Reagan Foundation: President Reagan's- Address To The Nation On The Economy- 2/05/81

Source:Reagan Foundation- President Ronald W. Reagan, 40th President of The United States.

"President Ronald Reagan's address to the nation on the economy. 2/5/81. For more information on the ongoing works of President Reagan's Foundation, visit us at:Reagan Foundation." 

From the Reagan Foundation

When Ronald Reagan became President in 1981 and brought in a Republican controlled Senate for the first time in twenty-six years led by Leader Howard Baker, he had a fairly basic agenda when he came in and was very disciplined in how he accomplished it. 

President Reagan n 1979-80 ran on turning the economy around, get it growing and creating jobs again and end the Cold War with the Soviet Union. His economic plan was centered around cutting taxes and regulations drastically and ending the Cold War by expanding the military in hopes of bringing the Russians to the negotiating table. And he didn’t really care about how this was accomplished as long as he did it.

As much as Ron Reagan spoke as a Conservative as a private citizen, he was a pragmatist as a Governor and President. He knew for everything that he was going to get out of Congress, where Democrats controlled the House for all eight years and the Senate for two years and had a large minority in the Senate for six years, he knew he was going to have to give some things to get what he wanted. 

Tip O’Neil a Democrat who was Speaker of the House for six of President Reagan’s eight years as President, both men who have almost nothing in common other than being Irish-American. Worked very well together.

President Reagan also worked very well with Robert Byrd who was the Democratic Leader of the Senate for President Reagan’s entire Presidency. Six years as Minority Leader and two years as Leader and he had a very good working relationship with Leader Baker as well. 

As ideological as Ron Reagan might of sounded and Howard Baker and him had a lot in common politically, Leader Baker was Leader of the Senate and was a legislator more than anything else. And knew he had to work with Bob Byrd, Speaker O’Neil and President Reagan in order to get anything done. 

President Reagan was a great politician and was very pragmatic and knew he had to work with Congressional Democrats as well as his own Congressional Leadership to pass anything out of Congress.

As much as President Reagan spoke about the need for fiscal responsibility, balancing the budget and a Balance Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the opposite was true. When he became President back in 1981, he inherited an awful economy from President Carter. But a small budget deficit of 40B$ or so and a manageable Federal debt of 32.5% of GDP, or 4.55T$, or less than a third of today’s Federal debt. 

When President Reagan left office in 1989, he left President George H.W. Bush with a Federal deficit of around 200B$ and a Federal debt of of 53.1% of GDP or 7.43T$ in today’s terms. Still small compared with the Federal debt of today.

When President Reagan became President in 1981, the Federal budget was 22.7% of GDP and when he left office in 1989 the Federal budget was 27.3% of GDP. 

Ronald Reagan did not run for President to balance the budget, but to make the economy strong, get the Federal Government off our backs as he put it and end the Cold War with Russia. And if that means running large budget deficits debts and that’s a small price to pay for a strong economy and ending the Cold War, he thought that price was worth paying. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Saul Alinsky- 'Mobilizing The Poor (1967)'

Source:Firing Line- Community activist Saul Alinsky, appearing on Firing Line in 1967.

"The common aim of all Mr. Alinsky's organizations is to mobilize the poor--mobilize them by whatever mean comes to hand (marches, sit-ins)--to demand decent housing conditions or whatever the local need may be. This one is a knock-down, drag-out from start to finish. SA: "I refuse to debate with him [David Riesman], which only came up recently ... I made the remark that any time I see any of his stuff, it sort of makes me feel like a grizzled, battle-scarred dog going down the street while way back, say, six blocks back or so, this little whining Pekingese comes out sniffing, yipping, and licking and growling at my leavings. And I'm not going to waste my time turning around." 

From the Hoover Institution 

"Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: Mobilizing the Poor" 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"There are many who know little or nothing about the recent and distant past. They are often disinterested about such things and when pressed can find no value in its study.

 

Because our lives are linear we can't escape an essential truth: that an event follows a previous event and that, quite often, new things and ideas are built upon those that preceded them. What came before informs and influences the present and possibly the future, too. Knowledge of those things, people, and events of the past can't help but shine a sort of light on life and events of today, and what might be tomorrow. This is a simple calculus but all too often ignored. The great challenge is not finding historical things, events, and people to study, but interpreting their meaning—particularly as they might relate to the present.

 

After the election victory of Donald J. Trump, the country appears to have descended into upheaval. President Trump's election success was directly due to the functions of the checks and balances system (as represented in this case by the Electoral College) constructed by the founders; the losing candidate soon called for its abolition. Such an essentially revolutionary response to an election defeat is readily understood if the times themselves are seen as revolutionary, too." 

Source:New English Review- community activist Saul Alinsky, on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1967.

From New English Review

‘Mobilizing the Poor’, sounds like a great idea to me, but what to mobilize them for is the question. What do you want them to do. 

Now, me if I’m going to mobilize the poor, I would work with them to improve their own lives and empower them to empower their own lives. To make themselves self-sufficient, but also to get them involved in their own communities, if nothing else to make them better. So they are no longer stuck living in crumbling housing projects, living in dangerous neighborhoods and living in low-income communities where they can’t get good jobs. Because one, good jobs don’t exist in their communities. But also because they don’t have the skills to get good jobs and their kids won’t get the skills to get good jobs.

We still have low-skilled low-income adults are stuck going to rotten schools in violent neighborhoods, because their parents don’t have a choice in where they send their kids to school. And thus are stuck with the same awful future that their parents had or in lost of cases just one parent. Perhaps never ever meeting their biological father or mother and in many cases father and end up repeating the same cycle of poverty as past generations in their family. 

In women’s cases having kids too early and not finishing high school to take care of their kids. Ending up on Welfare or stuck working minimum wage jobs the rest of their lives or perhaps ending up hanging out with the wrong crowds and ending up in jail or prison with kids.

And in men’s cases fathering kids way too early and perhaps never even meeting them or walking out on them, because they are not ready to raise them and can’t handle it. And perhaps dropping out of high school and ending up on Welfare or stuck working minimum wage jobs the rest of their lives as well. Or ending up in jail or prison, because they tried to make easy money by again hanging out with the wrong crowd. 

