VOA News: 'Nevada Families Struggle with Poverty In Shadow of Casinos'

Source:VOA News- one of the women interviewed for this piece.

"Voice of America (VOA) is the America's largest[1][2][3] and oldest international broadcaster funded by the U.S. Congress.[4][5] VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in 47 languages which it distributes to affiliate stations around the globe. It is primarily viewed by foreign audiences, so VOA programming has an influence on public opinion abroad regarding the United States and its people.

VOA was established in 1942,[6] and the VOA charter (Public Laws 94-350 and 103-415)[7] was signed into law in 1976 by President Gerald Ford.

VOA is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and overseen by the U.S. Agency for Global Media, an independent agency of the U.S. government.[8] Funds are appropriated annually under the budget for embassies and consulates. In 2016, VOA broadcast an estimated 1,800 hours of radio and TV programming each week to approximately 236.6 million people worldwide with about 1,050 employees and a taxpayer-funded annual budget of US$218.5 million." 

From Wikipedia 

"In the shadow of the glittering casinos and resorts of Las Vegas, Nevada, many poor families are struggling to get by.  Several recent studies have found that one in five American children lives in poverty, and that two and a half million more children now are poor than in 2000.  Family poverty has become especially severe in the state of Nevada.  Mike O'Sullivan reports from Las Vegas that a slow tourist economy and a dismal housing market have forced many to seek help." 

From VOA News

There's a way to help the homeless in America and it's what is being done in Las Vegas. Help them, yes by giving them a temporary place to stay and food, yes, but also help them get on their feet so they can support themselves and this gets to job placement and housing placement, so they have the resources to support themselves and be self-sufficient but also have a place to live. 

And this just has to deal with the homeless population who are unemployed, who are sort of down on their luck and perhaps were evicted. Maybe their Unemployment Insurance ran out or something. And it looks like this Las Vegas program is targeted at that faction of the homeless population. 

This is what we should've been doing all along to help the homeless population, especially the homeless who are just unemployed to help them get back to work and that might get to additional job training so they can get another job in another field. Instead of just essentially warehousing people by giving them a meal and a cot for a night and then sending them back on the street the next day. 

This approach empowers homeless people because it helps them get back on their feet to become productive taxpayers again. Instead of collecting public assistance or begging for money or food on the street. 

If you want people to remain homeless, give them a meal and cot in a homeless shelter for a night and then put them back on the street the next day or better yet don't do anything for them, because you're indifferent or you don't give a damn about them. 

But if you want to help homeless people, give them a meal, give them a room like you would see in a housing center (not homeless shelter) and they are different and them help them get a job so they can support themselves and then help them find their own place to stay. And then they'll no longer be homeless but self-sufficient productive people. Who are paying into public services instead of collecting from them.    

Another way to help homeless people or to prevent homelessness in the future, is how we help our unemployment and welfare populations. Both of these populations who collect from Unemployment and Welfare Insurance have time limits on how long they can collect that assistance. So during that period, what we should be doing as a country is putting these people to work. 

With the unemployed, that just might mean finding them another job that they can support themselves with. But with our Welfare population, the reason why they are on Welfare Insurance to begin with, is because they don't have the skills that they need to support themselves and their families. 

Education, job training, and job placement, so these folks can get the skills that they need to get a good enough job in order to support themselves and their families. Which would be an investment up front but would pay off in the long term because they would become taxpayers instead of tax collectors.  

The good news in the so-called War on Poverty and War on Homelessness (if you want to call them that)  is that we have the resources already as a country to deal with homelessness in America to empower them to get themselves on their feet. 

Section Eight Public Housing to finance the temporary stay in a housing center for the homeless. Unemployment Insurance to finance to help sustain them while they are in transition to getting on their feet. And Medicaid to cover their health insurance while they are in transition. So this something as a nation we should be doing.

Associated Press: Haven Daley- 'Long Island Prepares for Hurricane Irene'

Source:Associated Press- Hurricane season comes to the Northeast.

"After battering other parts of the East Coast, Hurricane Irene now has Long Island, NY in its sights. As AP's Haven Daley reports, residents and visitors on the island are hoping for the best but preparing for the worst. (August 27)" 

From the Associated Press

Seems to me every time that America has to deal with big storms which is every year, we are a huge country between two large oceans with 310M people we have to deal with big winter storms in the Winter (when else) goes without saying 2011 being no exception. We have to deal with flooding in the spring and summer with all of the rain, hurricanes, and earthquakes in the summer and even fall. If you live in the Mid Atlantic as I do, heat waves in the Fall as well. 

America is capable of getting just about any natural disaster possible as well as man-made disasters. And almost every time we get these storms, we deal with them generally after they occur rather than before they occur. 

I'm talking about mainly how we pay for them: Hurricane Katrina of 2005 is an excellent example of this, where the Federal Government apparently wasn't even aware that it was happening as it was happening. At least not the White House and the Director of FEMA Federal Emergency Management Service Mike Brown lost his job as a result. And was fired by Mike Chertoff the then Secretary of Homeland Security.

I'm a big fan of reforming the Federal Government because it needs a lot of reform, its too bloated, too big, too wasteful, has too much responsibility. The things that it does well, it does real well and Emergency Management has historically been one of those areas. But the things it doesn't do well, it's awful and wasteful at. Like managing a budget, where it wastes hundreds of billions of dollars a year alone in some agency's, Medicare and Defense being perfect examples of this. 

This post will be about Federal Government reform, but I'll focus on disaster relief because of Hurricane Irene and how we can do a better job in this area. Hurricane Katrina of 2005 is an example of where the Federal Government wastes a lot of money, six years later New Orleans and the Greater Gulf Coast is still trying to recover from that disaster where we borrowed in the neighborhood of 100B$ or more to deal with that storm. Because the Federal Government wasn't prepared to deal with it, didn't budget the money to deal with a storm like that. 

The people didn't budget the money on their own to deal with that storm as well. Things like property insurance and lost their homes and ended up homeless and living in trailer homes set up by FEMA. Where of course FEMA borrowed the money to set up these projects and people ended up living in rotten conditions. And some of them having to move to Houston because there weren't enough adequate homes for them in the Gulf Coast. 

These issues that are preventable that are problems that don't have to happen, if we just better prepare ourselves up front from that start. So we don't wait for the problems to occur before we deal with them but we prepare for them before they happen. 

What the Federal Government should be doing instead is stetting up a Federal system of disaster relief and insurance that any property owner or renter would have to pay into. That the Federal Government wouldn't run but somewhat oversee and they would regulate it. That would have its own revenue source to pay for their operations. That both the relief and insurance would be semi-private, non-profit . Where each state would have its own disaster relief and insurance system, that would be funded through like a payroll tax. That the Federal Government would just regulate, so when there's a natural disaster, this system would already have the funds to provide the cleanup. 

We also need disaster insurance that people who paid into could collect when their property is damaged as the result of a natural disaster. We deal with natural disasters every year as a country but never seem to be able to deal with the aftermath of them very well as far as paying for them. And with this bad economy where money is already very tight and with a national debt and deficit of 14T$ and 1.8T$. We need to as a country and the Federal Government needs to be smarter with our money.

RT America: Francis Fukuyama- 'End of History For Neoliberalism?'

Source:RT America- Well, if Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin had his way, what perhaps Russia calls neoliberalism (which is actually liberal democracy) would end. 

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

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

From Wikipedia 

"Liberal democracy is really all there is now," political economist and author Francis Fukuyama said in 1992. Fukuyama's theory, outlined in "The End of History and the Last Man" claimed that neoliberal economic policies and liberal democracies were the "universal consensus" that arose from the fall of the Berlin Wall. But a report released by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) this month states that China will overtake the US economically by 2016. Based on both countries' purchasing power parity, "the Chinese economy will expand from $11.2 trillion this year to $19 trillion in 2016. Meanwhile the size of the U.S. economy will rise from $15.2 trillion to $18.8 trillion. That would take America's share of the world output down to 17.7%, the lowest in modern times. China's would reach 18% and [continue] rising." So is neoliberalism the end of history—or history?" 

