Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Obama Pushes Failed Political Strategy On AOC u0026 Freshmen Dems" video.

The U.S. spends literally ! double per person than wealthy countries with single payer (France, Germany, Netherlands, Austria, ....Japan) * see Keiser Foundation study. Sure they - like the U.S. - have to add generous subsidies to the funding that comes from mandatory wage related contributions (from workers AND companies) * Washington Post clip (its only 5 minutes) of March 11th, 2019: The lingering questions about Medicare for All - at 2 :44 they show the numbers (very quickly, - considering this is a WaPo clip it could be worse, they avoid the all too obvious lies and misinformations). W/o subsidies the wage related contributions would need to be too high even in a cost-efficient system. - roughly 5,000 USD per person - that would be 20k for a family of four. Or 40k in the U.S. But: In the U.S. already 65 % of the expenditures are paid for by government (that is allocation of the Medicare wage deductions, and of course subsidies). That is not as high as it may sound. With old age the most healthcare costs occur, that is just the natural state of things when modern medicine is used to prolong the life of citizens. Medicare takes care of people over 65, and I think people with disability pensions (usually also higher risks) are also covered by the system (even when they are younger). So the public agencies already deal with the most costly patients - and the private insurers have already a nice cherrypicked pool and could easily offer much better rates. In other words: of the 10.240 USD per person in the U.S. (in 2017) 65 % or approx. 6.500 USD are paid by the government or via Medicare / Medicaid anyway. (Those average numbers include every person no matter the age, and it does not matter if they have coverage or not or even needed treatment that year). The subsidies in the single payer nations will logically not be higher than the total USD 5,000 per person .... The U.S. already HAS costs even for people without coverage or those who do get too little care too late. And the people that are not yet covered are not the majority of the 325 million - not even half. So going into the direction of countries that have HALF the costs PER PERSON offers obviously PLENTY of POTENTIAL to SAVE COSTS.
6
He is gifted with charm and connects with the audience (I have to remind myself that I do not like him when I see clips on the Ellen show, or interacting with children). He is intelligent and had the support of the masses. For a polician it is a godsend to have that appeal - think what he could have done if he was not such a spineless, lying sellout.
4
The government could have taken over shares in exchange for the bailout (handing them over to a worker cooperative - only people that WORK there have a vote, they cannot sell it or take it with them). - That way the industry could not have outsourced more (since the workers would have a say in the decisions) - like they did AFTER they got the Trump tax cuts as well.
2
Public option is a distant 2nd best to single payer - that was not even discussed Senate hearing 2009 - the industry was invited. Single payer experts ? Nope ! (the system that has consistently half the expenditures per person compared to the U.S. - in wealthy countries mind you (Keiser foundation study, 2017 - WaPo had a clip: The lingering questions about Medicare for All where they show the numbers of France, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands ...Austria, Japan - for 1 second only but they show them. They are getting fairer...)
2
Aipac would go crazy - they already try to reign in Ilhan Omar.
2
@Arole Flynn Yes FDR was a failure - that is why FDR got re-elected again, and again, and again. - BTW it is of course possible that they did NOT cheat when assessing the unemployment rate, like they do today. We have allegedly full employment but real wages (adjusted to inflation !) do not rise. When labor is scarce wages rise (Disney and Amazon and Seattle raised the minimum wage, the federal minimum is 3,xx (with tips) or 7,25 or something. Now - I agree FDR should have been BOLDER with the gov. investment programs (but he had a hard time getting through what was done). With the start of WW2 (even though the U.S. was not yet involved another major jobs program started. Training soldiers. and indirectly: arming the U.S. and subsidies for exports: weapons and food. Congress had to grant the loans for the deliveries to the UK - it was not so certain, that would be paid back. Sure the U.S. expected Germany and Japan to fall eventually .... In 1947 the U.S. had the highest federal debt ever - the rate between GDP and debt - well going there quickly. They continued with even more gov. spending this time to help with the transition from a war to a consumer goods economy - for instace Marshall Plan as export boost, GI bill, Interstate Highway, still a lot of troops in Asia and Europe, ....) The debt was taken care off with good wages and with high taxes for the rich and on profitable companies. (Which worked well - within 10 years the U.S. had grown out of the debt to a much better ratio). After 1929 the whole world had closed down their markets, the war reversed that for the U.S. Unfortunately those bold spending programs are only ever wholeheartedly supported when it is about war, adversity with other nations. FDR had to twist the arm of some Demorcratic politicians to get through what was passed. (like today many were wealthy or rich - they could resign themselves easily to the suffering of the masses. Republican industrial leaders (some) considered a fascist coup in 1934 (interesting story search Smedley Butler, Bonus Army).
2
he was not "weak" - the racism helped him, the base rallied behind him no questions asked while the appointed the wolves to guard the henhouse. Obama sold out in 2008 already, he served the Big Donors (which also finance the Republicans). The Rs were afraid even the completely watered down plan (they INVITED to Rs to work with them on the bill after it was clear they would stonewall Obama). Obama had to deflate the enthusiasm of the base - the donors did not like it (potential for a mass movement). So they started out with a weak bill, watered that down. ACA was passed in the 60 days when the Dems had a filibuster proof majority. No Repubs needed, A GOOD bill could have been ready on the shelf. Obama could have had a march on Washington, telling the poeple what the would do for them if they would turn out in the midterms 2010. The Dems do not like massive majorities - they run out of excuses (see California).
2
@jamesthomas1244 he had a mandate like FDR - and chose to be a sellout and the "First Black president" instead.
2
The very likely version: Obama sold out already in 2008 while fooling the masses. His job was to deflate !!! the energy of the base with a long drawn out fight over a weak healthcare proposal. but after the Rs had declared they would stonewall Obama - the Dems invited them to work with them on the bill. The Rs - very reliably and predicatbly - made it even weaker (good for the commong Big Donors)- and refused to vote for it anyway. But the Dems had a show fight - and plausible deniability.
1
The DCCC gave out the new rules, they will blacklist companies and persons that dare to work for anyone that challenges a sitting Dem. (It is of course a question if that is a loss in general. Those insider bubble strategists are often not a good fit for grassroots campaigns anyway. But there might be good people among them. Cynthia Nixon had problems to hire staff. AOC said some voters did not dare to volunteer or even to have a photo with her - they worked for the citiy ...
1
Wasn't that a gentrification project as well ?
1
@lawsonj39 Obama understood that just fine - but the Big donors like it when the unwashed masses believe the fairy tales ** and when their politicians act like they believe them. Obama already sold out to Big Biz and Big Finance on the campaign trail, never mind the "Hope and Change" rhetoric.
1
@lawsonj39 ** That way Big Finance can leverage * FIAT Money (money creation by the banks every time they give out loans) or * direct money creation by the central bank (in form of QE for instance). Not to forget the money that is created by speculative leveraged bets (without any oversight - most of it lands on the accounts of rich people and never hits the real economy - or we would have hyperinflation. The concept of having money/currency and a stock exchange was always a playground for the rich (speculation in the City of London during the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 only one example). The rules always wer set up to benefit the rich, it was leveraged against the citizens - and often enough and especially since the 1980s they leeched off the productive economy. There is only so much money you can make with producing and selling goods - on average in a national economy - and there are real risks involved. Leveraged speculation, real estate bubbles, etc. yield higher profits - as long as the party lasts. The Democratic party saw a Blue Wave coming for the midterms 2006, Emanuel Rahm then DCCC head stacked the primaries with Wallstreet Democrats and those were showered with money. The crooks from Big Finance likely had an inkling they would need their guys in Congress soon (of course the same happened in the Rebulican party). The bailouts and later QE for the Banks provided financial institutions with new liquidity. Needless to say the AG's appointed by Obama carefully avoided to prosecute anyone higher up (but good thing Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch were people of color. At least those boxes were checked, when they did not work For The People). As for Wallstreet and the banksters: Rinse and repeat.... * Those ways of money creation are not necessarily bad. Fiat money functioned reasonably well as long as banking was strictly regulated after WW2 (than the money creation was tied to economic projects like manufacturing or citizens getting homes to live in). Direct money creation is usually only used in times of crisis (often war). The banks and the financier class despise it (they want to be the only ones using that tool) - and they certainly see no need that the unwashed masses should understand the concept (the potential and of course also the dangers and the need for being very transparent and prudent). Of course the creation of money MUST be tied to and be proportional to the real economy - if it is meant to be healthy and beneficial. And for that the voters must understand the concept because there are huge incentives for the financier class and their politician to abuse and manipulate. As for information about money creation: see for instance the site of positivemoney uk. Or search with: MMT. Debt And Interest free Money. Ann Pettifor. Dr. Stephanie Kelton., Dr. Richard Werner. Steve Keen ... Or the pdf by the Bank of England: Money Creation in a Modern Economy (they explain how banks are able to lend out money - they create it, and they also explain QE. Which then was done to the tune of trillions. So the sheeple got a little bit of information in early 2014. They stopped of course short of mentioning that QE could also be done For The People. But it is a remarkable document nontheless, especially since it comes from the central bank of one of the most important financial places on the globe.
1
@hushedtones7168 You should get an understanding about money/currency (and its creation). Also see my comment to John Lawson. - Mass production needs mass consumption. * Between 1947 and 1970 the worker's got the lion's share of of productivity wins (+ 112 % while hourly average wages adjusted for inflation rose by 97 % - in other words purchasing power doubled. The consumers = workers then could KEEP UP with the output. It do not want to praise consumerism, but IF the system is set up to produce more then there need to be buyers for it. Another wise policy would have been to reduce the 40 hour workweek of 1940. While keeping wages = purchasing power the same. In other words the productiviy wins would not be given in more purchasing power but in more time with stagnant purchasing power (but not lesss either). So companies would produce the same output = stagnant (with less work hours and more machines) at the same costs as before. The 1970s were turbulent: there was slightly increasing unemployment anyway (automation, computer, women entering workforce, ongoing immigration, in the U.S. the costs of the Vietnam war were a drain on the economy). On top of that came massive oil price spikes. Then unusually high unemployment rates (wouldn't be that bad today) made it possible to start reversing the New Deal. the 1970s were partially a struggle - with the 1980s neoliberalism hit the U.S. and U.K. Then wage stagnation started - later the outsourcing made possible with the "free" "trade" deals helped to pitch the domestic workforce against workers in poor countries. More wage suppression. from 1970 - 2013 productivitiy plus 69 %, real hourly average wages only + 9 %. In the U.S. The credit card for consumers was introduced in the 1970s !! So the necessary !! consumers spending could go on for a while fuelled by debt - and of course massive marketing efforts.
1
He is not "weak" - he knows how to kneecap progressives. - He did not BOTHER when he was POTUS and he certainly did not want to upset the Big Donors. He has no convictions, at best he has "preferences". (If the sun is shining and it does not mess with his or the donor's financial gains). And he is a careerist - so WHY bother ?
1