Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Status Coup News"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It takes a lot of media impact and time to overcome such a strong brand (it does not matter if the brand - Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden friend of black people - has anything to do with reality). ALSO: Sanders KNEW that Corporate media would not be supportive - getting friendly or neutral coverage is a godsend if the candidate has a small donation budget (planned only 30 millions), no national name recognition.
Sanders got exposure by independent media on the internet, the left leaning are all firmly in Sanders camp. but older voters (white, black,....) still get their news from TV.
The effect of positive mainstream media coverage:
Buttigieg or Klobuchar- or Sanders in 2015, all nobody's nationally: Difference is pete was hyped a LOT, they tried to make Klobuchare a thing, too - despite low polling. Such media coverage is very valuable, it is better than expensive ads, because many people still believe the "news" on TV.
So the Sanders campaign had to prepare for the early states, it is harder to get volunteers when you are not well known. they were building the plane while it was rolling on the tarmac for take-off.
They were lucky: not many established strategist or consultants were willing to work with them (for fear of retaliation of the , so they had to hire activists / community organizers. Not the chic, well connected career oriented types that wan to get at the troughs in D.C.
Passionate people, that had fought for a cause before and usually with small budgets. So they tried something new and tried to find an approach where volunteers would hold small gatherings to recruit other volunteers. Or signing up people at large rallies.
It took them a few months to find an approach that worked, then they started phone calls by the millions - but then Iowa caucus was already around the corner. The Southern states were not long afterwards, so they never really caught up.
The comparsion with the campaign of Klobuchar is not correct she got plenty of friendly airtime. And not much scrutiny either - throwing things at staff. Not much reporting about the insane prosecution of a black young man, essentially with no evidence whatsoever, not considering his alibis etc.
Even IF not convicted. Putting a person throught the costs and stress of a trial should be avoided, not when the prosecutor does not even care if the suspect does have alibis. And public defenders are notoriously overworked and underfunded.
Sunni of The View (a former defense attorney) held the feet of Klobuchare to the fire she had looked at the case and found it shocking.
A black little girl had been killed and having a "successful prosecution" was more important than finding the real culprit.
But after a short time of reporting the media "graciously" returned to friendly Amy coverage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Voters like this man sniff that Warren comes from the same class as them. Sanders is just too "uncough" with the message for the working poor - on the surface you could think if they shrink from Sanders, what is the attraction of Warren ? She purports to be more or less the same. - but the existence of the working poor does not reflect well on that class of people and they are slightly bothered by it.
So they do not like the vibes of Sanders and they do like the FAMILIAR vibes of Warren (Republican until her 40s, defended big biz when they had to pay damages. Worked her way up in the upper middle class. Affluent, educated, white).
And based on that FEELING they reverse engineer their arguments.
Being a historian he is remarkably uninterested in FACTS (and the past of his prefered candidate)
Warren only talked tough when she scolded the banksters. I liked that like the next person, but that is not nearly enough. I quit being a fan of Warren because her actions show that she is NOT tough and not even principled enough to withstand pressure.
She is not tough with the party establishment the special interests and Big Donors.
(that is a hard one, beating Trump is a piece of cake comparatively),
She was a calculating (cowardly) politician when she should have shown some spine:
Never mind not endorsing Sanders. What about generic support for the war machine, military spending and cowardly shrinking from criticizing Israel ?
What the f*** kept her from supporting the DAPL protests in summer / late fall 2016 ? As person with alleged native heritage ?
Well, she was sure Hillary Clinton would win and did not want to annoy the special interests INCLUDING big finance. She wanted to keep her chances for a cabinet position. For the same reason her team wrote a mail to the Clinton campaign that she would be "flexible" regarding financial regulation for the banks.
FDR did not do "flexible", he pushed for the NECESSARY reforms. He strongarmed DEMOCRATIC politicians and it was: "I welcome their hatred".
The crazy thing: if Warren had let herself be drafted into the primaries in 2015 (Sanders waited for her and they coordinated, he would not have run, had she entered the race) - she could be president now. Sanders likely would have enthusiastically and efficiently supported her if she had made single payer part of her platform.
Instead she was maneuvering behind the scenes: first angling for the position of VP - as if Clinton would have chosen a female that had the potential to outshine her and to be more popular than her. (Bad enough that two dudes stole her thunder in 2008 and 2016).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevencoardvenice in 1940 the U.S. got the 40 hour week - that was supposed to be enough for ONE breadwinner for a family (sure they lived more modestly etc. - but still). 40 hours was a good fit for the state of technology THEN. How about the 35, 30 , 25 hour week (with a living wage for those work times mind you)
between 1947 and 1970 the lion's share of productivity wins (coming from automation mostly) went to the workers in form of better wages, the purchasing power of hourly average wages doubled (and unemployment was LOW).
