Hometown: Northern California
Member since: Mon Oct 13, 2003, 06:47 PM
Number of posts: 68,528
Hometown: Northern California
Member since: Mon Oct 13, 2003, 06:47 PM
Number of posts: 68,528
I cook, paint, write, read, decorate, garden, and volunteer. I'm also a business owner, a mother and a wife. I love you.....no matter what you think of me.
I'm referring to Josh Marshall'S article on Trump/Putin which I posted on my FB....
my good FB friend responded by writing this....
"I have read it. Here is something to consider about his EastEastern European financiers in relation to the exception taken by Trump about Mexico:
The suppression of Mexico by "building a wall" is rooted in seeking to suppress the Mexican drug trade to the benefit of the drug traders of Eastern Europe,Turkey and Afghanistan. The Russia mob has been growing poppies for opium and heroin production since before Russian invasion of Afghanistan.
Trump tightens southern borders, enabling Russians to transport drugs over Canadian borders and even Alaska."
This is the article I had posted....
Posted by FrenchieCat | Wed Jul 27, 2016, 12:56 AM (7 replies)
and they're for US!
Sounds just fine to me!
Posted by FrenchieCat | Fri Jul 22, 2016, 10:05 PM (19 replies)
Me think not whatsoever, not even one lil' bit.....
I watched a couple of news programs for a short while today, and they told me all I needed to know
to conclude that "someone said" is out to lunch!
What I learned from our Corporate media in just those few minutes (that I can't ever get back) is:
About her unfavorable numbers - no perspective that Sander voters are all up in those numbers.....for now,
How Sanders' favorables are so much higher than hers, without perspective that Sanders hasn't been attacked about anything by anybody,
About how close Trump and Hillary are in "zee polls" for the General election - no perspective that there is still a primary going on whether I like it or not, and those polls are being affected by those Sander voters who want the polls to turn out as they have.
About how maybe Democratic voters will "change" their mind, and vote Sanders; without any perspective told of the impossibility of Sanders winning anything no matter.....
What I didn't hear from our Corporate media:
About Sanders' missing tax returns that he promised to provide but that we are still waiting for,
About Jane Sanders and her daughter's role in that Vermont University Shut down,
About Sanders FECC filing issues and why there is an issue, and what he's gonna do about it,
About how Sanders CANNOT win, and his campaign is all but broke,
About how Trump is using F*cking racism and free media advertising to gain votes,
who exactly set up and will be paying for these "rallies" set up for the old 1968 Democratic National Convention redux in order to make Trump President a la Nixon....is it Broke Sanders, or low life Trump?
That's why I ain't watching no F*cking media....
As these elections are all a great big joke to them.....Cause they are getting their paychecks
and their children's future is all but assured....
and for those who believe the Corporate media is in Hillary's pocket,
well then PIGS DO FLY AND UNICORNS FART RAINBOWS!
Posted by FrenchieCat | Sun May 22, 2016, 09:17 PM (22 replies)
How did black achievement become erased from Kentucky Derby History? Check it out!
African-American horsemen played a vital role in shaping early American turf history, and the Kentucky Derby is no exception. The history of the Kentucky Derby and African-American horsemen are intertwined. The Derby and Churchill Downs owe a great deal to these men who helped shape America's greatest race. Thirteen of the 15 riders in the first Derby were African-American, while African-American reinsmen won 15 of the Derby's first 28 runnings.
But the decline of black jockeys in the Derby and the rest of thoroughbred racing is intricately tied to the history of race and economics in the U.S., experts said.
The early dominance of black jockeys was a result of Antebellum customs. In the time of slavery, enslaved people were often the caretakers of horses on plantations, said Teresa Genaro, freelance turf writer and founder of Brooklyn Backstretch.
Posted by FrenchieCat | Tue May 10, 2016, 03:33 AM (9 replies)
Here I am watching the president speech in Flint, Michigan, when MSNBC decided I didn't need to hear anymore… So I turn to C-SPAN, to hear the rest! Damn the media!
Posted by FrenchieCat | Wed May 4, 2016, 04:42 PM (7 replies)
Cause that's what she said today, and also back in a 2012 Interview when she wasn't running for anything!
Hillary Clinton Rarely Listens to Her iPod, Always Packs Tabasco Sauce
Written by Kevin Doyle
August 30, 2012
Posted by FrenchieCat | Mon Apr 18, 2016, 06:50 PM (44 replies)
REPUBLICANS have unabashedly, for years and years, identified Freeloaders and Welfare Queens as minorities and illegal immigrants. GOP voters have sent each other chain emails for as long as we have had emails, detailing and decrying the many benefits Minorities and undocumented immigrants enjoy in this country, while implying that it is working White America who is left to foot the bill. As recently as 2012, Mitt Romney blamed his loss in the presidential election due to Barack Obama promising gifts to Blacks, Latinos and young people.
Even today, we hear of claims that undocumented immigrants are costing millions/billions to the US treasury, in Sen. Ted Cruz and Mr. Trumps’ stump speeches to their resentful angry GOP supporters. In fact, Sen. Cruz proposed legislation to ban any welfare benefits to undocumented immigrant families.
Fortunately, the widely held assumption by too many Americans as to who takes advantage of welfare and other government benefits is FALSE. In fact, undocumented Immigrants, in terms of government benefits, cost us very little.
As to which Americans receive Governmental benefits, the truth is that Whites are more likely to receive Food Stamp benefits than African Americans or Latinos, and According to the New York Times blacks comprise 22 percent of the poor, but blacks only take in 14 percent of government benefits. Conversely, Whites make up 42 percent of the poor, but take in a disproportionate 69 percent of government benefits.
During this election season, one of the Democratic Candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I), has promised that if elected, he would enact additional government benefits for all Americans, including free public college tuition and Single Payer National health care. Sanders proposes paying for these new programs by increasing the taxes paid by corporations, Wall Street, and most working individuals residing in the United States.
Meanwhile, Sec. Hillary Clinton is offering a different approach. She does propose fixing some parts in the existing Obamacare healthcare law, while proposing to make community college free (including books and transportation), and dramatically reducing student debt, but she offers to get this done by raising taxes on only 02% of Americans, and closing corporate loopholes in order to increase tax revenue to pay for her proposals.
So of the two candidates running on the Left while using Republican stereotypical Logic, it would follow that the alleged Welfare Queens and freeloaders would support the candidate who offers the most in government programs, regardless of cost to taxpayers. This stereotypical mantra would then have to assume that most minorities would then surely support Sen. Bernie Sanders.
But in truth, that is not what is happening, as I have discussed before
When one reviews who supports Sen. Sanders vs. Sec. Clinton, what is found is the demographics of Sanders support appears to be White millennials, and a high percentage of White men. In contrast, an overwhelming majority of Minorities are supporting Secretary Hillary Clinton, as well a high percentage of women and older Americans voters.
So what does this mean?
Well based on the the above information.....
The below is what the Republican's identified targets to call Welfare Queens and Freeloaders typically should look like...
So the GOP needs to make sure to keep that representation in mind for future references.
Posted by FrenchieCat | Sat Apr 9, 2016, 10:45 PM (8 replies)
Bernie Sanders, via his campaign manager blames the Obama administration and Hillary for creating a vacuum in Iraq and Libya, which they believe created ISIS!
That's been a GOP talking point for months, so great for the Republicans!
Sanders campaign only mentions Hillary being at fault... But then that's saying that President Obama is not in control of his own administration, so none of it is helpful to the Democratic Party, those running down ticket, or Obama's legacy!
Guess when you get to New York to campaign then you pander to terrorists and the GOP!
Posted by FrenchieCat | Fri Apr 8, 2016, 08:57 AM (11 replies)
"Why have these voters been so pro-Clinton? One reason I haven’t seen laid out, but which I suspect is important, is that they are more sensitized than most whites to how the disinformation machine works, to how fake scandals get promoted and become part of what “everyone knows.” Not least, they’ve seen the torrent of lies directed at our first African-American president, and have a sense that not everything you hear should be believed."- Paul Krugman
Meanwhile, elsewhere....Actor and Sanders surrogate Tim Robbins called anyone voting for Hillary Clinton "Sheeps" today on television!
