Scott Bradley: 'Should We Try To Legislate Morality?'

Source:Freedoms Rising Sun- Moot question.

“Should We Try to Legislate Morality?"

From Scott Bradley

To answer Scott Bradley's question: no we should not try to legislate morality. At least when it comes to personal behavior and how free adults conduct themselves in their personal lives.

Source:Merion West- People protesting against alcohol prohibition 

It's sort of a moot question anyway because every civilized country in the world with a functioning government whether it's a developed country or developing country, legislates morality at least in the sense that it lays the rules for how people can interact with each other. To put it simply, we're not allowed to hurt innocent people. We're not allowed to rape each other, physically attack each other, steal from each other murder each other, kidnap each other, commit fraud against each other. We're not allowed to commit these acts and other dangerous acts against innocent people and if we do we face steep legal consequences for doing these things. Which is why we have jails and prisons because we have people who hurt innocent people everyday and have to pay a justifiable price for them.

Source:Faithful Thinkers- Religious of Freedom, but not theocracy 

But that's not my main interest here anyway, because I'm more interested in what government's role if any is when it comes to how people conduct themselves in their personal lives. I'm not talking about people hurting innocent people, but I'm not talking about who people act and do with their own lives and conduct themselves in their personal lives and how much freedom should we have in our own lives. When people can have sex, what we can eat and drink, smoke, the types of entertainment that we can listen to and watch, what we can do with our own bodies and what we can put into our own bodies.

Government already legislates morality and I think Scott Bradley is at least smart enough understand that at least, if he doesn't already know that. The real question is to what extent and should we remain liberal democratic republic or not where personal freedom and autonomy is vast, even if some of our personal choices and activities offends others religious and cultural values. Or do we want big government coming in and telling us who we can have sex with, when we can have sex, who we can marry, what we can put into out bodies, do in the privacy of our own homes and tells us this is what moral and what's not based on some religious and moral code. And even if what we're doing is not actually hurting anyone, it still has to be illegal, because it's immoral according some people's religious and moral values.

And as a Liberal myself I believe it's not the job of government to try to protect us from ourselves, but to protect innocent people from predators and predatory behavior. And as long as people aren't hurting innocent people with what they're doing, government should stay out of the way and allow for free adults to live their own lives and deal with the consequences of their own decisions. Instead of big government coming in and telling us what we should believe and how we should think and this is how we should live our own personal lives.

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.

Ron Paul Liberty Report: 'Emergencies Do Not Trump The Constitution'

Source:Ron Paul Liberty Report- U.S. Representative Ron Paul: R, Texas. 

“Using “national emergencies” to rule by diktat is an old and unfortunate tradition among U.S. presidents. It is also unconstitutional.”

From the Ron Paul Liberty Report

In the United States we have not only separation of powers, but three branches in our national government that all have different roles and responsibilities. Whether they're all equal or not and under the Constitution they're supposed to be, they all have different roles and responsibilities. If the President wants new funding to pay for one of his new priorities or additional funding to an existing program in the government, he has to get that approved by Congress. He can't just pass that new funding and objective on his own. he has to get that approved by House and Senate and sign it into law.

Source:Newsmax- President Donald Trump: "what national emergency?"

I'm not a lawyer and neither is Representative Ron Paul, but just looking at President Trump's so-called national emergency there are at least two obvious problems with looking at it from the outside.

The first one is practical and that the emergency that the President Trump is declaring simply doesn't exist. Not even Fox News, Newsmax, Breitbart, America One News, or any other right-wing pro-Trump media outlet is reporting that there are millions, thousands, or even hundreds of less of people coming across our southern border right now illegally. If there is any emergency whatsoever as it relates to illegal immigration in America and I don't believe there is one, but the fact that have 10-15 million illegal immigrants in America in a country of 320 million people is certainly an issue that this country has been trying to deal with going back to the Reagan Administration.

President Trump said himself the day that he declared his so-called national emergency that he didn't have to declare right now. I don't know about you and I image everyone would agree with this, but if my house was on fire I would call the Fire Department right away to get the fire put out, because that would obviously be an emergency. Donald Trump ever since he started running for President in the summer of 2015 has been talking about the need for a border wall on our southern border and there is an emergency at the border.

Donald Trump, was elected President a year and a half later after he announced his presidential campaign and has been President for 25 months now and not once until after Republicans lost the House in November 2018, did he either officially declare an emergency at the national border, or send up a bill to the Republican Congress in 2017-18 to get his border wall completed. And you can talk about 60 vote rule in the Senate all you want and that Democrats had 48-49 seats in the Senate during that Congress, but if you're familiar with Congressional spending rules, you know that Congress can pass a spending bill out of the House and Senate with simple majorities in both chambers.

President Trump and Congressional Republicans could've passed a border security bill on their own with just Republican votes both in the House and Senate under reconciliation. But they chose to spend six months on ObamaCare repeal and when they failed there they went to tax cuts where they did pass their tax cuts through reconciliation in the House and Senate. So President Trump seriously has a credibility problem claiming that there is an emergency at the border which is why he declared his national emergency, when he's already admitted that he didn't have to declare his emergency.

The other issue with President Trump's so-called national emergency is constitutional. Congress, not the execute appropriates money for the Federal Government. Congress, has the power of the purse and gets to decide what the government can spend and what they can't spend. Meaning that the executive can only spend money that has already been approved by Congress to spend on the priorities that Congress has approved at the levels that Congress has approved. In other words, Congress decides what the levels of funding are in the budget and where and how that money is spent . Once the President and Congress agree on what levels of funding and where that money is going to be spent by the government, then the Executive has the responsibility to spend and enforce those laws that have already been passed and sign into law.

As much Donald Trump might want to be President of the Russian Federation or the King of the Saudi Kingdom, or lead any other right-wing or any other dictatorship in the world, unfortunately he's the President of the United States and just our problem to deal with. But we still have our checks and balances and separation of powers. Things that every single American gets to learn about when they're in high school. I took U.S. Government as a sophomore in high school. This is not something that we have to read books or listen to documentaries about as adults, but something that we learn in high school and take further courses on in college if we decide to do that, but something that Donald Trump seems to have very little knowledge about or interest in.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress.

The Daily Beast: Brian Riedl: 'We're $16 Trillion in The Hole- Democrats Want To Burry Us $42 Trillion Deeper'

Source:The Daily Beast- it's our money, not Uncle Sam's.

“The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected that the annual budget deficit will soar from $779 billion to $1.37 trillion over the next decade. And even that assumes that Congress will allow the expiration of both the 2017 tax cuts and the 2018 bipartisan deal increasing discretionary spending.

If those and other expiring policies are renewed—which history suggests will happen—the budget deficit would reach a staggering $2.19 trillion a decade from now (this figure also removes the fake savings from shifting payments across years).” 

From The Daily Beast 

“Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren’s new tax plans would make sure the super rich pay their fair share. 

Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are both introducing tax reform bills that would use wealth tax to make the rich pay their fair share. The Elizabeth Warren wealth tax could raise trillions of dollars in tax revenue. Both Warren and Sanders have thrown their hat into the 2002 presidential election. Elizabeth Warren 2020 is gaining steam daily. Republicans meanwhile are hoping to create more tax cuts for the rich.

Warren unveiled the Ultra-Millionaire Tax. It could generate almost $3 trillion for Americans over the next decade. It would only affect households with assets over $50 million. It would tax 2% on every dollar of net worth above $50 million and tax 3% on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion.

Bernie dropped the ‘For the 99.8% Act.’ It goes after the 0.2% of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million by taxing their estates at 77%. This comes after 3 GOP Senators introduced plans to abolish the estate tax, which they deem the ‘death tax.’

Bernie’s tax plan could raise $2.2 trillion from just 588 billionaires over time. And raise $315 billion in the next decade. Bernie’s tax plan isn’t new — a GOP President once championed the idea. One thing’s for sure: Wall Street is terrified by both Bernie AND Warren’s plans.”  

Source:Now This News- U.S. Senator's Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren: Chairman and Chairwoman of the Congressional Free Stuff Caucus, for the 116th Congress. LOL

From Now This News

Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists (let's call them ) argue the national debt and budget deficits aren't important, because their new investments will payoff anyway. And even if our fiscal situation is a problem like a trillion-dollar deficit and 20 trillion-dollar debt, they could just tax rich (as if that's never been tried before) or gut the defense budget. Of course having no idea where to gut the defense budget anyway, since Democratic Socialists tend not to believe in national defense and have this hippie or Nordic way of looking at national defense anyway.

And as a result we now have a Democratic presidential field where every leftist candidate at least is trying to become the next Bernie Sanders Socialist and win the nomination by trying to out promise (or out pander) or I at least would argue out socialist everyone else including Bernie Sanders, by trying to play Santa Clause to every young Democrat they can find in every college town that they can find and promise them all this new so-called free stuff in order to win the nomination and the hell with the deficit and national debt.

Which is what can happen when you have no many young idealistic voters who believe that government can do all these things for the people and aren't mature and responsible enough to ask basic questions (that might sound insulting to Socialists) like: "How much will this cost me?" Or: "How will you pay for all these new programs?" Which is the state of the Democratic presidential race right now, the more government spending, the merrier and we'll worry about the costs later on after we're all out of politics and government. 

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on Blogger.

ACLU: 'A Supreme Court Fight For Students Free Speech Rights- The Story of John and Mary Beth Tinker'

Source:ACLU- Back when students believed in free speech. 

Source:ACLU

“In 1969, a group of public school students protesting the Vietnam War made First Amendment history that stands strong to this day.

Mary Beth Tinker and John Tinker grew up in Iowa, where their father was a Methodist minister.

When they were teenagers in 1965, they started to see horrific news about the escalating war in Vietnam, thanks to the brave journalists reporting there. Young people we knew in Des Moines started to be sent to war — and they were coming home in coffins.

They decided to wear black armbands to school to send a message of mourning for the dead in Vietnam on both sides and support for a Christmas truce. The school suspended them and three others for wearing the armbands.

The Iowa Civil Liberties Union said that was a violation of their First Amendment rights and told them to try to negotiate with the school board to change the policy. When the board voted to continue the ban on armbands, the national ACLU took the case to court on behalf of them and another student, Chris Eckhardt.

Dan Johnston, a young lawyer also from Des Moines and just out of law school, argued the case. After defeats at the lower courts, he won 7-2 at the Supreme Court on February 24, 1969. “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” the majority opinion said.

The court went on to affirm the freedom that young people have under the Constitution: In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students…are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State.

There are still limits on what students can do in public schools. Under the ruling, students can’t violate rules that aren’t targeted at expression, like attendance policies, as long as their school is applying the rules equally, regardless of whether students have broken them to protest or for other reasons. And students can’t “materially disrupt” the functioning of their school, though what’s considered disruptive can depend on the situation.

Over the years, students have protested everything from apartheid in South Africa to a ban on dancing. And of course there were 2018’s massive student protests that followed the shooting massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

Schools aren’t supposed to only teach things like math and science — they’re also supposed to prepare students to participate in society. The ability to speak out and make up your own mind through freedom of expression lies at the core of what it means to live in our society, and it wouldn’t make sense for public schools to try to stop students from learning to exercise their speech rights. A half century after the Supreme Court recognized that truth, it’s important now more than ever.” 

From the ACLU 

If you look at American political culture from the 1960s and 70s, they have a lot of things in common with the Millennial’s today in the sense that they both have serious leanings on the Left ( if not Far-Left ) and don’t seem to have issues with even with communism, let alone socialism in general and if anything have no issues with being labeled as a Socialist.

And if you look at groups like ANTIFA, they have no issues with being labeled as Communists and in some cases at least are even self-described Communists. But there’s one thing that makes the leftist political activists from 40-50 years ago different from the Millennial leftists activists today and that has to do with free speech.

Back in the 1960s, especially the late 60s, free speech protests were about free speech rights and defending the right for young Americans to be able to speak freely. That’s what the Baby Boomers back then who were still in college or just out of college were fighting for which was the right to speak freely and advocate for their own political positions whether it was the right to protest against the Vietnam War, civil rights for African-Americans and other minorities, or fighting against censorship as it related to their music and other entertainment. There was a real liberal element as it related to personal freedom and individualism for the political activists of the Baby Boom Generation that we don’t see from the Millennials today, in most cases.

Today, free speech rallies and protests are about protesting against free speech from people that college activists disagree with and in even some cases hate. We now have comedians whether it’s Jerry Seinfeld or Chris Rock even who refuse to perform on campus, because they don’t want to deal with the political correctness and censorship on campus there.

Millennials today, love their own free speech rights and the First Amendment protection for free speech in America, as well as the people who agree with them, but will fight like hell in order to censor people who disagree with them. And label them as bigots who have no place in their America and don’t even have the right to be heard, according to them.

The Baby Boom protesters, were the real Liberals on campus at least as it related to free speech and personal freedom. Unlike the Millennials today, who in many cases sound like Communists who don’t believe in free speech and personal freedom. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Peter G. Peterson Foundation: 'Why The National Debt Matters'

Source:Peter G. Peterson Foundation- Americans who will probably be paying for the national debt for the rest of their lives.

“At $23 trillion and rising, the national debt threatens America’s economic future. Here are some of the reasons why the national debt matters. Learn more:Peterson Foundation."

From the Peter G. Peterson Foundation

For anyone who tries to tell you that deficits and the national debt don't matter, whether there are Socialists on the Left or supply Neoconservatives on the Right, ask them one question: "then why do we need taxes if we we have unlimited borrowing power?" If deficits and debt doesn't matter and you have unlimited borrowing power, you wouldn't need taxes. If you want government to do something or increase spending, since you have unlimited borrowing power like someone who has their own printing machine and just print money every time they want to spend money, you can just print the money you need and want to spend.

This is a ridiculous question, because of course deficits and debt matter. So don't let the Dick Cheney's of the world or these leftist Democrats ( whether they call themselves Socialists or not ) running for President who will promise any single new government program that they can think of in order to win the Democratic nomination and who'll call their programs and services free, even though they're at least smart enough to know that their services won't be free and perhaps are just plain dishonest about it. Because they'll either be paid for in new taxes on the middle class by the way and not people who live in Manhattan, or the Hamptons, or in Georgetown, or in Beverly Hills, but by people who work hard everyday and live in middle class communities in Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Chicago, and other places. Because the wealthy are smart enough to move their money oversees anytime they get wind of a new tax coming down the pike for them.

As it says in the video American taxpayers of all incomes every year pay about 390 billion dollars in interest payments on the debt. Which is just one example of what can happen when you have a national debt that's the size of you're entire gross national product. Just think of what Uncle Sam could do with 390 billion dollars a year that he doesn't have to tax his nephews and nieces every year to raise that revenue. 390 billion would repair, replace, and create a helluva lot of public infrastructure in America. Lots of roads and new schools in middle class and low-income communities. Money that could also be used to for adult education so people who are struggling to pay their bills and don't have enough education. We could be investing new funds for people who are uneducated and currently not working so they can finish and further their education, enter the workforce and join the middle class in America.

If you call yourself a Progressive, these are just some of the investments that America could be making for their people to improve their lives. But we can't do these things and a country and do other public investments when we're giving out 390 billion dollars a year ( and growing ) simply because we're not adult and responsible enough as citizens and public officials to pay for the things that we want our government to do for us every year. Of course deficits and debt matters and they don't go way simply by saying, "we'll just tax the rich" especially when even if your IRS actually gets that money would just be spent on new programs or put into additional government programs. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on WordPress.

Brookings Institution: William A. Galston: 'Is Medicare For All A Trap For Democrats?'

Source:Brookings Institution- Washington: the capital of the free world. 

Source:Brookings Institution 

To answer William Galston's question: Medicare For All, is a trap for Democrat and I'll explain why.

Source:The Wall Street Journal- Socialist Democrats?

Back in 1972 had the Democratic Party nominated Senator Edmund Muskie, who was a solid Progressive Democrat, but a Center-Left mainstream Democrat, over Senator George McGovern who was the Bernie Sanders Socialist of him time running nationally against a Center-Right and in many cases Progressive Republican in Richard Nixon, chances are and would depend on what campaign he would've ran, but he probably beats President Nixon in that election. The reasons why Richard Nixon ever becomes President in the first place and didn't win in 1960 has as much to do with to do with who he ran against in 60, 68, and 72 and the Democratic Party during those years, as it had to do with Richard Nixon the man himself. Who was never a popular national figure, at least personally even if Americans liked his foreign policy.

If anything Donald Trump is even less likable and and more unpopular than Richard Nixon. Whatever you think of Dick Nixon, at least he had a plus approval rating as President and more than two years into his presidency, Trump has never been above even 45% and that was in his first days as President. Which means that Trump can't run for election on his popularity and run a positive campaign, because other than the strong economic and job growth in the economy, President trump really has nothing to run on in a positive sense. Americans clearly don't like him, don't trust him, don't even believe the man, don't even believe he's honest and not just ignorant and unqualified and they believe he's ignorant and unqualified, but apparently disliked Hillary Clinton even more in 2016. Which is how Donald trump, who is nothing more than a reality show star who really has nothing other than that when it comes to his own accomplishments becomes President of the United States.

So why is Medicare For All a trap for Democrats?

Instead of being able to run a positive reelection campaign in 2020, President Trump will be running a campaign against the Democratic Party. He'l be running against those Socialist Democrats ( as he'll them ) and their Socialist Democrat nominee for President ( as he'll call whoever that person is ) who wants to just raise your taxes, spend most of your money for you, take your health care and health insurance from you and make all of us dependent on Uncle Sam for our daily survival. If the Democratic Party and their leader embrace Medicare For All and the so-called Green New Deal in general. But if Democrats nominate a Center-Left Progressive ( which is what Progressives really are and not Socialists ) like a Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Andrew Cuomo, Jay Inslee, ( just to throw out some names here ) than they can not just beat President Trump, especially if they have a solid Vice Presidential nominee, but don't have to run to the middle and be boring to beat the Republican Party in 2020. Which means not just the White House, but winning back the Senate and adding to their majority in the House.

The difference between what's called Medicare For All which depending on what numbers you look would be a new 3 trillion-dollar Federal program, where almost no one knows how to finance that and plus all the lost jobs that would result in eliminating the private health insurance industry, as well as perhaps jobs in the medical industry with hospitals having to layoff doctors and nurses because Medicare simply doesn't cover everything that private health insurers cover and what's called the Medicare Public Option that was almost passed out of Congress in 2009-10 and probably should've been had then Senate Leader Harry Reid used reconciliation on that and he could've gotten it through the Senate with just 51 Democratic votes, is that the private health insurance and health care industry would remain in place. But Americans depending on how the Medicare Public Option would be set up would now have the option to buy into Medicare in their state as if they were buying private health insurance, or keep their private health insurance plan.

I have issues with what's called Medicare For All for multiple reasons.

Perhaps the main one after you get to how huge the new Medicare would be with it now responsible for the health insurance and therefor the health care of about 320 million Americans ( and growing ) with roughly 1/5 Americans not able to afford health insurance at all which would make the Medicare costs for everyone else especially lower middle class Americans more expensive, because they would have to cover their own Medicare costs, plus the costs of low-income Americans whether they're working or not.

Perhaps the 2nd would be me as  Federalist who actually still believes in the U.S. Constitution and that having to do with the 10th Amendment. It would be one thing if the Federal Government decided to eliminate the private health insurance industry and replace it with Medicare For All and allow the states to run their own Medicare program, instead of Uncle Sam trying to run the whole damn program for the entire country himself, because then Medicare For All would be on sound constitutional grounds and not get the 10th Amendment challenges in court that it would be guaranteed to get. And then you would also get some competition between the states about how best to run Medicare in America.

My 3rd issue has to do with the fact that Medicare For All is not only not practical, but not necessary either. You can get to universal health care coverage without having to create one huge and expensive health insurance program. Which is the Medicare Public Option that I've already mentioned. Give Americans of all ages the option to buy into Medicare as if they were purchasing private health insurance.

Similar to Medicaid, allow the states to set up their own Medicare programs instead of again Uncle Sam trying to run the entire new program by himself. And the simple answer to the simple question of how would this be paid for is it would be paid for by the customers themselves. And you could set up a new low-income fund for low-income workers and people who are on Welfare so they could get into Medicare as well, if they choose too. With a Medicare Public Option you could also now eliminate Medicaid, because Medicare would become universal in the sense that every would become eligible for it. You could also even phase out the payroll tax for Medicare, because you now have all this new additional Americans paying into Medicare for their health insurance. Which would be a huge middle class tax cut for 10s or hundreds of millions of Americans.

If Democrats are smart history suggests they might not be instead repeat the history of 1968 and 72, but if they're smart they'll leave the socialism for the Green Party again in 2020 and instead of run as the FDR or Truman, LBJ, Obama Progressive Democratic Party as a party that's not looking to take over Americans lives for them and create a government big enough to run people's lives for them, but instead a responsible government that is able to empower people who are in need to get up and become productive and successful members of society.

As well as be able to represent the entire country as a whole and not just as politicians who are running for a certain wing of the country that wants government to do everything for them, but instead as a pluralist party that represents all Americans and what we have in common as a country that believes that every American regardless of their physical identity and DNA can make it America on their own, if they're just given the opportunity to do so.

Source:MSNBC: MTP Daily With Chuck Todd- U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley: Democrats Divided Over Single-Payer Health Care- Yes, Democrats divided over Medicare For All 

Bernard Goldberg: 'We Love Free Stuff- As Long As Someone Else Is Paying For It'

Source:Zazzle- Truer words have never been said.

“It’s become Democratic Party orthodoxy, at least if you’re a progressive running for president: First, you righteously demand that the richest Americans pay their “fair share” which is a top tax rate of at least 70 percent. Then you promise “free” college at public universities for everyone. After that, you say that health care is a right and demand “Medicare for all.” For good measure you throw in that everyone who wants a job will be guaranteed a job, maybe even a guaranteed annual income, and of course, in the short run, an increase in the minimum wage.”

From Bernard Goldberg

"Milton Friedman Replies to a Socialist about the cost of free stuff."

Source:Simply Explained- Professor Milton Friedman, talking about the cost of free stuff, in 1979-80.

From Simply Explained

Socialists whether they're democratic or not or self-described like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria O. Cortez or closeted like Elizabeth Warren and others, would have a lot more respect and credibility in America and perhaps even followers and believers if they were upfront and completely honest about what they're talking about. And instead of arguing that all these new public services that they want and new investments in current public services would be free, because they would be provided for by the Federal Government or any other government and just be honest about that and say, "government can do all these things, but they'll come with a cost and real cost at that."

Source:Crush The Street- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez: self-described Democratic Socialists in Congress 

The only things that are free in life once you're parents are no longer supporting you, is death and things that you win in contests. Coupons that you get at stores from being first time or regular customer at your stores. Everything else comes with a cost in life, even for people who live off of public assistance. You might argue that low-income people get things like Food Assistance and Medicaid for free, but the fact is the price they pay for getting those services is a steep and very expensive one, which is living in poverty. If you pay taxes for the public services that you get in life, you don't need to be an accountant or lawyer to realize that you're paying for those so-called free services. Whether it's Medicare or national defense or anything else that the U.S. Government provides for their people.

What Socialists in the Democratic Party do whether it's Senator Bernie Sanders ( no longer the only self-described Democratic Socialist in Congress ) or Representative Alexandria O. Cortez or any other Socialist in Congress, ( again, whether they're self-described or closeted ) is saying that Uncle Sam is going to give every American is who is not rich all of this free stuff, because Uncle Sam is friends or partners with Santa Clause and his helpers and everyone is going to get free health care, health insurance, college, pension, a job, income even for people who only don't work, because they don't want to work. And that the rich are going to pay for all of this taxpayer funded free stuff. Even though anyone who is familiar with the American economy knows the way the rich avoid taxation especially high taxation, is by taking their money, investments, and property outside of America and investing in other countries with lower taxation, or start those new investments in those countries.

If you want free stuff in life, win your state lottery, became a professional gambler, or rob a bank. None of these suggestions I would actually recommend, other than maybe winning the lottery if you know something about the lottery that no one else does. Otherwise come back down from your Planet Mars marijuana high and back down to Earth and realize that life is not free. It's okay to be a Socialist, even though I don't agree or even like socialism, but you at the very least be honest about it even at the risk of losing political support. And say, "of course all these public services aren't going to be free, but they're affordable and yes taxes on the middle class will have to be raise either through new payroll taxes, income, or new sales taxes, but the investments will be worth it for you."

The problem with my own argument here is that once Socialists start talking honestly about their socialism, the popularity and approval of democratic socialism in America would drop faster than a bus going off a bridge into a lake. Americans would actually wake up to the fact that, "wait, I actually have to pay for all these new government services. I thought Uncle Sam or Bernie, or Aunt Alexandria, or Elizabeth were going to give me these services for free." Even the most Far-Left amongst us once they start actually having to pay taxes, especially new taxes tend to not like high taxes. Especially if they're trying to buy their first home, looking to get married and have kids, maybe starting their own business. But at least these Socialists would no longer sound like politicians and instead like people who are actually trying to lead and believe in their own politics.

The Week: 'Mick Mulvaney- Says Nobody Cares About The Deficit: He Used To Care A lot'

Source:The Week- White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. 

"Republicans knew someone would notice if President Trump didn't mention the deficit in his Tuesday State of the Union. Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney didn't agree.

When Trump previewed his speech for 20 Republican supporters on Monday, Mulvaney argued that the ballooning deficit didn't need to be included because "nobody cares" about it, ABC News reports. That's not what Mulvaney would've said in his congressional days.

Before Trump tapped him to direct the Office of Management and Budget, Mulvaney was a congressman from South Carolina. And when he campaigned to earn that spot over Democratic incumbent and House Budget Committee Chair John Spratt, he made deficit reduction his "central policy concern," Politico's Jake Sherman recalls. He continued to complain about the national debt and deficit in his budget chair confirmation hearing in January 2017, but showed a shift that October when the Republican Tax Cuts and Jobs Act rolled around.

Ahead of its passage, the Congressional Budget Office concluded the GOP tax overhaul would add $1.46 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. Another report concluded that, with an additional round of cuts proposed but not passed the next year, the total could reach $3.2 trillion. Yet Mulvaney defended the GOP's tax reform proposal all the way, telling Fox News in October 2017 that America needed "new deficits" to grow the economy. That earned Mulvaney a dreaded question from host Chris Wallace: "You were a deficit hawk. What happened, sir?"

Source:The Week 

"It wasn't ok when President Obama's government spending was causing budget deficits, but White House budget director Mick Mulvaney seems to accept deficits now that President Trump's proposed tax cuts might cause them."

Source:CNN- How times have changed 

From CNN

The title of this piece is very important, because before Mick Mulvaney became White House Chief of Staff and even before he was Director of Management and Budget at the White House, he was a U.S Representative from South Carolina and served on the House Budget Committee. It gets  even better than this, because he was part of the 2010 Tea Party House freshman class of 62 new House Republicans that won back the House for Republicans that year.

It gets even better than that, because back then when we had a 1 trillion dollar budget deficit with a Democratic President, House Republicans especially, but the Republican Party as a whole saw the national debt and deficits as big of threats to the United States as they see the People's Republic of China, or the Islamic Republic of Iran, a nuclear Communist Korea. They talked about the dangers of the national debt and saw them as threats to their children and grandchildren's future with all the interest that they would have to pay on the national debt.

Back in the good ole days ( pre-President Donald Trump ) and just the first few years of this decade, Republicans especially House Republicans lead by Minority Leader and later Speaker John Boehner were serious deficit hawks. They made the Committee For a Responsible Budget ( an inside Washington reference ) proud everyday when they talked about the debt and deficit. But there's a catch to all of this, because back then there was a Democratic President named Barack Obama, who the Tea Party viewed as a tax and spend, Un-American Socialist who was ruining their 1950s Ozzie and Harriet America. ( And whether that was racial or not, you be the judge for yourself )

And go up to 2017 and what has changed? Replace a Progressive Democratic President named Barack Obama with a right-wing cultural warrior champion Nationalist President named Donald Trump. And give him a Republican Congress with the House and Senate ( for you American U.S. Government students ) and you now have a Republican President who calls himself the King of Debt. Who appoints a Secretary of Treasury Steve Mnuchin who actually says that deficits don't matter. And a Republican House led by Speaker Paul Ryan who was probably the biggest deficit hawk at least as far as rhetoric during the Obama Administration, especially when he chaired the House Budget Committee, who is only concern with keeping his majority and passing enough legislation ( regardless of how it's paid for ) to keep his majority.

To know that the Tea Party campaign against the national debit and deficit was nothing more than a fraud that was as big as Enron, ( from back in the day ) go back to what they were saying about those issues then when Mick Mulvaney was Republican Mick Mulvaney and go up today with Donald Trump leading the Republican Party and what he and they say about the debt and deficit today. They claimed to care about those fiscal issues when there was a Democratic President and don't give a damn ( to be nice ) about those issues today. But only because now we have a Republican President who doesn't care about those issues. As well as a spineless House and Senate Republican caucus, who doesn't care about those issues either 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

The Daily Beast: Michael Tomasky: 'A 70% Percent Tax Rate Isn't Radical- Alexandria O. Cortez Has It Just Right'

Source:The Daily Beast- U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez (Democrat, New York) self-described Democratic Socialist. 

"Once they got over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s dancing and Instagramming, they really flipped out over her tax talk, which she discussed with Anderson Cooper on “60 Minutes” Sunday night and which CBS leaked out last Friday as a little amuse-bouche to get people to tune in.

Wait, what?! A tax rate of 60 or 70 percent? Is she mad?" 

From The Daily Beast 

"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 70% marginal tax rate isn’t that radical, nor would it take all of a multi-millionaire’s money. But Republicans don’t want you to know that.

» Subscribe to NowThis:Now This News." 

Source:Now This News- Jackson C. Davis?

From Now This News

What Michael Tomasky failed to mention here ( and perhaps intentionally ) is that back in the 1950s and 70s when we had high tax rates of 70 and 91%, no one especially the rich were actually paying that much in taxes, because of all the loopholes, as well as the wealthy investing money oversees to avoid taxation. 

Hell, if I was making 10 million dollars or more a year or anywhere near that, I would be doing the same thing. Along with making large contributions to charity, to avoid the taxes, but also to help people who need it that I can afford to help. The reason why these people weren't paying such high tax rates, is because of all the loopholes that were in the tax code in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s..

In 1986 thanks to the tax reform act of that year that was passed out of a divided Congress with a Democratic House and Republican Senate that worked with President Ronald Reagan and his Administration to pass, taxes were lower across the board and loopholes were closed. So people were paying lower tax rates, but weren't getting as much money back in credits and loopholes. 

That's not what freshman Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is talking about here and what Michael Tomasky is talking about here either. They would go in the opposite direction and raise the two top tax rates to 60 and 70% with no new loopholes.

So in theory the IRS would be getting a lot more money in new tax revenue from the wealthy, but that's assuming the very rich have brain freezes and forget that they can just invest a lot of more money oversees or just go north of the border to Canada and spend and invest their money there. The first 9 million or so of their earnings every year gets to Uncle Sam out of their wallets and bank accounts. Which would leave Uncle Sam with a big hole, because of course none of this so-called new revenue that he would be charging his wealthy nephews and nieces would be used to pay down his huge debts and deficits, but instead invested in new Federal programs, or new investments in current programs. Leaving Uncle Sam and his nephews and nieces a bigger national debt and deficit to pay off. Which would be paid off in new interest payments on the debt, or in higher inflation.

The problem with Socialists and socialism in general ( even if Socialists want to call themselves democratic or not ) is that they always have the same old solution to every problem that they see and what they call income inequality is a perfect example of that. Their solution to every problem that they see is always what they call new revenue. ( Washington speak for tax increases ) 

Socialists see that the wealthy which are probably 10% of the population at this point has all this money and then you have roughly 1-5 Americans who live in poverty and if you look at parts of rural America 2nd or 3rd world poverty, as well as in some inner cities. And then you 1-2 Americans or so that are technically middle class and aren't eligible for public assistance, but only make enough money to cover their current bills, if they're healthy and aren't able to save or invest any of their income and are a paycheck away from being on public assistance themselves. So their prescription to this economic disease to to tax the wealthy more and give that money to Uncle Sam to take care of this nephews and nieces that are struggling.

The problem with American capitalism has always been that we've always been a country where maybe 1-10 Americans are doing very well economically, who make a lot of money to the point that they can afford to invest and save a lot and then you have about 1-5 Americans who live in deep poverty, who are undereducated and even if they're working are dependent on public assistance and private charity just to survive in life. 

And we have this large middle class which generally is a good thing in any country to have a large middle class, but where maybe 1-2 of those Americans might only be middle class because they make too much money to be eligible for public assistance, but can't afford to invest and save and struggle just to pay their bills.

The problem with American capitalism has never been that we have too many rich people, but that we have too much poverty and too many working class people who struggle just to get by. The problem with American capitalism is that we've never had enough rich people, or economically successful people even if they aren't millionaires as far as their annual income, but have a good deal of money in savings and even have investments. 

And if you're someone who believes that the income gap ( as I call it ) is a big problem in America as I do as a Liberal, you should be thinking about how to empower people on the low-end of the economical scale to make more money. To have better jobs so they're no longer struggling just to pay their bills or live in poverty, but instead are making a good income that comes with benefits and allows them to invest and save. Instead going to play 1 ( and perhaps the only play in the socialist playbook ) of always trying to take from the rich to take care of people who are struggling.