Keith Hughes: 'The Balanced Budget Amendment Explained'

Source:Keith Hughes- on the Balanced Budget Amendment.

Source:The New Democrat

"Whether you think the balanced budget amendment is the best thing since sliced bread or the embodiment of Lucifer or you have no idea what the heck it, we'll give you the basics!" 

From Keith Hughes

On its face, I guess the Balanced Budget Amendment sounds like a good thing. The problems are several and not just the impracticality of it, that it would take two-thirds of both the House and Senate to pass it and then if Congress were to pass it then you’re looking at thirty-four states having to approve if it as well. 

But then there’s also the economic problems with a BBA. When the economy is slow, you don’t want to cut infrastructure and Unemployment Insurance. If anything you want to invest more in those programs to put people back to work and help people get back to work faster. When the economy is doing well, that is when you want to keep your deficit and debt down. So when the economy slows down it doesn’t have a high debt and deficit to go with it as well.

One easy thing to get our debt and deficit under control would simply to have a Federal PAYGO law. Pay as you go and under that Congress wouldn’t be able to invest more in, or create a new program anywhere in the government without paying for it through either taxes, fees, or cutting other spending to pay for it. And Congress wouldn’t be allowed to cut taxes without paying for that loss in revenue to government as well. 

You could also do things like not allowing for government to grow faster than the economy when the economy is growing and when you have a large workforce. Reforming the government and budget and having Washington do less and using public assistance to put people to work and become economically independent.

What we really should be doing is start with, “shall do no further harm.” Don’t add to the current debt and deficit by creating higher deficits. And that is where PAYGO comes in. 

And then go from there like having fewer people in poverty and on public assistance with a stronger economy that is producing not just more jobs, but more good jobs where people don’t also have to have public assistance to support themselves at all. 

We could also use public assistance to again not just support people in the short-term and put them to work, but to put them to work working good jobs. So they don’t need things like public assistance to support themselves at all. And that gets to things like more education and job training for non-working low-skilled adults and for unemployed workers who need additional skills to get a good job.

All Things Film: Goodfellas: The Making Of A Classic

Source:All Things Film- actor Paul Servino.

Source:The Daily Review

If you ask the people who were actually part of these Italian crime families in New York in the 1960s and 1970s when Goodfellas takes place, they’ll tell you watching this movie is like watching their lives take place on the big screen. Henry Hill, who was played by Ray Liotta, who a lot of this movie is based on and Henry’s life, would tell you this movie is a true story. And what I would add to that is that it’s a true comedy, or at the very least a true dramatic comedy. Because this is not just perhaps the best Italian Mafia movie of all-time, but I believe also one of the funniest movies of all-time.

I talked a lot about this about the piece about Joe Pesci with David Letterman. But a lot of the humor in this movie is improvisational. Here is this very true story about some really bad people who have all killed a lot of people in their lives. Most of those people being bad people, but still guilty of a lot of murders, but a lot of these characters live such crazy lives and do a lot of dangerous things. And I believe humor is a way that these real-life characters use to get through each day and simply survive. Otherwise they might go crazy always worrying about if your best friend just poisoned your drink, or food trying to whack you, or something. Or is this the day the FBI puts you way, or whatever the case.

And I think Martin Scorsese and his crew meaning his cast especially Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci and Ray Liotta, who are all great improvisational comedic actors to begin with all saw about the characters that they’re playing. And decide to play their characters as if they’re playing wise assess as well as wise guys and played them like they’re crazy and hysterically funny. If you listen to Ray Liotta narrate the movie, there is one dry joke after another in how he narrates the movie. Like the way he talks about how you cut up a dead body and does it in such a casual way. And to be honest with you I’m not sure if Bob De Niro and Joe Pesci especially when they’re together, are capable of playing a character in a completely straight way. They’re humor always comes out.

Goodfellas, is about the crazy and at times at least the hysterically funny lives of people who work in and out of the Italian Mafia in New York in the 1970s. And even though it is a true story and a dramatic story, it’s still one of the funniest movies ever. And I believe the funniest Mafia movie of all-time. Just because of the characters that these actors play and the actors who play them. Who are all great improvisational comedic actors. And then you throw in the great soundtrack with Eric Clapton, Tony Bennet, Johnny Mathis, The Crystals and many others and you’re talking about really I believe the perfect dramatic comedy movie.

The Late Show With David Letterman: Joe Pesci Talking About Goodfellas (1994)

Source:My Talk Show Heroes- Joe & Dave: Two All-American Guys.

Source:The Daily Review

"JOE PESCI - `GOODFELLAS`: Letterman 1994."

From My Talk Show Heroes

Here you have a Hall of Fame comedy duo here in David Letterman. One of I believe the top five or so best late night talk show hosts of all-time and a hell of a standup comedian as well. And Joe Pesci, whose one of the best improvisational actors of all-time. Who can make serious characters look like comedians and make the funniest people you'll ever see seem even funnier. Because again like Al Pacino and Robert De Niro to use as examples, he's not only a great improvisational actor, but he has a great sense of humor as well. A great comedian who perhaps has never done standup comedy in his entire career other than giving awards speeches.

Dave and Joe, are talking about Goodfellas here. Which is one of my top 2 Italian Mafia movies of all-time. I go back and forth between Goodfellas and Casino. Donnie Brasco, is also one of my favorites. But Goodfellas is a movie that is not just based on a true story and about Italian mob families in New York, but if you talk to the real-life characters that these actors played, like Henry Hill the character that Ray Liotta played they would tell you that Goodfellas is a true story. And it was like seeing themselves in real-life in that movie. Joe Pesci, played mobster Tommy DeVito and he probably has the funniest part in that movie.

Joe Pesci, like Robert De Niro and Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson, Cary Grant, Burt Reynolds, are actors/comedians that don't need scripts. At least to be funny they can turn their character into themselves and you tell them who the character is and what they're doing in the movie and they'll not only play it, but add their own flavor to the role and especially add a lot of their humor to the role. They can make simple lines and scenes look hysterical. De Niro, with his facial expressions and the way he delivers lines and perhaps adds his own material. Pesci, by taking a crazy, or funnier character and making that person look like the funniest and craziest person in the world.

Blog For Arizona: The So-Called Religious Liberty Aka License to Discriminate Legal Fight

Source:Blog For Arizona-Clerk Rowan County, Kentucky.

Source:The New Democrat

The whole Kim Davis same-sex marriage vs. so-called religious liberty case in Kentucky, is the best case for Separation of Church and State that I’ve ever seen in this country. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, are the best cases worldwide for Separation of Church and State. If Clerk Kim Davis doesn’t want to serve part of the public, then she shouldn’t have a government job. Government, is open for the public and that included gays who are obviously people and part of the public. Even in a third-world backwards state like Kentucky where not everyone there is able to go to and finish school. She should instead go to the Kentucky hills, or someplace and work as a coal miner. Or get a job at a Kentucky beer, or whisky factory, or someplace in the private sector.

Kim Davis could volunteer for the Mike Huckabee campaign for president and what’s left of it. And spread the gospel and evils as they see it of homosexuality and add to the list of states that Mike Huckabee will either lose, or won’t even have the resources to compete in. She could work for her church and talk about the importance of religious liberty, again as they see it. But once you’re open for the public as government offices are, you’re responsible for serving the public. Same-sex marriage is now legal in Kentucky. Gay couples have the same right to get married in Kentucky as straight couples. And if she has a problem with that she wouldn’t work for Rowan County Government, or any government in Kentucky and instead move onto the private sector.

Kim Davis, is now looking at real jail time and putting her family and herself through hell for simply not doing her job. She’s under a state order from the Governor and now court orders in Kentucky, to either do her job and serve the whole public, or go to jail. She has no legal authority to deny gay couples marriage licenses simply because her religious views sees homosexuality as a sin. And whether she’s smart enough to understand that, her lawyers better be, or they shouldn’t be practicing law anywhere. She should drop what she’s doing and simply resign her office and move on with the rest of her life and save herself and her family a lot of pain.

One America News: On Point With Sarah Palin & Donald Trump

Source:One America News.

