HBO Films: Magic & Bird- a Courtship of Rivals

Posted on February 10, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

This film is about the two men who saved the National Basketball Association in the 1980s. And to know that, you have to be familiar with the NBA back in the late 1970s. The fact that the NBA finals were shown on tape-delay television means the game is played at one point. The network back then was CBS and CBS Sports, which recorded the game and broadcast it. The game was played at 8 or 9 pm, but then CBS Sports aired the game at midnight after the local TV news.

Regarding Earvin Magic Johnson’s and Larry Legend Bird’s second or third season, sports fans wanted to see the NBA again and their ratings were back up and all of their games are now being shown live. The reason for this is that both players were great to see, but why were they great to see: Because of what they were about, which wasn’t themselves but their teams and winning. All they were interested in was winning, and as the great NBA basketball head coach Pat Riley said, Magic and Legend were about team first and team last and everything else in between and nothing else.

The only thing that Magic and Legend cared about was winning and the fact that they were the two best. Players, at least of their generation playing for the two best teams of this era, and playing in opposite conferences, Larry Bird playing for the Boston Celtics in the Eastern Conference, and Earvin Johnson playing for the Los Angeles Lakers in the Western Conference, and for either to win the NBA finals, most likely they would have to beat the Celtics or Lakers. It meant for the two best team players of all time to win the championship. They would have to beat each other to do that.

I am not sure whether Larry Bird and Earvin Johnson would have been as great as they were had they not played in the same era and were from the same generation. Had they been clearly the best players of their era without anyone to push them for the top and had the Celtics been the best team of this era without the Lakers to push them and vice-versa I am not sure they would have been as great as they were without the other player and team pushing them. Because part of Legend’s and Magic’s greatness was the other pushing them to make them as great as they were:  the competition of the rivalry.

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

John Dahl: Rounders (1998) The Final Hand

Posted on February 9, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Rounders-Final Hand (2010) - Google Search

Source:MZ Ybert– Matt Damon as Mike McDermott.

Source:The New Democrat

“Movie Rounders.
Starring:
Matt Damon
Edward Norton
John Turturro
Famke Janssen
Gretchen Mol
with John Malkovich
and Martin Landau”

From MZ Ybert

Great scene because this is really about a guy Mike McDermott who at best is a part-time law student, but who really makes a living as a gambler and poker player. Who makes his money reading other people’s faces and mannerism’s who is in a deep hole of ten-thousand dollars. Actually, a hole he inherited from his friend Worm (played by Edward Norton) who ran up a big debt losing in poker. And Mike is trying to help his irresponsible friend out. And that is where he get’s into trouble because his friend is not good for the debt.

So Mike goes into this game hours away from having to pay his debt off. Or get his ass kicked by gangsters he owes the money to thanks to Worm. So he goes to the one guy who has the money that he could win from him to get the money he needs to pay off the debt. And so he’s down to his last play late in the game fourth and twenty. And he comes through and makes the play or risk getting his ass handed to him and perhaps not surviving the experience.

This is the ultimate scene about one guy putting everything on the line and coming out on top. Beating the best poker player in New York City by not getting lucky which is really not what poker is about. But by using his poker skills to read KGB and beat him at his own game and not only wins enough money to pay off all of his debts. But walk away from the game with a profit and he kicks KGB’s ass at his own game and walks away the winner.

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

The New America Foundation: ‘Solving the Retirement Puzzle: The Potential of MYRAS to Build a Personal Safety Net’

Posted on February 7, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Retirement Source:New America Foundation– with a look at pensions in America.

Source:The New Democrat

“The growing recognition that millions of Americans are ill-prepared for retirement has prompted a
number of state and federal policy proposals to promote retirement security. Yet even the most
promising proposals fail to acknowledge a prerequisite to sustaining long-term savings: access to
flexible resources that can be tapped in an emergency or can support productive investments that
can pay off over the long haul. One recently announced effort – the Obama Administration’s
myRA program – is designed to facilitate access to a savings vehicles for the mostly low- and
middle-income Americans who miss out on current savings opportunities. As currently designed,
the program is unlikely to have a significant impact at scale on the long-term prospects of this
group of workers. But with certain adjustments and policy reforms, myRAs could facilitate the
creation of personal safety nets that would both provide short-term financial stability and lay the
foundation for a secure retirement. Short-term, flexible savings are a crucial but overlooked piece
required to solve the retirement puzzle.”

From the New America Foundation

When President Obama announced his MyRa program and expanding retirement savings in the State of the Union last week, he was talking about encouraging people to save for retirement. Which is something that we should be doing as a country with so few Americans having independent retirement savings from Social Security. Aleta Sprague of The New America Foundation points out correctly that this lack of retirement savings is a problem in America, but a another big problem and perhaps bigger is the lack of savings period. And when money get’s tight for Americans, they dip into the IRA that they have to pay today’s bills. Instead of keeping money they need in their retirement account.

What President Obama is proposing is that Americans have the option of setting up their own retirement account. That could be matched by their employer and that money be put away in their retirement account. Which is a good idea and I support that. But the problem now is that so many Americans the overwhelming majority of today’s workforce simply can’t afford to put money away right now. So what we need to be doing is expanding capital and assets for low-income workers and the lower-end of the middle class. So they can afford to put money away and be able to save for a MyRa system to be able to work.

Now what I support doing is a few things. To talk about retirement savings is create what is called Social Security Plus and make it a universal option for all income levels to be able to participate in this program. And not make it mandatory or have Social Security takeover the entire retirement system in the United States. Which some on the Left have suggested, but what I would do is give workers the option to increase their own payroll tax that would be matched by their employer. From 6.2% up to 9.3% again that would be matched by their employer and the money would be tax-free. And go into a individual retirement account and allow for workers to put money they make outside of their full-time job into their Social Security Plus IRA. Again that would be tax-free as well.

My SSP-IRA would again be a universal option to all Americans. Including low-income workers and lower-end working class workers. Because they would not only be able to participate in SSP-IRA, but get all the money they put into SSP-IRA back in a tax credit or a tax deduction. So they could afford to be part of this program as well. But again we also need to increase individual savings and I would even create private individual Unemployment Savings Accounts.

People could put money into their USA while they are working again matched by their employers. And when they are out of work or they see their income falling, but their bills are the same or are growing, they could go into their USA instead of the IRA to cover their bills until they go back to work. Or see their income go back up. And again a USA would be a universal option as well because low-end middle class workers and low-income workers could participate in this program as well. Because they could get their money back in a tax credit or a tax deduction.

If we want to expand savings and retirement in America, which I believe we need to do, we first have to expand income so more Americans can afford to save and retire. And that just doesn’t mean having more workers, but having more workers with good jobs that allows for them to put money away in the first place. And have less Americans struggling in the middle class and less Americans in poverty. Whether they are working or not so the resources are there to allow Americans to be able to put money away.

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

Slate Magazine: Matthew Yglesias: Work-Ethic and The Welfare State

Posted on February 6, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

This is the real debate we should be having when it comes to poverty in America. How to encourage people who are on Welfare whether they are working or not working either continue to work or go to work or go back to work. And when you have a safety net where people can get more in benefits not working at all or working fewer hours or making less money because they could get more money at home collecting public assistance, you are not encouraging people to work, but encouraging people not to work at all.

This is why the minimum wage debate is so critical because that is at the heart at this debate. If you want people to work, then work has to pay and when you are looking at jobs that only pay the minimum wage which is just $7.25 an hour and people at these jobs could collect more in public assistance benefits, you are incentivizing low-skilled workers to not work or quit their jobs. Because they could get more money collecting Welfare Insurance, Public Housing, Medicaid, Food Assistance and other benefits.

This is also why this little discussion about the Earned Income Tax Credit is so important. Something that was signed into law by President Richard Nixon no one’s Socialist in the early 1970s. And called the most successful anti-poverty program in history by President Ronald Reagan no one’s Liberal. Even though he does look pretty liberal compared with the Far-Right of the Republican Party today. But now you have Tea Party Republicans saying we should repeal that. Even though the EITC encourages people in low-income jobs to continue to work and not quit their jobs to collect public assistance.

So what I would do is to increase the minimum wage to ten-dollars and hour or more. With a thirty percent tax break for small employers which would have to be clearly defined. And apply today’s minimum wage for a full-time worker on minimum wage to people on Welfare Insurance. While they collect their other public assistance benefits as well. Including things like assistance for education and job training so they can get themselves a good job.

Expand the EITC to singles making twenty-five thousand dollars a year. And for couples up to thirty-thousand dollars a year to encourage these people to work. And also include benefits for them so they can get the education and job training they need to get a good job and get off of public assistance. This is how you encourage work over Welfare by making it clear to people they can make more money working. Whatever the job is than not working at all.

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

Slate Magazine: Tanner Colby: How The Left’s Embrace of Busing Hurt The Cause of Integration

Posted on February 5, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

As a Liberal I believe in things like equal opportunity, Equal Justice Under the Law, wrote a blog about that yesterday. Equal Protection Under Law all of these great liberal values that I believe puts me in a solid majority in America and Equal Protection Under Law covers things like not denying people things simply because of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion and I would add sexuality to that as well. And as good as integration is and the benefits of America when we are able to work together as a country because it combines the strengths of the entire country and uses all of those strengths together, these things only work together when they are voluntary.

We can write all the laws that protect our constitutional rights and to make sure they are all enforced equally for all Americans. And I support those things, but we can’t force people to socialize with each other. To live with each other and even to work with each other or go to school with each other. What we can do is teach people especially kids that none of us are better because of our race or ethnicity, or gender. And teach people not to hate or to love or to judge people especially people from different backgrounds because of these factors. But we can’t force people to live, work and socialize with each other either.

Integration by law meaning that it is legal is great because it means we can’t be denied things simply because of our heritage and how we were born. That instead we are judged by our personal and professional qualifications, but not because of how we were born. But when you try to force people to go to school or to work or to socialize or to live with each other, you are taking people’s freedom to make the most personal of decisions away from them. And are now forcing integration on to people instead of making it an option for them.

Forced integration is just as bad as forced segregation, because instead of forcing people to be separate because of their race, you are now forcing people to be integrated because of their race. And taking the power and choice out of the people’s hand and now forcing it on them. If you treat people to be tolerant and love people for being people, then most likely they’ll decide to integrate with others as they meet them. Because they’ll learn they have things in common with other people and make that decision for themselves.

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

The New Republic: Noam Scheiber: Socialized Law: A Radical Solution For Inequality

Posted on February 4, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

This is an issue even though I haven’t been blogging much about it in the last few years. A few posts here and there, but it is an issue that I’ve thought a lot about a Liberal who does believe in Equal Justice Under the Law even though we may never achieve that. It would sort of be like trying to wipe out poverty or racism or something. But still like a lot of issues that America deals with is an issue just because of who we are as a people and the resources that we have in this country is something we can do a lot better on especially since we are pushing the point of achieving universal health coverage in this country.

If we can get to universal health coverage in this country, universal quality education something we can achieve as well, we can get at least damn close to universal legal services in this country. Where everyone has access to quality legal representation either in criminal or civil court. No matter their economic and educational levels with something like a legal insurance system. Legal savings accounts and beefing up legal aid in this country by encouraging good qualified wealthy lawyers to work for legal aid offices. We could accomplish universal legal services in this country as well.

This is an issue I think a lot about especially as I’ve blogged about the criminal justice system and criminal justice reform and seeing all of those Americans in prison in the United States. A lot of them for illegal narcotics or other non-violent offenses. And then seeing that a lot of these convicted offenders come from low-income backgrounds and thinking would they have been in that situation had they had the resources to get the type of defense that they needed. Now a lot of these offenders are guilty and I’m not disputing that, but some of these offenders could’ve at least gotten a better and shorter sanction if they just had better access to legal services and not represented by someone whose probably overworked and just trying to get through the case.

What we have right now when it comes to legal services is basically the Medicaid of legal services. A bare bone operation that is overworked and underfunded. Not enough people working in legal aid or public defenders offices and the people who do work there are overworked and underpaid for all the work that they are doing. And we can do better than that by setting up a legal services insurance system where people could put money away tax-free. As well as legal savings accounts where can people could put money away tax-free. And even expand the Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income workers so they could save money for this as well.

We could also require wealthy law firms to give away free services to low-income clients and defendants. Money they could get back from their taxes and require well paid and resourced lawyers to defend low-income defendants and clients for free. Again money they could get back from taxes and have them donate some of their time to legal aid offices. So that all Americans can have access to the legal representation they need so they have the best defense, or representation that they need. And where the wealthy no longer get’s off simply because they are wealthy.

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

The Hill: Judd Gregg: Progressives Play With Words, Truth

Posted on February 3, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

When I think of liberalism, I look to the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, our Constitutional Amendments. Because that is where the core of liberalism is whether it is. Modern or classical and the reason I mention that is because classical liberalism is modern liberalism that is liberalism when it first came to America was about individual rights and freedom today and it still is. The difference being that people who are called Liberals really aren’t Liberals in many cases. The purpose of this post to explain that.

When you think of what is supposed to be called progressivism, but it certainly isn’t progressivism in the Teddy or Franklin Roosevelt or perhaps even Henry Wallace tradition of progressivism, what is supposed to pass as progressivism today in short is a form of leftist collectivism. The main core of it is that “some people simply have too much and that is not fair. And what we need to do is take from them to make sure everyone has what they need”. And of course the Federal Government will decide who needs what and can have what.

Where I agree with Senator Judd Gregg in his column in The Hill today, is that modern progressivism is really a form of socialism or modern socialism. Not Marxist socialism intended to wipe out private enterprise, but that “you need a central state big enough to make sure that no one has too much or too little that we move better or forward progress even when we are moving together. And that allowing people to move forward on their own, Some will make mistakes and other will do too well even and that is somehow unfair”.

It is not just that let’s say Modern Progressives or Collectivists, Socialists even are different from Liberals when it comes to economic policy, but social policy as well. It is not just economic freedom that is dangerous to the collectivist mind, but personal freedom as well. That the idea of prohibition that “government needs to be able to protect people from themselves in how they spend their money and even what they can do with their own bodies. And what they can put in their own bodies as well”. And how we can talk to each other with the political correctness movement. And trying to create a nice society through law even.

The main difference between the Modern Progressive or Collectivist and Liberal has to do with the Collectivist Society versus individual rights and having an Educated Society. In the Collectivist Society we would all move together as a country in one direction. With the central government leading the way to decide what is best for us. With a Liberal Educated Society, the individual would have the freedom because of their knowledge to be able to make these decisions for themselves. And that is also the difference between the far-left and center-left in America.

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

Brookings Institution: Robert Moffitt: Questions About EITC’s Role in the Safety Net

Posted on January 31, 2014 by Erik Schneider

.
Source:The New Democrat 

The whole point of the Earned Income Tax Credit which was signed into law by Richard Nixon or Gerald Ford, hardly Socialists, or even Liberals, was to encourage low-skilled workers to work even for low- income jobs. Instead of collecting all of their income from public assistance. So these workers can at least get some work experience even at entry-level service jobs and not be completely dependent on public assistance for their economic well-being. And by this standard the EITC has been very successful in the United States. And has probably contributed to keeping our unemployment rate lower than it otherwise would’ve been. Had people making ten to twenty-thousand-dollars a year not enough for most of the country by itself. Especially If they had to pay federal income taxes as well.

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

The Washington Post: Robert J. Samuelson: The Debate That Wasn’t

Posted on January 30, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

I agree with Robert Samuelson that Washington really hasn’t been debating the size of government. But avoiding tough decisions and when they find things they actually want to do that is both parties they either borrow the money to pay for it, or try to cut something they think not a lot of people would notice so they do not have to pay a political price for it. And the latest Farm Bill where they actually cut Food Assistance for millions of Americans who would go hungry without it is a perfect example of that. Instead of cutting subsidies to corporate farmers people who have money, they cut the people who do not have much of a voice in Washington and can’t hurt them politically.

The best way to reduce debt and deficits if that is your goal, is first to figure out what you need government to do and how much money it needs to do those things that can’t be done anywhere else, or done as well. Or perhaps done in other places, but you need the Federal Government to play a role there as well. And medical research from the NIH would be a perfect example of that. Right now in these so-called budget debates both sides are debating on the margins instead. Cut a little here, perhaps raise a little revenue like with the so-called fiscal cliff debate in late 2012. But neither party really has laid out a vision for the country at least when it comes to the size and scope of the Federal Government.

Even with the Tea Party in the Republican Party as much as they may bash Washington and big government they are the first to make sure no one cuts their Social Security and Medicare. And the first to get their share of whatever pork that is being offered for their states or districts. The so-called Paul Ryan plan from 2011 and 2012 doesn’t erase the budget deficit even by 2023. And most of the budget cuts in it are targeted towards people in poverty who again do not have the resources to complain. And that part of the budget is pretty small compared with the rest of the Federal budget. And leaves the current budget at about where it is right now as far as a percentage of Gross National Product. In the low twenties.

The only faction in Washington and in Congress that has a long-term vision for the size and scope of the Federal Government are the people with the least amount of power in Washington. The so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus, but they seem to have a Federal program and tax increase for everything the country has to deal with. Including raising taxes by trillions of dollars to spend all that money on current Federal programs. And create new economic and social programs to generate economic and job growth not to pay down the debt or deficit. As part of what they call the People’s Budget.

If this was a real debate about the size and scope of the Federal Government, both the Democratic Leadership would have their plan and the Republican Leadership would have there’s. They would both be different and they would both be about limited government. Since neither party at least at the leadership levels are social democratic parties and are both mainstream parties on the Left and Right. At least at the top with factions further to the Left and Right on down their party. But they would both say we need an effective Federal Government with the resources to do what we need it to do. This is what we need it to do and this is how we would pay for it. And let the voters decide who has the better plan.

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

Radical Films: U.S. House Un-American Activities

Posted on January 29, 2014 by Erik Schneider

.
Source:The New Democrat 

The House Un-American Activities Committee and then later the Joe McCarthy Government Oversight Committee in the Senate were classic cases of guilt by association. Because they assumed some Americans were Un-American and not deserving of being Americans simply because of people they may have associated with and political positions they may have held. Not because of any illegal activities they have been involved in. Which is how we are supposed to judge people’s involvement in criminal activity.

The United States a liberal democracy where Americans have the right to believe what they believe. And say what they want to say with a few exceptions. Like encouraging violence or libeling people without any basis in fact. Yelling fire in tight public spaces. But for the most part our own politics is our own business. And we are free to either express our own political opinions, or opinions about any other subjects or not. And not be held criminally libel because of what we believe.

But what we got instead from these Congressional communist investigative committees was guilt by association that ruined a lot of good productive Americans lives. And for what, so people on the far-right and people simply just looking for political advancement, Senator Joe McCarthy comes to mind, could have a big issue and use it to advance their own political careers. No matter who they may hurt along the way which is about as Un-American as it gets.

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