Politico Magazine: Joseph Stiglitz: ‘The Myth of America’s Golden Age’

Posted on July 8, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Politicio Magazine: Opinion: Joseph Stiglitz: The Myth of America’s Golden Age

I’m getting tired of hearing people who are further left of me people who are Social Democrats let’s say who are constantly putting down America. And saying “Europe is so much better and we should simply just become like them. Tax everybody a lot more so no one has too much or too little money and let the Federal Government take care of everybody for them”. Look we know what works in America economically and what Americans need to do for themselves to make it in America. And why we are struggling right now has a lot to do with the fact that we’ve moved away from what works in America.

If you get yourself a good education and stay in school until you finish school you now have the skills and tools you need to make it in America. You won’t need government to take care of you for the most part if you have good skills. Because with those good skills you can get yourself a good job. And based on how productive you are at the job you’ll do very well in this country. And make the income you need to make it in America.

Where government comes in is not to run people’s lives for them. But to see that everyone has the opportunity to make it in America. That educational and economic opportunities are for all Americans and that we all have at the very least a good shot at making it in America. And for the Americans who failed to take advantage of those opportunities and are not making it in America like dropping out of school, or having kids too soon, government should come in to empower them to get themselves the tools that they need to make to in America and be successful parents.

Pre-recession of the early 2000s and forget about the Great Recession but the recession of 2001-02 is really where our economic slump started, but pre-2001 we weren’t talking about and debating whether we should expand the welfare state in America and tax people more to eliminate the income and wealth gaps. Because the economy was booming, unemployment was somewhere around four-percent with record low poverty levels. And really from 1983 to 2000 the American economy was doing very well with low unemployment and high wages. Why because a lot of Americans were getting and had the skills that they needed to make it in America.

The problem with the American economy is not that the Federal Government is too small. Or business’s are too successful, or the rich are too rich. The problems with the American economy is not enough of us are very successful. And need public assistance and private charity to survive in this country with a rise in cost of living. Because they either do not have the skills to make it in America, or seen their job go to another country but are well-educated. These are the people who government should target with education and economic opportunity and see that these communities get these opportunities so these Americans can make it in America as well.

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

Clinton Library: ‘President Bill Clinton’s 58th Press Conference’

Posted on July 7, 2014 by Erik Schneider

IMG_5665

Source:Clinton Library– President William J. Clinton (Democrat, Arkansas) 42nd President of the United States.

Source:The New Democrat 

“This is video footage of President William Jefferson Clinton delivering a news conference. This footage is official public record produced by the White House Television (WHTV) crew, provided by the Clinton Presidential Library.

Date: May 26, 1994
Location: Press Briefing Room, White House. Washington, DC.”

From the Clinton Library

President Bill Clinton’s 58th press conference covering mostly foreign policy especially relating to China and Korea. The situation going on in between the North and South in Korea and what is called MFN or Most Favored Nation trading status with the People’s Republic of China.

President Clinton essentially making the case that trading and talking to the Communist Regime in China is a better path forward in how to deal with them instead of isolating them. I wish President Clinton had the same strategy with the Communist Republic of Cuba, but that is my take.

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

NBA-TV: The Detroit Pistons Reign of the Late 1980s Early 1990s

Posted on July 6, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

I don’t know if there’s been a franchise that had a team of an era that better represented the city they represented than the Bad Boys Detroit Pistons of the late 1980s early 1990s. Detroit is the ultimate blue-collar big city that is the second biggest city of the Midwest only smaller than Chicago. That is as working class and blue-collar as any big city can be. That has every single challenge and resource that a big city could have. And that is exactly what their Pistons of this era had as well.

The Bad Boys Pistons of course had very good players and in Isiah Thomas’s case a great player a franchise player one of the top five point guards of all time and in the Hall of Fame. But they didn’t beat you because they had overwhelming talent or just by showing up and beating you. The Pistons were a defense first, rebounding second basketball team that scored all of their points off of their defense and ability to get second chance scoring opportunities off of their defense and offensive rebounding. And then teamwork and always getting the ball to the guy with the best chance of scoring.

Other than Isiah the Pistons of this era didn’t have that great offensive creator who could create points for himself and his teammates. They didn’t have that great post player who could dominate the post and create great mismatches in the post. What they had were guys who moved very well without the ball. Guys who could pass and find the open man. And with center Bill Laimbeer and power forward Rick Mahorn guys who set great screens freeing up their great outside shooters. Which they did have with Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars and Vinnie Johnson and even center Bill Laimbeer.

The Detroit Pistons were the ultimate team and knew themselves very well and knew the way they had to win was by being a better team and playing better as a team than their opponents. Especially having to play teams that were simply better than them when it came to talent like the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers. And the way they did was knowing they simply couldn’t outscore their opponents. That they had to do a great job of stopping them from scoring and executing their motion team offense and taking advantage of whatever scoring opportunities that they had.

The legacy of the Detroit Pistons is that they were the ultimate team. Not a collection of stars but a collection of great team players who were all very unselfish who all had one goal in mind. Which was to win championships and many as possible and prove to the world that the Pistons can play basketball and that they didn’t represent losers and that Detroit was more than just a big city with every urban problem a big city can have. That they not only represented Detroit but a lot of America as well. People who aren’t given anything and work very hard for everything that they achieve.

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

Basketball Breakdown: ‘The Jordan Rules Explained: How Michael Jordan Was Defended By The Pistons’

Posted on July 5, 2014 by Erik Schneider

The Jordan Rules Explained_ How Michael Jordan Was Defended By The Pistons (2014) - Google SearchSource:Basketball Breakdown– with a look at the Detroit Pistons Jordan Rules.

Source:The New Democrat 

“Coach Nick uses Game 6 of the 1989 Eastern Conference Finals to demonstrate the defensive philosophies used by the Detroit Pistons under Chuck Daly to stop the Bulls Michael Jordan.”

From Basketball Breakdown

I just want to reply to a few things that the guy who calls himself Coach Nick said and then I’ll get into the Jordan Rules.

This might sound superficial, but to start off your own video by making excuses for the why the Pistons beat the Bulls 3 straight years in the Eastern Conference Playoffs, because Michael Jordan was tired, or he was playing for an inferior teams and as a result having to do a lot more for the Bulls, then Larry Bird had to do the Boston Celtics, or Magic Johnson had to do for the Los Angeles Lakers, is pretty lame.

Either you and your team are good enough to beat the Detroit Pistons, or you are not. You play 90-100 games a season, you are going to take injuries, you are going to get tired, you are going to lose key players, especially when you play for an inferior team (at least by NBA championship standards) like the Chicago Bulls of the late 1980s.

As far as the Jordan Rules: Michael Jordan wasn’t the great all around player in 1989-90, that he was even in 1991. The Bulls around him weren’t as good either. The Pistons knew this (perhaps not about 1991 in 1989, unless they were psychic) and knew that no other player on the Bulls team, even a healthy Scottie Pippen, who was only 23-24 at this point, was good enough to beat them by himself. Which meant that for the Bulls to beat the Pistons, someone whose name wasn’t Michael Jordan, was going to have to do that himself.

Coach Nick explained what the Jordan Rules were very well. Every time MJ drive to the lane, there was not just the guy guarding him that was where to try to stop him, but at least one Pistons big man as well.

So that could be Bill Laimbeer, plus Rick Mahorn, or Laimbeer and James Edwards, John Salley and one of the other Pistons big men as well.

So MJ is going up against Joe Dumars or Dennis Rodman, play 2 of the Pistons big, strong, big men as well. Which meant MJ taking a lot of fouls and a lot of punishment in those 2 series in 1989 and 80, perhaps 88 as well and that took a tole on him.

But the Jordan Rules also made MJ a bigger, stronger player, as well as the Bulls a. better team. because now they knew they needed someone besides Michael Jordan, if they were going to get past the Detroit Pistons and into the NBA Finals.
Posted in NBA Classic, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Brad Delong: Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby and the Decay of Welfare Capitalism

Posted on July 3, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Equitable Growth: Blog: Brad Delong: Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby and the Decay of Welfare Capitalism

‘Welfare capitalism’ is just another way of saying democratic socialism. Democratic socialism is an economic system common in Europe and Canada to a certain extent and Australia. Where you have a robust private sector private enterprise economy. But you also have a large publicly funded welfare state that are paid for by high taxes and a lot of taxes (at least by American standards) to fund that welfare state. It is just that people in America who would be called Social Democrats or even Socialists in Europe don’t like using terms like democratic socialism in America because of the negative political stigma that comes with the words socialism and socialist.

That welfare state funds everything from education K-12 or whatever the grades are depending on the country. To college, to health care, to health insurance, unemployment insurance, maternity leave, sick leave, childcare. Things that Americans except for the education part tend to get through the private sector. The United States generally spends around twenty-percent of its Gross National Product on the Federal Government. Europe is generally around fifty-percent on their federal government depending on the country.

This socialist form of capitalism (and yes there is such a thing) has been something that Social Democrats in America have tried to bring to America since the New Deal era. But haven’t had any real success since the Great Society of the 1960s. Because for one the country since the late 1960s if not further back has moved right politically. But also Americans tend not to be as far to the left as Socialists and don’t like the idea of paying a lot in taxes to pay for services they can get in the private sector.

Posted in New Left, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

James Miller Center: President Lyndon Johnson Signs the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Posted on July 2, 2014 by Erik Schneider

img_0183Source:James Miller Center

President Lyndon Johnson signing of the 1964 Civil Rights is one of the most important moments in American history. Because he signed a law that granted access to millions of Americans who were simply denied that access simply because of their race and for no other reason than that. And what it meant was that not only do all Americans have the same constitutional rights under law, but that they have to be enforced equally for all Americans. And if the states aren’t willing to do that and leave Americans in the dark because of their race, than the Federal Government will step in and enforce those laws and rights for them. Because of the 1964 Civil Rights Act millions of African-Americans are now able to own homes, get loans from banks, get good employment. Because they’re no longer denied those opportunities simply because of their race and complexion. Which is what they were pre-1964 CRA and the broader civil rights movement of ther 1950s and 1960s. The 1964 Civil Rights Act meant that Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, complexion, or gender would now be treated equally under law.

Posted in American Presidents, Originals | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The New Republic: Dean Starkman: Closing the Racial Wealth Gap

Posted on July 1, 2014 by Erik Schneider

The New Republic: Opinion: Dean Starkman: Closing the Racial Wealth Gap

It is true that even since the American civil rights movement that even though African-Americans are doing better than they were pre-civil rights that they still have a large income gap compared with Caucasian-Americans. And if anything they have even lost ground to Asian and Latin Americans as well. So what does that mean? I would argue for both more opportunity and personal responsibility for the African-American community especially when it comes to men. Government can’t force people to do the right thing. Only punish them when they break the law. But they can put policies in place that leads to better opportunity for Americans who are struggling regardless of race.

We have a one-trillion dollar and growing when it comes to infrastructure in this country. Here’s a wild idea, how about we fill that hole especially for underserved communities that need that investment. So business’s would want to locate there. Lets build new schools and fix up old schools. And give Americans period again regardless of race the option of where to send their kids to school with their parents making that decision. So our students no longer are sent to school based on where they live, but what is the best school for them. And stop funding schools based on where they are located and instead based on what they need to be successful.

Lets make walking out on your kids whether you are a father or mother illegal and make that crime punishable by having to pay for your kids childhood. So we no longer have single parent single income families unless one of the parents actually died. And let’s make education and job training universal for all low-skilled adults whether they are working or not. So they can get themselves the skills that they need to get themselves a good job. As well as make college universal and affordable for all qualified for college high school graduates. And how we would do that is really the subject for another blog.

There are a lot of things that we could do as a country to close the wealth and achievement gap in this country. And we wouldn’t have to raise income taxes on anyone. Or redistribute wealth from the top to take care of everyone else. We could simply do these things as part as annual infrastructure bill that Congress is supposed to pass anyway by law. And pay for these things the way we pay for infrastructure investment in this country with energy taxes. And we could tax alcohol, tobacco, junk food and soft drinks or even marijuana is the prohibition is ever repealed to fund these investments.

I’m not a fan of race-based policies as a Liberal because I like to look at what is best for the country and the individual when it comes to public policy. Just one reason I do not support reparations for any community that has been discriminated against. But the fact is that African-Americans tend to struggle more than the country as a whole. And these investments would probably benefit them more than anyone else except for perhaps American-Indians. So they would benefit a lot from this, but not based on their race, but because they need these investments more.

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

The Washington Post: EJ Dionne: The Vital Incoherent Center

Posted on June 30, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

Again it depends on what you mean by liberal and conservative and you do lump Religious Conservatives, Neoconservatives and Libertarians in with Conservatives on the Right and do you lump in Progressives and Socialists, or Social Democrats in with Liberals on the Left. If that is how you do that then Conservatives will be the largest voting block in America. Because that includes the Bible Belt, with the Libertarian West and the Neoconservative large military at call costs traditional American Neoconservatives.

With Liberals or Centrists coming in second because when it comes to American politics Americans tend to have strong feelings on the issues one way or the other and are not stuck in what is called the mushy middle when it comes to Centrists. And Socialists whether they self-define their politics as socialist or not do not make up a very strong voting block in this country. 10-15 percent at best the religious-right badly outnumbering them.

But that is not how I define political labels or make up my mind which political camp people fall in. What I do instead of saying “someone is on the Left so they are automatically are liberal. And someone who is on the Right they are automatically conservative”. What I do is look to see how far to the Right are they. If they are center-right, I call them conservative. A little further Right I call them libertarian. Lets say far-right people who I could call big government Republicans or rightists people who want to impose their social values on the rest of the country through government, I call them Religious Conservatives or Neoconservatives.

Same thing with the Left. Center-left such as myself would be the Liberals. A little further Left people who are a little more government oriented, but do not have a new government program or tax increase to solve all of our problems for us, I would call Progressives. People who are lets say on the far-left  people who believe in big centralize government is the only way to ensure economic, social and racial equality and tend to have big government ideas to solve all of our problems for us. And tend to like high taxes and tend not to like the military or law enforcement, I call people of these politics Socialist or Social Democratic. Occupy Wall Street comes to mind or the Green Party.

If you just looked at the center-right and center-left in America and people who tend to not be against government all together, but who do not want government trying to run their lives for them from either a personal or economic perspective you would see that is where a solid majority of the country is. Whether they call themselves Liberals or Conservatives, or even Conservative Libertarians. And based on that I would say Liberals and Conservatives make up the overwhelming largest voting blocks in the country. With Independents who may consider themselves to be Centrists but have similar views as Liberals and Conservatives. That they don’t want big government, but they don’t want an ineffective government either.

Americans tend to want government to do the basics that we can’t do for ourselves, or that we need them to do as well to see that certain things get done that need to be done. Like protecting the country, protecting the streets, seeing that everyone gets an education. Funding infrastructure, helping people in need get on their feet. These are not big government or small government ideas, but limited good government policies that Americans tend to support whether they are liberal or conservative. And that is where Americans tend to be and we tend not to like the fringes on the Left or Right.

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

Danielle Allen: ‘Equality in the Declaration of Independence’

Posted on June 26, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:Amazon– Danielle Allen’s book about the Declaration of Independence.

“The following text is excerpted from Our Declaration: A Reading of the ­Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality (Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2014) by Danielle Allen, UPS Foundation Professor in the School of Social Science.

The Declaration of Independence matters because it helps us see that we cannot have freedom without equality. It is out of an egalitarian commitment that a people grows—a people that is capable of protecting us all collectively, and each of us individually, from domination. If the Declaration can stake a claim to freedom, it is only because it is so clear-eyed about the fact that the people’s strength resides in its equality.

The Declaration also conveys another lesson of paramount importance. It is this: language is one of the most potent resources each of us has for achieving our own political empowerment. The men who wrote the Declaration of Independence grasped the power of words. This reveals itself in the laborious processes by which they brought the Declaration, and their revolution, into being. It shows itself forcefully, of course, in the text’s own eloquence.”

From IAS 

“Milton Friedman – Equality and Freedom (Q&A) Debunking Social Justice Theory”

_ - 2021-10-17T141037.179

Source:Basic Economics– Professor Milton Friedman giving a lecture about economics, I believe in 1978.

From Basic Economics

Freedom vs. equality which I guess has been an ongoing debate between Progressives and Conservatives perhaps for an indefinite time now. And this whole discussion is really relates to what is called income inequality and the so-called Progressive (social democratic, in actuality) concerns with it. And Conservative there to say that “people should be allowed to keep the fruits of their labor. And even if they make a lot more money than their fellow Americans because they earned that success.

Social Democrats or Socialists there to counter that “if we don’t look out for struggling Americans then that affects everyone because of the lost purchasing power. But also because the social costs that come from it”. But also because they believe society has a role to essentially take care of the less-fortunate among us.

As the great Classical Liberal Economist Milton Friedman said “without freedom there isn’t any equality”. Why, because if people don’t have the freedom to do as much for themselves as they can and have the ability to take care of themselves as much as possible, then they won’t.

So yeah, if you encourage people not to be successful by taxing most of their money way from them to take care of others you may reach equality. A country that has a lot of struggling people in it where most of the country struggles. And very few Americans having much if any freedom at all. But that is not the society that most Americans want.

Americans tend to want to be as successful as they can and you accomplish that by making sure people have the freedom and tools so they can do that. It is not a freedom vs. equality issue for me as a Liberal. But how you get to a society and an economy where as many people as possibly can have the tools to get the freedom they need to be successful in society and not need public assistance to financially survive.

To get to a true opportunity society where everyone has a real opportunity to live in freedom in America, every American needs to be able to get themselves a good education. And every parent needs to raise their own kids well and have the education and tools to do that as well.

We need more high quality education and job training for low-income adults and kinds whether they are working or not. And making those opportunities for anyone who needs it. And having an education system that produces more high-skilled students and workers. The question for me at least is not freedom vs. equality. To that is a false choice like choosing between food or water.

To me it is how you produce a society where many people as possible that is people who want to live in freedom and would work hard for it, how are they able to accomplish that for themselves which is living in freedom. And then allow them to enjoy the fruits of their labor or at least the most of it so they are encouraged to be successful in the future as well. That is how you have a society that is both free and equal. Not take from the very successful to take care of the rest of the country.

Posted in Book TV, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Brookings Institution: Melissa S. Kearney & Benjamin Harris: Fighting Poverty Needs to be a National Priority

Posted on June 25, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

This blog covers and writes about poverty a lot as it should. But writing about something a lot can make it difficult to put things in a new an interesting way and makes it difficult to sound repetitive and boring. So this post will be different in the sense and look at poverty simply and purely as a public investment pure and simple. “We as taxpayers give people who aren’t able to make it on their own in life this amount money and this is what we expect in return from the money that we give you”. Instead of looking at public assistance almost entirely from a public charity perspective.

The question for me at least as a New Democrat and Liberal is not whether or not we should have public assistance in America. But what is it for and what we should get in return. Yes what we should get in return that public assistance is a hand up and not a handout. Again “we give you money to help you sustain yourself in the short-term and this is what we expect you to do while you are getting our money”. That is where the hand up and public investment function kicks in. The money people on public assistance yes receive money to survive in the short-term, but they are also getting help improving themselves as people.

Preparing themselves to not only reënter or enter the workforce, but reënter or enter the workforce with the skills needed to get themselves a good job. Which is what Welfare to Work from 1996 was about at least from the Clinton Administration and other New Democrats. “You get help to pay your immediate bills and cost of living with a wide variety of assistance. But what you do in return is finish your education and making sure your kids are not only in school, but getting a good education as well. So you get the skills you need to get yourself a good job and so do your kids if you have any”.

If we simply look at public assistance from the perspective of public investment and investing in human capital included in that immediate cost of living instead of looking at simply, or mostly as public charity then public assistance would be popular in America. Because hardworking Americans who perhaps struggle just to pay their bills, but who are not poor would support these policies. Because they would not only see them as public investments in their fellow Americans, but the country .

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