History: 'How Did Socialism Become a Dirty Word in America?'

Source:History- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) The Leader of the Socialist Party in America?

Source:The New Democrat

"Before it became a dirty word, socialism was relatively popular in the United States. So, what happened? #HistoryChannel

Subscribe for more HISTORY:

http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...

Read More: http://po.st/socialist_party

 Check out exclusive HISTORY content:

 Website - http://www.history.com

 /posts

 Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/History

 Twitter - https://twitter.com/history"

From History

Source:Socialist Alternative- “Movie Review: American Socialist: The Life and Times of Eugene Victor Debs”

From Wikipedia

"Eugene Victor Debs (November 5, 1855 – October 20, 1926) was an American socialist, political activist, trade unionist, one of the founding members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and five times the candidate of the Socialist Party of America for President of the United States.[1] Through his presidential candidacies as well as his work with labor movements, Debs eventually became one of the best-known socialists living in the United States."

Source:National Review- “Henry Wallace: Unsung Hero of the Left”

From Wikipedia

"Henry Agard Wallace (October 7, 1888 – November 18, 1965) was an American politician, journalist, and farmer who served as the 11th U.S. secretary of agriculture, the 33rd vice president of the United States, and the 10th U.S. secretary of commerce. He was also the presidential nominee of the left-wing Progressive Party in the 1948 election."

Source:AZ Quotes- Truer words have never been said: socialism and liberalism have never been the same things 

From Wikipedia

"Norman Mattoon Thomas (November 20, 1884 – December 19, 1968) was an American Presbyterian minister who achieved fame as a socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America."

Source:Bill Moyers- “George McGovern in 1972. (Photo courtesy of University of Houston)”

From Wikipedia

"George Stanley McGovern (July 19, 1922 – October 21, 2012) was an American historian, author, U.S. representative, U.S. senator, and the Democratic Party presidential nominee in the 1972 presidential election."

Source:Imgur- “Bernie Sanders, Socialist (Communist) who believes this list of lies, might as well give me your second house because I do not have one, …”

From Wikipedia

"A self-described democratic socialist and progressive, Sanders supports labor rights and emphasizes reversing economic inequality.[4] He advocates for universal and single-payer healthcare, paid parental leave, as well as tuition-free tertiary education. On foreign policy, Sanders broadly supports reducing military spending, pursuing more diplomacy and international cooperation, and putting greater emphasis on labor rights and environmental concerns when negotiating international trade agreements."

The video makes it clear why the words socialist and socialism are unpopular. Everything from the end of World War I and the start of the Soviet Union with their communist revolution in Russia, to Senator Bernie Sanders and his presidential campaigns today. With the start of the Cold War with Russia after World War II and the so-called red scare, with Congress first with the House of Representatives in the late 1940s and the later with the Senate in the 1950s investigating Socialists and Communists in the U.S. Government and the rest of the country.

Before the rise of the Millennial Generation in America, when Americans thought of socialist or socialism they automatically assumed people were talking about Communists and other leftist authoritarians, wether they be in Russia or anywhere else in the world. And Americans regardless if they're on the Right or Left in America and somewhere in between tend to hate authoritarianism. Even self-described Socialists in America whether they're Bernie Sanders or others don't view themselves as Communists or other leftist authoritarians. They might have a hard time speaking ill of Communists and communism and leftist authoritarianism whether it's in Cuba or Venezuela, but they themselves are not Communists.

But when Millennials think of Socialists, they think of politicians that are going to give them a lot of free stuff ( another way of saying welfare programs ) like health care, health insurance, college, day care, etc. And take on greed in corporate America, as well as tax the rich, but not take heir property away and force them to work in work camps and other horrible places that we saw in Soviet Russia and in North Korea today. Whether you view socialist and socialism as either positive or negative, a lot of that is generational. If you grew up during the Cold War and in my case at the end of the Cold War just starting high school when the Cold War came to an end in the early 1990s, you're probably not a fan of Socialists and socialism, because you tend to think of Communists and communism. But if you weren't even born until the 1990s, when you think of Socialists and socialism, you tend to think of Europe and the social democracies there. Which is a helluva lot different from the communist states.

Communism, really was the biggest threat to America, American freedom, our individualism and individual rights in the 20th Century. And of course a lot of Americans in and out of government went too far with their anti-communism and outing people simply for having Far-Left beliefs whether they were Democratic Socialists or Communists. But the Cold War really was about liberal democracy versus communism and was a war that America, Britain, and Europe really had to win.

And because of this good people were put down and denied access in society simply because of their Far-Left beliefs to the point that American Leftists were scared as hell to ever be tabled as a Socialist ( even if they were ) for fear that being known as a Socialist could ruin their careers and lives. And preferred other political labels like liberal or progressive even though their own politics was much further left than both liberal and progressive. Which is how socialist and socialism became dirty words in America, because Americans didn't want their lives ruined simply because of their socialist politics.

The WAWG Blog: Andy Hailey- American Socialism: ‘Equally Empowers & Protecting All US Citizens’

Source:Volitairenet- A little history of socialism in America.

Source:The New Democrat

"(A cycle of building, destroying, and now renewing/expanding)
Even before FDR’s socially responsible New Deal and laws passed since, corporations and excessively wealthy individuals have been stealthily working to put our democracy in chains by neutering the Federal government, eliminating majority rule, and defunding our social programs."

From The WAWG Blog

Source:PBS NewsHour- When the Socialist Party was  a major factor in American politics.

"In other industrialized countries, movement towards a democratic form of socialism has been strong enough to win national elections. So why hasn’t socialism ever become a powerful force in American politics? There are lots of reasons, as well as younger generations who align with socialist ideals that may bring the necessary gusto. NewsHour Weekend Special Correspondent Jeff Greenfield reports."

From PBS NewsHour


What Andy Hailey laid out in his piece was American progressivism which the New Deal, Great Society, Eisenhower’s national infrastructure program, the civil rights law, the Nixon environmental laws. Things that Theodore Roosevelt advocated for when he was President and after his presidency, that President Woodrow Wilson also advocated for when he was President when it came to the safety net in this country.

Source:Wikipedia- Democratic Socialists of America 

I’ve blogged about this many times before, but progressivism is not the same as socialism however you define socialism. A lot of aspects of socialism are actually very regressive when you’re talking about communism or Neo-Communism that you see in Venezuela, where the national state isn’t in complete control of the country unlike in Cuba.

Progressives, believe in the private market and private enterprise, free trade, the rule of law, progressive taxation, but not universal high taxation, fiscal responsibility even,  ( President Lyndon Johnson had a balanced budget in 1968 ) but they also believe in a social insurance net for people who fall on hard times. The safety net from the Progressive, is different from the welfare state of the Socialist who says that all employee benefits should be provided for by the government, instead of employers. The Progressive, just wants public assistance programs like Unemployment for people who truly need it. Unlike the Socialist who wants welfare programs to be universal regardless of income.

Regardless of what you hear from the so-called mainstream media today when they’re talking about Congressional Democrats and other leftist Democrats that they call Progressives, whether it’s Bernie Sanders or Alexandria O. Cortez, or any other members of the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus, these people are Socialists, not Progressives. They believe that American progressivism hasn’t gone far enough and we now need a welfare state and government big enough to take care of the people. Which is different from progressivism which advocates for a social insurance system for the people who truly need it. While at the same time we encourage Americans to be as economically independent as possible so the resources are always there for the people who truly need it.

“In other industrialized countries, movement towards a democratic form of socialism has been strong enough to win national elections. So why hasn’t socialism ever become a powerful force in American politics? There are lots of reasons, as well as younger generations who align with socialist ideals that may bring the necessary gusto. NewsHour Weekend Special Correspondent Jeff Greenfield reports.”

Mao Zedong: Chinese Communism

Source:Five Prime- Chinese Communist Leader Mao Zedong. 

Source:The New Democrat

"In its post-revolutionary period, Mao Zedong Thought is defined in the CPC's Constitution as "Marxism–Leninism applied in a Chinese context", synthesized by Mao and China's "first-generation leaders". It asserts that class struggle continues even if the proletariat has already overthrown the bourgeoisie and there are capitalist restorationist elements within the Communist Party itself. Maoism provided the CPC's first comprehensive theoretical guideline with regards to how to continue socialist revolution, the creation of a socialist society, socialist military construction and highlights various contradictions in society to be addressed by what is termed "socialist construction".

"While it continues to be lauded to be the major force that defeated "imperialism and feudalism" and created a "New China" by the Communist Party of China, the ideology survives only in name on the Communist Party's Constitution as Deng Xiaoping abolished most Maoist practices in 1978, advancing a guiding ideology called "socialism with Chinese characteristics".

From Wikipedia 

“In its post-revolutionary period, Mao Zedong Thought is defined in the CPC’s Constitution as “Marxism–Leninism applied in a Chinese context”, synthesized by Mao and China’s “first-generation leaders”. It asserts that class struggle continues even if the proletariat has already overthrown the bourgeoisie and there are capitalist restorationist elements within the Communist Party itself. Maoism provided the CPC’s first comprehensive theoretical guideline with regards to how to continue socialist revolution, the creation of a socialist society, socialist military construction and highlights various contradictions in society to be addressed by what is termed “socialist construction”.

While it continues to be lauded to be the major force that defeated “imperialism and feudalism” and created a “New China” by the Communist Party of China, the ideology survives only in name on the Communist Party’s Constitution as Deng Xiaoping abolished most Maoist practices in 1978, advancing a guiding ideology called “socialism with Chinese characteristics”.

Source:Crash Course- talking about Chinese communism.

From Crash Course

North Korea ( or as I call them the Communist Republic of Korea ) is really the last standing among the pure communist states around the world now. They’re the only communist state where everything and all the power in the country is centralized with the Communist Party and central government. The People’s Republic of China, has had a functioning hybrid capitalist economic for about 40 years now, while still maintaining some state-owned industries and they still qualify as a communist state because of their not just lack of free speech and a free press, but they still don’t have free speech or any free press.

The Chinese Communist State, still owns and operates all the domestic media in the country. And of course opposition parties to the Communist Party are still outlawed. But even personal freedom with people being able to move freely around the country and make their own basic personal and even economic decisions for themselves in the country and being able to travel abroad, is on the rise and has been growing in China since they’ve moved in a capitalist first world direction economically and culturally the last 35-40 years.

Mao Zedong, is one of the last of the pure Communists as someone who believed int total state-control of the society and not just the economy to work on behalf of the people so no one would be rich or poor. This is what Communists and Socialists are talking about when they say they want a classless society where no one is rich or poor. And they believe you achieve that by putting the central state in control of all the economic resources of the country. And that everyone would be taken care of as long as they follow the communist rules of society. Meaning you don’t disobey the communist regime and speak out against it or be politically active against it. 

Andy Hailey: 'How We Go Into The DJT Political Swamp: It Has Little To Do With Russia'

Source: Wall Stats- Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

Source:The New Democrat

Andy Hailey seems to making the argument that Washington lobbyists became a problem, when our tax rates became lower. That since we’ve cut taxes both in 1981 under President Reagan and again in the 1990s multiple times under President Clinton and again under President Bush in the 2000s and President Obama in 2009, that is when lobbyists became a problem in Washington. And that after we made lobbying easier in Washington that is when lobbyists became a problem as well.

Source: Steemit- Deep State Fantasy 

I have a different take. Economics Professor Classical Liberal Milton Friedman, who I didn’t agree with on everything mostly having to do with regulations of the economy where I tend to be in favor of them, if they’re commonsense and not intended to run private businesses, argued that the problem with money in Washington, has to do with power and money in Washington meaning the Federal Government. That the reasons why lobbyists lobby so much in Washington is the same reasons why bank robbers rob banks, because that’s where the money is. Since 1964 the Federal Government has only gotten bigger, with few exceptions in the 1990s. And since that time even if you want to go up to 1970 from 1964, we’ve also only seem more lobbyists in Washington.

My other take on this has to do with American voters themselves. One good definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. You continue to vote for the same people to serve in Congress and vote for members that are corrupt or if you prefer bought and expect their behavior to change, you’re acting insane. U.S. Representatives and Senators, are not lifetime appointments. They go up for reelection every 2 and 6 years which gives their constituents the opportunity every 2 or 6 years to evaluate them and decide if they’re doing a good job or not. Are they of strong character and have strong qualifications to serve in the House or Senate, or are they lazy, vote against their constituents interests, and are corrupt or bought by the people who write them checks and finance their political campaigns.

So if you want to better politicians in America, you have to have better voters. And voters who stop voting for politicians because they like the smartphone the person uses, or because the politician is up to date on pop culture references, catch phrases, and entertainment in general, but who can be bought for a 100 bucks to vote this way or that way. And instead vote for candidates and incumbents who will do the job that they’re elected to which is to represent their constituents especially the people who can’t afford too write big checks to political campaigns.

And to go back to the Milton Friedman argument. You want fewer lobbyists in Washington, a good way to do that is to get money out of the Federal Government and decentralize a lot if not all the social insurance programs and allow for the states and localities to run them, under basic Federal standards to make sure those programs for the people who truly need them are run the way they’re supposed to be. Stopping running budget deficits in the hundreds of billions of dollars every year. And get the the country’s fiscal house in order.

A couple of things that Congress can do and the U.S. Supreme Court might do one of these things for Congress, since Congress probably won’t has to do with gerrymandering and full disclosure. Eliminate gerrymandering all together and you’ll make Congress at least in the House accountable. Because representatives will no longer be able to just run to a hyper-partisan faction in their district and instead will have to represent a district that is more balance politically and ideologically.

And the second one being which unfortunately qualifies for the good luck with that column, because it goes against current members of Congress own political interests , would be full disclosure off all political contributions in America, at least at the Federal level and force members and candidates, as well political action groups and lobbyists, to disclose how they’re funding their political campaigns. And let the voters decide if their politicians and candidates, are bought or not.

A lot of the so-called Washington swamp and lobbyists issue in Washington, goes to personal responsibility. Back to my definition of insanity about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, you keep voting for the same politicians and you’ll just get the same behavior and same policies. Which will probably be written by the lobbyists who make the biggest political contributions. But you vote for good qualified people instead and help them get elected and get them elected and you’ll get different policies that are designed to represent their constituents instead. And Congress if they decided to go against their current political interests, could be helpful here as well by eliminating all gerrymandering and passing full disclosure off all political contributions. But fixing Washington and Congress starts with the voters themselves.

Source: Fox News: Donald Trump- 'We're Going to Drain The Swamp'- In 2016

Independent Political Report: Isa Infante: 'Hobby Lobby Should Spur Demand For Single Payer Health Care'

Source:Independent Political Report- Hobby Lobby explained. 

Source:The New Democrat 

I'm in favor of eliminating the middleman or middlewomen (for the political correctness police) when it comes to health insurance. But single payer in this country wouldn't be the way to do that because of all of the costs that would come from it. Like taking Americans right to decide where they get their health insurance from. And depending on the nationalized health care system that may include government only health insurance as well as even taking Americans right to decide who their doctor is and which hospital they go to. And you can give me all the cost reductions you want from how Sweden, Britain and Canada do it. But those people lose choice as their payment for those cost controls.

Hobby lobby doesn't deny anybody anything except for women who want contraceptions, but yet decide to work for employers that do not provide them. Hobby Lobby is about whether or not employers should be forced to provide their employees contraceptions even if it violates their religious beliefs, or not. It is not about getting rid of contraceptions or eliminating birth control. Just saying that employers shouldn't be forced to provide them if contraceptions violate their religious beliefs.

Again I'm in favor of eliminating the middleman (or middlewomen) when it comes to health insurance and getting employers out of it. As long as it doesn't lead to government run and only health insurance. But that would mean employees being their sole financiers when it comes to their health insurance. And for that to happen American workers broadly and not just the top need to either be making a lot more money. Or the cost of health insurance needs to come down.

Crooks & Liars: Dave Johnson: Democrats Who Move Right Lose Elections'

Source: Wikipedia- The 1964 presidential election between Barry Goldwater & Lyndon Johnson. 

Source:The New Democrat

The former great, RIP, Progressive Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tip O'Neal, had a saying, "All politics are local."  Well, of course, that is not all true but a lot of it is, especially when you are talking about Congressional elections where only voters in a district or state  vote for the next Representative or Senator for that seat in the next Congress.

This means that, whether you are a candidate or the incumbent, you have to know the district or state that you represent, or want to represent, in order to get elected and reelected. To put it simply, you can't be a Bernie Sanders Socialist running statewide in Mississippi and expected to get elected. Keep in mind that Senator Bernie Sanders represents Vermont, probably the most socialist leaning state in the union, with a population of around eight-hundred-thousand and only one U.S. Representative.

You can't be a religious-right candidate, who wants to incorporate their religious views into law, and expect to be elected statewide in New Hampshire, which just happens to be the most liberal-libertarian state in the Union. It, again, is small state with little more than a million people but it is the "Live Free or Die state" that doesn't like big government, economic or personal, and wants government to butt out of individual's lives.

I still give Senate Democrats the edge in retaining the U.S. Senate in November and I don't see them losing a lot of seats in the U.S. House either. I say that because, since 2005-06, they've figured out that the way to win House and Senate seats is by having their candidates represent the districts and states they are running in politically and ideologically. That means not recruiting Democrats who are as far to the left as, lets say, Elizabeth Warren, running in Red States but, in such situations, have fiscally conservative, socially moderate to liberal candidates instead.

They also recruit New Democrats, the real Liberals of the Democratic Party, the JFK/WJC wing of the party, to run in the Northeast and Midwest and even the West Coast and Mid Atlantic. Democrats who are very liberal on social issues and believe in economic opportunity and empowerment instead of  government dependence.  This makes them pretty liberal on economic issues as well.  You recruit for the district and state instead of saying that Socialist Bernie Sanders and New Deal Progressive Elizabeth Warren can get elected anywhere in the country.  That is beyond political fantasy.

The social democrat, Occupy Wall Street, wing of the Democratic Party believes in recruiting the most left Democrat possible and getting out the vote for that person.  The Democratic Party has many leftist members of Congress who work only to advance their agenda and will never work with Republicans on anything.  They wonder why Democrats lost 5-6 presidential elections from 1968-88 and lost the U.S. Senate in 1980 and Congress as a whole in 1994.

Senators Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, Kay Hagan, Mark Begich, Senate candidates Allison Grimes, Michelle Nunn, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Alaska, Kentucky and Georgia respectfully are the potential for Democrats to hold the Senate in 2014.  They are Senators from deeply red states but are perfectly tailored to represent them because these states tend to like candidates and incumbents who are somewhat independent and aren't afraid to go against their party establishment and aren't very far to the right or left politically.  They all have a non-elitist, non-Washington, common person approach to  politics.

Democrats hold the Senate now with a 55-45 majority because they have a lot of senators who represent red states.  They could easily pick up 3-4 more with Kentucky, Georgia, Mississippi and Kansas, states with unpopular Republican incumbents because they recruit for the state instead of the party.  The  Republican Party hasn't figured this out yet.  They have 45 senators and are in the minority because they are fanatically bound to nominate the furthest right candidate no matter the district or state.
Source:Sam Seder

Chicago Tonight- John Callaway Interviewing Senator George McGovern (1978)

Source: WTTV-TV- John Calloway, interviewing Senator George McGovern in 1978. 

Source:The New Democrat 

If George McGovern was a loser, than America needs a lot more losers just like him. When it comes to knowledge, experience and judgement, because he is one of the finest people America has ever produced. And we are lucky to have a man like him. Because here’s a distinguished teacher, historian, U.S. Representative, U.S. Senator and again historian, as well as U.N. Ambassador for Food and Agriculture. Who was always about two things. Public service and public progress.

When it comes to Senator McGovern’s politics. We probably do not agree on much at least as it related to economic policy. He was a real Henry Wallace Social-Democrat and the real thing unlike some of these so-called Progressives today. That I’ll talk more about later, but he and I are probably pretty close as it relates to things like civil liberties and personal freedom. So on those issues Senator McGovern was probably to the Left of President Franklin Roosevelt.

Another thing I would say about Senator McGovern was that he was a real Henry Wallace Fair Deal Social-Democrat, as it related to economic policy, foreign policy and national security. Who wasn’t anti-military, or anti-law enforcement. Unlike a lot of his supporters who helped cost him the 1972 presidential election. But he was someone who had a real respect for limited smart power. And not just as it related to economic policy, unlike a lot of the so-called Progressives today. Who sound more like Socialists and even Anarchists at times.
Source:WTTW-TV

Crooks & Liars: Heather Digby Parton: David Brooks, Redistribution Still Not Majority Agenda Because New Yorkers Say So'

Source:The New Democrat 

I covered this last night, but David Brooks is actually right when he says and the video from last night makes it clear that Americans want to see more economic freedom and opportunity in America. Through things like expanding quality education for all students no matter the income levels of their parents. And expanding educational and job training opportunities for our low-skilled workforce. So they can do well in life. In other words expanding economic freedom and independence in America.

David Brooks is also right when he says what Americans don’t want to do as a country. Even though Progressives and Social Democrats people even further to the left of Progressives are for this. They do not want to see new big government programs and taxes that are designed to take from the wealthy to take care of the less-fortunate to expand public assistance in America. Which is why most if not all Democrats who run on these issues outside of the Northeast or Northwest tend to lose. And be labeled as tax and spenders or Socialists. But what Americans would pay for is more educational and job training opportunities for people who are low-skilled. To get the skills that they need to do well in life.

Workers World: Kris Hamel- 'Only Socialism Can Save Detroit'

Source:Kris Hamel- Workers World writer Kris Hamel.

Source:The New Democrat

"Talk given at WWP conference  on Nov. 16 by Kris Hamel.

Workers World Party wants to expropriate the expropriators and overturn capitalism, an economic system whose demise is way overdue. In this age of imperialism and endless war, low-wage and dead-end capitalism, we fight for socialism — not as some utopian dream for a far-off future — but as a necessary and realizable goal today for the liberation of humanity’s majority and the uplifting of the masses of people worldwide." 

You can read the rest of this piece at Workers World. 

"To everyone: Please keep up with OWS at my online daily newspaper, 'Occupy Wall Street News and Videos', supporting the movement here:Occupy Wall Street and visit my Youtube channel for more OWS-related videos. 

Please feel free to share any news or videos to help continue getting the word/info out. That's what it's there for!

Thanks! -Munderlarkst

Above video: Thanks to BigThink.com, a great Web site. Video is from 2008." 

Source:Munderlarkst- left-wing historian Howard Zinn, talking about socialism.

From Munderlarkst

Socialism is one of those things that is hard to explain and define for many people. Which is why it means different things to different people sort of like liberalism. But to put it simply, socialism is anything provided by government for the people that is funded by public revenue. Generally through taxes, but not always and it can financed through state-owned enterprises as well. Which was common in Cuba before they moved to a state form of capitalism a few years ago.

When people tend to think of Socialists, they tend to think of people who are Marxists. Named after the famous Far-Left philosopher Carl Marx. And a Marxist is someone who believes in state-owned economics. And believes the state meaning the central government for whatever given country should own and operate the economy and all of its enterprises on behalf of the people. To see that no one has too little or too much. I guess that would be what I would call a Classical Socialist to go along with the big welfare state. And all the social services that would come from the central government.

But anyone whose familiar with the developed world as it is called that is the wealthy countries of the world that have large middle class populations and even a decent number of wealthy people, but even the fast developing countries of the developing world like Mexico, China and India (to use as examples) know that these countries don’t have state-owned economic systems. And that most of the industries in these countries are in private hands subjected to taxes and regulations by government.

But these countries aren’t completely capitalist either and have large and expansive welfare states. That provide most of the services that people need to do well in life. Like education, pension, health care, health insurance and other services. A lot of these countries tend to be social democratic and run by Social Democrats on the Left. Or people on the Right who even though they might not be Social Democrats aren’t interested in dismantling the welfare state. But in many cases are there to see that it doesn’t expand and that these programs are run better. And even getting competition from the private sector to perform these services as well.

The future of Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats especially in America, but the developing world and Europe as well I believe is not the Marxist Socialist approach of government trying to do everything for everybody. But it is the Bernie Sanders wing of the socialist movement. Bernie Sanders the senator from Vermont the only self-described Socialist in the United States Congress.

Senator Sanders is someone who believes in capitalist private enterprise economy. But that is highly taxed and regulated to protect workers and consumers from capitalist predators, but also so the central government has the resources to provide most of the services that people need to live well in life. Which is the type of Socialist that gets elected in America, but also in Europe as well.

Huffington Post: Sasha Brookner- 'From Blue to Green: Why I Left the Democratic Party'

Source:Fox News- a Democratic Congress: I wish!

"In the 15th century, the Eastern Orthodox Christians had a unique aphorism: “Better the turban than the mitre.” They were referring to the preferable conquer of the Balkans by the Ottoman Turks rather than the Western Roman Catholic empire. Today, that lesser of two evil principles isn’t about maintaining freedom of religion; rather it’s used by Democrats to justify genocide, drones, Guantanamo, rendition, kill lists and cutting heat subsidies for the poor under the past its sell-by date defense that Republicans would double these demons. It is evident that this perpetual comparative doctrine has reached steroid proportions. Although President Barack Obama may wear the “turban” when it comes to certain domestic policies, such as gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research, when it comes to foreign policy, corporate interests, and saying farewell to Magna Carta, both the Elephants and the Donkeys are wearing the Bishop’s hat." 

From The Huffington Post

I get the disappointment on the Left from Progressives in President Obama when it comes to the War on Drugs and civil liberties. Why is that, because I share the same disappointments as a Liberal myself and believe we would be moving in a different direction on these issues with a liberal democratic President. But what has happened is that the Obama Administration has made these things worst instead.

I do not get the disappointment in President Obama on lets say the Far-Left Social Democrats in the Democratic Party and outside of the Democratic Party for President Obama not being progressive or socialist enough. Because then candidate Obama never ran as a McGovern Democrat, but a JFK or RFK Democrat especially on foreign policy. Not someone who was running to create a new New Deal or Great Society. 

Social Democrats already had their opportunity to vote for those candidates in Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader and Jill Stein. What candidate Obama wanted to do was to make the current safety net programs work better, not expand them. And put more people to work and making it on their own in America.

This whole deal about why Sasha Brookner left the Democratic Party for the Green Party, is a perfect example of why we need to blowup the two-party system in America. And get a political system that represents the entire country ideologically. 

We need a political system where Social Democrats who still see the Democratic Party as that George McGovern Social Democratic Party of the 1960s and 70s, which we aren't now, would have their own Social Democratic Party to go too. Whether it's the Green Party or a Democratic Socialist Party and where they could elect their own socialist, pacifist non-aggression anti-authority, candidates. Except when it comes to the economy, of course candidates to political office or at least vote for them and know about them and see them debate and so-forth. And on the ballot, because people whoever saw Barack Obama as that type of Democrat. Probably do not fit in very well in the Democratic Party anymore.

If you put the entire so-called progressive lets call them (to be nice) but really the entire New-Left social democratic movement that was created in the 1960s that today spans over several different parties in America and put them all in one party, you might have a political party that represents 10-15% of the country and wouldn't be seen as outsiders in their own party. But part of the mainstream which is where Social Democrats should be headed whether it's the Green Party or Democratic Socialist Party. But one united party they would call home. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Nation: George Zornick- 'A Truly Progressive Budget Vision'

Source:The Nation- U.S. Representative Keith Eillison (Democrat, Minnesota) Co-Chair of the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus, in the House.

"Paul Ryan’s recently released budget will not become law—at least not any time soon. The Democratic Senate would never pass it, President Obama would never sign it. Ryan surely knows this, and his proposal is a fantasy budget: more an ideological argument than genuine attempt at legislating.

That hasn’t stopped widespread media coverage of Ryan’s proposal, and that’s fine: he’s a leading thinker of the conservative movement, with real power. But corresponding attention should also be paid to the opposite ideological vision sketched out by the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the “Back to Work” budget proposal, released on Wednesday." 

From The Nation

I'll give the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) credit for once: they have moderated a little from 2011. Two years ago their budget plan called for eliminating all of the Bush tax cuts including those for the middle class. And using all of that money on infrastructure and creating new Federal Government New Deal era programs. But even some of their members now see how bad of an idea it is to pass middle class tax hikes in a struggling economy. 

So now what the so-called CPC has  done instead is put all of that new tax burden on wealthy individuals and business's. Leaving our high corporate tax at 35% in place and closing a lot of corporate tax loopholes. So short-term that may sound fiscally responsible because you are attempting to pay for new government spending. But are the results instead, business's move that money out of the country to avoid paying those high taxes.

The so called Back To Work Budget Plan from the CPC is as dead as disco or high-water pants. Or people dancing to disco in high-water pants. People dancing disco in the ocean, in high-water pants (If you can't wear high-water pants in the ocean, where can you wear them?) Why, because very few people in Congress believe that government should have all of that power when it comes to job creation. That what we should be doing instead is freeing up capitol in the private sector so they have work to do and have a need to hire new employees.

What makes great economic sense when it comes to infrastructure investment, is government sets priorities and then rewards contracts to private companies to do the work. Rather than government or the private sector having most of the power and why its the ultimate private/public partnership. 

Infrastructure investment that's needed, especially in a sluggish economy, always makes great economic sense. The question is always how is it paid for. The CPC has their approach, but the reason why a lot of their ideas are usually dead as high-water pants and disco George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, is because they generally don't have much if any power, even in their party and Congress, but they're so far out in left field, even in the Democratic Party. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Majority Report: Jonathan Alter- 'On His Calls For Democrats To Embrace Entitlement Cuts'

Source:The Majority Report- with Sam Seder and Jonathan Alter.

"Bloomberg View Jonathan Alter, argued that cutting entitlements will guard investment in discretionary spending, guess how Sam felt about that argument? Sam and Jonathan debated whether or not CPI was a cut and agreed that the wealthy should pay more taxes...

This clip from the Majority Report, live M-F at 12 noon EST and via daily podcast at:The Majority Report." 

From The Majority Report

Jonathan Alter makes a very good point about the so-called entitlement programs and that the language about how they are talked about. Or what they are called should be changed and that social insurances would be a better way to describe them. 

Alter arguing that the people would collect these social insurances simply when they need them rather than when they reach a certain age. And that if the wealthy who don't need these programs receive these benefits, that they should be taxed on them. Not at hundred- percent, but based on how they would be taxed if that was their total income without the earned income tax credit. And that these should be done for a couple of reasons.

One, for the good of the programs so the finances of them are sured up.

Two, because the wealthy can afford to pay the tax without hurting the economy. 

Social Democrats (what I call so-called Progressives) don't like talking about reforming the social insurance system, unless it's about taxing more and spending more on them. But what they don't seem to understand that if these programs aren't eventually reformed, they aren't going to be around to support.

Social Justice Now: James K. Galbraith- 'Inequality and Instability: What's Ahead For The World Economy'

Source:Social Justice Now- Texas LBJ School Professor James K. Gabbraith.

"James K. Galbraith holds the Lloyd M. Bentsen Jr. Chair in Government/Business Relations at the LBJ School of Public Affairs and a professorship in government at The University of Texas at Austin.

Dr. Galbraith was executive director of the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress in the early 1980s. He chaired the board of Economists for Peace and Security (1996–2016) and directs the University of Texas Inequality Project. He is a managing editor of Structural Change and Economic Dynamics." 

From the Texas LBJ School 

"Economist James K. Galbraith (Texas LBJ School) one of the country's leading analysts of the financial crisis, speaks on the link between the growing inequality and economic instability. Galbraith, a professor in the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, will focus on the argument in his new book, Inequality and Instability: A Study of the World Economy Just before the Great Crisis... 

From Social Justice Now

I really don't like the term income inequality because that simply doesn't exist in an economy where the amount of money and ability for people to be successful in life, depends on how much you know and how qualified you are to work and then what you do with the skills that you have. In other words: how productive you are in the economy that you operate in. Which is the case in all capitalist economic systems, whether it's in America, Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia, wherever it is in the developed world. 

People with good educations who apply those skills well are simply going to do better economically than people who don't, it's that simple. So income inequality simply doesn't exist. I'm sure there are people who believe it does which is what the so-called Progressive Social Justice movement (Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists, in actuality) is about. But the fact is that income inequality simply doesn't exist anywhere in the developed world.

A problem that the United States has as it relates to the rest of the developed world is not income inequality, but the fact that are economic scale is kinda tilted towards the bottom. That is we have roughly 1-5 Americans who live in poverty or collect some type of public assistance. That they have to have in order to pay their bills and then we have about ten percent of the country whose doing very well economically. 

And then roughly seventy percent of the country thats doing well but not great, good education, owns a home or paying off a mortgage, cars, some money in the bank, but then a certain percentage of that seventy percent (perhaps 1-5 out) of those people who aren't officially poor, but perhaps a paycheck away of living on public assistance or being in poverty themselves. Who have the skills to get them to the point that they are now, but not enough skills to advance beyond that.

The solution to this economic problem that America has is not tell the wealthy that they are doing too well. So that government is going to take a chunk of your wealth to take care of the people who aren't doing very well indefinitely. But the solution is to create more wealth and have a better economy that benefits more people where poverty and unemployment aren't as high. 

Income equality is simply people getting out of society what they put into it. That might sound unfair or harsh, but it's not. It's simply the cold-hearted truth. So to have more people who are able to contribute a lot of society and then be able to enjoy the benefits of their production, we simply need a better education and job training system to produce a better skilled workforce in this country.

The New York Times: Marcus Mabry- 'Hugo Chávez Dead: What's Next for Venezuela After President's Death?'

Source:The New York Times- a Venezuelan mourning the death of President Hugo Chavez.

"TimesCast: After President Hugo Chávez's death, The Times's William Neuman surveys the scene in Caracas and the president of the Inter-American Dialogue examines American relations going forward." 

From The New York Times

I don't like wishing the death and ill of anyone unless of course they deserve it they are cold blooded serial murderers or something. And I don't believe Hugo Chavez President of the Bolivar Republic of Venezuela fits into that category, but I can't resist the temptation to believe how President Chavez's death would benefit what is potentially a great developed nation. If the Venezuelan people are simply empowered to make that happen in this large, but not overpopulated country of roughly 25M people. 

Venezuela does not have to be a what could've been country like Cuba. Where the state takes over and attempts to run the lives of an entire country. Venezuela has the resources to take care of themselves if their government just allows them to do that and as much as Hugo Chavez calls himself a Socialist and speaks proudly about socialism, hut he governs more like a Fidel Castro Communist, that tries to not only centralize not only all of the power with the central government, but most if not all of the power in the Presidency itself and thats not a good future for anyone.

If the chips fall into place assuming that President Chavez dies and we are not there yet, Venezuela will be at a fork in the road and have a decision to make. But they'll have four choices and not two. (If that makes any sense) 

Does Venezuela continue down the road of Chavez authoritarianism in the name of socialism. 

Do they try to become the type of authoritarian state thats common in the Mideast where most of the power is centralized with the military and that's possible the military does have a lot of power in Venezuela. 

Do they attempt to make socialism more democratic in Venezuela where it's democratic and set up a social democratic republic in Venezuela. 

Or do they try to make democracy real and move in a more liberal direction where the power is with the people completely. Where Venezuelans are empowered to make the most out of life that they can make for themselves. With government setting up an economic system that empowers all Venezuelans to be able to take care of themselves.

I don't like putting things this way, but Hugo Chavez dying some point this year would give Venezuela especially the Venezuelan people the opportunity to take the country back from the statists there. And empower a country of 25M people to be able to live their own lives in freedom without worrying about big government interfering. And locking them up because they believe they represent some threat to the state or cause or something, but we'll see. 

If Hugo Chavez dies they'll probably have some short-term president and government that will probably be empowered to decide where Venezuela goes from there, do they try to make the interim administration permanent with no real legal opposition. Or do they let the people of Venezuela decide where their country goes. In which direction they move in with multi-party elections where the Socialist Party would have to compete with other parties to keep the power that they have in Caracas.

Crook & Liars: Heather's Blog- 'You Want to Raise the Retirement Age? Walk a Mile In Our Shoes First'

Source:Crooks & Liars- If it's Sunday, it's Meet The Press With Chuck Todd. Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

"(Chuck Todd: Republicans will give Democrats all the revenue they want, if they just agree to raise the retirement age. Trust them.) I don't know about anyone else, but as someone who has actually worked at one of those jobs where you take a... 

From Crooks & Liars

You can save Social Security long term and do it in a way that doesn't hurt anyone who needs it or even hurt anyone whose going to collect from it, by doing simple things like having the wealthy pay for for it and collect less out of it. Raising the retirement age for anyone who can physically and financially afford to work longer, so construction workers, coal miners people who've worked back breaking jobs their whole working lives would be exempt from the new retirement age and could start collecting at 62-65, depending on their financial and health status. 

But for people who can, want and even should work longer, they'll be able to do that. If they can physically and financially afford to without collecting from Social Security and we could use these savings to save Social Security long-term and help to pay down our debt and deficit and do these things in a way that doesn't hurt anyone.

The Majority Report: Sam Seder- Interviewing Jill Stein: '2012 Green Party Presidential Candidate, on Green New Deal'

Source:The Majority Report- Green Party 2012 presidential nominee, Dr. Jill Stein.

"Part 1 of 2: Sam Seder hosted Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein to discuss her 2012 Presidential campaign. Stein outlined her proposals for a "Green New Deal" and explained why she thought Democratic Party was a dead end for progressive politics. But, Sam wondered if she was missing the lessons of the Bush era and wanted to know what the Green plan was for after the election... 

From The Majority Report 

"Part 2 of 2: Sam Seder hosted Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein to discuss her 2012 Presidential campaign. Stein outlined her proposals for a "Green New Deal" and explained why she thought Democratic Party was a dead end for progressive politics. But, Sam wondered if she was missing the lessons of the Bush era and wanted to know what the Green plan was for after the election... 

Source:The Majority Report- Green Party 2012 presidential nominee, Dr. Jill Stein.

From The Majority Report

I have no problem as a Liberal Democrat with Jill Stein running for President for the Green Party politically or philosophically, because she would be lucky to get 1-5% of the vote for President. And that's assuming both Democrats and Republicans forget to vote. Perhaps both party's will pass laws at the last minute, prohibiting the other party from voting. Like those so-called bogus ( to be generous ) Voter ID laws.

Libertarian Gary Johnson, has a better opportunity to cost President Obama the election and philosophically I don't have a problem either, because Dr. Stein is the Socialist voice for President. ( Especially since contrary to to popular belief with the Tea Party, Barack Obama is actually not a Socialist )

Barack Obama is the Center-Left pragmatic Progressive candidate for President, but not liberal enough for me. And Mitt Romney is basically the Conservative candidate for President ( depending on which Mitt Romney he decides to be or even who he is talking to and campaigning for ) and you can argue whether Mitt is a Conservative to begin with. But that's a different discussion.

Gary Johnson is the real Liberal in the race, but he's running as a Libertarian. But Jill Stein is the real Socialist voice in this presidential election and a country as big as we are and politically diverse as we are, all of our political factions deserve a voice in politics. Which is the main weakness with our two party political system.

PDX Justice: Greg Palast- 'The Best Democracy Money Can Buy'

Source:PDX Justice- New-Left political journalist Greg Palast.

"Progressive investigative journalist, Greg Palast, speaking at a benefit for KBOO Community Radio, the Portland Alliance monthly, and the Rearguard student newspaper, on April 5, 2003, in Portland, Oregon."

From PDX Justice

In a liberal democracy like America, you want the people and that is everyone who can vote at least, be able to not only question, but lobby their public officials including Congress, the President, as well as their state and local public officials. Lobbying by itself is not a crime, a sin, or even a problem. Giving money to politicians, is not a crime, or sin, or a problem by itself.

It's when lobbying and financial contributions, go underground when politics goes underground it's when it becomes a problem. To use a hypothetical: When Senator Smith (or whoever) takes millions from the oil and gas industry and constantly votes against clean air standards and most people including the people who Senator Smith is supposed to represent, don't know that their Senator took all of that oil and gas money, then his or her voters don't know why their Senator is voting for big energy all the time and against clean air standards and they don't have the whole story.

The Senator Smith example is just a hypothetical, but if you're desperate for me to be bipartisan or even nonpartisan, how about Senator Jones who consistently votes against public choice and even public school choice and then it later turns out that Senator Jones takes millions of dollars from teacher unions who of course are against any school choice and even private schools at all. And of course Senator Jones constituents don't know about those campaign contributions. 

People who are what I call blind or coin flip voters, people if so-called Voter ID laws  ( which are really Democratic voter suppression laws ) have any use for at all it would be for non-educated voters. Not talking about people who didn't go to college or even finish high school. But people who don't know who they're voting for or against. Because they haven't done their homework on perspective political candidates. Perhaps their dog ate their homework, or perhaps they simply just fed their dog their homework. And decided not to do their homework, because they were too busy staring at their i-phone, or worried about missing their favorite reality TV show.

Again, I'm not against lobbying or even private sector and individual campaign contributions. It's when they're blind because either voters are too dumb and irresponsible to follow the money ( to use a cliche ) or the politician is not required under law to disclose those political contributions. And of course they wouldn't do it voluntarily especially if they have a consistent voting record backing the groups that they take money from. 

In any free and open liberal democratic society like America, you have to have disclosure and it has to be enforced responsibility, to prevent politicians from being bought. And you also need smart educated voters to hold their public officials accountable.

RT America: Jill Stein: 'Barack Obama Has Been Worst Than George W. Bush'

Source:RT America- 2012 Green Party nominee for President, Dr. Jill Stein: one of the handful of people on the Far-Left, that can even make Senator Bernie Sanders look moderate.

"Jill Stein: 'Barack Obama Has Been Worst Than George W. Bush." Originally from RT America, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube. 

First of all, to correct the record: 25% of the 2009 American Recovery Act were tax cuts, all targeted to the middle class. Tax cuts that both Mitt Romney and Jill Stein want to repeal, resulting in tax hikes for the, well middle class. People who simply can't afford to pay extra in taxes right now. So there's at least one area that separates President Obama from both Governor Romney and Dr. Stein, who claimed that the Recovery Act was mostly tax cuts and she said a couple of days ago, tax cuts for the rich.

Completely bogus ( to be overly generous ) claims and it's beyond me how someone who is running for President of the United States and won their party's nomination for President, does not know that. But people who are aren't running for President do know that, because they've actually seen the bill. 

Under Dr. Stein the Obama/Bush tax cuts disappear, including the middle class tax cuts, that took more working Americans off of the tax rolls and lowered the bottom tax rate. People who are low-income workers and lower middle class workers pay, to 10%. Vote for the Green Party, you are voting for middle class tax hikes.

As far as the Green Deal, based off of the New Deal from the 1930s ( obviously, duh! ) putting the Federal Government essentially in charge of job creation and economic growth and would put the Federal Government in charge of prioritizing what projects and what works need to be done in America. 

Putting the Federal Government in charge of hiring all of these unemployed workers to do this work. And one way that Dr. Stein says she would pay for this, a roughly 800B$ stimulus package, all public sector centered, is by pulling all of our troops out of the Afghan and Iraq Wars. By ending those wars.

I'm for ending those wars now myself, but the problem with financing an economic plan with money from Afghanistan and Iraq, is that both of those wars were put on the National Debt Card. Not a dime of either war has ever been paid for. So what a hypothetical ( or perhaps science fiction ) Stein Administration would do, is stop the borrowing of hundreds of billions of dollars to fund one thing and take all of that money to be borrowed to pay for something else.

I hate to put it this way, because I'm not a fan of the two-party system, even as a Liberal Democrat whose party has benefited greatly from it, but a vote for Jill Stein for President, is literally a vote for Mitt Romney. 

The more votes that President Obama doesn't get, are votes that don't go against Mitt Romney. And the way to fix this in the future, is to blow up the two-party system and replace it with a system that would accompany, Democratic Socialists, like the Greens, Libertarians, and Independents.