Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Humanist Report"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The UK is more democratic, this is why establishment "New" Labour could not prevent the success of the progressive wing of the party, the party is in the process of being taken over.
Admitted: the "Blairites" and neoliberal Labour did their best to fight progressives - and the tactics are the SAME as used in the U.S. (It is just that in the U.S. voter suppression is easier respectively possible at all. These tactics came in handy to restrain the progressives - that IS AFTER ALL the job of the Democrats - to take care on behalf of the donors that there will never be a really progressive movment in the U.S.
the tactics in the U.K. : allegations of racism, xenophobia, misogyny, anti-semitism,
Collusion with the media (to smear Corbyn on trivial points, no debate on the issues, condescending reporting or just ignoring him.
Constant backstabbing and leaking to the press
Purging of voter rolls (only for internal elections of the party leadership, they can't do in in the general elections - no doubt the conservative Tories and "New" Labour would love to have that tool (that the U.S. establishment D + R finds so useful).
broken promises to new party members who were excluded from the leadership election, temporarily closing down of the largest Labour organization in Bristol - they were about to go full Progressive, the establishment Labour claimed "violence", couldn't prove that - it is reminiscent of the "chair throwing" at the Democratic convention in 2016
Establishment members claim to be harrassed on Social media and to be really afraid of some of the Corbynistas (the Corbyn "Bros")
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The leadership of most European countries unfortunately behaves like vasalles to the US (became quite obvious with the NSA spying (citizens, head of states of allies !!) / Snowden / Evo Morales). I live in Europe, I was quite shocked - if the US says jump ! they say how high ? As for the Ukraine the Germans were served the US/NATO talking points in prime time news and the other side in comedy after 10 pm (and all that on publicly funded TV). A comedy format gave a very poignant overview about the web in which the leading press and also state related financial and economic institutions have been entangled with the "ATLANTIC BRIDGE" for a long, long time.
Public TV got sued by a large newspaper over it, it went nowhere of course, but that was all the advertising the sketch needed. (It is still on youtube).
Atlantic Bridge: US Think tanks, leading media from both sides of the Atlantic. Maybe state officials, ambassadors, and industry leaders on the back stage.
It promotes - my definition - that Europe should have the same points of view and no other interests as the US and US dominated NATO. And Europe should not get too friendly with Russia. At All. That would undermine the absolute power of the US. The persons active or influenced by that "fraternity" are called "Transatlantiker" in Germany.
The uncritical pro US bias in almost all of the mainstream media was already known to many people in Germany. It became even more obvious during the Ukraine / Crimea conflict. The viewers called out the MSM time and again on their biased and often fake ! reporting. Sure Putin might have unleashed the trolls - I would have, if I were him :) - that kind of propaganda is done by all nations. However, ordinary citizens - not trolls - were pissed off as well. The older East Germans have a talent to read between the lines, they needed that under their old regime. They never grew up with the myth of a "free and unbiased media". The Germans from the "free West" have to do some catching up with those skills.
The "elites" notice that they start to lose control what news are reaching the public and how they are to be interpreted. The pro Brexit vote and Trump's election were not supposed to happen. The public is unwilling to buy all those "free" "trade" agreements (not about free and hardly about trade). Even though they try to ram them through.
This year France and Germany will have General Elections. If the Right Wing Parties win, the EU and the EURO is at stake, at least the EU needed to become a more democratic institution. THAT IS WHY FAKE NEWS ARE ALL OF A SUDDEN A TOPIC.
TV and other more established can be controlled with money, pressure, ads, favours, and access. You cannot control the web - as Erdogan of Turkey found out 2 - 3 years ago, which is why he started open censorship and an ever increasing assault on free speech. It is a little bit tricker to pull off that stunt in Germany, France, etc.
From time to time topics pop up - in the US and in UK, Germany like abolish cash, or now "fake news". That is no coincidence. The "Transatlantiker" (members and associates of the Atlantic Bridge) are getting their marching orders and they are supposed to sell the agenda to the public.
1
-
And I give her a LOT of credit for her bold and humanitarian stand on Syria. She visited Aleppo after it had been liberated. then she presented the "Stop funding terrorism act" in Congress ** . Check out her interview with CNN etc. about what is REALLY going on in Syria.
** Citizens that fund terrorist or groups go to jail. It should also be forbidden for the US government or their agencies).
Bless her heart.
This is a Proxy war, (not civil war), it is about dominance of the US in the region (Syria's long term allies are Iran and Russia, Russia has access to 2 ports in Syria. Moreover Syria prefered the pipeline project of Iran/Russia over the project of Qatar/Saudi Arabia/Turkey.
Foreign Islamists (financed by the US, Saudi Arabia) infiltrated the country, apart from the non-violent quest for more democracy it soon became apparent that this was an attempted regime change. Even in 2011 many the demonstrators were armed and intended to fight against the government. There are no "moderate" rebel groups, they are all Islamists, they are divided (and their outside financiers - US, Saudi Arabia, maybe Turkey, Israel) want them divided.
Especially the Christians and Alawites have to fear the fall of Assad. The country was and is secular and protects the (religious) minorities (Maybe politically oppressive but certainly not oppressing any religion). The father of Assad had crushed the Muslim brotherhood in the ?90s. Either another attempted regime change or there are less peaceful Muslims in the country - but they were never tolerated to act out.
There are Christian missionaries and convents in the country - meaning there are outsiders from Italy, Argentine, UK, etc. knowing the country well - and the several I have watched all contradict the story we get from MSM and the US / NATO governments.
The different Islamists groups take the citizens hostage when they conquer a settlement or city. The citizens of East Aleppo were hostages for 4 years, the people were violently prevented from fleeing to the government held areas (food, water, secure from bombs). Of course that meant that the government could not fight against the rebels without hurting the citizens. A Scandinavian photographer and conflict researcher Jan Obaum observed that much more damage to the houses seems to stem from ground shooting and bombing - house to house fights. Not so much damage from aerial bombings which destroy houses top down. Many buildings are still standing, roof intact but they have holes in them which is typical for ground fights and explosives shot from the ground.
The hostages tell about cruelty, constant fear of the rebels, looting, hoarded food that was sold at extreme prices, young girls forced into "marriages" , denied medical care or prevented leave to get medical care in West Aleppo. The combatants were also hostages in a sense. Some are die-hard fundamentalists, but many joined for the adventure, the money or were even forcefully recruited. If they didn't like the experience, were not OK with the cruelty - when they wanted to surrender or defect they were shot or killed in cruel ways (as deterrent).
Only when East Aleppo was almost completely taken back by the government, the - remaining - rebel groups elected a military leader and a board to negotiate an amnesty with the UN and the Syrian government. That amnesty and the evacuation of the fighters who had surrendered - plus family if they had their family in the city - was monitored by the UN. The "elected" leader gave an interview telling the story. So the "genocide of Aleppo" the MSM warned about was never intended and did not happen. There were a lot of desperate calls on social media - last call from Aleppo etc. Of course we cannot be sure if those message were even sent from Syra and if so if they belonged to one of the more extreme Islamist groups and were an attempt to shape public opinion.
it seems the account of the girl Bana is run very professionally, a blogger reporsts being blocked within 15 minutes at 2 am Syrian time when expressing doubt about the validity. Also the tweets did not stop when other people IN Eastern Aleppo were without power and connection and journalists had to drive well into the Western part of Aleppo to get a connection. That would indicate, that the Tweets from that day were prepared in advance and released from another location.
Bana does not speak English and the English of her mother is not good at all (there is an interview online). Not sure her mother was eloquent enough for the correspondence.
The media and US gov. certainly wanted to influence the public so they could go to war without the public protesting.
Remember the incubator lie to further the cause of the war against Iraq in 1991. Or how the bombing of Serbia was argued with alleged widespread atrocities (which was a complete fabrication). Atrocities did happen - much later. There had been warnings that if NATO actually would bomb Serbia (killing a lot of Serbian civilians) that all hell would break loose in that civil war and that the crazies on all sides would prevail over cooler heads. As happened. Also we know that Taliban were sent to intervene on the side of the Bosnian Muslim minority (the Bosnian muslims were moderate, the men drink beer, etc.). That was the doing of the US of course and it was like adding gasoline to the fire.
Everytime the pictures of poor children are circulated one can assume the Military Industrial Complex wants the public to be O.K. with another war escalation. A real humanitarian intervention would call for an UN mission to keep the fighters apart so the conflict can be sorted out and peace restored.
