate what Libertarian Author Milton Friedman called "Bad Laws". Stop arresting people for what they do to themselves and just concentrate on people who abuse innocent people. We can start by legalizing marijuana and regulating it like alcohol. Stop arresting adults for possessing pot or smoking pot. And giving those people 3-5 years in prison for doing those things. Spending 50K$ a year housing and taking care of people who can take care of themselves. Save prisons for people who need to be there instead and prepare those inmates for life on the outside so they don't come back.

Israel and Palestine must of just reached a Peace Agreement and agreed on an Independent Palestinian State. Or maybe San Diego is covered in five feet or snow or something right now. Because I just agreed with Pat Robertson on two things in the same day. But he does make two very good points and hopefully other Republicans will come his way on these issues.

ACLU's Laura Murphy on Today Show: "Religious Liberty is Not at Risk": Separation of Church and State

To understand this issue of what role that faith has in America, you need to understand what Freedom of Religion is. As well as Separation of Church and State, the Constitutional Right for Americans to practice or not practice any religion of their choice. But that doesn't mean we have the right to force our Religious Beliefs, including Atheism. On people who disagree with us, for example someone being against Same Sex Marriage. Because they believe their religion is against it and will work to do anything they can. To prevent Same Sex Marriage from happening. Of course you can take that position that Same Sex Marriage and Homosexuality is immoral. I completely disagree with that position but you don't have the right to force your position on the rest of the country through law. To me at least you need a better position, then Same Sex Marriage is immoral. You have a much harder test to pass then that, you have to explain why Same Sex Marriage is immoral. Which is almost impossible to do and you have to explain how Same Sex Marriage would be a threat to the country. Good luck with that and how Same Sex Marriage is a threat to Heterosexual Marriage. And when people who argue against Same Sex Marriage, they say things like. Well if we allow Same Sex Marriage, next we'll be allowing adults to argue against children. You kinda know how warped their argument is.

People who make the argument that if we allow Homosexuals to marry each other. Next adults will want to marry children or marry multiple people at the same time. First of all that argument is crazy, no one is arguing for adults to be able to marry children. And this is generally the first argument they use and they make it their best argument. Again people have the right to believe anything but they don't have the right to their own facts. Or force their positions on the rest of the country, especially when there isn't a consensus. Freedom of Religion especially in a Liberal Democracy like the United States, is exactly that. A Constitutional Right to practice or not practice Religion in America. Not the right to force your Religious Beliefs on the rest of the country and not the right to establish Majority Rule. Over the Constitutional Rights over the Minority, we do have Constitutional Rights for the Minority as well in America. We can make it illegal for people to hurt others but we can't prevent people from living their own lives.

There should be a consensus in America and I think we are basically there. Its really the Fundamentalists Atheists on the Far Left, Newt Gingrich calls them Secular Socialists, he has a point there. That would probably like to eliminate Religion in America and look down to Religious Believers. And the Theocrats on the Far Right, its harder to get farther to the right then Theocrat. That want to force their Beliefs on Religion on the rest of the county. We should be able to agree as a country that people can believe whatever they want to on religion. They just don't have the right to force their beliefs on people who disagree with them.

Friday, February 3, 2012

U.S. Adds 240,000 Jobs in January, Unemployment falls to 8.3%: Good Employment News to start 2012

During the eight years of the Clinton Administration, America created 22M jobs from 1993-01 and average of roughly 229K jobs per month. Last month we created 243K. So at least for that one month, the Obama Administration is ahead of the Clinton Administration. If we stay at this pace or something close to it, for the rest of the year. President Obama will be close to Cruise Control to reelection. Looking at winning 35 States, with around 55% of the Popular Vote. Democrats hold the Senate and the House Republican Majority would be at risk. With all House Democratic Incumbents and Candidates running with the President and the Economy. I wouldn't bet my last dime on any of this happening but this is certainly good news for the President and Congressional Democrats. Especially with a falling Unemployment Rate and if we stay at this pace, maybe we are looking at 7.5% Unemployment by the end of 2012. All this is happening despite Congress's inability to pass any meaningful Jobs Act to promote Economic and Job Growth. Other then extending the Payroll Tax Cut and Unemployment Insurance in January. Which is due to expire at the end of February and those things have to be extended so we can avoid a Middle Class Tax Hike. And so people who are still on Unemployment Insurance, can avoid losing their homes and starving. But it should also be amended to require and encourage Unemployed Workers to get additional Job Training. And go through additional Job Searches, turing Unemployment Offices into Employment Offices. And the House and Senate are working right now to do that.

The January Jobs Report is definitely good news but we can doing a lot more to encourage Economic and Job Growth. And do more for our Construction and Manufacturing Industries. Things like a National Infrastructure Bank so we can invest 200B$ a year in Public Infrastructure, roads, bridges, dams, airports, schools etc. An NIB would be paid for and be Independent of the Federal Government. Wouldn't have to create a new Federal Agency or add to the debt or deficit. Because it would paid for by the Private Sector who would invest in these Infrastructure Projects and collect off of their investments. And of course by the people who use this infrastructure through tolls and fees. President Obama announced a plan to deal with the Housing Market this week. Which doesn't go far enough, we need a Tax Credit or Tax Deduction. For Middle Class Homeowners to write off their bad debt and get out of debt. Or at least get it refined so they can afford to make their payments. For people who are underwater in debt for no fault of their own. Not for people who borrowed to much then they can afford to pay back. This alone would give more money to people to spend because they could get out of debt.

Very positive Jobs Report for the American Economy, we are on a good course to putting people back to work. And bringing down our Unemployment Rate to a positive level. Actually getting it under 8%, where we haven't been in three years, which should be the next goal. But sitting around waiting for that won't make that happen. There's more work to be done.

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy