Corey Cantor: Comparing The Economic Records of The Last Two Democratic & Republican Presidents

Posted on January 12, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

Facts can only sound partisan when they clearly lean in favor of one party or the other. But there’s nothing partisan about the truth. The fact is since 1989, the American economy has done better under Democratic president’s than Republican president’s. I disagree with Corey Cantor on one thing though. Bill Clinton didn’t inherit a recession in 1993, the George H.W. Bush recession was over by I believe the spring of 1992 and the economy grew at around two-percent the last quarter of that year. And President Bush 1 did have a net increase in jobs during his four years.

But the economy even in President Clinton’s first four years, was better than his predecessor President Bush and his successor President Bush as well. Ten-million new jobs net were created in President Clinton’s first four years. Unemployment under six-percent, it was over seven-percent when he took office in 1993. The budget deficit was around three-hundred-billion when President Clinton took office in 1993. And it was cut to one-fifty-billion dollars by 1997.

Then you go up to President George W. Bush who didn’t have one recession, but he had two recessions in his eight years as President. 2001-02, slow recovery in 2003 and then of course a big downturn in 2007, followed the Great Recession of 2008-09. President Bush only had really three solid years economically as President. From 2004-07, out of an eight-year presidency, unlike President Reagan another Republican President who had six solid years economically from 1983-89. President Bush came to office with a hundred-billion dollar budget surplus in 2001. Left office with a one-trillion dollar deficit, and a ten-trillion dollar national debt in 2009.

As much as the American economy may have struggled under President Obama with the slow recovery from the Great Recession, well slow pre-2014, even job growth has been pretty solid since 2010, he wills still leave office n 2017 with a better economic record than President Bush. Assuming there isn’t any major downturn in the economy. If the President and the Republican Congress can agree on trade, tax reform, energy and infrastructure, he probably won’t have that problem to deal with. And may not have to worry about any economic downturn at all. Consumer spending is up, deficit is falling and the President will probably get some trade bills out of Congress in the next two-years.

This isn’t any partisan attacks and if the situation was reversed with the economy doing better under Republican president, you can bet your last dollar that Republicans would be throwing those facts in Democratic faces. But the facts are the economy since 1989 has done better under Democratic presidents. And I could go into why and why I believe that is the case, but that is really the subject for another blog in the future. But as much as Republicans love to talk about fiscal responsibility and fiscal restraint, other than George H.W. Bush their presidents haven’t had a very good record there, at least in recent history.
David Pakman: Democrats Beat Republicans on 11-12 Economic Indicators

Posted in The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Marilyn Monroe History: Marilyn Monroe 10 Years On – A 1972 Documentary

Posted on January 11, 2015 by Erik Schneider
Marilyn Monroe

Hollywood Goddess

Source:The New Democrat

Imagine how good of an actress and entertainer overall that included comedy, singing and dancing, imagine how good of an entertainer that Marilyn would’ve been had she ever grew up personally and emotionally, had she matured and become a real adult women not just physically, but emotionally and personally as well. Imagine a self-confident, mature, grown up Marilyn Monroe. Now for one thing, very likely she’s still alive today had she took care of herself throughout and didn’t die an unnatural early death. And even at eighty-eight today, maybe she’s still working, or at the very least still in the spotlight.

She had all the physical, professional talent and even personal talent in the sense that she knew how to act and entertain and knew what she was doing on stage. It was when she wasn’t working and how she lived her life outside of work that was her downfall. She didn’t knew how truly good she was and she didn’t take care of herself. And again lacking maturity and with a sense of the real world and seeing things that were simply not there. Like this crazy idea that she Jack Kennedy would dump Jackie for her and that she would become First Lady of the United States married to President Kennedy.

There was the talented potentially great entertainer Marilyn who had the talent to be one of the best entertainers that has ever come out of Hollywood with her ability to do so many different things and do them well. And there was the sixteen or fifteen-year old Marilyn in the body of twenty-five to thirty-year old women who never grew up. Who didn’t like herself that much, who saw things that weren’t there. And you combine the first Marilyn with a mature intelligent self-confident women and again I think we are talking about not only perhaps the best looking entertainer who has ever lived, the goddess of goddess’, but one of the best entertainers of all-time.

Marilyn Monroe History: 10 Years on- A 1972 Documentary

Posted in Hollywood Goddess, Marilyn, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Linu Teko: Rivals – Jackie Kennedy vs. Marilyn Monroe

Posted on January 10, 2015 by Erik Schneider

.
Source:The New Democrat

I’ve made this point before, but the more I read about Marilyn Monroe and the more documentaries I’ve seen about her this point just becomes even more true and this video is just another example of that. Marilyn Monroe lived in another world and probably should’ve been getting therapy and being treated for alcoholism by the mid-1950s or so, assuming those services were around. No way Jack Kennedy dumps the First Lady of the United States, someone who did live in the real world and was college educated and politically represented what JFK needed. Not way JFK dumps Jackie for Marilyn.