Source:The Daily Review

The whole combination of Sarah Palin and Donald Trump on the same show together actually talking to each other. As I’m watching this, I’m sitting here trying not to laugh. Because you could literally write individual satires about either person. But Sarah, being so cute with that adorable Northwestern Alaskan accent, kept me from breaking up.

Donald Trump is not running for president because he wants to be president and even thinks he has a blizzards chance in Miami, Florida of winning the presidency. And he mentioned the so-called Silent Majority, because that is what this is about. The new Donald Trump reality show. You could call that Who Wants Donald Trump to be President? Or Donald Trump’s Silent Majority. But this is what this is which will probably be the most popular and shortest lived so-called reality TV show in history.

Now to the so-called Silent Majority to use an old Dick Nixon line. I could be really insulting and bigoted and racist even here, but the Far-Left has already done that. The so-called Silent Majority is the old Dick Dixon, Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Buchanan and now Donald Trump group of American voters. Anglo-Saxon Protestants predominantly, who tend to be Southern, or rural, or come from blue-collar Midwest and Northeastern American towns. Who can’t believe it is no longer 1955 when African-Americans weren’t allowed to vote in many places, or didn’t have time to vote. Because they were busy cooking, cleaning and even raising the kids of Caucasian-American families.

Gays, could no only not get married, but were trapped in the closet and when they came out they were sleeping in jail simply for being gay. Mom, stayed home and raised the kids, or helped her African-American nanny do that for her. While dad was busy at work and came home and said, “honey, I’m home? What’s for dinner?” Every night and perhaps helped his kids Joe and Mary do their homework. Most of the entertainment was movies and TV showing how swell life is in America and represented the Western, or rural, Anglo-Saxon American lifestyle. Where other Americans weren’t welcome. And the same thing with the music until Elvis Presley and others come on the scene in the mid 1950s with the rock and roll and rhythm and blues revolution.

The Silent Majority, woke up from their national coma in 2009 or so and realized their America no longer exists for the most part. They are now members of a large cultural minority instead of the people who get to decide what type of country America is going to be. Donald Trump, knows this as well and decided that this will be his next realty show. Who Wants Donald Trump to be President? And his show would be about the Silent Majority and he would do everything to he could to show these people that he’s really one of them. Even though he’s a fairly modern American man himself whose from New Jersey and works in New York and became a billionaire on Wall Street. Things that perhaps no member of the Silent Majority has ever done. Donald Trump, is not running to be president, but to boost his new realty show.

Original Intent Doc: Cultural Marxism- The Idea of Eliminating Free Thought and Free Activity

Source: Cultural Marxism-

Source:The New Democrat

The video that you’ll see on this post, is the Far-Right version of social collectivism. That the traditional way of life from lets say the Traditional Values Coalition and Christian-Right, should be the dominant way of life in America, if not the West as a whole. So for anyone who thinks I’m picking on Far-Left collectivists here meaning Marxists, actually I’m not. I’m going to go after both fringes from both wings when it comes to social collectivists in America.

Cultural Marxism, is the idea that free thought and activity are somehow dangerous to society. The idea being that when people think and act for themselves, they’ll think and act in the wrong way and put the state at risk. Cultural Marxism, at least to me along with communism, are Far-Left versions of fascism. The idea that individual freedom and individualism, are not only dangerous, but unnecessary, because Marx and the state knows best what people need to live well and what they should believe and know. So this is the Far-Left version of fascism and social collectivism.

Examples of Cultural Marxism, would be political correctness. The idea that free speech is dangerous, because it gives people the freedom to say things that Marxists and other leftist collectivists feel would be offensive to people they care about. So what you need is collective speech instead. And have an official authority to decide what is appropriate and what isn’t appropriate to say in society. And there is a right-wing version of political correctness and censorship as well. That I’ll get into later.

Another example of Cultural Marxism has to do with human activity and lifestyle. That masculinity and straight males in general, are dangerous for society. Because they tend to be dangerous, as well as sexist and especially if they’re Caucasian, they tend to be racist, sexist and homophobic. That religion, especially Western religions like Christianity, are dangerous for society. And what you need is a completely secular culture, or at least a culture without Christianity and Judaism. And instead everyone would look to Marx for their inspiration.

