Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Hill" channel.

  1. I live in a single payer country (Austria). People here do not "love" the public non-profit insurance agency. In fact they do not even think about it. Or costs - 3,8 % mandatory wage deductions with a cap at USD 2,400 per year (and employers must match that). Or what is covered or not - well, everything that is worthy of a first world medical system, that changes all the time, and they employ experts in the agency to keep up with new developements. People are attached to doctors and hospital stations (and staff there) especially if they needed major medical help (healthy people don't think about the providers). But no one cares about the paper shufflers.
    2
  2.  @luvkayakn  The cheap goods had be sold in the U.S. and other wealthy counties - For that the trade deals (making favorable IMPORT tariffs PERMANENT) were necessary. So that no future ! pro labor U.S. government could raise import tariffs and the multi million dollar investments would not pay off, or it would not be nearly as lucrative. The U.S. has so much negotiation power that Trump could rattle the system (especially Mexico got a rotten deal, but no Mexican government could have changed what a former was willing to sign). The problem is of course that trade wars do not lead to more domestic investment. The companies will not invest the many millions, the trade war can last 3 weeks, 4 months or 2 years. No one knows. Next midterms a new Congress can push the president, in 4 years there can be a new admin. A fair trade deal would INSIST that the country must be a real democracy, that there are a lot of co-ops, that unions are promoted. THEN the citizens of the developing countries will see to it that they get a fair share of their highly productive work (much more productive than the workers in the U.S. in the 1950s and 1960s - because of new technology). That in turn means that the workers of already rich and still developing countries cannot be pitted against each other. NAFTA negotiations started under Reagan, heads of states signed it under Bush1, but he could not get it through Congress. Bill Clinton was able to pull off what the Republicans couldn't. The big donors were pleased. Then Clinton prepared the China agreement. Bush2 inherited it, and signed it only a few months after 9/11. In Jan or Feb. 2002, you can bet there was not much discussion. Corporate media covers for the servants of big biz (politicians) and that was an ideal situation to blindside the public. Unlike the fierce and long debate over NAFTA fuelled also by the campaign of Ross Perot. Outsourcing ticked up earlier than 2002 - I guess once the primaries for 2000 were over the oligarchs knew they were good, either Cheney / GWB or Al Gore / Joe Lieberman. So they did not have to wait for the result of the 2000 election. Note: the most important elections in the U.S. are the Democratic primaries. (only legally they are not elections but a selection process of private organizations. Which means election law does not apply to them). ONLY in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES the voters might have the option to choose a pro labor candidate. The oligarchs finance both parties. The job of Corporate Democrats (like Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Barack Obama, Joe Biden) is to take out candidates that would be for We, The People. Winning the general election would be nice (some of them are more ambitious than others), but they will not run on economic populism (these policies would impact the bottom line of the big donors). O.K. Obama run on a vague version of Economic populism, but he certainly did not deliver. As soon as the unions and grassroots had gotten him into the White House, he sidelined them and it was the neoliberal status quo as usual. Bailing out the banks, carefully avoiding to prosecute the banksters - and letting 5.5 million homes be forclosed. After the bailout - 4.5 TRILLIONS in Quantitative Easing for banks (that was under Obama, the Trump admin was also generous, also with QE). Keeping the big donors happy, getting their money and the cushy jobs for ex politicians is even more important than winning the general. Al Gore went away quietly. And increased his fortune even more. The big shots in both parties get a Golden Parachute if they lose elections. So they can afford to run on a lame platform that is not attractive for voters (especially Dems run on Republican Lite and lose often. That does not harm their financial situation, if they were useful for the big donors they get compensated for their services). The oligarchs prefer that the voters have the "choice" in the general between a spineless neoliberal D and a fierce ideological R - both beholden to the big donors. In case you have wondered how those trade deals time and again (NAFTA, Chinese agreement, and THEN they let the lobbyists draft TPP) find high BIPARTISAN support.
    2
  3. @Tate McIntyre The Bill Clinton admin already had taken the authority from Congress to grant the much better tariffs to China on a yearly base. That was used as poltical football, but a lot of Representatives used that for grandstanding and to blackmail, not because their heart was in it to protect the domestic workforce. Bill Clinton signed an Executive Order and the authority to grant the yearly tariffs was given to the State Department (staffed with lobbyists and big biz friendly people). Congress certainly could have done something about it - but once Bill Clinton had taken their ball away most of them were content to move on. So the yearly tantrums were about making policital hay and not about a principled stance (and there were not enough of the likes of Congressman Bernie Sanders to change this. you can watch the C-span footage of his stance of the numerous deals). That was better for big biz - but not good enough. They still had the risk that a later admin would have genuine concern for the interests of workers. Still not a situation where they could PLAN the costly investments abroad. Voters do not seem to learn but the oligarchs learn. From the New Deal. In 1992 Ross Perot had gotten 18 % as Independent in the general, he had made it into the debates, he used his fortune to buy TV time (Corporate media was rotten then already). He was very opposed to NAFTA. Bush 1 had signed NAFTA (negotiations had started under Reagan. Resp. in reality Bush1 then ran the show already). First it was supposedly only about Canada - which would have been O.K. because Canada is a first world country and they play in the same league when it comes to standard of living, wages, consumer and environmental protection, unions. Then Mexico was added and unions got wary.
    2
  4.  @luvkayakn  It was crucial to enshrine the LOWER import tariffs (that made the lucrative foreign investments into manufactuting plannable) into an international treaty. - Bill Clinton achieved what Bush 1 could not get done: sidelining the unions and getting NAFTA passed (with a few "amendments" so they could sell it to the voters as better version of NAFTA. After all the hassle and trade wars - Trump did the same small fixes at the fringes with NAFTA 2.0) Then Clinton - unfazed as NAFTA undermined the base of the D party - continued to prepare the same assault on domestic manufacturing with the upcoming China agreement. The problem is not that U.S. / Western manufacturers ALSO produce in China. That is a HUGE market (the U.S., all of Europe except for Russia and Turkey, Canada, Japan, Australia - all in one market when it comes to population) . And if they would have given the workers in Mexico and China a good deal (good wages = domestic spending power) they would have achieved the same Economic Miracle as the U.S. and the rest of the wealthy industrialized nations had after WW2. Only FASTER because China could develop based on 1990s / 2000 technology and not 1950s technology. But that was not the plan. They wanted cheap labor of China and consumer spending in the U.S. While undermining the spending power of U.S. consumers = workers. There is a reason consumer debt on the credit card took off in the 1980s. Reagan already undermined the incomes of the lower income brackets. While companies ramped up the marketing to somehow sell their stuff.
    2
  5.  @luvkayakn  If they would have done the same for developing countries like Mexico and China (based on FAIR TRADE deals) these nations would have been catapulted into modern times - faster than the development was in Europe, Canada, U.S. after WW2. To be sure we would have had earlier the discussion about GLOBAL SUSTAINABLE consumption, use of scarce resources (fossil fuels, minerals, settlements what used to be undisturbed eco systems) .... But with that level of technology a civilization can afford to recycle, to insulate, to extract resouces with as little pollution as possibe. To have first class mass transportation (see China, or Switzerland), to have energy efficient machines, industrial processes and vehicles (and aircrafts). Public housing to take off the pressure of families. They might or might not move to the suburbs later. But they had the bases covered (in Europe) when the kids were little, and they lived in densely populated areas if they had their jobs or ties there. They could save up for the house later. people living in apartments also consume less resources. Space, the energy, also the energy that is needed to build the homes, streets, sewage systems, the longer commute .... People in that situation can go on strike - and the oligarchs hated that about the post WW2 time. The oligarchs did well, they just could not have it all, and workers got too uppity and had too little stress in their opinion. The technological advancements between 1947 and 1970 paid for double incomes (on average: minimum and higher wages, for blue collars = hourly wages). Of course the salaried white collars also did well. THAT built the American middle class. Most people lived modestly directly after WW2 - in the next 25 years they could increase consumers spending. Massively ! It was important that what was offered by companies (an ever growing output because of productivity wins, a lot due to automation) would also be consumed. There was a good level of standard of living, with room for improvement (in the U.S. minorities had some catching up to do), but certainly much better than after WW2. That overal increase of wealth and income at the lower income levels had been financed by productivity wins. There was some market saturation. Electronics and PC's just entered the scene, ongoing migration, and women entered the workforce.
    2
  6.  @luvkayakn  It would have been time to adjust in the 1970s. The 40 hour work week had become the standard for all in the U.S. in 1940. A lot had happened in 30 years, it is a societal agreement, not a law of physics. 40 hour (and one breadwinner was enough, certainly if it was a white male) was a good deal - in 1940 with that level of technology. Time to adjust that in 1970, and if 2 adults have to work fulltime to be part of the middle class in 2021 folks are getting a rotten deal. Amercians had enjoyed the wealth building and good jobs market, but did not fully understand the economics behind it. Kitchen table economics. The government budgets treated like a household. So when the oil price spikes triggered higher unemployment (the first time for longer since WW2) citizens were shocked and unprepared for the propaganda onslaught. The oligarchs had to bide their time since the 1930s in the U.S. (since the end of WW2 in Europe, Canada, Australia, ...) They seized their chance to change public perception from 1973/1974 on. The Cold War and Red Scare had been a convenient pretext to go after the united left parties that had forced the hand of FDR in the 1930s and had given him leverage for the New Deal. To his credit - he and some reasonable oligarchs saw the pitchforks coming and saved capitalism from itself. But after FDR had died they soon after struck a legal blow to unions (1947). But they were too mainstream so they dismantled the left parties first, and in the 1970s it was possible to start villifying the uppity striking workers (demanding inflation adjustment) and to launch the description of union leadership as "bosses". Not managers, owners and shareholders were bosses - it was the union bosses. It got worse once Reagan was elected. Thatcher was willing to devastate a whole region in the U.K. to undermine unions and the voting base of the opposition party. The U.S. and U.K. promoted outsourcing of manufacturing and "financialization" (non productive activities of finance, today a LOT of it is speculation).
    2
  7.  @luvkayakn  Unionizing Mexican workers protects U.S. workers, it was a damage control attempt by unions (but Mexicans do not get a good deal and it was terrible for small farmers). And not all companies evaded Mexico once it cost them more. Also for political reasons: Mexico is more under the influence of the U.S. than China. If the foreign workers would get increasing and later comparable wages many manufacturers would have stayed in the U.S. To the degree that they moved to Latin America or Asia they would use the consumers THERE. The good wages would build Mexican domestic spending and prop up their local service sector, construction as people could afford homes, etc. The American post WW2 model. Good wages = consumer spending is possible = workers can keep up with buying the output that is produced with ever increasing efficiency. And later reducing work time while keeping the monthly income steady. So people are not displaced by machines and robots, no they pay for reduced work times.
    2
  8.  @luvkayakn  In the Golden Era (post WW2 till 1970) wages and minimum wages were high they rose in lockstep with productivity, the product prices were also higher compared to now - but you have to view that compared to income ! People could afford to buy Made In America despite the higher labor costs - and that was at 1970s level of technology. Now labor is 9 % of the costs of a restaurant (industry average). it is lower in retail and still lower in manufacturing. So higher wages - as per the recent minimum wage discussion about 15 USD till 2025 - only partially raise the costs of products and services. But especially the lower income groups have also good spending power and the companies (typically service sector if they pay minimum wage) have a new customer segment they can tap into. Even if a company would only pay the current 7.25 (federal minimum wage) which means that is a poor state and they double that till 2025. That means 9 % more labor costs and if they pass it on fully 9 % increase of prices over a few years. At the same time the workers in the region get a MASSIVE raise, and some of the money will find its way to the very companies that also have to pay higher wages. That is why the minimum wage raises in the past (there were many, and not only in the U.s. of course) did not increase inflation (not much, if at all) did not cost jobs, no uptick in unemployment and did not harm businesses. Only if the companies would be exposed to cheap labor from abroad they would have a problem. But not even the rotten trade deals make that possible for big or samll biz. Service sector work that is consumed in the U.S. must be provided HERE, they can outsource manufacturing, but not the work of a waitress, drycleaner, stocking shelves in retail, gardener, cook, hair stylist, childcare worker, maid, .....
    2
  9. "Sander will spend all his time with M4A" - no, he wont. It will be number one priority and Congress will have to deal with it. But neither Sanders NOR Congress is completely absorbed with M4A alone, after all the bill has already been DEVELOPED and thought through, they do not start at zero. Not all members and all committees will be busy with it all the time, they can as well start thinking about immigration reform. They do not start at zero as well, there have been attempts in the past. Amnesty IS a condition (you can't have a lot of uninsured "illegal" people in a single payer system. everyone with a job contributes with payroll taxes and works officially AND the doctors hardly ever encounter patients w/o coverage. That makes life much easier for hospitals and doctors. Check in will be so much easier, billing is simple, the money for the providers will come reliably. Undocumented immigrants would not be in the first wave of M4A (they are usually younger and in year one of the rollout people until 55 are included. I guess if they are low income they might get Medicaid.
    2
  10. She is a mindless rightwinger (fairly right). And he is a carrerist that would like to be hired by a think tank. A typical beltway Yes man, but I guess he is smarter than her. And talking over him does not make her edgy.
    2
  11.  The Last And First Time  good for you, stay safe, stay healthy and happy.
    2
  12.  @3thomasdm  charter schools are (on average) performing worse WHILE being able to pick their students. they are private for profit entities that are completely subsidized ! by the taxpayers. So it is public money and profit extraction and discrimination on top of that.
    2
  13.  @3thomasdm  Public schools - ask Denmark, Japan, just for a start. Or Finland (they have outlawed private schools). you bet the affluent make sure the schools are well funded and teachers are competent, but also well paid and highly respected. Same approach for childare in Denmark which is excellent. - btw Sweden has had a lot of immigration. But there cildren are entitled to get help also with language, in the first years a major part of the little ones are in one or another supportive program so it is no shame (that is very important, children ARE VERY sensitive about that). No child left behind is real - in Sweden. costs money, but it pays off. It is not left to LUCK what happens in those important formative years. the luck of being born healthy and with or without learning disability. Mother can afford to stay home and invest a lot of time into learning with the children if they have difficulties. Not only time, she (or the father) also would need the pedagogic skills, patience and not panic if the child has trouble learning to read. And in later years being able to understand maths, languages, etc. Never mind the motivation or if a parent does not have their ducks in a row. Or if a disabled sibling, a depression, an illness eats up all their time, or energy. At least to some degrees such bad circumstances for the child (bad luck) are counterbalanced by the good public services. private non-profit or for-profit NEVER will deliver that. Exhibit a: the United States
    2
  14.  @3thomasdm  In the last DECADES China ! has put a lot of people out of poverty. THEY are the reason the stats look good. And only they. Now you can call them a weird hybrid of "Socialism" / Capitalism. The Communist party still calls itself Communist but gets nervous if people read and discuss Marx and they adopted a lot of elements of Manchester Capitalism (it has gotten better, but there is still a lot of exploitation going on). (not Socialism as it was meant as the big idea of the 20th century when it spread like a wildfire. The Chinese citizens cannot even organize in unions. and they certainly do not own the means of production. (that would be a co-op or like a kibbuz). The government owes many means of production (State capitalism) and some individuals and foreign companies do - with a LOT of help of the government. The chinese governments helps the bosses to suppress wages and to pollute - the Chinese cannot protest against it.
    2
  15.  @3thomasdm  Guardian has a good article about the claim that so many people have been lifted out of "extreme poverty".
    2
  16.  @hecanseeme8210  The U.S. ruling class abstained from using the draft since Vietnam. One reason to not have a Federal jobs guarantee program, single payer healthcare plus a good minimum wage and lots of afforable housing projects. Not to forget free education for all (so no reason to join the military for that either). How are the recruiters supposed to be succesful when young people have other options ? - Recruiters only target some schools they do not hang out in the nice neighbourhoods or at the good schools. These kids go to college. But they will "stand with our troops" while they live a nice life.
    2
  17. Cheney / Bush were asleep at the wheel regarding 9/11. Got warnings from the Israelis and even the Russians, Cheney ignored that and Bush was useless anyway (that is the friendly assumption). The airspace of the PENTAGON has been violated. Normally that means heads are rolling in the military - or whoever messed that up - that did not happen. (JFK fired Allen Dulles over the Bay of Pigs). Cheney (or another neocon) fired people int he military just to make a point (for no apparent reason, just to make them fall in line). I would argue letting the Pentagon being attacked with a kidnapped airplane (if that happened) was worse. The government lied about WMDs. The Democrats should not yet be done with the hearings and the screaming. But they VERY politely feel in line. Republicans criticized the handling of ebola by Ombama, and obsessed about his birth certifficate, dijon mustard and tan suits. I could have given them a list what to slam him for, but of course that was done in service of the COMMON donor
    2
  18. And a weasel of candidate disrespects that more than usual civic effort by claiming victory, damned be the facts. He used an intentionally skewed partial release of 62 % of the precincts that were NOT representative as base for his premature victory claims. Pete is a numbers cruncher, he like that at McKinnsey (working for a company that fixes bread prices, etc.) Shame on the Democratic party, they released the info of the working class, minority precincts the latest. Especially the ones where they knew that Sanders had done extremely well. (They could have factored 2 of the 4 satellite caucuses in into a early release, plus some other urban precincts to get a more accurate representation of ALL of the state). The selective early release allowed Pete-the-cheat his victory lap. Way to go for the party of the "working people". And I did not yet mention the efforts of the volunteers who run a caucus, for free. They get training, they have to show up early, someone must prepare the site, have the voter lists ready, do the same day registration (they can), so not everyone is entrusted with that, in other words TRAINING. They sacrificed MORE than one long evening.
