Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder" channel.

  1. The Democratic party did not push for that Supreme court decision - but they got very excited and immediately realized the possibilities ! The GOP had always been the party of Big biz and that meant the cushy posts for ex politicians - now the Dems could participate (more) in that game. Since then the Dems and the Repubs have been playing the "good cop / bad cop" routine to fool the voters. 2 party duopoly helped a lot - they are shielded from competition. Especially the Dems play "lesser evilism", but it was not only Trump that was the boogeyman for (hesistant) potential Democratic voters. Hillary Clinton fulfilled the same role for the base of the Republican party. It is the one and only Big Donor party with 2 wings. Never mind the quarrels they will always agree on neoliberalism and war spending. The Democratic Party will let take the Repubs take the lead with tax cuts, defunding welfare, undermining the EPA and Medicare/Medicaid. On the other hand Bill Clinton - not Bush1 - was able to get NAFTA passed (negiuatuibs started under Reagan, finsihed under Bush - nothing like a fake representative of workers to screw them) Bill Clinton made it safe and lucrative for companies to outsource jobs to China (and before that to Mexico). Nothing like a fake leftie to screw the working people. And he cut welfare and HE balanced the budget (on the back of low income people). Reagan started the project to deregulate the banks. Bill Clinton - the friend of Wallstreet -finished it and set the stage for a global financial crisis **.
    2
  2.  @kristinewhitfield4110  A person that believes 10 % in Q is not to be taken seriously. There are groups that watch online for child porn, and they alert the police. Others raise awareness that runaway teenagers are highly likely to be sex trafficked. There were campaigns to raise awareness MORE of that is happening around large sports events. Olympics, NFL games etc. There were campaigns with posters at airports, bus stations, so that other citizens would NOTICE the signs. There should be more funding for shelters. if a a runaway has nowhere SAFE to go, they are going to be entrapped by bad actors. Sometimes they have good reason not to want to be with family and of course every normal decent person would feel responsible for uniting them with family or hand them over to police. and there are legal implications. If a decent family offers shelter to a young runaway believing his or her story of abuse (that would justify running away) they would exposte themselves to legal trouble.
    2
  3. A nice collection of anti-progressives assembled here in the comment section. And people seem to be unable to endure that they hear a point of view that they disagree with. Yes Saagar is not coherent. He is also part of the package. HILL their employer designed it that way, two hosts with very oppsoing views. So the "conservatives" will be equally annoyed by the progressive views of Krystall. - I guess the "liberals" that are all over this comment section get annoyed by both.
    2
  4. There was a new aspect of the investigation and Comey revealed that. Likely because he too felt confident that HRC would win anyway. So it would not cost the election if he did the right thing. An agency, court or or the media do not have the role to consider what impact their revelations could have on the next election. They are supposed to do their job. and politicians have to make sure to abide by the law. HRC should not have brazenly ignored the law to run her insecure server in her basement - set up by a rookie. SHE shot herself in the foot and Comey was supposed to investigate that She could and should have used the means of communication that are guarded by tech wizards that work for the agencies (or the governmetn) - not by an inept staffer. But she could only let that handle by a loyal person that would cover up for her disregard of the law, being sneaky was more important than being competent while ignoring the law. Doing it the correct and official way means she can be held accountable for her communications, if they reveal self-serving, unehtical or unlawful actions of her - or others.   And it is also subject to FOIA requests if they cannot rightfully classify it. For instance if she plans a self serving war on Libya or proxy war on Syria, and discusses the distribution of the loot or the maneuvers to support the "opposition" in Libya and Syria - often fundementalistic radical muslin and from other countries. Like Saudi Arabia. (I very much suspect she had that private server for that). Even her private communications must be secure, she and Bill Clinton are of course targets, they have Secret Service protection even if they do not hold any office (like now). So it is also important if she writes a mail to a friend and it reveals their plans (she and Bill plan to be at a certain time at a certain location. The official events are better guarded and are publicly known (at least by some) - for instance if they are an attraction during a fund raiser. But there might be low key private encoutners. Ideal opportunities for attacks. Normally she would either ask the SS for help with a private server or get a recommendation by them for a trustworthy private company. She can't be that naive. So I think she very much wanted to hide that she had a private mail server (the private serve is unusual - but O.K.) If she only wanted a private server for private communications, she would not have needed to keep that a secret among professionals. (They would not openly communicate that to the public, because a server in Hilary's basement would attract the hackers, if only as a fun challenge. It is inevitable that the servers of google, gmx, apple, etc. are targets of hackers, but there is no reason to alert them to other targets. But the cabinet, her staff, would have known there is a private server and she needs regular technical support for that. I also do not get why the large providers are not good enough to handle her mails. They need to be at the top of their game regarding security from hackers. She could have a code name for communications with friends and family. Wikileaks revealed a lot of stuff that was embarrassing for HRC and the DNC in summer. And they including the legacy media hate, hate them and Julian Assange for that. That is why the Corporate medias let's him rot in prison w/o a peep. And they even help with the smears to undermine pupblic supports. Politicians (to the right or the neoliberals" hate Assange anyway (he annoyed all of them over the course of the years) and they engage in an assault on a publisher, free media and freedom of speech because they CAN. Tehy would alsway love to if they do not like the reporting but they only can go after some people.) The sheeple (the voters) let them and legacy media (embarrassed by the example what a fierce media should be like) creates the mood for it. Same with whistle blowers btw: No one was every punished regarding the Bush era torture BUT the whistle blowers that leaked some material. See John Kiriakou's example. He did not have DUE process. They just declare it all to be classified. The court "trial" is not open to the public. There are a few carefully slected judges in Virginia. The CIA is headquartered there and only a few judges do that kind of trial. They can select the jury carefully. The judge can throw out all motions of the defense to present witnesses or other material (ask John Kiriakou). There was some other whisteblower or intel professional that did not part ways in a cordial manner. I am not sure if he did blow the whistle or if they feared he could. Anyway, they tried to frame him with a crime BUT he had collegues that warned him and gave him the head ups. so the powers that be abstained from going down that road - if they would try again he might have had evidence for their wrong doing and if they escalated that he might get a public platform. Manning (I think his material was only war crimes in general, see the video collateral murder where also AP war correspondents were killed for no good reason at all). The cowards of the Corporate media do not even defend AP staff.
