The Great Wealth Robbery

[Richard]

She reminds me of the 20 year old political expert that was being used as a source stating the obvious and like everything happening today just started.

The old saying,you make money off of the poor and not the rich.

The more poor the more money you make.

[Zacha341]

At least she's not one of the rich elite you see on the left and right yaking on about how much they eschew the rich elite and privileged!

[Richard]

Here in Fl they canned a 900 million a year civics course that was set up to educate students and teachers on how the government works and how to navigate the political waters so it works for you.

That is our state leaders,trust us,we know what is best for you.They just like there total control over the sheep.

[Jimaz]

Attachment 35692
The Monopolization of America

[Jimaz]

Hartmann interviewed David Graeber [[author of Bullshit Jobs, mentioned above) today.

What's interesting to me is that few people want to admit it's a real phenomenon but few people deny that it is a real phenomenon.

[coracle]

“The Great Wealth Robbery” comes in many forms. One we call Obamacare, where “Health” is redistributed from people who pay for it and don’t get it to people that get it and don’t pay for it. But everybody can keep their own Doctor!

[TKshreve]

“The Great Wealth Robbery” comes in many forms. One we call Obamacare, where “Health” is redistributed from people who pay for it and don’t get it to people that get it and don’t pay for it. But everybody can keep their own Doctor!

Yes, let's go back to the former structure where people w/out healthcare simply went to the emergency room and received care, only to shed their costs by simply not paying. Thus, passing said costs back to everyone else. And more importantly, we could expect longer wait times in the ER, for these exact aforementioned reasons.

Yup - let's go back because before gov't intervention, we could simply rely on private industry to do the right thing. Every time. Right?

Speaking of time; the time had passed for the GOP to offer into the conversation anything at all on how to fix our healthcare system. I remember them being silent and steadfast, as their corporate donors were assisting them with re-elections. So because they sat on their hands when the conversation was happening, Obamacare is what you got in return. No crying now. Eat it up, and smile while you do it.

You sound naive and uninformed.... not even close to misinformed.

[oladub]

Yes, let's go back to the former structure where people w/out healthcare simply went to the emergency room and received care, only to shed their costs by simply not paying. Thus, passing said costs back to everyone else. And more importantly, we could expect longer wait times in the ER, for these exact aforementioned reasons.

Yup - let's go back because before gov't intervention, we could simply rely on private industry to do the right thing. Every time. Right?

Speaking of time; the time had passed for the GOP to offer into the conversation anything at all on how to fix our healthcare system. I remember them being silent and steadfast, as their corporate donors were assisting them with re-elections. So because they sat on their hands when the conversation was happening, Obamacare is what you got in return. No crying now. Eat it up, and smile while you do it.

You sound naive and uninformed.... not even close to misinformed.

Speaking of corporate ties, how about Elizabeth Fowler a Vice-President at Wellpoint who played such a big roll in writing the [[un)ACA? Since healthcare isn't generally a power delegated to the federal government, such initiatives are the providence of States. The Roberts court went around the 10th. Amendment by saying it was a tax and Congress is delegated the power to tax. True enough but by that reasoning, Congress can do whatever it wishes by including a tax.

Why is it that no blue state, for all the talk, has a single payer plan? Just adopt any Canadian province's plan, change the names of the agencies and voila state health care costs are cut 40%. This works pretty well in Canada. If even Iceland, population 334,000, can run a single payer plan, surely Democratic states like CA, NY, MA, IL or CT are large enough.

CA recently explored setting up a single payer plan but unlike Canadian province plans, the lawyers, insurance companies, etc. must have been kept at the table because the tab would have doubled California's already high state income tax. My take on healthcare is that Democrats like to talk big about being for the little guy but remain attached to corporate teats.

[TKshreve]

Speaking of corporate ties, how about Elizabeth Fowler a Vice-President at Wellpoint who played such a big roll in writing the [[un)ACA? Since healthcare isn't generally a power delegated to the federal government, such initiatives are the providence of States. The Roberts court went around the 10th. Amendment by saying it was a tax and Congress is delegated the power to tax. True enough but by that reasoning, Congress can do whatever it wishes by including a tax.

Why is it that no blue state, for all the talk, has a single payer plan? Just adopt any Canadian province's plan, change the names of the agencies and voila state health care costs are cut 40%. This works pretty well in Canada. If even Iceland, population 334,000, can run a single payer plan, surely Democratic states like CA, NY, MA, IL or CT are large enough.

