Solid Principles: U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater- 'On The Failed Liberal Agenda'

Source:Solid Principles- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican Arizona) 

"An Excerpt from a speech from Barry Goldwater on the failed policy of the Liberal Agenda.  Proof that history is repeating, or liberals don't learn from their own history." 

From Solid Principles

What Senator Barry Goldwater called a "Failed Liberal Agenda" (as he saw it) like the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s and even President Eisenhower to a certain extent, even though he was a Center-Right  Progressive/Conservative (lets say) with the Federal Highway System of the 1950s, wasn't a "Liberal Agenda." At least in the economic sense. 

If you look at the word liberal and what it means politically, which is how I describe my politics, sure it was liberal in the sense of its size and how big it was and how much of it there was, but that wouldn't be the political definition of liberal. 

The agenda that Senator Goldwater from an economic point of view by its political definition, is not liberal. The agenda Senator Goldwater was talking about was a social democratic agenda. Social welfare policies to create the American welfare state, which really isn't a welfare state, but a safety net and they're different.

Like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and Welfare Insurance, etc. With the New Deal in the 1930s. And Medicare, Medicaid, Public Housing, etc, with the Great Society in the 1960s.

These are all social insurance programs that Progressives and Social Democrats were able to push through Congress in the 1930s and 1960s. Now I wouldn't of designed those programs the way they were originally designed and I don't believe anyone who is not a Socialist would design those programs that way today either.

I would've designed those programs, especially for the poor and unemployed, to empower them to get themselves to self-sufficiency. And would've added choice and competition from the private sector as well, so these people would have an option of where to receive their public assistance from. 

And with the programs for senior citizens, again more choice and competition and the ability to finance their own retirements so people aren't so dependent on Social Security in their senior years. But these programs which by far, none of them are perfect and all of them need reform today, have all worked at least to a certain extent.

If you look at Social Security- That program has provided millions of senior citizens the ability to not live in poverty.

Unemployment Insurance- Again has provided people with the ability to not live in poverty and not go homeless.

Welfare Insurance- Which by far hasn't been an overall success, at least up until it was reformed in 1996, has given millions of Americans the ability to not go homeless.

Medicare- Which needs major reform, has guaranteed millions of Americans the ability to have health insurance once they retire.

Medicaid- Which again needs major reform, has given millions of low-income people health insurance that they wouldn't otherwise had.

Public housing- Again no one other than a sSocialist would design that program the same way today. Without that we would probably have tens of millions or more people living homeless today.

All these programs are far from perfect when they were originally designed and don't meet a lot of the demands today and all need to be reformed. But they've all contributed to making America a greater society.

Liberty Pen: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Thomas Sowell: 'Barack Obama's Vision'

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Thomas Sowell, talking to Peter Robinson on Uncommon Knowledge.

"(2008) Thomas Sowell discusses his concerns with the unconstrained vision of Barack Obama. Liberty Pen."

From  Liberty Pen

I have my issues with Barack Obama as well. He was actually my fourth choice for President in 2008. We Democrats unlike Republicans, today had a deep presidential field in 2008.

My first choice was Al Gore but he decided not to run for President. My second choice was Bill Richardson but his campaign went nowhere in the Democratic primaries and was unable to raise a serious amount of money. My fall back option was Hillary Clinton because even though I had issues with her which mostly went to character. I saw then Senator Clinton, as very political and looking mostly towards her political career, rather than doing what's right. But I saw her basically as a Progressive who wouldn't do anything stupid or crazy and run too far to the left to appeal to Democratic Socialists in the party.

Obviously none of my choices came through. I didn't support then Senator Obama from the start because I saw him as a Democratic Socialist trying to transform America into another Europe. Which is why the Far-Left flank in the Democratic Party threw all of their support behind Senator Obama, rather than Representative Dennis Kucinich, who they are more ideologically in touch with. Because they saw Barack Obama as a candidate who could not only with the Democratic nomination for President, but win the general election over John McCain in November of 2008 which of course is what he did.

My other fear about Barack Obama is that he would tax and spend and not do what it took to protect the country. So far in Barack Obama's presidency my fears going into his presidency have been wrong. My problems with President Obama's leadership now are exactly about his leadership. I see him as somewhat weak, to willing to lay down goals of what he wants to do. And not willing enough to lay down a vision on how to get there. Too willing to say this is what I want done and then forming a committee and telling them: "this is what I expect you to accomplish, tell me what you come up with and I'll let you know what I think about it."

Barack Obama despite all the claims that the Far-Right have made about him, is no Socialist. His faith in the welfare state is clearly limited, which is something I actually like about him. He would actually be an insult to Socialists to call Barack Obama a Socialist. His supporters from 2008 the people that were with him the whole way up until 2010 ,could be called Socialists. Despite all the claims that the Far-Left have made, Barack Obama is no Conservative either and would actually be an insult to Conservatives to label Barack Obama a Conservative.

What Barack Obama is even though his Senate voting record makes him look a lot farther to the left, is a Center-Left Progressive, similar to Teddy Roosevelt. Basically a Progressive similar to Bill Clinton, perhaps a little farther to the left, still a Progressive like Clinton, but more cautious and willing to compromise, rather than make a good deal than just fight the fight. At least thats how he governs, I'm talking more about his governing style. I believe his actual politics are farther to the left and has a bolder vision of what he wants to accomplish.

But President Obama's practical side tells him that only so much is possible and you should just try to accomplish that or you'll be left with nothing. And I believe the same thing can be said about Bill Clinton, who personally is a Progressive-Liberal. ( In the classic and real sense )

As a real Classical Liberal myself ( the reals Liberals in America ) who just views myself as a Liberal, I have my own issues with President Obama and they don't just have to do with his leadership but his politics as well. I wish he was stronger on gay rights like with gay marriage, but I believe he's been strong everywhere else on gay rights.

I wish President Obama would come out for marijuana decriminalization and come out for reforming the War on Drugs more broadly. So we stop treating drug addicts like criminals and treat them like patients that need help. I wish he would come out for prison reform so we can do something about reducing or 2M prison inmate population and start preparing these inmates for life on the outside as well as alternative sentencing for non-violent offenders.

I wish President Obama wouldn't have signed the Patriot Act which I believe is unconstitutional because it violates the Fourth Amendment. Which is why he voted against it in Congress. And his latest position on the War Powers Act as it relates to Libya to me is quite frankly scary, the sixty days have long past. But he doesn't believe he needs a Congressional resolution on it.

President Obama is no Socialist or no Conservative. He's a Progressive or at least thats how he governs. Because I believe he believes thats the best way a Democrat can get reelected President of the United States and win Independent voters, who rather make a good deal then fight the good fight.

Liberty Pen: The Charlie Rose Show- Thomas Sowell: The Vision Of The Anointed

Source:Liberty Pen- author Thomas Sowell, on the Charlie Rose Show, talking about his book.

"Thomas Sowell discusses the premise behind his book, "Vision of the Anointed." Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

Anytime I here someone or a group of people say that they have a plan or a vision on how to make people's lives better, especially low-income and low-skilled people and they say: "Trust us, you no longer have anything to worry about, we'll take care of you or something." I get skeptical. (To put it mildly)

Who are these great society planners to decide how others should live their own lives and make more people dependent on government for their economic survival? Especially planners who are attempting to plan the lives of others they've never met and never know and in some cases are planning the lives of others from 3000 miles away. 

If you want people to be free especially in a free society and especially for people who haven't had a full taste of freedom because they are lets say economically challenged, they simply don't have the money that middle class people and high- earners and to compound the problem, don't have the skills to get a good job to have those advantages, you empower these people to further their education so they can get a good job and live in freedom on their own.

Let economically challenged America be free. Give them the freedom to live their own lives and be able to take care of themselves and their families. Instead of making them dependent on government or more dependent on government, funded by of course taxpayers.

Empower the economically challenged to get the skills that they need to be self-sufficient in life and not need government to take care of them.

All social insurance programs that are designed to help low-income and low-skilled people, should be designed to empower them to take care of themselves. Thats my main issue with the New Deal and Great Society programs, because even though they both provided assistance for people who were economically disadvantaged, they didn't empower them to get the skills that that they need by helping them go back to school or go to school. Or receive additional skills in school to be able to finally take care of themselves. Creating this "culture of dependency" on public assistance for people to survive.

Socialist-Collectivists believe in taxing the rich for one reason: to take from the rich and to give to the poor, like Robin Hood. And they of course have this collectivist view that no one should be rich and be able to make a lot of money. Especially compared to the rest of society, even if their skills and production give them the ability too.

The answer to helping the economically disadvantaged is not to take from wealthy people just to give to low-income people. What we should do instead is to create more wealth.

First, by leaving in the incentives for people to make a good living legally and through hard work.

And to empower low-income people to get the skills that they need to do the same thing. It's the collectivist vs individualist argument.

Liberal economics is about liberating people in need to clime the economic ladder and liberate themselves from poverty. Yes, through some public assistance like short-term financial assistance to help people in need survive short-term. But just as important if not more important empowering people in need to liberate themselves from poverty and live in freedom on their own. That gets to things like education, economic development, and infrastructure. Not to take from people who've already made it to subsidize the economically disadvantaged. 

The Real News: Paul Jay Interviewing- Joshua Landis: 'Syria's President Offers Future Reforms, Blames Conspiracy For Protests'

Source:The Real News Network- Civil war in Syria.

"Joshua Landis: Most Syrians want deep political and economic reform but fear ethnic civil war." 

From The Real News Network

The last thing that America needs to do is to get involved in another foreign war. Especially since we are already involved in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya as well. And with the President's current position on the War Powers Act, I'm not willing to endorse the idea that we get involved in Syria either. 

But this doesn't mean the West including America and Arabia should be silent on what the Assad Regime is doing about the democratic protests in Syria either. There are other things that we can do to push Syria to stop the crackdowns on the democratic protests there that wouldn't have to involve committing American or NATO troops there.

Like with economic sanctions there, but do it with a coalition, that includes America, Canada, the European Union and the Arab League. As well as sending in a military force that could include, Turkey, perhaps Israel, the Arab League and maybe even the European Union. Not to take down the Assad Regime and wipe out its military, but to provide protection and cover for the democratic protesters there, to prevent violence and to defend the protesters there. 

And the American military could assist in a way not with troops or planes or ships, but with resources and equipment to whatever international coalition that would develop to protect the Syrian people from unfortunately their own government.

As well as we could essentially bribe members of the Assad Regime and it's military to defect from that Regime, including President Assad himself. And get an agreement with the Syrian opposition to not prosecute, or punish whoever were to defect from the Assad Regime once they were to take power. 

We could help push the Assad Regime out-of-power and to make room for a new democratic government, or a transitional government to start off there. Similar to what's going on in Egypt until they elect a new government with peaceful means.

The last thing that America needs to do is get involved in another war, as far as committing more troops, bases, tanks, planes, ships, etc. Especially since we are currently paying for two wars that we can't afford by borrowing all the money. But what we can do is assist others in doing this to promote a peaceful resolution in Syria and bring the Assad Regime down. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Associated Press: 'Give President Obama New Debt Limit Power, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Says'

Source:Associated Press- U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican, Kentucky) and Senator Tom Barrasso (Republican, Wyoming)

"The Senate GOP has offered to give Pres. Obama new powers over the debt limit by letting him request increases in the government's borrowing authority over the next year, as long as he simultaneously proposes spending cuts of greater size." 

From the Associated Press

I think Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is actually on to something here (finally) but I would amend what he's trying to do. 

I believe if the Federal Government if they are going to be able to borrow more money by raising the debt ceiling, they should show that are willing to start paying their bills by actually paying them and not borrow more money to pay other bills. Its a way to bring fiscal responsibility to a bloated Federal Government that I believe at least at times has no concept of the idea. 

The Federal Government can do this in a way that doesn't hurt the country in any way, aid to the poor, aid to senior citizens, national security, etc. The United States Government has borrowed literally 4T$ in the last 2 1/2 years, not all of it the Obama Administration's fault, but it's all happened on their watch and they are responsible for dealing with it while they are in charge and they know this. 

So what I'm proposing is that we raise the debt ceiling by 4T$ but we simply pay for it. If we pay for the 4T$ that the FEDS have borrowed, then we go back down to a 10T$ national debt which is still way to big, that would still be 70% of our gross national product (or GDP) but thats a lot more manageable then 14T$ or 90% of GDP where it stands now. And by paying the 4T$ off, we can also pay down our 1.6T$ budget deficit and move to start paying down the national debt as well. 

This would also be a boost to our economy because it would boost the American dollar and be an indicator that America is finally getting serious about its deficit and debt and that we are finally paying our bills and will not become another Greece that is dependent of foreign money just to pay its bills. 

Again we can pay for the debt ceiling increase without hurting anyone, by reducing our defense spending in areas like defending developed nations that can afford to defend themselves and closing those foreign bases. 

Reforming our social insurance programs like our entitlement programs, in a way to design them just for people that need them, which is another way of saying means testing. Reforming our other social insurance programs like our anti-poverty programs in a way, so they are designed to move people off of them and into self-sufficiency. 

Ending corporate welfare including agriculture welfare and other tax loopholes and then raising taxes on people who can afford to pay them. Like a new millionaires tax and a new billionaires tax. And using all these savings to pay for the debt ceiling increase and start to pay off the broader national debt as well. 

We can pay for the debt ceiling increase and pay down the deficit and debt without hurting anyone who needs public assistance with strategic budget cuts, reform and demanding more for people who can afford to pay more.

Wide World of Wisdom: Fred Barnes- Interviewing Thomas Sowell: 'The Difference Between Liberal & Conservative'

Source:Wide World of Wisdom- conservative writer Thomas Sowell, being interviewed by FOX News's Fred Barnes, in 2006.

"Thomas Sowell discusses characteristics that define liberals and conservatives, and his own personal transition from Marxism to libertarianism. From: "Thomas Sowell: In the Right Direction"

Fox News (2005)" 

From Wide World of Wisdom

If you look at what actual classical liberalism is ( which I just view as liberalism ) and you look at what classical conservatism, ( which I just view as conservatism is ) actual liberalism and conservatism, they are actually not that different. They both believe in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, they both believe in protecting and defending those rights.

Both Liberals and Conservatives, believe in individual liberty and individualism, they are both internationalist on foreign policy, they both believe in a strong national defense, they both believe in American capitalism, they both believe in limited government.

Liberals and Conservatives,  actually have a lot in common, perhaps more than they don't have in common. They both believe in self-governance, that people have the right to live their own lives as they see fit as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. That government should protect innocent people from being harmed by others, but not try to protect adults from themselves. And not try to regulate how adults live their own lives.

The differences come in how these things are carried out. They have differences when it comes to interpreting the U.S. Constitution, they are both internationalists, but in different forms. Liberal Internationalists tend to be more willing to negotiate and Conservative Internationalists tend to be more willing to use military force.

Liberals tend to be more in favor regulation in the economy to prevent people from abusing other people. Conservatives tend to believe that regulation isn't always needed and that the private market can work these abuses out on its own.

Liberals and Conservatives, both believe in limited government, but again in different forms and I'll use the economy as an example. Liberals tend to believe that government can be used to help people who are down help themselves to become self-sufficient. Conservatives tend to believe that a lot of these social services should be privatized and let the market empower these people instead.