This is the future that we as a society should mobilize the poor to get away from and into a much more positive future of quality education, for parents and their kids, good jobs for the parents and their kids, so they can live in thriving communities.

If you’re talking about people living in poverty, but a have place of their own to live in, like an apartment, but don’t make enough money to support themselves on their own, or are on Welfare Insurance and don’t work at all, then I believe the answers to finally winning the so-called War on Poverty, are good, positive and simple. 

And it really gets down to education, for parents and their kids to get the skills that they need to become self-sufficient and live in their own home. And it’s also about housing as well, whether it gets to encouraging the private sector to invest in low-income communities and train some of the people there. So they can get the skills that they need to get good jobs in these company’s, so the people there can get good jobs to become self-sufficient.

We should be reforming Public Housing in a way all together by instead of forcing low-income people to live in housing projects in low-income communities. Build these housing projects in middle class communities so low-income people are exposed to other communities around them and aren’t forced to live in violent communities. And have a shot at living a good life but reforming Public Housing alone won’t solve the problem. 

Another component has to be about reforming public education in America. So low-income students and their parents aren’t stuck going to bad schools, where perhaps they won’t even finish high school. But even if they do finish high school, they won’t have the skills that they need to get good jobs.

America needs public school choice so parents can decide on their own what school to send their kids too. But also empowering low-income parents and adults to finish high school as well as go to community college so they can get the skills that they need to get good jobs. 

The answer to finally winning the War on Poverty is not just Welfare checks, even though that helps people on Welfare Insurance survive in the short-term. But the answers to finally winning the so-called War on Poverty is about empowering low-income people to get the skills that they need to become self-sufficient on their own. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Hoover Institution: Eric Hanushek- 'Schools Fiscal Crisis Unclear'

 

Source:Hoover Institution- Eric Hanushek, talking about American schools.

"Hoover senior fellows and members of the Koret Task Force on K--12 Education Eric Hanushek and Paul Peterson dissect the fiscal problems in US education. Short-run revenue problems are hard to solve just by wishful thinking, but the long-run problems caused by health care demands and unfunded retirement liabilities are real." 

From the Hoover Institution

When it comes to eduction funding especially for our public schools, we should judge our spending not just by the amount we spend on our public schools, but also by what we spend that money on and what we get in return. 

Our public schools are generally funded through state and local property taxes: this is tax revenue so we should be making sure we spend this money on things that work. And make sure we get the best bang for our bucks as possible. Instead of judging success by the amount of money we spend, instead of what we get. 

If we judged our public schools by the amount we spend on them and nothing else, Washington would have the best public school system in America of any big city certainly, but any city in general. Because they spend the most per-capita on public education then anyone else or one of the highest levels in the country. And they have instead one of the worst public education systems in America. When it comes to other big cities but public education systems in America as well. 

So what we should be doing is figure out what works in public education and each public school system should figure this out for themselves. With the FEDS and states helping out research and funding and figure out what doesn't work. Fund better the things that do work and either cut back, eliminate or reform what doesn't work. It's pretty much that simple. 

One thing doesn't work is paying teachers based on their time of service, instead of quality of service. Because that puts in a built in incentive for educators not to do a good job or the best job as possible. Because they know they'll get an automatic pay raise based on the time that they serve. So that would be one reform I'm in favor of, eliminate teacher tenure and pay the good teachers well and eliminate or retrain the low-performing teachers. 

Pay teachers based on the job that they do and reward the good ones and pay teachers more money up front, so people well educated who could make a lot of money doing other things. Would have more incentive to go into the education profession. This would be one reform that I would like to see and then I would fund it well. 

Funding our public schools should be about what works and what doesn't and go from there. Funding what does work at a good amount and cutting, eliminating or reforming what doesn't. And figure out how to fund what works in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible, so you also have money to fund other priorities. 

Euro News: 'Cuba Looks to The Future, While Marking its Past'

"

Source:Euro News- The beautiful Caribbean island of Cuba.

"Euronews is a European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players."

From Wikipedia 

"As Cuba marked one of the biggest days in the history of its revolution, leaders were pledging to pursue reforms of the island's Soviet-style economy." 

From Euro News

Cuba is a beautiful somewhat small Caribbean island nation of around 11M people. And even though it's been a Communist State for over fifty years now with an authoritarian government and a Marxist-Communist economy, but with the passing of President Fidel Castro and his brother Raul now the President, a man who's recognized the need for progressive reform. (As opposed to regressive and illiberal) Something the Cuban People both still in Cuba but in America recognize as well. 

Cuba actually does some things well especially for a third World nation, like in education where their kids are educated well. But the problem is, you can have the best education in the world but if there aren't good jobs available for you which is largely the case in Cuba with its Marxist-Communist economy, with the State owning the means and production of society, you're not going to find enough good jobs, for enough people in an economy like that. The best education possible won't get you a good job if you have an economy thats dominated by inefficient state-owned industries. Cuba also has a very good state-run Health care system. 

I believe Cuba will move in the direction of China instead of Russia: start off with economic reform. (Meaning privatization and regulation) Hopefully their economy will move more like China than Russia and they are able to cut back on the amount of corruption in the economy. And most of the economic resources to going to a small percentage of people. And then moving to personal freedom later in the process. 

Communism I believe is not popular in Cuba any longer but I believe socialism is popular in Cuba and hopefully they'll move in the direction of social democracy instead of Marxist-Communism. Socialism is popular in Cuba and I could see a Socialist, hopefully a Democratic Socialist Party merging in Cuba in the future. 

If the Cuban Government ever moved in the direction of allowing opposition party's, perhaps the Communist Party will reform into the Social DemocraticParty (to stay in power, if nothing else) because socialism is popular in Cuba, 

I believe the direction that Cuba should head into the future, is to look more like Europe thats filled with social democracies. Instead of America thats more of a liberal democracy. And hopefully they'll allow for personal freedom as well. Reforming the Constitution or writing a new one, Bill of Rights, those sorts of things.