    2
  19. Well every household has a water heater or tank or another device. Radiators. Kitchen appliances. TV's (several), so why not a battery ? The new developments will be more durable not Lithium based, not a fire hazard, cheaper and will last longer (more cycles).
    2
  20. I guess someone in the D "leadership" figured out: Let's throw a bone to the (unrelenting) base regarding Superdelegates "reform" but there are ways how we can keep control on behalf of the big donors while giving the appearance of a more democratic and fairer process. Kamala Harris will run, she will do well (at least in California), let's move CA to a much earlier date in the schedule (in 2016 they were at the end). That should rob any progressive candidate of a lot of delegates. It is not necessary that Harris wins the nomination as long as she is useful to contain candidates that our big donors do not want. I wonder if Warren runs for the the same reason (or if it is only her ego - she should have SERVED by running in 2015 to bring HRC to the left - when that seemed to be a battle she couldn't win, and the Clinton machine would have been furious - but she could be president now. Likewise Warren should have SERVED by staying out and vigorously campaigning for Sanders this time. She would be well on her way to becoming VP or holding another important position in the Sanders admin. Would set her up for the presidency later of course.
    2
  21. How to neutralize "Superdelegates "reform" so that the Big Donor interests are represented in the nomination process: if - IF - Sanders or someone like him runs in the primaries we can contain that with help of our big donors. They can finance MANY candidates - that should ensure that no one gets over 50 % in the first round. So voters were treated to the media darling of the month, when people like Harris, Beto, .... and all other Me too didn't do as well as expected, they brought in Biden, even Delaney thought he had a chance (???). Some of it is the ego of these people, but the donors are also very keen to have a LOT of people in the field. Pete was propped up. The "liberal" media gladly helped out (Harris, Booker, even Warren somewhat after she had signalled she wouldn't be that serious. In recent months they tried to make Klobuchar relevant and talk her up). Media made pete a thing, that worked to a degree - and then the party "leadership" arranged access to the big donors. How does a mayor of a not too large city get access to over 40 billionaires ?? The party hooked him up once the media operation had been successfully caried out - and it turned out that worked sufficiently well (with white affluent voters) for HIM (while Harris, Booker, Gilibrand, Beto .... disappointed).
    2
  22. Union negotiated healthcare insurance is STILL way overpriced (not only for the culinary sector, the healthcare plans of large companies like Boeing, GM, Microsoft - whatever the plans cover - they will be way too expensive for that. Not one of the companies or unions has the NEGOTIATING POWER of a national single payer agency ! In a single payer system these insurance agencies are set up to have almost a monopoly position. for-profit monopoly = exploitation of consumers. But as a public non-profit that works for the common good they are a very much needed counterweight for the disadvantages the consumers have - the insured / patients are by far the weakest participant in the healthcare system (which makes a "free market" "choice" competition etc. impossible). Single payer agencies invariably get better rates from doctors and hospitals, and have enough power to get a good deal from big pharma. And if almost all is billed to them (and all patients are entitled potentially to the same treatments) it makes billing very easy. The doctors and hospital check your insurance card, if you have coverage - you are full in. the doctors can from then on concentrate on the medical side. As long as there are also many private insurance plans with countless different provisions (who gets what covered or has what exclusions) - that cost savings potential of a streamlined admin is squandered. In areas where many people would have private insurance (a large company like GM is nearby) or a lot of wealthy people are in the area - good luck with finding doctors that will accept those with "only" public insurance (private insurers cannot negotiate the rates as hard - even if they would bother, so the doctors would like to make do with "private" patients only). In single payer nations most doctors and all hospitals must accept the contract of the single payer agency and the patients under that coverage - or they do not have enough patients. That also curbs discrimination. There is a reason no other country does public option with an opt out (for those who are young and healthy or for company/union plans). Also: the company can change conditions (if you have coverage under a company plan), and when you are fired you are out. Nataline the girl that was the (last) reason for Wendell Potter to quit his position as senior PR executive of Cigna did not have a "Cadillac plan" - she was covered by a Mercedes plan - literally Mercedes (via her family employer insurance). it is safe to assume that was a good plan. The insurance refused to cover the liver transplant (even though transplants were included in the plan), the doctors who were ready to go ahead with the surgery had to give a pass on two livers (which would have been a good match). Finally Cigna gave in to public pressure - but then her organs had started to shut down, she died a few hours after the green light had been given by Cigna (that was in Dec. 2007 or 2008). Wendell Potter mentioned in an interview in 2019 that the insurers now also purge COMPANIES (same tactics as with individuals: they drive up premiums OR the co-pays and deductibles). btw: when in small to medium sized companies a staff member (or family of them) need costly and ongoing treatments that can "jeopardize" the plan or the conditions for all of staff - Either conditions worsen - until the company gives up, or the comapny fires the employee to avoid the trouble. Does wondes for the employment of elderly people in non-unionized sectors (in the companies that still do have plans, that number is constantly going down). Potter: the private insurers have no interest in cost control - the system will become unsustainable if we do not get Medicare For All. What the for-profit insurance companies want is to drive up the deductibles so that they can pass on the costs to the insured. A mayor from a town nearby where Wendell Potter grew up: we had to exclude family members of our employees from coverage, we do not like to do it, but we can't afford it anymore.
    2
  23. btw AOC was the guest of Sanders, the DNC did NOT INVITE her. Sanders got two slots of 1 minute to nominate him for candidate (that is acording to the rules if a candidate gets over the threshold). I think King (union guy) and AOC - in other words Sanders should not even have chosen her because most people will erronously assume she got at least a tiny slot. Nope ! like Yang, completely ignored, but Hollywood stars and some relatives of FDR plus Never Trumpers. Edit: Sounds like Yang did get a slot after he shamed them. Krystal says so.