To state the obvious Jack Kennedy was never a one women man. He never met a women in his entire forty-six year life and said something to the effect, “damn that is the one women for me. I hook up with her make that relationship work, I’ll never need another women”. Marilyn represented what Jack wanted, but was smart enough to never make a real play for her. A goddess a sex symbol, a women who quite frankly sets guys rockets off so high that they can’t bring them down to Earth. Especially when they are wearing tight outfits, like tight skirts and tight denim jeans, things that Marilyn wore both and a wore them a lot. Especially considering her time and era.

Jackie Kennedy was a very beautiful and very cute women who was also pretty sexy physically. But that wasn’t the main attraction for Jack when it came to her. He wanted her mind and what she represented in the political and social world and the social status that came with being involved with a women like that. All things that Marilyn didn’t have being fairly unstable and seeing things that simply weren’t there and not real. Thinking that she could have a lot more than is really possible and everything else.

Posted in Hollywood Goddess, Marilyn, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Democratic Strategist: William Galston: On Non-Populist Liberalism

Posted on January 8, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

Populism tends to get mixed in with either how should I call it, how about the hard Left and hard Right. The most loyal followers of the Left and Right in the Democratic Party and Republican Party. Who tend to see compromise with the other side or less partisan members of their own party as a sin. And retreat and surrender, terms that don’t tend to go well with good government, responsible government and responsible governing. Where one party tends to not have complete control over the Federal Government. Which has been our normal political history going all the way back since 1969.

The whole point of a two-party system is to give American voters a choice in who to vote for. This party will do this if they are elected and this is what they have to offer the country. And if they have the power, that will be their agenda for the country. With the other party having their own agenda and will try to carry it out if they have the power to do so. But there’s that word if, Democrats and Republicans again going all the way back to 1969 have not had absolute power in the Federal Government for the most part. One party since 1969 has had control of at least one chamber of Congress for the most part.

The Democratic Party should have their own agenda and have something to offer the country for the next election. And something they would run on and try to put through if they control they hold the White House in 2016 and win back bother chambers of Congress with solid majorities in both the House and Senate. But if you’re going to call it a liberal agenda, a populist agenda, than it can’t be simply about big government and more government and higher taxes for everybody. That agenda won’t be supported in this country with anything coming close to a majority.

A liberal democratic agenda, a New Democratic agenda should be about empowering people who have fallen behind and are at the near-bottom or on the bottom of the economic scale to move up the economic ladder. So they can live in freedom with the rest of the country and not need the government to take care of them. If you’re going to call this agenda liberal, than it can’t be about creating new government programs and a superstate design to manage people’s lives for them. But to give people who need it the skills to be able to manage their own lives themselves.

If your agenda is about big government and the superstate, then you don’t have a liberal agenda and certainly not a New Democrat agenda. You have a social democratic agenda, even socialist. That is about big government and using government to take care of people so no one is left behind and isn’t poor and isn’t too rich. And I believe the agenda that Senator Bernie Sanders, the only self-described member of Congress, but certainly not the only Socialist in Congress will run on assuming he does run for president in 2016.

Posted in Democratic Party, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

MLB: MLB 1981-4/11-Houston Astros @ Los Angeles Dodgers: Full Game

Posted on January 7, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

The Astros-Dodgers rivalry was pretty good in the 1980s when both clubs were in the NL West and were consistently in the NL West race. The Astros won the division from the Dodgers in 1980 and the Dodgers took the division from the Astros in 1981, 85 and 88. Both teams were consistent winners in the 1980s, because they both played a big pitcher friendly ballparks and both had very good defense and pitching. And at least in the Dodgers case were also very good offensively, with speed, power and guys who could hit for average. The Astros of this period were sort of a light-hitting team that would score enough to win, because they didn’t need a lot of runs to win when they pitched well.

Posted in MLB Classic Games, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Washington Post: Michael Gerson: Are Democrats Stuck in 1979?

Posted on January 6, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

Just to answer Mike Gerson’s title of his column, no. Democrats are not stuck in 1979, but some are. Pre-1976 and why the Democratic Party lost back-to-back presidential elections in 1968 and 72 and in 72 Senator George McGovern loses to President Richard Nixon in a landslide, Democrats were seen as what would be called redistributionist, welfare statists Social Democrats that would be more into government dependence and redistribution to help people in need and to try to make the economy more equal. Than to empower people at the bottom and near-bottom with things like economic growth, job creation, job training and education. So they could get ahead in America as well.