Ray Koch: President Richard Nixon- 'Birth of The HMO'

Source:Ray Koch- President Richard M. Nixon (Republican, California) talking to his Domestic Policy Director JohnEhrlichman, about health care reform, in 1971.

"In 1971, Edgar Kaiser, the son of the founder of Kaiser Permanente, one of the first big HMOs, went to see John Ehrlichman, a top aide to President Nixon, to lobby the Nixon White House to pass legislation that would expand the market for health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Ehrlichman reported this conversation to Nixon on February 17, 1971. The discussion, which was taped, went like this: Ehrlichman: I had Edgar Kaiser come in...talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because the less care they give them, the more money they make. President Nixon: Fine. The next day, Nixon publicly announced he would be pushing legislation that would provide Americans "the finest health care in the world." 

From Ray Koch

Whether you're a fan of HMO's (Health Maintenance Organizations) or not, there's one person as well as the Democratic Congress of 1971-72 or 92nd Congress, that you can thank: the people who brought employer based health insurance to America, President Richard M. Nixon. 

With HMO's, anyone with a good job, whether they work in the private or public sector, has health insurance partially paid for by your employer. And of course you pay the other part which is taken out of your paycheck. 

Apparently before we had HMO's we had a fairly efficient health care system as far as our costs. But not enough people were covered with health insurance. Which makes health care and health insurance more expensive for everyone else.

The main reasons why Medicare and Medicaid were created in 1965, to provide government-run health insurance for senior citizens and low-income people who haven't retired yet. However you feel about President Nixon, he did make a contribution to health care reform in America. Whether you believe it's a positive contribution or not. 

I don't have a problem with HMO's as long as they are regulated properly, which they weren't before the 2010 Affordable Care Act. That included a Patient Bill of Rights in it, which essentially means that HMO's and health insurers, can't turn down people who need health insurance when get sick, or put lifetime caps on the amount that people can consume in their health care.

Basically as long as people pay for their share of their health insurance, they can't get dropped from their health coverage. If this was done back in 1971-72, maybe we don't have the most expensive health care system in the developed world right now. 

President Nixon, took a stab at health care reform, President Carter the same thing, President Clinton as well with his famous debacle. President George W. Bush and it took President Obama and a Democratic Congress with large majority's in both chambers to get it passed. All of this work and debates could've been avoided if HMO's were regulated properly from the start and we could've saved our health care system forty years of inefficiency.

If we had a Patient Bill of Rights from the start, we could have saved trillions on health care the last forty years. But perhaps President Nixon and the Democratic Congress then, couldn't predict the abuses that would've come in the future. 

Whether you're a fan of President Nixon or not and yes his main contribution and focus he gave to America was in foreign policy with Russia, China and ending the Vietnam War, he also made a contribution in environmental policy, and in health care as well. And he may of had a good idea at the time, but didn't put the right regulations in place. To prevent the abuses and the costs that came in the future.

Bob Parker: World News Tonight With Peter Jennings- 'Balanced Budget Story From 1995'

Source:Bob Parker- U.S. Representative Henry Hyde (Republican, Illinois) Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in 1995 and a proponent of a BBA.

"Story about Congress talking about a balanced budget amendment from January 1995.  It is kind of funny to hear what is being said in wake of the current debt ceiling debate." 

From Bob Parker

I've been thinking about the idea of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on and off for about fourteen years now or so (back when I was in kindergarten, ha, ha) since the last time Congress spent time considering it. 

At first I kind of liked the idea as someone who believes in fiscal responsibility, which me to means spend no more than you make and try to save as much as possible and put away as much as possible without hurting yourself. And only spending money on the things that you need and spend that money in the most efficient way as possible. Concepts that the Federal Government doesn't seem to understand, as well as a lot of state government's. 

My main problem with a Balanced Budget Amendment, would be the Federal courts or any other courts. Do we want unelected bodies telling the Federal Government how it can spend the tax revenue it collects, which I believe could happen when there are issues of whether Federal budgets are balanced and in the black or not. And when could the Federal budget be in the red, because all Balance Budget Amendments have exceptions for when the budget can be in the red. Like when the country is under attacked or in a depression, when the Federal Government is the only institution thats capable of borrowing money in America. Because they control the national currency and it might take a Federal judge to decide that these things are happening, even if it's obvious to everyone else. 

There are certain times in life for the Federal Government to now borrow money and go in the red and run a deficit. So for me to support a Balanced Budget Amendment, it would have to designed in a way to avoid this. Would be to leave it up to the Congressional Budget Office or Federal Reserve, people who can get fired for not doing a good job. Unlike Federal judges who can only be removed through impeachment and conviction which comes from being corrupt. And generally not from the job they do as judges. 

Or have some type of super majority vote in both chambers of Congress to declare its OK to borrow money, lay out what the conditions are and force Congress to declare them before it borrows money. The Balanced Budget Amendment has no place in today's debt and deficit reduction debate. Because it doesn't have the votes in either chamber of Congress to pass right now. And it would take 5-10 years for it ever to become law anyway because the states would have to approve it. 

But down the road a BBA I believe has some potential if we can keep the Federal courts out of making budget decisions for the Federal Government. A BBA that I could support, would only have three exceptions for the FEDS to borrow money and would have a strict PAYGO (pay as you go) requirement for the FEDS to borrow money. The United States itself would have to be under attacked and for us to be at war. Not a military base oversees but the country physically itself. 

Two, we are either in a depression or recession which would be declared by lets say the Federal Reserve and those would be my only two exceptions. And then the President would have to declare this and it would take a 3/5 Vote in both chambers of Congress to make it official. All other Federal operations would have to be paid for when one of the two exceptions to borrow money hasn't been declared. Including military operations domestic and foreign including war and invasions and disaster relief. 

And these things can be paid for if the Federal Government sets up fund for both of them. And then I would put in things as long as we are under a BBA, that require the Federal Government to stay within economic growth and the rate of inflation. Meaning it couldn't grow higher than those two rates. 

A Balanced Budget Amendment if done right, could result in forcing the Federal Government to be responsible with the tax revenue it collects and set priorities and actually pass a Federal budget every year. Instead of running the country into red and piling on debt that no one can pay back or has the intention of ever paying back.