Now the right-wing version of Cultural Marxism. I’m not sure if there’s one term for right-wing collectivism. I tend to look at so-called Christian-Conservatism. But even so-called Christian-Conservatives, who live very traditionally culturally conservatives lives, are not looking to force their way of life on society as a whole. I believe William F. Buckley, who tended to be conservative-libertarian on a lot of social issues, but lived a pretty culturally conservative life, would be a pretty good example of a Christian-Conservative, who doesn’t want to combine their religion with state.

I also look at neoconservatism, or the New-Conservatism when it comes to right-wing social collectivism. And what they believe is that America has been going downhill since the 1960s when the non-Marxists on the Left, Liberals and Liberal-Libertarians, came to prominence and of age. And said the 1940s and 1950s traditional way of life, is too constrictive for them. And people need the freedom to live their own lives and be themselves. Live as individuals and not as members of the collective, or collectivists. And what Neoconservatives want to do is impose the 1940s and 1950s way of life on the country as a whole. Instead of allowing Americans to live their own lives.

Neoconservative political correctness, would be the goal to eliminate speech that goes against the state and what the country is supposed to stand for. So political speech that goes against right-wing governmental policy. The way the Nixon Administration reacted to the anti-war movement in the early 1970s and doing all sorts of investigations about that movement and labeling them Communists. As well as the goal of censoring and eliminating entertainment like music and movies that the Christian-Right sees as immoral. Violent and sexual activity on TV and in music would be examples of this.

As a Liberal, I’m against collectivism in general, whether it comes from the Far-Left, or Far-Right. And this blog covers fascism coming from both fringes a lot. Americans, should be free to act and think for themselves and then be held accountable for how they act and what they say. You put all the facts, information and thoughts out there, teach people how to think, but not what to think and you’ll create and educated society where people will be able to figure these things out for themselves. Instead of trying to create a collectivist society, where people are treated like idiots and where the central state does their thinking and acting for them.
Source:Original Intent Doc

The American Conservative: Timothy S. Goglein: The Moynihan Report at 50

Source: The American Conservative- Daniel P. Moynihan.

Source:The New Democrat

I believe the failure of the Great Society and where it comes up really short, is that it has essentially subsidized poverty in America. Not help people get out of poverty, but subsidize them while they’re in poverty. It seems to me anyway if your goal is to eliminate poverty and you’re going to call that strategy that has something to do with war, like the War on Poverty, the goal would be to actually defeat and eliminate poverty itself. When you subsidize something, you essentially leave as is. And you’re also encouraging it to stay there. Thats what government subsidies are about. But if your goal is to eliminate poverty, then the idea should be to actually move people out of poverty all together.

That instead of just giving people money so they can live more comfortably while in poverty, you’re instead helping them financially in the short-term, while at the same time giving them tools like childcare assistance and education, so the mother and these families tend to have single-parents, that tend to be uneducated mothers, can finish her education, get a good job and move into with her kids into a good home and neighborhood. And getting off public assistance all together. While you’re also cracking down on parents, generally fathers, who walk out on their kids. And forcing them to pay all the child support that they owe out of their paychecks.

What is what the so-called Moynihan Report found out about the African-American Family in 1965. That many families that were in poverty, only had a single-parent. Who tended to be the mother, who wasn’t educated and a lot of times didn’t even finish high school. Who simply didn’t have the skills to get herself a good job and be able to support her kids. With the father of her kids being completely out of the picture and not even knowing where he is. And as a result she goes on Welfare to try to support her kids. But all Welfare did was give her money while she was in poverty. And gave her more money if she didn’t have help raising her kids, or had more kids while on Welfare.

So-called Progressives back then and fifty years later, say that the reasons for high poverty in the African-American community, have to do with racism. And that there are no other reasons for their high level of poverty. And sure, racism has kept African-Americans down compared with Caucasians in America. But if racism and ethnic bigotry were the only reasons for poverty in America, Asian and Jewish-Americans, wouldn’t be doing as well in America. And doing as well, or better than Anglo-Saxons and other Caucasian-Americans. A lot of the reasons for poverty gets to personal behavior and responsibility and government policy. That subsidizes people for not being able to take care of their kids. And not making better decisions early on so they wouldn’t be in poverty at all.