John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat
Source: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960

Tuesday, April 30, 2019

Newsweek: 'Joe Biden's Biggest Gaffes'

Source:Newsweek- "Joe Biden's Biggest Gaffes: Quotes, Blunders That Could Hurt a 2020 Presidential Campaign
"In the wake of Joe Biden's official presidential run announcement, here are eight of Biden's biggest public gaffes."

Laying out Joe Biden's biggest gaffes, is like trying to layout Michael Jordan's greatest dunks, or Joe Montana's greatest games, Larry Bird's best shots, Magic Johnson's best passes, Martin L. King's greatest speeches, and unfortunately I could go on and hopefully you have a good idea by now. ( If not, seek help )

What people love about Joe Biden, is also what gets him in trouble: what Americans say they want from politicians, is what gets Joe Biden in trouble. He has a tendency to speak from the heart and tell people what he thinks and what he knows and if that was actually what Americans wanted from their politicians, instead of an entire team of ass-kissers and panderers which is what they consistently vote for in both parties, Joe Biden would've already been President by now and Jimmy Carter would've been reelected in 1980. Two men who told the truth or at least were honest time and time again and at least in President Carter's case wasn't very successful as a politician.

To talk about one of Joe Biden's so-called gaffes: it was during the signing of the Affordable Care Act back in 2010 which then Vice President Biden had a role in getting passed through Congress, especially getting it through the Senate after the House already passed the bill where you had some Democratic Senator's who were wavering on the bill, but it finally got passed: Vice President Biden, gives his speech at the signing ceremony where President Obama signs the bill and introduces the President and when he believes so one is looking and I guess forgets that his microphone is still on, tells the President in private: "that this is a big fucking deal" referring to the ACA.

The Vice President got in trouble for doing what we all do in private and what a lot of us do in public on TV ( if you're familiar with cable TV ) which is swear in a public setting. He gets in trouble ( if you want to call it that ) for doing what everyone else does, but perhaps struggles to admit which is to cuss in public.

My point about Americans saying they want politicians in polling to be honest and truthful, but then get on politicians for not telling them they can have all of their cookies, cake, and ice cream ( meaning government services ) and never have to eat their vegetables, ( meaning new taxes ) Biden gets in trouble at least in the media for doing what we all do, but generally in private unless we're really pissed at a bar or in traffic, or at the airport or some place which is let out our anger or amazement through swearing.

I think a lot of Joe Biden's gaffes are just very funny and great material for Saturday Night Live, but a lot of them are really just him getting caught being very blunt and saying exactly what he feels about the given moment and perhaps giving out too much information. And that he represents what Americans tend to say ( at least in polling ) as far as who they want in their politicians: which are honest, truthful people who'll tell them exactly what they think and hear. Even if 2-4 years later they vote those people out for doing exactly what they said they wanted them to do which was to be completely honest and truthful. 

Monday, April 29, 2019

The Washington Post: Opinion- Karen Tumulty: 'Joe Biden's Biggest 2020 Competitor May Be Joe Biden'

Source:The Washington Post- Joe Biden:"being Vice President, is just not good enough?"
"Former vice president Joe Biden has finally entered the 2020 presidential campaign. Columnist Karen Tumulty argues that he must prove that he isn't a politician of a different era."

Source:The Washington Post: Opinion- Karen Tumulty: 'Joe Biden's Biggest 2020 Competitor May Be Joe Biden'

I mostly agree with what Karen Tumulty said about Joe Biden here, but I guess I would put it differently and add a few things.

If Joe Biden really wants to be President of the United States ( and I believe it's a safe assumption that he does ) he should've ran for President in 2000. Looking back at least, a strong primary run against then Vice President Al Gore would've been good for Vice President Gore and the Democratic Party as well. Gore, only had one opponent at all in 2000 that being former Senator Bill Bradley, who didn't even win a primary against Gore. Then Governor George W. Bush, had a very strong primary challenger in Senator John McCain, which I believe only made the Bush Campaign better because it served as a strong playoff for Bush which of course was the 2020 general election against Gore. Gore didn't have that, because Democrats by 1999 had already decided that they wanted Vice President Gore and didn't make any room for anyone else to run against him.

Then Senator Biden, should've run for President in 2004: as we know now before the Democrats nominated Senator John Kerry as their presidential nominee, Senator Kerry wasn't even the frontrunner before he won the nomination. He had to fight like hell just to try to raise some money and stay alive in late 2003 and wasn't raising any money until he won the Iowa caucus. Senator Biden, would've been a strong contender that year because there were no frontrunners in that election on the Democratic side, but you had a Democratic Party that wanted to win and was prepared to get behind the nominee to defeat President Bush.

Then Vice President Biden, could've run for President for 2016: Hillary Clinton, was a strong frontrunner going in, but if you remember anything from 2007-08 she was not just the strong frontrunner going in to not just win the Democratic nomination then, but to beat Senator John McCain or whoever the Republican Party would nominate for the general election that year. But by the time super Tuesday was over in February 2008, her campaign was all but over, because then Senator Barack Obama won practically every major state on that election night.

It could've occurred to Vice President Biden and someone on his team that maybe Hillary isn't as strong a frontrunner that she may seem to be and probably needs a strong challenger, which is exactly what she got, except it came from the Far-Left in the party from Socialist Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Not from the Vice President of the United States who has 100% name id not just in the party, but in the country. And was a loyal and great Vice President to a popular President in Barack Obama who the Democratic Party absolutely loves.

It's that old cliche that you only get one chance to make a first impression, which of course is not only true but in politics you have to seize on the moments that you get and then take advantage of them. Which is what John F. Kennedy did in 1960, what Jimmy Carter did in 1980, what Bill Clinton did in 1992, what Barack Obama did in 2008. You can't just assume that they'll come back simply because you don't you're ready or you simply don't want to run.

Would Barack Obama really had been the great Democratic contender that he was in 2008 had he waited until 2016 let's say when he had already been in the Senate for 12 years before he decided to run for President, because he wanted more foreign policy experience? We'll never know that of course, but probably not because 12 years later he would've already had a fairly long Congressional record and probably a lot of controversial votes and caught in Congressional speak and sound like a politician going a speech on the floor of the Senate, instead of this young vibrant man who spoke off the cuff and from his heart using beautiful language which is how he won the Democratic nomination in 08 and then the presidency, because he was so fresh, new, and likable, came off as a human being and not just as someone who was running for office.

And with Joe Biden, forget about being in the Senate for 12 years and instead triple that where he was one of the most powerful, influential, and respected not just Senator's who has ever served, but members of Congress that has ever served in either the House or Senate and don't fantasize for a moment that the other Democratic contenders don't know exactly how long Biden's Congressional record is and is going through every possible controversial vote ( at least in today's Democratic Party ) that he has ever made and will try to pull anything out that they can get their hands on that could hurt the former Senator and Vice President.

It's not Vice President Biden's experience that I have issues with: experience is generally a good thing in life especially if you learn from it and then apply correctly and make good judgments, it's the fact that and to paraphrase Joe Biden himself: this is your father's Democratic Party anymore. Even 10 years ago Joe Biden would've been seen as a strong Center-Left Progressive Democrat who fights for the middle class and for civil rights, who wants an America where everyone can succeed, who will also defend and protect the country from foreign and domestic predators. This is what progressivism at least use to be and what it was about and what I believe it still is and what it means to be a Progressive.

The problem that Biden has is that the party is so far to the left now to the point that people who would be viewed as Progressives just 10-20 years ago like Joe Biden and Barack Obama, are now seen as Centrists or even as Conservative Democrats, because you have this large and growing faction of Socialists in the party that view anyone to the Right of them as either Centrists or Conservatives, even if they're Democrats with solid Center-Left credentials. Like a Joe Biden or Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton even who is one of the strongest and most famous Feminists anywhere in the world, but in today's Democratic Party she looks Conservative. Or even Nancy Pelosi who is the Speaker of the House with a long Progressive record in Congress.

But then there's the issue of Senator Biden's Congressional record, so let's talk about this so-called apology tour that he night have to go on to win the Democratic nomination:

It's not that voting for the 2003 Iraq War will be a problem at least in the sense that it was the wrong decision and wrong war and we should've never been involved in and we knew that by the summer of 2003 when we learned that Saddam Hussein not only didn't have nuclear weapons program, but he didn't even had weapons of mass destruction. And then the chaos in the country after the Hussein Regime was toppled without even putting up a fight. Biden, should have to explain that and admit he made a bad call there.

It's the other votes that he had in Congress that 25-30 years later still look like very solid votes at least as far as how the policies turned out, whether the Far-Left of the party likes them or not:

like 1994 Crime Bill where we saw record low crimes rates in America during the 1990s, including in big cities with large minority populations like Chicago, New York, and Washington.

Or how about the 1996 Welfare to Work Law where we saw record lows for poverty in America, because you had all of these people in poverty who were going back to school and getting the skills that they need to become economically self-sufficient and were finally able to get good jobs for themselves. Senator Biden's support for deficit reduction and free trade, you could add to his possible apology tour and explain why he no longer supports these successful policies.

I could be wrong here ( and of course that wouldn't be the first time ) and perhaps the Democratic Party even the Far-Left is so tired of losing and seeing Donald J. Trump ( the king of real reality TV ) as President and want to take his American Nationalism Show off the air for good and will support any popular national Democrat including Joe Biden in order to defeat President Trump. We saw that in 1992 when the entire Democratic Party united behind then Governor Bill Clinton and in 1976 under then Governor Jimmy Carter. But those are just two elections and as Will Rogers once said he's not a member of any organized party: he's a Democrat.

The Democratic Party tends to put ideological purity with the current Far-Left base of the party over electability, at least as the presidential level. And we'll see which course they take in 2020 and how they treat Joe Biden. Will they get behind Joe, or stay home, go third-party with someone like Jill Stein and back a Socialist instead. 

Friday, April 26, 2019

NFL Films: Pittsburgh Steelers - 'How a Revolutionary Scouting Philosophy Led To The Greatest Draft Ever!'

Source:NFL Films- The Pittsburgh Steelers, celebrating a Steeler TD during Super Bowl 14
"Check out how the Pittsburgh Steelers engineered the greatest draft ever in 1974!"

Source:NFL Films: 'How a Revolutionary Scouting Philosophy Led To The Greatest Draft Ever!'

If you want to know what made the 1970s Pittsburgh Steelers great which made them at least arguably the greatest NFL dynasty ever ( you could also argue for the 1980s San Francisco 49ers ) it's head coach Chuck Noll and his personal office at the Steelers.

Chuck Noll, wasn't just the head coach of the Steelers: he was also their general manager which gave him the same authority over football operations for the Steelers, as George Allen had with the Redskins, Don Shula with the Miami Dolphins, Vince Lombardi had with the Green Bay Packers. All these coaches like Noll weren't just the head coaches of their clubs, but also ran football operations. Meaning they decided who played for their teams. They ran the drafts for their clubs and made the final decisions as far as who their team should draft, trade, sign as free agents, and who to let go.

But it's just not Chuck Noll being in charge of football operations of the Steelers that made them so great in the mid and late 1970s, but it's how he did that. The Steelers didn't draft and sign players based on any traditional score. Like concentrating on particular big schools and programs, or making any racial or ethnic considerations before drafting players. They had a large scouting and personal office led by Personal Director Bill Nunn and scouted the whole country at all levels of college football. And went after the best players possible where they could get them. Just didn't concentrate on big division 1 programs like Southern California, Michigan, Ohio State or others, they went everywhere including division schools, including historically African-American schools like Alabama A&M.

The 1970s Pittsburgh Steelers, were run like any great American corporation: hire the best people possible regardless of where they went to school, who they are, their family backgrounds, where they're from, regardless of their race or ethnicity. "Who is the best player for our club and where do we go to sign him and then bring that player in." Which was Chuck Noll's personal philosophy with the Steelers, which is how he and Bill Nunn are able to sign players like a John Stallworth,  ( Hall of Fame ) Joe Greene, ( Hall of Fame Mel Blount ( Hall of Fame ) and many others. While other NFL clubs were primarily if not exclusively concentrating on big schools and programs.

Thursday, April 25, 2019

Now This News: 'What If Fox News Covered Donald Trump The Way It Covered Barack Obama?'

Source:Now This News- The world of Sean Hannity, is like a planet in itself 
"What if Fox News covered Trump the way it covered Obama? It would look like this:

Imagine if Fox News Channel reported Trump news today like it used to report on the current events of President Obama's administration. US news today is as splintered as ever. When it comes to politics news, President Trump prefers Fox News over CNN TV, and right wing media like Fox News prefers him back. This NowThis News videos shows what it might look like if Fox News dropped its media bias on air to accurately report on Trump today and the current White House. How would Fox News report on the affordable care act, health care, and the justice department in this twilight zone? What would Sean Hannity say about Trump? The Trump Obama media split continues to have long lasting effects.'

Source:Now This News: 'What If Fox News Covered Donald Trump They Way It Covered Barack Obama?'

Just on a personal note: you get to see Kirsten Powers in the first part of the video when she was at Fox News up until I believe 2016. If you watch Anderson Cooper or Don Lemmon on a regular basis on CNN, ( which I'm sure Fox News viewers see as part of the enemy of the people ) you know that she's one of their regular political commentators now and hopefully life is a lot better for her where she no longer has to worry about being the only Liberal and being stuck in between two right-wingers wondering what the hell is she doing here. You also see Mary-Catherine Ham, who is part of an endangered political species in America known as Conservatives, who is part of the Never-Trumper wing of the Republican Party, but never afraid to take on Far-Leftists either. If you watch Jake Tapper especially The Lead everyday, you know that she's now one of CNN's political commentators as well.

I believe the video says itself, but I as a blogger I feel a need and duty to say what I think about so-called Fox News. ( Which almost sounds like an Oxymoron to equate Fox with news at this point )

What would it be like if Barack Obama inherited the exact same economy that Donald Trump did as President, with the same professional and personal background that The Donald has, the same personal character ( or lack of character ) that The Donald has, the same record, personal behavior that The Donald has, making the exact same, the worship of authoritarians, ( whether they're left-wing or right-wing ) the same inability to confront authoritarian regimes where he might or does have business interests in, even though he's now President, and the rest of the irresponsible actions and statements that President Trump has made in just two years, if this was the record of President Barack Obama in his first two years, how would Fox News cover him:

Well, to start and House Republicans did win back the House after the the first two years of President Obama and if he had the exact same record as President Trump and inherited the exact same economic and world conditions as President Trump, House Republicans would've impeached President Obama by now, unless there were 20-25 vulnerable House Republicans saying that they're not ready to vote on impeachment yet. And Fox News would be demanding that the House impeach the President even if they knew it had no shot in hell at going anywhere in a Democratic Senate. And any House Republican that steps up and says they're not ready to vote for impeachment, the Sean Hannity's of the world would be calling out those Republicans on the air and perhaps giving out their phone numbers, emails, and even home addresses, and trolling the hell out of those Republicans.

Fox News, at some point in 2016 whether it was Roger Ailes or someone else at Fox News made the business decision that they're in bed with Donald Trump regardless of what he does and is accused of and they'll do whatever they can to defend him, just as long as President Trump and his administration sticks with the Far-Right and continues to push their agenda. And every time that President Trump either publicly kisses the ass of a dictator or orders one of his deputies to commit illegal acts ( which are in the Mueller Report ) they pretend that those things never happened, blame it on Barack Obama or play what about. That's just the situation that we're in right now when it comes to cable news and FNC's role in American media.

Wednesday, April 24, 2019

Ron Paul Liberty Report: Chris Rossini- 'Who Pays For All The Government Free Stuff?'

Source:Ron Paul Liberty Report- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and U.S, Representative Alecandria O. Cortez: the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Congressional Free Stuff Caucus. LOL
"Benjamin Franklin said that: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” How prescient and true. Once theft and redistribution by government is considered acceptable, the downward spiral of civilization begins. It can last for decades, or even centuries. But the end result is always bankruptcy as countless factions ruthlessly fight with one another to be on the receiving end of the heist. When theft by government is no longer considered acceptable, the upward march of civilization resumes."

Source:Ron Paul Liberty Report: Chris Rossini- 'Who Pays For All The Government Free Stuff?'

This blog is perfect timing ( if I may say so myself ) because CNN had a marathon of town halls on Monday with like 5 Democratic presidential candidates including Senator's Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders ( the two farthest left Democratic presidential candidates ) and they're both making the basic argument that the rich has too much money and everyone else doesn't have enough and are struggling to pay their basic bills like college, health care, paid leave, etc and that it's the job of the Federal Government to come in and somehow correct that. And say that it's wrong for rich people to even be rich to begin with, especially when we have so many Americans who are struggling just to pay their own bills.

There are two questions that any voter and taxpayer should ask any politician or candidate who is seeking reelection or a new office, when they make a lot of promises to people about new government services, especially if they argue that these new services would be free:

How are you going to pay for all of these so-called free services? If they say the rich are going to pay for it with some new wealth tax ( lets say ) then you should ask especially if you're familiar with the Internal Revenue Service, our tax code, and how the wealthy avoid paying taxes ( including these so-called Hollywood Leftists ) who is going to pay for these new and current government services when the wealthy avoids paying their new taxes. The only way that government can pay for anything when they're short on revenue like through tax avoidance are two ways: pass those taxes onto the middle class. Or just just borrow that money from China or another country and add to their budget deficit and debt.

I would have a lot more respect for these Socialists running for office ( whether they're self-described Socialists or not ) if they were just upfront and candid about how they would pay for their new government services and just say: "you middle class taxpayers are going to pay for these new government services through new payroll taxes or other new taxes." Or they could say that they believe that deficits and debt doesn't matter and therefor we could just borrow the money from other countries and add to our deficits and debt. But don't overpromise and pander especially to young voters, especially young Democrats who tend to be overly idealistic to begin with and believe that government can solve every problem itself, if you just give it the money to do that.

Tuesday, April 23, 2019

Kennedy Institute of Politics: Professor Brandon Terry- Interviewing Professor Noam Chomsky: The Future of Leftist Politics in America'

Source:Kennedy Institute of Politics- Professor Brandon Terry, interviewing Professor Noam Chomsky
"A discussion with:
Noam Chomsky
Institute Professor of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Political Theorist and Activist
Brandon Terry (moderator)
Assistant Professor of African and African American Studies and Social Studies, Harvard University."

Source:Kennedy Institute of Politics: Professor Brandon Terry- Interviewing Professor Noam Chomsky: The Future of Leftist Politics in America'

 As someone who is not a psychic or a leftist, I would say the future of The Left ( as it's called ) and I would argue Far-Left ( at least in an American sense ) will be about identity politics, the welfare state, big government in general, and I guess self-honesty. ( For lack of a better term ) Where you'll have millions of young Americans especially who are proud to be Leftists ( let's call them Socialists ) who no longer feel the need to hide who they are politically and even hide their own political labels.

This event was in late 2015 about 3 1/2 years ago but just go up three years later to November, 2018 and we now have a class of Democrats or at least prominent Democratic freshman in the House who are not just proud to be Leftists, but proud to be Socialists. Who just a few years ago would've felt the need to run in the Green Party to run for reelection and to have any shot at winning the nomination for the office they're seeking, who today can run as Democrats and not just run as Democrats, but run as Socialists and Democratic Socialists.

The Democratic Party today thanks to Bernie Sanders in 2015-16 now has a significant Socialist faction in it. Whether that's 20% or 30%, the Democratic Party today now has a significant, hard core Socialist base who believe that government can solve any problem that has ever been known to man, if it just has the money to do so. Which is very different from where the Democratic Party was just 10 years when they were basically just a Center-Left progressive party with a Far-Left fringe in it. 10 years later the Socialists in the party now look more mainstream with Democrats who just 10 years ago would be viewed as solid Progressive Democrats ( like Barack Obama ) , now are viewed as centrists or even Conservative Democrats. ( At least by the Socialists in the party )

What I just laid out looks very mainstream at least when you're talking about the left-wing ( to say the least ) about the Democratic Party today. People who believe in social democracy or democratic socialism, who want a large centralized national government and welfare state there to meet the economic needs of all the people.

If the left-wing of the Democratic Party was just Henry Wallace or George McGovern wing of the Democratic Party and if that's all the left-wing of the Democratic Party represented today and represented people of all races and ethnicities, male and female and they weren't about racial or identity politics, but a pluralist political faction that was about social democracy or democratic socialism, they wouldn't look that radical today especially with young Americans, especially with the more militant faction of this movement that wants to make race, ethnicity, and gender issues about everything not just in politics and government, but in American life in general.

But the left-wing ( or Far-Left ) in and outside of the Democratic Party today are not all pluralists and don't care for liberal democracy. It's not just social democracy that they want, but believe that men aren't necessary, ( at least Caucasian men ) that women aren't just superior to men, but should be running everything, and generally view Caucasians especially men as ignorant and bigots, unless they come from the West Coast or Northeast and were educated there.

And that's the growing faction in the Democratic Party that you have to worry about if you're a mainstream Democrat who is part of the Democratic leadership, because as the Far-Left grows in the party, the less Far-Left they'll look and more mainstream that they'll look in the party. But they'll still look very radical outside of the party and mainstream Democrats will have to figure out how to get elected and reelected with this faction on their back that they'll need to win elections, but still be able to appeal to mainstream Democrats and Independents.


Monday, April 22, 2019

The Economist: Daniel Franklin- 'What's The Point of NATO?'

Source:The Economist- Uploaded by The Economist
"NATO was set up in 1949 to counter the Soviet threat. Its North American and European members must continue to change the alliance if it is to remain relevant in the 21st century."

Source:The Economist: Daniel Franklin- 'What's The Point of NATO?'

 If there is anything that I actually agree with President Donald Trump on and if there is one thing that he's gotten right in his two years as President, it's NATO and the fact that the United States is essentially responsible for the national defense of the entire West, or at least the northern part of the west. With Britain, France, a certain extent Germany playing major but much smaller roles in the defense of Europe. And this is as someone who is in favor of the concept of NATO and view is as the most successful international organization not just in the world today, but in world history.

Just as an American who comes from a country that values individualism and that everyone should at least try to take care of themselves if not support themselves, why should American taxpayers be forced to subsidize the national defense of other developed countries: it would be one thing if Germany was poor, but they're a country of 80 plus million people, with an economy of over 4 trillion dollars, with 4th largest economy of the world. Their gross national domestic product is about as large as Japan's and they have 50 million fewer people than Japan, without nearly as much territory as Japan and without the natural resources of Japan.

Germany, has roughly the same per-capita income as America without the national debt and budget deficits that we have and yet we as Americans are forced by international law to subsidize the national defense of another entire large developed country. Why is that? If there is anything that Americans dislike more than crooks, liars, and hypocrites, its freeloaders.  The reason why we do this is because Germany sees itself as a great social democracy that doesn't believe in national defense, at least not as a large priority and more than willing to let someone else especially a superpower that has a great relationship with ( at least pre-Donald Trump ) to take care of their national defense for them. But as an American that's not a good enough reason for me.

With the rise of nationalism both in America, Britain, and Europe now is the perfect time for Europe ( especially Germany ) to step up to the plate ( or step up to the ball, to use a soccer phrase ) and knock one out of the ballpark ( or kick one in the net ) and handle their own national defense. Which would be great for Europe's security, as well as economy. They would no longer have to worry about whether American taxpayers will continue to subsidize their national defense. And they would create millions of good jobs in their countries in their defense industries, because their militaries will now be first world, with first world defense resources and money to secure their own countries.

A new European defense alliance that could either replace NATO or go along with it with the Euro states now responsible for their own national defense and be partnered with Britain, America, and Canada in the West would make Europe a world power and keep them relevant especially with the rise of Vladimir Putin's Russia who are looking to bring back the Russian empire, as well as China in the Far East that wants to be the next superpower in the world.


Friday, April 19, 2019

Emperor Tigerstar: Huey Long- 'The Dictator of Louisiana'

Source:Emperor Tigerstar- If the title fits 
"See the rise and fall of the Kingfish Governor of Louisiana. He's more than a Kaiserreich meme, and has left quite a lasting legacy."

Source:Emperor Tigerstar: Huey Long- 'The Dictator of Louisiana'

I mentioned in my Huey Long piece last week that Huey Long had a lot in common with Senator Bernie Sanders today as it created to wealth redistribution and a socialist populism that was about high taxation on the wealthy to be used to help everyone else. And all of that is true, but as I also mentioned last week Huey and Bernie aren't ideological twins. 

Senator Sanders at least as far as how he speaks, what he proposes, and his political positions all suggest that he's a Democratic Socialist. Governor Long, you could call him a Democratic Socialist on economic policy, but even as the guy in this video admits to Governor Long was essentially the dictator of Louisiana as far as how he was able to centralize a lot of state power for himself, but then the guy in this video says that Governor Long used all of this state power to benefit the people of Louisiana, not himself necessarily.

I'm going to argue that Huey Long wasn't a Communist even though he did have dictatorial socialist leanings as Governor. But only because he didn't close down private media organizations and churches, banks, that sort of thing where people can get to together and create their own private power. But he did centralize a lot of power within his own state to the point that if you tried to cross him, he could hurt your badly politically and professionally. And to work for his Administration in Louisiana, you have to donate part of your state salary to his political machine in Louisiana. At one point Huey, was both Governor of Louisiana and then U.S. Senator from Louisiana. Even when he was in Congress, he still had a lot of power in Louisiana. 

A better way to describe Huey Long is say that he was a crook, but with good intentions and as long as you didn't try to cross him, life could be very good for you in Louisiana. And again Huey wasn't a Communist, but he did have things in common with Communists and Socialist dictators around the world. People who come into power promising the populist that he alone can make their lives better if they just give him all of this power. ( Remind you of any current President today? ) 

We saw this with Fidel Castro in Cuba, Hugo Chavez and now Nicholas Maduro in Venezuela. Men who have way too much self-confidence and probably couldn't look up or define words like modesty and humility even if they saw them in a dictionary. Which is dangerous for any society to have which are leaders who have so much faith in themselves, because they see themselves as invincible and that it's somehow treason for anyone to even try to question them. And when someone does that, they face cruel repercussions. That's the type of leader or Socialist that I see Huey Long as.

Thursday, April 18, 2019

The Daily Signal: Fred Lucas- Rallies: 'What's The Legacy of The Tea Party?'

Source:The Daily Signal- "Then-Representative Mike Pence, R-Ind., addresses a tea party rally March 16, 2010, near the Taft Memorial in Washington, D.C. Pence, now vice president, was an early supporter of the decade-old movement. (Photo: Douglas Graham/Roll Call/Getty Images)
It was Tax Day 2009 when citizens gathered in 850 cities across the nation for tea party rallies protesting the recent $700 billion federal bailouts of banks and automakers, an $800 billion economic stimulus package, and, more broadly, government deficits and debt.

On April 15 this year, Tea Party Patriots, one of the largest tea party groups, will sponsor “Stop Socialism, Choose Freedom” rallies across the country.

On the movement’s 10th anniversary, the phrase "tea party” is seldom used, but organizers there at the beginning say the spirit and principles continue—even as the country continues to face mounting fiscal challenges.

One reason tea partiers aren’t “outside protesters” today is that many of the citizens who never before had been involved in politics rose to prominence in the Republican Party. "

Read the rest at The Daily Signal: Fred Lucas- Rallies: 'What's The Legacy of The Tea Party?'

To completely honest here, ( for a change, LOL ) when the Tea Party first started during the spring or summer of 2009 after Barack Obama became President with large majorities in Congress ( House and Senate ) the Obama Administration and Democratic Congress was working on health care reform after passing their stimulus, during last stages of The Great Recession, I as a Classical Liberal ( the real Liberals ) had a mild respect for what was called the Tea Party.

If there were any Republicans at all that were concern about President George W. Bush's and his Republican Congress's borrowing and spending, it was these hard core fiscal Conservatives. Who didn't like borrowing 700 billion dollars to expand Medicare. Who were concern about all the borrowing that they were doing for Afghanistan and Iraq. Who didn't like Federal Government's increase role in public education with No Child Left Behind Law. Who didn't believe the two Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 would ever pay for themselves. The problem that they had and that the rest of the country had was that there weren't simply enough of them in Congress to stop the Republican Party's borrow and spending during the Bush Administration.

I still had a mild respect for the Tea Party movement during the first two years after Republican won back the House in 2010, because the national debt and deficit were huge issues for them. Without the Tea Party Caucus in the House, the budget deficit that was already a trillion-dollars when Barack Obama became President, doesn't get cut in half during President Obama's term. Because the Obama Administration weren't interested in those issues for the most part. They were concern with economic and job growth and getting the economy back to full recovery and not believing that you can do that while doing deficit reduction at the same time. It was the Tea Party that gave us those real budget savings and reforms in 2011 that allowed for the deficit to come during the final five years of the Obama Administration.

But go back to 2013 and ever since, the Tea Party or whatever is left of it is nothing more than the hard-core, rabid and hyper-partisan wing of the Republican Party, that only seems interested in winning elections and electing as many Republicans as possible. And they don't care what they have to do to win those elections including voter suppression and intimidation to prevent young Democrats ( especially ) from voting in competitive elections. And they'll do anything to win including working with foreign nationals to get dirt on their opponents, or throwing out their conservative constitutional principles like having to do with fiscal conservatism, limited government, the rule of law, checks and balances, morality even. ( Death to the family family values Republican Party ) Today the Tea Party, is nothing more than part of Donald Trump's Far-Right Nationalist base, along with The Heritage Foundation and that's where whatever respect that I ever had for them dies and won't come back.

Source:Tea Party Patriots: 10 Year Anniversary of Tea Party Patriots- Jenny Beth Martin: Chairman of Tea Party Patriots Action

Wednesday, April 17, 2019

Tom Mullen: ‘Words and Phrases To Avoid April 15’: Uncle Sam is Coming For You!

Source:USA Today“Tax Day 2019 Coundown Calendar”
Source:The New Democrat Plus

From Tom Mullen

“We hear a lot about words and phrases we should or shouldn’t use these days, politics having crept into virtually every area of our lives. At the risk of promoting even more political correctness, here are some terms that can legitimately be considered micro-aggressions when used in the presence of net taxpayers on April 15:”

The rest of Tom’s piece at Tom Mullen: 'Words and Phrases To Avoid on April 15'

I have a different take than Tom on this, ( who I’m friends with on Facebook and follow him on Twitter ) because I believe that to have a civilized, developed society you need some type of functioning, responsible, but limited government there to insure that. Not to run our lives for us, but protect us from predators foreign  and domestic and to perform our basic, but limited services like infrastructure. And for government whatever level it is to perform these necessary services, it needs revenue to do that. Government’s are financed through taxes,  at least when they’re run responsibly and when they’re not or their economy is going rough times they’re funded through borrowing. That’s just how government is able to operate regardless of the jurisdiction or country.

No one enjoys paying taxes, ( except honest Socialists ) but who enjoys paying for groceries or whatever else that we pay for? And the Libertarian is going to say that we don’t have a choice to pay for the government that we receive and don’t get to decide on what government services that we  receive: they’re just wrong on that since as Ronald Reagan once said people vote with their feet. We choose where we live and what level of government and taxation that we get based on where we live. We’re not forced to live in any country, state, county, or city. We make the decisions based on what we do for a living and our economic conditions and choose the best place for us to live based on these factors. If you don’t want to live somewhere where you have to pay taxes, move to a country where they don’t have a government, or at least a functioning government. I hear Haiti and Somalia are open for new residents everyday.

Now, where I believe Tom Mullen and I might agree hear and have somethings in common here ( he as a Libertarian and myself as a Liberal ) is having to deal with let’s say the opposite of people who are known as Anarcho-Libertarians, which of course are Socialists.

The only people anywhere in the world who pays taxes not just gladly and proudly, are Socialists.

The only people you’ll ever find filling out their taxes with smiles on their faces, are Socialists.

The only people you’ll ever find not just asking or demanding, but begging Uncle Sam and his nephews and nieces at the IRS for more taxes and higher taxes, are Socialists.

And I’m not talking about corrupt Socialist dictators who are some of the wealthiest people in the world, while half of their people or more have to beg for food and money in order to pay their bills. And I’m not talking about these so-called Hollywood Leftists who act like they hate wealth and capitalism, even though they personally enjoy being wealthy and have benefited greatly from capitalism. I’m talking about honest to goodness, ( to use a corny phrase ) down to earth, honest Socialists. Who when they have any extra money at all they always donate that money to their favorite charity like Uncle Sam or perhaps another charity, but who generally live simple lives. Who are very generous with their time and money.  ( Not someone else’s time and money )

These are the people who believe that tax day should be a holiday and always get together and celebrate tax day together with wine and cheese or coffee house coffee, listening to French poetry and folk music. Whatever you think of their politics, at least they’re honest about it, which is more than can say about most politicians. Especially the wealthy ones who are always calling for higher taxes on everyone else.

“Tax season is upon us, and it’s time to reconsider your politics… unless you don’t make six figures.”
Source:College Humor: 'Everyone is a Republican On Tax Day'Is this the same Republican Party, that raises taxes on the middle class, because they believe the wealthy are overtaxed?

Tuesday, April 16, 2019

The Bitchy Pundit: ‘Bernie Sanders is Rich’

Source:U.S. Senator Bernie SandersMaybe Senator Sanders had himself in mind when making this statement.
Source:The New Democrat Plus

From The Bitchy Pundit

“I’m going to veer off course for a minute to say that I don’t believe that any society should allow billionaires to happen. Billionaires are toxic to a society because they can’t spend a big enough percentage of their money to actually help an economy. Millionaires on the other hand, are great for societies and I’m all for creating more of them. Millionaires are in that sweet spot of having enough money to spend on significant amounts of consumer goods and investing just the right amount to help seed businesses. But millionaires aren’t rich enough to play fast and loose with their investments, since it can all disappear overnight. They are not (for example) rich enough to create mortgage backed securities or naked credit default swaps. I believe that our tax code should be designed to stop anyone from becoming a billionaire, just like it was for nearly forty years. We need a top tax rate of 90% not only to prevent billionaires from happening, but also to force reinvestment in American companies. There’s no point in looting a company if you’re going to have to pay 90% of what you loot back to the government.”

Source:The Bitchy Pundit: 'Bernie Sanders is a Millionaire'

Just to respond to The Bitchy Pundit: saying that she is OK with millionaires, but thinks billionaires should be outlawed, in other words being rich is OK, it’s superrich that’s the problem: that’s like calling someone a little fat, or saying they have a slight drinking problem: “Tom and Susan, only get drunk twice a week, three times during a holiday. Bob, is only 20 pounds overweight, but that doesn’t make him obese. Jane, is a little pregnant, but it’s not like she’s going to have the baby tomorrow.” I mean do the really have to wait for the extreme to happen before we call a problem a problem and say if we act now, it won’t become a major issue later on?

I mean, if you really think that wealth is a problem and people being independently wealthy is a problem, than why attack billionaires, but leave the millionaires alone? You don’t think people who are worth 20, 50, 100 million dollars aren’t investing their money oversees and doing what they can to avoid high taxation in America? If you do, you’re not that familiar with our tax code and our economic system and economy.

This is not about Bernie Sanders being rich in the sense that being rich and wealthy is a bad thing, simply because  I don’t believe wealth and being rich are bad things. Otherwise I would be a Socialist myself. This is about a Socialist from Vermont who before 2019 was the only self-described Socialist in Congress ( but not the only Socialist ) who is only famous in America because he’s spent his entire Congressional career ( House and Senate ) demonizing what he is which is rich and wealthy. We’re talking about a man who is a multi-millionaire who’ll never have to work again ( thanks to his personal wealth and taxpayer funded Congressional pension ) who attacks the wealthy in America simply because they’re wealthy and use their money and connections to avoid paying high taxes.

Bernie Sanders attacking someone for being wealthy, is like an alcoholic speaking out about the dangers of heroin and cocaine. And perhaps doing that while they’re drunk. Perhaps when they’re sober, they’re not as hypocritical. And if we ever see that person sober, maybe we’ll know for sure how hypocritical they are. A smoker who bashes people for eating junk food. Or the radical hippie vegan, who calls someone an animal killer because they eat cheeseburgers and calls people animal killers for eating meat while wearing a leather jacket. If there’s any one thing that American voters hate the most about politicians other than they are politicians to begin with and just hate their profession, it’s hypocrisy.

Socialists, like to say that America has socialism for the rich and capitalism for everyone else. Meaning that we subsidize wealth in this country and don’t do much as a society at least the government for people who are poor. They have a point there, but the problem that they have is that they might have had one of their icons in mind in Bernie Sanders, when they argue that.

If Bernie Sanders really was as Socialist and believed in socialism as much as he claims he does, he wouldn’t be a millionaire to begin with. He would just live off of his Congressional salary, while donating his wealth to his favorite charities like Uncle Sam. Because Socialists don’t believe in material wealth and believe that people should just have enough money to live a quality life and not have to be poor of course, but not be rich either, while Big Government takes care of the rest of what we need to live well. At our expense, of course.

When it comes to politicians, Bernie Sanders is about honest as they come. Which I know sounds like saying Joe is the best hockey player to ever come out of El Paso, Texas. Or Mary is the best ballet dancer to ever come out of Mobile, Alabama. But generally speaking I get the impression when Senator Sanders says something and proposes something, he actually believes what he’s saying. But when it comes to wealth in America and being rich, Bernie now sounds like Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Jane Fonda, or any other so-called Hollywood Leftists who attacks people simply for being what they are, which is rich and financially successful in America thanks to American capitalism, while they attack our capitalist economic system. It’s more than a little much and more like enough to make people vomit when they hear that hypocrisy.

“Jimmy Fallon’s monologue from Wednesday, April 10, plus Hodor from Game of Thrones remixes pop hits, like Lady Gaga’s “Shallow.”
Source:The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon: 'Bernie Sanders is a Millionaire'-  Jimmy Fallon: not a fan of Bernie Sanders hypocrisy on wealth. 

Monday, April 15, 2019

The Economist: Lane Greene- 'The Truth About Lies'

Source:The Economist- President Barack Obama: 44th POTUS and no more dishonest than any other politician or voter
"From little fibs to big fat whoppers, lying is part of human nature. Lane Greene, our language guru, examines the difference between lies, falsehoods and plain nonsense."

Source:The Economist: Lane Greene- 'The Truth About Lies'

From Dictionary

A lie is a: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood." 

Similar to terms like racist or bigot, Islamophobe, antisemite ( and unfortunately I could go on ) liar is a real word with real meaning and shouldn't be misused especially by people who are simply trying to score partisan points for their team and make the other side look as bad as they can get away with by spinning convenient facts to make their arguments. So if you're going to call someone a liar, you better know that they're deliberating making false statements with the intent to deceive and you better know that they tell lies, otherwise you're just falsely libeling that person.  

If I told someone that I was 7'0 tall, I would obviously lying there, but only because I'm a half foot short. ( Or more ) But if I told someone I was 6'5 when I'm 6'4 3/4, I wouldn't be lying there especially if I believed I was 6'5, or just rounded it up. People make false statements all the time, doesn't mean they're lying all the time. Most if not all of us lie anyway, but tell real lies or flatter people because we want them to feel good. The only difference between the average Joe or Mary on the street compared with famous people on the street like politicians, is most of the country doesn't know when we're lying, because most of the country hasn't heard of us. 

What makes politicians different is that they're public people and have to be public people to accomplish anything in their current job, or to get elected to higher office. And of course politicians lie, the question is do they lie more than the average Joe or Mary or any other average non-famous American. And I would argue that they don't simply because politicians are no more or less American and human as anyone else other than they're famous and are very ambitious people. 

And politicians tend to represent people who say they want honest people and yet they elect and reelect people who in many cases are dishonest and see lying as a way to avoid taking tough stances on positions and to coverup their less than honest behavior. ( Let's say ) So in that sense at least voters are liars as well because when polled they say they want honest, moral people representing them while they elect and reelect dishonest and crooked people. So who do voters have to blame for that other than the person that they see in the mirror? 

To paraphrase Lane Greene: there are liars and bullshitters and I would add idiots. 

The liar consistently says things that they know aren't true to deceive who they're talking to. 

The bullshitter is even worse because that person simply makes things up and could probably care less if people who they're talking to knows that there bullshitting them. 

The idiot, is the biggest asshole of the group, but not internally because they continually speak out of their ass about things that they know almost nothing about and believe that they're a lot smarter than they actually are. And aren't even smart enough to know what they're saying is simply bullshit. (Nonsense or garbage, if you prefer ) Stay away from the idiot, because that person is probably the most dangerous of the group. Sort of like a drunk gunslinger with a loaded gun. 

But not everyone who makes false statement are liars. And as we've learned from the Russia investigation the last two years, you don't have to be lying to get in trouble with law enforcement officials. You can be arrested and prosecuted for simply making false statements to those officials even if you believe what you're saying is the truth. Which is another reason why we shouldn't call ever false statement a lie and every asshole a liar, because they might simply not know what they't saying and what they're talking about. And be no more dishonest than you're average politician. 

Sunday, April 14, 2019

Frank Talk: Frank Colletta- Episode 1: What Does It Mean To Be a Progressive?

Source:Frank Talk- Franklin Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt: two of our Progressive President's
"Welcome to Frank Talk episode 1. Join me as we explore the Four Pillars of Progressive Thought and what it means to be a progressive-minded individual. Special thanks to Think Progress for their article entitled: "What it Means to Be a Progressive", written by John Halpin. His work was integral to the creation of this educational video. Thanks is also given to the American Values Project for their work on, "Progressive Thinking: A Synthesis of Progressive Values and Beliefs and Positions".

Source:Frank Talk: Frank Colletta- Episode 1: What Does It Mean To Be a Progressive?

Source:Wikipedia

"Progressivism is the support for or advocacy for improvement of society by reform. As a philosophy it's based on the idea of progress which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development and social technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition."

I like Frank Colletta's line about: "within every heart of a Conservative, you find hopes for a progressive tomorrow." Which has always been one of the points about Progressive and progressivism, that it's not partisan and in some cases it's not ideological even. And people need to understand that if they really want to know what it means to be a Progressive and what progressivism is actually about, especially with the Far-Left who are really Socialists and in some cases even Communists, who try to adopt Progressive and progressivism for themselves, because they're afraid to be labeled as Socialists or Communists depending on how far to the left that actually are.

As far as Frank Colletta saying that progressivism is about fairness and equality: sure, but most mainstream political philosophies whether they're right or left believe in some level of fairness ( or as I prefer justice ) and equality. Progressives, don't have the monopoly on justice and equality.

The First Pillar: Freedom and Opportunity

Again, most mainstream political philosophies believe in some level of freedom and opportunity. Where Progressives would differ from Conservative-Libertarians ( let's say ) on the Right and Socialists as well on the Left, is that Progressives believe that government has a role in seeing that everyone had the ability and opportunity to live in freedom in America. Not just people who are born to wealth in America or people from a certain racial or ethnic background. Which is where Progressives would differ from Conservatives when it comes to freedom.

But Progressives differ from Socialists as well, because Socialists believe that opportunity doesn't go far enough, because they believe that some people won't take advantage of those opportunities and come up short. Or some people will do so well and have so much freedom over others and that to Socialists is somehow unfair. Progressives, don't believe in total economic equality in the sense that everyone has the same basic income and standard of living, but that everyone has the opportunity to achieve real freedom in America.

My short, but simple definition of a Progressive in a political sense: is someone who believes in progress through government action. Progressive, is not another word for Socialist ( democratic or otherwise ) and Progressive is not another word for hippie or hipster: someone who is in on all the latest social trends and proud of that. You don't have to to hip, cool, or awesome to be a Progressive: You just have to believe in progress and that government has a limited, but real role in achieving progress and that everyone's constitutional rights are protected and that everyone has a real shot at succeeding in America. That everyone is protected from predators and predatory behavior, foreign or domestic.

A Progressive is not someone who is necessarily in on all the latest social trends and backs them, or has a big government solution and tax increase to solve everyone's problems for them and take care of them. Or someone who believes that freedom is dangerous and selfish.


Friday, April 12, 2019

Senator Huey Long: Huey Long Collection- Share Our Wealth Societies: 2/23/1934

Source:Senator Huey Long- Governor Huey Long, D, Louisiana: the Bernie Sanders of his era?
"Huey Long speaking with John A Simpson, President of the National Farmer's Union, in 1934.
FORMER LOUISIANA GOVERNOR HUEY LONG, CALLED "THE KINGFISH", SPEAKING WITH JOHN A. SIMPSON, PRESIDENT NATIONAL FARMER'S UNION, ON SHARE THE WEALTH MOVEMENT"

Source:Senator Huey Long: Huey Long Collection- Share Our Wealth Societies: 2/23/1934

Governor Huey Long's Share The Wealth Proposal

Source:Wikipedia

1. "No person would be allowed to accumulate a personal net worth of more than 300 times the average family fortune, which would limit personal assets to between $5 million and $8 million. A graduated capital levy tax would be assessed on all persons with a net worth exceeding $1 million.[citation needed]

2. Annual incomes would be limited to $1 million and inheritances would be capped at $5.1 million.[citation needed]

3. Every family was to be furnished with a homestead allowance of not less than one-third the average family wealth of the country. Every family was to be guaranteed an annual family income of at least $2,000 to $2,500, or not less than one-third of the average annual family income in the United States. Yearly income, however, cannot exceed more than 300 times the size of the average family income.[citation needed]

4. An old-age pension would be made available for all persons over 60.[citation needed]
To balance agricultural production, the government would preserve/store surplus goods, abolishing the practice of destroying surplus food and other necessities due to lack of purchasing power.[citation needed]

5. Veterans would be paid what they were owed (a pension and healthcare benefits).[citation needed]
Free education and training for all students to have equal opportunities in all schools, colleges, universities, and other institutions for training in the professions and vocations of life.[citation needed]

6. The raising of revenue and taxes for the support of this program was to come from the reduction of swollen fortunes from the top, as well as for the support of public works to give employment whenever there may be any slackening necessary in private enterprise."

I'm not saying that Huey Long both as Governor Long and then later Senator Long was the George McGovern, or take it up today and call him the Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren of his era, but only because Huey Long wasn't so much a Democratic Socialist as he was just just purely a Socialist: someone who mixed both democratic and authoritarian views into his own politics. He was more like a Nicholas Maduro ( the President of Venezuela ) than Neville Chamberlain ( Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the 1930s ) as someone who believed in democratic socialism economically, but had authoritarian views when it came to how he governed.

Governor Huey Long, was as close to a dictator that we've ever had in this country when he was Governor of Louisiana and had so much power over the government there and didn't believe in checks and balances and separation of powers. But on economic policy he was someone who had strong populist tendencies and someone who wasn't a big city leftist or populist, but someone who could appeal to rural voters in the deep South, because of how poor they were and that he spoke about their poverty and promised to get them out of it with his economic populism that we would call democratic socialism today. Which is what he has in common with Senator Bernie Sanders today.

What Governor Long has in common with Senator Sanders is what again what was called economic populism in the 1930s that we call democratic socialism today:  Bernie, doesn't call his economic agenda Share The Wealth, but that's probably more for political reasons than ideological. He's already a self-described Democratic Socialist and one of just a few in Congress today and doesn't want to be confused with Socialists who are even to the Left of him. But ideologically Bernie's vision of democratic socialism is very similar to Huey's when it comes to money and wealth. They would both essentially outlaw wealth in this country and use that money for their social welfare agenda.

Huey Long in the 1930s, was talking about old age pensions and what we call today a national basic income where every American would be given a financial allowance in this country to make sure that they don't have to live in poverty. Bernie Sanders, believes that every single American has a right to go to college and get health insurance and health care provide to them from the government. And that the wealthy should be forced to pay for all of these services for everyone else. What Huey and Bernie have in common politically, is that they're both anti-wealth and economic independence. And see it as the role of the U.S. Government to guarantee every single America and basically national income and quality living in this country.

Thursday, April 11, 2019

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."

Source:CSPAN: Q&A With Brian Lamb: Calvin Coolidge

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.