Jimmy Carter comes along in 1976 and tries to change how the Democratic Party was seen and no longer make it look like a big government welfare statist party that it was seen as before. He had limited success obviously as a New Democrat, but he had a social democratic, Democratic led Congress to deal with. That had large majorities to deal with in both the House and Senate, all four years as President. Which meant if President Carter wanted to get any of his more new democratic proposals accomplished, things like welfare reform and what would become the Affordable Care Act in 2010, trade, deficit reduction, he had to work with Congressional Republicans. Without losing too many Democrats especially in the leadership.

The Democratic Party post-Jimmy Carter would lose too more landslide presidential elections in 1984 and 88. Why, one because they were running against Ronald Reagan in 1984 and Americans started feeling good again. But two, they were still seen as a social democratic McGovernite party that they were seen as in 1972. The Democratic Party of 1968 and 72 was much further left than the LBJ Great Society Progressive Democrats of the 1960s. The New Deal/Great Society Progressive Democrats of the 1930s and 60s, were now replaced with McGovernite New Left Democrats that is known as Occupy Wall Street today. That sees Bernie Sanders as their hero and perhaps Elizabeth Warren. But not Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.

When it comes to rhetoric, President Obama is further left than President Bill Clinton and certainly Hillary Clinton. Who I believe in Hillary’s case may be to the right of her husband rhetorically. But their policies when it comes to crime, trade, foreign policy, national security, civil rights, fiscal policy are fairly similar. Barack Obama at times at least may sound like a Elizabeth Warren Progressive, but he governs like a New Democrat. Which is how he ran for president in the 2008 general election, how he’s governed as President and how he ran for reelection in 2012.

As much as Republicans and perhaps even Mike Gerson, who tends to be much smarter than this, but as much as they want to paint Barack Obama as some New Left or Far Left Social Democrat or something, he’s not. I mean why do you think his so-called progressive base is not happy with him? Why do you think they were disappointed with him in his first term and still are today? Because they thought he was one of them. A Dennis Kucinich or George McGovern or Bernie Sanders. People that far to the left can’t get elected President of the United States. Barack Obama is a center-left moderate to liberal-progressive president, who is not far enough to the left for me on social issues. That is how he has governed, because that is who he is.

Posted in The New Democrat, The Washington Post | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Manson Family Today: Good Morning America- Diane Sawyer’s 2002 Interview of Susan Atkins

Posted on January 6, 2015 by Erik Schneider

 

Susan Atkins 2002 Interview with Diane Sawyer - Charles Manson

Source:ABC News– Diane Sawyer, interviewing Manson Family leader Charles Manson, in 1994.

Source:The New Democrat 

“Susan Atkins is terminally ill and dying of brain cancer and has only 6 months to live. This interview was done in 29002 but James whitehouse gives his first interview in mnay years. This was on GMA yesterday:The Manson Family Today.”

Manson Family - Susan Atkins

Source:The New Democrat– Manson Family soldier Susan Atkins.

From ABC News

I think it is pretty sad the way that Susan Atkins died in prison, especially from brain cancer which must have been horrible for her. And I’m not sure she did turn her life around, because I’m not sure life was ever-moving in the right direction in the first place to end up where she did.

Susan Atkins did build a positive life for herself in prison as far as how she did her time and how she helped fellow inmates and helped people on the outside. Life in prison doesn’t have to be and shouldn’t be torture. Other than the fact that you know you’ll never be free and you’ll always be incarcerated. Which is bad enough and shouldn’t be any worst than that if the inmate does their time well and doesn’t further their criminal career inside of prison.

Life in prison still means life and that the person still has their life to live, just in prison and living in prison for the rest of their lives. But that also means they are alive in prison and that they should be able to make out of that time in prison the best that they can do. That it should be a productive and constructive existence for them, the prison and society.

Just because an inmate is serving life without parole they shouldn’t be in lockdown in a cell most of their days essentially doing nothing. As long as they are behaving themselves and staying out of trouble and taking advantages that are in front of them. Things like education, work, community service, and other rehabilitation programs.

By all counts Susan Atkins did those things in her thirty-seven plus years and prison and made of her life sentence the best that she could and perhaps the best anyone could. Especially considering what she was in prison for and the condition she was in when she entered prison.

I truly believe the only bad if not evil person that is doing time for the Manson Family murders is Charlie Manson. That is his family hadn’t met Manson and not have fallen for some other criminals or criminals, that they wouldn’t of ended up in prison and probably made positive lives for themselves.

But given all of that, the fact is they including Susan Atkins did hook up with Charlie Manson and they did carry out his evil orders. And committed such crimes that their victims will never get over and recover from because they were murdered.

And a life sentence is exactly that. And unless you are paroled and why you would even be eligible for parole when you’re guilty of first degree murder and you’re a serial murderer, is beyond me. But unless you are paroled, you’re still on the hook for the crimes you committed. Which is why Susan Atkins shouldn’t of never been rewarded even a compassionate release from prison, which she wasn’t because of the crimes she committed.