Then neoliberalism hit, and NOW people are working MORE than 40 hour weeks. And often 2 adults in a househould.
I think after 1970 the productivity gains could have been given in free time. - instead the increasing unemployment (also because of oil crises) shifted the economic system. Unemployment rose steadily and slowly anyway, automation, women entering in the workforce, ongoing immigration, computer use started).
Instead the rich used the first chance they got, to hit back against the New Deal. Later technology made outsourcing easier (computer, transportation, communication). And politicians made outsourcing safe for Big Biz - with trade deals.
Instead of everyone having the 1970s income level (with inflation adjustment to keep purchasing power steady) and working less but having JOB SECURITY and the luxury of time - people were pitted against each other and the poor workers of developing countries.
Once a certain level of wealth is reached and if there are good public services (child care, education. healthcare, affordable housing, public transportation) people do not necessarily need MORE and MORE purchasing power.
companies would have the SAME output (not more and more) and produce it with the same number of workers (who work shorter times however) and have the same labor costs (automation compensates for the shorter worktime). And the consumers = workers would have the same spending power to buy the stuff that is produced.
That would also take care of consumersim (to a degree).
Until the 70s there was intergenerational wealth built - people are losing that meanwhile (everytime someone goes bankrupt over medical bills for instance).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Next MAJOR problem with a "public option": Divide and conquer. BREAKING the political leverage of the population and the negotiating power of the only insurer (Medicare) that puts the interests of the insured FIRST. (first goal of private companies: maximize profits).
There is a possibility to evade the public insurance package and to resort to provider of services that do not work with the public insurance.
Hostile politicians can make hay by attacking the public insurer.
THAT is a major issue in the U.S. and also in the U.K.. and even cost-efficient healthcare is 9 - 11 % of GDP in wealthy countries, there is a strong incentive for profiteers to weasel their way into the system and would be worth their while to play the long game and to try over decades.
Affluent (or young and healthy) U.S. voters can retreat to the equivalent of gated communites as soon as (not if !) defunding or unnecessary bureautic hurdles bring the agency into trouble.
If the public non-profit healthcare insurance agency (in the U.S. this is Medicare) does not have the funding they cannot pay adequate rates or cover ALL that is medically warranted and should be standard in a first world country.
Many doctors and even hopsitals will not accept the contracts if the rates are not sufficient. to make things worse many hospitals in the U.S. are for-profit (in other countries they are non-profits, often run by cities and states, so they will be much less self-serving and will not try to rig the games against the insurance agency.
They (insurance agencies and non-profit hospitals in other countries) are expected to stay within their budgets: THAT- but not profit - is an important issue for them. If they have their ducks in a row - and they do with a service that is so tangible for the voters - and they have budget troubles they can start a lively political debate, certainly in the wealthy countries.
Along the lines of: you want us to perform ? we are doing a good job, but we need more money !
Back to the U.S. and "how to undermine a good reform with public option"
People that want good services and can afford it will be forced to buy upgrades (private insurance) or opt out alltogether (full private insurance coverage) or they pay out of pocket.
that means it is POSSIBLE for many doctors to have enough patients while not accepting the Medicare contract. So the public offer will be inferior and appear to be expensive.
Then the attacks will follow, corporate Democrats, Republicans, Corporate media, the industry AND their think tanks will unite and villify "socialist" healthcare.
The only protection from that: that ALL of the population (VOTERS incl. affluent ones) have skin in the game, and have been nudged to use it and have experienced it to be good. Then it will be possible to keep the system streamlined, unified, standardized (natural fit for medicine), simple, cost-efficient and good.
1
-
Healthcare is a terrible fit for the "free market" or "competition". (Consumers are by far the weakest actors in the game have a huge information disadvantage and cannot abstain from "buying").
Medicine and the way to organize its delivery (that includes "insurance") are very standadized.
So it is a good fit to be delivered by public non-profits (the "insurance" part = admin, negotiating rates and prices, collecting money. And the part of delivering the actual medical care).
you come to that conclusion when thinking things through - and there is EVIDENCE:
The high costs where the for-profits dominate, incl. private insurance = U.S., Switzerland. Versus the much lower spending on 4 continents, many countries, cultures and life style, and since more than 70 years, for over 1 billion people which were and are covered by single payer systems.
Almost all other wealthy nations have single payer, the overwhelming majority of them spend in the range of 49 - 55 % of what the U.S. spends per person.
Another important factor to protect a single payer system from sneaky or open attacks.
to nudge doctors in the direction of needing ! a contract with Medicare. In that case even the wealthy patients will be for funding the system adequately. Their doctor will have a Medicare contract and will also treat the unwashed masses, and services will be good nontheless !
Finland does something similar with their schools: they have outlawed private schools. So the wealthy and rich have to send the kids to the same schools as the lower income people. Needless to say they have excellent and well funded schools that enjoy broad public support and appreciation.
That approach regarding schools is unique, but in healthcare it is at work in every single payer system. And portected those plublic systems from attacks.
Healthcare is expensive even under the best of circumstances (think approx. 5,000 - 5,500 USD per person, and double in the U.S.) and it is a major part of the economy. The incentive for profiteers to get their hands on a service where the consumers are by far the weakest participants in the "market" is huge.
All political parties support a single payer when it is set up with the safeguards (or they would get into trouble with voters - even wealthy voters). That has proven to be a protection for DECADES:
Example for a sneaky way to undermine a good public system. The easiest one: Defunding it.
P
oliticians weaponizing complicated and bureaucratic rules - for instance Medicare (in its current form for the people over 65) cannot negotiate drug prices.
Only the private Medicare Advantage insurance packages cover that (and other things). On top of that Medicare is tasked with monitoring the offers under Advantage (in order to prevent abuse of the insures - you couldn't make this stuff up).
If Medicare would have enough funding they would offer comprehensive coverage and there would be no need for private upgrades.
1) It is unfair because not everyone can afford these upgrades.
2) Worse: the private insurers have much higher administrative costs, so why don't they let Medicare make the offers for extra packages if they need to raise more money ?
- Because Medicare would drive a hard bargain (so no niche for private insurers and less profit for for-profit hospitals or pharma companies).
With drugs it would be easy to get lower costs. (The insurance companies have no interest in bringing costs down, the consumers MUST pay and they just pass on the too high costs).
VA is allowed to negotiate (the only agency in the U.S.) and they brought prices down by 40 %.
1
-
I think the proposal of Gabbard would madante everyone to pay payroll tax. No opting out from THAT. (However indirectly opting out from getting treatment where the regular people get it). - Duplicative coverage would NOT be outlawed, (like in the Sanders plan).
"You can keep your private plan" - in other words insurance companies can continue to offer coverage for things that M4A covers as well.
That means the large employers and wealthy individuals would continue to buy private insurance. Doctors in wealthy neighbourhoods would not accept M4A patients, they can have enough patients w/o.
Sure the patients could always pay out of pocket if they cannot present their private insurance card in lieu of payment - but that is very tangible. If they can have treatment free at the point of service elsewhere - and they heard it is O.K. or good, they might try.
Getting only out of pocket payments is also a deterrent for doctors: If they do not have a high-end patient pool, they will have to chase the money in some cases - or not get enough patients.
Companies could not offer private insurance plans as benefit - plan for full coverage (when duplicative coverage is not allowed, they could offer maximal supplemental insurance).
Employers would offer other benefits or pay a higher wage.
Now the patients could take that higher wage and use it for out of pocket payments. - Or they keep that money and give the doctors and hospitals a try that have M4A contracts .....
Under the Gabbard plan the wealthy would be frustrated about the payroll tax (it would give them full coverage but they have an incentive not to use it). They would not profit and could not be motivated to root for the necessary good funding of the public system - because the can still opt out from receving treatment there.
It is a set up for attacks, especially Republicans would attack the payroll tax to appeal to their affluent base. Next thing: payroll tax for those who do not want to use M4A would be cancelled.
Also: the wealthy and rich would have to pay MORE payroll tax and also other taxes for the public system.
In order to make the mandated payroll tax affordable and politically acceptable for low(er) income people it can only be modest (for them). So there must be extra funding - from general tax revenue.
The (very) rich and highly profitable big biz will resist it anyway, they would pay a significant share to fund the good system for all (and the rich tend to have their private medical arrangements).
But the affluent / upper class citizens would pay not quite as much in higher taxes, benefit also from the cost-efficiency of the universal, standardized, streamlined system.
At least they see their extra taxes put to good use if the system is truly UNIVERSAL. Which requires adequate funding. And the bipartisan GENUINE support of all parties and beyond money.
If there are bureaucratic flaws, or inept managment of resources all major parties should have a strong incentive to straighten that out. To make sure that it works - not looking for sneaky ways to NOT make it work (see Tories in the U.K. see many U.S. politicians).
Healthcare cannot be a political football. That is another reason almost all other countries have good results with "government-run" healthcare, and half the costs of the U.S. - usually there is such a bi-partisan mindset.
That stance is very much helped when all of the population has skin in the game. and cannot opt out - not from paying for the system and hardly from using it (most of the time).
1
-
1
-
The idea that the city is meant to work for ALL citizens, not only for big biz - or even small(er) biz * seems to exotic for some. New York was supposed to be utterly grateful to Amazon for the intent to create "jobs" Not that many new jobs in the U.S. - if was a shift. - No city is an island. They are all part of the U.S. Bezoes pits the cities agaiinst each other - and does not pay federal tax and as little local as he possible can.
Bezoes uses something ALL of the U.S. offers = federal level: consumers, a justice system streets in all of the country, agreements with other nations, ....
* Those schmucks can finance Amazon with their taxes while being put by them out of business
New York would have had to bribe Amazon with 500 million USD in direct expenditures (financed by a loan ! ) and then approx. 2,5 trillion in subsequent tax gifts (at the back of everyone that does pay local taxes, I am sure they all like to give Amazon a free ride).
At a time when the U.S. supposedly has full employment one of the most vibrant cities in the workd must BRIBE Amazon for a few thousand jobs right now and more to coem (maybe).
So if New York would really get those 25,000 jobs over the course of maybe 10 years (attracting new people to the City, as if New York needed THAT) - it would only be after many years that New York would see tax from Amazon.
Who knows - maybe the swarm of locusts would move on to the next place to plunder, before they ever get to the point of really paying anything at the LOCALlevel.
Who SAYS the city even needs more jobs. And who says they wold get tax revenue ? Not from Amazon, if you follow their example from Seattle. Indirectly from the employees (new people in town) - but THAT comes at a cost, too.
And there is the 500,000 million loan plus interest to pay: 500 millions divided by 25,000 would be 20,000 per employee - so they might compensate New York for the direct expenses to bribe their employer to set up shop in New York.
1
-
1
-
1
-
part 2 of 2 * Warren "has a plan" - except for how she will use populist resistance and activism to kick the behinds of bought and paid for Congress and
Senate. The ONLY candidate that mentions that from time to time - like (young) people demonstrating in massess outside the White House - is Sanders and he has talked about that tool to make government work For The People since 2015.
No wonder, he was part of the resistance against the Vietnam war - and the masses were so furious - and PRESENT - that the government had to give in. (At some point they had parked a row of empty school buses inside the fence, in case the protesters would break through. Nixon and Kissinger watched the protests from the window: According the the memoire of Kissinger, Nixon said: Henry, if they get us they will kill us.
That's the spirit - that is how you get change.
Nixon also did not sign the Clean Air and Water Act because of the goodness of his heart. The citizens kicked their behinds (incl. congress, and that was bipartisan as well, Rivers On Fire because of the chemicals that were "disposed" into them - and not for the first time. That was it.
Sanders has a history as ACTIVIST (Warren has not) and he owes his financial stability, wealth and that he had a stable political career to the grass roots.
While Warren STILL needed the party establishment to get elected. She has never gotten to the point where she embodied: I do not need them, they
can go pound sand (Sanders is very polite and very skillful in how he navigates in the shark tank - but he does not need them and calls them out from time to time. Like the comment that the party leadership is "rearranging the seats on the Titanic" - I think that was in 2017.
Sanders also waited in 2015 with his announcement. He coordinated with Warren:
If she had followed the campaign that tried to draft her("Run Liz, run"), Sanders would not have run.
Warren however, did not dare to offend the Clinton machine.
He did not give a damn - and started a campaign in the attempt to RAISE SOME ISSUES and to introduce a left leaning perspective into the discussion. He and Weaver then assumed that he had no chance to win the nomination (they calculated with a budget of 30 million USD).
Sanders did not join the race to get "exposure" and raise his name recognition, his seat in Vermont is very safe, and the fundraising for THOSE races are no brainers (have been for many years). Nor did he have any ambition for OTHER offices (well for POTUS, but that seemed to be out of reach, it is not like he wanted to improve his chances for upcoming races for Congress, or Senate. Been there, done that).
If we exclude the possibility that he cynically wanted to sell his books (think Newt Gingrich) - then he joined the race as a service for The People and because he has had it with the healthcare situation, the attacks on SS and Medicare, and the endless wars.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That man will now land in the prison system, I am not sure he even belongs there - he seem calm and deliberate in the short clip that Jenn has got. (he should not roam free either, in a civilized country there would be offers for treatment or for restorative justice. The scale is gliding from where people are NOT responsible for what they are doing to where they do have a mental illness / personality disorder but still can be and should be held accountable.
Preferably still not in prison (that man is low level offender).
Restorative juste is not only community service, that is a public apology and an apology in person. Nothing like looking the person in the eye that you have offended / done wrong and admitting what you have done wrong.
That is much more a corrective and sobering experience than generic community service. Where the offenders are spared the personal impact and also the personal admission. They do their time - but only have to interact with people that work for a good cause but they never had any spat with them. so that is neutral. They do not have to humble themselves.
I have been wondering if good and easily accessible offers for school counseling and offers for treatment for mental illness could have saved the 9 black victims of Dylan Roof and the young man himself.
If there had been offers for treatment and job offers (easy work) for struppy people, outsiders, weird (or just disabled) folks that will not get hired by Corporate world because they are off, or do not have a high or reliable performance - maybe he would not have been so obsessed with hatred.
Dylan Roof was activated in his crusade because of the Zimmerman trial, he 18 years then. (Clearly an outsider during school time.He was not well adjusted and very likely had an untreated mental illness / personality disorder. OCD, divorced parents, fahter likely abused his stepmother, ....).
His friends / aquaintances did not report him when he announced his intentions - they might have been more ready to report him. If they could be sure that he would not rot away in a prison cell. I think people hope in suche cases that a person making terrorist threats does not mean it but is just foolishly running his mouth.
If they had known that he would get into a system of social care and psychological treatment - there would be no risk that they would bring a young fool unnecessarily into trouble. By reporting him - just to be on the safe side.
Even IF he had just been talking crap - that is still a sign something is not right.
They came forward after the terrorist attack, so why not report him when he declared his intent ?
Because the U.S. system is cruel, punitive, because people get caught up that are not a danger in society and do not belong there. Because mental illness is not fixed in prison, it gets worse.
So that man is now also likely to get funneled into the system. Is he a person that will abstain from behaving like that in public because he is arrested, gets fined or worse has a trial ?
If he is rational - then yes, it will be a deterrent in he future.
But most rational people do not show racism in the form of unhinged insults hurled at random people. And if they have anger management issues the future punishment / trouble does not deter them.
It might be a deterrent for other racists who watch what happens to him. If THEY are rational they might think twice about it.
Liberals and progressives watch unhinged citizens - they love to despise the deplorables, indulge in righteous indignation and wonder how low these people can stoop (I am guilty of that like the next person - watching middle aged anti maskers throwing tantrums).
That is all fun and games - But as polls prove the majority of Americans are more reasonable than that (even Trump voters), the trolls in the comment sections, the occasional ridiculous person that is shown in a viral video, is not representative of the voters and citizens. They are a symptom of a changed culture, but they are not the main problem.
If the economy would work for all, if the politicians would not sell out the voters (Democrats) and fish for votes by riling up people (especially Republicans), the village idiots and the unhinged people would stay quiet in public. There are always some of them (it is a big country 330 million people), but they did not dare to be as open in the past (and it encourages also those with mental problems).
The more cultivated racists are the danger, the Reagan Democrats, the people that voted for Nixon in the year when MLK and Robert Kennedy was shot. The voters which the Clintons and Biden courted - with dog whistles about the Crime and Welfare Bill.
All the people that lost their jobs over Covid / mask / racist rants did not escalate the situation by becoming violent or damaging property or stealing the phone they were filmed with. Some intimidating behavior maybe, but not more than that (for instane the body language of the guy that worked for an insurance, shopping in Home Depot who was pissed off when he was filmed for not wearing a mask).
Why ? Because these racists / anti-maskers want to remain part of the middle class / upper class. Not getting arrested, the police showing up (the neighbours see it), having a criminal record or just having to spend money on a lawyer.
They have jobs and property that they can lose. usually they want to keep their status and reputation.
They are stupid enough to SAY things that earn them a prominent search engine position and maybe the loss of their job - but they are not SO stupid as to get into serious trouble with the law.
1