RT America: Thom Hartmann- 'No Mercy For American Convicts'

Source:RT America- Left-wing talk show host Thom Hartmann, appearing on President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[1] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[15][16] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an "autonomous non-profit organization" founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[10][17] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO "TV-Novosti" on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia.[18][19][20] RT operates as a multilingual service with channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[21] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5][6][7] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[8][9]

RT has been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[42] and conspiracy theories.[48] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast "materially misleading" content.[55] RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Ministry of Defence and stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[16][56] In September 2017, RT America was ordered to register as a "foreign agent" with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[57] RT has been banned in Ukraine since 2014,[58] and in Latvia[59] and Lithuania[60] since 2020." 

From Wikipedia

"Reeducation vs. lock-up: what's right for American convicts? In Europe authorities work to reeducate and reintegrate the prison populations. In the US however authorizes prefer to lock them up for as long as possible. Radio Host Thom Hartmann argued that historically, due to the massive size of the United States, people were viewed as disposable, whereas in Europe people were more closely connected to one another because of the denser population centers. Today the US is confronting this issue head-on as US population density increases.  The US is large and hosts at least six distinct cultures, said Hartmann, which makes reform even more challenging."

From RT America

As long as you have what's called a corrections system, then that should mean something. That if you send people to prison for years and decades at a time, but you know they are one day going to get out because they do their time and don't get additional time by avoiding committing more felony's in prison, then we should make the term and system and corrections system actually mean that.

Otherwise we no longer have a corrections system, but a prison system or a human warehouse system. Where we just send people way to warehouse them do our best to make sure their human needs are met at tax payer expense at the expense of people who work for a living. And have made good decisions with their lives and avoided going to prison. We have now approaching 2M people in the corrections system in America.

And there are several factors we have so many prison inmates: our education system isn't doing a good enough job preparing our young people for life as adults. These kids don't get the education they need to survive in life and prosper in a legal way. So they end up hanging out with the wrong crowd, organized crime getting into trouble.

If you look at our prison inmate population, maybe half of them even graduated high school, very few have even ever been to college. We don't do a very good job of rehabilitating our prison inmates or even make the effort in some cases. San Quentin Prison in California is an example of a prison that tries to rehabilitate its inmates and they've had some success. And they ned up in prison with very little if any education and leave prison with the same situation.

What we should be doing is several things: I'm not making the argument for being soft on crime, or giving convicted felons amnesty and slapping them on the hand and hoping they don't do it again. It's called crime and punishment and prison for a reason. And prison inmates need to know they are in prison and why they are there. They shouldn't feel like they are getting a free vacation or going to summer camp for free either.

But having said all that it needs to be a productive experience for, the tax payers who are putting up the bills and deserve to have some security in their lives, the prison staff to make their jobs a little less dangerous. But also for the Prison Inmates so they know why they are there and get themselves the skills that they need to avoid coming back to prison in the future, by putting an end to their criminal careers. And having the skills that they need to get a good job and live a productive life legally in the free world. Something like 2/3 of all of our prison inmates end up back in prison. About the same percentage end up being released from prison while they are still living. We can do much better with our corrections system.

National Homeless: 'National Coalition For The Homeless'

Source:National Homeless- from a documentary about this organization.

"The National Coalition for the Homeless, founded in 1982, is a national network of people who are currently experiencing or who have experienced homelessness, activists and advocates, community-based and faith-based service providers, and others committed to a single mission. That mission, our common bond, is to end homelessness. We are committed to creating the systemic and attitudinal changes necessary to prevent and end homelessness. At the same time, we work to meet the immediate needs of people who are currently experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of doing so. We take as our first principle of practice that people who are currently experiencing homelessness or have formerly experienced homelessness must be actively involved in all of our work." 

From National Homeless

Now that we are just four days away from another Christmas and with an improving economy, Christmas will be a lot better for more families in America, but we'll still have people living on the streets, wondering where their next meal is coming from, addicted to alcohol, and other drugs, having mental issues, unemployed, etc. And all going through these things on the street, because they don't have a job and they can't afford a place to live. 

So if homeless people are lucky, they'll be able to stay in a homeless shelter for maybe one or two nights. And get enough food to eat while they are there, but then going through the same experiences all over again, that they were going through before they went to the shelter. 

Professor Milton Friedman: Free To Choose (1980) ‘How To Stay Free’

Source:Invest Bliguru- a House Agriculture Committee hearing in 1980.

“The Great Depression of the 1930s changed the public philosophy regarding the appropriate role of government in American life. Before the Depression, government was not assumed to have special responsibilities for individual or business welfare. The severity of the economic tragedy of the 1930s resulted in a dramatic change in public attitudes.

