Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Rebel HQ"
channel.
-
13
-
12
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
please go to info@berniesanders.com and beg the campaign so that Sanders does NOT play the surrogate FOR Biden. People like the ideas of Sanders, "but later, now it is time to beat Trump". *
They vote for Biden over Sanders because they think Joe is a) a nice guy and b) he is BETTER or well able to beat Trump. - and Sanders CONFIRMS THAT (Joe is my friend, and yes he can beat Trump, of course he can). - It is not even true.
- I very much dispute that Biden can beat Trump unless the economy tanks completely. Biden is likely in cognitive decline, at the minimum he has much less stamina than Sanders, he does a light schedule, many "gaffes", not to mention how much BAGAGGE Biden has.
Sanders should say: I am better because I have proven myself in a rigorous LONG campaign, and there are many issues where I can drag Trump, but Biden can't go there or is vulnerable (Iraq war, and trade deals, plus family corruption, the Biden family made hundreds of millions). Biden is status quo regarding healthcare and NO cuts to pharma costs and Trump is not better.
Trump didn't hold his promise regarding healthcare. THAT should sway some of his supporters (or keep them at home).
Studies (how to persuade people): People that lean to the right do not react well to appeals on empathy (so the separated children are not a reason for them to not vote for Trump, also no empathy for dreamers, at least not enough to overcome their perceived self interest).
But right wingers appreciate holding promises and LOYALTY.
Sanders CAN hit Trump on that, Biden can't
ALSO: Sanders IS the stronger debater.
7
-
7
-
7
-
Despite all the hype it is NOT PROVEN that is was a hack, let alone a hack ordered by the Russian gov.. More likely a LEAK. William Binney former technical director of the NSA working for a solution for 24/7 total surveillance: If data travels over the net there is a track record and there is NO way the NSA does NOT HAVE it (if someone remote accessed the DNC and then extracted the data they would be sent over the web, there is no other physical possibility). And it would be SAFE to show the evidence - it would not reveal methods or sources - there are claims like that and they are false (from a mere technical or IT point of view). So if they have the evidence they could present it without any disadvantages, they did so immediately after the SONY hack (this I know from a McAffee interview, on ? RT) - so why don't they just show the damn evidence.
Julian Assange on the other hand explicitely said: it was a LEAK not a hack. Craig Murray former ambassador of UK, kicked out because of his integrity (reg. brutal dictator of Uzbekistan). He works now for Wikileaks, he claims that he got the data in physical form (USB stick or something like that) from an disgusted insider of the DNC in a park in Washington. When the data is saved internally on an USB-stick and then handed over in person of course there are no tracks about this web traffic the NSA could show to us.
NSA are usually the ones that have the experts for hacking and they help out the other agencies like the CIA (again I heard that from Binney) - and they were the only agency that had "medium" certainty that it was a hack and ordered by Russia (see the report from all agencies from January 2017). All other agencies had "high confidence" . The comprehensive report of all agencies speculates about Putins psychological motives for the alleged hack. The also state the "negative" fact that RT (yes Russia Today the Russian sponsored successful TV station) reported about fracking, hosted Third Party debates and repeatedly mentioned Wall Stret greeds. All these subversive activities intend to incite dissatisfaction within the audience (I am paraphrasing, but it is true, the report OBSESSES with RT and their reporting on the aformentioned topics.
It would almost be funny if it was not so chilling. Monthy Python material.
This would not be the first time the agencies carry the water for powerful politicians - and their networks and donors - the Hillary canp and that includes many corporations are pissed off that she lost.
They instinctevely sense that establishment politics with all the lobbyism, cosy jobs, networking inside the bubble, the revolving door, the safe seat because of gerrymandering and/or the lesser of 2 evils - all that will be challenged now (because of Sanders, and partially because the Trump success shows the extent of dissatisfaction among voters).
They LOSE CONTROL ABOUT THE PUBLIC NARRATIVE. (Erdogan of Turkey found that out a few years earlier). Politicians, think tanks, the Military Industrial Complex, corporations, Israel above everything else AIPAC, the top 10 % have a tight grip on the networks and news papers (many of these players are major shareholders).
Potential Democratic voteRS do not get their info from Fox News - so it does not matter for the Democratic establishment what they air.
RT, however is more and more watched as alternative source of information. And they have the young and potential Democratic voters (especially if they are interested in progressive causes).
So the (Democratic) Establishment GOES BALLISTIC.
Now it does not look like Trump will really "drain the swamp" so they can relax on that front (taxes, regulations). But it looks like they lost TPP and a lot of people are unhappy about the danger that the Cold War 2.0 might end as well.
Lots of reasons for them to discredit Trumps presidency with allegations of Russian interference - as if he needed help with discrediting. The things that are really bad are for instance the Wallstreet guys and other rich people in the cabinet, the hostile attitude towards Iran, and that healthcare may become even worse etc. And that is nothing the Corporate Dems want to dwell on.(Obama , Clinton anyone ?). Better complain about "he won unfairly with help of Russia, which is BTW supposed to be the US arch enemy".
Better avoid the dangerous topics.
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
+ LB - I feel you - they sense they fight a losing battle. - P.S. I live in Europe, the healthcare IS good here - and no, government does not run things, there are no death panels, and the waiting times are reasonable - and immediate care functions. Who cares if you have to wait one month more for your hip replacment or have to accept to go to a hospital that is not the nearest (so the visitors have to drive longer).
I was shocked to find out how much more cost efficient the systems with the public non-profit insurance agencies are (take the German or Austrian per capita expenditures, then slap 65 or 70 % on them and you are at the U.S. level - source world bank 2014, the U.S. had per capita expenditures of 9,200, Germany and Austria 5,600 resp. 5,400. Note that the population is older on average, which is much more expensive. The U.S. is meanwhile at over 10,000 USD per capita in 2016, but I do not have the current German data.
But of course even at the German price level (Germany is at the higher end of the average for a wealthy European country - they are usually between 5k and 5,5 k) - that means plus 22k per year for a family of four.
That is much for low income families. So the solidarity principle means that people if they have a job pay a percentage of their wage, the employer pays the same, and on top there is tax funding. Risk and family size does not matter, only your income. And no more payment when you need treatment.
HOWEVER: All of that means that the upper middle class pays more (if they and their family are healthy, if they have a preexisting conditon they will still save money with the streamlined cost-efficient system). And it requires some tax funding which again hits wealthy and rich people more.
Also it limits the profits of those for-profit players that are even allowed in the system. (like the pharma industry, the family doctors - they are independent small businesses, or church run non-profit hospitals, that have a contract and cannot charge what they want. They do not send the bill to the patient but to the public agency - so if they wanted to play games - that would be their opponent.
And the worst: it violates the article of faith the the private market is always better and will magically fix all things.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
Another note: Europe get's almost all it's oil from other continents. It arrives at seaports and then is distributed with trucks and on the rail - and one never hears about these horrible accidents like in the U.S Hint: it helps if the infrastructure (streets, railway) is kept in good order. Europe is much more densely populated (520 millions approx. but has only 67 % of the land mass of the U.S. who has a population of 323 million). So there would be naturally more resistance to a pipeline, using up ground, going through or nearby settlements etc., the landscape is more varied - mountain ranges in the way of a direct line - and these are the areas where land is especially valuable. These are also touristic areas, so the locals are naturally more protective of the environment and would not be happy with a oil pipeline. Gas (from Russia) is transported in pipelines. So the transport of oil is done on wheels and it works well and is safe HERE. It is possible that they also use shipping on streams - but a spill even though bad would be manageable - it is only a certain amount that can spill, it will not leak unnoticed by the population for over years and people are getting poisoned without knowing it. Usually not the complete load will run out and emergency measures can be taken to avoid the worst (like barriers downstream, siphoning off etc.). And then the streams are not meant to provide drinking water (although they are very clean at least in Germany, Austria, Switzerland). The drinking water in the countries in the moderate climate zone (read: enough rain) comes from wells and aquifers and vehicles transporting oil have to avoid the "protected water source areas" if that is possible, even if the route is longer.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The two oil crises in the 1970s (doubling oil prices with 18 months etc.) triggered rising unemployment in combination with high inflation.
The "haves" finally, finally could hit back against the New Deal.
From then on they took over media, academia, politics.
Raising interest rates soon enough after cyclical downturns were used "to discipline the workforce" (Alan Greenspan).
Later trade deals cost so many jobs that the fear of job loss was ALWAYS present. From then on interests rates could remain low = cheap money for the speculators, real estate developers, ....
It meant undermining the negotiating power of the workforce with a residue of unemployment even in a good economy. They could easily be fired and replaced (with many McJobs)- so no fighting for their fair share anymore.
That helped with suppressing the wages, letting folks make unpaid overtime, etc. etc. Even under a good economy and fairly good employment ** the workforce was kept on their toes.
** "employment" (in the survey done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics) means 10 hours and upwards (of course also way beyond 40 hours)
No one asks in the phone survey if the person would like or need to work MORE hours, the current "low unemployment" does not lead to increasing wages (adjusted for inflation) - so there must be many people that are underemployed or feeling _ job-insecure jobs._
Else we would see wages rising. (If your company can pack up tomorrow, even though they have good business it will lead to the desired meek and fearful workforce.
Job insecurity was intentionally created using "free" "trade" agreements that made outsourcing possible, safe and lucrative.
Bill Clinton"achieved" a lot of it (of course with bipartisan support of bought and paid for Congress). And the presidents after him did not even dream of challenging that "legacy".
Under Bush1 NAFTA did not get passed. Bill Clinton duped the unions with promises - he needed them to get elected.
A few years later he made favorable tariffs for Chinese imports de facto permanent (an Executive Order handed the decision over to the State Department instead of having Congress approving them on a yearly base). And around 2000 came another agreement with China).
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@trl2828 ??? I live in a country with single payer - it works in nations with 300,000 people (Iceland) 3 - 4 millions (Denmark, Norway), 7 - 10, 30 millions. Or approx. 65 million (Italy, France, U.K. - the latter do not have even HALF the per capita expenditures of the U.S. - the NHS of the U.K. is underfunded, however.
But for 55 - 65 % of the U.S. expenditures per person a nation can have a well functioning medical system for everyone - worthy of a first world country - see Germany, France, Austria, ....
Germany has 85 million people, Japan 125 approx. - the per capita part you can scale up and dow as you need.
per capita = everyone in the country and _ healthcare expenditures_ everything that is already ! spent IN the country._ It does not matter how it is financed (out of pocket, subsidy or by a insurance company).
The per capita = per head in the U.S. of course includes the people that have no or insufficient coverage, go bankrupt, get treatment too late or no preventive care
In all other countries those "heads" do have coverage - meaning FULL coverage.
4
-
@trl2828 Interestingly the "economy of scale" does impact healthcare expenditures once a certain minimum size is reached - maybe 100,000 people - Iceland is doing fine (and blows the U.s. out of the water). Being a larger nation is not exactely a disadvantage but not an advantage either (as one would expect).
having a market of 325 million people instead of 3 or 30 or 80 is usually not considered a cost driving factor.
The cultural make-up does not matter. A broken arm or diabetes needs the same treatment and costs the same.
The European nations traditionally do not define themselves as immigration nations - but they have become that since the 1960s and 1970s when a lot of migration workers came. It just does not show up because it is not such a hassle, expensive and a long process to get citizenship.
What has crude oil production to do with it ? U.K. and Norway (it has only 3 or 4 million people) are the only nations that have oil - it is fading out in the U.K.
That a country might have higher revenue (from oil, or other revenue) to finance programs - has nothing to do with the fact the the serivice is delivered in a MUCH MORE COST EFFICIENT MANNER.
Even the relatively expensive Norwegian care costs less per person than is already being spent in the U.S. per person - but in Norway everyone is covered and their outcomes (infant mortality, life expectancy) are better.
Both nations (U.K. and Norway) are outliers regarding their expenditures: Norway happens to have high per capita expenditures USD 8,400 (approx.) and U.K. ONLY USD 3,900 - which is less than half of the U.S. but the NHS has been defunded over the course of the last 10 years.
All other European nations have NO oil and also no or little gas. See France, Belgium, Italy, Austria, Germany, ....
So it is a good thing they have organized their healthcare cost-efficient with a public non-profit insurance agency and many (or solely) non-profit public hospitals.
Hospitals are usually run by cities, sometimes by states / provinces. Either way - Big Pharma is the only large and powerful for-profit actor in the system. The doctors with their own practice and and pharmacies are private SMALL companies who have a contract with the non-profit agency - which drives a good bargain with all of them. (The doctors and pharmacies have professional organizations - comparable to a chamber of commerce that represent them, they are all getting the same contract).
Luckily Big Pharma has very standardized, comparable products - that makes it easier to negotiate. So Iceland can compare prices (if only behind closed doors) to make sure they are not being ripped off because they are a tiny nation.
Hospitals and doctors have a certain number of people they can realistically serve - so that can be scaled up and down according to the population size and the population density of the region (Norway might have a disadvantage here - they will have to offer more smaller units so that driving distances are not too long - or they will need to offer more helicopter transports).
Now the costs of living in Norway are higher in general - that means also higher wages which affect the costs of healthcare (which include of a lot of labor costs).
The systems finance the DELIVERY OF CARE and not the profits of the shareholders of private for profit insurance comapnies and chains of hospitals.
So the 8,400 USD per head seem worse than they are - still Norway is NOT in the 5,000 - 6,000 USD range - like he overwhelming majority of first world countries (most wealthy European nations - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, .....
And then there is the U.S. with USD 9,200 (source World Bank, data 2014 - meanwhile they should have come up at least with the 2016 data you can look it up - or be content with the general idea - the gap cost-wise will not have changed much..)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
+Holypikemanz The vacation Lake house at Lake Champlain (not a fancy affair but it is beachfront property, hence the price) they got in summer 2016 for 600k. They financed it (at least partially) with the sale of the house in Maine which Jane had inherited from her mother.
And yes they have 3 houses now, 1 regular family home in Burlington (where he was mayor), and a row house in D.C. (seems to be a usual solution for long time representatives, he is in D.C. since 1990 or 1991).
I can relate to the Sanders' family cherishing the ability to meet and
enjoy modest lake summer vacations in a 40 minutes driving distance from their home. - I read about Sanders' first "real estate" when he was a young man. It was an off the grid cabin (nearby Burlington if I remember correctly), no water, no electrictiy, no floor. He lived there with his first wife. Well she might have been less enthusiastic about it, the marriage did not hold. It can get cold in Vermont, not sure if the former sugar shack was well insulated.
He bought the property from his inheritance when his father died. - Being from N.Y. he was VERY IMPRESSED with having his OWN REAL ESTATE ... "I stood up in the morning and these were MY TREES. I thought that was awesome".
He does not splurge on cars. He does not spend a lot of money on fashion, luxury restaurants, boats, and likely also not on luxury vacations abroad (he hits the road a lot, so spending time in VT is his chance to meet the grandchildren). And his hairdresser isn't getting rich of him either ;)
This desire to have a private retreat where they can spend uncomplicated family time in summer and fall seems very down
to earth to me, and it seems to be the one thing they splurge on.
As mayor and then especially in Congress and Senate he got paid good salaries, I hear his books are selling well. He does not need the help of the Democratic Party, some donors, think tanks, or SuperPacs, to sell them. Lucrative book contracts are the only legal way to bribe politicians WHILE THEY ARE STILL IN OFFICE. If a SuperPac buys truck loads of the books of a politician (and the publisher knows that in advance)...
If I remember correctly in the leaked Clinton email someone thought it "appropriate" to remind the Clintons or their staff of the help they have gotten in organizing a book tour - like the Clintons owed someone. Can you spell "pay for play" ? -
Anyway: Sanders isn't doing that, he sells his books on his own. He took a risk 2015 and 2016, and it was a lot of effort and energy he put into the campaign. People reporting on the campaign were impressed with his energy.
Plus he still puts a lot of effort into getting good healthcare for the country. It is not like THAT will get him some financial profits. It is not like the pharmaindustry or Wallstreet is going to reward him the minute he retires. (no Obama style 400k speaking gigs fro HIM).
There is no way someone can unseat him as Senator of Vermont as long as he desires to hold office. He could as well take it easy.
Actually if he was willing to sell out more (Howard Dean anyone ? ), the DNC would provide him - or his wife or another family member - with a lucrative position and be glad to shut him up. - Instead he travels the country and annoys the heck out of the corporate Democrats.
And he is not doing that because that effort will get him some extra reward (well it might improve book sales because he builds a fan base, but that is hard to calculate).
He believeably says that he cherishes the time he can spend with family, especially the grandchildren (teaching them sports etc). Well at his age one thinks about: "How many good years are left to me".
He could keep the job as Senator, play a quiet and relaxed game. He knows the rules of the circus and when you do what the Democratic Party establishment orders, there is not much time needed to inform yourself. Doing your own thing, forming and arguing your own opinion is time consuming.
His collegues use 30 - 40 % of their time for fundraising, he does not need to do that.
Another time consuming task of a politician is to hold contact with the voters at home. Well he could do that easily, while enjoying to spend time at home in Vermont.
In short he could earn the nice salary and the benefits (incl. healthcare) of a Senator quite easily and with not too much effort and investment of time - and enjoy his old age and family.
He does not do that. Instead he tries to comfort the afflicted - and it looks like he afflicts the comfortable as well - and he has not even taken off the gloves. (Still hoping for him to take off the gloves.)
3
-
3
-
+johnburt1960 + look4lec The Dems had the committees working on it, Single Payer was immediatly thrown out of the window, next they abandoned the public option (which is an unsatisfying compromise anyway *) All these shady compromises of RomneyCare were required by Corporate Democrats (of course - donors !!!!!)
Now Mr. Charismatic Hope and Change could have rallied the unwashed masses (see Sanders, see FDR - the Dems BTW seriously considered to not put the sitting Prez in the 40s on the ballot, they did not do primaries then, - he was way too progressive for some of the lot, but FDR was a fighter).
The voters would have lectured their representatives in 2009/2010 about their duty. ACA (an incredibly complicated huge bill ) was passed after a lot of pro and contra. And after a lot of time had passed. Enough time to develop a good Bill and have it ready on the shelf, continue to sell it to the voters, and wait for your chance. That window of 59 days with the Supermajority.
The people would have danced on the streets and the midterms would have gone differently. - But then this would have been a completely different Democratic Party. Right now the Democratic (potential) base is much more progressive than the Democrats.
The Dems could not fire up their base with ACA . Much too weak, much too expensive. Much too complicated.
For Medicare For All the people would have taken it to the streets.
Obama did not want to WAKE THE SLEEPING GIANT - and his donors even less. Even his first run was financed with a lot of Wallstreet money (good investment Wallstreet !) he had a deal with them. After all he allowed Occupy to be brutally crushed as well. ANYTHING BUT A GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT.
* the moment you allow a 2 tier system (public option) it becomes more complicated, more expensive and much easier to defund for future governments.
If everyone - wealthy or poor - uses the same system, has the same coverage and pays according to income (not risk !! = age, gender, status of health, size of included family) - that keeps the system good and cost-efficient.
If you have 2 pools/systems then the wealthy and healthy ! will be the cherry picked clients for the for profit industry. The expensive patients will be stuck with the other pool. You bet the Reps would try to underfund it the moment they get a chance to do so. And you bet the Blue Dogs would not do anything against it.
Next thing they can claim the Public system it is too expensive - of course, the good cases, those who could pay higher contributions and produce lower costs are all in the other system. Easy to muddy the water and to confuse the voters with harebrained arguments.
And if you defund a system it becomes dysfunctional. At which point they can introduce as solution the private for-profit sector "who does everything always, always better"
The funding would of course not be improved instead the services would be reduced. Or more payments when you need treatment.
And the more influental part of the population that is near and dear to the heart of the Reps and Dems and who gets a voice in media - that part will not have a (major) problem.
Too high costs yes, but they can live with it.
The poor and sick with their underfunded system will be ignored - like the lead water is ignored in Flint. DIVIDE AND CONQUER !
The NHS of UK is a warning example. One of the most cost-efficient systems for a wealthy country in the world: per capita costs USD 3,900 vs. 9,000 in the US (and 5,000 - 5,500 for the non-profit single payer systems of Canada, and the wealthy European countries - see World Bank data 2014).
Since the NHS is tax-funded it is easy for a hostile gov. to defund it (the money is needed for wars and tax cuts).
Most European systems rely heavily on employer/employee funding (% of wage so it is always affordable, and NO MORE Bills for the treatment). Not so easy to cut that back permanently. As long as the economy does not tank for many years.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Assad is somewhere between authoritarian leader and brutal dictator. The MSM stories (including it seems Amnesty International) are not plausible or seem exagerated. His alleged "dictatorship" and "crimes" is NOT why "Assad has to go". When has THAT EVER kept the US and Europe from cooperating with a brutal regime ? His reign is certainly not as oppressive, backwards and brutal as that of the Saudis.
No, Assad and his government stand in the way of US, Saudi and Israeli interests, and Turkey, Britain and France are in the game as well. That is why they go after him, at the cost of literally hundreds of thousands of dead Syrian people and millions that are displaced.
The proxy war was / is ruthlessly and criminally unleashed onto Syria (with foreign jihadist mercenaries ! and foreign funding !). Syria is a SECULAR country, before the proxy war it was a somewhat developed nation with moderate wealth, it was at least safe for unpolitical civilians (not sure about active opposition). It was safe for ALL RELIGIONS, lots of foreign Christian clergy were and are there - and what these (European, US, Argentinian, ...) nuns, priests and reverends report, completely contradict the common narrative about how horrible Assad is.
Tulsi Gabbard met with some of them (Christian leaders, not sure if they were Syrians or foreigners) and asked them what was and is going on from their point of view.
That would be the job of the Western media BTW, to get their facts from people living for a long time IN the country and not from an activist in London or a reporter stationed in Beirut or a former Syrian citzen who left decades ago - they all can tell only "heresay".
IFit is NOT about FACTS but about PROPAGANDA (to "justify" a military intervention of US / NATO) of course the folks in London Beirut, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and elsewhere can do a good job where they are, no need for microphones on the ground.
US / NATO were pissed off about the liberation of Aleppo. Not only because of the military implication, they also lost on the propaganda front. The "genocide in Aleppo" story did not really fly. Thanks to the internet there were enough people able to contradict that (incl. the videos of people celebrating on the streets, the UN monitoring the busing out of the rebels that had surrendered, the civilians who were hostages to the Islamists and who told stories how they were prevented to leave Aleppo to flee to the safe zones held by the Syrian government. They did not stay because they were afraid of the Syrian or Russian army or their government. They were misused as human shields. Like Mother Agnes Mariam (a nun) said: "The citizens of Syria (including Aleppo and Damascus) did not ask for war, they may have been in favour of change and more democracy in Syria but no one wanted war, death and destruction.
If these rebels (many of them being foreigners) want to fight against the government - Syria has a lot of desert where they can do their fighting. Why do they force there presence on the settlements of the civilians ? "(paraphrased)
If Assad is that bad or if that is grossly exagerated does not even matter now: What would come AFTER HIS FALL would be even worse for Syria. Millions of Alawites and Christians are likely to be killed, the country taken over by Islamists - the Western politicians BTW know that and just don't care. The country would be split up, each fragment fighting the other, endless suffering and economic despair.
Israel could strive for peace of course and then a strong Syria would not be a challenge to them. They have no intention to do so however, so they would be glad to see Syria become a failed state. A strong Syria would continue to allow Russia access to it's seaports.
Ultimately USA and Israel would really like to DISMANTLE IRAN, which is hard to do as long as Russia could start airstrikes from Syrian soil. There is an axis between Iran, Syria and Russia; even CHINA shows some interest and gave some help to the Syrians, that is a scenario where the bullies of US and NATO better retreat.
The Christians and Alawites seem to be the more educated and affluent segment of the population, so Syria - even if they "only" were driven out of the country, would suffer a major loss regarding entrepreneurship and capable and skilled workforce.
3
-
The Amnesty report might be exagerated (especially their extrapolation of the people who had died in that rather small prison). The report might even be issued to serve US/ NATO interests. I found interesting points here: http://www.syriasolidaritymovement.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/CaesarPhotoFraudReport_v6.compressed.pdf regarding former claims
and http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/02/amnesty-report-hearsay.html
I have two dogs in the race here: I would like to believe that Amnesty International indeed IS INDEPENDANT and trustworthy (I have given up on MSM, the UN, let alone national politicians). But then AI participated in the incubator lie Kuwait that was fabricated by an US PR company to justify the US war in Iraq in 1991 (the "International Community" and the UN were reluctant and wanted more negotiations). It seems AI gave the story credibility).
And: it would totally make sense for the CIA and other agencies to place their moles and stooges in such a respected NGO. They could steer the investigations to "harmless" causes, causes that do not embarrass the US and the West too much, give more attention to "regimes" the West wants gone or criticized and to not go too harshly on countries that the West favours.
And for the sake of the Syrian people I would hope that that report is not true, that Assad is more leaning towards an authoritarian ruler than a brutal dictator condoning torture. (Because it is likely he will stay in power)
I heard a quote that is attributed to Robert Baer, former CIA: If the US wanted someone "seriously" interrogated they sent him to Jordan (there are rumours of CIA torture sites in Jordan as well, so it may be worse than harsh interrogation), if they wanted someone tortured they deliverd the person to Syria and if they wanted someone disappeared the person was deliverd to Egypt.
I did not research that quote, which Egyptian government - the former or the current dictator ? Assad took over around 2000 from his father. BTW I think he helped the US in the Iraq war of 2003, so then he had a good press and maybe Baer refers to that time (or he talked about the regime of Assad the father).
I have to investigate that further, that quote seems to me more reliable and plausible than the AI report. Baers quote is older AND he did not say it to make the US (or it's allies) look good or help their agenda.
The Western agenda against Syria suffered a bad defeat end of last year and the timing of the AI report is suspicious to put it mildly.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
On the flip side these technocrats of elections are not really good anyway. As more progressives run and have some money to spend, it could be the base for NEW UNTAINTED marketing talent who "gets it". Those establishment strategists and consultants are often rewarded with jobs for being political loyalists - that is ONE way to reward politicians (when they run unsuccessfully in the GE but at least they beat the progressive in the primary).
That is why all the money and supposed expertise, and the "experience" of the politicians in the Clinton campaign did not help them to see the writing on the wall in 2016 - they are so entrenched in the "system" and so used to do double think (the ability not to "know" what the policies MEAN for regular people, like NAFTA, China tariffs, letting the banks run amock, Crime Bill and 3 strikes, the war on drugs, student loans, Biden championed a bill that made sure they cannot be discharged in a bankrupcy, of course he serves big finance).
AOC had a good VIDEO for instance, Sanders had a good video too (America the Beautiful 2016).