Posted by FrenchieCat | Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:12 PM (63 replies)
Some Americans currently believe that instituting Single Payer Health Reform is absolutely doable, and won't be that difficult if only we would elect Bernie Sanders President. However, it should be noted that many presidents before Barack Obama sought Health care reform and they either gave it an half ass try, got something but not what was original envisioned, or simply barely tried! In fact, President Barack Obama’s health care law has been one of the most polarizing aspects of his presidency, with Republicans criticizing it at every turn.
As we speak, the GOP plan is to repeal it in the first 100 days of a New Republican Presidency.
WHO WOULD BE MOST AFFECTED BY A REPEAL? Millenniums currently covered under their parents policies up to the age of 27, those with pre-existing conditions including children, people living under the poverty line in states that have enacted Federal Medicaid funding provision or their own federally funded State plan, those who currently receive subsidies even though they may not be under the poverty line.
Without subsidies to purchase insurance, many people would immediately lose coverage because they could no longer afford it. Others could be kicked off their plans without Obamacare's protections for people with preexisting conditions. "You would just have an awful lot of people be uninsured, and then that ripples back through the health care system," Jost says. "Basically, you would have a lot of people die because they couldn't get health care."
This is just the tip of the iceberg. A roll back of the Medicaid expansion would cause millions more Americans to lose their coverage and create mayhem for state governments. Without the ACA to plug the so-called "doughnut hole" for prescription drugs, seniors would see their drug bills go up.
It would cost millions of Americans their coverage, but full repeal by Congress would be even more devastating. Health care experts describe a state of complete chaos were the ACA to simply disappear from the books.
By now, the ACA has so fundamentally changed the health care system that repeal would not simply return the country to its pre-Obamacare state. The Urban Institute estimates that just rolling back subsidies for people in states with federally run exchanges—the Supreme Court scenario—would create such turmoil in the private insurance market that the number of people in 2016 buying private plans on their own would be substantially lower (just over 1 million) than if the ACA had never been implemented (about 7.3 million). In other words, destroying the exchanges would be much worse than if they were never implemented at all. Returning to the way things were is no longer possible.
WHY DID PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS FAIL? Political naivete in failing to deal with the interest group opposition, ideology, historical experience, and the overall political context played key roles in shaping how these groups identified and expressed their interests is the most common answer.
• Theodore Roosevelt- Endorsed the idea of expanding health insurance to all, but only as as a presidential candidate for the Bull Moose Party in 1912, not during his earlier term in the White House.
• Franklin D. Roosevelt- Called for a social insurance system in his radio address of 1943, that would extend "from the cradle to the grave," and he was preparing a program and a speech on national health insurance at the time of his death. In the midst of World War II, Roosevelt never pursued it in earnest, as he had proposed only a speech, at the very end of his last term in office.
• Harry Truman- Wrote a message to Congress saying that "the health of American children, like their education, should be recognized as a definite public responsibility." According to the Truman Library, "the most controversial aspect of the plan was the proposed national health insurance plan." It called for "the creation of a national health insurance fund to be run by the federal government. This fund would be open to all Americans, but would remain optional. Participants would pay monthly fees into the plan, which would cover the cost of any and all medical expenses that arose in a time of need. The government would pay for the cost of services rendered by any doctor who chose to join the program."
The American Medical Association attacked the plan, characterizing the bill as "socialized medicine." Truman ultimately abandoned the effort after the outbreak of the Korean War
• Dwight Eisenhower- Reacting to Democratic proposals for single-payer health care, he proposed an expansion of care within the model of private-sector medicine. Eisenhower’s approach was to make permanent the tax break for employer-sponsored health coverage (which remains today) in order to encourage as many Americans as possible to get covered through their workplace. For those who were not employed, Eisenhower proposed that the government "reinsure" private insurance companies to encourage them to add less profitable populations to their coverage rolls.
The Eisenhower plan was relatively "timid," it nonetheless sparked the AMA’s opposition, which helped kill it in Congress.
• John F. Kennedy- Voiced strong support for legislation that would ultimately become Medicare. On May 20, 1962, he held a televised rally to push the proposal at a packed Madison Square Garden in New York City. (The American Journal of Public Health later noted that hours later, the AMA rented the empty hall to film a rebuttal by its president, without showing the empty seats.) But he died before the legislation could come to fruition.)
the “Health Security Act”—was a universal single-payer plan, with a national health budget, no consumer cost-sharing, and was to be financed through payroll taxes.
