Associated Press: President Obama- 'Offers Mortgage Relief on Western Trip'

Source:Associated Press- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) speaking about the economy in Las Vegas.

"President Barack Obama offered mortgage relief on Monday to hundreds of thousands of Americans, his latest attempt to ease the economic and political fallout of a housing crisis that has bedeviled him as he seeks a second term. (Oct. 24)" 

From the Associated Press

The two main problems with our economy right now are our housing market and the lack of consumer spending and they relate, because people who are underwater in debt right now, as a result of the housing market and the lack of value of their homes. As well as credit card debt they may have piled up because they were out-of-work or took a steep pay cut, aren't spending money right now because they are drowning in debt right now or they owe more on their home then its worth or both factors. 

So to get the economy going again, we have to retire a lot of our consumer debt, get that debt going again so people have money to spend, which would lead to economic growth and then job growth. Which would lower our unemployment rate and also allow us to start paying down our national debt and deficit. Because we would then have the resources to do so. I believe President Obama understands that. 

Tax cuts like payroll tax holidays and others are good as well, but if you have a high debt burden or you owe more on your mortgage then you can afford to pay back or you are unemployed, you are going to use whatever extra revenue you may get to pay down your debt or if your worried about losing your job, your are going to use whatever extra money you may have and put that money in your savings in case your laid off. 

We have a lot of issues with our economy right now, with our lack of infrastructure investment the need for a national energy policy, education reform, and are crumbling schools being part of that. Our huge debt and deficit, the need for more foreign trade so we can sell more products made by Americans in America creating more Americans jobs, as well as the need for tax reform. But none of those things mean anything if people don't start spending money again. 

The middle class where most of the country lives, but for them to be able to spend money they need to be out of debt or at least not drowning in debt by having a manageable debt. And whatever economic package that Congress may or may not pass needs to include debt relief for consumers to get a lot of our consumer debt retired, so the people have the money to start spending again buying things that they've been putting off. So we can create more consumer demand in the economy right now. So business's feel the need to hire additional workers to meet the new consumer demand for their business.  

There just isn't enough Consumer Demand in our economy right now to create enough Economic Growth to lead to Job Growth. That would bring down our Unemployment Rate. And allow us to start paying down our Federal Debt and Deficit and a way to do that. Is to start retiring our Consumer Debt which would help lead to stronger Consumer Spending and Economic Growth.

Learn Liberty: Pavel Yakolev- What Are The Limits of Liberal Democracy?

Source:Learn Liberty- Pavel Yakolev, talking about freedom and democracy. Which aren't the same things.

"People often associate freedom with electoral democracy. According to Prof. Pavel Yakovlev, the freedom to vote is an inherently limited tool for fostering a free society. Although majority vote can serve as a useful tool for expressing the will of the people, it can be taken too far.

Imagine a world governed entirely by majority votes—including your personal decisions! Would you be happy if a majority vote determined who you could date? What you could eat? Now consider the world you currently live in, where you make decisions and purchases in the context of a marketplace. In a market, you can choose goods, services, and activities that diverge from majority trends. Moreover, markets also provide a greater number of choices.

Free markets and limited government depend upon and facilitate individualized and decentralized choices; they create the conditions necessary for a truly free and democratic society.

Watch more videos at:Learn Liberty."

From Learn Liberty

What’s the best way to guarantee individual liberty for the people so they can be free to live their own lives as they see fit short of hurting anyone else with their liberty and not be harassed by government?

One, you need a constitution that guarantees individual liberty. And limits what government can do.

Two, you need rule of law to limit what government can do. But also how people interact with each other. But it’s not just a constitution that you need but constitutional rights that are in that constitution.

Like freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, or not practice religion.

Right to vote but through a multi-party system.

Decentralization of government, a Federal Government, but state, or provincial governments as well as local governments. That all have enough power under the Federal Constitution to govern themselves and handle their own affairs. As well as again to limit what the Federal Government can do. You don’t have to have a weak Federal Government either. That they have to be able to defend the country and to a certain extent look after its people’s welfare. But it needs to be limited so it doesn’t become too powerful.

You need a republic not a monarchy, or theocracy, but a republic. Where civilians are running the government. Again to limit the power of government and you also need checks and balances, separation of branches. Executive, legislative and judicial.

I just laid out a lot what the United States Government looks like. Some people say especially Conservatives and Libertarians that the best way to insure individual liberty is with a republic. But I counter that argument by say that there are also authoritarian republics. Like the People’s Republic of China, the Communist Republic of Cuba, or Baathist Republic of Syria, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a republic and still are.

The difference being that under the Hussein Regime, Iraq was an authoritarian Baathist Republic. Today they are basically a democratic republic and a federal republic, but with some flaws. There good republics like America and bad republics like Syria. A republic basically lays out what type of powers the federal or central government have. In a liberal democracy like America, those powers are very limited, but in an authoritarian republic not to pick on Syria, but their government’s powers are basically unlimited.

Which is one reason why we see such an intense democratic opposition in Syria right now. The Syrian people are good-by in large, but their government is bad. My argument as a Liberal Democrat for what’s the best way to insure individual freedom is with a republic, but in the form of a liberal democracy. A liberal democratic republic with a liberal amount of individual rights and freedom. Not a liberal amount of government, which is very different. Which is what we have in the United States, with a Federal Constitution, separation of powers and checks and balances. With the individual liberty to live our own lives and be successful economically. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Associated Press: Mark Smith- 'President Obama: Moammar Gadhafi's Death Opens New Chapter'

Source:Associated Press- Mark Smith, the Associated Press.

"President Obama says Moammar Gadhafi's death heralds a new chapter for Libyans, and shows the world how allies working together can succeed in ending the rule of a tyrant. (Oct. 20)" 

From the Associated Press

The death of former Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi does close another chapter in Libyan history. The chapter where Gadhafi can no longer brutalize his country and the chapter before that which was closed in March with Gadhafi being thrown out-of-power by the Libyan rebels. Where Gadhafi could no longer rule his country because he was thrown out-of-power. 

And hopefully this is the start of a new chapter or new day (if you prefer) where the Libyan People can start building their own country and build it the way they want to hopefully a peaceful, responsible democracy with free and open elections, that respects human rights, including minority and women's rights. 

But again Libya is going to have to build Libya and they have the resources to do this. But may need help maximizing their resources and their people: like training their new military, national law enforcement, justice system, writing a national constitution, setting up their general elections. And these are all things that NATO the United Nations, European Union, and the Arab League can help them with. As well as the United States with foreign aide to help them set up their new national government. Until they can get their economy going again and set up their tax system to pay for their new national government. 

But the United States can't do this on their own and shouldn't put troops and other people on the ground. These other organizations need to step up and play a big role here. The NATO mission in Libya as well as the Libyan rebels, is an example of what foreign policy looks like when it works. When the international community especially the West working with the Libyan rebels and the Arab League. 

At risk of sounding partisan: this is what liberal internationalism looks like. Instead of a unilateral neoconservative policy where you try to do everything on their own. Which is what the Bush Administration attempted to do in Iraq in the last decade. That instead when you isolate a dictator with economic sanctions, recognize the opposition party, block the dictatorship from access to resources to brutalize their own people, put the opposition down and to defend themselves, that instead you give a nation, especially it's people the ability to fight for their own freedom, they can do that for themselves.

The West working together with economic sanctions and what happened with the NATO no fly zone over Libya to protect the Libyan rebels from their own government as they do the work risk their own lives to take down the dictatorship. 

Instead of invading a large country like Iraq on your own, taking all of the risks, borrowing all of the money to do it and piling up your own debt, that other Americans are forced to pay back, the death of Moammar Gadhafi is a good day for Libya and closes another ugly chapter in Libyan history. And a big opportunity for the Libyan people to build their own country the way they want to with their own resources and develop their own country the way they want to. And be able to join the rest of the world.

C-SPAN: President John F. Kennedy- 1963 Address on Civil Rights

Source:C-SPAN- President John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) addressing the nation about civil rights in 1963.

"President John F. Kennedy's Civil Rights Address" 

From C-SPAN

When I think of how Democrats should be and this is going to sound real arrogant, but I look at myself when I'm talking politically. Democrats should be Liberals and Progressives who believe in liberal democracy, because we believe in individual freedom. 

Liberal democracy is about economic, social, political, religious, freedom of choice, as long as we are not hurting anyone else with our freedom. That we get back to what Old School Liberalism is. Not how liberalism is stereotyped today, which looks more like socialism. Liberalism is about individual liberty, again as long as we are not hurting anyone else with our choices. But thats me. 

Every Democrat can have their own version of what Democrats should be. But to me we are supposed to be the Liberal Democratic Party in America, because we believe in liberal democracy. Not a Social Democratic Party, that some so-called Progressives today would like us to become. Or a Centrist Democratic Party, where those people could probably be Republicans as well. Like Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. 

When I think of people who come the closest in representing what Democrats and liberalism should be, I think of Jack Kennedy with Bill Clinton being not that far behind. As well as some Liberal Democrats today like Senator John Kerry (another JFK with very similar politics as Jack Kennedy). People who are Liberals not because they believe in collectivism that government can solve all problems. But because they believe in individual liberty.

Jack Kennedy, in particular comes closest in representing what democrats are supposed to be. Not just because of his politics, but with his power to communicate his views. Just like Barry Goldwater represents exactly what Republicans are supposed to be because he was definitely a Classical Conservative. And communicated classical conservatism as well as it could be communicated and I would add Ron Reagan to that list as well. 

Even though President Kennedy was late to the dance on civil rights and had he got there earlier, maybe he could've got the ball rolling on it earlier, but he got there. And it wasn't that he didn't believe in civil and equal rights, but that it was politics that was keeping him from it. Losing the South in the 1964 Election, which is a weakness on President Kennedy's  part and I'm not excusing it. 

President Kennedy comes closest to representing what Democrats should be. Because he was strong and smart on defense not soft that a lot of Democrats after him got accused of being and to a certain extent for good reason. 

JFK supported equal rights, individual freedom. Didn't want the Federal Government growing indefinitely, that there was a limit in what it can do to help the country. Fiscally responsible, these are all things that Liberals actually believe in. That government can help people who are down get themselves up, with what's called a safety net. Not a welfare state and they are different.

JFK is what it means to be a Liberal Democrat. (Someone who believes in liberal democracy) Now I'm sure I'm farther to the left on a lot of social issues than President Kennedy. Like decriminalization of marijuana and prostitution and perhaps gambling as well. But those issues, weren't considered mainstream back in JFK's time. 

JFK comes the closest from every Democrat I've ever seen, as someone who doesn't believe in any form of big government. Doesn't believe in collectivism, but believes in individual freedom instead. Which is one of the reasons why he was such a strong anti-Communist, not only in Congress, but as President as well and I wish we had more Democrats today like Jack Kennedy. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Marijuana Policy Project: 'Our Marijuana Laws Destroy Lives: The Rachel Hoffman Tragedy'

Source:Marijuana Policy Project- victims of the War on Drugs?

"Watch the tale of Rachel Hoffman, a young college student killed when the police bust she was aiding in went wrong." 

From the Marijuana Policy Project

With all the problems and actual dangers that America faces as a country, in crime, economic and in foreign policy and with the limited resources that we have as a country. Because we are drowning in debt, you would think that we would dedicate the limited resources that we have to address the actual problems that we face as a country, while we are trying to get the economy going again. And trying to get our Federal debt and deficit under control and stop arresting people who aren't hurting anyone other than maybe themselves. 

We don't arrest people for eating or selling junk food or drinking or selling soft drinks (at least not yet) and we should stop putting innocent people's lives in danger as well as their family and friends by having them go undercover to try to get evidence on people, for what they do to themselves. 

There are so many reasons not to have marijuana prohibition in America and a lot of them can be traced back to alcohol prohibition. One reason would be and is enough for me as a Liberal, gets to freedom of choice. We now have the right to drink alcohol (that is adults 21 or older) we now have the right as adults 18 or over to smoke, tobacco but yet we don't have the right to smoke or use marijuana. 

Marijuana is a drug thats less or about as dangerous as alcohol and tobacco, that causes less damage on society as the other two drugs. Thats still being used in society just illegally under current law and being used tax free. (And you wonder why we have runaway deficits and debt)

All of you so-called Progressives (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) out there that want to use a lot of government to solve our problems, should have a problem with that, because marijuana prohibition gives so-called Progressives less revenue to build their "Great Society" through government. Representative Barney Frank is a so-called Progressive in the House that actually understands this. Which is one of the reasons why he supports decriminalization of marijuana. Which means in basic terms: treating marijuana like alcohol and tobacco, through regulation. I wish more Congressional Democrats would take the same position. 

I wish President Obama who's a solid Progressive Democrat on so many other issues would come about with the same position, especially with his legal background. But instead he's to the right of some Conservatives as well as Republicans on this issue: Representative Ron Paul, Governor Gary Johnson, and the great Conservative writer Bill Buckley, and others. But instead President Obama is to the right of these three men on this issue of freedom of choice. 

At some point America as a country needs to realize that we don't have an unlimited fountain of wealth when it comes to money and other resources. That we have to be somewhat conservative (meaning responsible adults who don't have unlimited financial resources) that we are more responsible with the resources that we have as a country. And that we end marijuana prohibition from the Federal level and let the states deal with this issues themselves.

VOA News: Deborah Block- 'Teach For America Program Serves Rural, Low Income Schools'

Source:VOA News- teacher Natasha Alfer.

"Voice of America (VOA) is an American international broadcaster funded by the United States Congress. It is the largest[1][2][3] and oldest U.S. funded international broadcaster.[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 (USAGM), 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.[9][10]

Some commentators consider Voice of America to be a form of propaganda." 

From Wikipedia 

"A shortage of teachers in the United States means it has become difficult to get teachers to work in rural and low income urban areas.  Teach for America, a non-profit organization, is helping to fill the gap. It recruits recent college graduates and young professionals to teach in those areas for two years.  VOA's Deborah Block visited a school in Washington, where a woman who used to work for an investment firm is now a teacher." 

From VOA News

Anything that we can do as a country through the public as well as private sectors to encourage more well- educated people to teach and teach in under-served Communities, we should be doing. And thats what this program is about, encouraging more good educators to teach in under-served communities, urban and rural so those students can have a shot at getting a good education as well. 

We need a public education System thats not based on how much money your parents make that determines whether you can get a good education or not, but based on how well the students do themselves in school. We should give all of our students a shot at a good education and then see what they can do with because right now our public education system is funded through property taxes. 

The schools are funded based on the property tax in that community and how much the property's are worth. So if a student lives in a middle class or an upper class community, chances are they are going to be able to go to a good school and the educators there are even well-paid because that community has the resources it needs to have good schools. 

If a student lives in a low-income community (urban or rural) chances are they aren't going to be able to go to a good school, because that community won't have the resources it needs to have enough good schools. 

Money is not a magic bullet in education, but it's definitely a bullet thats needed to have good schools. So what the Teach For America Program does, is encourages good teachers to teach in these under-served communities that doesn't have enough resources have enough good educators for all of their students. So thats a good step and reform. 

We also need things like more charter schools to give our students more choice in where they get their education. As well as public school choice, so our students aren't forced to go to a school based on where they live. 

We also need some type of system that would allow us to equalize the funding of our public schools, that would help make up the difference financially between upper and middle class communities, with low- income communities that would provide additional resources for under-served schools so they have the resources that they need to do a good job. And then all of our students would have a good shot at getting a good education in America no matter what community they live or if they go to a public or private school. 

With as bad as the economy is and as bad of shape our fiscal situation is right now and will be in the future, if we don't address it properly, now is the best time to reform our public education system, so we can have the best schools possible to produce as many well-qualified workers as possible. So when we finally get the economy going we'll have enough workers for those job and keep more good jobs in America.

Council on Foreign Relations: Edward Alden & Bernard L. Schwartz- 'Free Trade Agreements Signal Bipartisan Cooperation'

Source:Council on Foreign Relations- Senior Fellow Edward Alden.

"The U.S. ratification of the stalled Free Trade Agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama indicates that "there is a possibility, despite the very great partisan divisions in Congress, of bipartisan cooperation on economic issues," says Edward Alden, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. However, Alden emphasizes that "it is important not to overstate the potential job creation benefits" of the agreements." 

From the Council on Foreign Relations

The fact is America has to trade with foreign countries. We are a country of 310M people in a world of 6B people. We are huge, but we only represent 5% of the world's population. Most of the customers in the world live outside of America, so it's in our best interest to trade with these countries especially in our own neighborhood like Canada, Mexico, Central America, and Caribbean and in emerging markets in South America like Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, and of course with the European Union, Arabia and Asia, and even in Africa. 

An economic policy that would work best, includes foreign trade. Making things in America, selling them here which creates jobs in America for Americans. But also selling those products to other countries by exporting them, including our natural Resources. If we ever get around to establishing a national energy policy to sell as many products as possible to make as much profit as possible to create as many American jobs as possible. 

What foreign trade is about when it works and it works when tariff rates are low and equal, meaning you have the same tariff rate in your country, as your trading partners have in their countries. 

You also have assistance for people who lose their jobs as a result of free trade and help for them to find another job for people who lose a job thats not coming back. Assistance to learn a new trade even while they are on Unemployment Insurance. 

What we shouldn't be doing is having an isolationist policy either on trade or foreign policy and limit the influence that we can have as a world power both economically and in foreign policy. But we shouldn't be trying to run the world either but representing our own national interests and expressing our own democratic values. And foreign trade is a way to do this to be engaged with what is happening in the world. 

One of the reasons why I'm for eliminating the trade embargo with Cuba, who doesn't represent a threat at all to us economically, their military or in the war on terror, Cuba is simply not a threat to America, perhaps never has been. The trade embargo has cost both countries and hasn't helped anyone, denying Cubans and Americans access to the other country and allowing Cubans to see what liberal democracy looks like, individual liberty as well. But this is what we should be doing with any country whether they are democratic or not, as long as they don't represent a threat to us. 

If you want to have a strong economy and be able to influence other people's and other countries, you need to talk with them in order to do that and do business with them to give yourself maximum access around the world and be able to make as much profit as possible. And have as many customers as possible as well, otherwise you are just talking and dealing with yourself, which can get lonely.