Many believed the Depression represented a “failure of capitalism.” Because of this alleged failure, government has ever since been expanding its power and the scope of its control. Government growth has resulted in waste, inefficiency, and a loss of personal freedom. Intended to serve the interests of the people, many governmental programs have been revealed to serve primarily the interests of the bureaucrats.

Many government programs serve at cross purposes. For example, different agencies attempt, on the one hand, to discourage use of tobacco as potentially dangerous to good health and, on the other hand, to encourage production of tobacco through subsidies to tobacco farmers. The list of government inconsistencies and inefficiencies goes on and on. Dr. Friedman, however, says that there is reason for optimism. Today, he notes, the public is better informed about these matters and is increasingly willing to take a stand against further unnecessary expansion of government services. He suggests the most fruitful approach is to remove discretionary budget power from the government. Friedman favors passage of a Constitutional amendment limiting the government’s budget and forcing government to work within that budget.

But this is only the first step. As Dr. Friedman points out, “What we need is widespread public recognition that the central government should be limited to its basic functions: defending the nation against foreign enemies, preserving order at home, and mediating our disputes. We must come to recognize that voluntary cooperation through the market and in other ways is a far better way to solve our problems than turning them over to the government.”

From Invest Bliguru 

I believe this is from the Free To Choose episode talking about the dangers of a big, centralized, national government, and what happens when you centralize a lot of national government power into on capital city.

Source:Professor Milton Friedman- during his 1979-80 PBS documentary Free To Choose.

If you look at the lobbying industry in America and why it’s so large and why they’ve become so powerful and have dominated Washington politics, preventing both good and bad things from happening and becoming law, it’s because as the famous bank robber Billy The Kid once said to why he robs banks, he said,: “Because that’s where the money is.” 

Why do lobbyists lobby Washington, because that’s where the power is. We now have a Federal budget of 3.7T$ and now have a public service of eight-million workers including Congress and their staffs. So of course they are going to lobby the Federal Government so much to represent their interests, because that’s where the power is.

If you look at the Washington skyline, especially downtown Washington, you’ll see a big beautiful city with lots of big beautiful buildings that take up a lot of space. Most of those buildings paid for by Federal tax revenue and most of those buildings are Federal property to house the thousands of Federal agency’s we have and thousands of Federal workers who work there. Do we need Federal campaign and lobbying reform, of course we do. But campaign finance and lobbying reform in America is not a silver bullet to fix the corruption in our Federal Government.

But as long as the Federal Government is as big and powerful as it is, lobbying will always be an issue in the Federal Government. Members of Congress will always be looking for the easiest way to get reelected and the fastest way to move up in the House and Senate and be planning their post Congressional careers. Well, the few members who actually leave Congress will be doing that. The others will concentrate on the easiest way to get reelected, move up in Leadership, perhaps land a sweet cabinet position or look to run for President themselves.  

If you want less lobbying and corruption in Washington, get the government power out of Washington and send it back to the states, localities, and the people themselves. As well as full-disclosure on all Federal lobbying and political activities in America. 

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)

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: ‘That if You Want More Jobs, the Government Should Get Out of the Way’

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Leon Botstein moderated this debate.

 

“As Mr. Botstein frames the question, “We are in a recession. Some people consider it a contained depression, perhaps the worst economic period since the Great Depression. And we don’t really know what to do about it.” Mr. Buckley thinks he does: “Bring back full employment by getting government out of the way.” After all, “A lot of people say they can’t build houses; they can’t afford the interest. Why is interest so high? Because of inflation. Who causes inflation? Only the government can cause inflation. The private sector has never discovered how to do it.” Mr. McGovern is equally sure that, say, the savings-and-loan crisis “is not the result of too much government intervention … Rather it is the opposite: the result of too little regulation and monitoring that permitted irresponsible S&L managers to rob that industry and the American public.” Mrs. Schlafly takes up the cudgels against overreaching legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the latest Clean Air Act, and we’re off on a vigorous exploration of what government can and can’t reasonably do.” 

From the Hoover Institution 

“Episode FLS112, Recorded on March 26, 1992

Guests: Richard K. Armey, Phyllis Schlafly, Herbert Stein, George S. (George Stanley) McGovern, Robert Eisner, Michael E. Kinsley, Hyman P. Minsky

For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

This looks like a debate between economic libertarians and people who would be called Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists everywhere else in the developed world, but since America is so special, they are called Liberals here. Because Americans leftists tend to be scared to death of the s-word. 

On the Right, you get government is already doing too much and what we need to do now is cut government, regulations, and taxes, and expand free trade in America. 

On the Left and actual Left (not liberal) you get government isn’t doing or taxing nearly enough and should be doing a lot more of that to meet the needs of the people and expand the economy. 

This is sort of a traditional left-wing vs right-wing debate in America about the role of government, that was brought to you by Firing Line With William F. Buckley.  

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)

House Republicans: 'The Budget and Accounting Transparency Act'

Source:House Republicans- House Republicans on the Budget Committee talking about their government reform plan.

"The Budget and Accounting Transparency Act - Rep. Scott Garrett" 

From House Republicans

I'm actually disappointed in this new House GOP budget reform plan. And I know to be disappointed you have to expect something good that didn't happen. Like getting a new job, buying a house, whatever the case is or something awful happens to you that you weren't expecting like your kid being arrested or someone not able to come to your party or something. 

I would never vote for any of the House GOP budget plans, because it would force a lot of people who are unfortunately dependent on these Federal programs to drop out and go to the private sector. Instead of giving them the freedom of choice to do that for themselves. But I do like the new line-item-veto plan that was proposed by Representative Paul Ryan and Representative Chris Van Hollen (the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Budget Committee) that I support. But thats it from the House GOP. And I like the idea of them trying to force the Federal Government to pay for all of its operations. 

I just wish House Republicans and broader Republican Party believed in fiscal responsibility during the Bush Administration when they controlled Congress and not just the House. And then they would have some credibility and we probably wouldn't be in the budget mess that we are in today, ut thats a different story. I do give them credit for at least being bold with the Ryan Plan, even though I would never vote for it. But this new plan is not only not a good idea, bringing all of these failing Federal agency's under the control of the Federal Government, but it's not bold either. 

The U.S. Postal Service is going bankrupt right now because instead of being run as an independent service, it has to ask Congress when it can go to the bathroom. And thats just one example. When they can blow their noses, eat lunch. Well, that might be slight exaggerations, but it's not run like the non-profit company that it should be 

If you want to win support of the American people, be big and think big by going big, while at the same time doing it in an intelligent matter. Don't stand in front of mice thinking you're the largest man in the world, when you're only 5'7 and way 150 pounds. Don't come out with broad reforms at one point without thinking them through like turning Medicare into a voucher system and then the next plan bring more control back to the Federal Government. 

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: George Roche & Friedrich Hayek- 'Is There a Case for Private Property?'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- economist Friedrich Hayek, on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1977.

"Episode S0300, Recorded on November 7, 1977. Guests: Friedrich A. von (Friedrich August) Hayek, George Roche, Jeff Greenfield. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"A splendid hour, spent more on political philosophy than on technical economics, with the author of The Road to Serfdom and The Constitution of Liberty. FAH: "Few are ready to recognize that the rise of Fascism and Nazism was not a reaction to the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies." ... "It is important not to confuse opposition against [centralized] planning with a dogmatic laissez-faire attitude.... In no system that could be rationally defended would the state just do nothing." ... "If there were omniscient men, if we could know not only all that affects the attainment of our present wishes but also our future wants and desires, there would be little case for liberty. And, in turn, liberty of the individual would, of course, make complete foresight impossible. Liberty is essential in order to leave room for the unforeseeable and unpredictable.... Humiliating to human pride as it may be, we must recognize that the advance and even the preservation of civilization are dependent upon a maximum of opportunity for accidents to happen." 

From the Hoover Institution

If you want to know why property rights in any free society are so important, you should first think of what a country or world would look like without property rights. (That would mean the State owns everything) 

I mean think about it, without property rights, the State would control everything. You would live in an apartment or house, probably an apartment, I mean think about life in the Soviet Union of Russia, where the State would own the place you live at, you're basically just a renter. The State owns the apartment building so they could come in at will. Sort of how corrections officers can enter inmates cells at will. The State wouldn't need search warrants because they own the property. 

The car or truck you drive, if you're lucky enough to have one, would be own by the State. You couldn't run your own business, because the State would own that and the only new business's that would pop up, would be new business's set up by the State, even if you're more qualified to run a business than the State. 

No such thing as private property means no such thing as individual liberty, because the State would own everything. No such thing as political liberty, because again the State would own the political parties. And you could only vote for political candidates approved by the State. 

Thats why property rights are so important, you can't have a liberal democracy without them. The ability of people to control how they move and where, where they live, how they get around, who they work for if anyone or do they run and own their own business. Without property rights, the State can come in and take things from us at will.