Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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