3
-
TRANSCRIPT part 2 of 3 5:06 I said: Well, look I'm willing to ride a unicycle and if that means if we lose out to the bicycles, I will lose this race on that alone. - As it turned out we ended up having more individual donations than any other candidate, more individual donations than all the other candidates put together.
99.9% of our contributions came from people. The other 0,1 (one tenth of one ) percent actually slightly less than that, came from trade unions and small businesses. Many of those small businesses were giving things in kind - like food to the campaign from Busboys And Poets.
We shocked people because we raised money faster than anybody else and we did it with the lowest average donation in the race. Almost half of that of the guy running on the public option.
Cenk: Ben's campaign winning three million dollars - which is an amazing total when it comes from individual donations, it wouldn't be an amazing total if it was corporate PAC money, then you could raise that fairly quickly.
But it was a bold and important and correct and progressive decision to not do that. By the way it was one of the reasons that Ben Jealous got the endorsement of the Justice Democrats. It was a huge night for that organization last night as Alexander Ocasio-Cortez who was a justice Democrat from day one, the first candidate ever, and Ben Jealous won.
So let's talk about your upcoming race now: Larry Hogan as things stand, is a popular governor of Maryland. The second reason why you race so important is because there is an idea out there that if you want to beat someone like Larry Hogan you have to go towards the right wing and you have to be in the centrist camp.
Now, you're also defying that, you're saying: "No, I'm gonna run as a progressive in the general election as well. I'm not gonna do any pivots etc". So if you win doing that strategy, it will be a really important test for the progressive movement.
That's why I think it's really important for all progressives watching this to make sure that you continue to support Ben. That campaign is a testing ground, it's important for all of us.
Talk to me about your strategy about how to win the general election.
7:33 Ben: You know, look I've said from the very beginning I can't zigzag because I have size 14 feet and I'll trip.
We're just gonna keep running in one direction and quite honestly it's not towards the left, it's not towards the right, it's towards the people.
I come into this as the former national president the NAACP. And I know that when I worked in states far more conservative than our state to shrink their prison system more rapidly, we did it with bipartisan support.
3
-
3
-
3
-
+Curry what has economically "weak" or "strong" have to do with getting hired or not ? Getting hired depends on if there is a job where they can earn a profit for someone else. (That has often but not always to do with qualification, it depends on what the jobs ask for, that can be menial)
Mc Donalds in weatlhy European countries or Australia MUST pay more and they MUST grant benfits. They sell enough and I think their products are not much more expensive than in countries with lower standards. Wages are only a part of the product price - and if everyone has fairly good wages they can afford to buy. meaning they might have a full shop at all times.
The workers get more and McDonalds less (still plenty though) - that means LESS inequality.
The alternative for companies like McDonalds is to forego the possible profits alltogether and to be NOT in business in such countries.
Which would be fine - another company would take their niche.
The jobs that CAN be outsourced - have been outsourced long ago. (Thanks to free trade deals). Automation is not an immediate challenge (I will not go into that, reduction of worktime with the same pay, UBI, etc.).
What remains are personal services (like restaurants, hairdressers) or higher qualified occupation. Airlines for instance can outsource part of their accounting to India (huge volume of transactions, standardized), but many companies can't, they need the office workers and accountants IN the country and IN the office.
The higher wages EAT into EXTREME profits, they make life easier for the mass of people while limiting the profits of the shareholders.
If they COULD they certainly would onyl pay 4 or 7 USD and no benefits whatsoever and no fixed schedule in advance either.
Well they can't. - and the claim that it is necessary is of course not true they sell their stuff just fine.
Our economy depends on standardized jobs and skills and processes . Almost everyone is replaceable - even if your job requires expertise, training and if you are good in it. And it must be like that (what if you quit or get sick).
The downside to this is that even qualified and good people CAN be easily replaced. And with increasing automation and a certain "residue" of unemployment that never goes away - there will be a strong incentive for employers to suppress wages.
if you have a job interview you are always in the slightly inferior position (EVEN if the economy is strong - most people are GLAD to get hired). The kind of economy we have means that almost no job and qualification is so unique that the employer and the employee have the same negotiation power.
That is where minimum wage and also collective bargaining (for higher paying professions) come into play - they also have ripple effects on other jobs that are slightly above minimum wage. and the more qualified positions.
Trickle up.
All of that means more people in the "middle class" - and the wealth of the upper 10, 1 or 0,1 a little bit reduced.
Other measures to reduce inequality (additionally to minimum wage, collective bargaining) are high taxation on rich and profitable companies and some redistribution of wealth - funding of childcare, healthcare etc.
As for taxation 60 - 70 % top marginal income tax in 1933, 94 % in 1944, it stayed high, and applied to 400.000 USD then (around 2,7 million USD in todays money). Nixon accused JFK of wanting to reduce the taxes for rich people, which JFK denied, they discussed an EFFECTIVE highest top marginal income tax of 72 % (presidential debate - so early 1960s).
From 1947 until 1970 wages rose (almost) in lockstep with productivity, purchasing power almost doubled (+ 97 %).
That meant LOW inequality (good wages, people could afford homes, the taxes put a cap on profit, so investing or benefits for workes was the only way a company could avoid taxation. Investing invariably created orders and jobs for other people, and benefits added to the wealth/wellbeing of workers).
High taxation, high minimum wages, public services REDUCE INEQUALITY
On the surface the minimum income in Sweden is not that impressive BUT it comes with a lot of basics that are covered. Good public schools, public transportation, childcare, healthcare,.... likely they also have housing assistance and some form of universal child allowance (most wealthy European countries have)
Being low-income in Sweden or Germany (which I know) is not the same experience as in the U.K. or worse in the U.S.
The people can hold on to lower middle class status and some respectability and it also does not limit the chances of their children. When they have good grades they can get a free qualified education (can be in the trades, nurses, or university).
Sweden has hardly any homeless people, and much less poverty, and also not that much excessively rich people (rich and wealthy people for sure) than the U.S. And also not nearly as many people in prison.
That makes a country safe (Middle East refugees and migrants nonwithstanding - the Swedish can and do pay the expenditures for that mass immigration. It remains to be seen if they can integrate these people. If the U.S. could abstain from starting more wars, many of them could go back.
Trade deals, outsourcing, stagnantwages =reduced disposable income
the multinationals CAN outsource and pay slave wages elsewhere. And they were enabled to NOT pay taxes.
So when they keep a lot of what they used to pay out in form of good wages - they get much richer and someone else gets the bare minimum.
Meaning the workers in Asia or Mexico CANNOT consume enough, they cannot keep up with the output.
That is why the trade deals are so important. The sweatshop products MUST be exported to the wealthier countries - without prohibitive tariffs ! - so that they can sell it there.and Big Biz wants to limit the power of any FUTURE government to change the rules of the game that is so profitable for them.
There opened a gap of course between ever growin output and stagnant wages, which was bridged by consumer debt for some time.
3
-
3
-
+TheTechnocrat the U.S. may have 28 times the AREA of Germany - but not in people. 325 millions vs. 82 millions. Montana most certainly does not beat Germany in GDP or productiviy (nothing against Montana, it would be an unfair competition to such a rural area). There is a reason Germany exports SO MUCH MORE to the U.S. than the other way round. The U.S. GDP is propped up by the money shufflers and speculators (well the fees for the "services"). Without the Petro dollar, the Military Industrial Complex, the casino of Wallstreet, there is not THAT much left. Film industry, Silicon Valley, Pharma, some Agriculture - but considering the size of the country and population. Destroying manufacturing for "financialization" has taken it's toll.
The U.S. has these vast plains which are NOT densely populated. So people need a car to get to the doctor. - The densely populated areas is where the action is. - and healthcare is delivered to people so the area does not matter. And besides, Canada is huge (area), has less people than the U.S. or Germany, and even less per capita costs.
Germany has become an immigration country so the argument of "less or more" divesity does not work either.
Most wealthy European countries have per capita healthcare costs in the 5,000 to 5,500 USD costs. Same with Canada. The U.S. has 9,200.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Yes BIG donors mean 1) campaign finance - in the U.S.. And more important: 2) it means Big Biz (the Big Donors) will take care of you when you leave politics. Campaign finance = 1) CAN be fixed easily and transparently with laws (they have it in Europe) but 2) is a real problem and there are much more "grey areas". That is the reason why the European politicians are not much better in serving the regular people. They also sell out to Big Biz. Overall the situation is better, for instance when it comes to pollution or to workers rights or welfare. But Big Biz has way too much political influence in Europe as well, even though the campaigns are publicly funded and there are much more restrictions (for instance "fairness rules" for airtime in TV or restrictions how much money can be spent on TV ads).
Politicians - usually - cannot be completely dumb, so they could have other halfway decent jobs as well. They have to build their political career while other people build their professional career elsewhere. If you get fired in the private sector you hopefully have the skills that will make you useful for another company. But what special skills does a politician have if he or she wants to get hired in the private sector at the age of 40 or 50 ? They might have lost an election, or they had a falling out with the party leadership (possibly by standing up for the people !!) or by burning out, or simply it is not a good fit anymore.
What do they bring to the table to get themselves hired ? - only the networks (Party establishment ! and Big Biz). Sure they know to speak, will be organized, know to organize/hold a meeting, they often have a background in law - but that is not special, many people have those GENERAL skills and softskills.
In the U.S. they often become lobbyists, "consultants" or they are getting nice jobs at the board of some companies. In Europe they often land a job in a public company (think utility provider owned by a city or in public administration). Or by private corporations who do a lot of business with the state. But only if the did not ruffle feathers, usually the party establsihment has some influence who can get such jobs. Only if they were good Yes men/women when active in politics. Else the jobs will be withheld and they have to fend for themselves.
Sometimes they were working in the public adminstration or as teachers before the political position. As long as they are in politics they take a "sabbatical". When they leave politics they can return to that job. While that is not a glamorous or highly lucrative career it is a reliable plan B) to fall on, and these are jobs where you usually cannot be fired unless you commit a crime or do something really outrageous.
So if a politician comes from such a position and is content with the salary as politian and/or the salary of the public sector job - then he/she is free to represent the people to the best of their ability. - Or they are really good in connecting with the voters and build their own brand - then they will manage to get themselves elected even if they are critical of the Special Interests and/or their own party. There are some examples, but the party loyalists are the majority. The party is more important in Europe to get and hold an office in Europe. Many politicians do not have a distinct profile, they run under the party.
Some ex politican end up in a "honorary" CEO position (they don't do anything, they are the paid middlemen to get favors from the political class). But again - only if they did not offend Big Biz or the party establishment who also needs/wants the goodwill of Big Biz.
In order to serve the PEOPLE you often have to ruffle their feathers, their interests are often in conflict with the interests of the majority of the population (workers rights, good pay for workers, fair competition in the market place, protection from fraud, pollution, and malfeasance).
You cannot serve two masters.
So politicians are alway on their toes to play nice with Big Biz.
A politician needs name recognition to get elected (or must campaign for a long time and build it like Sanders did in Vermont since the 1970s). Usually that is done with TV ads, and campaign staff and the Big Donors finanace that for obedient candidates.
OR: in Europe they need the party to get elected because the party establishment can unleash or withhold the support of volunteers and the party organization and their funds.
In that scenario the party LEADERS are being "bribed" and worked by the Special Interests. They will guard the party so that really populist people are weeded out and just do not get the necessary support to make themselves a name. and a safe seat.
The U.S. system is very efficient, in the European system dissenters can slip through sometimes. It also helps that the U.S. system very efficeintly shields the 2 dominant parties (whatever they may be) from ANY COMPETITION - when the Republic was founded, the founders (rich white men) put provisions in place to limit the input the unwashed masses could have on the political system. More and new parties give the voters more influence on politics. Those limiting, antidemocratic provisions have been working excellently for over 200 years !
There is hardly an European country where there are not at least 5 relevant parties. And the small parties can become the hinge that swings large doors - when they enter a coalition government they can help a large party (w/o the necessary absolute majority) to come into or stay in power and thus shape policy.
So the European parties cannot be as complacent as the U.S. - the scene can be shaken up - and it is right now.
Whereas the Republicans will always provide the Corporate Democratswith a boogeyman. The Dems - unwilling to get Money out of politics and adopt populist and popular ! policies - can scare their base (and the unions !! which are very afraid of Republicans in power) to fall in line. That game worked really well, mainstream media helped the Dems to get away with it - and Sanders has really spoilt if tor them.
Because in the past they would give the plebs a few crumbs, or make promises and than walk away from them - or throw them a bone if they felt really generous and if the base was becoming restless.
The European politicians (Left or Right) have to somewhat do a little better for their constituency. Else there COULD be a political upheaval and they are kicked out of power.
But by and large neoliberal ideology has very successfully hijacked the political process everywhere, the narrative in mainstream media and even mainstream academia.
The unorthodox economists have been sidelined, they are more vocal since the Great Financial Crisis and they circumvent the mainstream channels by using the internet - Richard Wolff, Mark Blyth, Michael Hudson, Heiner Flassbeck, and Heinz Josef Bontrup in Germany, to just name a few.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
TRANSCRIPT part 3 of 3 Because we listened to people and we pulled folks together. We got fiscal conservatives who were just concerned the prison system was growing too rapidly. We got libertarians who agree with us on a bunch of criminal justice issues.
We got Christian conservatives to join with progressives to join with the civil rights community because they're in the prisons doing prison ministry. And they understand what few folks do, which is that we don't just have the most incarcerated black and brown people on the planet, we also have the most incarcarated white people on the planet. It's destroying their families, too.
What they tend to have in common is that those families were too poor to afford their own lawyer.
That taught me a real lesson when I was running the NAACP is that when you run towards the people you can create a new center, a center founded on courage and common sense.
That's what we're doing in this race. Because having loved ones who are addicted to heroin or to pills that's not a partisan issue, it's a people issue. Struggling to pay student debt ? Not a partisan issue, it's a people issue.
Worried that your kids are not getting a great education at public schools ? Not a partisan issue, but a people issue.
Worried that the tax system isn't fair ? Let's hedge fund managers pay a lower tax rate than their secretary ? While we have senior citizens on fixed incomes or having their houses foreclosed on in Baltimore because they can't afford their property taxes ? That's a people issue, too.
So we're just gonna run straight towards the people and we're gonna have courage to speak common sense, put real solutions on the table.
Cenk, one of the gifts I had in my life is that a 101 year old Maryland social worker who helped train Barbara Mikulski also helped train me: she's my grandmother and she told me again and again: "Baby, don't try to half solve a problem because you still got a problem". So my ideal with the people of Maryland is simple: When I bring you a solution it'll be for the whole problem.
We will talk honestly about what it will take, and then we'll fight hard and we'll get it done.
What I'm known for in the state, the reason I was named Marylander of the year in 2013 by the Baltimore Sun - I've been endorsed by them again - it's because I've succeeded again, and again and getting big things done in our state. And that's what I'll do as governor.
Cenk: I wish your grandmother had talked to Barack Obama.
…. the donation and the volunteer links description box https://benjealous(dot)com
He is sticking with those positions: Medicare-For-All, Criminal Justice Reform and actually funding the schools of Maryland and get them back up to where they belong.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@H1TMANactual I know the Austrian and German system well (and currently live in Austria). Both have single payer. * Germany got their system in 1883/1884 they have some historic quirks. They had the public option at that time. which always leads to a two class medical system (which back in the day was still an improvement for the low-income citizens). - You can still find traces of that historic system in the current setup:
* in Germany and Austria there is not ONE but several public non-profit insurance agencies. Never mind, it is still "single" payer (even the National Heath System of the U.K., that takes it one step further than single payer, has several "wings".
The U.K. has only 42 % of the U.S. spending per person. Most of medical care is delivered by the NHS which is seriously (and intentionally underfunded). But in Scotland they have better funding (local additional budgets with oil revenue). In other words there are at least two divisions (likely more, the Welsh, Northern Ireland).
Single payer characteristics:
The payroll tax is mandated (90 % of employed and their employers have no choice, for them it is the public system. period), there is no discrimination (age, gender, risks, need to cover dependent family members).
Everyone pays the same payroll tax as percentage of wage (and I think in Germany the employers must pay as well, in Austria it is around 3,8 % each with a cap of 2,400 for employee and company. Per year.)
Only a small part of the Germans are allowed to OPT OUT from "public mandated insurance". Wealthy over approx. 90,000 Euro income, that is a low 6 figure USD wage. Or professions that have a good, secure job with steadily rising wages like teachers and civil servants. Or self employed architects, civil engineers,
Only they can CHOSE between public coverage OR not pay the deductions from the wage and opt for full private insurance. Which they will only do if they are young, healthy wealthy (once they switch to "private" it is very hard to get back to "public", and the insurance cannot kick them out, and they cannot start going crazy with the increases of an existing client either. So the insurers must calculate premiums that cover the coming decades because in all likelyhood they will have that insured for life. The German government in recent years passed laws to improve to situation. Easy to lure young people with seemingly low premiums, the costs rise VERY much with age.
Conservative governments doing favors:
The private insurers get a cherrypicked customer base, wealther and healthier than the average of the population (also interesting for other marketing purposes). Payroll tax OR costs for private insurance reduce the tax base. So higher costs of private insurance are to a degree compensated by tax cuts.
The system was not overhauled after WW2. Most other countries got single payer.
The conservative governments of Germany (more often than not the center-right CDU / CSU were in power or in a coalition) did favors:
Forthe insurance industry (they got a small part of the pie. Handpicked base of wealthy customers - in the 1950s and 1960s)
The doctors get better rates and they tend to vote the center-right. The wealthy insured (with tax deductions they hardly paid more. When the country was rebuilt after WW2 it was possible to buy better care than the other citizens, which at that time likely played more role).
The German insurance companies can demand higher premiums for existing risks (that is how they "reject" clients they do not want), they can exclude risks, and include deductibles (although it is limited how far they can go). The insured can ask for reclassification of risks (for instance 5 or 10 year remission after cancer treatment, the clients are entitled to a risk evaluation and the insurer MUST give them a lower premium if the doctors give the green light).
In other words in a country where 90 % single payer are well covered the insurance companied cannot play games with the insured, there is much better consumer AND cost protection (some benchmarking when comparing with the 90 %).
There is also pressure to have supplemental private insurance for publicly insured in areas where many civil servants and wealthy people live (Berlin, or wealthy areas in general). That causes of course higher admin costs (more contracts to handle, billing by doctors and hospitals). Doctors in such ares (specialists ! think eye doctor, dentists) have a chance to make do w/o the publicly insured, so either you can pay extra or you will have longer waiting times in some areas.
It is of course much better than in the U.S. - but there are traces of the 2 class system of the past.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The US and Qatar Saudia Arabia (+ UK, likely F, Turkey, and Israel) "allow" the many, many dead in Syria. They fund, ARM and train the moderate "terrorists".Without the ongoing effort for regime change and the mercenaries these people would not have died. This is NOT a CIVIL WAR. War is brought from the outside, the foreign mercenaries play a huge role.
Of the 400,000 dead (no one really knows), 100k are soldiers of the government army. Many ten thousands are jihadists that died. - If Assad falls the country is going to hell, it will break to pieces, the US and Saudi supported jihadists will take over. Likely there will be massacres (Shia, Jews, Christians, Alawites, non-cooperating moderate Sunni Muslin).
Feinstein will find THAT very acceptable - and so will the lamestream media. In the last days evacuations were going on. Rebels and/or their families could leave certain areas under siege, the same for a gov. held villiage that is surrounded by rebels.
There were busses, it seems someone laid food on the street. When the hungry children assembled there to pick it up (it seems civilians went hungry in that village) the bomb went off.
baited to their death. - one U.S. reporter ... the evacuation was resumed, this was a hiccup. - 186 dead - many of them small children. - These families were going to be evacuated to government held areas and are Shia Muslim (which are detested by the rebels/terrorists who are Sunni Muslim). - So this was even more unlikely to be the doing of the Syrian government - so it did not get much coverage, not useful for the propaganda.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Chris Hedges (Journalist very progressive) said Nixon was the last liberal president the US had ??? His explanation, an anecdote (from Kissingers memoires If i remember correctly). Kissinger and Nixon on the window in the White House. They look at the mass anti-Vietnam-war-demonstration outside the fence. On the inside there are empty school buses parked for safety reasons. Nixon to Kissinger: "Herny, When they come for us they are going to kill us."**
He hated the left, the Hippies, the Civil Rights Movement. And he feared The People. I heard (maybe from Hedges maybe from Noam Chomsky) a quote: Political leaders are mediocre - at best. Or self-serving, spineless, corrupt, dishonest, and with ideological blindfolds. It is never about electing the BEST leader - there is little chance there will be GOOD people to vote for. It is about keeping the person in power from doing bad things. Or even make them do good things. The government should fear the citizens. Not the other way round.
Richard Nixon HAD TO GIVE the population something. And a little fear of the masses is a good thing. Worked like a charm in the New Deal era. The Russian Revolution was in 1917. In the US after 1929 millions ! joined the unions, people were on the street. Unions, Co-ops, Communist and all sort of Socialist parties were alive and kicking.
After FDR became president Congress and Senate did not pass HIGH taxes on wealthy and rich people out of the goodness of their heart. In the middle of the crisis Social Security and unemployment benefits were introduced. FDR was a centrist not a leftie. But he understood that it would be voluntary help for the masses by the government or much more left leaning forces would come to power (or uprisings). And enough of the establishment were scared enough to follow along.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+ Don Child 2/2 Enough well-off white people (often w/o college degree but still with a good income) were all for Trump, they LIKE the racist and white supremacy undertones. (As opposed to the people for instance in the Rust Belt who reacted to being abandoned and Trump was the molotov cocktail they threw at the "establishment" - that is why Trump even got minority votes).
People leaning towards WHITE SUPREMACY witness now that the RULE OF THE WHITE RACE begins to slip (and that other caucasians do not care about pigmentation, are willing to get along with their fellow citizens not matter the skin tone, are O.K. with them having the good life as well, want to treat people according to their merit, and play around with the different cultural influences, like food or clothes).
Seeing that THESE people [insert minority of choice] are getting more influence AND maybe even some wealth, ruffles their feathers (the distinction of the classes and the supremacy of the white race must be preserved !).
I remember a story told in my family about a woman (in the generation of my grandmother) being annoyed that now the plebs could afford nice things too. She was from a large farm and the family had been comfortably wealthy for generations. The idea that other people - in that case also caucasians - could now enjoy some modest wealth TOO was too much for her, that triggered her envy/negativity. And she was no outlier - she was just dumb enough to say it.
- They are out there. And they are not going to change.
Young people with unformed opinions SHOULD witness a strong counterreaction to WHITE SUPREMACY MOVEMENTS. And the racists should experience SHAMING when they utter their negativity (as freedom of speech allows them to do).
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from being shamed (incl. the President calling them out). - That is an evolutionary mechanism of Homo Sapiens - "unacceptable" behavior triggered shaming and being made to feel guilty. That was/is VERY UNCOMFORTABLE , and made people fall in line in those CLOSE-KNIT groups. *Group cohesions was much more important then than the freedom of the individual.
* In our society folks evade that to some degree by getting moral
support from their subculture. The right wing commenters are making up stories about how the terrorist car driver was attacked before by the left, and how the left is really responsible for what happened. They do not want associated with outright terrorism, they do not want to answer the question why this young unstable man got the idea to do that (instead of happily living his racism in Mom's basement).
Humans resist/abhorr the sentiment of shame/guilt very much - it really gets to us.
Now some of that shame to publicly admit your racism has been removed - much to the relief of the racists, who have been biding their time since the Civil Rights Movement.
Also also some lost and/or deranged souls have gotten the message in the last 10 years that it was now O.K. AGAIN to show your racism more openly.
The Clintons used subtle dogwhistle statements to make political points (welfare "reform", bring them to heel, also against Obama in 2008 - as much as Hillary dared to use, she was of course more limited than the Republicans).
It started for real with the Obama campaign - and the GOP ran OPENLY with it, pissed off that they did not win the presidency. I am not even sure they are all racists - but they sure made good USE of the latent racism in the population to score points against Obama. (Trump with the "birther" conspiracy was one of them - remember ? ).
The GOP openly works for the very wealthy, that would not get them enough votes (not enough wealthy and rich people around) so they must FISH at the fringes. So the base is an unlikely coalition of billionaires with reactionary people, they offer a home for the racists, for the anit-abortion, anti-evolution people, the fundamentalist Christians - and everyone profiting from tax cuts.
Now, one can heavily criticize Obama for a lot of things - and it has nothing to do with the pigmentation of his skin.
Him being black could have been a strength - as in activating a voter base to get a Congress and Senate elected, that supports the necessary course correction in the U.S. - he could have gotten money of of politics had he wanted to.
- But he sold out for 30 pieces of silver, coward and neoliberal that he is.
So in a sense Obama bears as much of the blame for preparing the economic environment that brought the ugly movements out in the open (again).
There will be always be clueless, hateful, negative, discriminating people around. When the population in general is doing well, they are not becoming too loud and their opinions get little attention/public support.
Economic stress brings the crazies and the haters to the surface - the haters are not necessarily the ones that experience the stress - they take advantage of the mood.
If there is one lesson to be learned from Germany in the 30s - civil society MUST clearly denounce these movements. And make sure they do not get a foothold in the police, the army and the justice system.
And they must be publicly shamed.
Making a torch march in the night - what is next ? White sheets ? These people will not change, maybe they even feel strenghtened by getting backlash - it does not matter, they must experience resistance, and that they are a fringe group (and that is ALSO a display of free speech).
And no one could accuse Trump of NOT TELLING us what he thinks - he is stupid enough to do it without the thin veneer, he does not master language or his thoughts like that.
(that is what some of the GOP do not like, the sentiments were always there, they just masked it better and they had better "manners").
And yes the president should have a responsibility to think beyond his personal views what is good for the country. That he could not find it in himself to make a clear statement shows that he sympathizes with these people. He just would not go as far as killing people by using cars - that's a little bit too much.
Like in Nazi Germany. Many "good" citizens were quite O.K. with the ideology. They were not going with the brownshirts and terrorizing other people - that would have been "uncough".
Well they got a terrible war for it. For not being principled enough to take a stand when the first Jewish people were stripped of their civil rights. - They may have been somewhat concerned when it hit THEIR friends or acquaintances (like losing the job, the appartment, segregation - no Jews allowed here, do not buy from Jews, etc.)
But they could not be bothered to resist it in general. Which is a very conservative thing. (You only take notice of bad things when they happen to people IN your bubble).
The "good", orderly, often well-off citizens should have resisted long before the legal actions of the Nazis against some groups started, for instance during the campaign when Hitler and his stooges TALKED in a disgusting way about other segments of the population (Jews, all Left politicians, the press). It is not like the Nazis hid their stance.
I always wonder if Hitler and the Nazis were SURPRISED about how much the orderly German population, the conservatives in the public administration and the justice system and police, or at the universities, the officiers in the army, the rich industrialists, the church allowed them to do. So they pushed further and further.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
TRANSCRIPT part 1 of 3 Cenk: … the new Democratic nominee …what progressives hope soon-to-be Governor of Maryland, Ben Jealous.
Congrats on your victory last night. …your victory breaks down into two parts and I think they are equally important and that's why we featured your race prominently on The Young Turks.
One was the primary where it was a classic matchup of the progressive versus the more establishment candidate and you come from the Bernie Sanders wing you were a surrogate for Sanders, you come from the progressive "Can-do" wing of the party.
Your opponent unfortunately came from the "Well let's not try things too much wing.
I want to talk about the really important race you are having in the general election …. but let's just talk about the race that you just won.
A lot of the Maryland politicians were on your opponent's side. They said: "Well, you're trying for too much change" and they imply that you didn't have enough executive experience, which I thought was a little offensive given that you lead the NAACP for five years and all the other organizations.
Tell me about the dynamics of that race and why you think you won that race ?
Ben: A lot of those long-standing leaders of our party had called me before they endorsed my opponent. They told me that they had cut that deal two years ago, that they had no choice and a few of them even said that they actually hoped I would win.
We're a family here and we know each other, we respect each other and it's very easy to come together at the end
We traveled to every corner of the state and we listened to people early on. And then from that point on we talked to people about what it would actually take to solve the real problems facing their families in real time, … finally fully fund our public schools.
Talking about how we end mass incarceration and take the money that we save and use that to bring down the cost of college.
…how we finally get our healthcare costs under control by simply doing what every other the Western nation has already done.
It doesn't matter and if you're in West Baltimore or Western Maryland: Chances are the issues facing your family are the same.
Cenk: I'd love to dive into the mechanics …so that the movement can learn lessons and can apply it to other races.
So your race was neck-and-neck for a long time …you won by about 10 points which is a very comfortable margin.
What do you think were the different things that you guys did in your campaign, whether it was volunteers, or how you raised money ?
The decisive decision for us was to spend time very early on pulling in union after union, environmentalist group after environmentalist group, big progressive organization after neighborhood progressive organization - because we knew how to win.
My campaign manager and I met when I was leading the effort to abolish the death penalty in the state and he was managing the effort to pass the DREAM Act. And I became co-chair of that campaign, too.
We won those big victories, we helped pass marriage equality. We learned that year that the way to win in our state is to get as many groups as possible to declare the motto of the Three Musketeers: All for one and one for all.
We knew from the very beginning if we just built a bigger, more robust coalition than anybody else, we would win.
Now, the risk that we took early on… look man you're gonna raise money for a campaign, you're basically building a bicycle.
A bicycle is gonna have two wheels: one of those are contributions that come from individuals, and they're gonna tend to be rich folks and they're gonna have a pretty high average donation. The other is corporate contributions.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
the privilege of these people, they must feel save. (I got mine, I do well financially, I have Medicare). Blissfully ignorant how much is spent on the elderly, that's a fact of medicine. And Trump just proposed cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps. The childrens health program, and last but not least the Center of Disease Control.
Coronavirus does not thrive under higher temperatures, in April it is warmer, then they expect it to not spread anymore (Trump in a press conference).
Technically that is also true for the flu viris, and the common cold virus - they spread in the cold season. BUT: a Pandemie is at least discussed and that moron wants CDC cuts ???
2
-
2
-
"Even during the 4 months the majority was shaky" - yes because of the Corporate Democrats who could not be bothered to support policies that were good for the people (but not good for the big donors) !! - Obama being a neoliberal would of course NOT SEEK the SUPPORT of the GRASSROOTS to "bring them to heel". - Certainly not - that would have reminded the plebs of the power they have when united and engaged. The donors who financed Obama (also after he left office !) and who finance the parties (they bribe both parties) certainly do not want the SLEEPING GIANT to AWAKEN.
In the last weeks 2 Republican Senators + McCain (the latter seeking revenge, public attention and likely a deal with the Dems) blocked the last attempt to repeal ACA. These 2 ladies were under considerable pressure (and so were the 2 males in Congress before). But they are up for reelection, and there was massive BACKLASH by the GRASSROOTS since beginning of the year.
And now imagine the sitting president in 2009 would have urged the grassroots to support him. Or to give him a Congress and Senate he could well work with to get the good things for the citizens in 2010 !! Giving them specifics what he would DO FOR them - if only Congress and Senate was filled with the right kind of patriots working FOR their constituency .......
Now THAT would have rocked the boat. Believe me, the unwashed masses, the challengers at the ballot to primary the Blue Dogs would have shown up - big time.
Obama COULD have forced the Dems to support good legislation, he could have gotten the occasional GOP vote.
He never intended to do the FDR gig. - Gives you some appreciation of FDR who had to close down the banks (first thing when he came into office). They sorted them out in a 5 days (or so) bank holiday. And then he strongarmed the Democrats into supporting his unheard of policies (unemployment benefits, Social Security, introduce minimum wage - that was all new and INTRODUCED during the CRISIS!). Economic policies that were not mainstream then, that had never been tried on that scale.
With all his shortcomings, he was a bold, decisive leader, open to new things (let's do something, if it does not work we can adapt it or give it up - like some public employment schemes, most worked as intended).
He was certainly FIGHTING for the PEOPLE - the complete opposite of Obama. Many of the representatives (R and also D) could resign themselves to the outlook that the masses would have to suffer until things got better by themselves.
Representatives then were also wealthy people, usually from a wealthy background. Many held the (unproven) idea that things would get better mostly by themselves w/o them doing much OR giving up something - like giving up money in form of higher taxes for those who were still doing well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Testing the waters. Saying the quiet part loud. Culling the low income elderly would be liked my many (top income, political and economic elites), they just don't dare saying it openly - YET. These people vulnverable to falling victim to corona if they are forced out of social distancing would soon get SS and Medicare or they already have it.
SS contributions from the payroll are not enough, and the plus 65 age group causes the most spending on healthcare. That is also not covered by the contributions, it needs support from general tax revenue.
Imagine the many poor older (plus 50, plus 60 years) people with diabetes: if the pandemic takes them out quickly. People with diabetes at some point will need procedures. They are not the people that go on happily till 90 and then die quietly in their sleep.
They have heart attacks, strokes, limbs that need amputation. At the minimum all the doctor visits and the medication, and checking the eyes on a regular base. More likely to need care as well.
How much money could be saved.. If they die now (and no expensive hospital wasted on them, if they are left at home they will perish quickly. people only last 2 - 3 weeks when they in the ICU, then they might get better or finally die). More tax cuts (no support needed by the rich and profitable biz to fund SS and Medicare).
The affluent elderly will retreat in their gated communities.
I just do not know where they think they can get the gullible uninformed voters from that can be manipulated by FOX or the other networks.
There are 100 million people that did not vote in 2016. I guess a lot of them are also in the age group of 50 and beyond.
The rich and politicians do not need sophisticated plans. it is not "evil but genius" schemes.
When you are at the top of the food chain you fail upwards, you can make every mess work for you, that short term approach worked spendidly for them - so far.
2
-
2
-
2
-
In one way he was NEVER an establishment politician in D.C. the stubborn way to not that money from big corporations - he worked long, very long on his career and he never took the easy route and took money from special interests (other than unions). - he ran with a small party in VT (Independents, left, anti Vietnam war) always for higher office, govenor, Senate, never won).
Won an outsider race for mayor of Burlington in late 1980 (with plus 10 votes) when he was approx 40 years, which was his first well paying job likely. An uphill battle in the beginning (the Dems in the city council were the buddies of the longterm ousted D mayor and now hated his guts).
BUT the next mayoral election 2 years later he won decisively
The voters not too long after his first election had given him a council where he had at least enough supporters for a veto (before that the council fired the secretary of the mayor, so they did budgeting with volunteers on the kitchen table).
The voters did not appreciate the shenanigans, however and with the new city council they could not completely block him anymore and he started working more with Republicans.He was well established as mayor and won the coming elections easily. From that position he reached for higher office again - and I think had to try 3 times MORE until he won the race for Congress and was sworn in in 1991.
I can see how MOST people wanting to be in politics (even if tehy have convictions and are not just careerists or it is a steip on the way to becoming a lobbyist) would at some point fall for the temptation to suck up to money interests.
The 2 races before the one he won in 1990 (one for govenor and ? Senate ?) were 3 candidate races - he did not too bad in the one and in the next the Democrat was the spoiler that helped the Republican win and Sanders did pretty good.
Then the D party gave up, the agreed with Sanders that they would not support a candidate against him if he would caucus with them.
He seemed capable of winning the state, that had been Republican, he did not need money from them, Vermont was little and had no important industries - surely there could be no harm for the established order in that. If the weirdo did not want to take special interest money (and on occasion voted against the grain) they could let it pass.
The real bad shit always had bipartisan support, they did not need Sanders for that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
And what qualifies Cuomo ? Having survived LONG in N.Y. politics means you know to play the game (of power), and that he is cozy, very cozy with the party establishment (never mind which party, in his case it happens to be the Dems) and the DONORS (who finance BOTH parties).
He may have more experience - but WHAT does he use that for ?
Nixon will need some good advisors (who know what is going on behind in the backrooms) but WHO work FOR the people (admitted they are not easy to find). And Nixon can expect a lot of traps waiting for her (again having the right kind of people on your side can help).
Public policies are NOT that complicated - standing for some basic principles (with a spine) and having some goals FOR THE COMMON GOOD is. And for the tricky details and the reality check you have staff and experts.
When they decided to have the "Race to the moon" the president did not need technical expertise. And his advisors could only say that they were confident it could be done (NO ONE could know for sure then, the technology had not yet been invented).
It was the POLITICAL commitment to a goal (not the SPECIFICS of how it would be done) and setting aside enough money to pay for the experts who would find out what to do about it.
(Before the Sputnik shock in 1957 Eisenhower had dismissed projects of that kind because of the exorbitant costs). After the Sputnik shock "costs" stopped being an issue. (a lot of lessons to be learned in that as well, COSTS are NEVER the issue, if "they" really want something, be it military expenditures or war).
Half the "qualification to serve" is having a good B.S. meter while GENUINELY and with a SPINE acting in the interest of the regular folks. Being open to look what solutions other large cities found (I know it is not all urban, but the urban factor is overwhelming in N.Y.). And for the details and the snakes waiting for you GOOD and honest advisors. - Everything else can be learned by an intelligent, devoted person with self-discipline.
I would like to remind you that the mediocre actors / celebrity athlete Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger were seen fit to govern CALIFORNIA (resp. become POTUS). Never mind Donald Trump. Reagan did not need much experience or intellect to undermine affordable college education for minorites in California. having some bias and skewed economic ideas were sufficient.
And no one asks the other "players" in politics how they became "qualified". (usually they have to pass the donor test and be sufficiently presentable, if possible well spoken. Really important is the ability and discipline in dialling after dollars and being good in fund raising. (Especially the call center style phone calls to the donors are very unpopular - but there is no escape for the "regular" donor dependent politicians.
Above all a lack of original thinking and a willingness to absorb and to DELIVER eloquently the talking points given by the thinks tanks (financed by the donors.) is crucial. And the ability to do "politician deflection speak" in the rare case their talking points are challenged.
Having your own ideas, critical thinking skills, empathy with the voters or a spine would be major disqualifying traits.
It would not be rocket science to protect the citizens from being priced out of the housing "market" for instance (just as an example of a policy that would be important for New Yorkers). it has nothing to do with "experience" or political power - or lack thereof - that these policies are not implemented.
Integrity, willingness to serve, having good people help you avoid the traps (I mean collusion, backstabbing, being dragged into pointless fights) beats whatever Cuomo has in experience, education, information or "the boys club advantage".
2
-
2
-
2
-
+ JNagarya You are so rabidly anti Sanders that you use a derogatory word against L B - really ? (as 70 - 80 year old person - since you claim to be a civil Rights activist for 60 years). So Sanders shifting the discussion, refuting time and again the think tank talking points, and putting pressure on both Republicans and the Clinton wing of the Democratic party does not count ?
It seems to me that US voters who follow politics not that intensely did not even KNOW how much more cost-efficient other well working systems (single payer) work or how MUCH more medical drugs cost in the U.S. - Well that has changed, you cannot escape a Sanders interview w/o hearing that.
The Civil Rights Act, also ending the Vietnam war, the vote for women, gay marriage, legal pot - all those achievements were not reached by negotiating across the aisle (or even within the party). Activists CHANGED public opinion and they - often under great sacrifices - put on pressure. And then the laws and the parties (or at least one party) followed. THEN there may have been the processes and some compromising involved - after it was clear the big demand would be met.
The big shifts happened elsewhere - and that is true for every major turn. (I guess when they threw the tea into the sea they did not negotiate much either).
And FDR is said to have twisted the arm of the members of the Democratic Party who did not want to vote for the New Deal. He sure had to compromise - but before he not only put up a good fight - the things he fought for were INTENDED to HELP the regular citizens.
The Civil Rights movement FORCED the presidents to take a stand, I assume JFK and LBJ was sympathetic to the cause - but would they have spent political capital on it ? No - they tried to preach "patience" to the Civil Rights movement and to MLK. Well the movement did not put up with "it is not the right time - yet" anymore.
The achievements of Bill Clinton: he got the the neoliberal agenda through. Easy to get the Republican vote for that (and for those things not even Obama had a problem - see TPP fast track - ACA just was not neoliberal enough, there were some "social" elements the rabid GOP despised, and of course they did not want Obama to have a signature achievement, a good healthcare bill)
Bill Clinton fulfilled what the GOP would have done - and then some.
Remember NAFTA ? - Bush Sr. could not get it passed and would likely also not have been successful with the massive welfare cuts.
Nothing like a fake liberal to screw the low and regular income people. Nothing like a honorary black president to start mass incarceration targeting minorities. And to take welfare from kids - against hitting the minorities more.
He also got major deregulation for the financial sector passed (it was the last nail in the coffin - but it was essential). Having watched Nafta play out, he signed in 2000 the Chinese trade agreement - costing millions of manufacturing jobs in the U.S.
Indeed Bill Clinton got a lot done - see 2007/2008. Alan Greenspan (the Ayn Rand fan) called Clinton a good Conservative.
Hillary Clinton did not achieve much as Senator (she made a good effort as First Lady for Healthcare, but did not continue that fight after the first defeat - that alone would have won her the presidency). And the things she "achieved" as Secretary of State ? Libya, Syria, Ukraine, (Victoria Nuland her confidante - you can inform yourself if you want).
Bill Clinton also intended to privatize SS - that would have been great in 2007 - thanks to Monica Lewinsky they gave up on that battle. (SS was again a negotiating chip for Obama, but there was considerable resistance as well.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
TRANSCRIPE please UPVOTE both parts - 1/2 - A book that I can't recommend highly enough to folks out there, it's by a guy named Anand Gopal and it's called No Good Men Among The Living, which is a Pashtun phrase that he liked and that he used as his title.
What he describes in the book it is rather startling. Shortly after the U.S. invaded after September 11th, 2001 the Taliban put up a fight for a few days, in some places a few weeks, and then they melted away.
Commanders across Afghanistan fled, threw down their weapons, and went back to civilian life. Mullah Omar that Taliban leader tried to fight on for a little while, held held a huge meeting in Kandahar with a lot of his top of top officials, and lieutenants, and and urged them to continue the fight. And they said no. They said this fight is over. They witnessed the disparity of the force that the United States had versus the Taliban.
When you have air power it is simply impossible to fight a conventional war if the other side doesn't - if you don't have any. In other words you'd have these long lines of Taliban trucks, you know those these famous white Toyota's that you see in conflicts all all over the world. And they'd be heading from one town to the next, and you can't hide these convoys.
U.S. fighter jets would see them and just annihilate them. It only took a handful of those moments for the Taliban leadership [to] say you know what: this is over. We are done.
Now for centuries, maybe millennia in Afghanistan when one power, or one faction kind of took took power, or won a conflict against the rival, they would then surrender, negotiate. And they would share power going forward. Sometimes that share would be 99 to 1 or 100 to zero.
But they wouldn't leave the country. You know these are you know these are clans that have been in Afghanistan since time immemorial. Ad so when you're at war with your neighbor, and the war ends, your neighbor doesn't leave.
The U.S. eventually - we'll leave as we left Vietnam, and as one day we'll leave Iraq. But to take the Iraq example Shia and the Sunni aren't leaving.
They're there, they are neighbors, they live there.
So the Taliban assumed that this process was going to go the same way that it had gone for centuries before. That they would surrender, they'd come to the table, they'd negotiate some some sort of immunity from prosecution and getting hanged or whatever it was.
And they were they were completely rebuffed. The United States said no, we will not accept surrender terms, and anything less than unconditionally. At times the senior Taliban figures attempted to unconditionally surrender and the warlords and the United States were so disorganized that they couldn't even find people to accept their surrender.
This is all spelled out in Anand Gopal's book No Good No Good Man Among The Living which I recommend everybody check out.
So after after a long time of this happening eventually an insurgency did start again.
But why did it start ?
Okay, the United States had refused to accept the surrender of the Taliban, so therefore in the mind of the United States the Taliban was at war with the United States Army and with the Afghan government there.
The problem was that wasn't actually true even though the surrender wasn't accepted Taliban gave up anyway. They went back to they went back to civilian life, they went back to the towns where they came from. Or some of them fled to Pakistan.
They were not fighting back against US forces for about a year so after we were in there. But the US forces needed body bags they knew to be able to show that they were making progress in the quote-unquote War On Terror. So how do you kill terrorists if there are no terrorists left in the country.
Well, if you have money to buy dead terrorists - you know demand has a way of creating its own supply. and so you had these Afghan warlords who were allied with the US Army over there, and then they'd say: "Oh five thousand, fifty thousand, a hundred thousand dollars for information on a Taliban ? Okay guess what, that guy over there he's Taliban."
He wasn't Taliban, but he was some type of a rival with whatever warlord the US was associated with. And so boom they would kick in the doors of this guy that was just knocked out to them as being Taliban and the original guy would get the hundred thousand dollar reward or whatever it was.
Now that guy's brother is mad at the original warlord and he'd go to the US Army say: "Hey that warlord that you're working with - guess what he's actually Taliban."
The US had no understanding whatsoever of the of the culture, or the language, or or the players in the deeply complicated politics.
They like: "Oh really, okay ! ", and then they'd go get that guy, too.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+ Paul What do you mean, not adequate for the position ? He is an organizer it is important to have support to get things done.
Expertise can be hired, advise can be sought - but if the INTENTIONS are not good - being polished, a well connected networker, and having expertise will not help. And even good intentions are for nought if the candidates has no spine.
Cuomo would be a good governor for New York - I do not doubt he knows to play the game, knows the right people, the tricks, knows to network, likely is not stupid.
Now ..IF he would put that to good use FOR the voters instead of serving the donors, the party establishment and his own interests .....
At least Cynthia Nixon spoiled a potential 2020 run for him. One neoliberal selfish shill down.
A grassroots candidate that has to thank the volunteers for winning the seat is more likely to react to the pressure of the base - course corrections - in case he wants to give in to corruption, pressure or goes against widespread opinion.
Sanders had backlash in Burlington, that was about a waterfront real estate porject. I think in general he got good grades (as proven by the wins with increasing majorities). The Corporate Dems he had unseated (the mayor and his buddies in the city council) continued to not like him (at all) so he worked on a case to case base with the Republicans in the city council.
They had agreed on the project maybe he was doing them a favor (to reciprocrate for support for other cases, green energy, youth center funding, etc.).
Well, the citizens of Burlington were not having it - support for mayor Sanders or not. And he had alerted them to organized grassroots resistance. The fight continued for some years, eventually the project was dropped. It is a watefront park now, open to the public, real estate there is not going to happen.
Ben Jealous might be stubborn enough to push things through.
The current governor seems to be beholden to big money interests, and the track record is not good.
So why not give Ben Jealous a try ?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Rose what you describe is SHAMING for going lower than usual in politics (which says something). In case you haven't noticed, constituents did not harrass politicians and members of the admin like that. The first Supreme Court nomination (fairly right wing and stolen from an Obama appointee) went through without much ado. (the Dems should have resisted, the Republicans in their place certainly would have - but that aside - no fuss was made, when Gorsuch got the seat that should be Garland's - which is fairly conservative anyway).
However: When the Republicans just try to eliminate a healthcare system (flawed) w/o having ANY provisions what to offer instead, they should get used to public anger. The cowards did not dare to show their face in townhalls in spring 2017.
That is when public shaming started.
Kavanaugh lied multiple times under oath in Senate hearings for life long appointments. In the 2nd Bush term 2008 he denied to have gotten certain hacked mails when he was asked about it - since last summer we KNOW he did have them, he was one of the few who got them.
He brazenly lied about it. And Kavanaugh LIED again in 2018 about his drinking habits and conduct and about drinking age in MD. Which shows a character / maturity problem. Admitting he was a 17 year old fool and not denying the obvious would not really have changed things, he would have been confirmed anyway.
(Which begs the question - are there no other CONSERVATIVE judges qualified that have NO baggage - like Gorsuch ?)
Admitting the obvious would have the claims of Ford more plausible, but it still not prove anything. He it is either very conceited or a brazen liar (well yes, that too) or foolish to insist he did not drink heavily and often. Or that he talked dirty with his buddies about sex and females or that they glorified excessive drinking (with vomitting, or taking in alcohol anally - it seems that is a perverse way of getting very drunk very quickly). He is not the first and last 17 year old to do so.
Oh, and he LIED about underage drinking. It was raised in MD while he still was 17, His friend Mark was grandfathered in (he was already 18) but Kavanaugh continued for several years to drink illegally.
Again many drink underage - I think it is much worse that he now as plus 50 year old man tries to lie about it. When it is in the books how and when the laws were changed and when the day after his "testimony" shocked former drinking buddies came out and offered to the FBI their testimony that contradicts his statements (that includes people who were positive about his nomination). People that like Kavanaugh made a good career, come from the same circles and have no reason at all to be against him ("One of us made it to the Supreme Court ! "). And they would generously disregard the bygone nonsense or excesses (they likely did the same). What they do NOT want to see is a plus 50 year old liar getting one of the highest positions in the country - for life.
he already has a life appointment - and he lied his way into that as well.
(never mind the sexual assault claim - but that can never be proven, although there is a good chance he did that too)
Or when the admin w/o need starts jailing people asking for asylum. Or when they crossed the border. (former admins mostly treated it as misdemeanor to avoid an adminstrative clusterfuck). That meant they put adults together ! with children into detention centers. The adults could take care of the children. When the decision was made (deportation or allowed to stay) - at least the children and minors were with the adults.
The Trump admin intentionally started that policy. It is cruel, expensive and an adminstrative nightmare. The court had to order them to unite the children. They did not even take down the details in the beginning. Adults were deported, children are still in the U.S. Some children are left in the system, who knows where the adults are (that could have been people who either abducted the children OR they wanted to bring them to the parents staying in the U.S. and they do not dare to show up to claim the children.
There is no good reason to handle it - except for grandstanding. And to scare people that flee from threat poverty. Stealing their children from them. Without the public outcry - who knows what they would have done with the little ones. (They did not expect the fuss they thought they could pull this off).
The judge: If you take a wallet from someone they will get a receipt - and ICE took children from parents and did not have any PAPERWORK about the children ?
There was not need to start the "no tolerance" policy except that Trump wanted to announce at rallies how many people they had put into jail (never mind the COSTS). The law says they are not allowed to jail innocent minors for more than 21 days - so former admins (Bush, Obama) only jailed the adults if they suspected criminal activities. Crossing the border was not treated as a crime - and asking for asylum is legal anyway.
In short there was a way to reduce the red tape and even if they would be deported to maintain a minimum of decency.
Or there is the Trump admin: traumatize little children and their parents (mostly mothers) - the more the better.
But with "jail them no mattter what" the admin needed to separate children from parents (and they did not even bother to make sure they could FIND the children after the decision regarding the adults was made.
Civil servants that participate in schemes that are ineffective, cruel and senseless deserve to be yelled at. They should not have undisturbed meals in nice restaurants.
There is a time for politness and being moderate - and a time to call a spade a spade. Loud and clear if necessary.
These crooks think they can act with impunity. Well at least they should feel very uncomfortable when they show their face in public.
Humans are social beings and react to that. They should feel stress, it is only a small payback for what they unleash onto the population.
Btw: a Stanford or Yale study: lawmakers are not responsive to the wishes of the electorate.
Issues that poll well with the upper 10 % but not the bottom and middle - 50 to 60 % chance to get it passed.
Issues that poll well with the bottom and the middle (the vast majority of the country) but NOT with the "elites" , the 10 % - almost zero chance it will become the law.
Politicians - and the voters - are meanwhile completely used to it that politicians do the will of the Big Donors and do not give a damn about the voters (which is true for most Democratic policians as well. almost all of them take the Big Donations and they grovel before them, damned be the people).
But Trump and the Republicans really have stepped it up.
Which is as well, finally the sheeple are awakening, time to get the pitchforks.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Japan is a very small country?? Japan has over 6000 islands, 127,3 million inhabitants, USA 322 millions, the ratio is 1 : 2,54. Space Ratio is another story 1:26. That means per capita the US has 26 times more space for their citizens than Japan (there are no vast empty plains like in the US) and it shows, the US having by far the hightest energy consumption in the rich countries and the Japanese the lowest. (I do not know if the US hold the records, Saudi Arabia or Dubai might beat them, Japan and USA are very much on the opposite ends of the spectrum). And one of the reasons for the high energy consumption of the US is the settlement policies (zoning), highest rate of shopping malls (space per capita), the necessary infrastructure constructions (like streets, water treatment, distribution of goods), the size of houses (both for building and for heating or cooling them), transportation.
1
-
+User2718218 - I recommend to listen to JOHN BOLENBAUGH, former marine, oil spill clean-up worker turned whistleblower and nightmare of the industry. The oil that IS GOING TO threaten the water is not MEANT for US citizens. It will be sold elsewhere. The company makes the profit, the citizens WILL suffer (you have to think in time frames of 10 or 20 years). All politicians and CEOs and regulators will be elsewhere when the water of 18 million people will be poisoned (and there are a lot of other pipelines - same scenario). Do you think they will DO ANYTHING for the citizens then ?? They are unable or unwiling to even solve the lead crisis in Michigan. And that WOULD be solveable with money (in a technical sense). The pipeline is buried UNDER the water body. How do you get the oil out of the drinking ! water once it poisoned such a large water body.
High pressure, highly agressive fluids to help keep the stuff flowing. The material INEVITABLY corrodes., they are negligent on maintainance (big spills are covered by the insurance, regular repair not). Repairing often requires shutdowns - in case of big spills they will get compensation for lost revenue. The people making the money are SAFE, their children and family members are not getting sick (think seizures, cancer, etc.), their property will not be devalued. EPA is a joke. The corporate shills have successfully dwarfed it. They are either intimidated or bribed. And since the public does not have the back of the EPA and they never know if the agency will still exist and what budget cuts will be next they are likely to be silent. the 5 or 6 media outlets (for profit owned by rich people) are keeping silent as well, they get the ads from the industry. So it's not worth risking your job, likely no one will pay attention. and good luck with finding another job.
1
-
1
-
1
-
No the EU DOES NOT ensure fundamental rights. Nor does it promote peace. Both existed in Europe without the dominance of the EU - it was an economic cooperation, no more. On the contrary by following and enabling neoliberal economic policies ( example mass unemployment and TTIP, CETA, TISA for crying out loud !!) it created the surge of right wing parties. The governments dominant in the EU follow more and more neoliberal principles, so of course the EU does the same - only with much more impact. The EU is the dream of every red-tape loving bureaucrat and even worse it gives ENORMOUS leverage to lobbyists and big biz. In the old days big biz had to work the politicians in all countries (many of them are very interesting markets, because they are rich and have a lot of citizens). They had to deal with conservative and left-leaning governments. Politicians and citizens were watching what was going on in the neighbouring countries. It was really hard (or impossible) to get things passed that would screw most of the citizens of Europe.
Now the lobbyist can quite easily and efficiently leverage their bribery in a market with around 520 mio people = EU + Norway + CH (the US has around 318 mio).
In the EU countries are pitted against each other (Germany vs. France, Germany vs. the Southern European countries) Did you follow the Greek debt crisis? German Finance Minister Schaeuble, the economic illiterate, started the beginning of the end of the Euro then. I come from a rich "lender" country, this and the insane pursuing of the "free" "trade" agreements (despite massive criticism) made clear to me that the EU is NOT MEANT as a project to help the average citizens, it is a neoliberal project of and for the elites. Even within rich countries like Germany there is a lot of (not quite visible) inequality.
There is a reason right wing parties are on the rise all over Europe.
People somehow sense they are getting screwed, many - the majoritiy - are not nuanced in their analysis and are only getting the economic establishment talking points of mainstream media. Many of those now supporting the "Right" are xenophobic and narrow-minded to begin with. When the economy worked better for ALL citizens many of them even voted left (wich then made the believeable claim that they worked for the "little guy").
Occasionally the EU helps with civic rights (it may prevent the worst deviations in Poland and Hungary) . It might have brought improvements in the UK (which subscribed very much to the neoliberal route) when other European countries still followed Social Democratic and Civil Rights principles. Most countries had pretty good protection of their citizens. Had ! - mass surveillance anyone ?? On the other hand: the UK is still a somewhat functioning democracy. I would count them in in the club of rich European countries - if the citizens could be bothered to stand up to the political machine they could and would have quickly protection that is worthy of a modern democracy - EU or not.
I admit that the European Court has in some cases made landmark decisicion that protect citizens Like the right of a person to blow the whistle vs. the right of an employer to the loyaltiy of the workers. A case where a German caretaker in a home for elderly people (publicly financed !) blew the whistle and got fired. The German Highest Court confirmed the right of the employer to fire her - even when her reporting was true and was within some months confirmed by an official commission initiated by the scandal. The court in The Hague overthrew that decision.
In the case of the debt crisis and bail-out and ECB dealings and also regarding mass spying the European court did NOT challenge the status quo. (Or when Goldman Sachs was allowed to hide the details of their derivatives deal with Greece. The deal where GS helped Greece to cook the books so that they would be allowed to join the EURO. The deal that was really costly for Greece and exceptionally profitable for GS.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sam Seder explained it well - single payer means you take out the for-profit middleman that provides no value in delivering healthcare. Feinstein muddies the waters with right wing talking points. Got the instructions form the donors obviously. - My country, Austria has single payer, we have a public non-profit insurance agency that gets the MANDATORY payroll deductions that must be matched by employers. Plus some extra funding for the hospitals by taxes.
They have privacy laws to obey, while they are a legal public entity they are not a part of government and are also not allowed to disclose data to them (or for instance to corporations for "marketing" or to employers). And I think every industrialized nation (except the US) handles it more or less in that manner, Germany our large neighbour organizes it in an almost indentical manner.
The agency negotiates prices and contracts (for pharma meds, the retail prices and locations of pharmacists who are heavily regulated, the contracts with the doctors ( for profit small entrepreneurs) and the hospitals (non-profits run by muncipalities or private groups - then usually church related groups). The contribution depends on your wage/income (family and health status, age gender does not matter). Kids and spouses are insured as well. Plus provisions for those w/o a job. Everyone has the SAME coverage, every corporation - small or large matches the contribution of the employee - it is a % - so it is a contribution according to financial power, NO payments or bills WHEN you get the treatment. No surprises.
Choice or product differentiation is meaningless with healthcare . When I need treatment I can usually decide where to go (most doctors and almost all hospitals are in the public system, so it does not matter). Of course there may be referals or a hospital has a good reputation for a department or is specialized. Then it is no choice or a no-brainer - you go where they do the job all the time - meaning a lot of experience with the procedure and cost-efficient for the system. This is usually for treatments that can be planned.
But there is no differentiation or choice in the treatment - I wouldn't know and I want only ONE treatment - the ONE that helps best and nothing that is NOT necessary.
Nor is there differentiation in the cost at the point of treatment (Zero in every case, it is not this co-pay under that plan, and no or less co-pay under another plan).
The system intends not to give incentives for over treatment.
The system is very streamlined, and since everyone gets the same treatment, the affluent and middle class people will keep it good and the payers (corporations AND workers) keep it cost-efficient and the doctors (lobbied of course by the industry) keep the medical procedures and drugs up to date. And the politicians feel that they would be blamed if it does not function (on all levels local to federal government) so they are eager to sort out hiccups (or at least voice their support - they would not want to be found negligent with the positive statements - lol).
When something systemic does not work it is an agenda for hundreds of thousands of people. Since the conditions are completely comparable and since there is NO differentiation people will quickly band together and demand improvement. That does not happen when people have different plans, co-pays, risks that are excluded. "Differentiation" takes it to the individual level - and then it is you as a single consumer/patient against powerful players. In our system it is a hord of patients/voters relating to an institution that does not need to make a profit but is expected to deliver good and reasonably priced service (not that we notice the costs directely, but they have to stay within the budget, with rising wages or employment their budget rises as well).
Differentiation is good for the for-profit players, that is why the Status quo people bring up variations of it in their "argumentation" (young people would be allowed to choose ! a more "economic" plan, or different co-pays, or caps, or special pools - or it is a generic bow to the "advantages of choice". Who wants to chose which fix for a broken arm (either a x-ray is necessary or not) or chose which chemotherapy. We do not have the expertise anyway.
You may want a second opinion ON MEDICAL Questions, but not on the economic - the healthcare plan.
Only people who cannot afford the better plans "choose" the higher deductibles and exclude certain risks (which may bite them later). So the "choose" the unexpected payments that come WHEN they acutally need treatment. And usually that means they cannot really afford the higher monthly plannable premiums or they would have better coverage to begin with. So they resort to the coverage they CAN AFFORD and HOPE that they are not hit. Healthcare Roulette instead of Russian Roulette. On the indivual level some will be lucky (and stay healthy). On the politicial level: take 100,000 lower income people and calculate how many of them will be hit by unplannable costs they cannot afford.
Only affluent people can afford to take a risk and chose plans that do not cover everything. And these people usually have very comprehensive plans.
1
-
1
-
Since 1776: Citizens not subjects ! Being arrested is a shock to every orderly citizen. When the police does so frivolously, it is a violation of the rights of citizens. It gets even worse when the police obviously intends to protect the establishment from well deserved critique AND it gets to a whole new level of wrong, when the citizens complain about being poisoned while the police - and this councilman - feel the necessity to protect those who fail the citizens.
That councilman and many other suffer from the idea that the citizens have the duty to obey authority. Not always. Like I said, they are not subjects. The citizens DELEGATE more than usual power to the police and the laws the citizens have given themselves (via the representatives) allow the police the use of force in order to SERVE the communities.
Note that the police (mis)used their privilege (use of violence) to frivolously arrest people.
Situation for police: they are getting paid and wrongful arrest does not have ANY consequences for them, they do not lose time (they are doing it while paid), their rights are not violated, even if a lawsuit against the police comes out of it - they will testify while being paid and they will neither have to pay for the lawyer nor the fine ( the muncipality that those cops do not serve well, have to pay the fines and compensations on top of it. And of course the citizens pay for the justice system, that is clogged up with such overreach of police authority on behest of those who are inconvenienced by legitimate protests.)
Situation for the citizens that protest against a severe grievance: Deal with the loss of time, money, dignity and further loss of trust in the institutions (I thank the latter is important). And of course you could not make your point about the poisoned water.
Or even wrose: try to resist the wrongful arrest - and see what happens. You are lucky if you do not get shot.
If there is a good chance that you can be wrongfully arreste, it has a chilling effect on the citizens - it limits them to exercise their rights. The responsible people do not want having to deal with rightfully upset, loud people (public shaming works). You bet they want to shut up people when they cannot altogether avoid the townhalls.
all the disadvantages for the disenfrenchised, all the the advantages for those who transgress.
1776 anyone ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Willful ignorance: Homo Sapiens is a very social being, we have a built-in sense of fairness and compassion. Which is directely opposed to our selfishness. Now under the watchful eyes of our peers ! and in small groups where everyone knows and needs everyone we are well behaved, cooperative, generous, charitable, empathic and social. The punishment for NOT being that way goes from loosing status to social shunning or even being cast out of the tribe. Even the "softer" measures (like being shamed) were VERY effective to secure peace and cooperation within the group. That worked for tenthousands years of human development. It is very difficult for humans to treat another human (perceived as "like us" or "one of us") unfair or unkind. Or even to witness unkind treatment. It makes us feel very uncomfortable and is at odds with our need to perceive ourselves as "good" "decent" "social" people.
There are different solutions for conflicts of empathy vs. complacency or selfishness or fear of negative consequences (if we help someone):
1) We can grow numb, we can get used to withstand our social impulses (reaction to extreme povert in countries like India).
2) We can avoid meeting those whom we wrong or those who are poor (delegate the dirty work to others, live in gated communities).
3) Define those who are wronged as the "others" and then the "thugs". It is done every time in war. Another example: 12 year old Tamir Rice was shot by the police within seconds after their arrival. Even the most bigotted person "senses" that it would not do to smear an innocent unarmed 12 year old. However they eagerly and quickly found out that his mother had dysfunctional relationships before and it was reported on TV. The life of the mother had nothing to do with the execution by the police, but it helped disperse and deflect the natural empathy. This was not a child shot dead by the police, this was a member of on of those families, a thug in the making.
4) Use of words: "Police reigns in demonstrators by using tear gas" or "Oil police again throws tear gas at water protectors". These two sentences convery a completely different realtiy. Sentence 1 sets the stage for more police brutality without risking the protest of the public.
5) Stay ignorant, do not become aware of your own double standard.
6) Last but not least use your fabulous brain to come up with some mental gymnastics justifying selfishness and leaving others behind. That has been the role of mainstream academia and think tanks in the field of economics (Austerity, Trickle Down Economics, Tax Cuts for the rich will create jobs, "Globalization", "Fair" "Trade").
Complete disregard for the lessons of the economic policies from the 1930s until the 1970s in Europe, the US, Japan. This was a massive economic experiment: austerity in Japan and Europe vs. New Deal in the US before WW2.
After WW2 in the US Debt-financed government spending with high taxes, good wages, a good deal of protectionism, finance and banks strictly regulated. The same in Japan and Western Europe (They took out less loans than the US - they were the beneficiaries of some of these debt-financed programs of the US = Marshall Plan).
Post WW2 economic polies were pretty much the opposite of current ecnonomic policies - so how did that work out ? And how come Academia and mainstream media is even capable to sweep these economic experiments and their results under the rug when economic policies are discussed. (Hint the current narratives serve the interests of the ruling class. It would not do to implant doubt in the mind of the public that completely different policies were successfully implemented some decades ago.)
Ideology-driven narratives are very common in the field of welfare, health care and education. Every area that is about "who gets what share of the pie" and how to shape the future citizens the establishment will have to deal with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That is fortunately not true in an economy sense - although the death cult would put up massive resistance . - I remember a story where even the Pentagon leadership did not want more tanks (or a certain type of tanks). They got them anyway. (I guess they are now rusting away).
Now IMAGINE at least half of the budget (of approx. 1,8 TRILLION) would be SQUANDERED on the wellbeing of the unwashed masses. Think GOOD basic education and childcare, free trade schools and nursing schools, (College is a scam in itself, you do not need 40 % of the population college "educated" !). Good healthcare, rebuilding infrastructure, throwing money at research for storage solutions for renewable energy (cheap production is not the problem, that we have figured out - storage is).
Corporations working for the M.I.C. (Military Industrial Comples) are usually very specialized and tend to be larger. And they already bought their way into politics.
If the money was spent otherwise it would often help non-profit actors.
Teachers, nurses in non-profit hospitals, cost money - but no one is making a profit here. Then they spend their wages into the economy - which profits all kinds of businesses.
When paying a part of the salary in an Alternative currency that would be a boost for DOMESTIC production.
Repairing schools costs money, as well - and is done by local construction companies. So the beneficial effects would be spread all over the country and not necessarily go to the usual suspects (large companies, large donors).
And citizens as wage earners (gov. employees) or small biz - or worker owned co-ops - would have a chance to get a good chunk of the pie as well.
If the budget is used for state employees, it is not the case that few players can monopolize the budgets and have their profits publicly funded (like is the case for GE, Westinghouse, or all the subcontractors that work for the surveillance state. Snowden got his very good salary from a for-profit contractor.)
The beauty of the surveillance and IT schemes is of course that they can practically write their own orders and budgets. - If you order tanks that is something the public can understand and you can calculate the costs per tank.
You can know and understand the costs for the uniforms or food for 100,000 soldiers. it would on principle be possible to avoid a complete rip-off for these tangible products and services.
But "surveillance" is completely intangible and they can on top always hide behind "secrecy" and "protecting sources and methods".
You bet the military IT subcontractors are making out like bandits. And if their services are completely useless - who would be able to find out ?
With another ship or more airplanes you can at least still have a public discussion.
The military budged was around ? 580 bn under Obama - it was INCREASED by MORE than RUSSIA spends in a year (that was passed with the overwhelming support of the Democrats BTW, directly after the narrow downvote of the 3rd attempt to repeal Obamacare, it is easy to find 60 or more billions for such increased budgets, but completely impossible to do something about student debt or healthcare)
I guess it is now around minimum 650 bn now. Add to that 1,2 TRILLION per year for all the agencies (incl. VA).
Willian Binney former technical NSA director was involved in the beginning of mass surveillance.
He had a plan to a) make it conform to the constitution (data would be collected, but could not be accessed - the idea was it would still need an court order to access the data - Binney: Snowden could never have copied all the data, we would have noticed immediately - well then Snowden would have had not reason to blow the whistle in the first case)
and b) he wanted the NSA (not private for profit contractors) to develop the software solutions and hire the IT workforce. The problem: the technical solution would remain the property of the NSA and no one would make a profit of the whole operation.
So naturally his proposals were dismissed, and he left the NSA.
Also Larry Wilkerson (see his appearances on The Real News) when he managed contracts for the Pentagon. He was told the volume of the order was too small. It should cost much more and it should be spread out to many more states or it would never pass.
Congress and Senators are of course bought off by corporatiosn and spreading the jobs over the country means the representatives are pressured by their constituency to make sure these for profit corporations get the LUCRATIVE orders - or the people will not have jobs.
And these are the few niches left in industrial manufacturing, that pay well and will not outsource (not when they have military technology).
Of course all countries have considerable industrial over production capacities (compared with the disposable income workers = consumers have). This is now the case with consumer products and since decades in industrial production of military equipment.
Many of these corporations are very specialized, they need to do a lot of research, they need to be able to keep their well trained workforce.
And since every country wants to be independent, they always had huge overproduction, they always sold to very questionable actors/nations (with the nod of their "democratic" "peace" loving governments).
See the latest contracts of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia does not need those U.S. and UK weapons, and they have the reputation that their military could not put the systems to good use, anyway.
But the Royal House of Saud buys the goodwill of Western governments - and that of their corporate owners - with these orders (while the Saudi population has to put up with cuts - not everyone is wealthy there).
1
-
1
-
1
-
everybody - please go to info@berniesanders.com and beg the campaign so that Sanders does NOT play the surrogate FOR Biden. He breaks the heart of the most informed, passionate supporters - I am not hyperbolic At this point I am not sure if Sanders even WANTS to WIN. Or if he VALUES his personal relationships with "my friend Joe" over getting REAL POWER so he can CHANGE things for the masses.
People like the ideas of Sanders, "but later, now it is time to beat Trump". * They vote for Biden over Sanders because they think and are constantly told by mainstream media that
Joe is a) a nice guy and b) he is BETTER or WELL able to beat Trump.
see:
* To Defeat Trump, Biden Recruits Sanders Supporters — And Finds Some Are Game | MSNBC
Ari Melber in a diner in Queens (of course a carefully selected audience of older voters and local "leaders" = party machine).
And Sanders CONFIRMS THAT instead of pointing out why he is the candidate with the most stamina (that has frontrunner status) and why he is the best to beat Trump for many reasons.
THAT is the CASE he needs to make - not "defending" Biden. Biden can do his own interviews if he is able to pull it off.
It is maddening to hear to the Senator how he props up his opponent - when he should truthfully tell people why is the much safer and stronger alternative.
Joe is my friend = "nice" and also "Yes he can beat Trump, of course he can". So people like Joe they also find Bernie O.K. - but even Bernie says Joe is a good choice. No other candidate does that, it must meant that Joe is in reality the BETTER or an equallly good choice.
No Biden is a very weak choice and Sanders is MUCH better. It is the DUTY of Sanders to tell the TRUTH to voters.
Their SS will not be safe under Trump or Biden. Nor will Medicare or Medicaid be safe under either of them.
Trump already said he wants to cut SS and benefits even before the election. And Biden has pushed for cuts, or no increases (= cuts, only less drastic) or privatization for decades. (Bill Clinton had a secret work group, they gave up on the project because of impeachment. Bill Clinton expetced some backlash about SS, and he did not want to fight on 2 fronts).
Being for SS cuts or privatization comes with the territory, Biden has Big finance as major donors.
Had them in the past, has over 60 billionaires NOW.
Healthcare is expensive even if delivered in a cost efficient single payer system. (5,300 USD for every person in the country take or leave 400 USD - that will cover the overwhelming range of wealthy nations. Kaiser 2017, also see World Bank. The U.S. in 2017: USD 10,260 and here "average spending per person" includes uninsured people, or people that get help too late or go bankrupt. It is all that is spent on healthcare in the country, divided by all people - who may or may not get TIMELY care and who may or may not have sufficient ! coverage).
OLD people cause the most spending in healthcare in ALL wealthy nations, people over 60:
5 times more than the people age group 20 and 30 (I seem to remember that - in that range).
So on top of those conditions - that are true for all first world nations - It is NOT helpful at all when the U.S. spends DOUBLE for a service that is crucial and expensive anyway. The U.S. healthcare system will collapse under its own weight at some point. If things are O.K. you can do incrmental and adjust here and there. If it is a BIG MESS you need BOLD reform and you must be willing to end the status quo.
Medicare NEEDS a lot of government support (that is the case in all nations, the mandated payroll taxes are intentionally kept modest so they are no burden to citizens and companies. The rest comes from general tax revenue).
Only a BOLD reform can ensure the cost-efficiency and streamlined admin.
Sanders says: We won on the ideas.
That is true at least among Democratic caucus goers and primary voters M4A and 15 USD minimum wage poll very well.
Guess what ?
Biden already signalled that he will veto M4A (even if it would make its way through Congress and Senate. He will as gladly ignore what the citizens WANT as Hillary Clinton or now Trump.
Progress is made when strong movements push for change and they have an at least mildly supportive president. The last BIG STRIDES were made before Big Donor money hijacked politics. With a president that is hellbent on NOT doing anything that annoys the big donors (Trump, Biden) it is an almost unsurmountable race. 1 step forwards, 1 step back. 2 step forwards 3 steps back. 4 steps forward in an epic struggle - 3 steps back.
The powers that be are good at wearing people and movements out and in using institutional power to defeat them. Sanders should know from the Civil Rights and Anti war movement. Only MANY young people dying and YEARS of resistance and whistleblowers risking all could bring Nixon to end the Vietnam war. But he hit back
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Medicare for All ? - You have to read into her blogs to get that she is for raising the minimum wage **, I found that as a side note of the end of an article (but no specifics !!). Minimum wage on the federal level ? on the state level ? What is the miminum wage in Florida and what does she think it should be ?
She thinks that alone does not enough for the middle segment of wages and suggest an ?extra tax cut for businesses (when they pay wages it counts as business expenditure anyway, no tax on that).
Nothing against functional ! tax cuts for businesses especially smaller ones - but that is not the tool to get good pay for the middle segment. **
Finding a good healthcare solution would lift a burden from smaller not highly profitable businesses. And the money they spend could be funnedled more to their staff and less to the healthcare industry. Plus they can compete with big biz for talent - they have no disadvantage regarding the healthcare plans they can afford to offer.
It indicates the thinking of a Republican to me - or that she uncritically accepts the neoliberal framing and the thought stopping clichés.
She does not have the economic insight of a FDR democrat. Did she ever look at the New deal era and try to figure out WHY it worked then.
The admission on her site that she has to dig further into it before commiting to a number regarding the minimum wage but is on principle for rising it, would be fine, too.
A politician must be intelligent, able to process nuance, have integrity and a spine, and be willing to inform him or herself on the issues. And change positions.
No need to figure it out all and right from the beginning. And when elected they usually have more access to expertise (although that might be influenced by - cough - special interests - cough and lobbyists). And they can exchange their opinions with collegues, challenge them and be challenged.
But they should get SOME basic and very obvious things right (like Medicare for All - or any other form of European style healthcare system - they are functioning since WW2.
Or the toxic consequences of Money In Politics (incl. the revolving door).
I was interested in her positions regarding Medicare for All, campaign finance reform, free public college or trade school and college debt. Couldn't find anything.
I am a quick reader and took 5 minutes - on a well made site it should jump at me in the first 30 seconds.
Not so progressive on second glance ! I mean she is a good candidate for a Democrat. She runs a grassroots campaign (no Big Corporate donations ? no SuperPacs ?).
Is she on principle against big money in politics ? I did not see that commitment on her page, and I think she did not EXPLICITLY SAY so in the interview.
So: when I have name recognition, and be voted in I will gladly take the big bucks ?
Democrats are expected to fundraise for the party,... that is going to be interesting for all the progressives that win under a D ticket. Sanders as Independent also helps raising money (but not with expensive exclusive dinners, or Wallstreet speeches, and dialling after dollars - he has of course a platform so when holding a speech or giving access to the mail list - that is a valuable contribution he can make).
She certainly is a better candidate than the big money candidate and is very likeable and being a woman of color and a veteran is an advantage.
Maybe some "conservative" soundbites (fiscal responsibility) and not to ruffle Republican lite feathers with "unheard of" progressive economic ideas is necessary to win in the GE.
That said: Cenk should grill her more on the issues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On her site she talks about: fiscal responsibility. Now, that standard Republican soundbite might resonate well with unenlightend voters. (It sounds good, it has merit in personal finances, it usually indicated that someone does not really understand how "money" and government financing works ? (Stephanie Kelton deficit owl speech).
btw: Even if we take the term uncritically and at face value - does that mean: no tax cuts for the rich, or less welfare for military contractors. Or the insance costs of 24/7 mass surveillance. Cutting the subsidies for Big Ag in FLORIDA ??
No more wars and regime change ?
Cutting of SNAP, welfare, school funding, slashing the budgets of the EPA ?
Or does she buy into the thinking of scarcity, the doom and gloom scenarios of government debt, defictis etc. etc.
She migth want to check out Debt and Interest Free Money creation by Dr. Richard Werner. (clip youtube)
Or Money Creation in a Modern Economy - a pdf published by the Bank of England.
Or check out MMT proponent Dr. Stephanie Kelton (advisor of the Sanders campaign).
Dr. Kelton is longer, the other two sources are shorter to explore and easy to understand.
All of them are highly recommended.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
either 1) that story is a fabrication and whitewash OR 2) Warren has very poor instincts and does not know how to play the political game at all. 1) So .... Warren gives away her OWN power (to build an even stronger support base, there was a Run Liz, run draft campaign going on, she could have run for a few months to become a household name to become a check on Clinton.
Instead she tries to become the influencer behind the scenes. So what exactely would make Hillary Clinton KEEP her promise once she has all the spotlight in the media and her friends in the media block Warren out. (which is the easier the more time had passed since the GFC and since Warren had wagged her finger at the Wallstreet CEO's.
And what does it say if you have to work so hard to keep a candidate straight.
I get why Warren would not WANT to run - but then why does she run now. - Sanders coordinated with Warren in 2015, and when it was clear she would not run Sanders announced. He planned with 30 million USD in small contributions, he wanted the platform in order to shape the discussion.
I cannot remember Warren having shaped the discussion much. Did she have financial regulation discussed ? I honestly do not remember, but I remember that Sanders was very vocal about it, got attacked, hit back etc.
How about healthcare. Crickets by Warren.
DAPL. Deafening silence by My-Family-Tale-Says-I-Have-First-Nation-Ancestors.
Now, I think that is a whitewash because she now realizes that her calculation then hurts her (that she sat on the sidelines while Sanders went for it). I would not hold that against her so much - but that she did not even have the courage to stand up at Standing Rock is very telling.
To not annoy the Fossil fuel industry and Wallstreet investors - still angling for a cabinet position, Liz ??
in fall when it seemed clear that Clinton would win the presidency.
So we are supposed to believe that she would have held Clinton to account or that she had leverage over Clinton. I do not see any indications for that influence, nor did Warren shape the disucssion much. Sanders did ! Warren remaiend SILENT. - The Clinton campaign gave progressives the middle finger as soon as Clinton had the nomination in the bag. Again I cannot see any good influence of Clinton !
Warren's boldness was not even sufficient to take a stand on the DAPL protests ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The most important thing for the Democratic party is to NOT lose the donations of the Big Donors and to keep money in politics. That is more important than winning the GE. The role assigned to the Democratic party by the Big Donors is to win the primaries to keep progressives away from power.
"Progressives" have grassroots financed campaigns or are at least open to campaign finance reform. They pursue causes that help the regular people - so they have a chance to win elections even if the votes are not bought with the help of massive advertising. THEY are not as afraid of campaign finance reform like the donor puppets.
The interests of regular citizens very often collude with the interests of the Big Donors. Sanders recently embarrassed Jeff Bezoes on a daily basis - surprisinlgy Amazon NOW raised the wage of Amazon workers (even part time even associates from temp agencies) to 15 USD.
Progressives can do such things - not one of the run of the mill Democrats would have DARED to inconvenience Amazon / Jeff Bezos. Even if they do not get money from that donor directly. Democratic politicians (incl. fairly progressives ones) also must dial after the dollar for the party - so they cannot annoy potential big donors - and the party leadership is keeping a tight grip on the party in order to make sure the donors are kept happy and every politician falls in line.
Of course if more Progressives are voted in it would embolden the whole group - they are not beholden to donor money in the same way like the rest of the lot. So either they can be bribed - but if they do not sell out - over the course of some years the cozy and lurcrative arrangement would be in jeopardy.
It is not only about getting money when active in politics. The Big Donors / and their shills in the party establishment also provide cushy jobs for ex politicians. That is a very important aspect that is often overlooked.
Mainstream media profits from insane advertisement spending in elections. They collude with the parties and the donors (who are often also regular advertisers). 1) They will not alert the citizens about the dangers of money in politics and 2) they also provide some jobs for ex politicians 3) they eagerly take up the talking points of the think tanks (financed by the Big Donors). Meanstream media is OWNED by rich people = Big Donors.
Election circus with big money: that is PART of the GRAVY TRAIN. It provides the employment opportunities for obedient ex politicians (strategists, consultants, mainstream media also helps out, they hire "experts" and hosts - after all they get a lot of the budgets of election campaigns).
The big mistake of the voters (people who DO pay attention) was to treat each election as a separate emergency * = we cannot dare to NOT vote Democrate THIS time because then we will get a Republican. And that emergency has been repeated for DECADES.
The Republicans can always be relied on to come up with a boogeyman.
That works like a charm for the sellout Democrats. They do not have ANY competition on the "left" or even the center. Progressives ARE competition, so they are held down.
The Corporate Democratic Party are a right political party: pro war, pro neoliberal economics, pro surveillance state and censorship. Big Donor friendly - as concession to the base and to differentiate themselves from the GOP: with gay rights, abortions and at least lip service regarding gun regulation -positions that do not cost the donors anything.
While the Republicans occupy the FAR RIGHT - and they utilize gay rights and abortions as well - to motivate their base to vote for them. Plus dogwhistles and now scapgoating immigrants, going after the "other" is the oldest strategy wo win the support of the masses. That can be turned to a lucrative business for some of their donors (for profit prison complex, those who run detention centers and get their revenue guaranteed, etc.)
So both wings of the one and only Big Donor Party have their strategies to get the masses excited - and the Big Donors always ! win. Again progressives would undermine the "We all scratch each other's back" game.
Keeping the money of the Big Donors is even more important than winning elections (the party establishment and the Big Donors will take care of obedient shills if they lose seats or want to end their career.
Especially in Congress: some careerists see Congress as a point in their resume on the way to a lucrative career in D.C. as lobbyist.
They do the beauty contest with the Big Donors, get elected with their millions, then follow orders when casting their vote in Congress. They use the talking points and legislation proposals of the think tanks. That saves time, they have to spend a LOT of time to raise money and to meet with the donors - so it is a good thing they just follow orders and do not need to do their own research.
They build their rolodex - and then they move on to other lucrative careers.
1
-
1
-
Please, PLEASE - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSBGmxERNVU&t=605s - watch this touching video RIGHT NOW and plaster it on the social media outlets of the Sanders campaign ! It looks like Sanders is ready to give up. He can't (Nomiki Konst worked with Sanders).
Obama was behind at that time by 300 delegates in 2008. Sanders CAN turn this around, but he MUST start to take off the gloves. Joe is not OUR friend he is LESS electable than Sanders, he might be in cognitive decline (there are polite and fair ways to contrast the one year intense campaign of Sanders with the light schedule of Biden (for the whole 12 months). And Sanders weathered stunt surgery after hearth attack in 2 weeks
Or long issue rich speeches (35 - 40 minutes) compared to 7 minute speeches of Biden.
never mind the BAGGAGE Biden has (Iraq war and trade deals for a start), and that Trump would drag him. Trump is good on the stage as long as it is not about facts and issues.
there are many issues that Biden better not mention - and if he does it will be "pot calling the kettle".
That put offs voters that do not see anything in it for them (100 million people that were eligible to vote didn't do that in 2016, you have to give them something to vote FOR).
Sanders could kick Trump on corruption, family nepotism (Biden better not go there) and healthcare promises. And the student loans that are now 1,5 trillion USD (more than subprime mortgages in 2008). Biden pushed for the bankrupcy bill that was instrumental for that situation and Trump did nothing about it.
Sanders can and MUST criticize Biden hard on it (mentioning the bankrupcy bill is not enough, he must SAY what the outcome was of it). And later he can kick Trump for not having done anything about it.
Biden will not do anything about healthcare and pharma prices, and the stock prices (healthcare, pharma related) went UP after he became the frontrunner. Looks like the "markets" are very confident that Biden will be good for their profits.
What does that mean for voters ?
Sanders needs to tell voters that their SS is not safe under Trump or Biden (his history over decades - and Trump already said he will cut it).
Medicare in its current form is not safe either - at some time the system will collapse under its own weight and dysfunction. (and that is w/o the corona virus).
Under cost efficient single payer a nation needs 5,300 USD per person per year (take or leave 400 USD - Kaiser 2017). Almost ALL wealthy nations are in that range. So even under the best of circumstances it costs plenty.
Modest mandatory payroll taxes (no burden for citizens or companies), streamlined admin, because every one is covered and has the same comprehensive coverage (so no hassle for doctors and hospitals). The rest for the budget (so that the non-profit insurance agency can pay sufficient rates) - like in the U.S. - comes from general tax revenue. But the subsdies per person are not quite as high as in the U.S. (All save if it costs half: government somewhat, and citizens and companies a lot).
For the U.S ? add 5,000 USD !
10,260 for every person in 2017
That is what is already spent on in all of the U.S., no matter who pays
divided by ALL people - whether or not they have insurance, go bankrupt etc.
Healthcare spending is always MUCH higher for old people, that is everywhere the case.
It is not exactely helpful when healthcare spending in general in the U.S. is double of what it should be.
The U.S. system will collapse under it's own weight if there is no BOLD reform. No need to reinvent the wheel: Just using the blueprint that all other nations have used for the last 70 years (the crucial principles for single payer, I see them reflected in the bill of Sanders and of Pramila Jayapal).
Obama tried the establishment approach: let's not rock the boat too much. In 2009 the PREDATORY for-profit insurers were ALLOWED to REMAIN the DOMINANT actors in the system. (all other wealthy ! countries have limited or strongly limited for-profit actors in their systems. Especially the insurers. they have done so for 55 - 70 years. That's why they spend approx. HALF per person).
The premise of Obamacare: the predators stay in charge but there will be regulations so they will behave themselves.
How did that turn out ?
The insurance companies had 10 years time to prove themselves. ACA was passed in spring 2010.
Same for the pharma industry that got concessions and favors under Bush, under Obama and under Trump.
Still: 10 times the costs for insuline compared to Canada. Opiode crisis ? Epi Pen (developed for the Iraq war and with gov. subsidies. For use in 1991, mind you). The HIV drug Truvada for which the U.S. agency - I think the CDC - does not enforce the patent, and Gilead that produces it has extortion prices. In the U.S. NOT in other countries. They get the well negotiated prices for a drug where the U.S. tax payers invested a lot to get it developed and tested.
No cost control.
1
-
1
-
** Her proposal that businesses should get extra ? tax cuts for giving bonus to non-executive staff. The claim is that the minimum wage helps only those at the bottom. Well no, it has ripple effects for those above the minimum wage. It "ripples upwards". The problem is not so much that the jobs in the middle are not well paid - There are not enough of them, and healthcare costs and childcare and college debt eat away from the salary.
AND: RENT and exploding house prices (social housing financed with Debt and Interest Free money - Dr. Richard Werner, also Dr. Stephanie Kelton).
Communites should not allow the international rich investor class buy up real estate (London, Sydney, New York, Auckland, ...).
No one lives in those houses and apartments, but they drive up the costs for everyone living and working there. THAT would solve problems - not a tax law.
Outlaw those purchases of people who neither do business nor do they live in the buildings - and put heavy taxes on those who have unused investment property. (Giving out vouchers in alternative currencies for everyone LIVING/renting in the city would offset the burden of taxation for those who actually live there.
Else the investors place a "fake" renter in the house. If the compensation for the tax (alternative currency) must be spent in the local economy (or for utility bills) it becomes unattractive for Chinese or Russian financiers. But it protects the locals from the burden of such taxation.
[that is a tricky proposal ... the law of unintended consequences]
I am afraid that employers would find a way to discriminate against some workers, withhold the bonus from some etc. - And it reduces tax revenue (under the current model to fiance state expenditures - see MMT Stephanie Kelton). Someone HAS to pay for the state expenditures. When a company MUST pay good wages because they cannot find employees, then the profits might not be that high so they are not going to owe much taxes.
The medium segment that is employed by smaller companies is often freelance work. So they do not employ the accounat or the assistant (office, marketing, IT) - they contract them. These people profit from the fact that good wages are being paid for EMPLOYEES. So a freelancer - taking more risks and having less protection - can not be pressured into working for pennies. (see Craigslist, IT, marketing, design)
On the other hand the employees do not know WHAT they are going to get. On the one hand the employer wants to keep the profit (as compensation for entpreneurial risk) on the other hand the employees would depend on the FUTURE profits to know what they will make - of course only 1 year into the future. And not when they leave in the middle of the year or get laid off. Usually they do not have much of a say in the decisions. Having a fixed salary (unless you work in sales where the personal performance can be measured or in management) is fairer. And people will have the money right away.
Such a tax law could only make an impact if it would find WIDE application. And I can see a LOT of troubles with it in that case.
If a company makes money hand over fist after paying decent wages - and that applies more to Big Biz - they know 101 ways to not pay taxes already. 60 % of the economy are dominated by multinationals and very large companies.
A huge part of the economy are service sector workers and they definitely will profit from a minimum wage. And it will eat into the profits of WalMart the Fastfood Industry, Starbucks. etc.
How did good wages work in the past ? - see next comment
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
part 1 of 3 Clinton would split the neoliberal vote in the primaries. Sure she would attract the middle aged to elderly well off professional females. Some of that group are still pissed off that Sanders rained on her parade, it is hard to say how numerous they are in real life, they are vocal in Social Media, but that may be a paid for operation. He polls well, so I do not know where the angy Clinton fans camp out.
The interviews when the book Shattered was promoted (spring 2017) were very telling. 2 authors / journalists were given access under condition of confidentiality during the campaign. The staff and strategists were clueless about which ideology to "chose" and tried to come up with a framing, a slogan, a core message, a "postioning".
An ideology would be something that has to do with convictions is backed up by some emotions, even passion, evolved over the years. It is not something a focus groups provides for you after they had a weekend retreat to find it.
fromt he top to the foot soldiers of the Clinton machine and the campaign they are careerists. Lacking any convictions or passion other than for their own wellbeing they were completely unable to read the signs on the wall. That includes the alleged smart guy Chuck Schumer. Bill Clinton was uneasy about the Rust Belt states - well he was the only one that acutally WON elections. Clinton was placed in a safe district in New York, her primary opponent dropped out (or got the hints to drop out else not more funding now or in the future).
Meanwhile Sanders talked on the campaign trail like he had done for decades, he did not need consultants (many of them at least) to find his core message. He had a core, thank you very much. He could refer to his old record, he continued to write the speeches (at least part of it). But since he was so consistent it is not as hard to come up with the speeches. Or make the additions that make one speech more interestingfor this or that audience. It is not like a bunch of opportunists had to find an agreement about what a) was important and b) what would "sell well".
The big spending on campaigns also supports a jobs industry for party loyalists and former ex politicians or their relatives. These careerists do not have convictions (at most they have preference - see Obama) so they obsess with polling and strategy and consulting. They try to "create" a brand - like they do for other consumer products like shoes, garments, food,... Even with consumer products that sleek approach has somewhat worn out - authenticity has been detected by the big branks (so they work with bloggers.
Anyway: who is fit to hold enormous political power is not quite the same as creating some delusions about breakfast cereal (too much sugar) or whitewashing Nutella.
If Sanders OR Elizabeth Warrn run in 2020 both should wipe the floor with her AND Sanders definitely can do that with Trump in the GE. The trick of the Clinton machine of putting the Southern states first will not work this time - NOW he has name recognition too. Now he polls very well with Black voters. Elderly voters have died or do not vote anymore, young people have come of age - THAT helps Sanders.
Jeff Weaver the campaign manager was asked this summer in a C-Span interview: In hindsight what mistakes did they make ? Weaver said they had planned with a budget of 30 million USD. Had they known they would get 230 million in donations they would have started out much stronger, have a stronger groundgame.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
everybody - please go to info@berniesanders.com and beg the campaign so that Sanders does NOT play the surrogate FOR Biden. He breaks the heart of the most informed, passionate supporters - I am not hyperbolic At this point I am not sure if Sanders even WANTS to WIN. Or if he VALUES his personal relationships with "my friend Joe" over getting REAL POWER so he can CHANGE things for the masses.
People like the ideas of Sanders, "but later, now it is time to beat Trump". * They vote for Biden over Sanders because they think and are constantly told by mainstream media that
Joe is a) a nice guy and b) he is BETTER or WELL able to beat Trump.
see:
* To Defeat Trump, Biden Recruits Sanders Supporters — And Finds Some Are Game | MSNBC
Ari Melber in a diner in Queens (of course a carefully selected audience of older voters and local "leaders" = party machine).
And Sanders CONFIRMS THAT instead of pointing out why he is the candidate with the most stamina (that has frontrunner status) and why he is the best to beat Trump for many reasons.
THAT is the CASE he needs to make - not "defending" Biden. Biden can do his own interviews if he is able to pull it off.
It is maddening to hear to the Senator how he props up his opponent - when he should truthfully tell people why is the much safer and stronger alternative.
Joe is my friend = "nice" and also "Yes he can beat Trump, of course he can". So people like Joe they also find Bernie O.K. - but even Bernie says Joe is a good choice. No other candidate does that, it must meat that Joe is in reality the BETTER or an equallly good choice.
No Biden is a very weak choice and Sanders is MUCH better. It is the DUTY of Sanders to tell the TRUTH to voters.
Their SS will not be safe under Trump or Biden. Nor will Medicare or Medicaid be safe under either of them.
Trump already said he wants to cut SS and benefits even before the election. And Biden has pushed for cuts, or no increases (= cuts, only less drastic) or privatization for decades. (Bill Clinton had a secret work group, they gave up on the project because of impeachment. Bill Clinton expetced some backlash about SS, and he did not want to fight on 2 fronts).
Being for SS cuts or privatization comes with the territory, Biden has Big finance as major donors.
Had them in the past, has over 60 billionaires NOW.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Debt and Interest Free Money (Dr. Richard Werner, short clip highly recommended). youtube.com/watch?v=zIkk7AfYymg - Money is created all the time - usually by commercial banks when they give out loans.
Dr Werner refers to the 2nd possibility to create money: the government does it together with the Central Bank
also see the Bank of England pdf:
Money Creation in a Modern Economy
not too long, easy to understand, HIGHLY INTERSTING:
Capitalism is the current way how to finance industrial mass production.
The resources above inform about the creation of money (regular currency. Could also be an alternative currency tied to the national or local economy.
That money can finance the means of production (CAPITAL).
It could have been made available the longest time to the regular folks (co-ops, non-profits, public institutions) instead of prefering those who already are wealthy or rich.
It could help to finance the renationalization of railways, finance research, public education, social housing, childcare and care for the elderly, switch to renewables.
Positivemoney(dot)org has information on that and I think also on alternative currencies.
Money creation by the government:
Stephanie Kelton, MMT (Deficit Owl speech)
Alterntive currency (in a way it is earmarked money) can be used to encourage domestic production in order to satisfy the needs of the citizens w/o undermining the value of curreny (when creating money), or upsetting the existing trade deals - an economy could thus GROW additional pillars.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wilhelm Geisler In Vietnam and Korea the interests of the ruling class of the U.S. were defended. Korea and Vietnam could not have been a threat to the U.S. POPULATION, their economic well being or freedom if they wanted to. Poor countries, nothing like the U.S. military, no nukes etc.
Korea was collateral damage (and extreme damage, more bombs were dropped than during WW2, even WW2 generals were shocked, not one larger settlement in the North and South was left standing, Eisenhower threatened to NUKE them.
This was about CHINA, the attempt to control CHINA. The saying was - and completely unironic: "We have LOST China". So when did China belong to the U.S. ?
Vietnam: France had interests, and the U.S. helped them, later France gave up on the fight to control the COLONY Indochine from becoming independent, but the U.S. oligarchs pushed to continue the fighting. Military contractors were quite happy and their sons were not drafted. I heard there were also interests regarding rubber - before synthetic rubber become more important).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Please, PLEASE - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSBGmxERNVU&t=605s - watch this touching video RIGHT NOW and plaster it on the social media outlets of the Sanders campaign ! It looks like Sanders is ready to give up. He can't (Nomiki Konst worked with Sanders).
Obama was behind at that time by 300 delegates in 2008. Sanders CAN turn this around, but he MUST start to take off the gloves. Joe is not OUR friend he is LESS electable than Sanders, he might be in cognitive decline (there are polite and fair ways to contrast the one year intense campaign of Sanders with the light schedule of Biden (for the whole 12 months). And Sanders weathered stunt surgery after hearth attack in 2 weeks
Or long issue rich speeches (35 - 40 minutes) compared to 7 minute speeches of Biden.
never mind the BAGGAGE Biden has (Iraq war and trade deals for a start), and that Trump would drag him. Trump is good on the stage as long as it is not about facts and issues.
there are many issues that Biden better not mention - and if he does it will be "pot calling the kettle".
That put offs voters that do not see anything in it for them (100 million people that were eligible to vote didn't do that in 2016, you have to give them something to vote FOR).
Sanders could kick Trump on corruption, family nepotism (Biden better not go there) and healthcare promises. And the student loans that are now 1,5 trillion USD (more than subprime mortgages in 2008). Biden pushed for the bankrupcy bill that was instrumental for that situation and Trump did nothing about it.
Sanders can and MUST criticize Biden hard on it (mentioning the bankrupcy bill is not enough, he must SAY what the outcome was of it). And later he can kick Trump for not having done anything about it.
Biden will not do anything about healthcare and pharma prices, and the stock prices (healthcare, pharma related) went UP after he became the frontrunner. Looks like the "markets" are very confident that Biden will be good for their profits.
What does that mean for voters ?
Sanders needs to tell voters that their SS is not safe under Trump or Biden (his history over decades - and Trump already said he will cut it).
Medicare in its current form is not safe either - at some time the system will collapse under its own weight and dysfunction. (and that is w/o the corona virus).
Under cost efficient single payer a nation needs 5,300 USD per person per year (take or leave 400 USD - Kaiser 2017). Almost ALL wealthy nations are in that range. So even under the best of circumstances it costs plenty.
Modest mandatory payroll taxes (no burden for citizens or companies), streamlined admin, because every one is covered and has the same comprehensive coverage (so no hassle for doctors and hospitals). The rest for the budget (so that the non-profit insurance agency can pay sufficient rates) - like in the U.S. - comes from general tax revenue. But the subsdies per person are not quite as high as in the U.S. (All save if it costs half: government somewhat, and citizens and companies a lot).
For the U.S ? add 5,000 USD !
10,260 for every person in 2017
That is what is already spent on in all of the U.S., no matter who pays
divided by ALL people - whether or not they have insurance, go bankrupt etc.
Healthcare spending is always MUCH higher for old people, that is everywhere the case.
It is not exactely helpful when healthcare spending in general in the U.S. is double of what it should be.
The U.S. system will collapse under it's own weight if there is no BOLD reform. No need to reinvent the wheel: Just using the blueprint that all other nations have used for the last 70 years (the crucial principles for single payer, I see them reflected in the bill of Sanders and of Pramila Jayapal).
Obama tried the establishment approach: let's not rock the boat too much. In 2009 the PREDATORY for-profit insurers were ALLOWED to REMAIN the DOMINANT actors in the system. (all other wealthy ! countries have limited or strongly limited for-profit actors in their systems. Especially the insurers. they have done so for 55 - 70 years. That's why they spend approx. HALF per person).
The premise of Obamacare: the predators stay in charge but there will be regulations so they will behave themselves.
How did that turn out ?
The insurance companies had 10 years time to prove themselves. ACA was passed in spring 2010.
Same for the pharma industry that got concessions and favors under Bush, under Obama and under Trump.
Still: 10 times the costs for insuline compared to Canada. Opiode crisis ? Epi Pen (developed for the Iraq war and with gov. subsidies. For use in 1991, mind you). The HIV drug Truvada for which the U.S. agency - I think the CDC - does not enforce the patent, and Gilead that produces it has extortion prices. In the U.S. NOT in other countries. They get the well negotiated prices for a drug where the U.S. tax payers invested a lot to get it developed and tested.
No cost control.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The sobering effects on Corporate Dems set in long BEFORE Progressives become a majority. - The Republicans had the same scenario with the Tea Party, btw. - The grassroots continue to run progressive candidates - against Dems and Repubs. Those of the Dems whose seat is not YET threatened can decide what they want to do.
Continue to serve the Big Donors ? Yes, when they are well connected and aim for the lucrative contract for ex politicians (often more lucrative than the political office).
On the other hand those damn Progressives might over a few years vastly reduce Money in Politics and the Revolving door - there goes the whole business model. That path might not be so secure (as it used to be) over the course of 10 years.
Or they could side with the Progressives in order to avoid being primaried. And once a Pogressive has taken a foothold IN a district it might become hard to get rid of them. Even Donor money in campaigns might be ineffective.
Corrupting them could prove more effective - for the Big Donors, but that does not help the one Corporate Democrat that lost the seat, especially when they do not get a cushy job afterwards. -
That is the job of the voters, the Progressive representatives must know that they are closley monitored.
Some Democratic representatives that are not completely beyond redemption might start thinking about their alternatives:
1) Securing the reelection with a POPULIST message and the help of grassroots and maybe Sanders - and keep the seat (and then actually supporting the progressive agenda, or they will qualify for fierce efforts of being primaried) OR
2) remain a corporate shill, w/o much of a profile, continue to dial after the dollars (which they all hate - the plush fundraisers may be fun sometimes but not the callcenter work).
If someone is a footsoldier and not that witty, eloquent, and does not have tick any "idendity boxes" etc. AND not very well connected with the influencers, party leadership, donors - serving the VOTERS instead of the Big Donors might look much more attractive all of a sudden.
If that means that Justice Democrats (and similar groups) do not run a poplist to primary you.
People without an impressive public persona CAN be GOOD representatives nontheless.
They have a problem to get elected though: name recognition, building a brand, having a solid fan base among the voters.
In their case the brand is based on ISSUES, (not on their public image which airtime financed by donor money and strategists can create). It would be based on longtime work for the district, name recognition and solid (if maybe boring) performance.
The job is not that bad paid, good benefits, when one votes with the progressive caucus it is not that complicated to decide how to vote (the caucus not the lobbyists tell them what to do).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alwaysincentivestrumpethic6689 BOTH PARTIES use identity politics to gloss over the fact they the will not do anything for the citizens that would reduce PROFITS of the DONORS. - Tom Perez protests separation of children at the border, when cornered by a journalist doing her job (Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, of course not mainstraim media) he stammers about access to healthcare. She had asked him on his position on universal healthcare - he did not even use the dirty word.
Republicans run against abortion, Dems on protecting the right to have one - the masses are supposed to get excited about these questions. Either way it is not going to cost the Big donors.
Same with LGBT rights, gun regulation.
Identity politics is used to distract from the fact that the parties are not working for The People. Racism is a form of that - the Republicans specialize in that since the Civil Rights era.
Gay marriage was a progress. But they still are saddled with student debt, have medical bills to pay, die in wars ....
Reduction of student debt (at least lower interest), legalize weed, higher minimum wages, REALLY doing something about Climate Change, cost-efficient healthcare like in Europe, Canda, Australia, Japan .....?
Ain't gonna happen. Not if both parties can prevent it. (on the federal level).
Weed and heroin are the ONLY schedule 1 drugs. (cocain, crack etc. are for instance schedule 2, the higher numbers means classfied as less problematic).
The Clinton's and the rest of the corporate Dems had no problem with mass incarceration when it turned out the 3 strikes rule hit the minority communities much more and had a bad overal effect.
Clinton and Obama had consumed weed (Obama maybe tested even cocain). They KNOW marijuana is not as dangerous as heroin (heroin and weed are the only schedule 1 drugs - supposedly very dangerous, addictive, no medical value, research is forbidden)
it "justifies" harsh sentences for weed.
The president could of course have cannabis "downgraded" if not completley removed from the catalogue of "dangerous" substances. It does not need a vote of Congress. He can campaign for it and he can make sure to appoint the FDA head accordingly. (But usually Pharma lobbyists got the job, so ....)
Neither Bill Clinton nor Obama could not be bothered. Hillary Clinton had no intention to change that either. Let alone ending the counterproductive War on Drugs.
The Big Donors and influencers (pharma, law enforcment, private prison system, alcohol, in former times tobacco) do not want it.
Weed was one substance that got non-violent offender jailed - often for long time (some even for life !!!)
Clinton and Obama did not do anything about it (Obama issued some pardons at least).
Some of the states lead on the issue, but it is not like the Dems on the federal level coul be bothered.
Chelsea Clinton in 2016: we have to careful, there is not enough research.
Damn right if it is hard to do legal research (that might have improved in the very recent years, it was almost impossible for decades).
And decriminalizing cannabis and allowing it for medical use (with prescriptions) at least in severe cases (seizures, terminal illness, ... ) does not mean everyone gets it.
They were not so considerate with restricing the prescription of opiodes, were they ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
The DONORS (who finance BOTH parties) PAY the Dems for keeping Progressives away from power and to sheepdopg the more progressive voters into the corral of the neoliberal tent. - A certain segment of the population is out of reach for the Republicans - so for that the allegedly "liberal" Democrats are needed.
To quote Chenk: the donors like strong Republicans and weak Democrats. - that way they win, no matter what. - If progressives would come into power - they would HATE that. And do whatever they can to avoid that.
Dems would like to win of course - but not annoying the Big donors and the party leadership (that answers to the big donors) is even more important. Dems that lose will be taken care of - if they delivered for the special interests while in office (and that means voting in the way the party leadership orders them to vote).
Else a poltician will be sidelined, primaried, smeared with help of the media, their campaigns defunded. And forget about the donors providing cushy jobs and lucrative posts for ex-politicians. Forget about getting interesting job offers at all. Not in the large companies or major industries.
This is not only about politicians being greedy (although that often plays a role). The party establishment can destroy a political career. Such a "disobedient" politician has likely spent the years building their name recognition and political career when other people built their careers in the corporate world. And then they could lose their office for showing a spine or some integrity.
Tulsi Gabbard must be very sure that she has a good standing with her constituency and that she does not NEED the Dems to get reelected (or can even withstand their opposition - she is on a blacklist that's for sure).
Sanders is a rare case (stubborn and passionate activist. Small state - easier to gain name recognition, a special constituency - influx of liberals, and some luck. No success over the years with 4 or 5 races as Independent for higher office in/ for VT, he never got more than 4 % (Govenor, Congress, Senate).
And THEN at age 40 he started his career as mayor of Burlington unseating a very well established mayor - a corporate Democrat, with a majority of 14 votes resp. 8 = eight after the recount. His races for Congress (after approx 8 years as mayor) were not much challenged, the Dems did not bother, VT does not have major donors or industries, and he caucused with them.
So he was able to fly under the radar as this Independent "lefty" from a tiny state. A Congressman Sanders would not have been possible in Texas or California. They Dems and the Republicans would have thrown everything at him and tried to crush him right in the beginning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am honestly surprised, I live in Austria, know the rural areas and the cities and waiting times are fine - 1 week, maybe 2 weeks in some cases (if you feel you have a more urgent problem you tell them when they make the appointment so they will squeeze you in as "emergency". - Of course Germany has undercut somewhat the funding of the system, by replacing very well paying manufacturing jobs with subcontractor jobs, the automotive industry does it big time, and even many medium sized plants do not hire any workers directly - while these subcontracted jobs are still above minimum pay they are nearly as well paid or safe like in the good old days either.
So the funding for healthcare is impaired as well.
Although the way the population and economy and life style is structured is pretty much the same in Austria, the healthcare expenditures are below that of Germany (per capita expenditures 5,600 vs. 5,400 USD, source World Bank 2014, I do not have any newer data). The average age is about the same (important for healthcare costs !), I assume the additional private component in the German system makes it more expensive in total - it looks like that if you browse the World Bank data - the countries who "differentiate" or have a 2 tier system somehow end up paying somewhat more - although not one system is as inefficient as the U.S. system.
As for Germany - elections are coming up - time to demand better funding. And maybe also better funding for universities to have more graduates. That should take care of the waiting times.
I also know that the slots for students of medicine are limited in Germany, many that do not get a place, try their luck in Austria to study medicine (it is free and access to that field used to be w/o limitations. I think they changed that a few years ago, because there was an "invasion" of German students wanting to study medicine in Austria because they were rejected in Germany.
Switzerland likes to hire well trained German medical staff (nurses, doctors) and they pay very well, Germany "steals" doctors from Bulgaria (they send recruiters over, Bulgaria is so poor, they pay so little that it is easy to lure Bulgarian doctors to Germany) - which of course brings the Bulgarian system to breaking point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Obama was behind at that time by 300 delegates in 2008. Sanders CAN turn this around, but he MUST start to take off the gloves. Joe is not OUR friend he is LESS electable than Sanders, he might be in cognitive decline (there are polite and fair ways to contrast the one year intense campaign of Sanders - weathering stunt surgery after hearth attack in 2 weeks - and long issue spiked speeches (35 - 40 minutes) with the light schedule of Biden (for the whole 12 months) and now his 7 minute speeches.
never mind the BAGGAGE Biden has (Iraq war and trade deals for a start), and that Trump would drag him. Trump is good on the stage as long as it is not about facts and issues.
there are many issues that Biden better not mention - and if he does it will be "pot calling the kettle".
That put offs voters that do not see anything in it for them (100 million people that were eligible to vote didn't do that in 2016, you have to give them something to vote FOR).
Sanders could kick Trump on corruption, family nepotism (Biden better not go there) and healthcare promises. And the student debt loans that are now 1,5 trillion USD (more than subprime mortgages in 2008). Biden pushed for the bankrupcy bill that was instrumental for that situation and Trump did nothing about it.
Sanders can and MUST criticize Biden hard on it (mentioning the bankrupcy bill is not enough, he must SAY what the outcome was of it). And later he can kick Trump for not having done anything about it.
Biden will not do anything about healthcare and pharma prices, and the stock prices (healthcare, pharma related) went UP after he became the frontrunner. Looks like the "markets" are very confident that Biden will be good for their profits.
What does that mean for voters ?
Sanders needs to tell voters that their SS is not safe under Trump or Biden (his history over decades - and Trump already said he will cut it).
Medicare in its current form is not safe either - at some time the system will collapse under its own weight and dysfunction. (and that is w/o the corono virus).
Under cost efficient single payer a nation needs 5,300 USD per person per year (take or leave 400 USD - Kaiser 2017). Almost ALL wealthy nations are in that range. So even under the best of circumstances it costs plenty.
Modest mandatory payroll taxes (no burden for citizens or companies), streamlined admin, because every one is covered (so no hassle for doctors and hospitals). The rest for the budget (so that the non-profit insurance agency can pay sufficient rates) - like in the U.S. - comes from general tax revenue. But the subsdies per person are not quite as high as in the U.S. (All save if it costs half: government somewhat, and citizens and companies a lot).
For the U.S ? add 5,000 USD !
10,260 for every person in 2017
That is what is already spent on in all of the U.S., no matter who pays
divided by ALL people - whether or not they have insurance, go bankrupt etc.
healthcare speding is always MUCH higher for old people, that is everywhere the case.
It is not exactely helpful when healthcare spending in general in the U.S. is double of what it should be.
The U.S. system will collapse under it's own weight if there is no BOLD reform. Just using the blueprint that all other nations have used for the last 70 years (the crucial principles).
Obama tried the establishment approach: let's not rock the boat too much. In 2009 the PREDATORY for-profit insurers were ALLOWED to REMAIN the DOMINANT actors in the system. (all other wealthy ! countries have limited or strongly limited for-profit, especially the insurers, have done so for 55 - 70 years. That's why they spend approx. HALF per person).
The premise of Obamacare: the predators stay in charge but there will be regulations so they will behave themselves.
How did that turn out ?
The insurance companies had 10 years time to prove themselves.
Same for the pharma industry that got concessions under Bush, under Obama and under Trump.
Still: 10 times the costs for insuline compared to Canada.
No cost control.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is another aspect. The shots should be given to adults !! globally. It would be much more important for most adults in the U.S. to get their shots plus to the few vulnerable kids. And older teeangers that tend to spread it with partying. That would reduce spread significantly. Healthy kids have very low risks (and get good natural, and up to date - for Delta ! - immunity out of even mild infections - but they would not even get infected if herd immunity is sufficient. Which would need the cooperatiion of at least 80 % of all adults.
But we can only dream of all adults doing their duty.
Currently the rich nations gobble up most of the resources so they "ration" the vaccines for the adults in developing countries. Delta developed in INDIA, and it has to do with the lack of vaccines, they were ravaged and did not have the shots to stop that (although vaccines were already rolled out in the rich nations).
The Indian population does not play stupid games, they could not help offering the virus the chance of many, many cases which resulted in that mutation. (Researchers that did genome sequencing could deduct a fast series of mutations that lead to that much more contagious variante).
So the Pfizer should not be administered to children in first world countries (unless they are in a high or higher risk group, which is luckily a smaller group so no drain on the resources. Small input gives you a lot of positive effects). Instead we should push to get the rest of the world (the adults) vaccinated like yesterday. Or we will never get a grip on the pandemic, because the virus can continue to mutate a LOT outside of the U.S., Europe, ... - and it WILL come back with international travel.
And Iwould be for harsher mandates to make the adult CoVidiots in rich nations fall in line (talk about first world problems to protest masks and vaccines). In many wealthy nations they already have vaccination passports and if you do not have one, you are excluded from a LOT of places and activities. It is not impossible to cope w/o a vaccine (unless the employer demands it and home office is not an option) - but a hassle.
In the U.S.: I hope they cannot fly. That is going to be interesting for Thanksgiving and Christmas. No in person attendance of churches (if they can pull that off legally and impose it also onto the red states).
Testing TWICE per week (not once, they will miss some infections in the early stages) OR mandatory vaccines (if the company has more than 100 employees). No evasion if companies "split" to evade the 100 persons treshold. I would also lower the number to 50 persons. No access to restaurants and any shops. Unless they sell groceries - a state Supreme Court already drew a line with essentials, the government can limit access to businesses but not if they sell essentials. #
Get your groceries delivered OR ask vaccinated persons for help.
But private companies can limit access to people with proof of vaccination or with proof of having had the infection AND still a good antibody count. Mild infections of adults often resulted in low antibody count and antibody numbers go down over the months. (Children on the other hand got a good response out of even very mild cases).
But if a person had the infection in Decemember (and had some noticable discomfort like fever, or like a bad cold) and got a good reaction out of it (that can be proven with an anti body test) they are as well protected from infection OR from becoming a spreader like a fully vaccinated person. In Europe they have vaccination passports - or apps. And part of those countries accept or accepted also former infections (doctor's note) or a recent antibody test.
Of course there would have to be private companies that vdo not issue the certificates about a good count w/o verifying who gets the certificate. Or people with a good antibody count would start getting the certificates and pass them on.
Massive pressure on the likes of Walmart to impose a vaccine mandate for employees BUT ALSO consumers if they want to enter premises. A private company can do that (unlike the government that is restricted in some cases). You show an app or a printed card, or the confirmation that you had CoVid or a recent antibody test - and some reasonable ID - does not have to be the high treshhold for voting, that excludes reasonably safe IDs like student IDs or expired driver's licences or passports. - Or you can't enter.
Massive pressure of the White House on insurance companies (healthcare and liability) so THEY will demand mask and vaccine procedures or the biz will not be accepted for coverage.
Willfully ignoring the recommendation to vaccinate should be a preexisting condition and the ONE where insurers are allowed to discriminate (during a national crisis). And also less coverage by Medicare.
Considering this is a national crisis.
At least the White House should launch that idea for debate - the people that were willing to take one for the team will support them.
One CoVid-19 case in the hospital costs on average 50,000 USD AND worse they monopolize all the resources (staff, intesive care beds, monoclonal antibodies). Hospital have to send people with other emergencies away and delay people with very necessary but planable surgeries. Planable means: it can be delayed for a few hours, days, weeks- the person will not die immediately because of the delay but it can get worse or rob them of their chances of (full) recovery if the delay is too long.
But a CoVidiot gasping for air cannot wait even hours, and often they are first accepted in the normal (overworke but not at breaking point) stations, so if they then get worse IN the hospital they are in a convenient lane to be seamlessly transitionted into the ICU. Taking up AlL the scarce and highly expensive resources. - so it is never the turn of the patients with planable surgeries and treatments (especially if they would need more intense care after the surgey or there might be complications where they could became an ICU case.
One man with ongoing and worsening heart problems was not accepted by 43 hospitals (the hospital that had been forced to send him home a few days, betting on it that they could do that and because they were so squeezed for rescoures) called for him when he showed up again. This time with worse symptoms. There was no ICU bed to be had in that region, they didn't have one, and 43 other hospitals didn't have one either.. It needed a 200 mile ride and he died a few days later. . After accidents and with heart attacks and strokes time is of the essence. That delay may have well killed him, it certainly robbed him of a fighting chance (delay of the phone calls and the 200 mile drive).
The Covidiots now have figured out that monoclonal antibodies help in most cases IF given right after the positive testing or first mild symptoms. So if they are handed out like aspirin they can prevent that the Covidiots have to suffer the consequence of their obstinate refusal. But: that fairly effective (and approved !) treatment is a limited resource, they do not have that many for large scale preventive use. And they are expensive.
Which does not faze the anti vaxxers at all - as long as THEY do not suffer the (financial) or other consequences they do not care.
The grifters and Covidiots get enraged even over the "soft" mandate. Biden the terrible dictator could as well give them really something to complain about. The emotional investment of the Covidiots and the grifters that egg them on would be the same. They WANT to be enraged and indignant, it does not matter if it is a nudge they get from the White House, or a kick in the behind.
1
-
nope - with a functioning admin both should work, in a pandemic the default option should be mail, and since the U.S. - unlike other nations - still votes on a workday it would be in general a good option to increase turnout. Plus it costs less. Only 60 % of eligible voters in 2016 ! In a high profile race that would see 80 % for sure in other nations, more like 85 %. -
Switzerland sends their quartely or halfyearly referendum mail out and can handle it just fine (I think the regular election are more in person, but no doubt they could organize for it by mail, too if need be).
In the U.S:
Many states are safely blue or red anyway (someone has to explain to me WHY anyone would risk anything in California for instance, the state is blue. Or in Texas, when it is going to be the Republican anyway). The purple states often have a Republican governor / admin - so how come they have to functioning way to remove all dead reliably from the list and give any citizen a unique life long Voter ID number - that would have to be on the FEDERAL level, because now citizens move around much more in ALL the states. Problem solved.
If Repubs would once invest the money to have a CENTRAL register of all persons that could make things so much easier in the future (think SS, Medicare, DMV). And I cannot see the Democrats voting against that (but of course the Repubs will not do it because higher turnout means they lose the elections. To be sure it would bite the Dems also in the behind if that also applies to primaries. There the Dems like to suppress the same voters as the Republicans in the general.
In both cases it is to have candidates win that are liked by the big donors.
Changes would be registered locally (birth, moves away, changes name, dies, moves out of the country, changes nationality. To avoid big government and costs, all prisoners also have the vote (by mail), they have the vote at the last place they were registered as residency, so the place where they came from not where they are incarcerated. VT lets them vote and it avoids all the hassle to remove them from the voter rolls and the crazy hassle to get back on (which is different but complicated in almost all states.
there are 2 states that have always let prisoners vote and no problem - why would there be, they can only vote for the same candidates as the millions of non-felons.
(I know VT for sure - which used to be a solidly red state until the 1970s btw, but alway with a freedom loving down-to earth streak. They also never had slavery)
All work with the exact same software (lower costs !), which in the long term helps cut a lot of red tape and admin costs.
If peope can move around in the 50 states it is time to give up the registration methods of the 18th century. DMV is often cited as example for inefficiency of agencies: Nope, they have an impossible task, because hostile (clueless) politicians (and even more so hostile Republicans) make the job so hard. All other nations handle it just fine, because they do not let ideology (and states rights - not on vehicle registratiion, and birth registers !) imagine the hassle regarding vehicle registration.
All other nations have a central register, not the bureaucratic, fragmented island solutions of the U.S. That would also mean automatic voter registration. if your address is up do date you are on the rolls. End of.
that is how they do it in all the other nations, even emerging nations like Bolivia, Ecuador etc. manage to get that done.
In other nations the 18 year old do not need to register, they get the invitation to vote (at the address of the parent or guardian that is repsonsible for them as minors). of course students are often sloppy with changing their address. Well then it is a reason to come home (at the weekend, elections are on sunday or a holiday) and to vote.
people often forget to give the address on the outer envelope (so they can be ticked off the list of "has voted". That is the only pitfall. But I guess if people get used to that (gov. and the parties could do some awareness campaigns, and print that in red on the invitation to vote with the mail ballot) the mistake rate would go down.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2:40 Glenn Greenwald on Tom Perez: ….It was this is kind of like mealy-mouthed, transparently insincere, talking points clinging, establishment pleasing, just programmed kind of political talk that Democrats are drowning in - and I think is what alienates them from from voters.
So to me it just kind of Illustrated why the Democratic Party on all levels of elected life has been failing and collapsing …
Context: Keith Ellison was doing well in the race for DNC chair beginning 2017, but he is critical of Israel and a little bit too progressive ….
So the establishment sent in Johnny-come-lately Tom Perez to make sure Keith would not win (Obama tipped the scales for him among other things).
Perez admitted in a rare moment of honesty that the primaries had been stacked against Sanders, got "clubbed over the head by the establishment" (Jordan Chariton) and walked that back immediately with a twitter message. Which was not sitting well with Glenn ;)
Fast forward 18 months (July or August 2018): Tom Perez on his way toto protest at the border against the separation of children from their imgrant parents. It is the right thing to do - and even more important: the Big donors do not mind it, does not cost them any money, either way and brings publicity.
There is a meeting with the press/media. Amy Goodman from Democracy Now corners him and asks him about Universal healthcare. .... a mealymouthed stream of platitutudes follows. He would not even use the dirty word "universal healthcare" in his response (let alone single payer or Medicare for All). then the quickly turned away to another microphone.
Yikes !
He is not even good at the lying game. he must know that he is selling the voters out, but he hopes for a career or a cushy job provided by the aprty. And he is utterly uncharismatic, so the only way he might win (let's say as govenor) would be with honesty and a good track record.
1
-
ticking boxes ? Nina Turner for VP: She has a spine, good speaker, eloquent, intelligent, progressive ideas / plus race and gender. Which IS an advantage. The Dems would knot themselves into pretzels - they would not know HOW to attack HER.
Sanders: record and substance / stubstance and record. Extra points for age - unlike Obama he does not have to worry about getting the money of the Big Donors after he left office. or what to do with the rest of his life. (For Sanders it would be about LEGACY and which world to leave for his grandchildren. With some people that can promote WISDOM).
And Tulsi Gabbard in a cabinet position to prepare her, too for higher service. She has a spine, is eloquent, intelligent, anti-war, progressive positions, veteran - and a woman (attractive on top of that) and minority.
I think she would do well with moderate affluent conservative women, too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kdnofyudbn5918 you mean before the internet Sanders was unable to overcome the media blackout /collusion regarding overpriced for-profit healthcare ? Before the internet and independent media it was really hard to run grassroots campaigns. - Sanders can't achieve Medicare for All in Vermont he is not the govenor.
They discussed a public option some years ago in Vermont, a govenor ran on it, but got cold feet when in office. - The sad truth is: he may have been right.
Tiny Iceland with 360,000 people has a version of single payer (or maybe they did one better and are like the NHS of the U.K. - only with reasonable funding.
The difference: in most countries there is a public non-profit insurance agency that dominates OR completely dominates the field of "insurance". Which means COVERAGE. And then there are doctor practices (small companies) and hospitals (non-profits, either private then often coming from an old tradition of church charity, or public non-profits run by cities, states, universities, ....)
These providers (and the pharmacies) have contracts with the non-profit public agency (which is the "single payer" of the bills). The only "for-profit" actors are the doctor practices and the pharmacies and usually they are SMALL companies / shops that are represented by their professional representation in the negotiations with the insurance agency.
That means they cannot develop and exert undue power in the system, for instance it is naturally limited how much resources they can devote to lobbying. They have legitimate concerns and goals and their "Chambers" try of course to get them a good deal. But not more than that.
The profit which the doctors or the pharmicists make (rates which the non-profit public insurance agency pays them minus their costs) is their '"wage"', no one rakes in the millions and there are no shareholders involved.
They are not allowed to incorporate into larger structures. So they cannot afford to devote whole departments of statisticians or hordes of lawyers and lobbyists to the task of how to rig the system or how to influence the lawmakers.
They make a good living, and that's it.
Now the NHS took it one step further they are insurer * and provider ** in one entity
* collecting the money, negotiating and paying the bills of providers
** providers = doctor practices and hospitals, pharmacists, labs, massage /physio ... therapists, rehab centers
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kdnofyudbn5918 A public option is a very weak second best to single payer anyway. There is no wealthy nations that has it. - Public option means that the insured either have coverage for ALL that is necessary (!) in medical terms either by a private insurance company OR the public non-profit. (so that would include basic dental but not expensive dental like braces or implants).
Public option is often conflated with "other countries have still private insurance". Yes, but that is for "upgrades".
If the public insurance agency is properly funded and can pay the necessary rates for doctors and hospitals (for good services) and has the funding to cover ALL that is medically necessary (not this and that and basic dental is NOT included) - then there is no need and no space for private insurance: not for full coverage - and also not for "upgrades".
The public insurers (and without exception on the globe) get you more bang for your buck if they get the same budget per insured compared to a private insurance company. Important condition: level playing field. No cherrypicking for the private insurers. They get the young and healthy and can make them seemingly good offers. The insurance principle is twisted - the costly patients all land with the public pool. Which then can be badmouthed as "expensive" and a little defunding goes a long way to support the case of private insurers how they arre needed and can make better offers.
Private insurance companies (even IF they would be honest players and only ask for modest proftis) have costs the public non-profits do not have (marketing, sales). They also bring complexity with billing and different packages (what they cover and what not). Even well regulated private insurerance companies (like in Switzerland where they only have private insurers) mean a steep surcharge.
The Swiss regulation means they cannot play games with the insured: like denying to accept them for coverage because of their health status (they must have one basic offer for each age group, at the same price for everyone. The government determines what "basic" is, so that is comprehensive and no one goes bankrupt over medical bills. (Swiss citizens and residents MUST have insurance coverage). The insurers cannot deny to pay for treatments later.
But the Swiss regulations do not work as well when it comes to costs (it is on principle not possible to control that as long as profit is involved - because of the complexity of medicine): Almost all wealthy nations are in the range of 49 - 54 % of the U.S. spending per person, while Switzerland has 78 %. (The U.S. spent USD 10,260 for every person on average, data 2017).
In Iceland the training for doctors is free and they graduate around 43 doctors every year. No doubt they also train their nurses for free.
As for all other ingredients of a medical system: buildings (hospitals or practices), they need equipment and machines and need to import most of it (but I think for that the "free market" functions. Plus they need food and laundry for the hospital patients, etc. Not to forget ambulances (cars and staff).
But Iceland controls two very important cost factors: wages of staff and prices for medical drugs. And all other services can be provided by the national economy.
Vermont would have to make it work with the high drug prices, and navigate the rates of doctors (If the U.S. as a nation determines that they want to pay doctors better, it means of course that they will always have higher costs than other countries. Better than now of course.)
In a public option system the admin and billing remains complicated and an important chance to cut costs is squandered. - So there would be the streamlined public offer (and invariably the most costly patients will land in that pool, old, sick, pre-existing conditions - that is ANOTHER big problem with "public" option).
And there are countless other private packages with all kinds of exceptions. So the rates ALSO have to compensate the doctors and hospitals for the extra administrative staff they need. Even though the red tape does nothing for better CARE or outcomes for the patients. I heard from a industry whistleblower (Wendell Potter) that doctors spend 3 weeks per year on the phone with the insurance companies.
I read that U.S nurses have daily phone calls with insurance companies to get treatments for their patients granted.
Doctors and nurses in other nations don't do that. They do not waste their expensive time on red tape. The rules are very clear - what is covered and what they get as compensation (which does not bother a doctor or nurse employed by a hospital) - and then they are free to chose on behalf of their patients as they see fit.
I live in a single payer country (Austria):
Example: Airlift with a doctor on board is "on the menu". If the doctor arrives at the scene he or she determines which hospital is the best in a case that is (or could be) severe, and whether an airlift is necessary. (They do not ask the public insurance agency for permission.
The agency determined at some point to have airlift included and negotiates the rates with the helicopter services in the region. Automobile club often. Likely the doctors on board are employed with the agency or a non-profit set up to organize the whole airlift scheme.
So the agency takes care of the framework - and then leaves it to the doctors (who decide w/o for-profit incentive or constraints by the agency. So it comes down to a MEDICAL decision in every individual case).
The transport (nromal ambulance, or "emergency" ambulance with a doctor on board or airlift - is of course w/o costs for the patient (healthcare services free at the point of delivery).
I have experienced a doctor generously erring on the side of caution during the Christmas holidays 2018 for an (otherwise) healthy man with severe stomach pain - he is near the age of 80. (No it wasn't a heart attack, it was an almost ruptured stomach, and he is doing fine).
1
-
1
-
@grandeking216 So ... you ignore the advice of the overwhelming majority of medical doctors and all epidemiologists, that plead with people to get vaccinated - and whoever complies is a herd animal. Just be sure to remember that if you or a family member gets a BAD case of CoVid-19 and it turns out you are not invincible and it can get bad for you, too - despite eating well, lots of vitamins or whatever else you do, or start doing frantically when you get infected * .
Stick to your guns when you gasp for air - you can get oxygen at home, no need THEN to rely on the advice and help of medical doctors whose advice you ignored before.
Don't go to the hospital, they are all liars and / or incompetent when it comes to CoVid-19
And you might find if you would need their services for OTHER not CoVid related cases - even for emergencies - that they cannot take you, they are already at capacity (with unvaccinated people, that could have easily avoided needing a regular bed or ICU, IF ONLY they would have gotten the vaccine. Break through infections are HARMLESS (unless the vaccinated person is high risk), usually they can stay at home. That is why we have now 2 groups of CoVid-19 patients at the ICU:
A few vaccinated high risk pesons. What makes them high risk typically means that their immune systems are not in good shape overall and tend to have weak responses to a vaccine. This group needs the protection of herd immunity, and that was always clear.
Plus a lot MORE unvaccinated with no special risks at the ICU that gambled, thought they knew better, thought THEY would not have any problems even IF they get infected. And then they rushed into the hospital as soon as they experienced the consequences of non-compliance.
The doctors have no clue what they are talking about or worse they have nefarious reasons to lie to your, they collude with big pharma, they falsify statistics or the cause of death on death certificates, or help big bad governmen that carries out an obedience exercise and disrupts the economy just for the heck of it. Weirdly enough ALL governments do that, dictatorships or democracies, rich or poor nations, countries that are fierce adversaries agree when it comes to the pandemic and how to combat it best - with vacccines. That's one heck of a villain plot to mess with citizens - when all governments, all agencies and doctors on the globe are in on it.
So obviously the doctors in the hospital cannot be trusted, and there is no point in gobbling up the scarce resources. regular beds but already with the need of more monitoring (done by staff at breaking point because of the high work load). ICU beds so scarce that one man with a worsening heart condition in Alabama could not get intensive care in his regular hospital when he returned to seek help. They tried to get him a spot in another hospital and had to call 43 - FORTYTHREE - other hospitals. It needed a 200 mile drive to get him to a hospital that did have free capacities - and he died.
Time is of the essence in emergencies, after accidents, when a stroke or heart attack is about to happen ....
(That man was vaccinated, the the many, many unvaccinated in the ICU's of nearby hospitals that robbed him of a fighting chance).
* A healthy lifestyle is good, but you cannot "earn" your way out of the dangers of a pathogen that is completly new to your system. Even young, fit, healthy and healthy living persons and vibrant children can succumb to new infectious diseases. Checking all the boxes means you are less likely to get cancer and you'll do better on average with new pathogens etc. - That is statistics it does not work for all. A vaccine beats the advantage of a healthy lifestyle ! (not in the long run but in this one case) and even better if you do both, the healthy life style AND getting the vaccine.
Checking the boxes does not mean you are invincible. Our immune systems are not perfect, and can fail if they encounter completely new pathogens (a too strong immune reaction can kill you too). Sharks and bats beat us, they have really good immune systems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ Adkins You are right - many very prestigious universities are in the U.S. - I do not know how the ranking is done - I assume there are much more funds for research for instance (and a culture and mindset being positive and bold about it) - translating into more published papers, likely real results, more REAL nobel prizes * (as opposed to the fake "economic nobel prize" where the U.S. is leading - much good did it do in 2007/2008).
The MIT is HEAVILY militarily and tax-funded (see Noam Chomsky who used to teach there) - and no doubt an institution with a high reputation.
For instance I also know the names of Havard Law or Havard Medical School - so how does their prestige (and no doubt rigorous training) translate into economic success and well being for 325 million U.S. citizens ? The U.S. citizens have one of the lowest life expectancy for a wealthy country * (no, this not just about Lifestyle choices). The reasons are disadvantages in the healthcare system for the lower income people, a stressful way of life (overall very competitive, way too little time to unwind in form of vacations, people holding 2 jobs to make ends meet, a diffuse feeling of being threatened - folks knowin at a deeper level that they are one accident or divoce or job loss away from losing their home, ending up bankrupt or at least losing their middle class status.
Another indicator for how the healthcare system works for lower income people is infant mortality (very bad results for the U.S. compared to other wealthy nations).
If the average solid middle class German, French, Dutch or U.S citizens meet the nurses and doctors and institutions in need of treatment - it matters how THESE people (not a few elite graduates) are trained. Again I am convinced there is no difference in qualification between the U.S. and let's say Germany. And the nurses might have the possibility to do a better job according to their training when the systems is set up to SERVE the patiens instead of maximizing profits.
Innovations in surgery, equipment in medical drugs are introduced and then SPREAD in the European healthcare systems (the transfer from "elite to mainstream") - and if the innvovations come from the U.S. (many come from other countries ! ) - the innovators are getting paid for it, good for you. And the export/import balance between Germany and the U.S. is completely lopsided anyway, at least SOME counterbalancing. Germany exports way more - quality goods very favoured by the importers - to the U.S. than the other way round.
Whereever innovations originate - the non-profit public systems are not designed to withhold them from for some patients without the money/good insurance policy just to increase profits for the investors BTW: In the German system there are private non-profit, or for-profit players as well, but they are regulated for the goal to deliver good healthcare to all.
The public insurance agencies are not meant to make a profit, they have a budget to stick to, surpluses are transfered to the budget of next year - not to shareholders or investors.
1
-
+ Adkins As for the average level of education the test results for the U.S. are not good, many wealthy nations (which do not have the prestigious universities for a few) do better - and the graduates from the excellent U.S. institutions cannot improve the average level enough.
In countries like Germany or Austria additional to STEM university training there is also widespread public STEM high school training:
Teenagers are getting a profound theoretical and also some practical training in schools specializing in fields like machine building, electronics, IT, construction of buildings, sophisticated wood working - etc. Some are boarding schools, or some require (free) comute - these schools are usually in cities.
Many excellent engineers or software programmers do not have an university degree - they know how to construct quality machines or write code w/o the college degree.
And then there is the system of apprenticeship for teenagers that trains retail employees, waitresses, cooks, office workers, plumbers, nurses, car mechanics, electricians, ... - apprenticeship is like a paid, strictly regulated (protection of the trainee !) internship for 3 - 4 years, mostly hands-on oriented with only 1 day school per week).
Usually the students in the STEM highschools start there at the age of 15 or 16 years and finish school after 4 or 5 years. And then they get a chance to work in prestigious enterprises within experienced teams where they can upgrade and hone the skills from school.
Does the U.S. even have that kind of widespread, public, free training for teenagers ?
I would argue that having a well educuated and professionally trained MIDDLE does a lot - maybe more - for the economic success of a country and the opportunities for entrepreneurs and people seeking jobs in the field, than having some (relatively few !) elite universitiy graduates.
These elite universities do not educate the MAJORITY of graduates.
So lets assume some STEM graduates from elite colleges - and hopefully with good research funding, something where Germany is doing badly ! - come up with some inventions or innovations. Now, will these inventions be put to good use IN the U.S. ?
Partially yes, but not to a sufficient degree - see the export / import imbalance between Germany and the U.S. See the decline of manufacturing and the PRODUCTIVE = CREATING economy in the U.S.
Since the Germans have high costs (wages for qualified people, protection of the environment, high energy costs) they do not sell cheap stuff to the U.S. Their field of expertise are quality technical goods, in most cases B2B. (Same is true for Japan, Switzerland, Austria, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Nordic States, Netherlands, ...)
Outsourcing jobs has consequences, a country loses the people who can do the not so prestigious, but still qualified, down to earth jobs - the poeple who help to transfer the innovations into a product for sale. Sure you need for that also "unskilled" people at the assembly line - but also the electricians, the mechanics, the plumbers - skillfull, resourceful folks who know how to keep the shift going, no matter what.
Germany is good in BUILDING THINGS, cars, machines, machines for industrial manufacturing. Clothes are sewn in China and other developing nations. The high precision, high performance sewing machines for that come from Germany (Pfaff), I assume some of the very few producers worldwide might also be located in Switzerland and Japan - not the United States.
1
-
+ Adkins * Reasons why the U.S. has one of the lowest life expectancy among the wealthy countries. This is sometimes "explained" with poor "lifestyle choices" of the citizens. - Well, how come the many, many European countries (different cultures, languages, governments, lifestyles) in total approx. 530 million people - would "make better lifestyle choices" ?
We are not more into workouts, we love our good (fattening) food like the U.S. citizens, smoking is more prevalent than in the U.S., alcohol use (or misuse) is often treated in a more cavalier manner than in the U.S.
Did the 325 million U.S. citizens all decide, they did not want to be healthy and life one to three years longer ?
Or are there SYSTEMIC reasons making it hard for individuals to have a healthy, long, pleasurable life DESPITE the mainstream trend to the opposite.
I think the shorter life expectancy has to do with disadvantages in the healthcare system for the lower income people, or those who just about manage to hang on to middle class status. Their services may be of lower quality and there is an element to prevent early treatment and preventive care - because the costs are prohibitive (Like a young woman said: "Am I feeling sick enough to "justify" the high co-pay the doctors visit will cost me ?" Usually patients will pull through what seem to be relatively harmless illnesses - but from time to time a patient will pay with loss of health or life for not getting care in time.
Add to that a certain level of overall stress, because many are always one accident away from losing their home, from bankrupcy.
Stress (the silent killer) and the undermining of longterm good health is also caused by the competitive way of living, the tireless long work hours, by the pollution the government is willing to accept, by sugary drinks (and use of corn syrup) which we know are bad for the human metabolism and lead to massive obesity.
We have overweight folks here, too. But not so many among young people, and the overweight 40 - 60 year old people are nothing like the obese U.S. citizens. It must be the food - and comfort food (sweet and fatty) is an instinctive "self-medication" of stressed out homo sapiens - and is readily available in our time. Exercise would counteract and relieve stress too - but it requires more initial energy to pull yourself together to start out before you will get the reward.
So drained stressed-out people will fall for the easy rewards of comfort food and TV.
In Germany, Austria, France, ... 4 - 5 weeks paid vacations, and on top paid holidays (when even the most dedicated workaholic stays away from work) help people to unwind. It is not usual for folks to work 60 or 70 hours a week, so the homecooked meal happens more often.
In Austria they get the equivalent of at least 2 work weeks in form of paid holidays on top of 5 weeks paid vacation time. Germany does have have a lot of paid holidays as well.
1
-
The Trump rule - don't give a shit and do your thing. ..... the dogs bark - the caravane moves on .... And as we can observe (with Sanders and Corbyn as well) some political opponents are too lazy to attack on the issues (or more like: they can't because they cannot defend their issues). So it is Bernie Bros, or the Labour Party is being misogynistic, anti-semitic and what not.
Well, once they tried that gig (anti-semitism or at least something related to that ) even with Sanders - that was a test balloon, didn't really stick. I do not remember what it was - really silly, that I do remember.
Case in point: there will always be people who will use prejudices against women (or other political opponents), and it is entirely possible that they do not even believe their own crap. They just try to score cheap points. If they call a woman pushy - let them. Or even better: embrace the point and turn it around.. It is not necessary to win every vote, and those who fall so easily and willingly for the negative stereotype were not potential voters anyway. While many voters would like the reframe of "no nonsense".
Sanders btw is not a charismatic speaker. His style of presentation is true to his personality and fits the message. He does not try to appear more charming or cheerful or folksy or polished/fashionable than he is. And people are fine with that.
In sales they say the person that poses the questions steers and controls the conversation.
In politics if you bury your opponent with fake outrage and play the stereotype card - you can effectively dictate to them the topics they talk about and modify their behavior if THEY TAKE THE BAIT (trying to "defend" themselves).
Always being on defense makes a person look weak. It is a very effective method to keep them from getting THEIR message out. If a woman is genuinely passionate about something (if she does not fake it because a speech trainer taught her), it will come across. And those who don't get it, were beyond reach anyway. And those who fake to be offended by her passion to dictate to her how to run her campaign can go f***k themselves.
It is important to run a campaign on your own terms and to "control your space" - where you get out your message. The audience, the newspaper reader, the media have only so much time and attention.
To some degree the fake and made up antipathy may have happened to Hillary Clinton as First Lady. The GOP just was pissed off they lost the presidency to Bill Clinton, and they threw everything at them. Now, the Clintons are EASY target for that - and the hypocrisy weighs more because they claim to help minorities, females.
BUT: at that time every professional women who would call herself a feminist, swore an oath of loayalty to Hillary Clinton it seems. They mixed up politics with their personal experience of being slighted in the workplace. That is typicall of well-educated women of that time - and if one believes comment sections and Change org petitions they detest Sanders (the feminist) with a passion because he stole the thunder of their hero.
Turns out it is more about persons and not so much about the brand of feminism that helps improve the lot of largest number of females and their children. Especially low to medium income women. The woes of the wealthier or better educated women are different, not as easy to "fix" with laws and minimum wages and Medicare for all. The female professor might have to endure some professional disadvantages but she and her children will have healthcare.
And the battles that are important for equality in her field happen (mostly) not in the legal sphere. They happen when the culture changes.
On the other hand it is not only women who have to deal with "cheap" criticism and tempests in the teapot, although the points of attack are different.
1
-
1
-
@prestonanonuoso5508 But rightwingers do not think things through, they get triggered and double down. Black, female, young - can't have a successful military career. End of. Any evidence shown after that does not even compute.
If that had been a white young men or even a young white female soldier - the manager would not have insisted on him/her being an impersonator. Certainly NOT after the other ID's were shown.
Why would she not use her own ID in the first place ? Only if she was too young or if she was on a blacklist.
Or his knee jerk assumption was that all 3 documents were forged (the depicted person does not exist, it is completely made up name. That is a highly illogical and implausible scenario for several reasons).
Using a military ID to impersonate someone else is likely a crime (forging one is a crime as well), and using the driver's licence is a crime (or misdemeanour), too.
Whoever theoretically provided their military ID be abused in such a way - would be in for a lot of trouble. If she had stolen that from a relative the impersonator AND the holder of the IDs are in for a lot of trouble.
It would have to be stolen IDs from someon she is close to and she would have to look like the person, or she would not have gotten her hands ot THREE different but perfectly matching ID's. With photos that looked like it could be her. (sometimes the photos are not good, her hairstyle changed, she lost weight ... but even then the manager should have given it a rest after the other 2 IDs were shown. It is highly unlikely that it is not her, and he would not have made a fuss w/o severe prejudice.
At the first sign of doubt of the manager an impersonator would have gone away quietly. There was a chance security / police would come and detain her and then the legal actions would start. She also had company (did the manager think they would continue to support such a plot after "calling the police" was talked about ?
If that was a FORGED series of documentation - what does that fool think she is. That would be mob style backup and having good matching forged IDs costs a lot of money (and professional criminals would of course be sure to have inconspicuous documents. So not creating a persona that goes against expectations (like a young black female with a good military rank for her age). Better to stay under the radar. I would also not use a military ID to commit crimes - it gives a lot of clout, but if is also another point of vulnerabiltiy of forged documents.
The mob would not waste forged documents for access to a casino, and a criminal provided with that kind of forged ID's would have their orders not to needlessly abuse that asset - and potentially bust their cover. They would plan to use it for crimes (and not at a place that is teeming with cameras, security and what not).
A real impersonator would have left, and left quickly when "busted" and would not have insisted on the police coming.
And what are the odds the impersonator would have a driver's licence AND a fitting vaccine ID to match a military ID ??
(If in doubt I would rather abuse a civilian ID, not a military one, that could mean extra trouble if busted).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The biggest outrage are the Democrats that play along with the sick game. They COULD all weave in the other " issues" whenever they are interviewed about something ellse. But they hope they can serve Big Money, give lip service to the cause of morality , declare themselves to be incensed ("grab them at the pussy" Stormy Daniels, now the border issue).
Advocating for things that do not cost the donors (THEIR donors) money - so gun control, gay rights, abortion are O.K.
But NOTHING that would help the mass of people - usually the interest of the commonpeople and the ruling class do not align, so less profits for the donors.
The Dems are quite cynical / cavalier about it: They will not cover positions that are inconvenient for their Big Donors - and they hope "Trump is bad" will suffice to pull off a win in the midterms. (and also the blackmail of the lesser evil, now another Supreme Court replacement is at stake, it is not even clear THAT the dems are going to resist fiercly).
They can afford the cynicism - at least the big shots in the party and the well connected people will be provided for if they lose (cushy jobs, lucrative contracts). A further Republican takeover, another term for Trump -it is not going to hurt them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
* The danger of being assassinated for a president that works against the status quo and the Deep state - and Washington D.C. LIKES war - see The Real News video of spring 2017: Wilkerson: Practically Everyone Opposes Trump's Reversal of Obama's Cuba Opening
Excerpt from the transcript
Larry Wilkerson Chief of Staff to Colin Powell: Obama might have risked being assassinated if he had chosen an anti-war, anti deep state stance.
Wilkerson: ...If I call President Obama for anything, it was his timidity, and his lack of courage. His lack of courage with respect to politics, and his lack of courage with respect to particularly his last three years in office. Where I know from talking with him personally, talking with him in the Roosevelt Room, that he understood.
He said [to me] there was a bias in this town towards war, with his Secretary of State sitting beside him. He said quote : "There's a bias in this town towards war" unquote. Well, he went on for another 20 minutes to elaborate on that.
Well, Mr. President if you knew that - why didn't you start doing something about it ? I mean, he could have done a lot more, if he'd had the political courage to do it ..... I think it's because, first you get trapped in that environment, and you want to make lots of money, and you wanna be very happy, and you wanna be very satisfied when you leave that office, especially if you're as young as he is.
And you realize that if you start these fights, if you start these battles, not only might you be assassinated, you're probably going to leave without anything like the dignity, and the honor, and the emoluments, and the fortune that he left with.
And I don't say that lightly, that's a very difficult decision to make, when you stand up for principle, when you stand up for the country, when you are a true patriot, you usually are punished, not rewarded.
the complete transcript of that comment (only) is under the video (on the youtube channel of The Real News) - usually they have a complete transcript and the youtube video embedded on their website - but in this case there is not transcript on their site.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course the party of the Clintons will NOT change, the whole system is about the money (incl. the cushy positions for ex-politicians and the orders that result from massive campaign spending for consultants, and media ads).
Look at U.K. how the Neoliberal wing of Labour fought teeth and nail. The shenanigans of the neoliberal wing of Labour and the Clinton wing of the Democratic party are very similar - do handbooks exist "How to Neuter Progressives ?"
What saved Labor in the U.K. ? - after having lost the general elections in 2014 they gave the party members the possibility to vote directly for the party leadership. And they encouraged party membership (lowering the fee and promising they could vote the leader dirctly - BIG MISTAKE). The plebs jumped at the offer.
To be on the ballot for the internal leadership contest a candidate needed to have at least approx. 30 establishment party members as supporters.
Which Jermey Corby pulled off - just about and in the latest hour (literally: John McDonnell fervently begged some MPs for support like "We deserve a chance".)
Corbyn, the Progressive that had "survived" with the loyal grassroots support in his district for decades, like an U.S. Senator had been flying under the radar in Vermont for many years.
Little did the party, Tony Blair had molded into "New" Labour know what would follow. The members returned in droves to the party with the prospect of being able to vote FOR a Progressive, a representative of working people, the man that had lead the resistance against the Iraq War (and many other military adventures).
Plus he had the immediate support of major unions (being an authentic union guy himself).
The establishment was incredulous, shocked, plotted from the first day on when they had to accept him being elected as party leader (and with a convincing lead).
Media and party establishment colluded from then on to "misunderstand" him and to ridicule him.
MMT, the NHS, infrastructure investments, QE for the people - never mind - they discussed alleged mysoginy and antisemitism, and "did J.C. bow his head deep enough during the anthem (on Veteran's day) ?". Discuss everything, EVERYTHING, but the questions that the suffering plebs WORRY ABOUT.
They plotted against him after 1 year, tried underhanded tactics during that "chicken coup". They were challenging the sitting party leader and they did not want HIM to be on the ballot - the courts thought otherwise.
So they were restricted to purging the voter lists to the best of their ability (many of the very new members). For a short time closing down one of the oldest and strongest local organizations (Brighton) for allegedly misbehaving during a meeting (like the allegedly thrown chairs in Nevada).
Since the courts had decided that the sitting Party Leader - when challenged - MUST be given the opportunity to defend his position (and does not need any support to get on the ballot in the internal election) and since their rules already said that the membera could vote directly - Labour could not just overthrow the rules, they had in their books. Parties get public funding and are subject to the law - being organizations in the public interest, and all.
They would have needed to vote on any change of the rules. Well if 500,000 people recently have joined the party mostly because of Corbyn - that was a lost cause.
After the court decision they resigned themselves to losing again - which they did after a campaign during summer 2016.
(In hindsight: J.C. campaigned all summer in 2016 and got his message out, it might have been a blessing in disguise).
In late spring 2017 no doubt many well connected (and provided for) "Blairites" hoped the party under J.C. would go under in the snap election the governing party had surprisingly called. Then they could blame the debacle on him and get him to resign.
The regular Labour Members of Parliament however got desperate - THEY no matter if they liked J.C. or not - would have liked to keep their seats and it looked like Labour would be wiped out. The polling was very bad - but in desperation they for the first time unified behind the leader and came up with a progressive (and costed) manifesto (a party platform and they had made calculations about the costs of their proposals and how they would finance them).
The British TV networks are subject to "fairness" rules during general elections, so Corbyn could get the message and the new and costed manifesto out - which helped, now he was speaking about the message - before they were speaking about him (preferable him and not the issues).
Surprise, surprise Labour completely reversed the situation within 7 or 8 weeks, although they are in Parliamentary seats still behind the Conservatives - more than 50 seats less but in votes only 2 or 3 % less. It is like the popular vote versus won states in the U.S.
Labour did BETTER than in the election before, the campaign had enthusiastic support (young voters came out), and the Conservatives gambled away their narrow absolute majority (so instead of an increased majority they had to accept a questionable coalition partner or they could not even have formed a government again).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
M4A would only push most healthcare insurers OUT of business over the course of 4 years (they would merge, a few would survive with very reduced staff to cover supplemental, travel insurance - Supplemental should not be necessary if M4A coverage is comprehensive and they have the budgets to pay reasonable rates.
So consumers better pay out of pocket if and only if they want extras.
But some customers feel better when they have insurance for that.
Most is either medically necessary (then covered) or not. That leaves the single room, and better food as relevant offers for supplemental (single room can get pricey in some countries, but apart from that it is better to pay out of pocket, for instance if you want a better hearing aide, accupuncture. tests that are not covered - vitamin D status. Or consulting once a doctor that has a reputation as capacity and has no contract with the agency. That will not break the bank).
The U.S. health insurers will end the contracts with employees, clear the office space, sell the computers and STOP MAKING PROFITS. Mind you, they do not have any more costs either. they just liquidate and are out.
And their shares will go down in value to almost zero (who cares). Most Americans do not even have shares, those who have retirement plans etc. should have their investments diversified, not only shares and not only one sector. So for the overwhelming majority of Americans it will not matter.
That's the problem for the for-profit health insurers. No one will miss them. The employees will move on to jobs that PROVIDE VALUE.
People like Bloomberg have so much money that a small part of his fortune invested in pharma or health insurance is already a large amount. Well, we might have to start a charity for the poor dear.
There will be a transition phase anyway but the insurers lose more and more of the insured.
That is why all the M4A copycat candidates switched to public option proposals (lobbyists have been busy). That would keep the predatory profiteers relevant, they would lose insured but could keep the most lucrative group: the young and healthy.
The cherrypicking would allow them to make seemingly reasonably priced offers for these people. But the plans will be of course still be completely overpriced. You have to consider that 90 % of spending is caused by 10 % of the insured, the costly patients do not vanish they are just shoved over to the public pool. The predators are really good with purges already, no problem. Medicare agency will be villified as "too expensive".
Expect Corporate media to help with the propaganda (I currently live in a single payer country, you need to have the outsider perspective to fully appreciate HOW TERRIBLE, USELESS and MISSLEADING the "reporting" and "information" about all things related to for-profit healthcare or single payer is.
A person that "grasps" single payer is disqualified from working for MSM.
The insurers could use public option to undermine solidarity among the insured and start the campaign to undermine the public pool and any meaningful reform (already while it is rolled out and of course still more vulnerable).
A little defunding goes a long way if Medicare has the most costly patients: Over 65, and all high risks form the other age groups. If Medicare does not get enough budgets they will not be able to pay enough to doctors and hospital, so that all users have a good experience. So that most doctors and all hospitals have a contract and are IN the network of Medicare (for services free at the point of delivery).
That is the beauty (or danger - depends on which side you are on) of a concept like public option: it leads to a 2 class system and can be well used to undermine the offer of the public non-profit agency (like Medicare) on behalf of the rich. (The rich must help fund Medicare. Overpriced individual private healthcare coverage, but with reduced income taxes is still better for THEM).
No wealthy country has the public option, and with good reason. Some developing or emerging countries may have it - Chile maybe (I read a comment but did not verify).
Even if the insurance companies would be honest players: you get always ! more bang for your buck from a single payer agency if budgets and pool of insured are the same. More negotiating power, no costs for sales, marketing, no profits. Also: if there are so many different plans that adds administrative costs on all sides (insurer and the doctors and hospitals, that means they must be compensated with higher rates. Plus incentives to milk good plans, do unnecessary surgery, testing that does not lead to better outcomes, ...).
Consider that no other country has that kind of PREDATORY health insurance sector. Switzerland also relies solely on private insurers (the only other wealthy nation I know of). BUT: the Swiss have very strong provisons for direct democracy, it is easy to start referendums, which are binding, and they vote every few months and whatever has come up in the meantime.
They pay a LOT (78 % of the U.S. spending per person as opposed to 49 - 55 % in almost all other wealthy nations). But the strong direct impact of voters at least makes sure that they get good care and no one plays games with insured / patients. So it is expensive but at least good. In a nation where citizens have exceptionally high influence to straighten out their politicians and powerful industries - that is what a well regulated health insurance (and hospital) sector gets you. They are in the middle between the other nations and the excessive spending per person of the U.S.
(in 2017: U.S. 10,260 USD per person).
The private health insurance industry is often a fringe industry in other countries, with a few domestic players. Those insurers are not so keen on expanding that biz, it is complex, so a few have specialized, and they usually also do not lobby politicians.
Some countries prop them up to a degree - right or center-right governments that create ! a market for them. Australia, Netherlands and Germany. There is no good reason for that, other than handing a small part of the pie to the profiteers. But nothing like in the U.S., these companies are much better behaved (and would not get away with taking advantage of the insured.
It is like the U.S. would still have lots and lots of carriage builders - but they would not only be financed for something that is obsolete and does not provide value, additionally they would have undue power, create a lot of additional red tape and costs. And be toxic in general.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, it was NOT Antifa, they would have worn masks (even before the pandemic), and they also would not wear MAGA hats, they just wouldn't. They want to be associated (as a group) with their actions (they would show up for instance at a Trump rally and have a peaceful or not peaceful protest against Trump and his supporters. But they would certainly not impersonate Trumpists.
The Anti fascists assume the police and the FBI are out to get them, so they always have been hiding their faces, even before the pandemic.
The people that were so clueless, and so entitled, so sure they would not get into trouble that they recorded themselves, wore clothes with badges that made it easy to identify them, live streamed .... they are not used to being monitored by the FBI.
The stupidity also has to do with the mass psychosis - and antifa types would not have been so carried away by feeling elated, that they forget about the most basic precautions to hide their identity.
Wearing masks
Wearing generic clothes
having a burner phone or packing your phone up in a lead case. or taking out the battery.
Antifa types are usually not as stupid as Trump cultists. Violating property laws maybe. I am not sure they would attack the police like Trumpists did. They are not an organized group and there could be hooligans among them that just enjoy riots and even violence - but normally they do not attack humans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
the 1,5 TRILLIONS the Fed created for the speculators on the stock exchange on March 12th alone, would equal 4,5000 USD for every of the 330 million people in the U.S. (that would be 18,000 for a family of four).
To give perspective: the U.S. GDP for 2019 was between 20 and 21 trillions.
In 2009 citizens lost homes and jobs - while the banks were bailed out and LATER they got some more: Quantitative Easing (fancy name, also advertised as "asset swaps") so that they would not have to call it bailout, or subsidiy or GIFT.
Dodd Frank now allows the Fed to use QE w/o even consulting Congress and they do not need a bill. So no embarassing discussion, so that voters have time to notice, or that Corporate media will have to cover it at least a little bit. The more discussion, the longer it last the more likely that the give aways for banksters, speculators will be called out. Or that a politicians will make political hay and pose as defender of the little people (if only to win the next election).
SWIFT acting is KEY.
Independent media will cover those coups (at least partially) but they do not reach the masses, so it is safe for the ruling elistes to ignore their warnings, and protests.
If Fed acts swiftly no one is the wiser except for the insiders that profit, or the people that get their news from independent sources.