    2
  5.  steven Kombolis  ?? The Hill hires a bipartisan team, Krystall does not pay Saagar. And she pushes back, too. Against guests and when he says something wrong. Not always sometimes she choses politeness (or time limits) over correcting them. they get along very well, and that chemistry is why people to the right also will watch (and thus hear another ! point of view as well). And liberals / progressives have to suffer the views of Saagar.
    2
  6. Sanders is content to be the eternal underdog, the educator that plays movement leader, and got scared when the chance opened to REALLY HOLD POWER. He is standing in his own way he is SELF SABOTAGING. (It can happen, when people are about to hit SUCCESS. Part of them works hard for it, part of them undermines it). I do not think Sanders sold out or did it only to sheepdog progressives into the party. The only other logical explanations for his PUZZLING behavior that CONTRADICTS his (correct) assessment how he would get things done as president with an UNWILLING Congress and Senate (I will rally the masses, the young, Organizer-in-chief) a) he always wanted to dupe his supporters (I do not believe that) b) he has NOW second thoughts if HE could win against Trump. Well he is certainly a better choice than BIDEN. Wwrong assessment, they need better marketing to get out the detached voters and the detached young. His mistake ( = not self sabotage and it could be corrected): Yes he has the young locked down (18 - 40) if they are ENGAGED or willing to be engaged. A lot of them are apathetic it seems. I do not know what they did in terms of MARKETING, social media works, but it was not enough. I guess you do not reach them with doing well attended rallies (there you have the engaged). And it would not hurt that Sanders points out that it is even harder for working people to VOTE than for older retired people. Who tend to vote in larger numbers and rooted for Biden. Or the affluent. The enthusiastic supporters help him in a caucus, in primaries the requirement to invest a few hours hits his potential supporters more. having to wait HOURS is unacceptable. That is worse than in third world countries. c) Sanders was threatened (he or his family), or they have something on him. Not likely but I would not rule it out I think it is a). Of course Sanders has to do some serious double think NOW. He does the small stuff like raising money for charities. That is important but some mid level celeb can busy themselves. NOW it WOULD be time to play the BIG game. Instead Sanders folds Eugene Debs (a man Sanders admires) f**g went to prison. For being openly against the WW1, which was outlawed in the U.S. "democracy". He ran for president from prison. The worst that can happen to Sanders ? He does not win his seat in 2024 again (if the wants to run again). They are so meant to him in the Senate that he choses to retire. he has financial security. Gets a pension and healthcare. People will always love him in Burlington and Vermont. Press will hate on him, he is an intelligent man (although maybe not flexible enough anymore, after all 78 years old). He could LEARN from Trump
    2
  7. Single payer was introduced /overhauled by almost all other nations after WW2. Fast forward 70 years. They ALL beat the heck out of the U.S. With single payer the public welfare aligns happily with cost-efficiency. GOOD POLICY that would be an ELECTORAL WINNER. If - IF - it would be really imperative FOR the DEMOCRATIC "leadership" to win against Trump - no policy would help them more to win in a landslide than M4A. Sanders did a lot of the groundwork to convince the public. There is no excuse for their neglect for decades anyway. But for the sake of argument: Sanders undermined their bluff, he has a bill (and pamila Jaypal in Congress) and he informed the voters over years that other nations spend half per person. Corporate Democrats (incl. Obama) have always put the interest of the big donors over voters. The 1993 Clinton propsoal kept the private insurance in place, it was an attempt to "regulate" them, but even that was met with fierce resistance of the industry and rightwing think tanks. But NOW they ALLEGEDLY want Trump out. Desperately. (that is what they and MSM = millionaires doing propganda for billionaries) tell the sheeple. That nothing is more important then winning against Trump.
    2
  8. + Brenda Davis What does that mean "had to shake hands with my husband to keep things running smooth" - I am honestly interested ! Because a handshake to me always indicated a non-intimate relationship. I can understand there are situations where you do not display more intimate signs of affection and keep it more formal. But "shaking hands" with your spouse ? - I would maybe touch my partner's arm lightly or just make a gesture to "bid farewell" and take over the stage in a graceful manner. It really looks like Trump might have been a little stressed out and then he forgets to act like they are man and wife (under stress it is harder to maintain a facade, you fall back on the true relationship. He is either on the border of dementia, or they have a hostile relationship.) Plus I wonder why Melania would not have the professionality or dignity or whatever to help him solve the situation more gracefully. Like converting that beginning handshake into a slightly more informal, friendlier movement appropriate for a couple. After all she agreed to marrying him - for whatever reasons. And stayed with him. She could as well play her role well, even if she does not like him.
    2
  9. Wilkerson said in those interviews (see next comment) that C. Rice did not comment often, but when she did she always made him cringe.
    2
  10. The early voting results for HRC in 2016 in Florida looked good. She thought she was going to win Florida. But it was only the affluent suburbanites that liked her style of neoliberalism and that are in the habit of using early voting. So the ongoing count on election night shifted considerably.
    2
  11.  Paul Temple  Nope, not nationalizing the "economy" Just railway and water - which are natural monopolies and are in public hand everywhere (if not, the citizens are ripped off until they are taken back). Broadband - the free market failed: companies are not interested outside the densely populated areas, and they are underserved. That widens the economic gap between the regions. If the government WANTS to do something for the underdeveloped regions and wants to make them fit for future jobs creation ..... Energy should be in public hand (or the communities). Housing leans also strongly towards natural monopoly and the U.K. (and other nations) got excellent results with that - as long as it was supported. The landlord class does not like it of course - but if the goal is to help the low(er) to middle income people and to create security for working people not much beats public housing. In Vienna they boldly invested into many projects in the 1920s. They were renovated of course meanwhile. Brick and mortar, mixed renters. Not only low income the threshhold is not that high and people can stay if they earn more later. Therefore: No "ghettos". The renters know they are lucky if they get such an appartment, they are affordable, and if you observe the normal rules of conduct and pay the rent no one will kick you out. That means that the renters are protective of "their" house, and they make improvements (flooring, new bathroom) even if they do not get paid for it when they leave. It pays off considering people stay usually longer. They did good back in the day. In the 1920s / 1930s and again in 1950 - 1970. People still profit from what was created then before the "free market" and the profiteers were allowed to take over the "market". Some of those "council houses" were meanwhile privatized - most or all rich nations stopped supporting these successful policies in favor of the "free market" (wealthy and rich people got more possibilities to make unearned income). Which of course meant that politicians or ex-politicians got their cut and the privatizations of council houses include invariably some/a lot of corruption. Less volume of affordable housing (owned by cities, the state or federal government, or public non-profits) meant steeply rising or exploding rent in the cities.
    2
  12. Translation: she wants to fool the base. - At first I like her answer. On second thought: the time to "discuss" climate change is over. A window of 12 years to do something. They won WW2 in less time - much less even if you include the time when the U.S. was neutral and Congress passed laws so they could borrow money to the U.K. (they got food and weapons for it). Never mind the expenditures for U.S. armaments (preparing for the upcoming war).  After WW2 massive infrastructure investments were made - compare the U.S. 1945 and 1957. - or Germany or Japan for that matter. Even the Soviet Union had recovered (they had lost 27 million people). Medicare and Medicaid was cut. The insane increases in military budet must be financed "somehow". (higher taxes for the rich). Higher taxes could also finance publicy funded childcare.  Nina Truner: calls it "Sweet nothings in our ears ... " Worked well for Obama. People were desperate for hope and change, sick of Cheney and Bush. Obama said things that sounded right - so voters thought he meant it (Noam Chomsky saw right through him in 2008 and recommended to stretegically vote for him in swing states - with no illusions. And elsewhere third party. "He is slightly better than the other candidate. In a large and powerful country like the U.S. small differences add up and can mean different outcomes over time." Of course with such a strategy the Greens would at least have 5 - 10 % of the vote, so maybe the Dems could be bothered to try a little harder. Harris did not prosecute the bank (Westbank with Steve Mnuchin) that illegally forclosed 1000 homes. That is how she would act as president. A coward and / or cowering before Big Biz / Big Finance. One of the few that might not play that gig: Sanders, Turner, Gabbard. The two ladies have shown some courage when it was not easy and convenient. I think Sanders would be the safest bet (he means it, he might have the courage and stubbornness. He is old and must not think about the emoluments when he leaves office I also do not think that Sanders would be eager to be let in into the circe of the 1 % - that seems to be a motivation for the Obamas. So there would be no need to make a lot of money after leaving office to keep up with that glamorous crowd.
    2
  13. The Dems could totally destroy the Republican party this Nov. and in 2020 and win a super majority to get their projects through if they would adopt a Bernie style platform - provided they are believeable in it, that it is more than lip service and a public relations "fix". - It would show in their support for candidates who run w/o big donations, they would prepare their exit from taking big donations. They would not try to deflect with right wing !! talking points in town hall meetings when asked by their constituency about Single Payer / Medicare For All. (Many of the Democratic townhalls were mindboggling in spring 2017 - Tulsi Gabbard's event was one of the exceptions).
    2
  14.  @nerag7459  No 81 million voted for Get-Out-Trump-Now / the Democratic presidential candidate whoever it is / or even FOR Biden
    2
  15. And the Sanders campaign made big own goals. I suspect Sanders got scared of his own courage and self-sabotaged when he had it almost in reach. people often do that subconsciously and they can be split on that. part works towards the goal and part undermines them. I remember a 2015 interview with Sandes, then an outsider * He told the journalist: I was never one of the guys that look in the mirror and say: One day I'm gonna be president. You would have to be a little crazy to want that. I think normal people can relate to that. They are locked in, cannot ever leave w/o security. Cannot open the windows, a lot of stress. The hate Obama got. The assassination riks (FDR was shot at, Reagan was shot at, JFK and Lincoln killed, Bobby Kennedy killed). That is why those lusting for power, the opportunists, careerists, grifters, narcissists make it into power and /or feel entitled to run for office. I do not think he can see himself as president. * As for the FIRST Sanders campaign: He and Jeff Weaver planned with 30 millions in small donations - Weaver mentioned that in summer 2018, and how much reality exceeded expectations (over 220 millions). My take on it: they did not expect to come even close ! - So obviously, that was an attempt to drag HRC to the left. Sanders does not need a presidential campaign to get name recognition to win races in Vermont, he has settled that long ago. Nor do I think he used it to funnel budgets to media companies / Industrial Election complex. Or as a book selling promotion. Sanders had made some decent hints in 2012 that it would be good if Obama had a primary challenger .... Probably also had the impression that Obama had fallen short. Sanders did not enter the race and no one else dared either. But I think he thinks a primary can influence a politicians (I do not think so). I am sure party establishement did not like his suggestion for 2011, 2012 - although he kept that very low key. The usual bunch of egomaniacs / psychopaths have no problem as seeing themselves as president. A scheming and competent CIA boss like Bush1. Or: Cheney - he tested the waters, but had no support form donors, he does not have the charisma, so it was GWB as puppet and Cheney as president. A B-movie actor, dog whistling, that tried 3 times - and then he had early onset of Alzheimers. But the people around him and his wife (and he) still felt the need to run. Think an eloquent, well educated mayor of a town in Idiana, not a stellar track record in his city, ran 2 other races in Indiana but did not win. Maybe crunching the numbers on an unethical project for a definitely questionable company (McKinnsey) after he graduated from Harvard, he also did the military tour that is considered to be a good preparation for a future politcal career. Likely that was a CIA gig. For whatever reason Corporate media fawns over that guy, and he also had published a book already. You need to have a healthy ego to run for president (even if it is only to get his name out). How about winning any major race in Indiana ? mayor pete is just the neoliberal, slick type the D elites and their buddies in the media would like to elevate as a new star. I guess some think tanks and party insiders must see him as good presidential material.
    2
  16. another weapon of KSA (much more potent than their army): oil price. And Petro Dollar (owning US debt), these concepts are likely to complex for Trump AND he would not like to tell the voters the truth if he did understand them. The Saudis buy loads of US government bonds and hold a lot of U.S. debt. They trade all their oil in USD. A currency should be the expression of the goods that an economy supplies (for domestic use and for export). The strenght of the U.S. economy expressed by the USD is underwhelming to put it mildly. Huge trade imbalance, much more imports that exports. Well of course - with massive outsourcing since the 1990s. With deindustrialization and "financialization". A side effect / twin of such policies is high government debt (outsourcing and thus reduceing income of citizens and tax revenue from them is part of the picute. Such NEOLIBERAL policies often are implemented in lockstep with allowing tax evasion and tax cuts. In the U.S. endless wars contributed to the high debt. also the GFC fits the picture - allowing Big Finance to run amock and then bailing them out). Any other currency would have depreciated (turning the pendulum, it makes imports more expensive, drives up inflation and forces a government - if democracy works - to reindustrialize and return to some protectionist measures. The kind of mixture of free market with some protectionsim as it used to be until the 1990s - certainly in the 1960s and 70s (in all developed nations, it was the Economic Miracle, the Golden Era, the Building of the American Middle Class). Outsourcing started for real in the 1990s when Clinton signed NAFTA (he could sideline the unions, Bush 1 could not get it passed, negotiations started under Reagan). The ruling class in other nations took the cue and followed. The return to a more sheltered economy must not be done in form of erratic trade wars, but with a LONG-TERM strategy. No steel manufacturer will invest in a new plant because of a trade war that boost domestic steel procuction, they will put the still existing capacities to full use. Take advantage of less competition (from import) to increase prices - but the country does not get that more jobs to compensate for the higher inflation (and if there are exports the highe prices for raw materials might d some damage). Only limited influence on employment if a plant runs under "full steam": economy of scale, human labor is not the main cost factor when producing steel or aluminium.society does get more inflation, but not the investment in new plants which would produce the next decades. A trade war can last 1 week, 3 months, 2 years - they do not tend to last decades (in such scenarios they can "dissolve" into war !) So investments with a time horizon of decades will not be made. And society gets hit with the disadvantages but will not get the longer term benefits of the trade war. They are disruptive and ALWAYS to harm on all sides. One of the reasons: they do not allow for long term planning.
    2
  17. Biden was VP in the admin that could also not be bothered to use ALL the tools that they had. The donors want spineless Democrats and fierce Republicans. The R's used every trick in the book and then some. NOT the Obama admin, they are not paid to do that ! I think a president like FDR did not play patty cakes, and he strongarmed Democrats that stood in the way of progress. Obama HAD SOLD OUT in 2008 already, and the racists attack really provided cover for him, the base rallied behind him, no questions asked. He sold out the voters, but he did it eloquently and with manners (and some wit if he is in relaxed mood). His official speeches were usually not that good, but he and also his wife have charm and great comedic timing. he could have used those talents to energize the base. Instead he deflated the grassroots energy as soon as he was in office. The big donors are getting nervous if the grassroots are organized and enthusiastic. I very much doubt the Biden WANTS a senate majority, what would the Dems do ? they would run out of excuses.
    2
  18. C. Rice: "I was the National Security advisor then ..." you mean when Russia gave the U.S. NAMES and the admin (incl. FBI) still could not be bothered to do some investigations ? That could have prevented the attack ? Larry Wilkerson (then chief of staff to Colin Powell) did some interviews about 9/11 on TheRealNews - his take is that the admin did not let the attack happen for reasons of convenience (to push through war in the Middle East that was planned anyway - Afghanistan was prepared in SUMMER 2001 *). He puts the blame on the incompetence the gap between the agencies that are not well integrated and do not cooperate like they should. The picture of bureaucraZy, waste and inefficiency that he paints is no pretty (and that is the most benign explanation why the attackers were even able to pull that off - with box cutters hijacking an airplane, and passports found when everything else burned to ashes). One needs a sell-out media for such cover-ups. else the admin would get torn to pieces. If you remember there was a shift on carry on, and patriotism - instead of asking how this fuck-up could happen. No military jets to scramble potentially hijacked airplanes - REALLY ?? in the best monitored airspace in the world. And in case you have not noticed: it is not like everyone and their dog was fired. When no one was fired, it was not considered a fuck-up. Or an even larger fuck-up needed covering. Anyway: Condoleezza Rice did not set up that bureaucraZy but Cheney and her were in charge (and some others). I do not hear her take responsibility. * that is why the logistic was ready - which is a massive undertaking for boots on the ground - that needs time. That is why the war against Afghanistan could start only a few weeks after 9/11, it had already been prepared. The pretext was an ultimatum by the U.S.. The Taliban responded to that - they required from the U.S. PROOF that Osama bin Laden was involved in 9/11 - I think there was a chance they would have extradited him, if only to avoid a war (they tolerated ObL more than they supported him). Of course the U.S. WANTED war, so they did not provide proof (he knows if they even had indications about THAT).
    2
  19. She is doing propaganda. The question is why the Aspen Institute allows her on and let's her spew such nonsense. They are a glorified propaganda outlet for the rich and big biz as well. - But then all the major networks in the U.S. and also Corporate Democrats gaslight the voters as badly (or almost as badly). See Feinstein and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz in 2017 town halls when asked about M4A. They are for "fixing" ACA the big donor friendly monster of legislation that has proven to be unsuited to control costs. No wonder, Republicans and Democrats eagerly defanged it. But as you can see from Switzerland the only other wealthy country that also has only private healthcare insurance. It is HARD to regulate, the built in incentives and inevitable ADDITIONAL costs are a cost driver. Even IF politicians and regulators would have good intentions. The Swiss have a VERY strong system of direct democracy complementing their representative democracy. The Swiss get every few months the current ballot measures with the mail (see it is possible to have mail ballots - hear that Republicans). It is easy to start a measure, if something bugs the voters they can certainly do something about it. They do not have to vote for politicians and then hope they will keep their word - they can make them. So there are strong regulations in an important field like health insurance. The Swiss know that they have an excellent system (for all) that is expensive (I do not know about the hospitals if there are many non-profits or if they have for profit hospitals too. In most nations the non-profit hospitals dominate or are the only ones that are viable). They also pay all medical staff well and have higher costs of living to begin with. The Swiss spend 78 % of what the U.S. already ! spends per person (data 2017 Kaiser Foundation). The term is per capita healthcare expenditures of nations That is all that is spent in the country no matter who pays (government, companies, citizens - in the U.S. even charities and churches) divided by all people All people ("heads" = capita) also include those that were healthy that year and caused no spending - and in the U.S. those that get too little help too late because of lack of coverage. It is an AVERAGE. The normal range for a wealthy nation is between 49 - 56 % of U.S. spending per person. The overwhelming majority of rich nations are in that range (Germany is a little more expensive for instance with 56 %) So Switzerland shows the limits of what even good, well intentioned regulation can achieve regarding cost control. Insurance is only a part of admin around medicine. It is not the real deal (the treatments, lab, the doctors and hospitals are the real deal). In a well set up system no one "loves" the administrators (insurers). people often feel gratitude if they have major issues and they or family got help. The attachment is to the doctors, nurses, the hospital in general - not the paper shufflers in the background. People loving their plan is expression of the dysfunction in the U.S. system. In a country where having good and comprehensive coverage for all is NOT a given. You are lucky if you have it - and you are only one letter, job loss or diagnosis away from losing it. For regular people having comprehensive coverage (the admin !) makes or breaks access to good and timely services. In single payer systems of course all have the same comprehensive coverage and for little money (so to make the mandate not a burden for companies and employees). The same for all and it is easy to process for the adminstrators (if you have the insurance card you are good, from then on the doctor decides what treatments are warranted. The non-profit agency creates a framework. A treatment or drug is on the menu and the doctors pick and chose in the individual case). illionaires could pay out of pocket (they of all people always have good insurance ! though), but regular folks need to hedge their risks with good insurance coverage. In Switzerland the insurers MUST have a basic coverage policy (government determines what is "basic" that is sufficient) and it must be offered at the same price to everyone in a certain age group. I guess that means NO healthcare questions and no red tape with doctors checking your application - unless a person wants a better than standard policy. And no discrimination regarding pre existing conditions possible. The insurers cannot fire you and they cannot drive up your costs in an arbitrary manner - not for a person and not for a company. U.S. companies have that struggle now. If they are smaller or medium sized and one staff member OR family member (if the policy covers them) need costly ongoing treatments. The company will get a policy next year with much higher rates for all. The company can either then have higher deductibles or exclude ALL familymembes from coverage. OR they fire the staff member that "creates" the problem and are careful to not hire people over 50 if they can avoid it. I have got that information from Wendell Potter whistleblower on the industry (in an interview with Paul Jay from TheRealNewsNetwork, it was a series).
    2
  20. George Galloway (U.K. politician, long time member of parliament): "As a young man I was impressed with members of councils - that was something. and then I came to know some of them more closely - not quite. But then there were Members of Parliament - that was quite something - and then I came to learn about them. ..... But ministers and members of the cabinet - surely they were special ! - and then I became more familiar with some, and I was underwhelmed to put it mildly. ... But there was the Prime Minister .... Well that turned out disappointing as well."
    2
  21. Per capita expenditures means everything that is spent on healthcare in the country (no matter who pays for it) divided by the number of people. So in the U.S. there are "heads" that do not have coverage and try not to incurr medical costs if they can avoid it. In countries with single payer systems their healthcare providers are either public non-profits or strictly regulated and they "compete" with the private players - like church run hospitals that come from a centuries old charity tradition who co-exist with hospitals run cities. Compete is not the right word - they have each other as benchmark. The industries do not make profits hand over fists, major players are non-profits (insurance agency, hospitals) That part of the economy - usually 8 - 10 % of GDP is mostly off limits for the "investors" and profiteers. (in the U.S. it was 17 % - now likely close to 20 %).
    2
  22. in case you are interested in climate change information, the youtube channel potholer54 refutes the deniers / rightwing blogger scene / paid shills / biased or clueless jounalists all the time. I learned a lot by watching the clips. It is convenient that they are not too long. He is a scientists by training (paleontology) worked for oil exploration (to find the ancient stuff) and then as science journalist. Unfortunely climate change caused by global warming cannot be refuted if you are reality / science based. We could all throw a major party IF it could be legitimately refuted.
    2
  23. 3:80 Joshua Johnson writes for npr - they had a good piece "We tracked a fake news creator in the suburbs, here is what we found" from late 2016. Outstanding piece - and they work with THAT guy ?
    2
  24. Sure - why arrange the society in a way that allows at least a decent (if modest) stress free living for everyone (incl. healthcare and education for everyone). When we can alternatively use our "individual liberty" to negotiate with the likes of Walmart for the privilege to work more than 1 job - so we have nothing of our our precious life time while they are getting insanely rich - so rich that a human being could never use the wealth in a life time. People should be able to afford a car and a house without being forced to spend the major part of their young life (your best years) chasing after the money. The best time for a woman to have a child is around 25 years. She and the father should have TIME for parenting. If you allow young people to pay back their mortgages at a low interest rate over a long time (30 or even 40 years for low-income folks) everyone could afford their own place - at least an appartment. Mortgage instead of rent. And of course they could pass it on to their children so wealth would increase on a broad base. (The real estate "investors" would not like that - please note that the state can create money for such favourable loans which of course would be a massive stimulus package for the economy (if done right, not like the housing bubble - see positivemoney.org or search for the Bank of England document about money creation). In the US after WW2 the government made sure that the (male) workers including the returning soldiers had a job. (GI Bill, infrastructure investments). Good environment for businesses, because of high employment (partially supported by the government investments) wages were good. Taxes were high (top bracket 70 % effectively!!) Good wages, high taxes and government investment kept the money IN CIRCULATION between state / enterprises / and workers = consumers. The enterprises could keep SOME when they were successfull - but they could not keep it all. After WW2 debt was 200% of GDP. Twohundred!! After 10 years debt was substantially lower - thanks to high taxes in combination with a good economy - and no tax evasion possible. Government helped to create a good biz environment, those who could profit from it had to pay back into the system. Workers had disposable income (good wages), one income was enough to support a family, there was a CONSUMER base to absorb the ever more efficient mass production. From 1945 - 1971 wages rose WITH productivity. Then there was higher unemployment (oil shock, automatization replacing) this time government did not intervene, unemployment increased. The system would have needed adjustments to align with the the lower demand in unskilled work (thanks to automatization). Instead they used the century old method of laying off workers which put pressure on the wages of those who still had work. The charts show clearly from then on the wages remained stagnant (if adjusted to inflation) while productivity and profits skyrocketed.
    1
  25. Trump has lazy speech writers. Or someone was really inspired from these lines many, many years ago, subconsciously picked them up and brought them unintentionally into the script. Last scenario: someone wanted to humilate Trump. - So it is not only treat the waitress well so she will not spit in your food, it is also treat your speech writers well.
    1
  26. I am still NOT convinced that Trump is worse than HRC - just different. - at least the smug and complacent people (those who are still doing well) had a rude awakening. That is very valuable - NOW things are being opposed that are going on for the longest time (with help or collusion of the Dems).
    1
  27. you know WHO ist not giving an inch (when it comes to working on what the voters want (things that poll well even with Republicans) ? Who seems not at all concerned about getting a majority in Nov. ? The Dems. The blue wall recently had crumbled (according to a poll). But luckily for them the Trump admin made such a clusterfuck out of the detention of children ... so they happily exploit that for now (and it does not cost the donors).
    1
  28. +Liberal Metaphorically the U.S. people were cheated by the DNC out of the choice for nice and well working Volvo. Instead they were presented with a Cadillac that looks not too bad on the surface, but is a mess if you open the hood. The choice for Volvo was not possible in 2016 and enough people saw the crumbling Cadillac for what it was. Unfit even for the basic purpose let alone for moving on. They are still hell bent on NOT OFFERING the Volvo and still try to pass off the shitty Cadillac as a "good" or "good enough". btw: I am still not convinced that Trump is worse than Clinton would have been (she would be another kind of desaster, some of Trump's shitty actions get at least coverage. Although the media does yellow press and avoids the relevant issues like the plague). You should start paying attention what the Democratic party DOES, not what they say when the weather is fair. No one expects better from the Republicans: the scary thing is that the Dems would rather risk a loss in the midterms than start serving the people. If they win it will be because of the foolishness of Trump - not the strenght of what THEY OFFER.
    1
  29. What REASON (objections to POLICIES as opposed to pure fandom) would the HRC fans have had to abstain from voting ? ( I assume /hope they would not have voted FOR Trump). At least no one would have assumed that Sanders was certain to win. And that would have stimulated turnout - which would have been good for the OTHER ballots as well. The self congratulating HRC campaign and media should have come up with REALISTIC polling. Sure it would have bruised the ego of HRC to tell voters that it is all but certain that she will win. people that were potential voters for her were in general so unenthusiastic about her, that nothing like an emergency warning would have activated them.
    1
  30. you hav been paying attention ? Like: that treating each and every election in a very narrrow frame (THIS election we cannot afford to lose no matter how much of a sell-out our candidate is) has made things worse and worse. Because the Dems can sell out voters with impunity. See how bad the other guy/gal is was the motto of 2016, Republicans and Independents that did not like Trump were motivated by NOT getting HRC. Btw: a lot of people that voted for Obama twice did not vote for HRC. That is how unfit she was as a candidate. There is an unfair part of hating on professional woman in that age group - but that would have not mattered considering how many advantages she had. The bigots would not have voted for her even w/o Clinton giving them so much ammunition. But their votes were not necessary for her to win. A no-nonsense caring woman ? The working class - or minorities - would be fine with that, she must not "charm" them, as long as they can be sure she is on their side. Of course Clinton was NOT on their side, the country still wants HOPE and CHANGE - and they for sure are not getting it from the Corporate Dems.
    1
  31. "Voting for the lesser evil every time gave us everything we were afraid of." Jill Stein. If you are terrified of losing ANY battles - you lose the chances to win the war. - the Dems demand reason and compromise from the voters - something they would NEVER give. They do not give an inch. Big Donor interests above all. The voters have to accept that - or else they get worse (Trump, Ted Cruz....) And that is why they hate on third party voters much more than on the hundred of thousands of their own base that cross the lines (like in 2000 in Florida, or in 2016 in the Rust Belt). The numbers could tell them otherwise, but this isn't about FACTS of the election. This is about dealing with a challenge to their cozy and corrupt scheme. The third party voters challenge the paradigm with which BOTH parties blackmail the voters. you MUST vote for us - else ... I assume most third party voters or non-voters would gladly fall in line IF there was ANY hope that the Dems would work FOR the population. ....At least a little bit ? - Not going to happen. I have been watching the Dems closely (now and their past). Not what they say. What the DO.
    1
  32. I watched the Dems - their BEHAVIOR over time (Carter was the last president with convictions !) How they roll over before even being pushed. (If you have no convictions and it is essentially all about a career now and cushy jobs later - WHY fight ? And the people who finance them expect obedience). The Republicans DO have convictions (for the wrong causes and for the wrong reasons). Which is why they push and fight, and only rarely and half heartedly the Dems can be bothered to even try and fight back. Obama was willing to use SS as bargaining chip. In that case enough Democratic representatives feared the voters more. but it is not like HE would have fought tooth and nail for the people. I recommend to have a look at the presidency of FDR. (It seems there was a coup planned in 1934 !! by rich industrialists - Republicans - they just asked the wrong general to head it, Gen. Smedley Butler. Then the Republicans were eager to promote fascism. Would explain why FDR played nice with the Dixiecrats.he needed a broad base and could not afford to challenge deep rooted prejudices as to not lose the broad support in the population.
    1
  33. Trump is the human molotov cocktail that the voters want to throw into the window of the establishment. - Michael Moore - The people shown in this video were not Clinton voting material anyway. MM said that line shortly before the election. Pleading with Rust Belt voters to vote for HRC nontheless (despite her NOT representing these people and NOT working for THEM.) Michael Moore sensed the mood and predicted the win of Trump. The bigots and racists breathed a sigh of relief - finally, FINALLY it was O.K. again to be openly racist. That is why they defend Trump no matter what. They never had principles, they were only a pretext to look down on other people and keep others OUT. But there were enough people that are NOT like that and still voted for Trump (or did not vote at all). And I assume many would have enthusiastically supported Sanders. But if the elites are hell bent on ignoring the voters, starting some fire might get their attention. In case you haven't noticed: the Dems are HELL BENT on NOT LEARNING from 2016. They hope they can avoid having to change.
    1
  34. Here is a crazy idea: How about DEMOCRACY ? Government of by and for the people ? - They have elections in dictatorships too. How about having not only elections but a choice - and a good one at that ? How about NOT accepting the idea that essentially BOTH parties have no intention whatsoever to work for the people whose vote they need to come into positions of power ?
    1
  35. So what ? There is no COMPETITION in the market place of U.S. politics. And no choice (100 kinds of yoghurt but only 2 parties since the Republic was founded). How many of those 3 million held their noses ? - Imagine there would be a preferential voter system: First vote could be for an "outsider" let's say Sanders, but if he does not get the necessary majority in the state, then the second option is for instance Clinton so as to not involuntarily help the Republican. I am not so sure Clinton - or Trump - would have done so well with that system. And needless to say the Dems crushed attempts to install such systems when the Greens suggested it in a state. Of course they do not want it. The voters would have a CHOICE then. The lesser of two evils blackmail would be rendered ineffective. I think "she won the popular vote" is an euphemism. Popular ? - She got more votes, Yes (willing or by "blackmail"). The popularity advantage stems from California and New York, so she was not able to convince the country at large. Clinton KNEW how the system worked, and it should have been a piece of cake to win over enough of the Obama voters * in the states she needed. She did not even need Florida.
    1
  36. Clinton never was a candidate FOR the people. - She and Bill raised at least (!) 3 billion in donations in the time they were in politics - the interests of the rich people and the regular people seldom align. - Now, luckily the rich can take care of themselves, they do not need help - so good governance would concentrate on the things that help the common people and level the playing field for small(er) companies. I read the 3 bn during the 2016 campaign so the number is likely even higher. 60 % of the economy is already dominated by multinationals. Obama made veiled threats when the EU went after the tax evasion practices of Apple. - Well he should have banded together with them a go after them. And used the tax revenue for the people that are supposed to vote for him. Multinationals do not have a "home country", know no patriotism, and they can move the headquarters, the plants and the CEOs within a month or two. They monopolize large parts of the economy, take a free ride on the infrastructure, education system etc, etc. - their customers and their employees and maybe smaller suppliers pay taxes. - but they don't. But they wisely pay political bribes aka campaign donations and provide the jobs for ex-politicians. Which provides an excellent R.O.I.
    1
  37. Anyway: the president does not have the most power domestically - Congress does. - the right kind of president can do good (Sanders would likely have used the platform to strongarm them, and beat the drum - like FDR did). A president and a supportive Congress - then they could get shit done. Obama had that in 2009 and 2010, the Dems did good in the midterms 2006 - and that was BEFORE the financial crisis. Despite the stonewalling of the GOP - they had a filibuster proof majority over 60 days in spring 2010 - then they passed ACA despite the tantrums of the GOP. They could as well have had a good bill ready and use the opportunity to pass it (single payer - or a system leading to that with a transition phase). Campaigning all over the country what they would do FOR the citizens (with concrete proposals) - if only the voters would give them a landslide win in Nov. 2010. The voters are not too stupid to vote in the midterms (see 2006 when people had it with Bush and Cheney). They go vote when they see a reason for it. Mmany know or they intuitively sense that it does not CHANGE anything. see 2010 or 2014. California did have a D supermajority, needless to say they were still protecting the Big Donors. They have the majority in New York and the Govenor colludes with the Republicans. He was recently endorsed by Clinton - of course ! he stands for the interests of Big Money. Cynthia Nixon must not complain - a Hillary endorsement is more like the kiss of death. Cuomo just knew he had better chances to win if he runs under a D-ticket. The govenor allocates the funds (or not) for public transportation and schools. So of course that was neglected under the Republican in sheeps clothing. I hope Cynthia Nixon beats him in the primaries. - then she is going to be the next Governor.
    1
  38. Rand Paul pretending that the bill is not liberterian enough - so he can AVOID voting for a bill that will severly hurt his constituency. (And does not have to admit it is crap alltogether).
    1
  39. Example: high risk pools in the past: 34 states had them, premiums were very high, so high that only 200,000 people could afford them. The insurance companies received 2,5 bn USD as subsidies - that is 12,500 USD for every insured person on top of their prohibitively high premiums - not sure if that was meant per year or for the whole time those pools existed. So that turned out to be a "solution "for the wealthier segment of the people with a higher risk. The insurers had a cherry picked pool of people where a lot of risks/costs were excluded. In a non-profit system the whole population of the country is one risk pool, the surplus that comes from the group w/o pre-existing conditins, or the young is used to cover the people who are likely to cause higher costs. In the U.S. the surplus of the PURGED pool were the profits of the insurance companies. And although the premiums of the cherry picked pools were not as high as now - even then the US citizens w/o pre-existing conditions paid too much compared with other nations. So that former cost-advantage (that was reached at the back of the people who needed insurance the most ) was not really positive. Given that so many costs were exluded it should have been lower than in other nations. The healthcare expenditures in the US in 2014 were at least ! 60 % - 70 higher than in most wealthy European nations. The US well over 9,000 USD, most rich European countries and Canada 5 - 5,500 USD, UK only 3,900 (but the public NHS is clearly underfunded). Source World Bank
    1
  40. + Dave O - YOU may be worried - the DEMS seem oddly complacant of handing the Republicans the midterm elections. To many of us the fact that the Dems are beyond reform was clear one year agon, they have done eveything since then to confrim that suspicion. the Dems CONTINUE to IGNORE ALL wishes of their base (or the population) that could reduce the profits of the Big Donors. There are polls about Medicare for All - it is even popular among Republicans. - Sanders the most popular politician Medicare for All (if the voters believe that the candidates REALLY stand behind it) would be a single issue to win elections in a landslide. So..... what do the Dems do ? - exactely ! ignore Sanders as much as they can. Some co-sponsored the Bill for Medicare for ALL - I have no doubt some (?many) would dodge if there was any danger that it could really be passed. Let that sink in: they participate in elections and then they take the salary and benefits of an elected representative. Do they swear an oath too ? Anyway: then they turn around and act as if it is completely normal to sell out their constituents. They supported the Republicans in votes when they should not have (CIA director !! only one example) Gina Haspel would not be CIA director, even some Republicans had the decency to vote against her. That also sends a message to the GOP who oppose candidates on principle even though they have nothing going against them (remember Elizabeth Warren or the - rather conservative - Supreme Court Justice that Obama wanted ? Obama courted them and they STILL stonewalled - just because. But Dems support a CIA director who can now make the record of her participation in torture vanish. It is not a small thing when torture is rewarded with such position later.
    1
  41. + Espurr in the beginning the Sanders campaign estimated to get 30 million USD - they got over 230 million. Sure: N.Y. was later but they had some catching up to do also with organizing. Then there was the voter roll purge. California was called the day before !! (AP). There was one million uncounted ballots when they called the California primary, took 1 month to get the results. It looked shdy. I think he was in both states closer ! to Clinton - And they likely massaged the numbers or influenced the outcomes (giving out provisional ballots instead of crossover ballots was one trick) Clinton, she needed to pull off a "convincing" victory, only winning narrowly would have been devastating
    1
  42. The sad thing is - the Corporate Dems can easily live with the results - do not be deceived by the "Trump is terrible" howls. - the role of the Dems assigned to them by the Big Donors is to keep Progressives out, to win primaries - not necessarily the General elections.
    1
  43. Having eliminated the progressive candidate and then losing to a Republican is of great value - to the Big Donors. They either get a spineless Democrat or a fierce Republican. Win/Win Trump is a little uncough - but the donors can live with that, too.
    1
  44. I just had a realization - the 1 billion USD that Clinton got from her donors was not wasted - not at all. - One has only to consider the tax cuts that Trump got through.
    1
  45. Give them enough rope to hang themselves.
    1
  46. 1/3 FDR INTRODUCED a MINIMUM WAGE and the government employment programs meant that there was less pressure on wages (lower unemployment). The Keynsian spending program INCREASED with the war production. The U.S. already supplied weapons (and I think also food) to Europe and the Soviet Union before they entered into WW2. So that meant exporting staret all over - exports had been reduced after 1929 - during the crisis all nations started closing their borders to imports meaning that the crisis became more intense worldwide). The war meant an even more intense KEYNSIAN DEBT-financed SPENDING SPREE - and then the U.S. economy really took off. Not sure about the wages during the war - since a lot of men become soldiers, workers were harder to find - which means usually rising wages. Before the war ended the coporate world and the government found an agreement to shift the war to a consumer driven economy. (The corporate world had seen how well the INCREASED government spending had worked (as compared to the programs after 1933, not sure if FDR got all the programs through that he wanted). So the business world wanted more of the same. So there came the post WW2 debt-financed spending spree. No wonder the U.S. had the highest fenderal debt ever in 1947 (not now at least not if you look at federal debt, the absolute number is the highest now of course with + 19 trillion, that is meaningless however, it is the debt vs. GDP ratio that counts). The graph looks like the outline of a bowl - and the highest point is on the left in 1947 and the 2nd slighly lower left spike is now. So high debt has of course to be taken care off - but it is not as catastrophic as the "fiscal conservatives" would have you believe.
    1
  47. a comprehensive database incl. health and lifestyle and financial information. One word: Small non-intrusive government
    1
  48. Wages not going up with productivity because of "socialism and burdens" ???? Big biz are making HUGE profits, which they do NOT reinvest for more production because stagnant wages in the US mean stagnant domestic consumption - so it does not make sense to offer more products. BTW: Profits means AFTER all costs (including the supposed costs of the alleged burdens of "corruption and socialism"). These corporations are good in avoiding to pay sufficiently high wages to the productions workers - stagnant industry wages in the home country ( even if they are above the minimum wage), outsourcing to sweat labour shops in Third World countries etc. Big biz is sitting on so much cash from their (untaxed) profits that they are buying state loans at NEGATIVE interest rates (state loans of safe countries like Germany Switzerland, even the US is considered "safe"). They do not know what else to do with the money and they assume a state loan might be one of the safest investments (even if they lose a few % due to negative interest rate. Please note that they do not park the money on the bank accounts! Maybe they do not consider them to be safe ? The other thing they do - they buy back their own shares driving up the prices of their company stocks (always nice for management with stock options). CEO's of Multinational or Big Corporations in the 50s earned about 30 times more than the average worker in their factory, now they "earn" 300 times more. Which is interesting if you look at the banking sector or VW who famously paid a record salary to their ex CEO. Well the financial wizards brought us the financial crisis in 2008 and the ex VW boss let Dieselgate happen - these guys know how to walk on water, so they "deserve" the higher pay compared to their counterparts in the 1950s. There is a contradiction with the sweatshop production however. The women sewing in Honduras or China ARE HIGHLY productive. How come they use their individual liberty to negotiate a labour contract that ressembles slave labour and that gives them a starvation wage. The history of sweatshop production PROVES clearly: Companies pay as little and invest as little in savety and protection (workers and environment) as they can get away with. The wages that are being paid have NOTHING to do with productivity or what the enterprise could easily afford to pay to the workers. It has everthing to do with negotiating power, with political power. The ruling class in the US and elsewhere used the police, the justice system and the military to suppress the union movement. "Union" comes from United because in the old days these exploited folks recognozied that they had much more negotiating power as collective. China is a state capitalistic dictatorship (despite the communist label) Honduras is a country that recently got regime changed (thanks CIA) so that helps to keep wages down. It also helps if union members will risk to go to prison/labour camps (China) or to be assassinated (Honduras). All hail the free markets !
    1
  49. I thought it was part of the job description to come up quickly with a bullshit answer. - In a way it is almost endearing that he has such a hard time to come up quickly with a lie/deflection.
    1
  50. When you increase the miniumum wage the profit of big biz will be less, prices might slightly increase. Every job that CAN be outsourced to China, Mexico, ... IS ALREADY outsourced. Your burger will cost maybe 10 ct more. Will that significantly reduce sales ? The people with the higher minimum wage will go and spend in in the economy. Did you know that Jamie Dimon acts as if he would support a higher minimum wage now. Looks like J.P Morgan pays only 10 bucks/hour to many clerks. He very boldly advocates for a raise to USD 12,-- over 2 or 3 years. Well with the call for 15,-- he might lose his qualified employees to the Fast Food industry. (Yes THAT Jamie Dimon, the guy who has an insanely high salary and who was responsible for a speculative loss of 6 billion USD - which he initially tried to hide from the investors - without being prosecuted of course. Having 100 or 200 bucks more a month does not mean much if you already have a nice income. It can make a lot of difference for poor people. There are countries like Switzerland, Sweden or Denmark who have either a high minimum wage or are traditionally strong in collective bargaining. So the regular folks are doing well, they may not have as many rich people per capita. All these countries have good public services, the costs of living are high (which you will notice as a tourist). This is not relevant to the citizens because they get good wages. BTW McDonalds in Denmark pays higher wages than in the US, they also have to pay more for health insurance, maternity leave, holidays etc. - still the Burgers cost a little less than in the States. Dining out in restaurants may be more expensive though. So here you have your case study. Or look at Australia.
    1