Page: 1
TomCADem
TomCADem's Journal
Profile Information
Member since: Thu May 7, 2009, 11:59 PM
Number of posts: 17,255
Number of posts: 17,255
Journal Archives
Vox - The most devastating passage in the CBOs report on the Senate health bill
Congratulations Senate Republicans. You have made the House bill even more deadly in order to finance tax cuts for the rich.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-most-devastating-passage-in-the-cbo%e2%80%99s-report-on-the-senate-health-bill/ar-BBDimMK?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=UE01DHP The Congressional Budget Office has released its analysis of the Senate GOP’s Better Care Reconciliation Act, and it’s a bloodbath. The bill is expected to lead to 15 million fewer people with health insurance by 2018 — and 22 million fewer by 2026. But the most devastating of CBO’s conclusions can be found on page eight. There, the Congressional Budget Office says that the BCRA would make decent insurance so expensive that “few low-income people would purchase any plan” at all. Here’s the section: |
Posted by TomCADem | Mon Jun 26, 2017, 09:52 PM (1 replies)
Cuts to Medicaid May Limit Access to Nursing Homes
Source: MSN/New York Times Medicaid pays for most of the 1.4 million elderly people in nursing homes, like Ms. Jacobs. It covers 20 percent of all Americans and 40 percent of poor adults. On Thursday, Senate Republicans joined their House colleagues in proposing steep cuts to Medicaid, part of the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Conservatives hope to roll back what they see as an expanding and costly health care entitlement. But little has been said about what would happen to older Americans in nursing homes if these cuts took effect. Under federal law, state Medicaid programs are required to cover nursing home care. But state officials decide how much to pay facilities, and states under budgetary pressure could decrease the amount they are willing to pay or restrict eligibility for coverage. “The states are going to make it harder to qualify medically for needing nursing home care,” predicted Toby S. Edelman, a senior policy attorney at the Center for Medicare Advocacy. “They’d have to be more disabled before they qualify for Medicaid assistance.” Read more: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cuts-to-medicaid-may-limit-access-to-nursing-homes/ar-BBD7kZ8 Well, given that a lot of elderly folks watch Fox News, they may not notice or will just blame the left. |
Posted by TomCADem | Sat Jun 24, 2017, 11:39 PM (51 replies)
Vox - The health bill might pass because Trump has launched the era of Nothing Matters politics
The Senate and House "health care" bills are not about health care. They are tax cuts paid for by cuts in benefits to the American working class. However, this does not matter anymore because the right wing has managed to create an entire media environment of Fox, Rush Limbaugh and Brietbart that operates independent of reality. Thus, regardless of how harmful Republican legislation is to the Republican base, they can blissfully blame Democrats, women, gays, muslims, racial minorities, etc. for the problems, both real and imagined.
As a result, Trump and Republicans are able to ride a wave or working class populism with an agenda that is amazingly anti-working class. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/23/15854570/will-trumpcare-pass The health care bill unveiled by Senate Republicans Thursday morning should, by the standards of the normal laws of politics, have approximately a snowball’s chance in hell of passing. |
Posted by TomCADem | Fri Jun 23, 2017, 11:05 PM (3 replies)
Isn't Donald Trump/GOP The Easy Response to Bernie's Neoprogressive Attacks on Democrats?
We have often heard Bernie Sanders attack Democrats and their policies as an "absolute failure." We have continued to hear neoprogressives like Jill Stein and Susan Sarandon attack Democrats from the left, and suggest that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Of course, if Democratic losses were really just attributable to them being overly friendly to corporations, then we have nothing to worry about, because Republicans are going out of their way to cut taxes, weaken worker protections, and cut access to healthcare. Under the Neoprogressive/Alt-Left attacks on the Democratic party, Republicans should be wiped out from power in 2018. Put another way, if parties lose power because they are too friendly to corporate interests, then we have nothing to worry about, because Republicans have been unrelenting in selling out for corporations and the 1 percent. However, what Neoprogressives often overlook is both the impact of foreign propaganda that amplifies distrust on both the left and the right regarding American institutions, and how racism and sexism is used by the right to not only oppress minorities and women, but also white men. I have posted examples of how the Neoprogressive/Alt-Left often push the same anti-Democratic talking points and conspiracy theories as the right whether it is the "Deepstate" is attacking Donald Trump: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9180242 Or, the Seth Rich conspiracy: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029156057 This congruence in talking points is not a coincidence. It suggests a degree coordination by an opportunistic foreign actor who is trying to undermine Republicans and Democrats who are suspicious of such foreign influence. Also, President Lyndon Johnson, who grew up in the South and understood the politics of racism from the inside, saw it in part as a ploy to divide and conquer. He once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." However, rather than acknowledge how Trump and Republicans use racism and sexism to scapegoat women and minorities to build up resentment among white men in the ultimate form of identity politics, Neoprogressives themselves attack efforts by the left to address such issues as "identity politics" and argue that Democratic losses are because they are not "populist" enough to explain the loss of white working class voters. In the same vein, Neoprogressives justify Trump's dominance among white working class males as being due to his "populist" appeals despite the fact that his policies are extremely anti-worker. He pushes a virulent anti-immigrant agenda and even his trade policy is tied more to xenophobia then to actual efforts to address unfair trade. In short, Neoprogressives ignore that Trump's populism is based on racial and gender resentment, rather than actual pro-worker policies. In conclusion, if it were simply a matter of whose policies helped or hurt the working class, then Republicans are going to easily lose power in 2018. There is nothing to worry about. But, if Republicans were able to consolidate control by stoking racial and gender resentment, plus amplifying foreign propaganda designed to create distrust in American institutions, then it is going to be tough. Perhaps even more so, if Neoprogressives echo they same attacks the Right and Russians make on the Democratic party. |
Posted by TomCADem | Sun Jun 11, 2017, 11:38 PM (11 replies)
Neoprogressive "The Sane Progressive" Pumps The Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory
What is up with neoprogressives like Susan Sarandom cheering on the potential repeal of the ACA (because that opens the door for single payer) or Debby L., aka the Sane Progressive, spouting right wing talking points from the "left"? Like Susan Sarandon, here she is cheering Republican efforts to repeal the ACA.
Neoprogressives like Debby L. and Jill Stein have often acted as Russian apologists whether it is attacking the FBI investigation of the Trump administration as being a "deep state" witch hunt: Or, defending Russia's actions in Syria: http://prospect.org/article/strange-sympathy-far-left-putin Still, Corbyn has his American counterparts—starting with Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Until a few days ago, Stein had a statement on her website saying that the United States should end any military role in Syria, impose an arms embargo, and work “with Syria, Russia, and Iran to restore all of Syria to control by the government.” The “anti-war” candidate's stance, in other words, was to let the war crimes continue until the Assad regime and its patrons massacre their way to victory. More recently, Debby L. has been repeating Sean Hannity's Seth Rich conspiracy theories: The question is are Neoprogressives like Susan Sarandon, Debby L., Jill Stein, or Cornell West really members of the left given that they often seem to be on the same side as Trump and Republicans? Are Neoprogressives so left that they are right? Or, are they just sock puppets who have sold out and are really being paid to disrupt the left? |
Posted by TomCADem | Sat Jun 3, 2017, 11:33 PM (11 replies)
Will Trump and Republicans Set A New Hardright Baseline? The New Normal?
In another thread I posted, there is a debate on whether there is any good that might come from a Trump Presidency with Republican control. Susan Sarandon celebrated the increased activism from progressives who were outraged at Trump's assaults on reproductive and immigrant rights, as well as the roll back of environmental regulations. Susan Sarandon also cheered efforts to repeal the ACA arguing that such a repeal would set the stage for single payer.
I think the fundamental flaw of Sarandon's thinking, as well as similarly minded progressives, is that it supposes that if progressives manage to win control of Congress and the Presidency, that we will begin from baseline that was left when President Obama left office. This is incorrect. We will still have a Republican controlled Supreme Court, which many people forget weakened the ACA by making Medicaid expansion optional, and it is unlikely that we will have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, let alone a solid progressive majority given that at least some Democrats will be from traditionally red states. By that time, Trump and Republican Congress may have: 1. Withdraw from the Paris Agreement (done). 2. Withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal (pending). 3. Repeal the ACA resulting in the loss of healthcare by millions of people (pending). 4. Cut taxes to the rich and greatly increased spending, thus causing the deficit to explode (pending). 5. Rolled back financial regulations and abolished the Consumer Protection Agency (pending). 6. Cut back funding of Planned Parenthood resulting in the closure of clinics (ongoing). 7. Expelled millions of law-abiding immigrants and their families. 8. Etc. Now, you can see the outrage that is being generated by Trump's actions and Trump's agenda has been slowed by the incredible activism of Democrats, environmentalists, immigrant activisits, and other progressives. However, after four years of Trump, a Republican congress, and a Republican Supreme Court, they will have achieved many of their aims, thus establishing a new right-wing baseline. As a result, even if we are successful in electing a Democratically controlled Congress and President by 2020, the best we will likely achieve is a partial return to where things were under President Obama as was the case in his first term. In addition, if Democrats do not control both Congress and the Presidency, then in all likelihood, the new Trump status quo will remain the norm, though at least the bleeding might slow. Finally, this ignores the possibility of a huge catastrophe under President Trump. Would he threaten to default on the U.S. debt by vetoing debt ceiling legislation if Democrats regain Congress in 2018? Would Trump start a war if he feels seriously threatened by impeachment? What if Trump decides to aggressively interfere with elections in 2018 and 2020? Put another way, it will take great progress to merely erase the rollbacks under Republican rule, let alone to try to build upon the progress made under President Obama. Indeed, you can easily argue that President Obama was hampered in pursuing his agenda, because he was busy trying to prevent the U.S. from sinking into a Great Depression due to the damage cause by George W. Bush. Likewise, even a progressive Congress and President in 2020 might be preoccupied with damage control following four years of Republican control. |
Posted by TomCADem | Thu Jun 1, 2017, 08:34 PM (2 replies)
Daily Beast - How Putin Played the Far Left
I was at an anti-Trump rally in Los Angeles, which was awesome. However, I still saw some folks in the crowd pushing the Communist party and passing out flyers promoting the secession of California, which Russia heavily promotes along with Texit. The Russians are not for the left or the right. They are opportunists.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/how-putin-played-the-far-left ![]() Moscow’s attempts to cultivate America’s far-left long predate the presidency of Vladimir Putin. The Kremlin, according to available evidence, donated more funds per capita to the U.S. Communist Party than any other communist claque during the Soviet period, when Moscow’s intelligence operations against the “main adversary” involved recruiting agents of influence and spies of a progressive background who were sympathetic to the Soviet cause. But the past 18 months have seen a noted spike in information warfare aimed at gulling the Bernie Bros and Occupy-besotted alternative-media set, which saw Clinton as more of a political danger than it did Trump. |
Posted by TomCADem | Thu Jun 1, 2017, 01:23 AM (0 replies)
Go to Page: 1