From RT America

This notion of neoliberalism that Democratic Socialists use to describe liberalism is a myth. And when they talk about so-called Neo-Liberals the Bill Clinton's of the world, they are talking about actual Liberals. People who are not as liberal as me especially on social issues, but economic policy and even foreign policy. But they are still Liberals with liberal positions and not centrists. Socialists don't like what they call "neoliberalism, because it doesn't fit into their collectivist ideology.

And Liberals tend to support things like strong national defense.

Strong law enforcement.

Free trade.

Tax cuts, low taxes, fiscal responsibility, decentralization of government power.

Government living within the U.S. Constitution, empowering people to help themselves instead of empowering government to take care of them.

Freedom of choice in health care and on other economic issues as well as social issues.

Liberalism unlike socialism is not government-centered, but people-centered. Liberalism is and individualist ideology similar, but different from classical conservatism and libertarianism. Whereas socialism is a collectivist ideology. 

The socialist idea being government shouldn't allow some people to do a lot better than others and take from them when they do, etc. And Socialists especially in the Democratic Party, especially don't like people who I would call Moderate Liberals, who emerged in the Democratic Party in the mid 1980s. 

People who were labeled New Democrats. The Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Joe Lieberman's of the World. Democrats who wanted to move the party past the New Deal and Great Society and George McGovern era, when Democrats were labeled by Conservatives and others and I believe to a certain extent had a case, as tax and spenders. People who believe in a strong centralized Federal Government with high taxes to finance it.

Thanks to the New-Left that emerged in and outside of the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s, we saw the Democratic Party get whipped in three straight presidential elections from 1980-88 as well as lose the Senate in 1980 for the first time a generation. And saw the Republican Party hold the Senate for two more elections and decided it was time to move the Democratic Party past this era. 

So you have Democratic Socialists in the Democratic Party who are anti-liberalism, because they know that their main competition in the party and also know Liberals run the party. And you have others who don't know any better that get liberalism mixed up with libertarianism and people on the Far-Right who mix up liberalism with democratic socialism. 

Libertarianism and classical conservatism are similar political ideology's from liberalism, but are different. The similarity's are that all three of these ideology's are built around the U.S. Constitution and individual freedom. The differences are that Libertarians want government out of the economy all together and just want government to protect individual freedom and keep the streets safe.

Classical Conservatives- The Barry Goldwater's and to large extent the Ronald Reagan's of the world, would like to privatize or block grant to the states a lot of the American safety net. Liberals believe government can help people in need empower themselves to become self-sufficient and these are just the differences on economic policy.

The idea of neoliberalism is a myth from Democratic Socialists who don't like liberalism and especially moderate liberalism. They feel they use to run the Democratic Party from the 1930s up to the 1990s and feel left out. And would like to get their power and back and take back the Democratic Party.

The term RINO (Republican in name only) that the Tea Party has invented, well the Democrats have that term for themselves, but replace the R with a D and I'm not talking about Dean Martin (ha, ha) but DINO's are what the Far-Left calls Democrats in name only. People who use to run the Democratic Party in the 1960s and 1970s and now see themselves out-of-power and are now only Democrats in name only, because they don't have another major party to call home. 

But ideologically the Far-Left of the Democratic Party is much further left than Center-Left Liberal Democrats who believe in liberal democracy. Instead of some collectivist socialist society where we're all dependent on government for our daily economic survival. 

Pot TV: U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich- 'At Seattle Hempfest (2011)'

Source:POT TV- U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) speaking at Hempfest in Seattle, Washington.

"POT TV - US Congressman Dennis Kucinich speaking on the main stage at the 20th Anniversary celebration of Seattle Hempfest on August 20, 2011. See photos of Seattle Hempfest 2011 onCannabis Culture." 

From Pot TV

Even though I rarely agree with Representative Dennis Kucinich on anything other than social issues, decriminalization of marijuana being one of them, like Representative Ron Paul I have a lot of respect for Representative Kucinich, because he's one of the most honest members of Congress, which you might be thinking doesn't sound like much. But it's true, he's a very honest man and one of the most honest of the 535 members of Congress that we have. He's very articulate and one of the best spokespeople for the democratic socialist or socialist libertarian movement in America. 

The arguments that Representative Kucinich makes for decriminalization of marijuana and treating heroin, cocaine and meth addicts like patients instead of criminals, is very similar to the arguments that I make on this issue as well. Actually, except for economic policy, Representative Kucinich and Representative Paul are very similar on most other issues. It's just that Representative Paul is a Classical Libertarian on all issues for the most part, I believe abortion being the only on where he's not libertarian on. And Representative Kucinich is a Democratic Socialist on economic Policy. (The Bernie Sanders of the U.S. House) I'm closer to Representative Paul on economic policy than Representative Kucinich because I'm a Liberal.  But I'm very similar to both of them on Social Issues. 

I want government off of my back and out of my wallet, thats where Ron Paul and myself are similar. And only have government do things that we can't do for ourselves. If thats the type of government we had, our taxes would be very low and our freedom would be very high. 

Representative Kucinich being a Democratic Socialist on economic policy, likes the idea of high taxes to fund a large welfare state of social insurance programs. Similar to what they have in Britain and Sweden. So thats my main disagreement with Dennis Kucinich. (And that he's basically a hippie-pacifist on foreign policy) 

Representative Kucinich and I are very similar if not identical on social issues. 

But Rep. Kucinich is dead right as far as I'm concern on the so-called War on Drugs, along with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and with Libya coming to a close. The forty year so-calledWar on Drugs in America is another war we should end as well. We've fought a stupid and hypocritical war, where we have drugs that worse for people than marijuana, that are legal, like alcohol and tobacco. 

And this has been a stupid war where we arrest people for what they do to themselves rather than what they do to innocent people. And we lock them up in prison making our prisons more crowded than they need to be. Taking the space that should be occupied by actual dangerous criminals who do represent a threat to innocent people. When we would save so much money and actually make money as an economy and government and put people to work. 

We need decriminalization of marijuana and then getting heroin, cocaine and meth addicts the help that they need in drug rehab and halfway houses where they would pay for their stays. It's rare if ever that I agree with Representative Dennis Kucinich on economic policy, even though he does make good arguments. And is honest and believes what he says but he's dead right on most social issues and to some extent on foreign policy as well. And he deserves a lot of respect for that. 

 On a personal note: this is my 100th post for FRS FreeState.

Associated Press: 'Gaddafi Rule Is Over'

Source:Associated Press- Libyans experiencing freedom?

"Libyan rebels claimed to be in control of most of the Libyan capital of Tripoli, and President Barack Obama says Moammar Gadhafi's rule is over. Still, there's no sign of the Libyan ruler. (Aug. 22)" 

From the Associated Press

Now that it looks like Moammar Gaddaf rule is over in Libya and the forty year reign of the Gadaffi Regime has fallen and now it just might be a matter of capturing, or killing Moammar Gaddafi, its not too soon to look ahead at what Libya could be in the future. Assuming that the Libyan Rebels the Transitional National Council of Libya are democrats. And not just another authoritarian faction trying to install its own version of authoritarianism and its own authoritarian regime. 

Libya has a lot of challenges unlike, Egypt which already has a functioning national government and it was just a matter of replacing the leadership. President Hosni Mubarak and his people.

Libya doesn't have that. They don't have a constitution, or other government institutions that can balance the country until a permanent government can take power. Actually, Libya doesn't even have state or provincial governments, in a country thats physically the size of Iran a very large country. But with only 6M people, so whatever Transitional Authority emerges in Libya will have a lot of challenges facing it right way. 

Libya will need to create a new national government, but a national constitution, as well as establishing provincial and local government's. Because all of the power in Libya was based with the Gaddafi Regime in Tripoli.

I don't claim to be an expert on Libya and saying that this would be the perfect system and form of government for them. But when you're talking about a country that is this big one the largest countries in the world physically, that is deep in energy sources, a bottom-up approach when it comes to government and governing under a national constitution could work well for them. Something like a federal system and federal republic. 

