Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Bernie Sanders’

Well, here we go again. A viciously anti-Democracy, anti-US Constitution Supreme Court nominee named Brett Kavanaugh can easily be stopped from wreaking more havoc to the US Constitution by the outnumbered Senate Democrats. And they will not do it.

The Democrats simply do not need to show up for the full Senate vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation, now that US Senator John McCain has died. Article I, section 5 of the Constitution requires that a quorum (51 senators) be present for the Senate to conduct business.

The Republicans hold 50 Senate seats, and the Democrats plus their independent allies, such as Senator Bernie Sanders, hold forty-nine. If all the Democrats show solidarity and simply do not show up for business, as usual, Kavanaugh cannot be confirmed to sit as a justice on the Supreme Court.

However, it is highly unlikely the Wall Street controlled Democratic National Committee will allow this because Wall Street executives want Kavanaugh on the court. Kavanaugh says he is an original intent jurist. That means as a judge, Kavanaugh claims to rule on issues as the founding fathers intended. Nothing could be further from the truth. He is a liar.

The billionaires who control both major political parties want a supreme court justice who is dishonest enough to say that the founding fathers of the United States believed corporations are people, trade treaties are not trade agreements, and money is free speech.

None of our founding fathers uttered such a thing in any of their writings. So all of the conservative supreme court justices (John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch) are simply lying in order to alter the meaning of the US Constitution.

This fundamental alteration based on lies gives the billionaires via their corporations’ significantly more constitutional rights while simultaneously diminishing the Constitutional rights of the vast majority of United States citizens, the 99.5 percent.

In the meantime, the US corporate news media, on behalf of their corporate and billionaire advertisers and owners, are keeping the eyes of the 99 percent on the abortion issue rather than the increase of constitutional rights the billionaires will achieve with the successful nomination of Kavanaugh and his lies, and the lies of the other conservative justices.

So do not expect the billionaires who control the Democratic Party to do the right thing, stopping a quorum and stopping Kavanaugh in the process, by uniting 49 US senators behind a common cause to prevent the US Constitution from the further perversion that Kavanaugh will insist upon with lies.

Expect income and wealth inequality to continue to grow as the billionaires continue to control the United States Supreme Court.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Currently, the United States has the least efficient health care system with the highest per capita health care costs in the developed world. That makes it very profitable for the shareholders of the 1 percent.

As for the non-health care sector of the US economy, businesses are the biggest source of health care coverage, but they could completely exit the business of providing health care, if national or even statewide single-payer coverage ever happens. That could make U.S. businesses more competitive globally and leave a lot more profits for shareholders in the form of higher dividends and rising share prices. Any savings would not likely go to employees anymore than is currently the case.

A new analysis by Charles Blahous of the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University found that single-payer health care for all Americans would cost at least $32.6 trillion during the first decade, or $3.3 trillion per year. Total federal spending now amounts to $4.2 trillion per year, so adding Medicare for all spending to that tally would nearly double federal outlays, except it won’t.

A Bernie Sanders-style single-payer system would transfer all health care spending to the federal government. “I’m scoring the federal cost here, and it’s enormous,” Blahous told Yahoo Finance. “The other side of the coin is businesses, individuals, states and others are not going to be paying these costs. They’re going to be given to the federal government.”

On the whole, the Blahous analysis finds that total health spending would actually decline under the Sanders plan, compared with the status quo, with the feds paying a lot more, but everybody else paying nothing. And more people would have health coverage since everybody would be eligible.

And it would be less expensive than what the US has now, which is the most expensive per capita in the world. As the only buyer of health care, the government would have the power to demand deep discounts, and there would be lower overhead costs because there would only be one administrative structure. Of course, we’d all have to get care through the government and deal with the pitfalls that would entail.

Still, the tradeoffs for businesses could be attractive. Federal tax revenue from individuals and businesses will total about $3 trillion this year. So taxes would need to more than double to cover a giant new health care plan. Doubling everybody’s taxes sounds like a death wish for politicians. But it might not be as crazy as it sounds.

Businesses pay about $1.2 trillion in health care costs every year providing coverage for 49 percent of the United States. Federal income tax payments by businesses will total about $243 billion this year. So U.S. businesses pay five times as much for health care benefits as they pay in US taxes. If you tripled or even quadrupled corporate income taxes, while eliminating all their spending on health care, it would still amount to a net savings for businesses.