    2
  24. Why do they "deserve" the economy to be in the toilet. Western companies were eager to outsource. Incl. Trump, and his daughter, they get their garments, caps, ties, shoes from there. I think Ivanka ended her clothing line in the U.S. but she got excluse brand rights in china (no nepotism at all - and that is a huge and growing market, not right now but wait until the vacine is there). The Chinese gov. will likely make mass testing happen, they do not say pretty please to self-interested for-profit companies. (which by necessity cannot look out for the public good, they want to maximize profits, they look at their narrow interests. Our company and as has become the toxic culture only in the short run). China is an system on to itself. They EU has 550 million people, the U.S. has 330 million and China 1,3 billion. They will likely do a better job to MANAGE the economy than comparable nations (GDP per person). The dragged their feet,were in denial, but once they realized they could not control this outbreak (The Asian nations that were hit in 2003, and Canada just about pulled it off with SARS-CoV-1. Just. Likely is was not quite as contagious or people only are contagious once they have symptoms. So it is easier to FIND the carriers). Anyway, they were in denial, but after that phase (that lasted too long) they THEN went big, then they did the right things. Trump had the warning example of Italy (and China) - and STILL was in denial. BoJo wanted to implement "herd immunity". In Taiwan, South Korea, Iceland they do MASS TESTING. And have routines and help (guidance, mandate) regarding isolating people. Plus tracking (in Iceland voluntary - but with a competent trustworthy government, people are cooperative). In Europe (not sure about UK) the numbers are going down. Long term economic outlook. China will not let its people go under (the U.S. oligarchs gladly will if they can). China has to import fossil fuel so the price drop will help them. The GFC: Europe and the U.S. did austerity for citizens (after bailout for banks and big biz). China got bullet trains. They realized they had to increase domestic consumption and the only way to do this is to raise wages. Finally. The Chinese and Western oligarchs had agreed to exploit the work force, the dictatorship did not allow unions or environmental protests. But during / after the GFC they applied the building of the middle class model of the U.S. of the 1950s and 1960s (partially, the U.S. workers had unions so ... they got the lion's share of productivity wins till the 1970s. There is certainly a lot of corruption going on, but the dictatorship still has a vision and a plan for the country - that goes beyond grifting of the upper class and big biz. In the U.S. the oligarchs have no plan other than looting whenever they can, and enshrining their grift into law if they can. Just on a side note: Harvard has gotten money from the bailout (for universities). Yes THAT Harvard, with 1 or 2 billion in investments (I forgot how much), that does not pay any taxes. They were called out and now will pay it back. The Western "elites" have become shameless. They should have known they would not get away with it, they did it anyway (what is the harm in trying). Oh, it is a PR black eye ... O.K. .... we'll try the next thing whenever the occasion presents itself. So where is the outrage about welfare queens. The help was announced as meant for "struggling" universities. What part of struggling did those Ivy League administrators not understand ?
    2
  25. Misleading by Robby - and where is his and Kim"s correction regarding Southwest pilotes and their alleged sick out vaccine opposition: the NYT is often deceptive (more by omission, and their lies tend to be more sophisticated than the typical fake news on soial media). On foreign policy they are government stenographers (and always have been). But they give LOTS of data and details in the article and get 1 relevant number wrong (and onther detail that is likely less relevant). AND issue a correction. The misinformation on facebook is often primitive, unsophisticated. - a match for the audience that shares and likes uncritically. (right winters online see npr of end of Nov. 2016. We tracked a fake news content creator into the suburbs. Highly recommended read ! NYT was corrected because people that read it, do fact check (the 900,000 number was too high to be plausible. I do not think the author was intentionally lying, he made a mistake and one that he should have noted - it was not a plausible number). But if you dig deep into many numbers you may mix up things or misremember. The tricky thing is when you feel sure about a number or detail - because then you will not check your own writing. (it is not what you don't know that get's you into trouble. It is what you "know" - and it ain't so ... - was that Mark Twain ??)  But who fact checks the many that run their mouth (or fingers on the keyboard) on facebook. And where are the corrections on FB ?? I am not even a fan of NYT.
    2
  26.  @georgehugh3455  Sanders wouldn't get donor friendly legislation done (with Republicans being willing partners in the crime). He would use grassroots to make Congress fall in line - or campaign against defectors working against the wellbeing of their voters  - that is btw how FDR made some Democrats fall in line to vote for the New Deal bills. He threatened that he would campaign against them so that they would lose the next election. Democrats had solid majorities in Congress and Senate in 1933 and later - but like today - politicians usually were wealthy / rich people (or aspired to get into those circles). So were willing to resign themselves to the misery of the masses.
    2
  27. Tulsi took no prisoners at the view recently.
    2
  28. No other wealthy nation has the public option and with good reason. Single payer is the way to go.
    2
  29. In hindsight: he did all these interiews (Cardi B, Killer Mike, rallies and small events) while the artery already clogged up (and he felt effects like fatigue, wasn't sleeping good, ...) The resolution to slow down did not survive 1 week after he left the hospital.
    2
  30. She immediately wanted MEANS TESTING for the relief for regular people (USD 1,200 ONCE, and I think it is an ADVANCE only on the tax returns). Now, when the dust has settled IRS could handle the "fairness" issue, that wealthy people do not need it (it is called taxes). They could send the money FAST w/o creating red tape for the citizens, red tape that has to be adminstrated by civil servants (that should be home if that is possible ! instead of adminstrating relief programs that are more complicated than necessary.
    2
  31. let me inform you about the 1,5 TRILLION muffin. QE to bail out Wallstreet speculators. Fed * created that on March 12 and it was just the beginning, had nothing to do with the "stimulus" and was much earlier. - FED can do that NOW and FAST, and w/o oversight after Frank Dodd * had been passed. The first wave of QE under Obama * (to the tune of 4 trillion in total) still needed Congress * and that triggered a little bit of public discussion (not enough, a lot of misinformation, glossing over - but some). Now Fed can act swift and stealthily. They are shielded by the media * : "Fed injected liquidity into the "markets"." Nope: speculators were bailed out. (actors that buy and sell shares with an investors approach can sit it out, think pension funds, or prudent well diversified investors). For a company like Ford and Amazon it does not matter at what price the shares are traded - the small volume they parted with on the day of the IPO (going public). THEN they got paid. Ford and Amazon are not hindered to do biz,no matter what the share price is. (which may REFLECT worse outlooks. But the stock exchange is a mirage not the real thing). * = captured by corporate interests. Fed: chair is appointed or left in charge by the president (funded by the big donors). the board is staffed by the too-big-to-fail-banks. So: will such an authority to create the trillions (or billions in late 2019 already ! REPO crisis) be used for the good of high finance ? or will it be used for the good of society. It is not that government must be bad, it just should not be run by a king with absolute powers. Or bought up by big biz. Who know make it harder and harder to vote. 1,5 trillion divided by 330 million people = 4,500 USD each (so 18,000 for a family of four). or 2000 per adult and 500 per child, to leave some budgets for small biz. Next trillions created with a few keystrokes: help states, fund Medicare so all people get full coverage. Maybe bail out big biz (in exchange for partial worker / public ownership. public means a rotating board of citizens staff it not any government. the voting rights are tied to non-profits or co-ops. No one can take that with them. So not like stock options. The voting right and ownership belongs to the collective not individuals).
    2
  32. Makes me appreciate even more the moral clarity of AOC - she called Sanders in the hospital (both campaigns had courted her for her endorsement). She said: I got a gut-shot (this was of course after the MfA "plans" of Warren, never mind the short fear that Sanders would drop out of politics). - there is a video with the title Can AOC become the running mate of Sanders, interview was done by CBS (I think) it was in Oct. 2019 at the large Bernie's Back Rally in New York (first rally after the stents, endorsement of AOC). the interviewer was a hack, but their statements were profound (also what AOC says about the pressure to conform and how much better she understands the pressure he must have been under all these years since she is in D.C. herself). and they are so cute together.
    2
  33. youtube recommends them a lot - I think more than the indpendent outlets (just my impression). so they may fly (sneakily) under the establishment cover and enjoy an advantage. - Krystal Is an important and eloquent voice for progressives - if she is the gateway drug for others who would else stick with MSNBC or CNN ....
    2
  34.  @thedebatemechannel4746  Her mailbox has an auto responder. No one picks upt the phone. Letters with requests for town halls remain unanswered Or they get a letter with some bla bla. Not a date.
    2
  35. Julian Assange is NOT a whistleblower he and Wikileaks are PUBLISHER (that give / gave room to whistleblowers). The Biden admin attacks a publisher.
    2
  36. Context: the whole UN and WHO etc. need money, these orgs can be bureaucratic - but I think the weapons inspectors, OPCW, and the WHO do a good job - from time to time, and even if very imperfect, they are needed. WHAT would have been the response to corona WITHOUT the WHO ? Obama had installed a taskforce after Ebola, Trump dismantled it (cause: Obama), cut budgets for the CDC and planned MORE cuts (his budget proposal). The WHO has the systems in place to coordinate a FAST response, to have the nations exchange informations. The nature of an epidemic, pandemic, of exponential growth is that you would need to nip it in the bud. When it still looks harmless ((w/o exponential growth you can contain it and it does not become a pandemic, or an epidemic) So you need to have the international agency (with it's experts) already in place. The WHO would have to be reinvented. It weren't the SYSTEMS that were not working, and they have experts. It was political pressure from a major financier - in THIS case CHINA. But maybe ALSO the U.S. These agencies are often political footballs. And more often than not it is the U.S. that abuses them for political gains, can be related to regime change operations, etc. Trump during a rally: We have only 50 cases in the U.S., do you know the flu numbers ? Yes, and they now estimate the infection rate (R0 = R nought) is between 2 and 3, so 1 person infects 2 - 3 others, if it is allowed to runs it's course and no measures are taken). The costs of timely and decisive action, the harm it does to the eocnomy always seem too be high. A correct response to a POTENTIAL epidemeic / pandemic always looks exaggerated. And if nothing bad happens, you have the costs without the reward to KNOW if it really was necessary, if you really avoided much more damage. Politicians are not good in that kind of game. Only when other nations are not as wise AND it really gets out of hand, those who err on the side of caution are vindicated - and Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea look really smart and competent in hindsight. They are not naturally wise, it came at a cost, they were at the receiving end before, and have learnt from those experiences. It is easier to sell the measures to the population, that has been hit once and then they too were too late in their response. Taiwan had been burned (2003, SARS-CoV-1, China initially obfuscated and procrastinated then as well). So they started reacting immediately when China reported their first case to the WHO end of December 2019, they JUMPED into action, when neither China nor the WHO confirmed the severity then (WHO couldn't, their information cannot be better than what China amdits). 2 weeks later when Taiwan had their first confirmed case, they were ready to go, they have contained ! it VERY well. With mass testing and disciplined citizens (so that would not work in the U.S.) where they hold demonstrations with firearms for their "freedom". Trump stopped flights from China. Correct measure, but stemming from the wrong motivation. Trump did not mind sticking it to China, trade war and all. But he should have also restricted other flights - from Europe, and he later still did not want to do it ignoring such advice. Chinese workers and students and tourists came to Italy, many returned after they had spend the Chinese New Year in China. So the virus was imported from European travellers and not from Chinese ones. It does not even matter in a sense that China blew it. Italy also blew it, and most nations sort of learned from Italy. Still too late, but at some point they took decisive action. Meanwhile Trump was STILL in denial, downplayed it, did not want to face the economic damage, ignored the scientists.... Germany created their own test, Trump waited until his favorite company (Roche or Novartis, I forgot which one, but they had their lobbyists targeting the Trump admin even before) had a test developed, ignoring the already existing tests. Did not use the potential of the war production act. He invoked it, but then he did not FORCE the companies (big donors !!) to step up, it was all voluntarily and "pretty please" (make me look good for my reelection). The U.S. citizens did not know if they had to pay out of pocket for the test, meanwhile the Europeans did test (and for free). The U.S. is like China, only ignoring the warning real life example of other nations, and even China reacted correctly once they "got" it. Then they went big. That is why they could reopen Wuhan now. We can assume that the WHO tried to please China when they were late to declare it to be a pandemic etc. The U.S. government might have ALSO leaned on the WHO, after all Trump for a long time acted on: I do not want it, if I ignore it, it will go away. It would be bad for the economy and my reelection, so it can't be true. Likely he would have cut the funding of the WHO right away, and would have accused them of wanting to spoil his chances for reelection. Insert some George Soros conspiracies, and the idea that Democrats influene the WHO. The Chinese had the same problem as Trump (but they were first, so they would have needed to be extra smart), they did not like the implications of a correct response to a POTENTIAL epidemic / pandemic. Erring on the side of caution harms the economy and it could of course be an exaggerated reaction. So the world would benefit from the precautions of China, and China would shoulder the economic damage. Which does not make their reaction right, but more understandable. And the European nations WITH the information from China STILL dropped the ball (for some time). The U.S. was even more inept in the response (De Blasio and Cuomo in New York were also not a shining example they also dropped the ball to a degree).
    2
  37. Funding nations (like China OR the U.S.) abusing their power: OPCW omitted important evidence from the final report on the alleged gas attacks in Syria in spring 2018 (see Ted Postol, Prof. M.I.T., his findings and objections "edited" because of pressure of the U.S. No, it was not a gas attack by the government. But that was not the desired POLITICAL outcome. The U.S. is guilty of pressuring international agencies (more than China), using their leverage as main funder to exert undue influence which has a lot to do with the interests of the U.S. (ruling class, corporations and government) and little with the stated purpose of the agency. (while the other wealthy nations let it and are glad not having to contribute more). The Trump admin hindered the WHO to start a campaign pro breastfeeding in developing countries. Absolutely reasonable from a health standpoint. it is better for a child to be breastfed in rich nations, in the poor nations you additionally have the problem of clean water, hygiene, so you may have increased infant mortality if they get diarrhea. The mothers in those nations see it as status symbol and giving the child the best they can afford if they use their modest means to buy baby formula (like they do in the developed rich nations). Someone should educate them that breastfeeding is more valuable. Insert Trump admin serving the interests of Nestlé (and some other company, I forgot the name, big donor of course). The WHO had to drop the plans (1 or 2 years ago). Methinks the Chinese government might not have derailed that reasonable project. the main actor in leveraging those institutions. However, if the funding is not sufficient they will look for another state to fund them (and the U.S. kept them on their toes for much longer than the Trump presidency). So they turn to another ascending nation, that is large / powerful enought that they can pick up the tab: TaDa ! CHINA. And where is the EU ? Australia, Canada, Japan, .... These nations could provide the funding for WHO, it is 40 bn so it is not much in the large scheme of things. Then the WHO could afford to step on the toes of China and call them out - as they should - because they do not depend on them. Now, the U.S. is not as generous as it might look at first glance, when picking up a major part of the tab (or doing so in the past). She has the meanwhile undeserved privilege to have the world reserve currency, essentially she can just create the money, it must not be backed up by doestic production. The other side of the medal is that the U.S. takes a free ride on the output of other countries, much more is imported than exported, the U.S. gets more goods (in exchange for easily created In most other countries the money they create correspondd with the output of the national economy (at least it should). After all we use money to exchange goods and services, more output = it is legitimate to insert more money into the system. And since all nations buy from other nations - it is important if they "inflate" the value of their currency. Not the U.S. - the usual rules do not apply to the U.S.: creates money all the time, a lot of debt (that is a major mechanism of money creation). Plus a high trade deficit (more imports than exports).
    2
  38. Just the nugget with the weed arrests and play it in California !
    2
  39. Ryan Grim (Intercept) filled in - I think for Krystal.
    2
  40. eager to unseat a D Senator ? go after Manchin ! Warren is an opportunist. If M4A shows up in the Senate she will not dare to vote against it. Sanders introduced a bill (I think non binding) to import drugs from Canada in Jan. 2017. Even some Republicans were for it (Ted Cruz on grounds of free market) so it could have passed - but 13 D Senators defected. Warren supported it. Cory Booker not. Sanders mildy voiced his regret, and "mentioned" Booker as one that was in disagreement. Booker then was already floated as potential 2020 contender. Sanders had to play nice with the party, but Social media followers got the cue, they slammed the defectors. Booker came up with a lame excuse, concerns about safety, he would gladly work with Senator Sanders in the future on such initiatives .... it was only the first step, not like they would have imported drugs the next day from Canada.
    2
  41. So did Kim and Robby already retract their wrong claims about the SW pilotes and the alleged vaccine boycot ? No they have NOT called in sick in masses in order to oppose the vaccine mandate of SW. The union, the pilotes the company opposed that claim. The share of pilotes on sick leave is not higher than 1 year ago, AND SW has a way to organize their schedules that differs from how other airlines do it. May be more cost saving, but it also makes them vulnerable to domino effects. if a few things do not work out, they have to replan, reshuffle and they have ripple effects - search for details if interested, it is online. if pilotes had mild effects after getting vaccinated (feeling fatigued) they may play it safe and stay home (or they are even required to do that for safety reasons), that could be another explanation. (my theory). It should be noted that harmless colds might be felt more severely in high altitude, so the rules to stay home if in doubt may be much stricter than for other professions. If a flight attendent becomes unable to work, passengers may suffer inferior service. If one of two pilotes is unconcentrated because he is under the weather (and whatever is afflicting them on the ground is felt stronger in higher altitude) .....
    2
  42. It depends - in New York and many areas in California (large cities) it is not that much. 35k can be O.K. if you live in an area with lower rent - but then there are not the jobs for the masses !
    2
  43. The D party would rather sell out the base, they did in 1968 (in the traumatic year that saw the death of Dr. King. Bobby Kennedy and they gave the base NOTHING regarding the war). And had the police crush the protests around the convention. - LBJ likely also did not mind if Nixon got elected, he would continue HIS war. so when he had evidence that the Nixon admin had talked to the president of South Korea to undermine the Paris peace talks - LBJ did not use that ammuniation. He could have forced Nixon to step down under a pretext. Then the intel successes of the U.S. (bugs in the office of the president of South Korea and bugs in their embassy) would not have been given up. If Nixon would force them to make the evidence public (meaning the SK government would know they were bugged or intercepted and would also expose sooner or later the U.S. contacts) - that would make Nixon even more of a traitor. LBJ did not want another term, likely his health and stamina was not that good. But he was hellbent on having that war. It is sad - he could have a splendid record w/o that: Civil Rigths legislation passed. LBJ had the ability to play hardball - he just did not use it in a good way (for the most part, they got some votes of Northern Republicans for the Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Act). The D party also made sure that Truman and not progressive VP Wallace (who was very popular then) became the VP again in 1944. They did not fight the candidacy of FDR like in 1940 (and then FDR had insisted on Wallace as VP) - they knew it was only a matter of time until FDR would die, so they wanted a pro war Democrat in the White House.
    2
  44. Shaun King has a very interesting well researched story about Biden, Stolen Valor and the Civil Rights movement: https://shaunking.substack.com/p/2-truths-and-31-lies-joe-biden-has 2 truths and 31 lies Joe Biden has told about his work in the Civil Rights Movement - Shaun King's Newsletter
    2
  45. As Saagar said a few weeks ago: if Trump wins, the has to deal with the economic mess, it will be blamed on Trump and the enabling GOP. then they are really in trouble. Sadly Trump really can't be president again, the Dems would deserve to lose with Biden / Harris. - If Biden is in charge they will blame him. And Biden and his handlers can be relied on to not do the right thing (although I am not sure the Repubs can allow themselves to see that they would be even more distant from doing the right thing).
    2
  46. the danger is that 4 years of Biden will pave the way for the next more skilfull Trump. Like the Obama handling of the GFC and pushing for TPP paved the way for Trump.
    2
  47. TheRealNewsNetwork (not all videors are that good, but there are real gems, especially follow Lawrence Wilkerson). - And The Grayzone (Aaron Maté former member of The Real News)
    2
  48.  @ocumstweezers  it gets harder with age to learn new things and to process quickly - but then those who independently developed their positions (and informed themselves) can benefit from the work in younger years. They have something to fall back on. - It would help Sanders in the hectic pace of the presidency. That he had destructed the hack in the 1980s means he got into the details and opinions about the war on drugs and mass incarceration - as were available then. I assume he picked up more as he went to D.C. With age comes wisdom - for some. A president cannot know and do it all alone - but he needs the ability to chose people that are experts and will work for the agenda. Usually the agenda is pro donors, pro big biz - and the advisors are representatives of the special interests (not hard to find intelligent, hard working well educated people with an "impressive" bio). Much harder to find those who are intelligent, knowledgeable and dare to question conventional wisdom. And are actually willing to serve The People. The president needs a well developed b.s. meter to find the advisors that will not even try to dupe or manipulate him or her - because they know the president has enough independent thinking and general knowledge to sniff it when they try.
    2
  49. The very idea of voters having even a little bit of choice outside the party duoply (the Repubs reliably having even worse candidates than them) freaks out Corporate Dems, it undermines the business model of their grift (they are useful to the donors when they win primaires against progressives, and can sheepdog the base in the general). They very brazenly showed progressives and pro-worker pro environment movements what they can expect: NOTHING. And Sanders sadly has capitulated. The whole shtick falls apart if there would be a candidate that offers left wing popuulims. would be Jesse Ventura. The Dems would be in for a surprise.
    2
  50. 4:37 the assumption is of course that Nancy Pelosi or Schumer wanted the Democrats to win the toss up races come Nov. 2020. They did not behave like that and were also cavlier about the PRESIDENCY, that ALMOST BACKFIRED. Biden did not seem eager to emulate the highly successful 2008 campaign of Obama, and the candidates for Congress and Senate that lost did not run on a Bernie platform. If those veterans of politics seem naive and clueless (also when they "try" to work with Republicans who will for sure stonewall) .... Maybe it is not self sabotage ?? Maybe they are not idiots, maybe they play a cozy game and can afford to gamble. They ONLY wanted to get rid of Trump, and they even took risks with that. Biden limped over the finish line. 123,700 votes won him the 4 states that were too close to call for several days. he needed 2 out of the 4 and a few tenthousand votes in every state would have swung the election. That was a VERY CLOSE result - in the EC - if interested see following comment. In other words - had he gotten a decisive win in PA and WI with 3 - 5 % more as end result, that lead would have manifested much earlier in the ongoing count of the mail ballots and he would have been projected as winner by all networks on Nov. 4th already. Nov. 5th at the latest, so the R grifters would not have had the chance to spin the narrative. The later result of GA and AZ could have been the icing on the top. No one could build their electoral strategy on that, and indeed it was really, really close in both states. High ranking Democrats have usually safe seats (if not they get a Golden Parachute), and meanwhile I wonder if they really want to win. I think they are the most content with SLIM majorities (a few in Congress and Senate are the jokers on behalf of big donor interests. They will always "defect" and side with Republicans if the Dems are in danger of having the majorities for something that is good for The People. That way and the have an excuse why they never get anything done. "We did not have the vote." Or if they do not have all 3 branches of government it is even easier: "I only Republicans let us ..."
    2