Conel Rad: Barry Goldwater- '1964 Campaign Film: Sleaze Montage'

Source:Conel Rad- Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater, at the 1964 GOP National Convention.

"The closing segment of the controversial 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign film, "Choice."

From Conel Rad

Entertaining movie, or an entertaining clip from a movie and in this sense as well as others, during Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign.

This movie, was probably 12-20 years ahead of its time by using short films instead of just campaign ads to broadcast his political message. And bringing in the film industry. My problem with this film is that it sort of contradicts Senator Goldwater’s political message of individual freedom. And suggests that part of the problem with American society is pornography and sex. And that we have too much sexual freedom and perhaps government should do something about it.

And since Senator Goldwater was running for President, perhaps the Federal Government should do something about it. And he mentions that people who are in favor of sexual freedom, do it under the protection of the First Amendment. And that perhaps the First Amendment doesn’t protect Freedom of Expression. Which is course is a big part of what the adult entertainment industry is about, expressing how people feel about sex.

This film would’ve been better suited for a Christian-Right theocratic candidate. Like Pat Robertson or Michele Bachmann or Mike Huckabee or a Rick Santorum.

Someone who believes that part of America’s problems are that our morals have declined and as former U.S. Senate and presidential candidate Alan Keyes said: “The problem with America is that we have a moral crisis and that the Federal Government should try to fix it.” Part of what Mr. Keyes meant about our “moral crisis” was the adult entertainment industry. A movie like this is not for a political candidate who preaches the message of individual liberty and freedom.

Someone whose anti-Big Government and pro-limited government, because individual Liberty is more than just low taxes and regulations and economic freedom. But the freedom for individuals to live their own lives and not for government to try to run their lives for them. Someone who believes that government should be used to protect people from themselves as well as others, is not a big fan of individual liberty. Except when people are living their lives exactly as they want them too.

Entertaining film and worth watching, but I’m disappointed it comes from someone who preaches the message of individual liberty and freedom. This film is better suited for Theocrats not Classical Conservatives which is what Barry Goldwater was and even if he made this film to appeal to Christian Conservatives back then, who weren’t very powerful in American politics yet, then this film was designed to make Senator Goldwater look like something he’s not. Which is a big problem with American politics and still is. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

Krazy Kraz: Barry Goldwater 1964 Speech- Freedom vs. Communism

Source: Krazy Kraz- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater, (R, Arizona)

"Many thanks to all librivox and other readers and public speakers." 

From Krazy Kraz

One of the things that I believe America had going for us over Russia in the Cold War was that we essentially had a country united behind freedom. With several variations an ideology’s to achieve exactly how we get there. Liberals who wanted a liberal democracy, conservatives who want a democratic republic, Socialists who wanted a social democracy. Libertarians who wanted to stay true to be a democratic constitutional republic. And we tried to push democracy around the world and also said to these other countries that were sort of on the fringe and could go one way or the other.

That freedom is the best form of government and that you should decide for yourself if you agree. But then figure out what type of democracy you should have on your own. Where in Russia when it was the Soviet Union, people didn’t have a choice. They got authoritarianism in a communist form. Where we had different sources and a variety of ideas we could go to in how best to protect American freedom. Where Russia just had the state to look after its people and govern the entire country.

The Soviet theory being if you give people freedom, they won’t know what to do with it and will become a threat to the state. Not the country exactly, but the State. The people in charged of the people essentially. Where in America we believe at least Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians, that the less freedom the people have, the more powerful the state is meaning the state becomes more powerful and the people have less.

Less freedom for the people to live their own lives. One of the reasons why I believe the Soviet Union collapsed, to go along with its faltering socialist Marxist economy, but also because the people saw through foreign TV and other sources, the freedom that people had in Europe and North America and what they could do with it. Liked what they saw and decided that they wanted a taste of that themselves. And told Moscow, “that you let us have or we’ll go somewhere else and get it.”

Moscow could see the breakup of the Soviet Union essentially coming and let these break away republics take off. Now not all these break aways are perfect examples of democracy. But many these countries now have more freedom than they ever had before. One of the beauty’s of freedom is that its an idea not an ideology. That several different ideology’s share. With a lot of different approaches to achieving and protecting it. And they are all against authoritarianism whatever the form. Whether its communist, theocratic or another type like in a monarchy or something. Freedom maybe the only idea that these different democratic ideology’s have in common. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Conel Rad: The Choice (1964) ‘Decay of American Morality’

Source:Conel Rad- from a 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign film.

"The "Two Americas" segment of the controversial 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign film, "Choice." 

From Conel Rad

There’s a book that was written by Lee Edwards that’s essentially called the 1964 Election a Glorious Defeat for the Conservative Movement. (I’m paraphrasing the title) It came out in 2005 or 2006. I was working at a book store part-time then and being the political junky that I am and not just interested in my politics and people who think like me. 

I saw the book on a table in the store and bought it. I think I still have it somewhere. The premise of it was that even though Senator Barry Goldwater only won something like 40% of the popular vote in that presidential election and won like ten states.

Barry Goldwater inspired Conservative-Libertarians young and from the Baby Boom Generation like Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott and other young Conservatives when. Like John McCain who I believe was in Vietnam when and Alan Simpson and many more. 

All these people who I mentioned by the way served in Congress at least at one level and all served in Congressional Leadership, which gets to my point. All these people consider Barry Goldwater to be a hero at least to some degree and agree with him on a lot of issues. And weren’t involved in politics at least at the Federal level at the time.

And all of these young Conservatives ended up getting involved in politics, running and getting elected to Congress and then serving there for a long time. Senator John McCain obviously is still in Congress and was originally elected to the House in 1982. 

Some might say that Senator Goldwater’s presidential campaign was badly run because of how badly he lost electorally. But I don’t believe that’s the main reason he ran for President at the time. Going into 1964 the chances of any Republican beating Lyndon Johnson weren’t very good. Because of President Kennedy being assassinated and the country pretty much saw President Johnson’s role to carry out President Kennedy’s agenda which he agreed to do. And I believe a lot more successfully as well.

Plus America is still in the Progressive Era of the New Deal and later the Great Society. Which is another reason why the Goldwater Campaign was important for classical conservatism. 

Without the 1964 Goldwater Campaign, Richard Nixon doesn’t become President in 1968 or get reelected in 1972. Ron Reagan doesn’t get elected President in 1980 or reelected in 1984. Senate Republicans don’t win control on the Senate in 1980 for the first time in 28 years and hold it for two more elections after that. Republicans don’t win control of Congress for the first time in 42 years in 1994.

All of these things happened because of Barry Goldwater, who inspired generations of Conservatives to get involved in conservative politics and run for office. At the local, state and federal levels. Despite losing forty states in 1964, Senator Goldwater managed to win states that democrats use to own. Like Alabama and Mississippi and today the Republican Party now owns the Sun Belt and the rest of the Bible Belt. A region that the Democratic Party use to own. Which is a reason why Richard Nixon won some of those States just four years later. Today’s right-winger conservative classical, theocratic and neo, owe a lot of their success to Barry Goldwater. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Nelson Polsby & Newt Gingrich: 'The Grand Ole Party: The Future of The Republican Party'

Source:Hoover Institution- California Berkeley Political Science Professor Nelson Polsby.

"The presidential election of 2000 highlighted the significant demographic divisions between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The strength of the Republicans lies in the South and in the middle of the country. But the voters that carried those regions for George W. Bush, mostly white and Protestant, are shrinking as a proportion of the overall United States population. Are these demographic changes a serious problem for the Republicans? If so, what can they do to bring groups that have traditionally been Democratic—Hispanics, blacks, and Catholics, for example—into the Republican Party?" 

From the Hoover Institution

The Republican Party was as its height of power from 1953-93, when they won 7-11 presidential elections and were competitive in Congress. And even Congress for two years from 1953-55 and held the Senate a total of eight years from 1953-55 and 1981- 87. Some might say the height of the Republican Party was from 1953-2007, 9-15 presidential elections and held Congress for fourteen years and the Senate for eighteen years. 

But I believe the Republican Party started to decline post-Reagan in 1989 and I'll explain that later. Even though they controlled the House from 1995-2007, the Senate from 1995-2001 and 2003 to 2007 and the White House from 2001-2009. Because the base of the Republican Party are Anglo-Saxon-Protestant, rural, male voters. And the Democratic Party essentially owns most of the racial minority groups and the non-Protestant-Christian ethnic groups. 

Also the three largest or 3-4 largest European ethnic Groups in America (German, Irish and Italian) tend to be Democratic as well. The Democratic Party tends to believe in the big tent theory, that if you include as many groups as possible in your party. But you share a common political ideology or political goals and you believe in progress, that gives Democrats the best chance to be competitive across the country. 

And with the current Republican base actually shrinking, for them to be competitive in the future they are going to have to reach out to ethnic and racial minorities, two groups that currently vote overwhelmingly Democratic right now. And they can do that I believe if they go back to the future so to speak, because Asian, African, and Latin-Americans tend to be pro-business and free enterprise which has been Republicans dominant message since the 1930s and 40s. 

This can be done if they were to drop this Christian-Conservative message that they've been on for the past twenty years or so. And trying to use government to tell people how to live their lives. And actually start welcoming new people to their party instead of telling them they are Un-American.

The Republican Party used to be a party that was about classical conservatism, protecting constitutional rights, and individual liberty. Instead of trying to use government to tell people how to live their lives and trying to criminalize things that they don't like just because they don't personally don't like them. And a real free enterprise party that was against things like corporate welfare and cowboy economics. 

This is the politics that brought them back into power in the 1950s and where they stayed in power from 1953-93, except for 61-69 and 77-81. This was when the Republican Party was the Grand Ole Party but the track they are headed down now is becoming the Grand Old Party . With a base that is dying off if they don't expand it.

The Conservative Will: President Ronald Reagan- On Taxes in 1986

Source:The Conservative Will- President Ronald W. Reagan, Oval Office address on tax reform, in 1986.

"President Reagan on taxes." 

From The Conservative Will

A Liberal Democrat could’ve basically given the same speech on tax reform that Ron Reagan a Conservative Republican gave. I mean Jack Kennedy could’ve given the same speech that President Reagan gave, or it would’ve sounded very similar. And he probably gave a similar speech when he pushed for deep tax cuts in the early 1960s. The American tax system is so complicated that accountants hire other accountants to fill out their Federal taxes and tax lawyers hire other tax lawyers to come up with tax loopholes for them. These might sound like jokes, but they’re not far off.

The Federal Government has gotten to the point and this has gone on for at least thirty years if not longer, that if they want Americans to do something that they believe in their “brilliant wisdom”, is in the best interest for the country, they write a tax credit to encourage people to do it. Whether its education for their kids, or giving to charity, or planning for their own retirement. 

And there’s a lot more and it’s not that these causes aren’t worthwhile, because a lot of them are. But they all get written in the tax code, that’s gotten so big, that you now have to be a super weightlifter in order to pick the damn thing up and walk around with it. Actually a lot football players now stay in shape by power-lifting the tax code.

Insomniacs now read the tax code night after night and I should know I’m one of them. It helps them go to sleep and plus reading that book, you never run out of reading material. Because Congress writes a new tax law almost every day. It’s basically the only thing the Senate does now a days besides general speeches. Thats another place that insomniacs go to when they need to get some sleep, the Senate to listen to hours of general speeches. I almost feel sorry for the Senate typist who has to write all these speeches down hours and hours of them. 

The tax code is so big now, that you need a pickup truck or a minivan, without seats to move it around. It is something like 70,000 pages the population of Wilmington, Delaware and don’t ask me how I know that. In summary too much free time.

To be totally serious for a minute, (like totally!) or as serious as I can be and this should only take about a minute and if I run out of time, I’ll ask a Senator to yield to me, the Senator could probably use some water, or catch their breath and now I’ll be serious for real: but seriously what we should do instead is throw out the current tax code. If we can find a trash dump big enough to carry it and will take it and reform our tax code. 

We should move to a tax system that lowers the rates and broadens the base and doesn’t raise taxes on anyone who can’t afford to pay more. And doesn’t raise taxes enough to discourage wealth creation. 

Lower rates on most, individuals and business’s, but throw out all the tax loopholes, or most of them. And give people more freedom to spend their own money that they worked for the way they want to. Instead of Uncle Sam (who’s no ones favorite uncle unless you’re a Socialist) telling us how to spend our own money that we made on our own. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Conel Rad: Ronald Reagan- Time For Choosing (1964)

Source:Conel Rad- Then private citizen Ronald Reagan, speaking in favor of Senator Barry Goldwater for President in 1964. 

"Ronald Reagan delivers his "A Time for Choosing" speech in support of Senator Barry Goldwater in the waning days of the 1964 general election. "The Speech" as it is also known launched Reagan's political career. Two years after this film was broadcast on NBC on October 27, 1964, he was elected governor of California. Contrary to some entries on Wikipedia and elsewhere, Reagan did NOT deliver this speech at the Republican National Convention in San Francisco. He taped it on a soundstage in Hollywood, California." 

From Conel Rad 

I wonder if the RNC Delegates still thought they nominated the right person for President in 1964. Actually, when it came to speaking for classical conservatism, Ron Reagan and Barry Goldwater were probably about equal. Except that Reagan had some better lines and better humor. He was essentially a comedian in Hollywood who could also act a little bit, as well as a comedian as a politician. And wrote most of his material, something good comedians have as an advantage as speakers over non-comedians. They can speak off the top of their head. Reagan also had the ability to put down the opposition with humor, without sounding like a jerk.

Reagan was great at getting people to laugh at themselves and laugh at him intentionally as well. 1964 was the last general election that the Democratic Party owned the South even though they won in a landslide, the White House and Congress. Even with Senator Goldwater's huge defeat, he managed to win some Southern states that the Democratic Party previously owned. 

Goldwater had some success in the South, because he opposed the civil rights legislation of the mid 1960s, on libertarian-constitutional ground. But part of it was also Senator Goldwater and Ron Reagan with their classical conservative message of limited government and more individual freedom. That they took across the country, including in the South. That made the Republican Party competitive all across the country, even in the Northeast and Far West.

This was an era from around 1952 with Dwight Eisenhower, up to 1992 with George H.W. Bush where the Republican Party was truly the Grand Ole Party. That was about limited government and individual freedom. That Eisenhower, Goldwater, Gerry Ford and Reagan communicated so well. And why they won 7-10 presidential elections and became competitive in Congress again. Even holding the Senate for eight years in that time period, which at the time was a huge accomplishment for them. Where in the 70s and 80s they would speak to the Christian-Right but wouldn't give them anything. How times and the Republican Party have changed. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

CBS News: The Early Show- Rebecca Jarvis- Interviewing U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann: 'I Cannot Vote To Raise The Debt Ceiling'

Source:CBS News- U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota) on CBS's The Early Show.

"Rebecca Jarvis talks to Republican presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann about the jobs, the economy and raising the debt ceiling.

Add Rep. Michelle Bachmann who's running for President in case you missed the memo, statement to the clueless list and to the list of reasons why she won't be President of the United States. Every time I hear her speak, I question whether she's qualified." 

From CBS News 

To first talk about what Representative Mchele Bachmann was saying about the budget deficit and national debt being President Barack Obama's: the deficit was already over a trillion-dollars the day President Obama took office two years ago. And the national debt was already over 11 trillion-dollars. He inherited a huge deficit and debt from former President George W. Bush. So unless the United States of America wasn't created until January 2009, it's not credible to say that the deficit and debt are the Obama deficits and debt. 

I'm not talking about legal qualifications here, but Representative Michele Bachmann's judgement. It's a good thing for Minnesota that she's not running for Senate in 2012, but I don't have to make that call which is good for me, because if she did run for Senate next year, she would probably get the Republican nomination for Senate and there are enough ignorant people in Minnesota unfortunately that she would run a strong race in Minnesota as far a getting support. 

Representative Bachmann also represents another reason why U.S. Reps. don't generally do very well when running for President and rarely even get much attention and support, because most of the 435 Representatives, except for some committee leaders and members of leadership, have never even ran statewide let alone been elected statewide, let alone run for national office, they are accustomed to running in a very partisan House districts. And not accustomed to speaking to a broader audience unlike senators, governors, President's and Vice President's have to do in order to get elected and reelected. 

One of the reasons why Reps. get reelected overwhelmingly and why there are so few competitive House races, because they are accustomed to be speaking to people that they basically know will vote for them, instead of speaking to Independents who don't know who'll they vote for and in a lot of cases don't make that decision until Election Day. 

Also Reps. generally lack executive and foreign policy experience two things that President's tend to have before they become President. So what you have with Michele Bachmann is someone who consistently speaks about issues she doesn't understand and doesn't have much experience dealing with. Which unfortunately can be said about a lot of the 435 Representatives in Congress.

As far as the debt ceiling issue goes: everyone in the debt ceiling negotiations all of the Democrats and Republicans, understands that America can't afford to default on our debt, one of the reasons is because of the size of it 14T$ over 90% of our GDP. Our weak economy simply can't afford it right now, we can't afford a worthless dollar. Even House Leader Eric Cantor who's said some strange things recently understands this. 

Which is just one reason why Representative Bachmann is not part of these negotiations, is just a matter of how we do it. A clean debt ceiling without budget cuts and tax hikes. A strict debt ceiling with budget cuts or a more broader debt ceiling package with both steep budget cuts and tax hikes on people who can afford it and closing tax loopholes, that I'm in favor of.

Moog Rogue: Mr. Conservative- 'Barry Goldwater vs The Religious Right'

Source:Moog Rogue- Mr. Conservative U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona)

"From the documentary "Mr. Conservative: Goldwater On Goldwater" (2006)" 

From Moog Rogue

Barry Goldwater and Pat Robertson to me represent the two competing factions in the Republican Party today. Which unfortunately from my perspective as a Liberal the Pat Robertson faction of the party winning today, because they clearly have more influence. 

Barry Goldwater came from the classical conservative faction of the Republican Party that dominated the party. Probably from the 1930s all the way up to the 1980s, all of their presidential nominees came from that faction. 

Pat Robertson of course comes from the Christian-Right faction of the Republican Party. Or as I prefer to call them the Theocratic-Right, America’s version of people who would like to see a Christian Theocracy in America. As oppose to a Islāmic Theocracy that’s in the Middle East.

As Barry Goldwater said, Classical Conservatives believe government should be out of people’s wallets and bedrooms. Let free people be free in a free society like America. Keep our taxes and regulations down, don’t try to run our lives, defend the country, protect the streets and be responsible with our tax revenue. 

Use free market principles to help people in need, instead of new government programs and reform our current social insurance programs in a way to make them more cost-effective and efficient. Theocratic Conservatives, tend to be in line with the Classical Conservatives on economic and foreign policy, but take a different approach when it comes to social issues.

Christian-Conservatives, believe in a certain type of authoritarianism, a theocratic authoritarianism. And believe that government should be used to tell people how to live their own lives and prohibit activities that they find offensive. Even if they aren’t hurting anyone else in what they are doing. 

Things like abortion, homosexuality, pornography, prostitution, marijuana, sex before marriage, women in combat, etc. (Hopefully you get the idea) And if people engage in these activities, even if willingly and on their own and they are not hurting anyone innocent people in what they are doing, that these activities should be illegal and punishable by law and these people should face jail and prison time for engaging in these activities.

Classical conservatism and Christian-Fundamentalist authoritarianism, are the two competing ideology’s in the Republican Party. With unfortunately from my perspective theocratic authoritarianism, is currently winning out. With Republican candidates not being able to get nominated or elected without at least pledging a certain amount of faith in religion. (And of course the right religion) But it wasn’t always this way, the Republican Party used to be an anti-big government party that believed that free people should be allowed to be free.

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended)

Eric Cantor: 'Majority Leader Eric Cantor: Balanced Budget Amendment Will Help Change Washington (Q&A)'

Source:Eric Cantor- House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, with Speaker John Boehner and other House Republicans, as well as Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky)

"Leader Cantor: Balanced Budget Amendment Will Help Change Washington (Q&A)" 

From Eric Cantor 

Even if Congress were to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, (that means getting 290 Representatives and 67 Senators to vote for it, by the way) where the House Democratic Leadership will pushing its members for a no vote. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer has already announced that, it might be another 20 years before it ever became real, because 34-50 states to approve it as well.

You might get the twenty or so House Blue Dogs (that remain after the 2010 mid term elections) but who else in the Democratic Caucus, the forty or so membered so-called Progressive Caucus, are you kidding me, they are against anything that makes it harder for government to spend money. They are the opposite of the Tea Party on fiscal policy. I don't even believe they consider the Federal budget deficit and debt to be that big of a deal. 

And then let's say a Balanced Budget Amendment somehow manages to pass out of the House and gets over to the Senate and let's say all 47 Republican Senators vote for it (which isn't a guarantee) that still leaves Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell twenty votes shy of 67. Meaning he would have to find 20-53 Democratic Senators to vote for it. And thats assuming that Senate Leader Harry Reid decides to bring the Balanced Budget Amendment to the floor. (Which again isn't a guarantee) 

Leader Reid is a Democrat and a big believer in pork barrel spending and a Balanced Budget Amendment would make it harder for him to bring pork back to Nevada. A State where he isn't that popular to begin with, just look at his last election in 2010 where he almost lost to a mental patient in Sharron Angle. 

And even if Congress were to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment, it would probably take around 20 years for it ever to become law, because 34 out of 50 States would have to approve it. That also means two thirds of each state legislatures would have to approve it, whether they are bicameral or just have a House or Senate. We could have our deficit and debt under control by then without a Balanced Budget Amendment. 

The deficit and debt clearly needs to get under control as I've mentioned several times over the last few days. But the good thing is we can do it just by statue, meaning passing new laws and don't need Constitutional Amendments to do that. 

We can even pass new Federal spending rules to make it harder for the Federal Government to borrow money which is the major cause of our deficit and debt situation. Along with tax cuts that weren't paid for. 

We could have a real PAYGO Rule, meaning that the Federal Government wouldn't be able to borrow for anything, except when the country is under attacked or in a depression. (Lets say)

And that it would take a super majority in both the House and Senate to lift the PAYGO Rule. That would mean all emergency spending, whether it's committing American troops oversees and into battle or disaster relief. Would all have to be paid for, including Congressional earmarks and they would also have to be relevant to the bill that are attached to. 

And this can be done without cutting spending in a harmful way or raising taxes in a harmful way either. Just by making Emergency Management and national security self-financed with their own revenue streams. 

We could also have a rule that says the Federal Government can't grow faster than the rate of inflation or the economy. Again except if the country is directly under attacked or we are in a depression, with the same super majority rule for the House and Senate to lift that rule as well.

Instead of the House GOP Leadership talking about trying to pass things that are five years (or more) down the road of becoming law (even if Congress were to enact it) they should get serious. The President has accepted most of their demands on the debt ceiling and deficit reduction. Now it's time for them to give as well.

American Enterprise Institute: 'Why Crop Insurance Costs Too Much'

Source:AEI- Could be a scene from the great Alfred Hitchcock movie North by Northwest. I guess you would have to be a classic movie fan, or at least an Alfred Hitchcock fan to get that reference. LOL

"Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.

In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset. 

The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials. 

AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees.

More information on AEI research integrity can be found here:AEI ." 

From AEI

If you want to know what Federal Government waste looks like and is, just look at any of the Federal farm bills that are passed where wealthy and corporate farmers get subsidized essentially just for doing their jobs, producing food. This is another form of welfare, but instead of helping low-income and low-skilled people, what Welfare Insurance has traditionally been for. 

This is corporate welfare subsidizing business's for making a lot of money. I don't have a problem with Welfare Insurance for low-skilled and low-income people who need assistance to become self-sufficient in life, including temporary financial assistance. But these are the people it should be for, not for people who are already doing very well which is great. But they don't need assistance especially assistance thats funded by taxpayers. Especially since we have a Federal budget deficit of 1.6T$ and debt of 14T$ in an economy of 14T$. And Federal Agriculture Insurance represents around 40B$ a year in pork barrel Spending. (Pun intended) 

If we are going to fund Agriculture Insurance in the Federal Government, then it should be self-financed and a self-sufficient program. That doesn't have to be funded out of general revenue that the Federal Government would even have to manage. That would be non-profit or run by the states that farmers would have the option to pay into or not but wouldn't be eligible for agriculture assistance from the Federal Government unless they pay for it. 

This would save the Federal Government 40B$ a year, as well as the operating costs of running the program. Savings that could be used to help pay down the Federal deficit and debt. It wouldn't get our deficit and debt under control on its own but would represent a big piece of a deficit reduction package on its own. 

Again Welfare Insurance should be for the people who need it: low-skilled and low-income people can't survive without it. To help them get on their feet and become self-sufficient. Welfare Insurance should not be for people who are already doing very well and survive very comfortably on their own.

FOX News: Special Report With Brett Baer- Speaker John Boehner: 'Where is the President's Plan?'

Source:Speaker John Boehner- talking to FOX News's Brett Baier, about President Obama and the debt negotiations.

"Speaker Boehner spoke with Fox News' Bret Baier tonight after a meeting at the White House to discuss President Obama's request for an increase in the debt limit. Boehner said "it's time for the president to put his plan on the table," and noted that Republicans are serious about seizing this moment to make "the biggest spending cuts possible" and implement reforms -- like a Balanced Budget Amendment -- to address our long-term debt crisis without raising taxes on job creators." 

From John Boehner

Actually, I have news for Speaker Boehner: the President has a plan that he's basically written in the negotiations with the Congressional leadership in both parties and chambers. And the House GOP Leadership has gotten much of what they wanted in the plan. Practically everything by cutting the overall size of the Federal Government and reforming the entitlement programs. 

But these are called negotiations for a reason, because multiple parties are involved. Both sides get what they want and both sides have to give into something that they don't want. For President Obama to sign on to a debt ceiling deal, he's going to have to get things in return, in exchange for what he's already given up. And what he's already given up so far in 2011 which is plenty. 

And for there to be any deal, the House GOP Leadership is going to have to accept tax increases on high- earners, both millionaires and billionaires. As well as strategic defense cuts in areas of defense that we don't need to be currently spending on or as much. Members of the House Tea Party Caucus have already agreed to the defense cuts and the Senate, both parties would go along for defense cuts as well. 

And there's a bipartisan deal in the Senate thats ready to go along for tax hikes on high-earners. But what's holding this potential deal back right now, is the House Tea Party Caucus, that Speaker Boehner and Leader Eric Cantor would have to sell a final deal to. As well as the so-called House Progressive Caucus, that  Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi would have to sell the deal too. 

I don't believe the President, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid will sign off on a final deal, that a majority of their caucus's would vote no on. That would cause huge problems for President Obama for the rest of 2011 and 2012 as he runs for reelection. 

I believe the final deal is there, the question is can the Congressional leadership in both parties and in both chambers sell the deal to enough of its members to make the deal seem okay and can the President sell the deal to the House and Senate Democratic caucus's. 

The final deal is already there and President Obama, Speaker Boehner and Leader Reid just aren't ready to announce it, because Senate Minority Leader McConnell and House Minority Pelosi aren't behind it yet. Because the two minority leaders don't like the deal and none of the leaders believe they can sell the final debt ceiling package to their respective caucus's yet.

Elephant Owners Dotcom: Ronald Reagan on Socialism

Source:Elephant Owners- Ronald Reagan, talking about socialism in 1964.

"Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program. There are many ways in which our government has invaded the free precincts of private citizens, method of earning a living; our government is in business to the extent of owning more than 19,000 businesses covering 47 different lines of activity. This amounts to 1/5th of the total industrial capacity of the United States."

From Elephant Owners

Ronald Reagan I believe back in 1964 or 65 when he made this speech comparing socialism with liberalism try's to link socialism with liberalism, as if they are one in the same. A classical Conservative who's as intelligent and articulate as Ron Reagan, should know that socialism and liberalism are two different political ideology's not one in the same. Socialism and liberalism does have one thing in common though, they are both progressive meaning they believe that government can be used to make society better. But are completely different in how they accomplish these goals.

Socialism is collectivist meaning that Socialists believe that government especially the central government and in America's case the Federal Government, should be used to make society better through social insurance programs meaning the welfare state. Things like education, health care, health insurance, pension, Unemployment Insurance, transportation, banking, energy etc. And that all these services should be provided by the central government, or that the central government should at least have a major role in providing these services.

And what government doesn't run, it highly taxes and regulates whatever private sector there is. To finance the welfare state and take care of people who don't have enough. And that no one should be able to make a lot more money than others. Even if they earned and created most if not all the wealth that they have. And that no one essentially should be able to make a lot of money compared with the rest of society and that people who make a lot of money should be highly taxed to take care of the people who don't have enough.

Socialism is very statist when it comes to economic policy and I don't mean that to be insulting. But descriptive, but socialism is more than just an economic policy. Its a fully developed political ideology that also have views on both social policy and foreign policy. Socialists tend to liberal to libertarian on social issues, just look at Canada and Sweden for example where both of those democracy's have a lot of social freedom. Way too much social freedom in the eyes of theocrats and other authoritarians in America and other countries. Socialists tend to be dovish and isolationist on foreign policy and law enforcement.

Liberalism however is very anti-statist and big government in general. And very anti-establishment as well. Liberals don't have much faith in centralized power public, or private. And believe government should be used to protect people's constitutional rights and protect people from being hurt by others. But not regulate how adults live their own lives. Liberal comes from the word liberty and when it comes to liberalism, that means freedom and responsibility for the individual. As long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. And that government can be used to empower people who are down get themselves up with a hand up not a hand out. Socialism and liberalism are both progressive, but in different forms. Socialism is about empowering government to make society better. Liberalism is about empowering the people to make their own lives better. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)