New Libertarian Study Shows Bernie Sanders Medicare for All Would Save Corporations Trillions of Dollars–Yahoo

Read Full Post »


A blue wave is supposed to be upon us come November. The Democrats seem poised to possibly take back the US Senate and or the US House of Representatives. This is scaring the crap out of the Wall Street controlled Democratic National Committee (DNC). A democratic tidal wave may be coming, but it may very well be a progressive wave within the Democratic Party that sweeps the elections come November.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old Latina running her first campaign, and who worked as a waitress in her most recent job, beat Wall Street controlled and twenty-year congressional veteran Joe Crowley in the Democratic primary in New York’s 14th congressional district last month.

Ocasio-Cortez’s stunning win came on the back of an unapologetically progressive, grassroots campaign pledging “economic, social, and racial justice” for working-class Americans. “This is the start of a movement,” she tweeted after winning.

Ocasio-Cortez ran a progressive campaign, calling for the abolition of ICE, Medicare for all, criminal justice reform, a universal jobs guarantee, and tuition-free college funded by taxes on Wall Street, and this later issue scares the crap out of the billionaires.

Bernie Sanders recently campaigned with Ocasio-Cortez. He wrote of their adventures,

“On Friday, along with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I went to Kansas and held rallies with two great progressive candidates who are running for Congress. In Wichita, according to local media reports, more than 4,000 people joined us at a rally with James Thompson.

Then in Kansas City, at our rally for Brent Welder, the convention center was so crowded the staff had to remove a wall in the middle while the event was going on to let more people in. These were incredible crowds coming out in more than 100-degree weather to participate in our political revolution. And, yes, this was Kansas where Republicans control almost everything.

There was quite a different event in Columbus, Ohio. Two hundred and fifty wealthy invited Democratic donors and Wall Street insiders came together at a gathering hosted by a real estate billionaire. Why were they there? The headline on an NBC News story tells it all:

“Sanders’ wing of the party terrifies moderate Dems. Here’s how they plan to stop it. Party members and fundraisers gathered for an invitation-only event to figure out how to counteract the rising progressive movement.”

What are they concerned about? That our ideas, such as Medicare for all, tuition-free public colleges and universities, a $15/hr minimum wage and progressive taxation are now mainstream positions.

Make no mistake about it. The gathering in Columbus was not simply a social event. The corporate Democrats are plotting how to defeat progressives the only way they know how — with big money. But you’ve shown that, together, we can overcome their brand of pay-to-play politics.”

The big money controls the Democratic Party, as Sanders points out above. That money controls the Clintons’, and such politicians as US House Representative Earl Blumenauer and Wall Street Senator Ron Wyden. The big money boys and girls are scared, not of a November blue wave, but of a progressive blue wave that will sweep them out of the levers of power within the Democratic Party.

Read Full Post »

We can pretty much see from the graph above what the Trump tax plan does. It raises taxes on those couples earning less than $80,000 a year, and reduces taxes on those earning more, until you get to the million dollar couples.

However, beyond the graph is something more illuminating, and both the liberal and corporate so-called news media won’t mention this because they don’t want you to know.

Income and wealth inequality will increase under Trump’s tax plan. In the United States, the top 1 percent already steal via legislation and trade treaties about 37 percent of all income produced in the United States, compared to just 8 percent in 1980. In addition, wealth inequality, already the most unequal in US history, will increase under Trump’s plan.

Do you know why? Because that’s what the Republicans and some Democrats like Wall Street Senator Ron Wyden want to do!

Trump’s tax cut proposal will also reduce corporate tax rates, which will, quite naturally, result in higher corporate after-tax profits, which will then be redistributed to rich shareholders and bigwig corporate officers in the form of surging share prices and rising dividends. It will also help bid up the price of corporate bonds since corporations will be able to offer the rich higher rates of return with corporate tax cuts. Trump’s tax plan is really a plan to redistribute more money to himself and rich Democrats and affluent Republicans from the rest of us.

The government will experience greater budget deficits, which will mean reducing federal funds for Social Security, Medicaid, Aid to Needy Children, Food Stamps, etc…while, of course, maintaining or increasing funding for the military (which benefits only the rich).

Trump’s tax plan essentially calls for continued inflating of the current stock market bubble. Historically, the bigger the bubble, the greater will be the shock to the rest of the economy.

Naturally, one can look at the Republican created stock market bubble of the 1920s, and the income and wealth inequality that fueled that bubble, which led directly to the Great Depression. Then there was the Reagan bubble, and after a short blip of a recession in 1991 that cost President George H.W. Bush the presidency, the bubble renewed under the vigorous presidency of Wall Street’s very much owned Bill Clinton.

