Hometown: Northern California
Member since: Mon Oct 13, 2003, 06:47 PM
Number of posts: 68,618
Hometown: Northern California
Member since: Mon Oct 13, 2003, 06:47 PM
Number of posts: 68,618
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.
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)
Michigan is reliably a democratic state for the most part. But it is also the state that elected Govenor Rick Snyder...
That was my response to a Sanders Supporter who had the temerity to say to me that Michigan voters were clearly more intelligent than those in Mississippi!
Posted by FrenchieCat | Wed Mar 9, 2016, 01:04 PM (13 replies)
Bernie needs to just tell us if he believes in God, so that folks will know. Because he keeps getting that question, but he doesn't answer it truthfully, for political reasons, I'm sure...
The facts are that Bernie Sanders does not practice Judaism, although he was born Jewish. as he calls himself non religious and a humanist, meaning he doesn't believe in a traditional God.
He did not answer the question which it was asked. He did what he often does, artfully works around the question of his beliefs, which I don't think he should be hiding.
Here is an article to clear up the difference between Bernie Sanders being born Jewish, and the actual religion which he practices, which is none at all.
"I put the question to Professor Richard Sugarman, who serves as Bernie Sanders' unofficial spiritual adviser. The two met in 1976 on a train from New York to Vermont. Sugarman was at the start of his professorship at the university; Sanders was an itinerant candidate with Vermont's radical Liberty Union Party. The two became friends and lived together. Sugarman convinced Sanders to run for Burlington mayor and told me he served as "Minister of Reality" in the government. If Sanders is in Vermont during Passover, he attends seder at Sugarman's table.
Does Bernie Sanders believe in God?
"I would call him an uncertain agnostic," Sugarman told me. He still teaches religion and philosophy. "He's not even sure he's an agnostic."
Translation: Sanders is doubly uncertain that God exists.
Posted by FrenchieCat | Sun Mar 6, 2016, 11:22 PM (12 replies)
THE YEAR 2016 will mark the death of a myth, which had existed in the minds of too many White Americans, throughout this land. It is the unfounded belief that African Americans have constantly yearned to be given something for nothing. Of course, it was always a ridiculous unproven meme, but one which has stubbornly survived decades after decades. A purposeful cruel and erroneous stereotype, portraying an entire race of people as unambitious, while steeped in assumed laziness, and suspected criminality. A notion that encouraged the untrue fable, that African-Americans have always been willing to get whatever they could, and do so whenever it was offered.
There are many reasons for this long persisting ugly myth, dating back to its use as a rationale for Slavery by the institutions' supporters. Additionally, it was termed as justification to the systematic wholesale denial of equal opportunities for Blacks, in the 20th century. As was the paternalism of White liberal Guilt in the 60s, which prompted the idea that giving back a meager hand would somehow solve America's racial "problem". In fact, this myth has been used to ferment plain old straightforward hate called racism, dating back forever.
I had written an article not long ago, and in it, I stated that the 1960s "War on Poverty":
… is a war that we are still fighting today, and in so doing, we are also forced to fight race based stereotypes it put upon us, which have stubbornly lasted to our detriment since. It is the tried and untrue slur of how people of color always seem to want something without working for it, aka, something for nothing. The War on Poverty, while perhaps well-meaning in its intent, left an ugly-spirited stain upon, that we have been trying to wash out ever since. The whole racist connotation of the “Welfare Queen” has, in fact, won many elections, year after year. It is a legacy that may have hurt us more as an entire race of people, than the benevolent benefits it ever intended.
It is a myth that was placed upon the Black community as a whole, while simultaneously giving it the job to disprove it. The original mission assigned by White folks was to have Blacks prove how much better they were, than what was expected. Instead what became the acceptable norm was to give Black folks the burden of having to excel far beyond at whatever it was. Even then, those who were seen as the best, were termed the exception, and deemed not like the others.
And so, here we are today in an election year which has perplexed quite a few! A large number of White progressives have been unpleasantly confounded as to why Black Voters are not voting for Bernie Sanders en masse. They inquire, cajole, demand, and ask to know why this is. Why are Black folks not lining up behind their once in-a-lifetime candidate in overwhelming majorities? Don't you want the Free College and Free Healthcare he promises, if elected, they ask? Don't you understand that this may be your last chance for higher wages, and income equality?
For the life of these White Progressives, they simply do not get it, and Black people are informed that their election decision just doesn't make sense, in an endless number of ways.
What those White folks simply fail to grasp is that Black folks aren’t having it, because we don’t have it like that! African-Americans don't just want Free Stuff, and never really have. Instead African-Americans simply want what the White majority has enjoyed for so very long; the access to the exact opportunities that citizens of this nation were to be born with as a given. They no longer feel compelled to have to continue to prove what should already be their right.
African-Americans just want what anyone should want; to be given enough respect to exercise their options as they best believe will serve them; and doing so without being constantly questioned and judged. Equal opportunity means not having to explain, as it is totally unwarranted and super unnecessary. Instead, let us simply acknowledge that the old persistent myth was never true, so please let it die, because it deserves it!
Posted by FrenchieCat | Sun Mar 6, 2016, 10:38 PM (21 replies)
BLM Activist Challenges Killer Mike's Argument For Bernie Sanders
rapper Killer Mike made a passionate plea for supporting Bernie Sanders while referencing BLM Activist Marissa Janae Johnson. She joins TWIB! Prime to give her response. Full interview here:
Posted by FrenchieCat | Sat Mar 5, 2016, 01:46 AM (31 replies)
***FALSE NEWS ALERT***
NO, ELIZABETH WARREN HAS NOT ENDORSED BERNIE SANDERS OR ANYONE ELSE.
Some folks are spreading a FRAUDULENT NEWS ARTICLE right before the vote tomorrow!
The Clonezone is a site where you can make up your own news.
So if some Bernie Folks have been posting this article on the FB page,
IT IS NOT LEGIT, and so make sure to QUIT!
It may end up that Elizabeth Warren ends up doing the exact opposite if it doesn't stop.
I don't think she appreciates others putting words that she did not speak into her Mouth!
Additionally, no one should be so desperate in trying to influence undecided voters with this
"A la Cruz" nonsense.
If you haven't seen this news on the Internet or on Television, its because it hasn't happened!
If you aren't checking your sources, prior to posting, then perhaps you should.
It is currently being investigated to find out who put the article together and started circulating it,
as it is unethical and fraudulent to have done so, especially the day before Super Tuesday!
Here is what did happen....
WHY SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN HASN'T ENDORSED A CANDIDATE YET
No, Sen. Elizabeth Warren still hasn’t endorsed a candidate in the Democratic presidential primary.
But that hasn’t stopped supporters of both Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders from spinning the Massachusetts senator’s silence to their liking. In the absence of a stamp of approval for either candidate from the Senate’s progressive prophet, other voices have filled the vacuum.
Posted by FrenchieCat | Mon Feb 29, 2016, 10:45 PM (112 replies)