Posted in The Manson Family, The New Democrat, True Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Jack London: Charles Manson- ‘The Man Who Killed The 1960s’

Posted on January 5, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Jack London_ Charles Manson- ‘The Man Who Killed The 1960s’

Source:Jack London– The Manson Family, perhaps in 1968-69.

Source:The New Democrat  

“Don’t believe the hype – Public enemy
Don’t believe the money maker Helter Skelter theory instead read educate yourself and make your own decision. It is all there. Right there.
Free Manson.” This is obviously pro-Manson propaganda. Perhaps written by Charles Manson himself.

From Jack London

This era the 1960s especially the late 60s is an example of why I wish I was 20-25 years older than I am today. Instead of being born in mid 1970s, I wish I was born in the early 50s or mid-50s. Now of course that would mean I’m either pushing 60, or in my early to mid 60s today, so that would be the drawback.

But instead of hearing about the latest celebrity and why they are in jail today, or who they are sleeping with, or the latest computer or smart phone and what was the coolest commercial during the Super Bowl, with very little if any mention about who actually won the game, I would be hearing about real true crime stories and people who were at least a certain extent victims of their generation, who were lost and fell to a madman.

The 1960s was an incredibly fascinating for both good and bad. And you could say Charles Manson and his group ended the peace and love anti-establishment decade. But the fact is the 1960s was one of the most divisive and violent decades America has ever experienced before Charlie Manson ever came on the scene.

What Manson and his group, his crime family did was to escalate the violence of that decade and take their extreme anger out on completely innocent people. And why they do that? Because their victims were successful and wealthy, unlike the Manson Family. It was almost like a communist or socialist revolution taking out their anger against the rich establishment.

There were people who wanted peace and fought for peace and even died for peace. The great Dr. Martin L. King comes to mind damn fast and perhaps the ultimate tragedy of this decade as far as what happened to him, along with President John F. Kennedy.

But the 1960s was not a peaceful decade. There was horrible violence from the early 1960s with a presidential assassination all the way through the decade. And The Manson Family didn’t even strike the biggest blows of the decade. In Los Angeles sure, as far as the amount of people who were killed. But keep in mind U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles in the late 60s, 1968. Not to take away from the Manson victims.

What the Manson Family represented was the anti-establishment movement and violence of the 1960s. And they took that to a horrible new evil level that perhaps hasn’t been unmatched by any other crime group in America, at least as far as the amount of people they killed in the amount of time that they killed. The Manson Family really were all about the 1960s and represented a lot of the good and bad. Mostly bad, but the 60s hippie movement, peace and love all of that didn’t die with the Manson Family. Because those things were always just dreams anyway.

Posted in The Manson Family, The New Democrat, True Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reelz: Real Life Marilyn Monroe

Posted on January 4, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

In many ways Marilyn Monroe was about as real of a person as we can get, at least on the inside. She was very human with all sorts of strengths and weakness’ and vulnerabilities. That the real Marilyn was the baby-face goddess on the outside, but the real Marilyn was also a very vulnerable person on the inside who was pretty immature and tended to see things the way she wanted to, instead of how they were. It is easy to say that a women like that, again on the outside should never lack confidence, because she has it all.

Marilyn never had it all. She was physically a goddess, a pretty good actress, a very funny person and a pretty good singer. But she was never in love, never had a successful marriage. Never felt satisfied in life and probably never thought much of herself as a person and suffered from what we would call today at least depression. When that is how you look at yourself and you’re missing that many things in life that people love having, you don’t have it all. And you can see why she wasn’t that happy, if at all.

You can have everything that a women at least could dream on the outside. But unless you’re also pretty strong inside, you’re not going to do very well in life. Not calling her dumb, but she lacked maturity and self-confidence that a stronger person mentally would’ve done much better in life, because they would’ve known exactly who they are and what they have to offer and be very happy with themselves. Which is something that Marilyn never had in life.

Posted in Hollywood Goddess, Marilyn, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Marilyn Monroe Lounge: The Kennedys (2011) Marilyn Monroe & JFK

Posted on January 3, 2015 by Erik Schneider

.
Source:The New Democrat

I think this scene is pretty accurate. That Marilyn Monroe wanted Jack Kennedy, but that Jack was smart enough to know that he couldn’t get involved with her. Because of everything that he would’ve risked, especially his presidency. The thing I think that is interesting is that he didn’t feel the same way about mobsters girlfriends that he got involved with as President, like Judith Exner to use as an example. But he was smart enough to know that Marilyn was essentially a little girl mentally as far as maturity. And her baby-face on the outside was also part of her personality inside. And she saw things from a Hollywood perspective, the way she wanted to see them. And had a difficult time dealing with reality. And I think this scene make that very clear.

Posted in Hollywood Goddess, JFK, Marilyn, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment