HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » kaleckim » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2

kaleckim

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:34 AM
Number of posts: 651

Journal Archives

Sanders Has It Right: Majority of Americans Want 'Medicare for All' System

Don't they know that the "progressive" Democratic Party "leaders" have said that single payer will never happen and that it's too expensive, even though it's much cheaper everywhere it's been implemented than our system? At least their top donors largely applaud that.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/16/sanders-has-it-right-majority-americans-want-medicare-all-system

"Gallup survey results highlight 'broad, national longing for a more humane health care system that treats health care as a human right'"

Bernie Sanders' call to replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) with a single-payer healthcare system is a policy that a strong majority of Americans agree with, according to a new Gallup survey released on Monday.

Fifty-eight percent of all U.S. adults favor replacing the ACA with a federally-funded healthcare program, such as Sanders' Medicare for All.

This is compared with 48 percent who prefer to keeping Obama's healthcare system in place, a policy which has been a cornerstone of Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton's campaign platform.

...However, Gallup found that those who favor both a federally run national healthcare system and the ACA, when given a choice, "come down on the side of the Sanders-type proposal."

"The general idea of a single payer system seems to play well with the majority of Americans," Gallup states, which is something both Clinton and the presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump "will need to keep in mind as they debate healthcare in the months to come."

"Chicago Election Official Admits “Numbers Didn’t Match”"

"Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders Election Fraud Allegations"

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/13/chicago-election-official-admits-numbers-didnt-match-hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders-election-fraud-allegations/

Jim Allen, Communications Director for the Chicago Board of Elections (BoE), acknowledges that “the numbers didn’t match” initially in the legally mandated 5% audit of voting and tabulating machines after the recent Illinois Democratic primary between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Allen, however, insists that this is simply a “perception issue” and that absolutely no election fraud took place.

Allen was responding by phone to my questions regarding allegations from citizen vote monitoring groups Who’s Counting? – Chicago and the Illinois Ballot Integrity Project (IBIP). Dr. Lora Chamberlain is a leader of Who’s Counting, which works with IBIP to credential election day monitors and joined them this year to audit the audit. IBIP was started in Illinois in the aftermath of the 2000 Al Gore versus George Bush Debacle. A total of six members of the two groups gave affidavit-based testimony at the April 5, 2016 Chicago Board of Elections meeting.

...Four of the people who gave testimony described unbelievable irregularities in detail without a single word of rebuttal about the specifics of how the audit tabulation occurred from the Board. In sharp contrast to a more orderly audit in Rensselaer County, New York, Chamberlain, Michelle Suzanne Gayle, Rebecca Curliss, and William Schickley stated that problems included erasure of tally sheet votes when they didn’t match (then adding some to get to the correct, pre-determined number), attempts to hide the work that was being done or to block the view of monitoring citizens, rapid adding of tallies to tally sheets near the end of the day to make things work, inconsistencies in the way names were read leading employees tallying the results to say “wait, I’m confused” without real redress, most stations having a single person to tally results for particular machines rather than two tally-ers, tally-ers falling asleep or absenting themselves to the bathroom while the results continued to be read-out, double reading of votes that had already been tallied, and multiple methods for cheating or fudging the results when they didn’t match, which was apparently quite often.

Since Chamberlain in particular reported that the mismatches would have meant substantially more votes for Bernie Sanders in a very specific case, I followed up with her to ask if all or most of the mismatches were similarly suggestive of a miscount favoring Clinton. Chamberlain responded, “It appears to us that the inaccuracies were mostly in favor of Hillary,” but she added, “we are not going to say that in a court of law because we didn’t have every table covered every day” and “there was a lot of blocking behavior” by BoE employees throughout the process.

"Clinton Policies Have Hurt Women"

Interesting article from Nakedcapitalism:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/05/clinton-policies-have-hurt-women.html

Yves here. This post is an indictment of the policy positions that Clinton has taken on issues that affect women.

Another disingenuous element of the “women should vote for Hillary” campaign is that the efforts she’s been touting to prove her bona fides, such as her intent to name a Cabinet withhalf the posts filled by women, is that she’s selling trickle-down feminism. The tacit assumption is that breaking the glass ceiling is an important breakthrough for women. In fact, that is a concern of elite women. As Hillary’s own record attests, and that of women CEOs (Linda Wachner to Marissa Mayer) or women in Congress (Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi are prime examples, as are Republicans like Joni Ernst from Iowa and Shelley Moore Capito from West Virginia), women in positions of influence more often identify with members of their class (well off, well educated women) than middle and lower class people of either gender.

...“I strongly argued that we had to change the [welfare] system…I didn’t think it was fair that one single mother improvised to find child care and got up early every day to get to work while another stayed home and relied on welfare…The third bill passed by Congress cut off most benefits to legal immigrants, imposed a five-year lifetime limit on federal welfare benefits, and maintained the status quo on monthly benefit limits, leaving the states free to set benefit limits…I agreed that he [Bill] should sign it and worked hard to round up votes for its passage…Weeks after Bill signed the law, Peter Edelman and Mary Jo Bane, another friend and Assistant Secretary at HHS who had worked on welfare reform, resigned in protest.” – Hillary Clinton in her 2003 memoir Hard Choices.

Not liking Hillary has nothing to do with her being a woman. It has everything to do with the hypermasculine values she espouses.
Hillary is that rare combination, even in our grotesque political landscape, of a smooth-talking neoliberal with the worst tendencies of a warrior-neoconservative. You couldn’t say that about Bill to the same extent, but there isn’t a regime change opportunity, a chemical or conventional arms deal, an escalated aerial (or lately drone) war, or an authoritarian friend in need, that Hillary hasn’t liked. If we get her, we will only be setting back feminism by decades, because her policies—like welfare “reform”—have always come packaged under the false rubric of caring for women and children. It’s like George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism,” the rhetorical cover she needs to enact policies, time after time, that erode women’s and children’s standing even as she claims to be their steadfast advocate.

…In the early 1990s Hillary did represent, to some limited symbolic level, a change for the better in terms of feminist values—though this certainly didn’t translate into actual policy improvements for women or children or minorities, rather the opposite occurred in policies engineered by the Clintons. Furthermore, one could argue that it was George H. W. Bush who prompted the relative humanization of the 1990s, after the harsh Reagan-era rhetoric, promising a kindler, gentler nation, and aspiring to be the “education president” and “the environmental president.” The elder Bush’s policies were to the left of either Clinton, when it came to immigration, civil liberties, clean air, disability, and many other issues.

The Clintons went out of their way to pursue—often gratuitously—policies that hurt women and children. The reelection seemed safely in their pockets, yet they went ahead anyway with harmful laws on crime, welfare, telecommunications, immigration, and surveillance, legitimizing right-wing discourse that was to bear full fruit in the following decade. It was the Clintons who set the stage for the massive harm that was to befall women, immigrants, the poor, the elderly, and children once they provided liberal cover to social darwinist ideas that had been swirling around in maniacal think tanks but had not been able to make it through Congress.

The Clintons have somehow managed to convince half the sane world that they should be the natural recipients of African-American votes, despite everything they have done, when in power, to erode the economic security of African Americans and other minorities; the false hope raised during the 1990s was that the economic boom, itself a mirage as it turned out, would eventually lead to significant wage gains, but that never happened.
Poor and minority women and children were drastically hurt by the welfare bill the Clintons so enthusiastically pushed through Congress, and likewise all the policies, from trade to student aid, they pursued in the name of fiscal responsibility, cutting the deficit and the debt, and playing by Wall Street’s tune. On neoliberal disciplinary virtues (which in Hillary’s mouth are twisted in a rhetoric of “empowerment”), she’s little different than Milton Friedman, the greatest post-war popularizer of the “free market” mythos. “Personal responsibility,” separating the virtuous from those deserving of sanctions, is as much a credo for her as it was for Reagan, as it was for Barry Goldwater.

“It’s Time for the Left to Abandon Liberalism Once and For All“

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/11/its-time-for-the-left-to-abandon-liberalism-once-and-for-all/

…This poses a problem as to what a liberal is, and this is addressed by Danny Katch in his book Socialism … Seriously, in which he points out that, “Millions of people find themselves classified as liberals by default, ranging from those who march against banks and bombs to those who bail out the former and drop the latter. That’s not a very useful category.” He points out that in today’s politics, a liberal is basically anyone who isn’t a Republican.

As the party splinter begins to widen, the term liberal is no longer going to suit the leftists who align more on Sanders side, or even further. For socialists, this has meant abandoning the term altogether. One reason is, as Katch argues is that while “Liberalism can agree with socialism that some things about capitalism should be reformed, and socialists often work alongside liberals to win those changes. Where we differ is that liberalism views reforms as ways to preserve capitalism while socialism sees them as steps toward replacing it.”
While not everyone will default to the position of socialism as they abandon the liberal ideology of saving capitalism, it does seem to be the most viable alternative at this point in time. Liberals in general, as Katch highlights, have done nothing but mock the Republicanplatform but for many years have failed to offer solutions. We see this today as Hillary Clinton takes the presumptive position for the Democratic Party is offering herself up as merely the alternative to a seemingly xenophobic and racist Donald Trump. Clinton has campaigned solely on offering more of the same of the last eight years of President Obama, doing little to nothing to offer fresh ideas or solutions.

…Liberalism has been one of the great failures of the past century, failing to solve the world’s biggest issues and even issues directly inside the United States. Liberalism had to rely on the Supreme Court to enact same-sex marriage rights, liberalism has failed to provide healthcare to every single American, and it has failed to protect racial minorities from rampant racism and discrimination.

…While Clinton and her supporters are correct in saying she is a better choice that Trump, a vote for Clinton offers no forward progress and leaves us with four to eight years of stagnation. For those living in poverty, those locked up in for-profit prisons for non-violent drug offenses, to those who are sick and still cannot afford to see a doctor, that stagnation is too much to bear.

It is time for leftists to speak up and abandon liberalism and to rise up to the challenge of putting forth new ideas. A true opportunity for change has presented itself and the future of progress hinges on how we move forward.

Think Tank Walks Back Inaccurate Bernie Bash



The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center did a one sided analysis/hit piece on Sanders' economic proposals, which only estimated the potential tax increases. They didn't factor in the benefits of the programs that the taxes would fund, which the Sanders campaign pointed out. They did this one-sided analysis in the heat of the primary and now, when Sanders has far less of a chance at winning, they re-do the analysis and find out that most would see a major net benefit from Sanders' policies (with the poorest benefiting the most), proving that his campaign's critiques were correct.

Here's the article that TYT was talking about:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/279201-study-most-would-see-net-benefits-from-sanderss-proposals

"Study: Most would see net benefits from Sanders's proposals"

...TPC found that the average tax burden would increase by about $9,000 in 2017 but the average amount of benefits would increase by more than $13,000. As a result, households would on average receive a net income gain of almost $4,300 under Sanders’s proposals, TPC said.

Households in the bottom fifth of income would on average receive a net gain of more than $10,000, and those in the middle fifth of income would have an average gain of about $8,500. Those in the top 5 percent of income would see a net loss of about $111,000, TPC said.

Polls: Trump Closing In On Hillary



Not good. She is an incredibly weak candidate.

Wall Street Donors Flocking to Clinton

Well, yay for Wall Street, business interests, the rich, and their lobbyists. You know, her base, the groups that have benefited from the policies she and her husband have long supported.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/09/wall-street-donors-flocking-clinton

Democratic frontrunner has seen a surge in financial sector donations since business-friendly Republican candidates have dropped out of the race.

"They know Hillary," said Republican lobbyist Ed Rogers. "And they know that she is not antibusiness."

...A Wall Street Journal analysis published late Sunday found that the former secretary of state "has raised $4.2 million in total from Wall Street, $344,000 of which was contributed in March alone."

In fact, Clinton has seen a surge in financial sector donations since business-friendly Republican candidates—namely former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio—dropped out of the race. According to the newspaper's reporting on fundraising data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, "the former secretary of state received 53 percent of the donations from Wall Street in March, up from 32 percent last year and 33 percent in January through February, as the nominating contests began."

...In total, Clinton has received a full third of all money that business interests have donated to presidential campaigns on both sides of the aisle.

...Politico reported last week that Clinton supporters have been aggressively courting top Bush family donors "to try to convince them that she represents their values better than Donald Trump." Those fundraising calls are part of an overall effort by the campaign to position Clinton as the standard bearer of neoconservative ideals.

Hillary Clinton Courts Bush Mega-Donors Instead Of Bernie Voters



Tone deaf and arrogant.

REPORT: Hillary Clinton Would Have Tanked The Iran Nuclear Deal



Then there's this too, what a great, "progressive" choice Democrats have made:

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/05/trump-unifier-are-hillary-clinton-and-neoconservatives-ready-join-forces

Trump as Unifier: Are Hillary Clinton and Neoconservatives Ready to Join Forces?

'Neocon elites are probably the likeliest faction to defect to Clinton, and what they'd want is blood-curdling aggressiveness overseas and Benjamin Netanyahu in charge of Middle East policy.'

...With Trump at the head of the GOP ticket, Schmidt predicted on Chris Matthews' show earlier this week, "You're going to see a concerted and organized effort by the Hillary Clinton campaign to go after senior members of the Republican foreign policy establishment — big names. I'm not trying to put a partisan imprint on David Petraeus. But names like Petraeus, retired General Odierno, Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft. Men and women who served in senior positions, in national security positions, in Republican administrations. The Clinton campaign's going to go after them. They're going to go after them forcefully."

On Wednesday, the Clinton campaign at least hinted at this approach by posting a list of people it described as "prominent activists, journalists and elected officials" in the Republican Party who have decided to reject Trump, quoting some who explicitly said they would vote for Clinton if she ends up as the Democratic nominee. A verbatim sampling from the list (which was further updated by the campaign on Thursday) follows:

Lifelong Republican, foreign policy expert Max Boot: “[Hillary Clinton] would be vastly preferable to Trump.’”
Billionaire Bush-backer Mike Fernandez: “If I have a choice — and you can put it in bold — if I have a choice between Trump and Hillary Clinton, I’m choosing Hillary.”

Elliott Abrams, former foreign policy advisor for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush: “won’t be voting for Trump”
According to journalist and political commentator Sam Sacks, who spoke with D.C.-based Sputnik Radio about the same dynamic on Thursday, observers can expect to "see a lot of the neoconservatives, people who were, ironically, very close in the George W. Bush administration... coming home and supporting Clinton, who has a foreign policy record that hews pretty neoconservative."
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2