Fed: chair appointed by potus and the board staffed by the large banks. The too-large-to-fail banks - remember ?
Corporate media will say that Fed injected money into the "markets" - and they will move on quickly.
Wouldn't do to expose the speculators (this time it was the speculators, not the banksters that were getting the handout. Might involve some banksters of course, who knows who got the money.
NOW some rich people that did not have the approach of investors (so they would hold the shares and sit it out) have 1,5 trn on their accounts. If they were speculators they may have bought the overpriced shares with borrowed money, then they and /or the lenders would be in trouble (and they should be in trouble). Then they MUST sell at the currently low prices. They are not required to have the deposit to come up with the full purchasing prices. They are "writing on" for the large actors.
If you buy a lottery ticket or play in the casino, you must pay, the full amount for the chips and in adavance.
Moral hazard anyone ?
Now you would split the money (the 1,5 trillion for Wallstreet) differently, not 4,500 for eveyone right now (less for children), some for smaller biz, etc.
Could be that much and more if the crisis lasts longer, Sanders proposed 2,000 USD per month.
But if gives you an idea what is possible and FAST and before everyone else get something.
Some shareholders now have those 1,5 trn, it limited their losses or helped them make profits.
only 20 % of the U.S. population even have shares and ownership is heavily concentrated in the hands of the 1 % (even more so 0,1 %).
With an INVESTOR approach the buyers (or owners of companies) would be holding shares, just keeping them when the overpriced market drops (a correction was overdue). You need to be diversified and have some cash, bonds, precious metals, real estate anyway. If not - you have no business dabbling in the stock exchange
So ina few months, or 1 - 2 years the solid shares will recover.
But that prudent ! approach does not work for speculators THEY WANT the bailouts. And they got them, FAST and no strings attached.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Vamphaery - one of the dangers once it is passed is that "the Dark Forces" will tirelessly work to undermine and defund it. The Conservative Party in the UK were against the NHS since it was introduced after WW2 - and they have never really given up, even thought he UK was known for decades to have one of the most cost efficient systems in the world (for a First World Country).
Her inner circle had to make a massive intervention to keep Thatcher from trying to privatize it (she had promised the voters otherwise, but wanted to privatize it anyway, her advisers thought it would amount to political suicide and she yieled - I think they were right).
One must not underestimate the HATE of some of every institution that helps the little people and requires some solidarity funding from the affluent. And they have time - decades - and money (lobbyists, media bribed with ads) to get it done.
In the U.S. there were severe complaints about the VA and I think a lot of it has to do with not enough funding. - In the UK the Conservatives (who secreteley detest the idea that such a major part of the economy is non-profit) started cutting the already lean budgets of the NHS. They acted on: Never let a good crisis go to waste.
After the bank bailout and the economic downturn they seized their chance with austerity to defund the NHS and other welfare systems. I was perplexed how the Brits put up with it. After all they had experienced a systems that worked fairly well - and with a lean budget. Well, most newspapers are Yellow Press and belong to very rich people, and "New" Labour follows mostly neoliberal principles, so they did not find much fault with the cuts (they were for cuts Lite).
The Tories actually have rammed through a partial privatization. Needless to say it is MORE expensive and creates extra hassle and drains a system already on breaking point even more. - Only with the rise of Jeremy Corbyn and the Progressives / traditional Labour who are taking back the party, Labour as opposition party now calls the Conservatives out on their B.S. and the rallies are getting bigger. So I hope having dared to attack the NHS will contribute to the defeat of the Conservatives.
All in all: whenever a country allows a 2 tier system, options, additional packages that can/must be bought, the system gets more unequal, more bureaucratic, there are more options to rig the system (for-profit). Middle class people will (grudgingly) buy the extra insurance, or pay out of pocket so that they are well covered. And will be quite complacent about the defunding of the basic system of the lower income people.
That is what happened to the VA. Despite all the patriotic rhetoric. Once the former soldiers are at home they are a financial burden if they need a lot of treatment, they have no lobby. They are easily forgotten. Talk is cheap. Soldiers with PTSD or protheses do not have the lobbyists working tierlessly for them. The only thing that saves them, is the high regard the military has in the population, so Congress was shamed into some better funding a few years ago (Jon Stewart trolling representatives why they would not pass a bill securing funding - a bill that was ready).
It is very advisable to NOT let the wealthier part of the population buy themselves out into a better system. They are the ones who will be asked to contribute more (in a solidarity based system where the premiums depend on income not on risk - where funding comes from payroll deductions and/or taxes).
So if there is only one system for all, and they already pay more - they will DEMAND that the system works well. They will guarantee the quality of the system, while the sheer numbers of patients and the very simple design (same coverage for everyone) takes care of the cost efficiency.
(That is pretty much how it works in my country. And as employers and employees have the same percentage of wage to pay into the system, and small and large businesses pay the same rate - the whole country has an interest that the system provices GOOD care - at reasonable ! costs. Only Big Pharma is not in the same boat).
If the wealthy can and must ! buy an upgrade to get decent care, the whole system becomes more inefficient and expensive (see Australia, Germany where 10 % have private plans, vs. 90 % with public option, I think also theDutch have a 2 tier system, and the Swiss system with a high private component is even more expensive than the U.S. system)
The moment there is "differentiation" there must be more administration, there will be an additional incentive to apply treatments that are not necessary but will be covered by the better plans (an opportunity to make more money), the extra profits for more players must be covered etc.
So middle class and affluent people will end up with higher costs for 2 reasons - the solidarity contribution AND the additional inefficiency of the 2 tier system - and will resist their taxes that are necessary to keep the basic system for the "others".
DIVIDE AND CONQUER.
So there will be political pressure (especially in the U.S. with their me,me, mine and anti-tax culture) to cut funding (or to not raise it according to necessity) . After all they pay so much with the extra insurance packages, why should they help out the others on top of that....
When all have the SAME GOOD system, they know at least what they are paying for and are aware that the moment funding is cut, it ALSO undermines THEIR care.
The same game is also played in education. If solid middle class people in the U.S. have to make sacrifices so their kids must not go into the public schools (which objectively may be sub par), they will have little sympathy for the funding of the schools in poor neighbourhoods.
Of course in countries like Sweden ALL schools are well funded, so they are good enough even for upper middle class folks. So no extra spending needed for private schools. That helps with the consensus in society - from low to higher income people - that public schools MUST REMAIN WELL FUNDED.
1
-
@kekwayblaze3176 Socialism and the free ride works just fine for the rich. They got money thrown at them. When it is business as usual with help of the and the monetary system (World reserve currency/petro dollar helps the oligarchs much more than the citizens. The FIAT curreny also has been adapted to favor the upper class. Same with the "free" "Trade" deals and tax (evasion) polices.
In the Great Financial Crisis first they got the bank bailouts then QE for the banks. Plus the bailout for Big Auto.
But heaven forbid there would be QE for The People.
Or even cost-efficient !!! healthcare like in Europe (which would mean LESS profit for the industry but would be good for society at large).
Outside the U.S. they pay 55 - 65 % of the U.S. expenditures per person in the wealthy nations.
The per capita healthcare expenditures in the U.S. would be even higher if everyone had coverage and got timely care as is usual in all other wealthy countries. The term means ALL that is spent in the country divided by number of people).
65 % of the U.S. expentitures (of all that is spent in the U.S.) is paid for by government, anyway.
That is not as bad as it sounds (it would be O.K. if the prices in the system would be at a reasonable level !)
Medicare is a public system (the citizens pay into it with wage deductions, it is not just a "handout", at least a part comes from direct contributions).
People over 65 cause of course on average much higher healthcare expenditures, including medical drugs and treatments in hopsitals.
But Medicare is legally prevented from negotiating drug prices.
Other countries have only non-profit public hospitals (run by cities, the large ones by states), or they have at least plenty of them as benchmark / competition for strictly regulated "private" hospitals (which means usually church run coming form a charity tradition).
There is no private for-profit hospital industry (large corporations) like in the U.S.
Those properly funded ! good non-profit public hospitals were not set up in the U.S. because politicians could not be bothered to do it (and later they were bribed to prevent inconvenient GOOD competition for the profiteers).
55 - 65 %. Small or large nations, it does not matter. Only 44 % in the U.K. - but they have intentionally defunded their system.
Like in the U.S. the governments in countries with single payer systems must provide plenty of funding additionaly to the individual contributions . Most of the individual contributions come from wage and pension deductions, ALL employers must match them) Those job related contributions are very affordable to not burden the citizens and comapnies too much.
The extra and substantial (as share of the whole budget !) funding however goes into a streamlined, cost-efficient system with little overhead. And it does not fund much profits either - the only big and powerful for-profit player is Big Pharma. Medical drugs are very standardized, international comparable substances - so it is possible to contain Big Pharma in the price negotiations even though they are powerful.
A reasonable president / Congress working for The People would not just have bailed out Big Auto in 2009. They would have insisted on getting SHARES and ownership in exchange - like a private investor would have demanded. That or let them go bankrupt and pick the facilties up (a corporation is a legal constructions, what counts for job is plants, workforce, patents, brands, copyrights, distribution networks).
Ownership and the vote could have been handed over to a trust of the workers - the vote being tied to having a job in the company (so not like usual shares). So when a person leaves the company they pass on the ownership and the VOTE.
Then they would not be able to close down shop in the U.S. and outsource. Like they recently decided to do in the U.S. and Canada.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robotron17 You conveniently forget the severe long term damage (it is not only deaths), the average 50,000 USD per hospital stay (many would be avoidable, and 4 days and some oxygen in a normal bed does not cost that much). You ignore the risk that the light cases pose for others (the infected pass it on to more vulnerable persons even IF they recover well and have no major symptoms.
There is a group of people that are high risk, and they also tend to not get good immunity out of the shots, not even vaccination can protect them from getting severe cases, even needing intensive care.
That is what we see no in the ICU's: high risk vaccinated (they tried to protect themselves) and low risk unvaccinated that could have avoided to be there.
for THEM the vaccine would have been a good protection, for high risk persons it can fail. Delta is much more contagious, it FINDS the vulnerable among the unvaccinated and vaccinated.
And a breakthrough infection is not the same as a severe case for unvaccinated. The breakthrough infections for all but the most vulnerable (over 80 and other risks) are harmless, usually they do not even require a hospital stay, certainly not intensive or longer care.
And if the vaccination protection was imperfect (but good enough to ward off the worst) - the breakthrough acts as booster. For immune systems that are slow learners.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Unknown record of Sanders: He was also one of the very few with some profile that endorsed the Jesse Jackson presidential campaign - Jackson WON Vermont in the primary (which was big, because that is a very white state) and then he continued to have surprising wins in the South.
He did not win the primary, but he was more than a footnote (compare that with for instance Martin O'Malley in the 2016 primary, most people spontanuously only remember Clinton and Sanders being in the race).
Independent mayor Sanders arranged for an appearance at a convention / event of the Vermont Democratic party and made the case (as non Democrat) that the Democratic party of Vermont should decide to endorse outsider Jackson. In a very white state.
That event was hostile / unfriendly territory for Sanders, the party machine despised him for decades (now they are cool).
He had ousted a mayor that was a big number in the VT party (hierarchy) in 1980 and then he ran as third major (and increasingly competitive) candidate in several races for higher office (while being a popular mayor).
In the last race that Sanders ever lost in Vermont - in 1988 for Congress - the Democratic candidate was the spoiler who handed the victory to the Republican. the D candidate had plus 20 %, R had over 35 % but closely followed by Sanders.
The national DNC then gave in: they would not help or finance a Democratic candidate anymore in a race in Vermont in which Sanders run against a Republican - provided he would caucus with them after winning the seat.
For the DNC he was almost as good as a Democrat: he obviously COULD win against Republicans in a 2 candidate race and needed no or little money from them. And sure enough: he won the Nov. 1990 election for Congress and every race in Vermont since then.
(They have a tradition in Vermont to have Independent outsiders running in many of the races. But usually it comes down to 2 or 3 candidates with a realistic chance to win a significant share of the vote = at least in the lower double digits).
But that arrangement on the national level did not endear Sanders to the Vermont Democratic party and people with ambitions for Congress or other higher office. (He had run for govenor, Congress and Senate, always against a Democrat and a Republican - so he had annoyed them for a long time).
Now they get along well and he fundraises for them etc. - but back in the day Sanders had to achieve to get the permission to speak at that event, he had to muster determination and had to persuade the state party (the base) at that event to make such an unusual endorsement. For an outsider candidate like Jackson.
The mood was tense and there were boos against Sanders (I am not sure: I seem to remember he was hit by an elderly lady after he left the stage. That had nothing to do with Jackson, and all to do with deep rooted dislike of Sanders. The old guard has left Vermont politics, and the younger people in the Vermont D party have not all scores to settle with Sanders, so now they get along fine).
In the end his arguments convinced (the base), the state party decided to endorse Jackson, and Jackson won Vermont in the primary.
This was national news - the black outsider had won in a very white state.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
zizzy ??? Middleclass home in Burlington, which he likely has since he was mayor in the 80s. He is required to have resicidency in Vermont, and for practical reasons he has a semi in D.C. (he is there since 1991). Then the holiday home they got in 2016 (using the sold inherited home from Jane Sanders for the down payment).
He has the salary of a representative since 1991 - although many politicians are not conent with it and go for the revolving door (or do insider business like Rick Scott or Nancy Pelosi, the whole Trump family - or the son of Joe Biden with the help of his father) - it is not bad for a person with normal demands - it pays in the range of 170,000 (now before taxes). That I think is in the range of at least the upper 15 % income wise. They have some expenses, too (likely for the necessary travelling and of course staff).
Important: they have GOOD healthcare - so that elminates a potential major drain. Now Sanders has been fighting for decades for good healthcare for ALL. So with him it is not: I got mine
His wife held a job as well. The car is solid middle class, (or a little fancier, but nothing extravagant. He lives in a state with long winter an icy roads, so some safety features and comfort are essential).
he does not spend excessively on wardrobe or the hairdresser ;) - I cannot imagine him spending a lot (or anything !) on drugs, loose woman, booze and gambling. No private plane either. He simply does not have the time to spend the money.
So I would assume they could save up since 1991, 27 years with a good income should be enough to pay back 1 regular and a small home (bought before prices went insane). Add to that the income as mayor of Burlington for approx. 9 years.
And yes his books are selling well. He would not have announced his candidacy in 2015 if Elizabeth Warren had intended to run in the primaries (they had met to discuss it) - so his decision was not a "book promotion tour". (He is not Newt Gingrich).
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ Smart Trump Supporter "I have great insurance under the affordable care act - we need to get rid of the monstrosity that is obamacare." - ACA and OBAMACARE are the exact SAME thing - the official legal name is ACA - the Republicans when they smeared it, came up with the "folksy" name "Obamacare". - And if you have insurance under ACA (= "obamacare") than you accept a "subsidy" - not sure what you meant with the "personal responsibility" remark. Nothing wrong with getting healthcare subsidized.*
Especially with the way TOO HIGH per capita healthcare expenditures of 9,200 USD of the U.S. - that's per year.
* Of course the recent ACA repeal attempts (by Trump and the GOP !!! ) were about a tax cut for very rich people - Obama and the Dems had introduced that tax to fund the ACA . Trump and the GOP were willing to even take the weak ACA away (without ANY REPLACEMENT) and have some 20 million people without coverage in the next years and a few tenthousand avoidable deaths per year - so that the very rich would not have to pay the tax anymore.
ACA is not nearly good enough of course and does not work for cost control - but the repeal would have been a step in the completely wrong direction.
They had no plan at all for replacing it with something better - and were willing to do it anyway - for the well being of people who already have more money than they will ever be able to spend.
And yes ACA = Obamacare was a weak bill from the very beginning - Obama and (most of) the Dems did not want to step on the toes of the DONORS (and in 2009 they had the majority in Senate and Congress - and for 60 days even a filibuster proof majority. Obama had the enthusiasm of the election - so he COULD have FOUGHT for a GOOD solution - for the people not the donors. And in the window of 60 days they could have passed any law - they passed the weak ACA but the GOP could not have prevented any bill including a GOOD bill. - but then say goodbye to the donations).
And in 2009/2010 with all the bipartisan pro and contra in the committees the Republicans made the already weak thing even weaker. They demanded - and got - the elimination of provisions for price control (to protect the profits of the SAME DONORS). No idea if the provisions for price control would have worked or not - the Republicans made sure it would not even be attempted.
ACA ended up being only a little bit better than the situation before. - Credit to Senator Sanders and the nurses and the grassroots supporters for FORCING the Dems to disregard the interests of the donors and come up with something that goes in the right direction. Not yet there, but definitely an improvement.
Even the much more cost efficient European systems have yearly per capita costs of at least 4,200 USD - that seems to be the minimum to have a well functioning NON-PROFIT system that is worthy of a First World country.
U.K. has only 3,900 - but they started defunding their already very cost efficient public system, the NHS . The Conservative government did so under the pretext of "austerity" after the bank bailout, actually they want to ram through at least a partial privatization, and you can't sell that to the voters with a well functioning non-profit system. You have to make it dysfunctional to have a pretext for the privatization as "solution" - the press and the Neoliberal Labour party did not say much, but now Corbyn is calling them out on their bluff, and the voters are note buying it anymore. Especially since they REMEMBER having a good system with recordd cost efficiency. - Next time you hear someone tell bad things about the UK healthcare system - remember 3,900 vs. 9,200 in the U.S.. I guess with only half of the U.S. expenditures the NHS would work like a charm.
Per capita expenditures means: everything that is spent in a country on healthcare no matter how it is paid for, divided by all people - no matter if they even needed treatment that year, if they are insured or not - in Europe they have of course coverage !
I know the GOOD systems of Germany and Austria well - expenditures of 5,600 resp. 5,400 (source World Bank, data 2014, health care expenditures of nations 2014).
And for that money you certainly can get a GOOD system (no need to spend 65 or 70 percent more like in the U.S. - and the population is older on average than in the immigration country U.S.A - so the U.S. should beat Germany costwise on demographics alone).
Most wealthy European countries are in the 5,000 - 5,500 USD range (like Canada). Well, take a family of four - that would still mean approx. 17,000 to 22,000 USD from the family budget.
Low income people don't have that money, of course they need the help of the wealthier citizens and profitable corporations to be able to have healthcare. It is good for all of society. you can't have people dying on the doorsteps of the hospitals. or going into bankrupcy. And miss out on the cost advantages of timely or preventive care.
The U.S. per capita expenditures are 9,200 - that means 36,800 per year for a family of four.
The reasons for the exorbitant costs ?
Part of it is the high profit ALL players are making (in Europe in most countries most of the familiy doctors, dentists and all of the pharmacies have a contract and price list with the NON-profit, public insurance agency (it is not "government" run). They are like small businesses. Hospitals are non-profit (public - run by a muncipality, or private - then usually run by a church or charity). The revenue of the doctors or pharmacies covers their costs, the profit is their income.
Their for profit motive (which could lead to the patienst being ripped off) is kept in check by the contracts. The insurance company and the hospitals do not need to make a profit. They must stay within their costs / budgets. They have no reason to deny care. Either you - and hundredthousand like you - get the expensive treatment (when the doctors say it makes sense) - or not.
The adminstration is very transparent and STREAMLINED. And it promotes solidarity. When a random person would not get the expensive life saving treatment - your family members and everyone you care about, would not get it either. Their is no ambiguity in the system. You have coverage - no need to check further for the administrators. You get the treatment your doctor thinks is necessary.
Not more procedures - and not less than is necessary in a medical sense.
The doctors - not the insurance agency or the "government" make the decisions - with the patients of course.
The institutions have no incentive to make patients jump through loops, to rip them off, to deny care. And there is no need for an extensive bureaucraZy to decide who gets what kind of coverage and what will be the co-payments and deductibles. Or to chase after unpaid bills later.
Citizens pay their contributions in advance (it is according to income NOT risk so it is affordable), when they need treatment NO MORE costs. It is bad enough if you are ill - no need for bad financial surprises on top of that. Or a fight to get treatment.
It is also very expensive to deny care - the number of doctors have roughly doubled in the U.S. since the 1970s but the number of administrators has exploded. The buraucracy does nothing to help deliver the care or for better medical outcomes - they are unnecessary and expensive middlemen who protect the profits of the shareholder in a dysfunctional system.
It is very expensive to not treat people in time but in the emergency room. Too little, too late at too high costs. And then the hospitals have to chase after the bills. (In Europe they KNOW they get the money - from the public agency and in time and without hassle about which treatment will be paid, and will all of it paid or only a part).
1
-
1
-
1
-
That is not a beauty contest. Sanders has continued to promote issues that are important for The People right AFTER the elections. While HRC vanished in the woods. Not being NEW on the scene means he can be judged on the intention, the way to raise money, the actions, the votes, the compromises. It is easy for newcomers to talk a good game The strategists paid for by the oligarchs will be pleased to help with the deception and the advertising.
Hillary Clinton for instance had a lot of strategists who tried to find out what to SAY to the voters so that they would BUY.
The two journalists/authors that were allowed to accompagny the campaign, provided they would publish the book after the elections, had interesting stories to tell about how they "manufactured" messaging. The book is "Shattered" (it was meant as a reference to the shattered glass ceiling. Well, the title still worked when Clinton lost unexpectedly).
When they promoted the book in the usual TV appearances (in spring 2017) they told how unaware / unresponsive the team was to what was going on in the country.
HRC: I do not understand the country anymore. - She never did - but in the past it did not matter. Control of media and spending a lot of money on campaigns could compensate for it.
Brainstorming and weekend retreats replaced having organic, authentic political convictions. HRC had been near the centers of power and politics for very long. She should have had a set of policies and deeply held convictions. AND the plans how to make them reality. (Not just nice words, and doing a 180 every few years, months). Sticking with her policies.
They thought they could fabricate a "persona" (adding some progressive flavor since that seemed to work well for Sanders). They expected that the voters would fall for it.
That marketing /advertising / throw-money-at-tailored-messaging approach had worked in the past, and a lot of people within the bubble had made good money of it. They were unable to read the signs on the wall.
Sanders does not need that. - HE (not highly paid strategists) has developed a set of convictions, ideas and policies - it has not changed a lot over the DECADES.
You can watch the clips with him as active mayor in the 1980s (obviously preparing for higher office), or when he cast the dissenting vote from 1991 on in Congress. He argued it on the floor (the old C-span clips are on youtube).
Often there were hardly any "representatives" in the room (likely busy meeting with lobbyists and dialling after dollars. They have to leave the House for that). It looked like a waste of time then that he would even hold the speeches, when it was clear that the majority had already made up their mind, and it was clear how the vote would go. They could not even be bothered to give the appearance of listening to other arguments.
But he wanted his arguments to be on record. This was often some bi-partisan agreement - and in most cases it was NOT good for the people. He caucused with the Democrats - but when they wanted to sell out the citizens, the Dems did not need his vote. They usually found enough partners in the crime on the other side of the isle. That functions well - even during the time when Republicans in general obstructeded during the Obama era. Same with the "opposition" of the Dems now. There are some votes with overwhelming support - and they are not good.
High bi-partisan support in Congress and Senate ? Voters beware !
What did Sanders object to in the past ? Some examples: "Trade" agreements with Panama, that made it an even better tax haven. "Free" "trade" deal with Colombia. Long before that: NAFTA. it was ready under Bush1 - who could not get it through Congress. Bill Clinton won the elections with the help of the unions. He COULD sideline and dupe them and get it passed.
Sanders voiced servere objectionsto the Crime bill - even though he voted with the Democrats on that (a part was good - protection against domestic violence). His objections were correct btw. - Unintended consquences do happen - and good government will COURSE CORRECT. Both Clinton's never even spoke about it.
Bailing out some U.S. banks when they had gone crazy in Mexico shortly after NAFTA had been implemented. The wars (also 1991), the increase of military spending - for instance the vote in August 2017. Ramping up the sanctions against Iran (summer 2017) - that was before Trump threw out the Iran deal alltogether.
Resistance also of Sanders when Obama was willing to offer Social Security as pawn to negotiate with Republicans. That is a tradition with Democratic presidents. Bill Clinton had a secrete group that worked at the project to privatize SS - hand it over to Wallstreet. The Lewinsky affair got in the way - he did not dare to open another can of worms. So that was dropped.
Little did Sanders know that many people would watch the recordings on a platform like youtube DECADES later. That they could JUGDE his REAL convictions, his ability to understand the consequences of bills and decisions, his intentions and leadership quality based on that.
It is possible for voters to connect the dots now. Unexpectedly it pays off to have been on the right side of many issues.
1
-
SANDERS supported First Lady Hillary Clinton in the attempt to change healthcare - back in the 1990s.HE
HE teamed up with another politician(forgot the name) to persuade retailers to raise the sales prices for tomatoes by 50 ct per pound. That made it possible to pay better wages to the farm workes. Many of them women with children. Some companies went along with the initiative - Walmart didn't - but it was an REAL improvment in the lives of many poor people. Not just flowery talk
He is called the amendment king and got through the VA Bill (a major project - together with McCain).
He was recently involved in the struggle of Disney and Amazon workers - which got them better wages.
He continued to tour the country AFTER the 2016 electio. Especially to promote better healthcare solutions.
He started an initiative in Jan 2017 to import drugs from Canada (that would bring drug prices down - they DO negotiate their drug prices, in the U.S. the public non-profit agencies like Medicare are legally FORBIDDEN to do that.). That was a bill to explore the issue I think - anyway: even some Republicans voted for it like Ted Cruz (free market, competition). Had ALL Democrats voted for it as well, it would have passed. Corey Booker was one of the approx. 13 defectors. Sanders was mild in expressing his regret (Social media did not show restraint) - but he "mentioned" Booker by name. Ooops. There goes the 2020 ambition. Booker came up with some lame excuse why he did not vote for the bill this time, yada, yada .....
Even if such bills go nowhere - it forces the other Big donations chasing "representatives" to show their colors.
Sanders (not some newcomers) did a lot to change the discussion about healthcare in the country. For decades mainstream media had colluded with BOTH parties (Big Donors !) to avoid having a meaningful debate.
Sanders used the platform of the campaign, indpendent media on the internet supported the effort - that made it possible to circumvent the gatekeepers.
When the fresh faces have such a record they can come back. Of course they will not be "fresh" at that time.
Nina Turner and Tulsi Gabbard showed some spine. Good leadership material. For the future. I hope Sanders would use a campaign / the presidency to help them raise their profile. He would need to make sure that are many potential future presidential candidates and cabinet members lined up - he would realistically only have one term, so he must pass on the torch.
And there is safety in numbers. (See the assassination series in the 1960s, early 70s - it only hit people who wanted to shake up the status quo. It is possible that JFK wanted to change the Cold War, reduce military spending, .....)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1