Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: 'There is No Such Thing as Public Money'

Source:The FreeState- The Iron Lady Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (Conservative, United Kingdom)

Source:The FreeState 

"Margaret Thatcher addresses the Conservative Party conference in 1983."  

From Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

When former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says: “There’s no such thing as public money, but taxpayers money" she’s dead on. Unless government’s owns a business, or business’s like state- owned enterprises, all the revenue that government’s get is through tax revenue one way, or the other. And it’s generally done through multiple taxes, like income taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, and other taxes. And many more unfortunately. (From my perspective) 

Government’s are supposed to use all of this revenue for the betterment of the country. Not for their own profits, or to make themselves rich, or waste the money. Again unless government owns their own enterprises, all the revenue it gets is through taking that money from the people through taxes and sometimes they give some of it back. Through tax cuts and tax refunds and other tax subsidy’s. Oil subsidy’s come to mind.

Meaning that what government does with our money, they have to spend it wisely. Not waste it and spend our money on things that will be keep our country great and make it better. Spend our money to do things that we can’t do for ourselves. Like national security, public safety, regulating the economy, infrastructure investment and a few other things. But not try to do for us what we can do for ourselves and do better. And not try to protect people from themselves, but protect innocent people from the abuse of people who would do them harm.

So to have the most efficient government possible (if that’s possible) it would help to lay out exactly what government should be doing. And can do well and that gets to what government can do for people that they can’t do for themselves, or what government can do as well. And provide as much competition for the private sector as possible. Or do as well to be as efficient with our money as possible. 

And this gets to areas like national security, public safety, regulating the economy, being efficient with tax revenue, keeping debt and deficits down, or eliminate them. Keeping tax rates down so there’s as much money in the economy as possible.

Keep taxes down, so the people have plenty of revenue to take care of themselves. So they are not dependent on public assistance just to survive. 

Public education, for most of the population that can’t afford private schools, K-12 as well as higher ed. 

If government’s just concentrated in these areas instead of trying to have a piece of every pie that’s made, then they would have less to manage and would waste less money. Because they would only be working in areas that they are efficient in. And not doing too much and being a drag on the economy. 

When people say government’s money, or public money, they are actually talking about taxpayer money, or our money. Money that they take from us that’s not volunteered to them. So with this being these case, they need to be efficient with our money as possible so they waste as little of it as possible.

CP Harding: U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen- 'The Difference Between a Democrat and Republican in (1967)'

Source:CP Harding- interviewing Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (Republican, Illinois) in 1967.

Source:The FreeState

“Everett McKinley Dirksen (January 4, 1896 September 7, 1969) was a Republican U.S. Congressman and Senator from Pekin, Illinois. As Republican Senate leader he played a highly visible and key role in the politics of the 1960s, including helping to write and pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Open Housing Act of 1968, both landmarks of Civil Rights legislation. Dirksen served in the Senate from 1951 to 1969 and was seen quite often on the evening television news shows. His banter with newsmen Walter Cronkite and Roger Mudd and his unmistakable “raspy” voice made him famous throughout the country and the world.

This video was shot in Southern Illinois in 1967 or 1968 and features a young reporter (CP Harding) from WSIU Television (Southern Illinois University) asking Senator Dirksen just one question for a proposed children’s news program. Toward the end of the interview the reporter becomes concerned because he was getting a signal that they were almost out of film….and Senator Dirksen just kept talking.” 

From CP Harding

Former U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (1959-69) explained it perfectly what it means to be a Conservative and what conservatism is (or as perfectly as it can be explained in a three-minute video) when he said a Conservative is someone who believes in conserving freedom and our values.

Conservatism, is about fiscal responsibility. Not spending more than you take in and not spending money on things that you shouldn’t be funding.

Conservatism when it comes to politics, the government not spending money on things that could be spent and run better by others. Conserving constitutional rights and individual freedom and individualism.

