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

  1. It is not my experience that big biz wants the minimum wage any more than smaller businesses. Where I live (Austria, Germany) we may have less chains (fast food) and more smaller restaurants. They are doing OK with the minimum wage here (we did not have one for long time but 80 - 85 % of the wages are covered by collective bargaining so that kept wages liveable). I know the situation is the same in Denmark and Sweden. Switzerland pays very good wages even for unskilled labour (even when considering the higher living costs there . They are very selective with immigration however so they do not expose their workforce (the unskilled workforce, but also nurses etc. to too much competition). We have here the system of apprenticeship. (Full employment, young person - 15 years, or occasionally older 16 - or 17 when they do not finish high school, nurses are on principly only accepted at the age of 16 - they are doing night shifts alone in the 3rd year of training so they should be adults then). It is like an internship. There are a lot of regulations to make sure the youngsters are acutally trained (you cannot use them to walk your dog, wash your car or for cleaning services - if you want that get an employee with minimum wage). Businesses are allowed  to pay them less (pay is regulated), the contracts are for 3 years or longer, the apprentice cannot be fired after the trial phase (except for severe misbehaviour). They go to school one day a week (the school supports the training, accouning etc.), sometimes they get help with learning (voluntarily from the company), and they have 6 weeks instead of 5 weeks paid vacation. (They are young after all ;) The saying is "They cost you in the first year, you are getting even with their productivity the next year, and in the 3rd year they bring more than they cost".  Let me add that with healthcare and taxes these (hormonal and not always concentrated) youngsters even in the first year cost more than USD 5,-- (or Euro 5,-- per hour). They are one of the reasons for the excellent reputation when it comes to machine building and traditional technology here (we have apprenticeship also for office work, accounting, nurses, sales clerks, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, constructions workers, gardeners, ....). Every blue and many white collar profession. Since we have this system with paid apprenticeship since WW2 (before the apprentices did NOT get paid) I would argue that your argument does not hold. If you can make it work with hormonal 15 year olds you can certainly pay an adult for an unskilled work more. Unskilled means that they can fullfill the task easy and without much preparation and that the taskitself  does not differ that much from enterprise to enterprise. Between 1945 and 1971 productivity and wages rose pretty much the same (around 95 %, wages were behind but only about 5 %. From then on wages had almost NO increase while productivity till 2013 or 2014 rose  around 90 % (this are the numbers for USA). From my experience when training people on the job: You do not hire someone with a wide gap between the necessities of the job and what the person is able to deliver within short time. Not an under- or an over- performer. If they cannot cope they will drive the trainer (and the collegues and the customers ) crazy and the worker is not going to be happy either. After all you hired them to get work done and not for a social experiment. (With exception of apprenticeship, but that model is NOT a fit for every company. One cannot use them for essential tasks or for tasks with high responsibility. Apprenticeship means that you built your own skilled workforce - they are an addition to the team, you cannot build your business on apprenticeship (not possible and would not be allowed). It takes a village to raise a kid and a team of lets say MINIMUM 5 - 10 people to train one apprentice. Economic solutions - like the minimum wage, trade agreements, tariffs, the currency, tax policy - are always meant to work for hundred thousands or millions of people. The state  has an interest to keep folks out of poverty (to keep the economy afloat and to keep society safe and crime low). Your suggestion with 5 USD  might work in a very few individual cases but not in the grand scheme of things.   If we talk about UNSKILLED labour. If the person has normal intelligence and normal motivation they should be able to do the job well and you can test them in the trial phase. They should be pretty productive after the trial phase. If NOT it is not either not UNSKILLED labour (so pre-training is needed  and minimum wage is not even a topic). Or the person is not capable at all to fullfill the position and likely will not be in the future. (There are provisions for special needs people, handicapped or blind, but these are a minority - they work in special institutions or the company gets a subsidy to compensate for loss of productivity - if they can argue ther is a loss). If the price level / price calculation in the country/region includes 15 USD or 12 USD or whatever per hour than THAT is the wage for the "normal" performance for an unskilled person. So you make your calculation, if your product / service requires a lot of human labour prices will go up a little (it is not that dramatic - as examples have shown). On the other hand people will use more of your services because there is more money to spend. So a waitress gets a higher wage, but business might be better (so there are less "slow" times. In the end she might be more productive because her time is better used. Money (e.g. in form of wages that "must" be paid) is always treated like a "product" or  a "possession" something "solid", one person HAS it and would rather keep it. Employers hold on to it -  paying more feels like a "loss" to them (even if they do not want to exploit their employees). No - Money is a social agreement and a facilitator. the more it travels around (like it did after WW2) the more good it can make happen. It is NOT the corporations who create the jobs - in the end the consumers create and secure jobs. That's the catch with outsourced cheap labour, we miss out on the Chinese or Mexicans as customers - the volume of products did not shrink but disposable income is less - part of the wages was shifted to the profit portion of the corporations. The numbers and graphs show it clearly (in all First world countries). Wages have not risen (adjusted to inflation) profits for big corporations (which dominate about 60 % of the economy) have dramatically risen since the 1970s. Since the high wages even for unskilled workers worked fine in the 30 years after WW2 (and the minimum wage that was introduced in the middle of the recession in the US - New Deal ) we know that this "system" works (it does of course NOT work when the government helps the businesses to evade taxes and to outsource production). If we had had an FDR and a New Deal we would not have had an Adolf Hitler. From what I heard the Black Friday of 2015 and Christmas sales 2015 were not satisfying - of course not because of stagnant wages people have not enough disposable income.
    1
  2. And I hope all the time that he will stop supporting the Dems and start his own party.
    1
  3. The man that voted for Trump because he would do something for addicted people (rehab) took a bet - and HRC would not have done anything for the issue that is so important to him (due to the death of his son) either. - I see potential Sanders (or Berniecrat) voting material here.
    1
  4. + We Deserve Better - well said - and the "conduct" of th Dems in the last year proves your point further - these shills would actually rather lose the midterms 2018 too . Everything - EVEYTHING but serving the voters. As long as they can keep the Big Donation game going ! And that means keep the progressives down and not to touch progressive economic policies with a 10 foot pole. Gay marriage - fine. Does not cost the donors profits so the plebs can have that. Minimum wage, or Medicare for all, or make Marijuana legal ? - nope. Ain't gonna happen - if they can help to prevent it.
    1
  5. The donors want strong Republicans and weak Democrats. The Democrats are paid to lose. (Sometimes they "may" win, but it is their MOSTIMPORTANT task to coral in the progressives even if that means losing elections. Those losing their seats will be taken care of by the donors (cushy jobs for ex-politcians - well those who were well behaved corporate shills and made nice with the influental people in the party). And if  the party manages to reign in all of them the pleased donors will continue to also finance the Democratic Party. (You will notice that the both parties have the same donors, certainly the same branches)
    1
  6. Watching this the beginning - and especially reading the comments. I guess a lot of Correct the Record agents were commenting as well. Conclusions: A) not even holding your nose and voting HRC with gritted teeth worked, she acutally managed to lose to Trump B) the Democratic Party (those who call the shots) are NOT AT ALL willing to change, to give up the legal bribes, to consider things that are normal Social Democratic policies in the rest of the world, never mind keeping peace - and that is AFTER a CATASTROPHIC if narrow loss. - So will just have to avoid THIS time THIS terrible GOP candidate does not really work, you get Republicans anyway - Blue ones, admitted they are not as bad as the original brand but bad enough. The lesser of two evils still gives you evil C) the presidency is not everything - and having Obama in the White House covered up for losing on ALL levels of government - one of the commenters said the GOP plans for 20 years, the Dems always look out for the very next election.
    1
  7. The intellectual "level" of the U.S. healthcare discussion is mind boggling. How can someone like Lahren (access to the Internet, likely college "educated", able to read) REMAIN IGNORANT about healthcare in Germany, Austria, France, the Nordic States, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, .... - Even with all the bias of Homo Sapiens it seems to me these people must invest a lot of intellectual capacities into NOT KNOWING.
    1
  8. 1:55 ... a lot of democratic senators have in another act of learned helplessness and relentless commitment to losing and not pushing a larger progressive agenda .....
    1
  9. Kids excluded from carnival. The school is a SOCIAL BODY. One cannot treat human only as learners, workers - humans are always deeply social beings. Being excluded from the group of your peers (even for a few hours when it is done so openly) or even being shunned is very hurtful to homo sapiens - as it should be. The small groups of hunters and gatherers depended on each other for survival, they lived in close proximity, reacting to our peers and the desire to be IN the group made humans behave. The moment the school organizes the event for almost everybody they dictate (more or less) that this is the GROUP ACTIVITY and the desirable thing. (If a child learns that other kids had such an event in their school, there might be envy - but not the humiliating and the shame or the frustration that was carelessly inflicted here). Moreover it seems the principal was very eager to make sure that these children would not get into the event. Makes one wonder why this female wants to work in education to begin with. And how her low EQ (almost cruelty) plays out in other professional situations. There is a reason why the story was leaked, and why she had to remind the teachers about the list of the children that would be excluded. Most likely some of the teacher had voiced worries about it. Using their authority as school plus the facilities of the school (area around, toilets) and the access to the "consumers" = the children they a) set up this event b) did not let everybody take part (it sounds like some parents might have missed out on the payment). Either way: you bet that created a lasting negative memory for many of these children. There is no need to create frustrating or hurtful situations for children - they come all by themselves. And there is a difference if life is hard (your pet dies, a family member gets sick) or if you experience totally avoidable exclusion from you social group resp. a group activity. The take a picture day etc. are already problematic, field trips and longer excursions can get costly (think times 3 or 4 children). They could have had a craft day to make things for the carnival (like costumes) and then have the event - and it can be very low key. Kids do not need stuffed toys to have fun. Give them a few cartons and let them get creative. They do not need an DJ either. Plenty of games to play to keep them entertained or they present their costumes. Then the merit of each child (being good in painting or having good ideas or being diligent with the crafting) counts - not what the parents can afford or pay attention to.
    1
  10. I didn't - not located in the U.S.
    1
  11. As for the government part - see my comment above. (Sort after time of entry)
    1
  12. Someone give them some save spaces .....
    1
  13. What will we do w/o him - and what will SNL do ? Spicer will sigh a breath of relief that he found a way out.
    1
  14. For those who nurture ressentment because they have been left behind. In such case you can a) raise your fist against those on the top or b) kick sideways or even better those beneath you (a "minority" the "other"). Some people tend to be very deferential to status and "authority". So they will not get angry at the rich and powerful (not even thinking). They will rather have the criminals in suits and a tie and get enraged about the "immigrants". Of course if the economy would work well and for ALL citizens than the "illegals" would not be much of a problem (actually they would be needed). But let's not talk about the elites - let's rather blame the people w/o money and power.
    1
  15.  @emilyhofland8219  John McCain was a war monger. See the photos of him with the "rebels of Syria". Men that had ties to Al Qaida and even Isis. The U.S., Saudia Arabia etc. promote the extremist to undermine Assad, and did not care about the civilians or soldiers. McCain did a tour to find these people and encourage them. Likely also talk money. The ambassador that was killed in Benghazi ? He too toured Syria for a year. As soon as they had started the war against Libya (under alie the mass rapings of the army with help of Viagra could not be proven ... but WMD's were not plausible either so they ran with that as pretext) and had helped the rebels (other Islamists) to take down the government they started to export weapons from Libya (the army) to Syria to put gasoline on the fire.
    1
  16. Are you joking ? Mainstream media (well their management and their owners) are bribed with ads to shut up. And any "journalis" wanting to keep his or her job better shut up, too.
    1
  17. Sanders is the first that did so well in the first 3 primary states and then did not get the nomination of the party. Biden is the first to have run such an exceptionally poor campaign (in the early stage) and still got the nomination. (he won by default and name recognition, they did not even have a groundgame in many Southern states, but he won them. Biden was of course helped by the fact that from spring on he was spared having to cope with a rigorous campaign schedule because in person campaign events were stopped.
    1
  18. Out of the womb of her mother ... yes ... that was her accomplishment.
    1
  19.  @willwright2099  Yes, and then Obama did nothing against the police shootings. The Black community suffered a lot during the Great Financial Crisis (they lost more wealth than any other group and it is not like they started from a high level), and Obama made sure the Donors and banksters were rescued. but he looked into the camera and appealed to being soulful. I would suggest people restrict being soulful to private circles and go for well fleshed out concrete policies. Else you get Bill Clinton appealing to the Black voters - and then throwing them under the bus (fishing for the Reagan Democrats).
    1
  20.  @willwright2099  Good to hear that perspective reg. Clinton in the 90s. However: they also used dogwhistle policies and welfare cuts. Clinton started to deindustrialize the U.S. (NAFTA, China tariffs). So it was a short period in political terms, the rhetoric of the welfare queen was spread and had effects way beyond the 1990s. Bill Clinton used weed - and poor people got locked up for it and he was cool with that (so was Obama). Bill Clinton did a lot for financial deregulation. So Bush / Cheney could just let the banks run amock.
    1
  21. + Dude - no, he got 977,000 vs. 512,000 votes for Nixon - but 1 % of the vote was 14,900 votes approx. * - and if it comes to a narrow majority turnout for her - which would have been a sensation - it certainly would have helped to deny approx. 15,000 people more (out of the 200,000 purged) to vote for her. And a purge of 200,000 people when done strategically can achieve that. If he wins by a wide margin fine, if she wins in a landslide it gets harder to manipulate. But in many, many cases 1 - 3 % will win or lose the race. The total number of votes are not that large in primaries (the last primary was much weaker the two stronges candidates had 512,000 togehter) - so it is easier to rig that. * 1,49 million votes for the 2 togehter - I dismissed other candidates and invalid votes - just to give you an idea It was a safety measure. Polls had deceived incumbents recently (see Ocasio-Cortez or Gillum in Florida). In the end the purge in 2016 was not necessary for Clinton to beat Sanders in the primaries in N.Y. City - but they did it - just in case. Cuomo threw 25 millions into the race - primaries only. A letter saying recently that she is anti-semitic and supports BDS. A little here, a little there. Many races are decided with a margin of 1 - 3 %.
    1
  22. They do report on candidates that they fit the neoliberal check boxes but do not poll well - so even if they do not think Sanders would win, his campaign is different enough that it would warrant being spoken about. And they also have a Yang blackout - considering how little media attention he gets he is doing really well and that should be newsworthy in itself. They are very disciplined ! - not like the Trump reporting in overdrive that they did in 2015 / 2016. They ALL rarely even mention Sanders (or Yang - MSNBC even removed his picture from the collage of candidates once). PBS does the same. Interview with strong neoliberal leaning and framing (how are you ever going to pay for it). Did an update about candidates, mentioned a few that poll really poorly not a PEEP about Sanders, but of course Warren and more so Biden. Hint: Koch are a major donor to the network. Noam Chomsky calls them Petroleum Broadcast Station. It is no coincidence if he is leading a poll in New Hampshire and they find it newsworthy to report on THAT specific poll - but as reader you have to get to the end of the article to find out that Sanders leads. And the viewers have no chance to find it out. That can happen here and there - but not so consistently. It is not even negative coverage (if they mention him it is in passing and negatively or slightly dismissive - because in the age of the internet that would be contradicted and DRAW attention. I hope they overwhelm the caucus in Iowa and win in a landslide. They have a strong groundgame, the campaign does regular updates (in general - the last was in and about Iowa). It is common that the major donors get updates about the campaign strategy, goals and progress. Well, the Sanders campaign adresses its donors too - the common people - and it is not done behind closed doors. It is on the Bernie Sanders youtube channel.
    1
  23. so the Sanders campaign thought the PETTY attack on Sanders (he is a millionaire so when he is for low-income people) was a good opportunity of show of strenght - and used it to go against Center for American Progress (Plutocrats). - well glad to hear they strategically take on the gloves !
    1
  24. +tesladrive1 There is an unfortunate trend in times of economic troubles that rightwing populists, or even fascists dictators prevail. - The U.S. was CHEATED out of a decent, caring, intelligent LEFT POPULIST by the DNC - so they got the right wing "populist". Don't get me even started on Hillary Clinton, she for sure is more intelligent and has better manners than Trump. In the big picture (including the horrors the U.S. can unleash by war and regime change) I am not even sure NOW that Trump is worse than her. Lawrence Wilkerson (highly recommended btw for Foreign Policy) asked President Obama why he allowed the Saudis to start a war against Yemen (a very poor backwards country). ( Do you KNOW WHAT happens to the poor civilians and children THERE ? Obama, HRC, Trump - neither of them would/will stop the carnage ) Obama's answer to Wilkerson: The Saudi leaders were already upset about the Iran deal (!) they would potentially have turned their back on the West (or the U.S.) Wilkerson (during the speech where he narrated that): I would let the bastards go. If the Saudis do not want to sell their oil on the short time - Venezuela has plenty, so does Mexico and Brazil. - or Iran. They could well do with slightly higher oil revenue (that would help to develop those countries so that less migrants are coming). Would give a nudge towards renewables (tesla). Iran at least has a chance to become a democracy or at least a more secular country AGAIN (see U.S. backed coup of their democracy in 1953 - "shining light") - give them 15 years w/o war and see what happens. While I am at it at: in the 1950s until the 1980s the U.S. WRECKED HAVOC - and openly not covertly like now - in Latin America. The countries south to the U.S. could be almost like Canada had it not been for 100 years of U.S. intervention. The U.S. would not have more migration problems with them than with Canada. Back to Iran: young, very open curious, very hospitable population, well educated people. Stable society, developed infrastructure and not THAT ideological about religion. They are not Arabs, they are an old culture, they are Shia Muslim and not that into the caliphate, the jihad and whatnot. They do HAVE ELECTIONS, but the extreme leadership they have right now decides who gets on the ballot (pretty much like in the U.S.). From that choice the citizens usually go for the most MODERATE candidate.
    1
  25. What I say about HRC is TRUE for almost all important people in the Democratic party. - Yes: she would not go after the dreamers and the handling of a wave of migrants would be slightly less despicable. (However: see her comments on turning away underage migrants in 2014, she never let's an opportunity pass to look hawkish). The Clinton machine in the party is still in action, but even without it: most would still first and foremost SERVE BIG BIZ. They are hellbent to keep receiving the Big Donations and the cushy jobs for ex-politicians. They do not even serve their OWN cititzens - let alone desperate foreigners. Truth is the U.S. CANNOT take in as many migrants from Latin America as would - currently - like to come. And HRC would never spend political capital "to do the right thing". Like stopping the "war on drugs", the regime changes, stopping Western multinationals from exploiting those countries and arranging for regime changes if they oppose those multinationals for the sake of their citizens. (Haiti, Honduras, check out her role - and she too would now go after Venezuela - they have a lot of oil, I would not be suprised if the U.S. covertly funnels money to right wing militias in Nicaragua AGAIN). She - and the Democratic Party - cannot even be bothered to fight for GOOD and AFFORDABLE healthcare for the citizens of the U.S. "This country will never ever have single payer." - spoken quite passionately in 2016 because Sanders stole her thunder. and a Europan style system would be ONLY good for the citizens but cut into the profits of the Big Donors. Right: it is not like all other WEALTHY countries have similar systems, usually since the end of WW2 = 70 years and they are all paying much less per capita and have better outcomes on top of that.
    1
  26.  @mrjpb23  He attacked Pence (related to his gay stance and made it personal) - which is weird he could have told him in person (Pence it should be noted, gave a classy answer). - I mean not that I like Pence (at all), but he is what he is - it seemed like a calculated move of mayor Pete to talk about the gay issue w/o being too obvious on identitiy politics. And maybe to make some points with the Democrats that despise Trump (and Pence by proxy - btw I think Pence would be more dangerous than Trump if he took over for instance as POTUS). Gay rights is NOT a main concern of voters, it is taken for granted that any Democrat would be supportive of LGBT people. Considering how fluffy he is on everything else, it is remarkable that he chose THAT to become more specific and make a stir. Yes Pence is anti-gay rights - what else is new ? .... next issue.
    1
  27.  @Nickle314  an excerpt from the U.S. discussion ... The U.K. took it one step further: Not single payer - they do not have a public agency that has contracts with (non-profit) hospitals and doctors with their own practice. The agency would then pay the bills (so "single payer" - because there are not many private insurers involved). The NHS on the other hand is "insurer" and "provider" in one public non-profit entity. They collect the wage related contribution (or they get it from the tax office), they hire the doctors and run the practices and they run the hospitals as well. The U.K. has even less private, for-profit in the system than single payer nations - it explains the very low spending per person. Most of what is spent in the U.K. is spent by the NHS of course - which is severely underfunded. (The NHS in Scotland does better they get some additional local funding)
    1
  28.  @Nickle314  the Dutch had a fairly good system until 2000, then the government started to introduce "free market" competition gibberish - and higher contributions for the citizens. So the citizens are not completely satisfied, ask a Dutch if you meet one. Of course still much, much better and cheaper than in the U.S. - and it remains to be seen how that turns out with the NHS. It had a lean but sufficient budget and then the Tories defunded it over the course of 9 years. With little resistance of the Blairites btw - that changed when Corbyn became party leader. And one should not expect the media to do their job and call a spade a spade.
    1
  29. +One you forgot sometime in the future - He is offended (on behalf of his donors - the houses in the Hamptons do not pay for themselves) when some people take concrete ACTION NOW. And make LOUD DEMANDS. Which is the opposite of what he did.
    1
  30. I saw a video of BLACK Georgia voters interviewed in Jan 2020. A black man middle aged man said he had voted for Trump in 2016. "I knew that he was not great on etiquette, I wanted a bull in the chinashop, I plan to vote for Trump in Nov." got me thinking - people like a leader that does not give a damn if they think he / she is on their side. Obama is all about etiquette. Progressives are good people that care about others - so most of them cannot unleash their inner asshole. People that are cut out for the struggle are often very struppy, adverserial, have an ego .... right up to straight naricissits. Or they have a natural affinity with giving in to wild conspiracies.
    1
  31. One important factor: the Bernie supporter that voted Trump - Was she voting in a SAFE blue or red state ? or in a swing state ? - because then it did not matter and had indeed the trait of a "protest" vote. That is what happens when you do not give people something to vote for.
    1
  32. No, they will be bullied out of a job - and if this gets serious they will be assaulted (lured into a trap). Read about Frank Serpico - nothing has changed.
    1
  33. + Matthew - the guilt about the alleged assault we will never know for sure. But due process does not apply for the privilege to be confirmed as SCOTUS. This is not mainly about the ambition of Kavanaugh - these are 9 persons that are supposed to serve the country and they have a lifetime appointment. - K. could have dropped out returned to his lifetime seat on the court of appeals - and the Republicans could have nominated another judge - after all Gorsuch was confirmed w/o all the hassle (and he got the seat that was destined for Merrick Garland, which did not even get a hearing ! - and not because he was accused of any unbecoming or even criminal conduct). - Now K. did the world a favor and clarified the matter, the Ford accusation cannot be verfied with certainty - BUT he blatantly LIED under OATH (and that is sure) - this time about not so crucial matters (as opposed to the 2006 lies). Sure if he would confirm what people already know - that he drank and excessively, also on weekdays, that the drinking age was 21 not 18, that he wrote weird lewd inappropriate stuff - it would have somewhat made Ford's narrative more plausible. But still not proof - so in the end it would not matter. BUT: he chose to lie while millions of people watched the hearing, and the next day people that KNEW him well in the 1980s offered their testimony (contradicting his statements) to the FBI. Which ignored those witnesses. WHY did he lie? - first rule: it is stupid to lie if you can be found out so easily. if does not get better if you are found lying about stuff that is not that important (like the drinking age, like I did not drink on weekdays) Is this his way of boldly proclaiming: "FU - I know my buddies will confirm me no matter what ?" Or is he so desperate to "defend" his 17 year old self (a brat even if he did not assault Ford) - that it overrides rationality. This is not even about being ethical and trustworthy - the man is supposed to be smart. As a judge he knows: a jury is instructed that they can dismiss all of the testimony if the witness lied in one detail (it wasn't a court session - but he was still under oath. And he applies for the position at the highest court).
    1
  34. + Matthew K. settled the case - he lied under oath THIS time (about not so crucial things) and he lied under oath in 2006 - that was more serious. And the proof was published this summer (emails he received)
    1
  35. in other news Sanders stubbornly promotes good healthcare, follows a 50 states strategy and does very well in Trump country.
    1
  36. Let me correct that for you: Methan-The-Left-Does-It-Too McCain
    1
  37. I saw a video where the speaker said it was better when politicians STAYED in D.C. and had their families there as well. They would meet, their wives would meet, kids in the same school. - I can see how they would not do government shutdowns if they meet in the same social circles and would be better able to cooperate. - One big insider bubble however ! And - when all is said and done they meet in Martha's Vine Yard anyway to the parties. And the Big Donors that finance both parties see to it that they do not attack each other in the matters that profit them. Even during the fierce and obstinate obstruction against Obama or now the constant complaints about Trump - there are some very, very bi-partisan votes. It is almost guaranteed that this will be something to the detriment of regular people. (Insane increase of already insane military spending. Schumer does not hold up certain bills from going forward - but then most - not even all ! - Democrats "bravely" vote against. After it is sure that they will "lose" the vote (I think they did that with the tax cuts). Did they all meet with the Big Donors (who love the tax cuts) in smoke filled backroom doors to devise that god cop bad cop routine ?
    1
  38. Yes but they do not get the ego satisfaction for their "charities" nor can they exert social control (who are the deserving poor, which university deserves to get their money etc.). It is a very feudal concept. Charity was never just and never enough. They tried that for millenia !
    1
  39. Justice - not charity ! In Sweden affluent stay at home mums do not need to "volunteer" in schools. They have outlawed private schools * so the affluent make sure the schools are properly funded and good. The funding comes from government budgets and is taken for granted. No one owes the rich if they are so benevolent as to chip in a little bit here and there. No rich Swede can make hay (or placte their conscience) by "donating" to poor schools. * there was an attempt with a private school, but that failed the school (it was several of them) went bankrupt. So the taxpayers had to take care of the students mid year. That was it - the Swedes are very particular when it comes to the children.
    1
  40. The U.S. is out to sabotage a country and they are hurting - can you imagine ?? China CAN pick a fight, even Russia. The EU usually avoids it (530 million people, not all are wealthy but many are and they have high quality manufacturing). So Venezueal had the red dot on the forehead since 2002 (and longer - see the failed coup in 2002) - and they do not prevail against U.S. hostility ???
    1
  41. +bigstink9 - Obama did not have a willing Congress AFTER fall 2010 because he and the DEMS sold out in 2009 and 2010. - Scenario: the president (who had just run an exceptional race, had turned out the vote, and scored a historic win) would not have had the support of HIS OWN party - THEN controlling BOTH houses (and with a filibuster proof majority for 59 days, then they could have passed anything w/o the Republicans, this was when they passed ..... ACA). Now in the case or lack of support for popular measures he would have needed to use the bully pulput, pull a FDR (and threaten that he would campaign to make the dissenters lose their seats), - get the support of the base, of the grassroots (and Obama would have had the enthusiastic support of the masses), get the people on the streets if necessary. It is not like all Democrats (usuallly wealthy people) were positive in 1933 when FDR made his unheard of programs happen in the middle of the crisis. Starting to SPEND on behalf of the little people. (introducing Social Security and unemployment benefits, starting emergency work programs to employ people - for instance in the Northern woods, then followed by infrastructure investments, MINIMUM wage, - financed by SUBSTANTIALLY raising income taxes and corporate taxes on those who still did well (doing well while the country was going down the drain).
    1
  42.  @aralornwolf3140  That is an interesting point you make here.
    1
  43.  @JeffPenaify  it was indeed wise - the first duty of Corporate Dems is to WIN PRIMARIES and to keep the Progressives away from influence. That is what the Big Donors pay them for. - Good shills especially when well connected to the party leadership, will be taken care of when they lose seats (Crowley got a job even though he made the serious mistake to lose against AOC, he had earned it working for the special interests for so long). Now, the politicians would of course like to win the GE as well. But keeping the Big Donors happy and the money in the election circus flowing is more important. That money also means that media provides jobs (columnists and anchors, experts) - mainstream media gets a lot of the money in form of ads and they are supportive to keep the system going. These are also cushy jobs for ex-politicians. Or jobs for consultants, strategists ... when grassroots campaigns are pressured with whom to work or that they have to reserve 75 % of the raised money for ads ... you get the idea .... Some voters would be out of reach for the Republicans so the Corporate Dems are useful for the Big Donors as well. In the end the oligarchs want a ballot that offers the voters the "choice" between a fierce Republican and a spineless sellout Corporate Democrat. The pendulum swings between those and it provides the illusion of democracy. (Democratic politicians can fight fierce and dirty btw - but only against FDR style Dems or Progressives. hardly against Republicans. Rolling over before being pushed is the Big Donor-approved strategy. A little bit grandstanding here and there - to motivate the base). That strategy (defeat progressives in primaries or hang them out to dry) was described by Ben Jealous: DCCC under Rahm Emanuel saw a Blue Wave coming in 2006 (that was before the financial crisis, but voters were fed up with the Cheney/Bush admin). So they stacked the primaries with Wallstreet Democrats (I think Big Finance had an inkling they were going to need their guys and gals in Congress and Senate soon). These corporate Democrats were showered with money (indirect benefits for the industrial-election-complex), if a blue-collar type Democrat won the uphill battle they were abandoned in the GE. The Democratic party literally would rather have a Republican win than a Democrat that is too "left" or even not completely donor-friendly (they would not admit that). They assumed of course that they would win seats anyway and could afford to not fight for some. And frankly having landslides is not even desireable. They would run out of excuses why they cannot pass bills that help The People. I think that applies now as well. The Democratic establishment would prefer to have another term of Trump - or Pence (which is more dangerous). Most of the rich oligarchs do not like Trump, but after all they got the tax cuts, the environmental deregulation, the deregulation of the insufficient regulations of banks after the GFC, and the insane military budget was pumped up even more. So for the Big Donors Trump is not bad - he is uncough, but of course they prefer him over Sanders as well. With another Trump term the Democratic establishment can continue to virtue signal and to grandstand, "Trump is bad" and they can cover up their lack of substance. Sanders in office ? - he could rock the boat (not sure he will be able to, or that he will be fierce enough - but it is possible that he does a FDR. And another danger: he might wake up the Sleeping Giant. Approx 250 million people had the vote in 2016 - only 55 % = 139 millions used it).
    1
  44. On a side note - IF the campaign pays him (a field organizer might be an upaid volunteer, not sure) they can fire Kyle. he could become a liability for the campaign - and worse he has no clue what the Sanders campaign is about. And he makes statements about Germany that are incorrect: No they did NOT spend an lot of money to reeducate former Nazis, that was glossed over for 15 - 20 years. They concentrated on buidling from the rubble and they did not touch it with a 10 foot pole for a long time. (It simmered under the surface, if you will). This volunteer (let's assume he is not a plant) could bring the campaign into disrepute. I do not mind a controversy about issues like letting all people incl. all felons vote etc. But not about random remarks that are not even historically correct. And that dude is just ignorant. If he is an unpaid volunteer - well a few correcting words are in order). Of course no one but people that would not vote Sanders - or any Democrat - in the first place is going to take that seriously. But letting such people run around on behalf of the campaign could do some real damage, or at the minimum be a distraction. Moreover such footage likely would be trodden out in the general in attack ads - so better not help team Trump with the effort. If they want to fearmonger about Socialism, Venezuela, and Soviet Union they can come up with the vids of of the delegation of Burlington having fun with the folks from the sister town in the S.U. - that was quite a thing then, and around that time Reagan had visited Moscow.
    1
  45. The Israelis will get their war and they will fight it till the last soldier - U.S. soldier.
    1
  46. A gun is legally bought and used to commit a crime. Then a bill wanted to hold producers accountable (or the shop) if somone committed a crime. That is nonsense. Either forbid weapons or not (or have regulations what kind of weapons are allowed and for whom).
    1
  47. Exactely - court packing - because if the Democrats don't do it - the Republicans might ! congress also can override Supreme court decisions - but that is like the nuclear option.
    1
  48. That's the horserace - sitting their with the watch and observing the first speech for the occurence of words - as opposed to looking for substance and a candidate WHO MEANS it. - Clinton (Bill) and Obama talked a good game - how did that help minorities ?
    1
  49. Your money would likely be better invested into supporting the run of Fetterman in PA for Senate. Or anyone that will primary punks like Kyrsten Sinema (she posed as progressive also with economic policies) and Joe Manchin. (As the little girl is covered regarding her fundraising, now it is up to the doctors).
    1
  50. Oh, and Nina Turner in Ohio, about time a progressive that does not shy away from calling out Democrats (when it counts and not on twitter after the fact) gets into the House. The progressives genuinely care, they are nice people - so they are not the fierce punks they would need to be. Nina Turner does have a spine, and she would be more outspoken.
    1