Under Clinton, there was a tech bubble, a telecommunications bubble (Bill signed the legislation guaranteeing it), a housing bubble (Bill refused to sign the legislation that would have prevented this), and, of course, all of these helped to fuel a stock market bubble (also fueled by exporting jobs to Mexico thanks to Clinton’s NAFTA). When the bubbles burst in 2001, the economy became a shambles.

Sure, the incompetent, corrupt and worst president in US history, President George W. Bush, followed the incompetent and corrupt President Bill Clinton into office, and did some really stupid things, like passing a tax cut for the rich that helped to create negative job growth in his eight years. However, to some degree, the economy under George W never recovered from the Clinton bubbles. It still has not, and likely never will, not without a major shift in political power from the billionaires who control both major political parties to people who will represent working folks, like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Trump’s proposed tax cuts for the rich shows who is in control. It isn’t Trump, and it isn’t congress. A handful of billionaires need the bubble to continue to expand. Otherwise, they will lose trillions of imaginary dollars when it bursts, like back in 2008.

The best evidence of this collusion is Trump himself. When Trump was running for president he verbally assaulted in the most vicious of ways Chinese currency manipulation. The president has made certain not to mention this since shortly after he became president. This suggests one or more billionaires grabbed him by the lapels and told him if he mentioned Chinese currency manipulation again the billionaire’s club would take him behind the woodshed and give him a good political beating. Why would they do that?

When the Chinese manipulate their currency, it increases the profits of US corporations that manufacture in China and export those products to the US, and this, as you might suspect, fuels the stock market bubble.

As a senator, former President Obama also viciously attacked Chinese currency manipulation. However, once he became president Obama never mentioned the issue again, at least not in public. This suggests the same billionaires also threatened to take President Obama behind the political woodshed if he ever mentioned the subject again.

This suggests the same billionaires control both major political parties. Or, more than likely, there are two groups of billionaires, each in control over a major political party. However, it also suggests both groups close ranks when they have a common goal, such as making certain the public doesn’t know about how Chinese currency manipulation enriches them at the expense of everybody else, just like Trump’s tax cuts will.

 

Read Full Post »

A CNN reporter asked US Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, “Do you agree with the notion that the DNC was rigged in Hillary Clinton’s favor?”

“Yes,” Warren said.

Okay, virtually everybody in the world has known or suspected this for quite some time.

Warren said the 2016 Democratic nomination for president was rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton. She also said the Wall Street controlled Democratic Party faces “a real problem” in dealing with the fallout from the revelation that Clinton’s campaign secretly took over control of the Democratic National Committee in 2015.

Responding to the disclosure by Donna Brazile, who became interim chairwoman of the DNC as last year’s election approached, Warren told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Thursday that Democratic leaders must restore faith in the party’s operations.

“What we’ve got to do as Democrats now is hold this party accountable,” Warren said, adding that the current DNC chairman, former Labor Department Secretary Tom Perez is “being tested.”

Warren failed to mention that Perez was the Clinton and Wall Street candidate to manage the Democratic Party.

Donna Brazile, a Clinton and Wall Street loyalist, wrote in her new book, Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House, that shortly after she took the DNC job in late July 2016, she discovered the Clinton campaign had signed an agreement to help keep the DNC financially afloat, a deal in “which [Clinton] expected to wield control of its operations.”

The agreement between the DNC and the Clinton camp was signed in August 2015, several months before the primary season began and almost a full year before she officially secured the nomination over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I).

The Clinton campaign “had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house,” Brazile said in her book, to be released on Tuesday.

“The funding arrangement … was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical,” Brazile wrote.

The excerpt, first published in Politico, includes details about Brazile’s call to Sanders after she discovered the arrangement, set up under her predecessor, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).

“When I hung up the call to Bernie, I started to cry, not out of guilt, but out of anger,” Brazile wrote. “We would go forward. We had to.”

Of course, Brazile leaked the questions to the Clinton campaign for one of the debates. She did not perform the same favor for Sanders. This suggests Brazile wrote the tell-all-book-about-the-scandal-but-not-my-involvement-in-it to make a few extra bucks.

Read Full Post »

Citizens of the United States spend more per capita for healthcare than another high wage nation. This suggests the US healthcare system is mighty inefficient compared to other systems, both in terms of price and in services provided. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a bill in the US Senate on

Sanders introduced a bill in the US Senate on Wednesday September 13, 2017 that would provide “cost” and “services provided” efficient “Medicare for All.” 57 percent of Americans support Medicare for All, according to Kaiser Health News. Fifteen Democratic Party legislators support the bill, which is up from 1 (Sanders) a few years ago.

