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)

Phil Donahue Show: Professor Milton Friedman- Free To Choose (1979)

Source:Brittle- Professor Milton Friedman, on The Phil Donahue Show, in 1979.

"Friedman, shows why he is unsurpassed in modern times in defending liberty. He cheerfully decapitates the ideas of a government-controlled economy, over a wide range of examples. His layman's explanation as to how government intervention and the Federal Reserve control of the money supply helped cause the Great Depression is simply outstanding."

From Brittle

I think it's great that a Classical Liberal like Milton Friedman can sit down to an interview with someone who I would describe as a Democratic Socialist like Phil Donahue. Someone who I again I have a lot of respect for, but who I rarely agree with. 

I love Milton Friedman, but I don’t agree with him on everything either. But I think it's great that these two brilliant men can sit down and have an intelligent conversation without trying to kill each other. Being respectful with each other without agreeing on anything. Something that Bill Buckley was able to do with Liberals and Socialists, without agreeing on anything with them as well either.

By the way, Milt Friedman didn’t consider himself a Libertarian but a Classical Liberal. As someone who’s a Classical Liberal in myself, but just considers myself to be a Liberal, I disagree with Mr Friedman. 

I also view him as a Classical Liberal, even through he believes government should be completely out of the economy and is for legalizing all narcotics. I disagree with both of those positions. I support legalizing with regulation and taxation of marijuana. Because it represents the same dangers, or less than alcohol and tobacco, both legal drugs. But I don’t support legalizing heroin, cocaine and meth. Which are narcotics that can kill people instantly. I don’t believe non-heroin, cocaine and meth users, should be forced to subsidize the health costs of these drug users.

I believe that government has a limited role in the economy, a very limited role. To prevent and stop people from hurting other people in the economy for example and providing a safety net for people who fall through the cracks. By giving them a hand up, not a hand out to move to self-sufficiency. 

Friedman, essentially believed government had has no role in the economy. He would be for eliminating Welfare Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Social Security, Medicare. No regulations for seat belts and safe cars and mileage standards and a lot more. He and I simply disagree here, which is one reason why he’s viewed as a Libertarian and I’m a Liberal. I believe government should protect people from hurting other people, but not themselves, different positions.

But here’s where Milt Friedman and I agree and if the Republican Party had more people like him today, they would truly be an anti-big government party: maximize freedom and responsibility for the individual, as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. Very simple, but an important concept. Socialists, aren’t fans of maximize freedom generally. Because if you give people a lot of freedom, they might take advantage of it and be less dependent on government and make a lot more money than others.

Socialists, tend not to be fans of responsibility, thinking that taxpayers should be forced to bail people out when they make bad choices in life. 

Authoritarians, don’t like the concept of maximize freedom either, whatever the party they belong to. They believe that government should be able to regulate how people live their own lives. 

But if adults want to own a gun, smoke a joint, look at porn, pay for sex, sell themselves for sex, drink, smoke, whatever the case is, let them do that, because it's their own life. But don’t expect government to bail you out when you make bad choices and don’t force other people to do something they don’t want to and don’t hurt them. All actions have consequences good and bad. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

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

Chad Reiser: U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater- 'Freedom is The Only Solution'

Source:Chad Reiser- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republica, Arizona) accepting the 1964 Republican Party nomination for President, at the San Francisco Cow Palace.

"The only true solution to our current economic and national security situation is true Liberty and Freedom! This is a video compilation of some of my heroes: Ronald Reagan, Ezra Taft Benson, Milton Friedman, Margaret Thatcher, and Barry Goldwater."

From Chad Reiser

There are a lot of so-called Conservatives today who claim to be Constitutional Conservatives, but actually don’t know what they are talking about. Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin come to mind, who as much as they speak in favor of the U.S. Constitution, generally are only referring to three amendments: the 1st Amendment when it comes to political speech (for right-wingers) and Freedom of Religion, (for Christians) the 2nd Amendment that protects individuals right to bare arms, and the 10th Amendment that limits what the Federal Government can do. 

But generally speaking these so-called Conservatives know as much about the U.S. Constitution as the average mechanic knows about astrophysics. Constitutional conservatism is not about protecting parts of the U.S. Constitution and eliminating other parts.

Constitutional conservatism is about protecting constitutional rights or conserving them for individuals. Not telling individuals through government how to live their own lives. And constitutional conservatism is more than just about economic freedom and low taxes. But its also about self-governance for individuals. The power for them to live their own lives as they see fit, adults that is. As long as they’re not hurting anyone else with their freedom. But it's not about limiting freedom for individuals, and writing constitutional amendments that would do that if passed.

Like the latest constitutional amendment that would make it illegal in America for homosexuals to marry each other. Or a constitutional amendment that would eliminate the 17th Amendment that allows the people to vote for their Members of Congress. Instead having state legislatures doing that. 

Or the so-called Human Life Amendment, that would make abortion illegal in America. Limiting women’s freedom in their own health care. 

But instead constitutional conservatism is about protecting and preserving freedom not limiting it. What happened to the Barry Goldwater Conservative-Libertarians that used to run the Republican Party, that know that conservatism is about protecting constitutional rights for individuals, not limiting freedom or telling people how to live their own lives, that were anti all forms of big government, not just the socialist version) It’s a different Republican Party today and no longer the Grand Ole Party. 