CA recently explored setting up a single payer plan but unlike Canadian province plans, the lawyers, insurance companies, etc. must have been kept at the table because the tab would have doubled California's already high state income tax. My take on healthcare is that Democrats like to talk big about being for the little guy but remain attached to corporate teats.

So in a nutshell:

The Dems are to blame for bringing about a change in the status quo regarding healthcare. They did this under dubious legality, and therefore they should not meddle in health care reform because of this. Furthermore, anything remotely close to a single-payer system is not viable, because if California can't manage it, then no one can [[except Iceland, Canada, and other numerous, unmentioned progressive countries). The Dems, and only the Dems per your comment, are forever beholden to their corporate donors, therefore we will never see a reliable and effective healthcare solution. Ever.

That's a lot of finger pointing by you, without any sense of a solution within your comment. No mention of the other side of the aisle, who have stymied and obfuscated every inch of the way during the conversation and implementation of healthcare reform. If you're not part of the solution, you're.......

You won't get any pushback from me regarding corporate involvement in this tired, almost defunct debate regarding healthcare reform. Meanwhile, the same issues fester. I suppose you must then be an advocate of how healthcare was formulated before the passing of the ACA? I'm just assuming though, because your viewpoint is like a brick of swiss cheese. Care to pick a side? Or should we all sit back in awe of your 20/20 hindsight and your ability to nitpick those who are trying to deal with the issue.

The ACA was not perfect. I get it. We get it. What it was, was an attempt to further the almost dead conversation through action. After giving in to GOP demands [[held hostage through necessary votes), we ended up with a pretty big piece of mangled garbage that became immediate fodder for the GOP to continue their finger wagging. I'm noticing a trend here too.

[oladub]

So in a nutshell:

The Dems are to blame for bringing about a change in the status quo regarding healthcare. They did this under dubious legality, and therefore they should not meddle in health care reform because of this. Furthermore, anything remotely close to a single-payer system is not viable, because if California can't manage it, then no one can [[except Iceland, Canada, and other numerous, unmentioned progressive countries). The Dems, and only the Dems per your comment, are forever beholden to their corporate donors, therefore we will never see a reliable and effective healthcare solution. Ever.

That's a lot of finger pointing by you, without any sense of a solution within your comment. No mention of the other side of the aisle, who have stymied and obfuscated every inch of the way during the conversation and implementation of healthcare reform. If you're not part of the solution, you're.......

You won't get any pushback from me regarding corporate involvement in this tired, almost defunct debate regarding healthcare reform. Meanwhile, the same issues fester. I suppose you must then be an advocate of how healthcare was formulated before the passing of the ACA? I'm just assuming though, because your viewpoint is like a brick of swiss cheese. Care to pick a side? Or should we all sit back in awe of your 20/20 hindsight and your ability to nitpick those who are trying to deal with the issue.

The ACA was not perfect. I get it. We get it. What it was, was an attempt to further the almost dead conversation through action. After giving in to GOP demands [[held hostage through necessary votes), we ended up with a pretty big piece of mangled garbage that became immediate fodder for the GOP to continue their finger wagging. I'm noticing a trend here too.

I respondied to your comment in post #82, "the time had passed for the GOP to offer into the conversation anything at all on how to fix our healthcare system. I remember them being silent and steadfast, as their corporate donors were assisting them with re-elections" pointing out that Republicans are not alone in being responsible for our corporate rip off medical system. I didn't start this. I was responding to your comment. So knock off the comments about me finger pointing when I was responding to your finger pointing.

I didn't say California "couldn't manage" a single payer system. I said they botched their attempt with yet more corporate involvement and wondered at the lack of single payer plans found in any deep blue state for all the happy talk. MA at least had Romneycare. In fact, I mildly supported the Canadian provinces' single payer plans and roughly suggested a way any state could do the same. My being open to state run single payer plans [[You need to reread my second paragraph in post#83.) is not a Republican position although it satisfies the Constitution.

"I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."-
Sources: Speech, "A Politics of Conscience," June 23, 2007

No, the [[un)"ACA was not perfect". It was passed being underfunded and passed with lies. Everyone could keep their own doctor and it was supposed to save the typical American family $2,500 annually in health insurance. Without more and more transfusions of tax dollars and flourishes with his executive power magic pen, The [[un)ACA would have collapsed under Obama. Wellpoint has probably done ok with it though. It is a classic example of corporatism; the collusion of big government and big corporations. That's the polite term. Again, I was suggesting that it would make more sense for any state, presumably a deep blue state, to adopt a single payer plan similar to those of any Canadian province than to keep floating what you referred to as a "not perfect" "big piece of mangled garbage" while finger pointing Republicans for its imperfections.

