Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
New Breed Leader
New Breed Leader's Journal
New Breed Leader's Journal
December 31, 2019
Consider that under President Obama we:
Unfortunately, to some these efforts were not enough.
And 2016 marked the most bitterly divisive and polarized Democratic primary season since 1968, and these divisions were exploited and exacerbated by a Russian military intelligence operation exploiting our open society, social divisions, and social media platforms, and then amplified by domestic political networks fueled by secret, unregulated contributions.
And the result was the election of Donald Trump, quite possibly the most unfit, unqualified and corrupt president in the nation’s history.
And because of that devastating loss, so much of that recent progress is now at risk under an administration that has overturned or undermined consumer protections and regulations designed to protect the public from predatory business practices and the environment from pollution and profiteering, that has exacerbated inequality, limited redress for the disenfranchised, the powerless, the struggling, and for racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities, and also alienated longtime allies and security and trading partners.
So now, as we approach an election just as consequential as the one in 2016, the choice before us is simple: Can we unite and find common ground with those who share our goals, who are just as committed to progress and accountability, but who might differ slightly on tactics and strategy and the pace of change?
Or will we continue to eat our own and once again allow ourselves to be divided and demoralized?
ATTN Fellow Progressives: The "Political Revolution" Has Already Begun
https://establishmentbar.blogspot.com/2019/12/attention-fellow-progressives-political.htmlConsider that under President Obama we:
Put an end to the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive wars;
Finally, after decades of trying, institutionalized the idea that healthcare coverage merits a collective effort and that the wealthy and those who profit from the healthcare sector have an obligation to contribute through progressive taxation;
Chose diplomacy over the “Bush Doctrine” of belligerence, preemptive wars and unilateral militarism;
Broke the unholy alliance between Detroit and Big Oil in getting U.S. automakers – voluntarily – to double fuel mileage over the next decade;
Forced BP to fund a multi-billion dollar damage pool in the aftermath of the disastrous Gulf of Mexico oil spill, avoiding a decades-long Exxon-Valdez court battle and corrupt low-ball settlement;
Protected more than 550 million acres of land and marine resources from development, through the creation of national parks and utilization of the Antiquities Act on behalf of conservation;
Put in place overdue pollution limits for power plant smokestacks, which are major sources of air toxins like mercury, as well sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which lead to smog, soot, and acid rain pollution;
Established regional Climate Hubs and several initiatives to help farmers, ranchers and rural communities combat climate change and adapt to extreme weather, and a landmark agreement with Mexico providing greater flexibility in the management and restoration of the Colorado River, which allowed the river to reach the sea for the first time in decades;
Enhanced fuel efficiency and pollution standards for vehicles. Consumers are saving money at the same time that we're reducing greenhouse gas emissions, our communities are breathing cleaner air, and auto manufacturing in America is resurgent. Cars were put on a path to average over 50 miles per gallon;
Enacted the [first major environmental law in two decades, passed with bipartisan support, fixing our broken chemical safety system;
Banned drilling in the Arctic;
Got Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer, to commit to getting half of its energy from renewable sources;
Enacted the most stringent banking regulations in 75 years, and now have the authority to break up failing financial institutions if their collapse poses a risk to the broader economy;
Got big banks to pay over $100 billion in fines and penalties, undergo annual stress tests, make out a living will to ensure that in the event of their failure they can be dismantled without threatening the financial health of the broader economy, limit their own proprietary trading, and face scrutiny and accountability by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was set up to root out fraud and abuse and has already recovered billions from fraudulent banks and other financial institutions;
Got the banks out of the student loan business and freed up billions of dollars for student loans;
Encouraged dozens of cities and several states to raise their minimum wage after Congress refused to raise the federal minimum wage;
Repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” allowing gays to openly serve in the military, and ensured that marriage equality is now the law of the land in all 50 states;
Prohibited insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions and imposing annual or lifetime caps that limit coverage for patients;
Required insurance companies to cover contraception;
Capped profits for health insurance companies;
Got 31 states and the District of Columbia to expand Medicaid under the ACA – after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down mandatory expansion – and provide coverage to 11 million low-income Americans, including 4.5 millions citizens with a Republican governor;
Gave millions of people the economic security of knowing they won't be bankrupted by medical bills;
Boosted renewable energy;
Got almost 200 countries -- including China, the world's largest carbon polluter – to pledge to address climate change;
Eased travel restrictions and normalized relations with Cuba to mark the end of the Cold War in the Western Hemisphere, relieve isolation for Cuban citizens, marginalize hardliners, strengthen the hand of reformers, and undercut attempts by Russia and Venezuela to forge wider hemispheric links;
Extended favorable trade conditions upon 11 member countries that exhibit enforceable, verifiable labor and human rights standards and environmental protections – a first among international trade agreements, and meant to liberalize these countries and “globalize” human and labor rights and environmental protections by outlawing human trafficking, cracking down on forced and child labor and other human rights violations, raising environmental and labor standards; allowing labor unions, a guaranteed minimum wage, and a free, open and unrestricted Internet – by linking expanded economic opportunities with the world’s largest economy with adherence to and support of the liberal Western values that the U.S. has historically upheld; and
Led the world’s other great powers to forge an international agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear program to peaceful purposes – without firing a single shot.
And President Obama had to do this in a toxic, polarized political atmosphere, without cooperation from Congress for most of his term in office and without the political carrots provided by earmarks.
Unfortunately, to some these efforts were not enough.
And 2016 marked the most bitterly divisive and polarized Democratic primary season since 1968, and these divisions were exploited and exacerbated by a Russian military intelligence operation exploiting our open society, social divisions, and social media platforms, and then amplified by domestic political networks fueled by secret, unregulated contributions.
And the result was the election of Donald Trump, quite possibly the most unfit, unqualified and corrupt president in the nation’s history.
And because of that devastating loss, so much of that recent progress is now at risk under an administration that has overturned or undermined consumer protections and regulations designed to protect the public from predatory business practices and the environment from pollution and profiteering, that has exacerbated inequality, limited redress for the disenfranchised, the powerless, the struggling, and for racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities, and also alienated longtime allies and security and trading partners.
So now, as we approach an election just as consequential as the one in 2016, the choice before us is simple: Can we unite and find common ground with those who share our goals, who are just as committed to progress and accountability, but who might differ slightly on tactics and strategy and the pace of change?
Or will we continue to eat our own and once again allow ourselves to be divided and demoralized?
December 17, 2019
The Trump administration is proposing changes to Social Security that could terminate disability payments to hundreds of thousands of Americans, particularly older people and children.
The new rule would change aspects of disability reviews — the methods by which the Social Security Administration determines whether a person continues to qualify for benefits. Few recipients are aware of the proposal, which is open for public comment through January.
Critics of the plan liken it to the administration’s efforts to cut food stamps, among other entitlement programs, with insufficient information offered to explain curtailing benefits.
Social Security officials declined to comment. For years, Republicans have argued that Social Security benefits need to be reined in to save money.
The new rule, advocates for low-income Americans say, is just a way to push people off the disability rolls.
“I have serious concerns about this proposed rule,” said U.S. Sen. Bob Casey (D., Pa.), adding that it “appears to be yet another attempt by the Trump administration to make it more difficult for people with disabilities to receive benefits.”
In a similar vein, U.S. Rep. Brendan Boyle, a Northeast Philadelphia Democrat, said, “These changes seem arbitrary, concocted with no evidence or data to justify such consequential modifications. This seems like the next iteration of the Trump administration’s continued efforts to gut Social Security benefits.”
Typically, Americans who are too physically and/or mentally impaired to work may be eligible for one of two kinds of benefits: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
While SSDI is for people who have worked at least 10 years, SSI is for low-income recipients who have seldom, if ever, been employed.
More than 16 million Americans receive either SSDI (8.5 million) or SSI (8 million). SSI benefits can run to $770 a month; SSDI payments, which are based on lifetime earnings, can range from $800 to $1,800 monthly, government figures show.
Merely getting benefits is an extraordinarily difficult task, often taking years and requiring applicants to compile reams of documents, then state and restate their cases in front of hearing officers, adjudicators, and judges.
Explaining the proposed rule change, Kathleen Romig, a senior policy analyst and Social Security expert at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning nonprofit in Washington, said, "Parts of what’s happening are mystifying. And it’s very complicated.”
The new rule is “the government trying to kick us out of SSI,” said Jahan Johnson, 34, a single mother of three children — two of them on SSI — in Northeast Philadelphia. Johnson, who is bipolar and suffers from scoliosis, is also on SSI.
“What they’re doing is wrong, and making life harder.”
Those already receiving disability benefits are subject to so-called continuing disability reviews, which determine whether they are still deserving of compensation for an injury, illness, or other incapacitating problem as their lives progress.
Not everyone gets reviewed within the same time frame. A person with a grave illness such as Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) is placed in a category called “Medical Improvement Not Expected,” and is subject to review every five to seven years.
A low-birth-weight baby, on the other hand, is categorized as “Medical Improvement Expected,” and the case is reviewed every six to 18 months, because growth and change are anticipated, Romig said.
A third category is “Medical Improvement Possible.”
All three categories are based on existing medical standards meant to help officials decide whether benefits are still warranted, said Kate Lang, senior attorney at Justice in Aging, a Washington-based nonprofit that focuses on health benefits for low-income older adults.
The proposed rule change would create a fourth category: “Medical Improvement Likely,” which would mandate disability reviews every two years, creating an additional 2.6 million reviews over the first 10-year period.
An estimated 4.4 million beneficiaries would be included in that designation, many of them children and so-called Step 5 recipients, an internal Social Security classification, said Jennifer Burdick, supervising attorney with Community Legal Services in Philadelphia.
When applicants try to receive disability benefits, they either have one of a list of specified medical impairments, or they suffer from a combination of disabilities that make working difficult or impossible, Burdick said. The latter group are Step 5 and are entitled to SSI or SSDI benefits, according to federal law.
They are typically 50 to 65 years of age, in poor health, without much education or many job skills. They often suffer from maladies such as debilitating back pain, depression, a herniated disc, or schizophrenia.
The inclusion of Step 5 people in the “Medical Improvement Likely” category appears to make little sense, advocates for recipients say.
Medical conditions generally deteriorate as already unhealthy people age, and no evidence exists that such beneficiaries are “likely” to improve, Burdick said.
Labeling them that way is “a radical departure from past practice,” she said. “There’s no medical or scientific basis to say they’ll get better.”
Compelling Step 5 recipients to be reviewed every two years shows “a hostility toward the basic Social Security Act, which takes a holistic view of the individual,” said Jonathan Stein, a former Community Legal Services attorney who is working with Burdick.
He said he believes the ultimate aim of the rule is to review Step 5 recipients so often that they ultimately lose their benefits because of the difficulties complying with the review process.
“There’s an underhandedness to this,” Stein said. “It’s ideological, not based on medicine or science.”
Lang, of Justice in Aging, said simply, “They’re out to shrink the rolls. And they’re setting people up to not comply.”
Stein cited writings by Mark Warshawsky, deputy commissioner for retirement and disability policy at the Social Security Administration, who has often proposed eliminating the criteria of older age, low education, and unskilled work experience in determining eligibility for SSI and SSDI.
And in March, the conservative Heritage Foundation, which often provides underlying rationale for Trump administration policies, released a statement that said, “Factors of age, education, and experience do not and cannot cause workers to be disabled from performing all work .... Only physical and mental conditions ... should qualify individuals to receive disability insurance benefits.”
Asked about the appearance of taking benefits from vulnerable Americans in an election season, Lang replied, “I don’t think they care about the optics very much. They’re just focused on saving money.”
Trump proposes changes to SS rules that could kick 1000s off disability
https://www.inquirer.com/news/social-security-ssi-ssdi-trump-administration-disability-20191212.htmlThe Trump administration is proposing changes to Social Security that could terminate disability payments to hundreds of thousands of Americans, particularly older people and children.
The new rule would change aspects of disability reviews — the methods by which the Social Security Administration determines whether a person continues to qualify for benefits. Few recipients are aware of the proposal, which is open for public comment through January.
Critics of the plan liken it to the administration’s efforts to cut food stamps, among other entitlement programs, with insufficient information offered to explain curtailing benefits.
Social Security officials declined to comment. For years, Republicans have argued that Social Security benefits need to be reined in to save money.
The new rule, advocates for low-income Americans say, is just a way to push people off the disability rolls.
“I have serious concerns about this proposed rule,” said U.S. Sen. Bob Casey (D., Pa.), adding that it “appears to be yet another attempt by the Trump administration to make it more difficult for people with disabilities to receive benefits.”
In a similar vein, U.S. Rep. Brendan Boyle, a Northeast Philadelphia Democrat, said, “These changes seem arbitrary, concocted with no evidence or data to justify such consequential modifications. This seems like the next iteration of the Trump administration’s continued efforts to gut Social Security benefits.”
Typically, Americans who are too physically and/or mentally impaired to work may be eligible for one of two kinds of benefits: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
While SSDI is for people who have worked at least 10 years, SSI is for low-income recipients who have seldom, if ever, been employed.
More than 16 million Americans receive either SSDI (8.5 million) or SSI (8 million). SSI benefits can run to $770 a month; SSDI payments, which are based on lifetime earnings, can range from $800 to $1,800 monthly, government figures show.
Merely getting benefits is an extraordinarily difficult task, often taking years and requiring applicants to compile reams of documents, then state and restate their cases in front of hearing officers, adjudicators, and judges.
Explaining the proposed rule change, Kathleen Romig, a senior policy analyst and Social Security expert at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning nonprofit in Washington, said, "Parts of what’s happening are mystifying. And it’s very complicated.”
The new rule is “the government trying to kick us out of SSI,” said Jahan Johnson, 34, a single mother of three children — two of them on SSI — in Northeast Philadelphia. Johnson, who is bipolar and suffers from scoliosis, is also on SSI.
“What they’re doing is wrong, and making life harder.”
Those already receiving disability benefits are subject to so-called continuing disability reviews, which determine whether they are still deserving of compensation for an injury, illness, or other incapacitating problem as their lives progress.
Not everyone gets reviewed within the same time frame. A person with a grave illness such as Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) is placed in a category called “Medical Improvement Not Expected,” and is subject to review every five to seven years.
A low-birth-weight baby, on the other hand, is categorized as “Medical Improvement Expected,” and the case is reviewed every six to 18 months, because growth and change are anticipated, Romig said.
A third category is “Medical Improvement Possible.”
All three categories are based on existing medical standards meant to help officials decide whether benefits are still warranted, said Kate Lang, senior attorney at Justice in Aging, a Washington-based nonprofit that focuses on health benefits for low-income older adults.
The proposed rule change would create a fourth category: “Medical Improvement Likely,” which would mandate disability reviews every two years, creating an additional 2.6 million reviews over the first 10-year period.
An estimated 4.4 million beneficiaries would be included in that designation, many of them children and so-called Step 5 recipients, an internal Social Security classification, said Jennifer Burdick, supervising attorney with Community Legal Services in Philadelphia.
When applicants try to receive disability benefits, they either have one of a list of specified medical impairments, or they suffer from a combination of disabilities that make working difficult or impossible, Burdick said. The latter group are Step 5 and are entitled to SSI or SSDI benefits, according to federal law.
They are typically 50 to 65 years of age, in poor health, without much education or many job skills. They often suffer from maladies such as debilitating back pain, depression, a herniated disc, or schizophrenia.
The inclusion of Step 5 people in the “Medical Improvement Likely” category appears to make little sense, advocates for recipients say.
Medical conditions generally deteriorate as already unhealthy people age, and no evidence exists that such beneficiaries are “likely” to improve, Burdick said.
Labeling them that way is “a radical departure from past practice,” she said. “There’s no medical or scientific basis to say they’ll get better.”
Compelling Step 5 recipients to be reviewed every two years shows “a hostility toward the basic Social Security Act, which takes a holistic view of the individual,” said Jonathan Stein, a former Community Legal Services attorney who is working with Burdick.
He said he believes the ultimate aim of the rule is to review Step 5 recipients so often that they ultimately lose their benefits because of the difficulties complying with the review process.
“There’s an underhandedness to this,” Stein said. “It’s ideological, not based on medicine or science.”
Lang, of Justice in Aging, said simply, “They’re out to shrink the rolls. And they’re setting people up to not comply.”
Stein cited writings by Mark Warshawsky, deputy commissioner for retirement and disability policy at the Social Security Administration, who has often proposed eliminating the criteria of older age, low education, and unskilled work experience in determining eligibility for SSI and SSDI.
And in March, the conservative Heritage Foundation, which often provides underlying rationale for Trump administration policies, released a statement that said, “Factors of age, education, and experience do not and cannot cause workers to be disabled from performing all work .... Only physical and mental conditions ... should qualify individuals to receive disability insurance benefits.”
Asked about the appearance of taking benefits from vulnerable Americans in an election season, Lang replied, “I don’t think they care about the optics very much. They’re just focused on saving money.”
November 7, 2019
FDA enforcement plummets under Trump
https://twitter.com/Marmel/status/1192522029687136256
October 19, 2019
GET YOUR ASS OUT AND VOTE!!!!
The Mother of Black Hollywood has declared it!
https://twitter.com/JeniferLewis/status/1185225711302242304
October 11, 2019
Statement from Prince's estate re: Trump playing Purple Rain at rally
https://twitter.com/prince/status/1182484599781416960?s=19
October 7, 2019
Will Trump relinquish power peacefully? Not if he can avoid it
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/marc-ash/86846/will-trump-relinquish-power-peacefully-not-if-he-can-avoid-itYou can be one hundred percent certain that Trump will legally challenge any legal mandate to end his grip on the presidency short of at least eight years. That combined with even random acts of violence by his supporters could make for very tense days.
It also bears noting that any legal challenge Trump might mount to being removed from office would almost certainly end up in the Supreme Court. It’s a court that could opt for a redux of Bush v. Gore, regardless of the merits.
It also bears noting that any legal challenge Trump might mount to being removed from office would almost certainly end up in the Supreme Court. It’s a court that could opt for a redux of Bush v. Gore, regardless of the merits.
September 29, 2019
Best charity to help Sun Bears?
I would like to donate money to an organization that rescues Sun Bears from the horrible conditions in Borneo. Does anyone here recommend an organization?
September 27, 2019
Lest we forget the horrors: A list of Trump's cruelties, collusions, corruptions and crimes
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/the-complete-listing-so-far-atrocities-1-546
September 5, 2019
New Yorker: Prince had grand plans for his autobiography but only a few months to live
On January 19th, Prince chose an editor—Chris Jackson, of Spiegel & Grau, an imprint of Penguin Random House—and started the search for a co-writer. A few days later, he put on his first-ever show without a band, “Piano & a Microphone,” at a soundstage at Paisley. He’d pared down his songs to their essential components and reinvented them on the fly. He’d been practicing there into the night, playing alone for hours on end, his piano filling the vast darkness until he found something that he described, to Alexis Petridis, of the Guardian, as “transcendence.” In a recording of the concert, which I watched a year later, Prince shared some of his earliest musical memories with the audience. His mother, Mattie Della Shaw Baker, was a jazz singer; his father, John Lewis Nelson, who went by Prince Rogers, was a musician and a songwriter. “I thought I would never be able to play like my dad, and he never missed an opportunity to remind me of that,” Prince said. “But we got along good. He was my best friend.”
Profile Information
Member since: Sat Jul 27, 2019, 03:23 PMNumber of posts: 625