• Lyndon Johnson- Technically, Johnson never sought full universal health care, but this is the President who signed Medicare and Medicaid into law. That was a BFD! This wasn't universal care for everybody, but universal care for large subsets of the population.
• Richard Nixon- Offered separate proposals to expand health insurance to all, or nearly all, Americans. Generally speaking, they involved employer mandates to provide health insurance, supplemented by subsidies for poorer Americans. His Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan (CHIP) called for universal coverage, voluntary employer participation, and a separate program for the working poor and the unemployed, replacing Medicaid.
Requiring employers to contribute 65% of the premium cost was controversial, but fundamental to the plan’s
"I shall propose a sweeping new program that will assure comprehensive health-insurance protection to millions of Americans who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with vastly improved protection against catastrophic illnesses," he said in 1974.
The 1974 effort gained some traction in Congress but faltered as Nixon became consumed by scandal.
"Had it not been for his destruction as a result of the Watergate affair, legislation might well have passed during his presidency," said Princeton University health care historian Paul Starr, the author of Remedy and Reaction: The Peculiar American Struggle over Health Care Reform.
• Gerald Ford: Endorsed Nixon’s second proposal, but it didn’t get far on his brief watch.
• Jimmy Carter. Proposed "a step-by-step plan to achieve universal coverage," Starr said. "It came relatively late in his first term, and it was too weak to satisfy (Democratic Sen.) Ted Kennedy and many other Democrats." Carter’s efforts were "halfhearted," said Brown University political scientist James Morone, co-author of The Heart of Power: Health and Politics in the Oval Office from Roosevelt to Bush.
• Ronald Reagan - Signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which requires hospitals to serve patients in urgent need, and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, or COBRA, which allows individuals to keep paying for coverage if they lose their insurance. In addition, with almost no support from his own cabinet, Reagan added catastrophic care to Medicare toward the end of his presidency, though the provision was later repealed.
• George H.W. Bush- Worried about the Democrats getting traction with health care in a 1991 Senate special election, sent a plan to congress. "Bush didn't like the issue, but he had a really good health team that put together a pretty good republican proposal," Morone said.
• Bill Clinton - In a process spearheaded by First Lady Hillary Clinton -- sought to pass a major overhaul of the health care system that would have aimed for universal coverage. Even though the Democrats controlled Congress at the time, the plan did not win enactment.
Clinton’s plan, the Health Security Act, called for universal coverage, employer and individual mandates,
competition between private insurers, and was to be regulated by government to keep costs down. Under managed
competition private insurers and providers would compete for the business of groups of businesses and individuals
in what were called “health-purchasing alliances”. Every American would have a “health security card".
The "Health Security Express" was a bus tour that started the end of July 1994. It involved supporters of President Clinton's national health care reform. Several buses leaving from different points in the United States, such as Portland, Oregon, and Boston, Mass crossed the country and stopped in many cities along their way to their final destination at the White House in Washington, DC on August 3, 1994. During these stops, each of the bus riders would talk about their personal experiences, health care disasters and why they felt it was important for all Americans to have health insurance. When the Health Security Express bus tour ended, all of the riders were greeted by President Clinton and the First Lady on the White House South lawn for a rally on Wednesday, August 3, 1994, which was broadcast all over the world by many international networks including C-SPAN.
The opposition was effectively organized and the divided Democratic majority in Congress could
not muster enough votes to pass a bill. However, incremental reform was not dead. In 1997, with a Republican
Congress and bipartisan support, the Children’s Health Insurance Program was enacted, building on the Medicaid
program to provide health coverage to more low-income children.
• George W. Bush- Pushed for and signed the expansion of Medicare to include prescription drug coverage, which ended up being a poison pill to Medicare spending.
If you ask me, based on what we can see from our history...we need to build on Pres. Barack's achievement, while praying that we stay in the White House.
Posted by FrenchieCat | Sun Mar 13, 2016, 09:51 PM (8 replies)