The current Federal Republic of Germany was created almost seventy years ago, as well as Italy. Where you create twenty or so states and provinces with their own democratic government's that are accountable to their own people. With local democratic government's within the states, or provinces.With the democratically elected federal government based in Tripoli that handles national affairs. Foreign relations, national security, interstate crime, security, the currency, economic development, financial aid to struggling communities, things that typical federal government's deal with in Canada, America and Europe. 

Libya needs a national constitution that lays out certain basic fundamental rights for the people that is hopefully secular, at least in nature, while protecting freedom of religion for everyone. As well as lays out the responsibilities for the national executive, legislature, independent judiciary and the relations between the federal government and the states and localities.

Libya is going to have to build a health care system, an education system, law enforcement, a judicial system, a military that can responsibly defend this large country, that doesn't violate human rights. Rebuilding Libya, or just building Libya won't be as challenging as building Afghanistan, which perhaps has never really had a national government. 

Libya does has a very large supply of oil and could be if its not already an energy independent nation. So they do have some resources that they can use to build up their country and develop a lot of it. Because a lot of Libya has never been developed, one of the reasons why it only has 6M people in a land the size of Iran. The Gaddafi Regime never put in the resources to develop Libya to its full-potential.

Libya is yet another country that the United States shouldn't step in and try to occupy. It's about time that we learn our lessons from Afghanistan and Iraq. But what we can do with NATO, the United Nations, the European Union the Arab league, with the permission of the Libyan Transitional National Council, is to work with them to develop its country. With trade agreements, lifting economic sanctions on Libya, foreign aide so they can build up their schools, health care system, help them develop their legal system and governmental institutions.

But the TNC and the Libyan people need to figure out what type of country they are going to have in the future and the international community can help them reach that. Like stabilizing the Libyan oil industry, which would help them develop their country and provide the financial resources to do so. 

It's great that Moammar Gaddafi is out-of-power and at least not running that country anymore. But this won't be over until he is captured and then the Libyan people can move on build their own Libya the way they want to and become a valuable player in the international community. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Bob Parker: CBS News- '1968 a Year That Changed America'

Source:Bob Parker- Dr. Martin L. King, speaking at an African-American church.

"1968 A Year that Changed America with Harry Reasoner. A look back on the year 1968, produced by CBS News in 1978." 

From Bob Parker

Even though the civil rights movement had lost its champion in 1968 in Dr. Martin Luther King, what he contributed to it was enough to keep it going. And what that movement had accomplished up to 1968, never happens at least by then without Martin King. 

The civil rights movement is exactly that: civil rights for all Americans, not just the special few. It's not about special rights for special interest groups, but equal rights for all people. Which is what America should've always been as a liberal democracy: individual liberty and equal Rights and responsibility for all, not just the special few. 

What the opposition to civil rights was pushing and had a lot of success up until the 1940s, was to push an anti-democratic agenda for anyone who wasn't Caucasian and perhaps not male as well and not Protestant. And the worst part of the argument was the hypocrisy and contradictions in their argument basing it on the U.S. Constitution and states rights, trying to use the Constitution to deny equal rights and democracy for African-Americans.

Neo-Confederates who argued that Africans were not as equal as Europeans in America, even though if anything Africans have been in America as long as Europeans. Neo-Confederates also argued that states rights, saying the power of states is more important than the constitutional rights of individuals. And that states had the constitutional right to deny the constitutional rights of African-Americans. Who under the U.S. Constitution have the same constitutional rights of all other Americans. 

This was definitely a Far-Right argument coming from Neo-Confederates (who never got over losing the American Civil War) not Conservatives. Because Conservatives actually do believe in the U.S. Constitution and for enforcing and living up to it. 

Another ironic thing about the Far-Right in America, is that even though they've used the states rights argument to deny the constitutional rights of African-Americans fifty, sixty, seventy years ago, they've moved away from the states rights argument in the last twenty years or so on issues like gay marriage and marijuana. Saying the Federal Government has the authority to regulate these issues, not just constitutional rights for all Americans. Their argument is about political convenience, not constitutional principles.

Another shame of the assassination of Martin King along with the assassination of Jack Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy, was what could've been had these gentlemen lived out their lives, Jack Kennedy would be 93 going on 94 today so perhaps he would still be alive today, but that would be pretty impressive to live that long. 

Bobby Kennedy would be 85 today so there's a reasonable chance he would still be alive to today and Martin King would be 82 and chances are still living had he took care of himself. 

Longevity is not what I'm getting at and I'll focus on Dr. King even though Jack and Bobby are also heroes of mine. I believe Dr. King as we moved into the 1970s would've moved to focus on workers rights and poverty. And empowering African-Americans to have a bigger stake in life, to get a good education and become successful and self-sufficient and not dependent on public assistance. And to even own their own business's.

Minister Malcolm X had a different message when it came to Black Power, then Dr. King. His message was about empowering the less-fortunate to become self-sufficient and not just for African- Americans. If you judge people by what they accomplish in their lives and not by how long they live, then it's hard to find someone who lived a better life than Dr. Martin Luther King. 

Dr. King's message of peace and tolerance and equal rights for all and was able almost by himself to put that message on the map in America. And a lot of people of all races owe him a huge debt of gratitude for his contributions to American society. 

Dr. King was a leader for equal rights and equal justice and wanted a society where Americans and not just his children, would be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin. Many ways why I'm a Liberal is because I judge people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. And believe no American should benefit or suffer, simply because of their race, color, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, or religion.

Brookings Video: William Frenzel- 'Super Committee Members Will Vote Party Line'

Source:Brookings Institution- William Frenzel: former U.S. Representative and Ranking Member of the Budget Committee (Republican, Minnesota0

"William Frenzel: It really doesn't matter who is on the debt super committee because the members will vote along party lines. So, the debt will continue to mount, our economy will continue to flounder and they'll continue to jockey until the next election. More:Brookings." 

From the Brookings Institution

I don't have high expectations for what the Congressional Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction, as far as them solving our debt and deficit issues. (I know that makes me unique) The Republicans on the committee will never go along with any tax hikes and I don't see the Democrats going along with any serious entitlement reforms even means-resting. Which is what round two in my opinion of what deficit reduction should look like. After they took on defense and discretionary spending in round one with debt ceiling deal. If the Joint Committee passed an entitlement reform that had a combination of means- testing in it as well as demanding that the wealthy pay more into it and take less out of it. 

This so-called committee (which is more like a committee on gridlock) should also look at tax reform that eliminated most if not all tax loopholes and lowered tax rates on most of the people in the country. Then this Joint Committee would be successful even if Congress didn't pass it. But the House Democrats on this committee are there to back up Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and not there to pass entitlement reform. 

And the House Republicans on the committee are there to back up Speaker John Boehner and Leader Eric Cantor and not to pass tax hikes even on the wealthy. So unless half of this committee coming from the House grows up and makes some tough choices, even taking on their own Leadership, nothing will get pass. And we'll be looking at automatic defense and entitlement cuts in January and 2012 another election year to figure out how to fix the problems. That the Joint Committee were unprepared and not capable of fixing themselves. 

As far as Senate Democrats go, I like John Kerry and Max Baucus on this committee. They are both on the Finance Committee and Senator Baucus is Chairman of that committee. If there were some practical Republicans on this committee, then maybe a deal could be cut. Again I believe tax hikes on the wealthy have to be part of any final deficit reduction package to get our debt and deficit under control. 

We can't get the necessary revenue to pay down our debt and deficit without tax hikes on the wealthy being part of the agreement. Without gutting entitlement programs and our national defense. But with the republicans that are on this committee this is simply not possible in this Congress, but that could change in 2013 in the 113th Congress depending if the President gets reelected or not and Democrats take back the House and hold the Senate as well. Which of course is not a given at this point. 

Democrats do have a better then 50-50 chance in the House. (In my opinion) And if the President gets reelected with a somewhat comfortable margin and winning around 35 States, I believe Democrats will hold the Senate and maybe pick up a couple of seats as well. But with the Senate GOP Leadership still being able to block most legislation. 

The most likely scenario from this Joint Committee on Status Quo, is exactly that: meaning nothing and best case scenario is that they pass entitlement and tax reform that looks controversial to both party's. Because the partisans in both parties want nothing and just be able to use this as an issue on the 2012 campaign trail.