Fifteen Democratic Party legislators support the bill, which is up from 1 (Sanders) a few years ago. “Medicare for All,” but that’s more of a handy slogan than reality, as this plan would greatly expand Medicare and overhaul it — for example, it would greatly expand the type of coverage offered and also eliminate deductibles.

“Medicare for All” would greatly expand Medicare and overhaul it.  For example, it would greatly expand the type of coverage offered and also eliminate deductibles, copays and premiums. Private insurance companies are also currently a part of the Medicare system. That wouldn’t be the case under Sanders’ plan.”

Under the current US system, premiums, copays, and deductables have constantly increased for decades, long before Obamacare came into being. Medical services have been cut back, even as costs (and profits) have risen. Much of this cost increase (if not all of it) is so publicly traded limited liability health care corporations can increase profits, which tend to push up share prices and dividends. In effect, health care provided by publicly traded corporations is really an income redistribution scam perpetrated on the 99 percent by shareholders of the 1 percent. Such corporation distort the market through collusions.

Sanders plan would be phased in over four years and would cover more things than Medicare currently does. His plan would cover dental and vision care, for example, which are for the most part not covered by Medicare.

So how does Sanders propose to pay for this system that covers all Americans? First of all, it would reduce employer and self-employed healthcare costs by eliminating the need for businesses and self employed people to purchase health care for themselves and their employees. According to PBS, “Sanders proposed a 7.5 percent payroll tax on employers, a 4 percent individual income tax and an array of taxes on wealthier Americans, as well as corporations. In addition, Sanders’ plan says the end os f big health insurance-related tax expenditures, like employers’ ability to deduct insurance premiums, would save trillions of dollars.”

The cost would, obviously, be less expensive and more efficient than the profit motived health care system we now have in the United States.

Read Full Post »

The Wall Street Democratic National Committee (DNC), arch supporters of the presidential candidate of Wall Street, Hillary Rodham Clinton, want us to believe their lie that automation killed US manufacturing and created greater income and wealth inequality over the last thirty-five years. They don’t want us to believe US corporations have exported millions of jobs because of Bill Clinton’s trade treaties like NAFTA. Hillary, being a good Wall Street pawn, supported income redistribution scams like Nafta and the Trans Pacific Partnership. These Wall Street DNC folks even have people trolling the web looking for stories with Hillary Clinton tags showing automation did not kill millions upon millions of manufacturing jobs, and that they’ve been instead exported to China, Vietnam, Mexico and elsewhere.

The trolls are reading from the same basic script. It goes something like this; “I worked in high tech for (take your pick – 30, 35, 40) years and I witnessed whole categories of jobs being eliminated through automation. Automation has created joblessness and income inequality, not trade treaties. You progressives are all the same. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You need to get your facts straight!”

First of all, there is not a shred of evidence that automation causes joblessness or inequality because advances in technology tend to create more jobs than it displaces. For example, the computer industry wiped out the typewriter industry and created tens of millions more jobs in the process than the old typewriter industry ever created. As a 2017 study from the Economic Policy Institute points out, “Yes, automation has led to job displacements in particular occupations and industries in the past, but there is no basis for claiming that automation has led—or will lead—to increased joblessness, unemployment, or wage stagnation overall.”

Trade treaties are the primary cause of the growth in income and wealth inequality in the United States and throughout the world. This is a no-brainer: When jobs are exported the difference between the old higher US wages and benefits and the new lower Mexican, Chinese and Vietnamese wages go into the already fat wallets of the super rich via higher corporate profits, surging dividends, and soaring share prices. So yes, since Hillary supports trade treaties, she also clearly supports redistributing income from the 99 to the 1 percent.

So Hillary wrote a new book that blames Bernie Sanders for her presidential defeat to Donald Trump, and her trolls are roaming around the Internet advancing her cause with lies, half-truths, and distortions. This suggests Hillary may be getting ready for another run at the presidency. It also suggests the Wall Street Democratic National Committee is behind her possible candidacy.

In 2020, she’ll be the wrong candidate at the wrong time for 99 percent of the people of this nation. We’re heading into an already overdue recession that should be worse than the last one in many respects. Unemployment, for example, will likely be higher than last time. We need a champion of the people, such as Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkley, or Elizabeth Warren. The last thing the people of the United States will need in 2020 is another brown-nosing Wall Street pawn in the White House.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »