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.