Without Minority Leader Dirksen, the 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 Voting Rights Acts as well as the 1968 Fair Housing Law ,doesn’t become law, because he convinced several Republican Senators to vote for those laws and not to block them. But voting for cloture which is a Senate term and how the Senate cuts off debate and votes on legislation.

Minority Leader Dirksen, didn’t believe in civil and constitutional rights for some, but for all. Actually, more Congressional Republicans voted for the civil rights laws than Congressional Democrats.

Minority Leader Dirksen was a big part of the passage of the civil rights laws on the 1960s, because he was a Republican that would work with Senate Leader Mike Mansfield (1961-77) and President Lyndon Johnson. (1963-69) They had to work with the Senate Minority Leader on civil rights issues, because of the Southern Caucus, which was a Far-Right voting block in Congress that would block and vote against civil rights legislation. Those Democrats would probably be Neo-Confederate or Tea Party Republicans today, like Senator Jim DeMint and others.

Because even Minority Leader Dirksen was the leader of a small minority in the Senate in the 1960s, because of the Southern Caucus he had leverage to use against the Senate Democratic Leadership and the Johnson Administration, conservatism, on foreign policy is about, yes a strong defense that can not only protect our country, but vulnerable allies who can’t defend themselves against large aggressors, but only using our military to protect our national interest not force democracy around the world. Which is what Neoconservatives believe in, or abusing constitutional rights to protect the country. But protecting those rights to keep the country safe.

There are still some Classical Conservatives in the Republican Party today: Senator Rand Paul, Senator John McCain, Representative Jeff Flake and a few others. But in a lot of ways Everett Dirksen represents what the Republican Party used to be before religious conservatism and neoconservatism came onto the scene in the Republican Party in the late 1970s.

But before that the Republican Party was almost purely a classical conservative party, with a progressive Northern wing. That until Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan came onto the scene wasn’t able to convince enough voters to put them in power. But when those people and others came in, they’ve been a pretty powerful party ever since. 

CBS News: 60 Minutes- Mike Wallace Interviewing The Shah of Iran (1976)

Source:CBS News- the Shah of Iran being interviewed by CBS News investigative correspondent Mike Wallace, in 1976.

Source:The FreeState  

“In 1976, Mike Wallace revealed to the Shah of Iran that the CIA considered him a dangerous megalomanic and an uncertain ally.”

From CBS News

"60 Minutes M. Valles with Shah 1976. Shah Bozorg Mard Iran dar 60 Minutes." 

Source:Aruyo Padafand- The Shah of Iran, talking to CBS News's Mike Wallace, in 1976.

From Aruyo Padafand

What Iran had in the Shah was much better for the America and Europe than what Iran has now in the Islāmic Republic. Because with the Shah we had an ally that would work with, that we would trade with and we could rely on for our energy needs.

With the Islāmic Republic, we have a state that sponsors terrorism and is now attempting to get nuclear weapons. But as valuable as an ally as the Shah was to the West, he wasn’t that great for his own people.

Which was a big reason for the Islāmic Revolution of 1979 and he and his monarchy being kicked out-of-power. Even though the Shah did some positive things to develop the Iranian economy and military, to a certain extent. He was an authoritarian dictator with a secret police that would pick people up off the street. As well as torture inmates, close down publications that seemed unfavorable to the Monarchy.

What’s going on in the Islāmic Republic today, but the difference being that the Islāmic Republic, is bad for its people, but also bad for the Middle East and West. With its sponsorship of Islāmic terrorism groups that have killed Americans as well as our soldiers. Like with the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983. the Islāmic Republic did replace the Monarchy.

But Iran left in a lot of the authoritarian policy’s that the Monarchy had, as well as probably having some of their own. And they haven’t done much to advance Iran economically in its thirty-two years despite its vast resources in energy and its well-educated public and its middle class. Iran has all the resources that they need to be a first world country, but they’ve mismanaged them so badly. That they are still a third world country.

What the Shah should’ve done and had he done these things, I believe he could’ve saved his Monarchy, was as he continued to build up the economy, education and infrastructure and the Iranian military, then liberate his people. Let them live their own lives which would’ve put them ahead of everyone else in the Middle East. Except for Turkey and maybe Israel, but Iran and Turkey are so much bigger than Israel. But the Shah of Iran would’ve been a very popular leader in Iran had he done these things.

And then maybe with all of these progressive reforms, Iranians wouldn’t have looked to theocrats, the most conservative of Religious Conservatives, to save them and save their country from the Shah. Who in some ways on economic and foreign policy, was a fairly liberal leader, as Middle Eastern leaders go.

The Shah of Iran, I believe would’ve lasted as the Leader of Iran, had he liberalized his large country and became President of Iran instead. With a federal legislature, independent judiciary and of course his people to answer too. And turned the Monarchy into more of a ceremonial institution like in Britain. But he didn’t do those things and was kicked out-of-power.

The Film Archives: BookNotes With Brian Lamb- Robin Wright: 'A History of Iran: From the 1979 Islamic Revolution to Ayatollah Khomeini's Death (1989)'

Source: The Film Archives- The Iranian people, perhaps in 1979.

Source:The FreeState 

"The Iranian Revolution is also known as the Islamic Revolution of Iran or the 1979 Revolution; Persian: انقلاب اسلامی, Enghelābe Eslāmi or انقلاب بیست و دو بهمن. About the book:Amazon." 

From The Film Archives 

“The author chronicles the first ten years of the Iranian Revolution, employing an unprecedented access to Iran’s major figures to outline the nation’s importance to the rest of the world.” 

Source:Amazon- Robin Wright's book.

From Amazon

Part of the fault for the 1979 Islāmic Revolution in Iran that brought an Islāmic Republic to Iran after they were a monarchy with the Shah as its head of state (dictator, really), has to be given to the Shah of Iran. Because he was a dictator at the time ruling a very large country, but with only 20-25M people, that is deep in natural resources. 

The Shah wasn’t all bad, he did managed to build up their economy to a certain extent and build an education system and other things. (Sort of like Fidel Castro in Cuba) But he was a dictator who was accountable to basically no one, except for the United States and United Kingdom, to a certain extent. That both put the Shah in power and could’ve removed him at any point and this was also a political problem for the Shah with his people.

To America and Britain, the Shah was a puppet for them, instead of his own man only accountable to the Iranian people. Who also held down his own people and they got tired of being held down without much freedom or recourse. And they saw these Islāmic leaders in Iran and turned to them to take down the Shah and his regime. Not knowing the consequences of this, because in taking down the Monarchy they replaced one authoritarian dictatorship with another one with an Islāmic Theocracy that over thirty-two years later is still in power in Iran. With its strict restrictions on political freedom and women’s rights and so-forth. 

Iran which has the natural resources, physical size and population to be a first world country and the most dominant power in the Middle East has regressed backwards under their Islamic Theocracy. And making it look like a country from the 15th Century with how it treats its women. With dress codes and limiting people to the things in the media that they can see and so-forth.

What Shah Reza of Iran, should’ve been doing as he was building up his large country, was to educate his people as well. And give them the freedom to live their own lives, not overnight, but overtime. And moving Iran from a monarchy towards a republic, where the Shah would be more of a ceremonial power, or perhaps have more governmental powers. But where most of the power would be with the executive, a President or Prime Minister, with a Cabinet and so-forth. That would govern the country with a multi-party elected Parliament at some point. With provincial and local government’s, as well that would also be elected. And then the Shah could’ve run for president and probably would’ve been elected, perhaps several times.

Shah Reza was in power in Iran for about forty-years and had plenty of time to establish a system like this and as he could’ve brought these progressive changes to Iran. With a national constitution and everything else. To go along with the economic and educational development.

The Shah could’ve released the grip that the United States and United Kingdom had on him and his government. Which would’ve only of helped him politically, because he would’ve no longer be seen as a puppet of the U.S. and U.K. Iran today as the Islāmic Republic of Iran, instead of the Federal Republic or United Republic of Iran, or something, most of that blame has to fall on the Islāmic Revolution. Because maybe Iran is a developed nation today instead of a third world nation. But some of this blame also has to fall on Shah Reza for keeping his people down before they rose up and went with the Islāmic Revolution.

Glenn Beck : Michael Reagan Interview- 'The New Reagan Revolution'

Source:Glenn Beck- and Ronald Reagan's son and author Michael Reagan.

Source:The FreeState

"Read the entire article at Glenn Beck. On February 4th Glenn Beck interviewed Michael Reagan, the son of former President Ronald Reagan, about his new book called The New Reagan Revolution: How Ronald Reagan's Principles Can Restore America's Greatness.

With all the erroneous talk lately about how similar President Obama is to President Reagan, Michael Reagan once again shares the genius of his father and how the same principles and lessons he taught the world back in the 80′s when he was letting America shine and be strong.... 

From Glenn Beck

The Ronald Reagan that I most respected, was the Ron Reagan before he became President. Even though he did some good things as President as well, like ending the Cold War with the Soviet Union and getting the economy going again after inheriting an awful economy from the Carter Administration. He of course didn’t do that alone, no President or government can of course. 

But the Ron Reagan that I respect most, was anti-Washington, anti-big government, pro-individual freedom. Believed in things like keeping government out of our wallets and bedrooms, he was even pro-gay rights.

Reagan pro-gay was rights after he became President in 1981. Pro-strong military, but only use when it was in our National Interest. He wasn’t a Neoconservative which is something else I respect about Ron Reagan. 

But as much as Reagan spoke out against big government, he expanded the Federal Government almost as much as President. And not just in the Defense Department, but he expanded the War on Drugs, more Americans than ever were in prison during his administration. A big reason for that to do with his expansion of the War on Drugs. And of course the record debt and deficit he piled up as President, because of his defense spending and his unpaid for tax cuts were a big part of that as well.

Ron Reagan was a classical Conservative, (just not fiscally conservative) perhaps even a small l libertarian even when he was running for President. But as President even though he kept some of those principles, he was more of a pragmatist than anything else. “What do I have to do to get the job done, what do we have to negotiate." 

Ronald Reagan had a Democratic House the whole eight years as President. Democrats had a large minority in the Senate for six years and controlled the Senate the last two years. I give President Reagan credit for ending the Cold War and turning the economy around. But we paid a heavy price for it in debt, deficit, high interest rates and inflation in the early 1990s.

If you look at President Reagan’s accomplishments as President, the economy, the Cold War, getting three Conservatives on the Supreme Court. Sandra O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. As well as appointing a Conservative to Chief Justice in William Renquist, all this alone makes Ronald Reagan one of the most successful conservative president’s we’ve ever had politically. As well as winning the presidency in a landslide, being reelected in a landslide, his Vice President George HW Bush succeeding him. 

Actually, I don’t know of a more successful Conservative President than Ronald Reagan politically. Dwight Eisenhower would be then only other one I would consider. As far as being able to get his policy’s put in place and having a positive record to show for them.

George W. Bush wasn’t a Classical Conservative, but a Neoconservative as President. With his borrow and spend fiscal policy and neoconservative foreign policy. To call Ronald Reagan perfect as President, you have to be either the president of his fan club and vowed to never say anything negative about him, or not have been alive during his presidency and never read, or seen anything about his presidency. 

Ronald Reagan was the most successful Republican President of the 20th Century, with only President Eisenhower would be someone I would consider. And that’s all the credit I’ll give him. 

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson: Charles Moore: On Margaret Thatcher

Source:Hoover Institution- British journalist Charles Moore, on Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (Conservative, England) 

Source:The FreeState 

“Charles Moore, a former editor at the Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, and Spectator Magazine, discusses, with Hoover research fellow Peter Robinson, the “Iron Lady,” Margaret Thatcher.”

From the Hoover Institution 

"One of Britain’s most distinguished journalists, Charles Moore is a former editor of the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph newspapers and of the Spectator magazine. Moore is also the authorized biographer of the Right Honorable Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, better known as Margaret Thatcher." 

Source:Hoover Institution- British journalist Charles Moore on Margaret Thatcher.

From the Hoover Institution

If you want to know what classical conservatism is and what it means to be a Classical Conservative, then look at Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom and her political career. She’s the worst nightmare for Socialists. Democratic and classical in Britain, but perhaps everywhere. Just like Ronald Reagan is the worst nightmare along with Milton Friedman of Socialists in America and perhaps everywhere else as well.

But it’s not just Prime Minster Thatcher’s economic conservatism and her ability to articulate it as well as she did along with her humor. Like saying things like the problem with socialism is that it runs out of other people’s money to spend. Which as a Liberal, I feel the same way myself . But it was the fact that Prime Minister Thatcher did not want government interfering with how people lived their lives, generally speaking. One thing I respect about British politics, is even though there’s not a consensus on what the size of the British Government should be.

Britain, currently debating big government socialist democracy. The Conservative Party, would clearly like to see the British Government become smaller. The Labour Party, would probably like to see the British Government become bigger along with the Democratic Party. But all three of these parties believe in social freedom, generally speaking. And a lot of them believe that government shouldn’t be interfering in how people live their lives. Something a lot of people in the Republican Party in America have forgotten with how they’ve moved toward religious conservatism.

Christian-Conservatism, really isn’t very conservative and actually very expensive. And it is more of a version of authoritarianism, with a progressive bent when it comes to social welfare. Canadian politics, is pretty similar to British politics that they there’s a consensus there. That Canadians should have a lot of social freedom. But they differ on how much involvement the Federal Government there should have in the Canadian economy. But what Socialists fear about Classical Conservatives is that they will lose power. That government will lose influence in how much control they have over the people. In the economy and that the people will have all of this freedom and become less dependent on government and make a lot of money.

There are still plenty of Maggie Thatcher Conservatives in the Conservative Party. I would put Prime Minister David Cameron on that list. Except his rhetoric tends not to be as partisan and as blunt. Even though I don’t know him nearly as British political analysts. But there aren’t many Thatcher or Reagan Conservatives left in the Republican Party in America. But they no longer run the Republican Party anymore as that party has moved farther right and into a more authoritarian direction.

Christian-Conservatives in America, would like to see the Federal Government become more involved in marriage with DOMA and other things. And with their support of the Patriot Act to use as another example. But Classical Conservatives, truly represent the best of the conservative movement and are truly pro-freedom. Especially individual freedom and not just economic and political freedom. 

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Saul Alinsky- 'Mobilizing The Poor (1967)'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- community activist Saul Alinsky, appearing on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1967,

Source:The FreeState

"The common aim of all Mr. Alinsky's organizations is to mobilize the poor--mobilize them by whatever mean comes to hand (marches, sit-ins)--to demand decent housing conditions or whatever the local need may be. This one is a knock-down, drag-out from start to finish. SA: "I refuse to debate with him [David Riesman], which only came up recently ... I made the remark that any time I see any of his stuff, it sort of makes me feel like a grizzled, battle-scarred dog going down the street while way back, say, six blocks back or so, this little whining Pekingese comes out sniffing, yipping, and licking and growling at my leavings. And I'm not going to waste my time turning around."  

From the Hoover Institution 

"Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: Mobilizing the Poor" 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"There are many who know little or nothing about the recent and distant past. They are often disinterested about such things and when pressed can find no value in its study.

 

Because our lives are linear we can't escape an essential truth: that an event follows a previous event and that, quite often, new things and ideas are built upon those that preceded them. What came before informs and influences the present and possibly the future, too. Knowledge of those things, people, and events of the past can't help but shine a sort of light on life and events of today, and what might be tomorrow. This is a simple calculus but all too often ignored. The great challenge is not finding historical things, events, and people to study, but interpreting their meaning—particularly as they might relate to the present.

 

After the election victory of Donald J. Trump, the country appears to have descended into upheaval. President Trump's election success was directly due to the functions of the checks and balances system (as represented in this case by the Electoral College) constructed by the founders; the losing candidate soon called for its abolition. Such an essentially revolutionary response to an election defeat is readily understood if the times themselves are seen as revolutionary, too." 

Source:New English Review- community activist Saul Alinsky, on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1967.

From New English Review

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- community activist Saul Alinsky in 1967.

‘Mobilizing the Poor’, sounds like a great idea to me, but what to mobilize them for is the question. What do you want them to do. 

Now, me if I’m going to mobilize the poor, I would work with them to improve their own lives and empower them to empower their own lives. To make themselves self-sufficient, but also to get them involved in their own communities, if nothing else to make them better. So they are no longer stuck living in crumbling housing projects, living in dangerous neighborhoods and living in low-income communities where they can’t get good jobs. Because one, good jobs don’t exist in their communities. But also because they don’t have the skills to get good jobs and their kids won’t get the skills to get good jobs.

We still have low-skilled low-income adults are stuck going to rotten schools in violent neighborhoods, because their parents don’t have a choice in where they send their kids to school. And thus are stuck with the same awful future that their parents had or in lost of cases just one parent. Perhaps never ever meeting their biological father or mother and in many cases father and end up repeating the same cycle of poverty as past generations in their family. 

In women’s cases having kids too early and not finishing high school to take care of their kids. Ending up on Welfare or stuck working minimum wage jobs the rest of their lives or perhaps ending up hanging out with the wrong crowds and ending up in jail or prison with kids.

And in men’s cases fathering kids way too early and perhaps never even meeting them or walking out on them, because they are not ready to raise them and can’t handle it. And perhaps dropping out of high school and ending up on Welfare or stuck working minimum wage jobs the rest of their lives as well. Or ending up in jail or prison, because they tried to make easy money by again hanging out with the wrong crowd. 

This is the future that we as a society should mobilize the poor to get away from and into a much more positive future of quality education, for parents and their kids, good jobs for the parents and their kids, so they can live in thriving communities.

If you’re talking about people living in poverty, but a have place of their own to live in, like an apartment, but don’t make enough money to support themselves on their own, or are on Welfare Insurance and don’t work at all, then I believe the answers to finally winning the so-called War on Poverty, are good, positive and simple. 

And it really gets down to education, for parents and their kids to get the skills that they need to become self-sufficient and live in their own home. And it’s also about housing as well, whether it gets to encouraging the private sector to invest in low-income communities and train some of the people there. So they can get the skills that they need to get good jobs in these company’s, so the people there can get good jobs to become self-sufficient.

We should be reforming Public Housing in a way all together by instead of forcing low-income people to live in housing projects in low-income communities. Build these housing projects in middle class communities so low-income people are exposed to other communities around them and aren’t forced to live in violent communities. And have a shot at living a good life but reforming Public Housing alone won’t solve the problem. 

Another component has to be about reforming public education in America. So low-income students and their parents aren’t stuck going to bad schools, where perhaps they won’t even finish high school. But even if they do finish high school, they won’t have the skills that they need to get good jobs.

America needs public school choice so parents can decide on their own what school to send their kids too. But also empowering low-income parents and adults to finish high school as well as go to community college so they can get the skills that they need to get good jobs. 

The answer to finally winning the War on Poverty is not just Welfare checks, even though that helps people on Welfare Insurance survive in the short-term. But the answers to finally winning the so-called War on Poverty is about empowering low-income people to get the skills that they need to become self-sufficient on their own.