C-SPAN: Q&A With Brian Lamb- Amity Shlaes: Calvin Coolidge

Source:CSPAN- You could probably call Amity Shlaes, the official historian for President Calvin Coolidge, as well as the President of the Calvin Coolidge Fan Club, because you'll have a harder time finding a bigger fan of Calvin Coolidge, than Amity Shlaes. 

"Our guest is Bloomberg syndicated columnist and author Amity Shlaes. She discusses her soon to be released biography of the 30th President of the United States, titled "Coolidge." She traces the life of Calvin Coolidge from his early days in Plymouth Notch, Vermont through his presidency and ultimate return to New England where he died at the age of 60."

From CSPAN

Neoconservative supply siders ( let’s say ) like to point back to President’s like John Kennedy and Calvin Coolidge as references to argue for their ideas when it comes to taxes and economic freedom and say that President Kennedy and President Coolidge cut taxes across the board deeply and say that it worked then and those taxes paid for themselves, so it would work again. The problem is that they leave out several key points and facts.

The U.S. Government even if you account for inflation would be 59 billion dollars today back in 1928, because we didn’t have the public safety net that we have today and our defense budget and responsibilities were nothing like they are today in the 1920s.

America, was an isolationist country and if people fell on hard times and weren’t independently wealthy or had a lot of savings, they were completely dependent on public charity or their friends and families to get through those rough times. We weren’t a world power yet at least in foreign affairs.

Our current Federal budget is over 7 trillion dollars, because we have such a large military and safety net programs like Social Security and Medicare that are in the hundreds of billions of dollars just by themselves.

And the other thing supply siders get wrong about President Coolidge, is that he cut the budget to pay for his tax cuts. President Lyndon Johnson when he and Congress cut taxes across the board in 1964, they paid for those tax cuts by cutting loopholes in the tax code.

When supply siders cut taxes whether it was President Ronald Reagan in 1981 or President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003, they cut taxes deeply across the board, while increasing Federal spending as well. President Reagan, in defense and in law enforcement. President Bush, in the military, the so-called War on Terror, as well as education and in entitlements with the Medicare prescription drugs program.

And both those President’s ran large budget deficits during their entire presidencies, because their tax cuts obviously didn’t pay for their new Federal spending.

Cutting taxes to expand economic growth, create jobs, and expand economic freedom is an legitimate argument and point of view, but if that’s your approach approach to economic policy, you need to be knowledgeable and honest enough to know that tax cuts by themselves don’t pay for themselves. Especially when you’re cutting taxes primarily for investors who put that money away instead of spending it.

President Calvin Coolidge, was a true fiscal Conservative because he didn’t want a large Federal budget, he wanted taxes low, but when he cut taxes he made sure those tax cuts were paid for by cutting spending, so he wouldn’t run budget deficits as President. Which is what supply siders don’t seem to even know about President Coolidge, or don’t acknowledge those facts about him.

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

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

Professor Milton Friedman: Equality and Freedom

Source:Delusions of Adequacy- Professor Milton Friedman was damn right. 

“Today is the birthday of Milton Friedman – the person who changed the thinking and things in the world economy! Proud to keep his name in the official name of our Think Tank!” 

From MEFI 

“Milton Friedman – Equality and Freedom – Social Justice Debunked!” 

Source:Basic Economics- Chicago University Economics Professor Milton Friedman, giving a lecture about liberty and equality in 1978.

From Basic Economics

Socialists like Senator Bernie Sanders and company, argue that it’s somehow wrong that we have people who make a lot of money, while we have some people who make very little money and in some cases don’t make any money at all, that having a wealth gap ( which is also called income inequality ) is somehow unfair.

That it’s somehow unfair for an associate lawyer (let’s say ) at a law firm to make 250,000 dollars a year ( depending on where they work ) while a janitor at a school makes 25,000 dollars a year and perhaps has a second job just to pay his bills. Even though the lawyer not only has a law degree and spent at least years in college and law school to get that law degree and did well in college and law school and now has the skills and education to be a successful lawyer.

While the janitor might just have a high school diploma and maybe he doesn’t even have that. And only has enough skills and knowledge to do menial tasks ( let’s say ) where a professional education isn’t required. Like doing janitorial work or driving cabs or whatever the non-college educated job might be. Even though being just an average lawyer or a good one is a lot harder that being a good janitor, because there’s a lot more you need to know about the law than you do in keeping your place of business clean for people to be there.

Professor Milton Friedman, went the opposite route and argued that it’s a good thing when the lawyer or businessperson or entertainer or whoever the successful person in life might be who makes a lot of money is a good thing, because they earned their money based on their skills, knowledge, and production.

Professor Friedman argued that the reason why business people make a lot more money than let’s say service industry workers, is because the college educated workforce has a lot more skills and knowledge and that there’s a lot more work involved in what they do. Compared with service industry workers who in a lot of cases aren’t even blue-collar workers, but do jobs where you might not even need a high schools diploma to be successful at.

My point about so-called income inequality or what I call the wealth and skills gap has always been that the problem with the American economy and American capitalism has never been that we have too many rich people or that we even allow for people to have wealth and even a lot of money, but that we don’t have enough rich people and upper middle class people. But instead have too many poor people.

If we didn’t have 1-5 Americans living in poverty in America, would anyone even on the Left be talking about what they call income inequality? If we had 1-10 Americans or 1-20 Americans who fall below the Federal poverty level, would poverty be an issue for anyone in this country who isn’t poor themselves or donates to or works for charities? I doubt it would be because poverty wouldn’t be visible at all for most of the country.

If you want less poverty or even a lot less poverty in this country, you do that encouraging people to be successful. You do that by encouraging and empowering as many Americans who want to be successful in this country to be successful. To get the education and skills that they need to make it in America and have the economic freedom that middle and upper income Americans have.

You don’t create more economic freedom by heavily taxing the wealthy simply to take care of the poor. Or giving people middle incomes to people for choosing not to work and telling Americans that they don’t need to work hard, get good skills, and be productive in order to live well in this country. 

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

Chomsky's Philosophy: Professor Noam Chomsky- Free Speech on Campus

Source:Chomsky's Philosophy- Professor Noam Chomsky: talking about free speech on campus. 

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views that you don't like. Goebbeles was in favor of freedom of speech for views that he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views that you don't like."

From Chomsky's Philosophy

Professor Noam Chomsky, will never get mistaken for a Ronald Reagan, William Buckley, or Barry Goldwater Conservative, except for perhaps in one area: when it came to free speech, Professor Noam Chomsky is to the right of Reagan on free speech and believe that free speech is for everyone. Not just Hippies who oppose war, but for right-wing Nationalists who hate minorities. These hard-core Leftists on the Far-Left ( whether you want to call them Socialists or Communists ) might view Chomsky as a Conservative, simply because he believes in free speech. But disagreeing with these Leftists on anything, is like saying no to Joe Stalin: you put your life or career in jeopardy when you do that. You're either with these hard corse Leftists on everything, or they see you as part of the opposition.

Something else that these Far-Leftists should think about: if they're successful in censoring speech that they don't like, the right-wing at some point could come in and start outlawing music and other entertainment that they don't like, or political demonstrations that they disagree with. Which is what they tried to do in the 1960s with Vietnam War protests and pro-civil rights demonstrations. It's that old Martin Luther King line about every action having a reaction to it: when you take action against someone on the other side especially an action that they despise like trying to cut off their free speech rights, they'll do the same thing against you when they're in power.