If they would care for the civilians - one bit - they would not have unleashed this proxy war onto Syria (there are estimates of up to 500,000 dead and millions are displaced).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We would not burn the cities, just polish the pitch forks and burn down the Council Houses and government buildings.
Our politicians know better than to mess with healthcare. It helps that in a non-profit public UNIFIED system almost all of the country is in ONE boat - only the (pharmy) industry is not in.
* workers, employers, taxpayers - they fund it.
* small AND large corporations they all pay the same percentage based on wage (smaller businesses do not need to watch out for cost control, Big Biz can takes care of that - or they will pay higher contributions as well).
*Doctors and nurses want good working condtions. and the tools necessary, it can't be fun for U.S. doctors to have to DENY care face to face
* Patients want a good system, as workers with payroll deductions they want it to be cost-efficient
* wealthy and normal people us the same facilities, that is true at least for the hospitals where you have the more expensive treatments. Your diagnosis decides your treatment - not your basic or premium plan. The procedures are either covered (if standard of modern medicine they will be) or not. And that applies to EVERYONE. The wealthy people are not putting up with crap. They will see to it that the system is good. The idea to have a 2 tier system is taboo.
* the doctors get lobbied by the industry, so they will ask for the new drugs, techniques, equipment.
* the non-profit insurance agency CAN think of the public welfare, and long term effects of prevention, etc. Sure they have to stay in the budget. But their task is to facilitate good care for everyone, not making a profit. At worst they have to ask for a higher budget if costly measures on a mass scale seem reasonable. They just have to make their case in a public discussion (which will be lively and include every side)
* Politicians: if the system does not work they will be blamed by angry voters. Since everyone gets the same treatment and everything is very comparable and transparent: If the system fails you - it is you and hundred thousand other people. The voters will not make subtle discernments, if in doubt paint with a broad brush.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tim Soel - Politics is more than the next 3 months - the Republicans NEVER give up on their demands and they play the long game. See abortion, see alleged election fraud, see voter supression, see tax cuts. See trickle down economics. Has been debunked for 100 times - they bring it up once more.
Now who WON on ALL LEVELS of GOVERNMENT over the last 10 YEARS ??? They didn't do it by not making no demands and being timid and compromising.
Their rabid agenda does not allow them to govern, Yes. But they got the seats they wanted, and not by being "realistic".
Right now the bill is a declaration of intent of the Democrats - and also a SIGN to potential voters and also an indicator for the donors (that's why many do not dare signing it even though it will not pass RIGHT NOW). But a politician will have a hard time to weasel out of the vote once they have the necessary majority. Voters pay more attention meanwhile. Feigning that it is "not the right time" is not as devastating as saying YES now and defecting later.
Lets be theoretical: The Dems become a REAL, FIERCE, OPPOSITION (and they tone it donw on the Russia, Russia) and thus give the Trump admin plenty of opportunity to show their true colors. ... Give Turmp and the GOP enough rope to hang themselves.
The Dems show they are willing to reform by enthusiastically supporting the Bill, the donors are pissed off (also donors from other branches are worried, this is a dangerous precedent).
So the Dems can embrace to get large donations out of politics while they are at it. Many voters (Dems, Progressives, Greens, Independents !, maybe some moderate Conservatives or Libertarians) are encouraged, Sanders drives up voter participation in 2018. The Dems take back the Houses. And a high participation would scare the hell out of the GOP and the establishment.
The Republicans are getting VERY UNEASY. Watching the shift in public mood AND public support on ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.
Very likely the Dems STILL cannot get that bill passed after 2018 - but they continue trying it. If they control the Houses they can however, keep Trump from doing a lot of shit, including refusing to confirm another right wing Supreme Court Justice - two can play that game.
And they can dominate the debate in 2019 and 2020 with what they specifically intend to do regarding healthcare the minute they have BOTH houses and the presidency. So they GIVE the voters a REASON to come out for them in record numbers.
Of course some Republicans might be so frightened that they become cooperative in order to have a chance to keep their seat. Then the bill could get passed even before 2020.
It would be interesting if Trump would veto a bill that has a lot of public support. Maybe add a March on Washington ? I think Trump would veto it, he is not his own man, but the puppet of his cabinet.
Sanders ousted a 4 or 5 times elected Corporate Democrat as mayor in the 1980s (with a whopping 10 more votes !) The supporters of the former mayor in the City Council were not pleased (to put it mildly), they were completely stonewalling him (and he did not even have enough supporters in the Council to at least have the veto - so first thing the mayor's secretary was fired). Mayor Sanders DID WHAT HE COULD (and there are reports of shouting matches lol), the VOTERS TOOK NOTICE of the obstruction and his honest efforts, the next City Council election enough of his supporters were elected that they would have the veto power.. And he STARTED TO WORK with the REPUBLICANS on some projects. (And got his persistance rewarded by the voters with ever increasing election results - they vote every 2 years there).
In marketing it is all about DEFINING YOUR BRAND, find some STRONG POINTS and THEN STICK to them. Informing the BUYERS of the UNIQUE ADVANTAGES of your product. A weak "me too" Corporate Democrat or Republican Lite is not a strong brand (and crying "Trump is worse than us", "Russia, Russia" does not help either).
If "Republican" is what the voters want they will choose the ORIGINAL not the copy. So the Democrats should be a REAL, and DISCERNIBLE ALTERNATIVE. Sanders was: and filled stadions during his campaign.
The Democratic Party is ESSENTIAL for the DONORS in order to CONTAIN any REAL PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT. The GOP might be (even) better in tax cuts and allowing destruction of environment - but in that department the Dems are better. Progressives would not fall in line with a GOP platform, but UNTIL NOW they could always be held back by fake Liberals.
The most important job of the fake Liberals is getting more and more difficult.
Time to completely upset that game.
1
-
1
-
1
-
William Binney (NSA technical director for 24/7 spy programs turned government critic): IF that was a HACK (remote access by an unauthorized person) as opposed to a LEAK (insider) there is no way the NSA would not have TRACKS (they have EVERYTHING that travels over the net). AND: it would be SAFE to SHOW the PROOF - it does not reveal sources, methods etc. - Since they chose not to show it, they may not have anything (nor do they allege to proof in the report). Moreover the CIA depends on the NSA for intercepting. - That is what the NSA mastermind says on the technicalities. The official "report" has as attachment the "Golden Shower document", it does not make firm statements - no "it is alleged ...", they make a psychological profil of Putin and his supposed desire for revenge - and they obsess with Russia Today TV = RT. Can you imagine, RT tries to stir up dissatisfaction, they reported negatively on Wallstreet greed, fracking and hosted Third Party Candidate debates. (In Nazi Germany and under Stalin there was a crime called "subversion" - I wouldn't be surprised to hear that term soon.) Back to the official report of the agencies on fake news and the "hacking": Disclaimer of confidence. NSA (the experts on hacking on which the other agencies depend when it comes to surveillance and interception) has only MEDIUM confidence that "Russia did it" (whereas all other agencies claim hight confidence). Wikileak's Julian Assange said about the embarrassing EMAILS of Clinton and DNC (and it was never about anyhting else than these emails) : "It was a leak of a disgusted insider". Craig Murray former British Diplomat, now working with Wikileaks, also recently confirmed that he received the data in a park in Washington on a physical device - well then of course the NSA will not have any tracks - the data did not travel over the web. Trump might have peace talks with Russia (Ukraine, Syria) reduce or end sanctions, reducing nuclear weapons - Obama signed a new excessively expensive nuclear program not long ago), end the politics of regime change. To me it looks like a POWER STRUGGLE - would not be the first time the agencies undermine elected politicians, presidents, Congress (Carter, Iran/Contra) or LIE to the public (in hearings) or yield to political power to come up with desired "evidence" (WMD's in Iraq)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Exactely - but if more and more lose their seats the donors will not finance enough golden parachutes for everyone. And the sellouts becom eincreasingly useless for the special interests. Maybe the come up with something for the big shots in the parties but not for everyone. Labour in the UK shows that effect. The Labour Members of Parliament (many of them) subverted the Party leader directly elected by the base.The governing Tory party called a snap election last April - they thought it would be a landslide win, that they could expand their slim majority. Nope, on the contrary they lost the absolute majority and Labour won seats. - But before, the media, and every establishment figure, everyone - except the Labour base - was convinced Labour would be slaughtered, that would have meant a number of MPs losing their seat. - And let's face it, these folks invest in their political career when others citizens build their professional life. What are they going to do, when no one gives them a job ? Starting a biz ? (I mean a real and productive one , not some consulting/lobbying scam). Being self employed or an entrepreneur i's not everyone's cup of tea - although it would be a worthwhile experience for them.
to their great relief they could keep their seats and then some - and it is very satisfying to watch how they have become tame and do not backstab their progressive leader every chance they get. They were really scared to lose, and not everyone is a big number.
In Europe the campaigns are (mostly) publicly funded, there are fairness rules for TV, caps how much may be spent on TV ads, etc. European politicians are still almost as much captured by special interests as the U.S. politicians who are openly bought by the donors.. The reason is the dilemma - what is an ex-politican going to do. you can lose an election, or get burn-out, or just want to do something else. - and some just want to make much more money than was ever possible with a political position. - In all these cases it pays really off to think of the interests of Big Biz while in office - they have the cushy jobs as backup or as reward.
1
-
@leealexander3507 Did you notice Ellen proudly hanging out with "a very VIP crowd" in fall 2019. She had been invited by a friend. That VIP crowd included Bush2 and she brushed off the criticism with: "I am kind to people even if I disagree with them polticially.
Trump is mean, rude, stupid, a narcissist, uninformed, greedy and corrupt - never mind in cognitive decline. But objectively he still did not harm as many people as Cheney and Bush (with the eager help of the likes of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Rahm Emanuel,... of course).
the Obamas were friendly received by the Bushes in 2008/2009 they got a tour in the White House before the Bushes left - they are friends now.
Obama and Michelle wanted to be part of the Big Club and now they are.
Dead Iraqis, U.S. soldiers, the Taliban offering to surrender after a few months and the Cheney / Bush admin just ignored them and started throwing money around to make people rat out each other instead.
Many were kidnapped to Gitmo who were NOT Taliban. Afghanistan had war, civil war, or a brutal regime by the Taliban since the early 1980s. Lots of scores to settle, and the population also becomes more ruthless.
Moreover a few thousand or ten thousand dollars is a LOT of money in that poor country. So more incentive to get back on the family that did not sell a piece of land, did not accept a marriage offer. Or family conflicts that cannot be settled openly - but let the U.S. take care of a relative and you'll inherit the property / house / farm.
Depleted uranium ammunition used AGAIN in Iraq (under Clinton it was used in Yugoslavia and he also sent over jihadists from the Middle East to stir up the pot even more, there is one minority that is Muslim, they were not extreme however. More conservative than the rest of Europe but much more liberal than in the Middle East).
the worst finanical crisis since the 1930s. Clinton paved the way by finshing the project of deregulation and , mergers that Reagan had started. Bush let the speculative bubble on top of a real estate / loan bubble happen.
Torture ?
the gov. asleep at the wheel before 9/11 ? (that is the benign assumption).
Who cares !
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The coal jobs are AUTOMATED away. Fracking is cheaper (fracking might be even worse than coal). The fossil fuel prices are down. And thankfully renewables are on the rise - and the U.S. has many areas that have a lot of sun and/or consistent wind. In sunny states when they need a lot of electricity for the air conditon - they will have it in form of solar electricity (Photovoltaic).
Some coal is necessary for steel production. But a lot of if is squandered on production of electricity. With a steam engine you loss more than 70 % of the energy of the fuel - most is lost as heat. That's a law of physics.
In Germany for instance they produce some or their electricity with steam engines (they subsidize German coal heavily) - and they use the heat to produce warm water and also use it for heating in winter. That means of course high standards for the energy provider (filters) so you can have settlements nearby that can use the war water without too much loss in temperature. Well in Germany you have high environmental standards anyway.
They use technology (a very German thing) to make better use of energy. (Same with gas turbines that produce electricity, or when they burn their SORTED household waste). They burn the fossil fuel, biomass, (or waste) and use it a) to produce electricity and b) also use a part of the heat to heat water for housholds nearby.
So with coal/gas/biomass between 60 - 70 % of the energy can be put to use. Of course that means higher costs for the technology and infrastructure and filters. While it may appear expensive It might be a blessing in disguise because it helps to keep the technical skills in the workforce alive (companies working in such fields will get orders, it makes sense for them to invest in development and research, and they can offer jobs to a skilled workforce).
The SOLUTION IS STORAGE - it is already cheap to produce RENEWABLE ENERGY when the wind is strong and the sun is shining. Even in the moderate climate zoneS (like in Germany) there is much, much more energy they get from the sun (spring - fall) than they use (in form of electricity and all the fossil fuel !). The problem is that demand and supply often do not meet each other.
So if they had well working, affordable storage ONLY for let's say 2 days that would result in a massive replacement of fossil fuels.
That means of course that the business model of the large, central, powerful energy providers who traditionally collude with politics would lose - BIG TIME.
Solar and wind is decentral. Small is beautiful. The necessary backup can be a relatively small energy plant (one generator) run by a village, or a muncipality. Some are already in operation, they work well - but they for sure do not donate to parties, or offer jobs for ex politicians. They are usually very down to earth grassroots or non-profit public operations. Solid pay for the workforce, good service for the customers, in the beginning an order for a medium sized company, that's it.
So neither the politicians (be it in Germany or in the U.S, or elsewhere) nor Big Energy have a real interest to THROW MONEY at research of all kinds of storage solutions. Sure there are of course SOME projects. Considering the risk and challenge of climate change this is small change.
There is no bold effort that would be comparable to the Race to the Moon, or the Manhattan Project. NO BOLD INVESTMENT. Why - because affordable, working storage solutions (for electricity, or to store heat, or to convert energy into fuel - solar to gas or artificial photosynthesis) would undermine a business model that is lucrative for Big Energy and lucrative for politicians. It could be of course an export hit - but not for the players that are at large right now.
Damned be mankind, damned be the planet.
Elon Musk Tesla will supply the world larges Lithium battery system to South Australia for a wind farm. The coal barons of Australia and some of the political establishment are not happy.
Central and North Australia have of course excellent conditions for solar (to produce warm water = solarthermie and to produce electricity = photovoltaic).
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is a VITAL difference between people who have their income from their workforce and from RICH people who can live off unearned income (dividends, rents, interest, speculative gains). - If you have your retirement partially ! invested in stocks it is - hopefully - a well diversified stock portfolio. Else you act as a speculator (which would be very imprudent if it is meant for retirement). So one branch in your portfolio underperforming will not matter much. Moreover, in the coming years branches like fossil fuel and automobile might underperform as well. I am not sure if the GOP was successful in slashing the best practice rules for financial advisors. Because betting on one horse (having only insurance stocks for instance) certainly would be against it.
For the low-income to middle income people the DISADVANTAGES in COST and QUALITY of their healthcare by FAR SURPASSES the GAINS they could EVER have from the stocks of the exploitative for-profit healthcare industry. And for old people the COSTS and RELIABILITY are especially important.
That is the reason why the very large corporations purchase the overprized plans for their employees. Sure it costs them more than the mandatory contribution that would be due in every other wealthy country (with a single payer system).
But private healthcare is complicated, it is not the core competence of Apple for instance. So they leave it as it is and just buy it.
The very well paid management, and the rich owners and shareholders can easily live with the higher costs of business for these healthcare plans. They can counteract those lost profits/dividend payments by INVESTING in stocks of the healthcare industry and will gain from the profits achieved by accepting a lot of misery.
That scheme works very well for the upper middle class and rich people. But not for the majority - the low to middle income folks. Any gain in dividends is offset by the exorbitant healthcare costs of the U.S. system which are - as a percentage - a much larger part of their monthly budget. The worries and the buraucratic hassle you get on top of it for free.
Here Social Security comes into the picture. The more modest the income, the more important SS it becomes for the retired person. A lot of people have nothing but SS. To not get into the discussion, if they should have chosen a better paying job. Enterprises like Walmart or McDonalds are highly profitable by leveraging the workforce of millions of these low-income people. So they are obviously a necessary part in the kind of economy we have right now. And if they have next to nothing - from a very pragmatic standpoint they will have no disposable income. Low income people will spend every additional Dollar right back into the economy.
A business owner, or rich person, or a libertarian can have ideological reasons to not be interested in the MUCH MORE cost efficient single payer solution:
If your mantra is that private is always, alway better than a public, non-profit solution (with government regulation), then you have to disregard on principle the European style systems.
You live with the status quo and if you are wealthy or rich you get your refund from your investments in insurance, and healthcare, and pharma shares.
If a public non-profit solution is SOMETIMES BETTER - for instance for healthcare - that opens an ideological can of worms.
As for costs: deduct 40 % of U.S. expenditures and you land at the German level, and their system is on the higher end of the European average.
I am not a fan of "stock market" based retirement savings as a solution for the masses. The stock markets SHOULD be somewhat connected to the economy. The market however is driven now by stock buyback - the CEOs of Big Biz "invest" the cash that Big Biz does not invest anymore into productive projects to boost their shares and their benefits.
And with shares you are limited to very large corporations.
That excludes a part of the economy.
If Social security payments would be increased - financed by corporate taxes - that would be a "dividend" from a strong economy as well.
Collecting the taxes is more cost effective - the structures are already in place. And you cut out the middle man. (Finance, advisors).
Before you scream about high taxes. They were raised to 94 % in 1944 in the U.S. (top marginal income tax for every USD over 2,7 million - in todays money). Then it was about 85 % after some exemptions.
Nixon and JFK discussed about 74 % effective tax rate (it was nominally still 90 % but with loopholes. JFK wanted to get rid of them and instead have 74 % for the top bracket, period. He expected to get more tax revenue from that (more tax collected, he did not argue on base of "it will improve the economy and then ... " no, immediately higher revenue) and he intended to SPEND more on education.
Corporate taxes used to be a much higher chunk of tax revenue. If I remember correctly the ratio of tax revenue vs. GDP is not that different now than in it was in the boom years. What I remember for sure is that the burden has been shifted: Biz pays a lot less (that may apply more to the highly profitable, large businesses that dominate 60 % of the economy, not so much to small businesses). Individuals, and the middle class contribute a much higher SHARE to tax revenue than in the decades after WW2.
High taxes do not strangle the economy, on the contrary - you just have to get them from those who will not reduce their spending because of these taxes. Rich people do not cancel vacations when they pay more taxes. Businesses will INCREASE their spending - they invest and innovate more to avoid paying taxes. And no, they will not give up on doing business alltogether. They did not do that from 1933 to the late 1970s.
Investing (so that the state does not get your money) means someone else gets an order, other workers have an income, so taxes will be paid by someone anyway. The money WILL RETURN to the state and and then can be reinjected into the economy .... for instance in form of social security or as infrastructure projects.
The base of the CONSUMER economy - the masses of low to middle income people - will have DISPOSABLE INCOME. The retired people among them will profit from a strong economy by a good Social Security payment - you can consider that a citizen DIVIDEND - no need to feed the middlemen of Wallstreet and in the financial industry.
Plus SS will never go bust. Bill Clinton intended to privatize SS and had a group working on it secretly. Thanks Monica Lewinsky. Clinton did not want backlash about SS on top of that scandal. The project was abandoned.
There are millions of people who have nothing but SS - now imagine the effects of the financial crisis if the banksters had gotten their hands on SS money.
1
-
Peaceful revolutions must not be bad for the peasants (but they will ruffle the feathers of the haves).
If you look at the policies of FDR - the ideas he adopted from Keyes were revolutionary. He came into office, first thing they had to close down the banks and do a reboot of the whole system. Which worked. Many, many people were unemployed, did they tell them to be more flexible, become more "competitive", suck it up and tighten the belt. (this was in 1933, the crisis started in 1929). No ! they set a MINIMUM WAGE. Those who still had work, could not be made to work for almost nothing.
Then they introduced unemployment benefits. Followed by social security for the elderly. Work programs that could be implemented quickly, followed by infrastructure spending (which needed some planning so it took longer to start them).
In the 1940s the 40 hour work week became the law of the land. Now the 40 hour week is dismantled. People work (often unpaid) extra hours or they need more than 1 job to survive.
With WW2 (first export to Europe, then the U.S. entered the war) it became Keynsian spending on stereoides. Financed with DEBT and HIGH TAXES and those who could paid them. No tax evasion, no outsourcing of jobs.
In 1947 the U.S. had the highest federal debt ever (debt vs. GDP ratio). Within 10 years debt was substantially reduced, not by cutting services or cutting infrastructure programs or education - on the contrary. No, they reduced debt with high taxation and they grew out of it with a booming economy (thanks to infrastructure spending, G.I. Bill etc.).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1