It was true Anglo Saxon British-Americans essentially built America and at the very least led to the creation of the building of America. Now you could easily make an excellent case they built America off of African slave labor. And that the African slaves really built America as slaves to the Europeans who settled the country. Which is true but the Anglo-Saxons the first Americans who weren't Indian created the freedoms that we all enjoy as Americans today. Which is the United States Constitution and for that they deserve a lot of credit.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
The Book Archives: Richard Brookhiser- Social and Financial Power in America: How Anglo Europeans Created America
It was true Anglo Saxon British-Americans essentially built America and at the very least led to the creation of the building of America. Now you could easily make an excellent case they built America off of African slave labor. And that the African slaves really built America as slaves to the Europeans who settled the country. Which is true but the Anglo-Saxons the first Americans who weren't Indian created the freedoms that we all enjoy as Americans today. Which is the United States Constitution and for that they deserve a lot of credit.
James Miller Center: President Lyndon Johnson Signs 1964 Civil Rights Act
President Lyndon Johnson signing of the 1964 Civil Rights is one of the most important moments in American history. Because he signed a law that granted access to millions of Americans who were simply denied that access simply because of their race and for no other reason than that. And what it meant was that not only do all Americans have the same constitutional rights under law. But that they have to be enforced equally for all Americans. And if the states aren't willing to do that and leave Americans in the dark because of their race, than the Federal Government will step in and enforce those laws and rights for them.
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
The Fiscal Times: Opinion: Mark Thoma: Are Calls For Income Redistribution Based on Envy or Justice?: How to Expand Economic Wealth in America
The Fiscal Times: Opinion: Mark Thoma: Are Calls For Income Redistribution Based on Envy or Justice?
Wealth or income redistribution, it depends on how you define it because government at all levels does it all the time everyday. And generally when government redistributes wealth it is noncontroversial. It taxes these people who live here to fund a school or fix a road over here. Social Security taxes today's workers to pay for today's retirees. So for anyone who says they are against wealth redistribution they should also explain how they feel about public education and roads and so forth. Things that the public uses everyday that if anything most of us tend to take for granted.
But this post is not really about noncontroversial income redistribution because where would the fun be in that. But to talk about the controversial forms of wealth redistribution at least at the hands of government. That is calls from the let's say so-called progressive-left or even socialist-left that says "the Federal Government should tax the superrich and perhaps just plain rich people. (Perhaps minorities would be excluded) To take care of Americans who aren't doing very well and perhaps people who aren't technically but have to work very hard and a lot just to pay their bills".
If you want a society that is financially free at least in the sense that it is successful and not only able to pay their bills, but set aside money for themselves and even donate to charity and perhaps look after family members and friends who may need a little extra money, that economic success simply has to be encouraged and rewarded. Instead of essentially punishing people for making it on their own and making a lot of money to take care of people who aren't successful.
Otherwise you will create a dependent society in America instead of that free society where wealth is discouraged and dependency on government in order to survive financially is encouraged. Because you are telling people whether intentionally or not that they shouldn't be successful because we the government will take a lot of that money from you. And also telling people that "if you aren't successful the wealthy will take care of you at the hands of government".
What we should be doing instead as a society especially for struggling Americans is to empower them to become successful on their own. Either by finishing their education or furthering their education. So they can get themselves the skills that they need to be successful in life. And that means reforming public education in America, making educational and job training opportunities universal for low-skilled adults. And for the college educated who now need more skills because their good job left for another country or no longer exists. And investing a lot more in infrastructure especially in underserved communities so they have the roads, schools and business's that they need to be economically successful.
You want more Americans to be doing well in America you don't discourage the Americans who are doing well already to stop being successful. What you do instead is continue to encourage people to be successful in this country. As well as empower more Americans to be successful as well.
Salon: Robert Reich: Hillary's Appeals to the Middle Class Are Tone-Death
Salon: Opinion: Robert Reich: Hillary's Appeals to the Middle Class Are Tone-Death
Wow I actually agree with Robert Reich on something. That Hillary Clinton is tone-death. Wait that is not exactly how he put that, but she does seem to have a hard communicating to people about what she actually believes. And that could mean that she's a bad politician. Or less flattering she doesn't know what the hell she believes about anything at least when it comes to controversial issues. Or even less flattering she doesn't want to take an official stand on anything that may cost her support with people she believes she needs to win an election. Which would make her a weak and somewhat corrupt politician.
To give Hillary the benefit of the doubt (just to be polite if nothing else) I'm going to say that she's a bad politician. Not corrupt, but someone who doesn't know how to communicate what she actually believes in a way that garners the most support possible. Or doesn't have this Ronald Reagan quality as someone who comes off as credible and genuine that says what they believe. And leaves Americans in place as saying, "you know what I don't agree with that person on everything, but enough to support them. And at least they say what they believe unlike their opponents".
I also agree with Bob Reich on another thing and this might be the last time I agree with him on anything this summer. That Hillary Clinton's wealth or her husband's wealth is not a problem either. Just as long as the money they've made post-White House was made legally and legitimately. That they earned all of that money and again as Reich put it we've had several very wealthy presidents. Actually maybe even a majority of our presidents have been very well off before becoming President of the United States. We don't see a lot of career teachers or police officers or truck drivers making it as President. Our presidents tended to have come from successful wealthy families or made a lot of money in the private sector.
That doesn't disqualify wealthy people from running for President. As long as they have a message that appeals to common folk. (For lack of a better expression) And then can communicate how they became so wealthy and what plans do they have so average and struggling Americans can make it in America as well. Something to the effect "look I've made it in this country by getting myself a good education. Working hard, being very productive and producing a quality affordable service that has made me a lot of money. And so can you and this how you can be successful as well". Not sure if Hillary is capable of speaking to average Americans that way, but we'll soon see.
The Week: Damon Linker: Why Liberals Should Cheer the Hobby Lobby Decision
I agree with Damon Linker that real Liberals as I call people who are actually Liberals should support the Hobby Lobby decision. But perhaps I would put it differently. That it is one thing to be pro-choice which I am on most things as a Liberal. But it is another thing to say that you are not only pro-choice and lets take birth control to use as an example and that you believe women should have this right so much that you believe government should enforce that belief on the rest of the country even through law.
I believe in a hell of a lot of individual freedom as a Liberal and that is really what liberalism is about. Liberation and liberty what the word actually comes from. A bit different from collectivist or collectivism or the collective things that well collectivists tend to believe Socialists even. That "individual freedom by itself is dangerous and if you allow individuals to make these decisions for themselves you are giving them freedom to make mistakes that society have to pay for". Which is the common view of people who are supposed to be the so-called modern Liberals and Progressives. But they aren't, instead they are collectivists and statists which is very different.
But my broader point is you can believe in all of the individual freedom in the world. But if you don't match that with personal responsibility and that freedom is not free and that people need to be held responsible for their own personal choices. And that one's personal freedom can't infringe on others. Like forcing someone or organizations to pay for your own health care even if it goes against their religious beliefs. That is when and only when freedom is dangerous. When people aren't responsible for their own personal choices. And are allowed to infringe on others freedom and beliefs.
If you want birth control and decide to have an abortion, by all means more power to you. Just as long as I don't have to pay for it as an individual or no one else has to pay for it by law. Or we as taxpayers don't have to pay for it collectively. Which is why I agree with the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision. Because they aren't saying you can't have birth control, (at least not collectively) but what they are saying is that you can't force others to pay for your birth control.
I believe in a hell of a lot of individual freedom as a Liberal and that is really what liberalism is about. Liberation and liberty what the word actually comes from. A bit different from collectivist or collectivism or the collective things that well collectivists tend to believe Socialists even. That "individual freedom by itself is dangerous and if you allow individuals to make these decisions for themselves you are giving them freedom to make mistakes that society have to pay for". Which is the common view of people who are supposed to be the so-called modern Liberals and Progressives. But they aren't, instead they are collectivists and statists which is very different.
But my broader point is you can believe in all of the individual freedom in the world. But if you don't match that with personal responsibility and that freedom is not free and that people need to be held responsible for their own personal choices. And that one's personal freedom can't infringe on others. Like forcing someone or organizations to pay for your own health care even if it goes against their religious beliefs. That is when and only when freedom is dangerous. When people aren't responsible for their own personal choices. And are allowed to infringe on others freedom and beliefs.
If you want birth control and decide to have an abortion, by all means more power to you. Just as long as I don't have to pay for it as an individual or no one else has to pay for it by law. Or we as taxpayers don't have to pay for it collectively. Which is why I agree with the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision. Because they aren't saying you can't have birth control, (at least not collectively) but what they are saying is that you can't force others to pay for your birth control.
AEI: Opinion- Charles Murray- The Trouble Isn't Liberals, It's Progressives
Charles Murray hit it on the head in his AEI article about liberalism and how that is different from today's so-called progressivism. Even though even what is supposed to pass as progressivism today is really not progressivism either. But some form of leftist fascism and statism. A true Progressive is not a fascist and doesn't believe in unlimited government to serve or take care of the people either. But today's so-called Progressives seem to do and have an unlimited view of what government can do for people.
As a Liberal myself I'm finding everyday that I have more in common with real Conservatives. Not the big government religious fundamentalists, but real Conservatives the Rand Paul's of the world or Libertarians. Because we tend to believe in similar things. That it is not that Americans have too much freedom both economically and personally. But that we don't have enough in too many areas and tend to agree on things like the failed War on Drugs. Criminal justice reform, the prison industrial complex and the military industrial complex. That these two areas need to be reformed and that when people are educated they are much more qualified to run their own lives than government.
Of course I as a Liberal do not agree with Conservatives on economic policy in general. I would invest a lot more in infrastructure than they would and do not want to over regulate business, but believe they need to be regulated to protect workers and consumers from predators. And Conservatives in general tend to believe that regulations are a bad thing. And perhaps would privatize infrastructure all together in this country. But real Liberals and real Conservatives or Conservative Libertarians tend to have similar goals when it comes to these economic issues, but with different policies. And tend to have similar positions when it comes to social issues as well. That these things should be left up to the individual.
It's not Liberals that are the problem to paraphrase Charles Murray. But people on the Left who are called Liberals because the so-called Liberals either self-define their politics that way. Or the media is too dumb to tell the difference between a statist or fascist or Socialist or Communist even from a real Liberal. People who truly do believe in individual freedom and individualism and that there is a limit to what government can do for the people especially the central government.
It's not the Liberal that is alway trying to expand the state and eliminate all disagreeing points of the view to what the far-left preaches in America. About equality and collectivism at all costs. And that "freedom is dangerous even from a personal perspective and that we big central government to manage the social welfare of the country for the good of the country". But the far-left in America whether you want to call them collectivists or statists or even Democratic Socialists people who believe in the collective and collectivism and that individualism and freedom is dangerous and needs to be limited who believe in these ideas.
As a Liberal myself I'm finding everyday that I have more in common with real Conservatives. Not the big government religious fundamentalists, but real Conservatives the Rand Paul's of the world or Libertarians. Because we tend to believe in similar things. That it is not that Americans have too much freedom both economically and personally. But that we don't have enough in too many areas and tend to agree on things like the failed War on Drugs. Criminal justice reform, the prison industrial complex and the military industrial complex. That these two areas need to be reformed and that when people are educated they are much more qualified to run their own lives than government.
Of course I as a Liberal do not agree with Conservatives on economic policy in general. I would invest a lot more in infrastructure than they would and do not want to over regulate business, but believe they need to be regulated to protect workers and consumers from predators. And Conservatives in general tend to believe that regulations are a bad thing. And perhaps would privatize infrastructure all together in this country. But real Liberals and real Conservatives or Conservative Libertarians tend to have similar goals when it comes to these economic issues, but with different policies. And tend to have similar positions when it comes to social issues as well. That these things should be left up to the individual.
It's not Liberals that are the problem to paraphrase Charles Murray. But people on the Left who are called Liberals because the so-called Liberals either self-define their politics that way. Or the media is too dumb to tell the difference between a statist or fascist or Socialist or Communist even from a real Liberal. People who truly do believe in individual freedom and individualism and that there is a limit to what government can do for the people especially the central government.
It's not the Liberal that is alway trying to expand the state and eliminate all disagreeing points of the view to what the far-left preaches in America. About equality and collectivism at all costs. And that "freedom is dangerous even from a personal perspective and that we big central government to manage the social welfare of the country for the good of the country". But the far-left in America whether you want to call them collectivists or statists or even Democratic Socialists people who believe in the collective and collectivism and that individualism and freedom is dangerous and needs to be limited who believe in these ideas.
The New Republic: Dean Starkman: Closing The Racial Wealth Gap
Source:The New Republic
It is true that even since the American civil rights movement that even though African-Americans are doing much better than they were pre-civil rights that they still have a large income gap compared with Caucasian-Americans. And if anything they have even lost ground to Asian and Latin Americans as well. So what does that mean? I would argue for both more opportunity and personal responsibility for the African-American community especially when it comes to men. Government can't force people to do the right thing. Only punish them when they break the law. But they can put policies in place that leads to better opportunity for Americans who are struggling regardless of race.
We have a one-trillion dollar and growing when it comes to infrastructure in this country. Here's a wild idea, how about we fill that hole especially for underserved communities that need that investment. So business's would want to locate there. Lets build new schools and and fix up old schools. And give Americans period again regardless of race the option of where to send their kids to school with their parents making that decision. So our students no longer are sent to school based on where they live, but what is the best school for them. And stop funding schools based on where they are located and instead based on what they need to be successful.
Lets make walking out on your kids whether you are a father or mother illegal and make that crime punishable by having to pay for your kids childhood. So we no longer have single parent single income families unless one of the parents actually died. And lets make education and job training universal for all low-skilled adults whether they are working or not. So they can get themselves the skills that they need to get themselves a good job. As well as make college universal and affordable for all qualified for college high school graduates. And how we would do that is really the subject for another blog.
There are a lot of things that we could do as a country to close the wealth and achievement gap in this country. And we wouldn't have to raise income taxes on anyone. Or redistribute wealth from the top to take care of everyone else. We could simply do these things as part as annual infrastructure bill that Congress is supposed to pass anyway by law. And pay for these things the way we pay for infrastructure investment in this country which is with energy taxes. And we could tax alcohol, tobacco, junk food and soft drinks or even marijuana is the prohibition is ever repealed to fund these investments.
I'm not a fan of race-based policies as a Liberal because I like to look at what is best for the country and the individual as a whole when it comes to public policy. Just one reason why I do not support reparations for any community that has been discriminated against. But the fact is that African-Americans tend to struggle more than the country as a whole. And these investments would probably benefit them more than anyone else except for perhaps American-Indians. So they would benefit a lot from this, but not based on their race, but because they need these investments more.
We have a one-trillion dollar and growing when it comes to infrastructure in this country. Here's a wild idea, how about we fill that hole especially for underserved communities that need that investment. So business's would want to locate there. Lets build new schools and and fix up old schools. And give Americans period again regardless of race the option of where to send their kids to school with their parents making that decision. So our students no longer are sent to school based on where they live, but what is the best school for them. And stop funding schools based on where they are located and instead based on what they need to be successful.
Lets make walking out on your kids whether you are a father or mother illegal and make that crime punishable by having to pay for your kids childhood. So we no longer have single parent single income families unless one of the parents actually died. And lets make education and job training universal for all low-skilled adults whether they are working or not. So they can get themselves the skills that they need to get themselves a good job. As well as make college universal and affordable for all qualified for college high school graduates. And how we would do that is really the subject for another blog.
There are a lot of things that we could do as a country to close the wealth and achievement gap in this country. And we wouldn't have to raise income taxes on anyone. Or redistribute wealth from the top to take care of everyone else. We could simply do these things as part as annual infrastructure bill that Congress is supposed to pass anyway by law. And pay for these things the way we pay for infrastructure investment in this country which is with energy taxes. And we could tax alcohol, tobacco, junk food and soft drinks or even marijuana is the prohibition is ever repealed to fund these investments.
I'm not a fan of race-based policies as a Liberal because I like to look at what is best for the country and the individual as a whole when it comes to public policy. Just one reason why I do not support reparations for any community that has been discriminated against. But the fact is that African-Americans tend to struggle more than the country as a whole. And these investments would probably benefit them more than anyone else except for perhaps American-Indians. So they would benefit a lot from this, but not based on their race, but because they need these investments more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat
Source: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960