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

Chad Reiser: U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater- 1964 Republican National Convention: 'Freedom is The Only Solution'

Source:Chad Reiser- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater: accepting the 1964 Republican Party nomination for President, in San Francisco. Hardly a utopia for conservative libertarianism.

"The only true solution to our current economic and national security situation is true Liberty and Freedom! This is a video compilation of some of my heroes: Ronald Reagan, Ezra Taft Benson, Milton Friedman, Margaret Thatcher, and Barry Goldwater."

From Chad Reiser

If there's one thing that Liberals such a myself and Conservatives like the late Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan's can agree on, is that freedom is the answer and statism, whether it comes from the left or right is the problem.

That free adults have the constitutional right to live their own lives without government interfering with how we live our lives, as long as we are not abusing innocent people or hurting them. That use to be what conservatism and liberalism were about in America and to me at they still are. I don't buy terms like "Modern Conservatism", which is basically Christian-Nationalism a form of right-wing statism that today dominates the Republican Party.

Conservatism and liberalism are both about freedom. How to protect it for the people who already have it and how to expand it for the people who don't have it but deserve it. Which gets to economic opportunity, how to empower low-income people take the next step up and get themselves out of poverty.

This is what freedom is about which is what today's Christian-Nationalist Republicans and Social Democrats don't understand. Christian-Nationalists want to take America back to the 1950s and protect what they see as the American Way of Life, where we weren't as free and where American democracy didn't work a well for all Americans, just the special few.

Christian-Nationalists don't tend to speak in terms like freedom, except when it comes to economic freedom and religious freedom for Christians. Christian-Nationalists and Socialists tend to speak in terms of Europe: "This is how its done in Europe." they don't seem to have a problem with less freedom over there. And it seems to work, which is why we should be like them, which is neither conservatism or liberalism.

Barry Goldwater is the father of the conservative movement in America: he is called Mr. Conservative, because he wrote the literal blueprint on what it means to be an American Conservative (The Conscience of a Conservative) and he's one of the original Constitutional Conservatives, because he actually believed in the U.S. Constitution and believed that it needed to be conserving. Unlike the so-called Conservatives (Christian-Conservatives) who only talk about the Constitution when it benefits their Far-Right, anti-conservative, partisan, political objectives. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

Forbes Magazine: 'Rescuing Detroit: Can It Work This Time?'

Source:Forbes Magazine- Detroit Mayor Dave Bing.

"Auto chiefs, entrepreneurs and politicians discuss the future of the city. From Forbes and Joan Muller." 

From Forbes Magazine

If you look at Detroit from the outside as your just entering it, it looks like a great big American city with big beautiful buildings and architecture and a great lake by it, with a lot of business's around it. It doesn't look like a city thats lost half of its population the last ten years or so. 

Detroit up until around 2000, was a city of 1.5M people about the size of Philadelphia, the sixth or seventh largest city in America. Today it's still a big city but of around 750K people, they've lost half of their population and tax base the last ten years. And if you look at Detroit from the outside and didn't know that, you probably wouldn't of guessed that, but thats just and outside view of what was once a great big American city and one of the greatest cities in America if not the World. 

But why has Detroit lost so much ground, especially since Cleveland which is just about a couple hours south of Detroit has gained so much ground, but why has Detroit come so far down, since it used to be a city where people could live in it, get a good job in the city, raise their kids without having to worry about them being attacked or killed and think they could live well in Detroit forever, but thats no longer the case. 

The Detroit economy plummeted, but hopefully has started to come back. It's now perhaps the most dangerous big city in the country if not the most dangerous city in America. And has one of the worst public school systems in America if not the worst. The Great Recession of 2008 hit Detroit and its auto industry harder than any other big city and Michigan harder then any other state in the Union. And without the auto bailout, other than Ford Motor Company, there wouldn't be any auto industry in America right now. 

But the problems were already there for Detroit. You can have the most dedicated workforce in America but if you're not producing enough high-skilled workers, your not going to have the workers for the good jobs. They have to improve their public education system, by rewarding good educators, paying good educators more. Allowing competition in the public school system with public school choice, so students aren't trapped in bad schools. Reward good educators, retrain or eliminate bad ones. Reward good schools and reform or eliminate bad ones. And equalize the funding for the schools so schools in low-income areas can get the resources they need to do a good job. 

The auto industry coming back to Detroit is great and they need that but the auto industry needs to diversify like making cars that are more fuel efficient. (For example) And they need to build other things, just like the rest of the country. We need to rebuild our manufacturing industry, start building things in America again and then having good trade agreements so we can sell our products oversees that are Made in America. That also includes trade adjustment for people who lose their jobs because of trade, so they can get the skills that they need to get another good job in another field. And then we have to stop encouraging American companies to send jobs oversees. 

Last but never least, no one is never going to want to live in Detroit if they don't feel safe there. They need to have enough cops, breakup organized crime and gangs. Get those people out of those activities and re skill them to work in legal professions so they can be productive citizens. 

Detroit can come back just like the Tigers did a few years ago and become a competitive and great big city again. But there are certain things they have to do to accomplish that to make it happen.