If you're going to live in a free society like a liberal democracy, there are certain actions and views from others that you have to put up with. You don't have to accept them or agree with them and you're more than welcome to oppose them and demonstrate against them. You just can't use your freedom to deny someone else's their freedom, simply because you disagree with their personal choices and views. If you don't accept the concept of a free society and oppose liberal democracy, try living in a communist or nationalistic state where the government is there literally to hold onto power and they do that by severely limiting what their people can do so they can hold onto power. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

My Footage: Wendell Willkie: 1940 Republican National Convention Speech

"Reel #: 1468 TC In: 011439 TC Out: 011834

Source:My Footage- "1940 Republican National Convention: Wendell Willkie gives speech. 

This clip is available for licensing without time code and logo - To inquire about licensing email us at Myfootage@gmail.com or call us at (212) 620-3955  - Please Subscribe to our channel, as we are constantly adding new clips. Thanks!

Keywords

Time: 1940s, 1940, June

Setting: Philadelphia Convention Hall, Philadelphia, PA

People:  Wendell Willkie, Charles McNary, Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg, Robert Taft, Thomas E. Dewey,

Objects: banners, podium, microphone, ballots,

Subjects: 1940 Presidential Election, 1940 Republican Primary, 1940 Us Politics, 1940 RNC, Wendell Willkie Speech, 1940 RNC Opening."

From My Footage

People even if they've ever heard of Wendell Willkie ( and I would be impressed if they did ) might ask why blog about Wendell Willkie who was a Liberal Republican back in the 1940s who advocated for civil rights, civil liberties, the Constitution, limited government, and a strong but limited national defense, especially since his Republican politics no longer exists except for perhaps a few exceptions. People like former Governor Bill Weld, Senator Susan Collins and perhaps a few other Republican in Congress today. Well, for me that's exactly why I at least who is a strong admirer of Wendell and consider him to be one of my political heroes blogs about Wendell Willkie.

I don't want to make this a partisan post other than to say that the Republican Party today whether you want to define it as a Nationalist party or a Christian-Right party looked nothing like they did up until really the late 1980s, or early 1990s. Back in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, Conservative Republicans were people like Barry Goldwater, not Ann Coulter or Steve King or anyone else who is part of the New-Right today that are supposed to be the Conservatives.

Back in 1940, Wendell Willkie was to the left of President Franklin Roosevelt on civil rights, civil liberties, and even personal freedom. Imagine that for a moment: a Republican who is to the left of a Democrat on civil rights, civil liberties, and personal freedom. But Wendell was to the Right of FDR on economic policy. Wendell believed in the public safety net, but didn't want a socialist welfare state where welfare benefits would be universal, which is what FDR was pushing for by 1944 with his so-called Economic Bill of Rights.

Wendell Willkie, represents the Grand Ole Party where you could have both Liberals and Conservatives in it. as well as Progressives but where they could all function together in this national grand party, because they shared similar values that at least Classical Liberals, Conservatives, and Progressives believe in. Like equal rights, equal justice, civil liberties, property rights, personal freedom.

The GOP was a party that could nominate Wendell Willkie, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Barry Goldwater, because back then Liberals, Conservatives, and Progressives weren't like apples and oranges, they weren't the complete opposites of each other and shared similar values and objectives, but had different approaches in how to defend those values and accomplish those objectives.

Back in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, liberal wasn't another word for hippie or hipster. It had real meaning and instead being a Liberal meant you were someone who not only believed in liberal democracy, but that liberal democracy needed to be defended and you had to confront authoritarian states when they threaten you or your allies, or threatened your liberal values. Like Communist Russia, to use as an example.

Which is how someone like a Wendell Willkie, Tom Dewey, Ike Eisenhower, could not only do well in the Republican Party politically, but win the Republican nomination for President, because they believed in those liberal values because they were Republican values. That is how much the Republican Party has changed today, because that wing of the party is almost extinct with the Far-Right now looking so mainstream inside that party. 

Vanity Fair: Alison Klayman- 'How Steve Bannon Manipulates His Followers'

Source:Vanity Fair- "How Steve Bannon manipulates his followers" 

Director Alison Klayman spent 13 months documenting former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon for her documentary The Brink. Alison explains the ways he manipulates his followers by spreading conspiracies and sowing doubt in the media. Watch The Brink, out in theaters March 29th."

From Vanity Fair

I think Steve Bannon might say himself that he's not a Conservative, but a Nationalist. It's not conservative values that Bannon represents at least in the sense that he believes in the U.S. Constitution and everything that it represents and even conservative values in a cultural sense, but it's his nationalist, tribalist, and cultural values that he represents which trump's everything ( no pun intended ) including character, morality and his personal values. Steve Bannon is about himself and his tribe versus everyone and everything else and as long as you're on his team and part of his political and cultural tribe, everything else be dammed just as long as you play ball with him and his allies.

Alison Klayman, in her piece mentioned Judge Roy Moore who was an Alabama judge who ran for U.S. Senate from Alabama in 2017 in that special election and lost essentially because of his lack of character and his immorality and the credible sexual harassment allegations that were made against him. And said that Steve Bannon is not a stupid man ( as if anyone thinks that he is ) and she suggested that he probably believed the allegations that were made against Judge Moore, but stuck with Moore because Moore was part of his team and the broader Trump movement in America. Donald Trump's presidential campaign from 2015-16 is another great example of that. President Trump's base has stuck with the President even with everything that he's done and said that no other Republican President and mainstream Republican in Congress would every consider doing and saying, because Donald Trump is part of their team.

When you become so partisan and even so hyper-partisan and angry in politics where the other party is not longer your opponents, but your enemies to the point that you don't even see them as Americans, but traitors and invaders, everything is about winning and protecting your side. And you put no limits onto what you'll do to win and protect your team, because you're so fearful of the other team winning, coming in, and taking your power away from you. Which is what Steve Bannon and these other hyper-partisan hard-core Nationalists on the Far-Right in America represent. The great Green Bay Packers head coach Vince Lombardi had the great quote: "winning isn't everything, but it's the only thing" the New-Right have taken that line way out of context and put it over everything else in society like morality, character, and honesty.

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

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

The National Review: Kevin Williamson: 'The Nationalism Show'

Source:The National Review- "President Trump greets supporters at a Make America Great Again rally in Wheeling, W.Va., September 29, 2018."

I think Kevin Williamson nails what a Nationalist is in this paragraph here:

"To the extent that 2016 vintage nationalism has produced a policy agenda at all distinguishable from the old Republican stuff, it is anti-capitalist and anti-liberal: in favor of trade restrictions and suspicious of big business, especially banks, anti-immigration, anti-elitist, longstanding tendencies to which American populists from William Jennings Bryan to George Wallace and Ross Perot have been stubbornly attached. That these represent an orientation toward the actual national interest is not obvious: Tariffs function mainly as a sales tax on American consumers and as a crutch for certain U.S.-based firms that wish to be protected from foreign competition. There is more to a nation than its economy, but markets are national institutions, too, and far from the least important of them. Hostility toward these does not serve the nation, even if it serves the interests of some of the nation’s people."

From The National Review 

"At a rally for Sen. Ted Cruz in Houston, President Trump said a "globalist" is a person "who wants the globe to do well, frankly, but not caring our country so much." He went on to say there is an "old-fashioned" word that he embraced: A "nationalist." 

Source:CBS News- A Donald Trump rally in Houston, Texas, in 2018.

From CBS News

From Wikipedia

"Nationalism is a political, social, and economic ideology and movement characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation,[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity,[2] and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty).[1][3] It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity—based on shared social characteristics such as culture, language, religion, politics, and belief in a shared singular history[4][5][page needed]—and to promote national unity or solidarity.[1] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional culture, and cultural revivals have been associated with nationalist movements.[6] It also encourages pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism.[7][page needed] Nationalism is often combined with other ideologies, such as conservatism (national conservatism) or socialism (socialist nationalism) for example."

Let's be clear: ( to paraphrase Bernie Sanders ) nationalism and patriotism are not the same things. A Patriot is someone who loves their country and what it stands and what the people stand for and believe in. The national values that his or her country believes in. A Nationalist or Tribalist loves their corner of the store ( so to speak ) their faction of the country, the people that they share common political, cultural, religious, ethnic, and racial values with. People who look, talk, act, have a similar if not identical lifestyle as they do. Donald Trump, is not a Conservative or a Patriot: he's a Nationalist and if there is anything at all you can that you can take his word on it's that he's a Nationalist. He's proven that ever since he not just started running for President back in 2015, but you could go back to 2011 when he championed the birther movement.

If Donald Trump loves anyone other than himself, it's his family ( perhaps not his wife ) but I'm willing to grant that he actually loves his kids. And perhaps he loves his voters and supporters in the media that basically serve as his Office of Propaganda and the Trump Information Agency. What's called Fox News is the closet thing that we've ever had to state-run media in America and hopefully we never any closer to that. But Donald Trump doesn't love America and what America stands for. He doesn't see America as the beacon on the hill the shining city on the hill. ( To paraphrase Ronald Reagan ) He doesn't believe in pluralism, liberal democracy, checks and balances. He believes that he can do whatever he wants simply because he's Donald Trump and the President of the United States. Which is how we know that he's not a Conservative and even a Republican at least in the sense as someone who believes in Republicanism.

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

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

NBC News: Minister Malcolm X- 'Don't Beg For a Job: Create a Job'

Source:NBC News- Minister MalcolmX; speaking in New York in 1963 or 64 

"Your Name Is No Accident: http://tinyurl.com/z5qldpv

Malcolm X Says: Stop BEGGING the Man for a Job and CREATE a Job for Yourself by starting an ONLINE BUSINESS. Watch the FREE Video: http://www.launchyourstore.co.uk/

(This video is for educational purposes only and displayed under the Fair Use provision of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107.)"

From NBC News

For the life of me I'll never understand what the right-wing doesn't like about Minister Malcolm X and why the Far-Left loves him other than for these possible reasons:

The right-wing is either completely ignorant about the man or they fear strong African-Americans especially African-American men and simply see them as animals who escaped from the zoo or something. I think I understand what the Far-Left loves about him, because he was this strong, intelligent African-American man who constantly critiqued ( or even attacked ) people he called the man or the Whiteman and up until 1964 he was basically a racist as far as how he felt about European-Americans including Jews.

And as we're seeing with the emergence of Socialists and socialism in the Democratic Party today, they don't like European-Americans either, especially if they're male, straight, Christian, have rural or blue-collar background. And see the largest racial group in America as Devils, especially the men in the community. Which is how Minister Malcolm viewed European-Americans up until the time he went to Saudi Arabia in the 1960s and met and talked to a lot of fellow Muslims there of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, including European. And learned that not all Europeans are bigots and perhaps a lot of them are not bigots.

But if you look at Minister Malcolm's politics and what he was pushing for in the 1960s, it wasn't socialism and big government, including reparations. He had a lot more in common with Mr. Conservative Senator Barry Goldwater, then he ever had in common with Senator George McGovern. ( The Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialist of his era ) In an era when the Democratic Party was pushing for more welfare and other assistance from Big Government for the African-American community, Minister Malcolm had a different message for Democrats and others who wanted to give African-Americans more government assistance, which was telling Big Government: "we don't want your welfare and your socialism, we want our freedom and the power to control our own destinies. We want the same economic freedom that European and Asian-Americans have in this country. And keep your welfare for people who can't work and make it in this country."

So if you look at Minister Malcolm X's politics of real Black Power and empowering African-Americans to take control over their own lives through things like education and economic development and empowering African-Americans to become business owners and managers in their own communities, there's a lot for the right-wing especially Center-Right and Conservative-Libertarians in America to like about Minister Malcolm X. And a lot for the Far-Left even if they loved him for his identity politics to not like about Minister Malcolm and even hate the man. As they're pushing for more government control and welfare for Americans of all races and ethnicities.

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on Blogger.  

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on WordPress.

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