See, liberalism and conservatism are both centered around the U.S. Constitution and individual liberty. Protecting individual rights and letting people live their own lives. Liberal comes from the word liberty and conservative meaning someone who wants to conserve. And when it comes to politics and government, that means conserving constitutional rights for individuals. 

Liberals and Conservatives might have more in common than they don't and why they are the two leading political ideology's in the country right now. With democratic socialism and authoritarianism, whether it's theocratic or or secular being on the outside looking in. Instead of being considered part of the mainstream of American politics.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Charles Kesler: 'On The Grand Liberal Project'

Source:Hoover Institution- Charles Kesler, being interviewed by Peter Robison, on Uncommon Knowledge.

"In a sweeping review of American political history, Kesler outlines the grand liberal project begun a century ago.  It is a project, he asserts, that has expressed itself in three distinct waves: political liberalism, economic liberalism, and cultural liberalism.  Kesler further maintains that Barack Obama seeks nothing less than to complete and perfect this project.  Finally, he confronts the issues of how conservatism lost its way in the face of the liberal project and how it might regain its imitative." 

From the Hoover Institution

What conservative historian Charles Kesler is talking about is American socialism, a political philosophy that’s government centric. And in the United States Federal Government centric, but there are left-wing governors and other leftist Democrats in state government that believe in a certain level of federalism. But the idea of American socialism is a very collectivist political philosophy that’s about using government to make society better.

Socialists believe we need these government policies and government programs to make people’s lives better for them. Even if we need high taxes to finance all of these programs: "That if government has a lot of the people’s resources, then that money will be spent better. And those decisions will be made better if big government is doing these things better for us, than people spending their own money on their behalf and making their own decisions".

But the philosophy that I just described is not liberalism and is America’s version of democratic socialism. Where you mix in capitalism and the private sector with a large welfare state, to assure that resources are spread out equally that’s common in Europe. And in Europe this philosophy would actually be described as socialism. 

But in America with socialist and socialism having such negative stereotypes and so-forth attached to them, Socialists in America tend to be called Progressives, even though they're Socialists, which is very different. You have left-wing Progressives like FDR and LBJ and you have right-wing Progressives like Nelson Rockefeller.

But this is not liberalism because liberalism is about the individual. And progressive in the sense that government has a role to see that as many people as possible have the opportunity to live in freedom. But it’s not the job of government to take care of people. And it’s not the job of government to give us our freedom. But to see that the opportunities are there for people to get their freedom for themselves like through education and job training. A safety net for people who are out-of-work that empowers them to work their way back to being able to take care of themselves and so-forth.

When right-wing historians like Charles Kesler and others examine and write about liberalism or progressivism or socialism or communism, they tend to put all these philosophies into one pot. As if they are all the same thing and depending on how partisan or ignorant they are about liberalism and tend to look at liberalism as America’s version of communism or Islamism. That Liberals want to outlaw all individual freedom basically and make everyone dependent on the state and so-forth.

Liberalism is not about the state, but about the individual. That Liberals believe in individual freedom. But both economic and personal freedom, not like some right-wingers today when they are talking about individual freedom, they are mainly talking about economic freedom and religious freedom for Christians. But that "personal freedom is dangerous because it empowers people to make bad decisions that are bad for society as a whole who has to pay for them".

Another thing about liberalism and Liberals is that Liberals not only believe in individual freedom again both personal and economic freedom, but that individual freedom should be for everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality. Or even income level, that all Americans should have the opportunity to live in individual freedom in America.

And that government has a role to see that these opportunities are there for everyone, but what people do with these opportunities is up to us. And not having a welfare state there to take care of everyone. And have everyone dependent on the state for our economic well-being. 

Liberals truly believe in individual freedom, but again for everyone, whereas today's so-called Progressives ( Socialists, really ) believe in the welfare state. To be there to take care of everyone mixed in with private-enterprise.