[TKshreve]

I respondied to your comment in post #82, "the time had passed for the GOP to offer into the conversation anything at all on how to fix our healthcare system. I remember them being silent and steadfast, as their corporate donors were assisting them with re-elections" pointing out that Republicans are not alone in being responsible for our corporate rip off medical system. I didn't start this. I was responding to your comment. So knock off the comments about me finger pointing when I was responding to your finger pointing.

I didn't say California "couldn't manage" a single payer system. I said they botched their attempt with yet more corporate involvement and wondered at the lack of single payer plans found in any deep blue state for all the happy talk. MA at least had Romneycare. In fact, I mildly supported the Canadian provinces' single payer plans and roughly suggested a way any state could do the same. My being open to state run single payer plans [[You need to reread my second paragraph in post#83.) is not a Republican position although it satisfies the Constitution.

"I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."-
Sources: Speech, "A Politics of Conscience," June 23, 2007

No, the [[un)"ACA was not perfect". It was passed being underfunded and passed with lies. Everyone could keep their own doctor and it was supposed to save the typical American family $2,500 annually in health insurance. Without more and more transfusions of tax dollars and flourishes with his executive power magic pen, The [[un)ACA would have collapsed under Obama. Wellpoint has probably done ok with it though. It is a classic example of corporatism; the collusion of big government and big corporations. That's the polite term. Again, I was suggesting that it would make more sense for any state, presumably a deep blue state, to adopt a single payer plan similar to those of any Canadian province than to keep floating what you referred to as a "not perfect" "big piece of mangled garbage" while finger pointing Republicans for its imperfections.

At the end of the day, the Republicans held the reform process hostage with misinformation, stalling, obfuscation, necessary additions and other tactics to stymie the process. They could have let the left own it and control the fate of its success and/or failure, but they did not.

[mikehamm45]

ACA had its fair share of problems, but it did many things right. One of the things that does not get much press is that it was designed to create better health outcomes for those currently in their youth. If a person between 20-40 can now visit a doctor, access to preventative services, covered annual visits and basic test screenings at little to no cost, etc... this in theory creates a healthier 62 year old. Thus utilizing fewer Medicare services.

[Jimaz]

Total duration 16 minutes: 20/20 Diane Sawyer My Reality: A Hidden America

It becomes fairly obvious that the immigrant "problem" is nothing more than a diversion. Immigrants didn't suddenly, magically acquire the motives and means to destroy the American middle class. No, only forces at the helm could have managed that gargantuan task. But their faces are never shown.

"Play no attention to that man behind the curtain." says the man behind the curtain.

[Jimaz]

Total duration 19 minutes:

Attachment 36613
Ending Inequality!? What Does Real Equality Look Like?

• The Inequality Industry

[oladub]

Total duration 16 minutes: 20/20 Diane Sawyer My Reality: A Hidden America

It becomes fairly obvious that the immigrant "problem" is nothing more than a diversion. Immigrants didn't suddenly, magically acquire the motives and means to destroy the American middle class. No, only forces at the helm could have managed that gargantuan task. But their faces are never shown.

"Play no attention to that man behind the curtain." says the man behind the curtain.

I did watch the Diane Sawyer link. It contained no reference to immigrants. It was pretty much a discourse on the fact that middle class Americans' living standards are in decline; they cannot afford housing, college, etc, and are not saving for retirement. I agree and also agree with you that there is are metaphoric men behind the curtain tilting the table in their own favor. It contained no mention that under Obama the 1% increased its share of the national economic pie at a faster rate than even under Bush.

One weak spot in the Sawyer article was that in the 50's we lived in 1,000 sq.' homes. Today, as the article pointed out, the average new house built is 3x that size. In that vein, our one car was simpler that our two cars today. We have electronic everything, campers show up with Dodge Rams pulling large trailers and 1.5 kids instead of a Chevy with a tent and 3 kids. In short, things today are fancier and more costly. That is our own fault. Women going to work was often liberating but drove up the prices of housing based on what banks lent based on combined incomes; a score for bankers.

Where I disagree with you is that massive immigration, legal and illegal, as well as bad trade policies disadvantaging the U.S. $350B/yr with China and $70B/yr. with Mexico, in my opinion, are policies designed by those guys behind the curtain for their own advantage. Although such trade agreements hurt our national balance of trade, they reap huge profits for the owners of import corporations. Importing Buicks from China will not generally benefit people in Detroit or Flint but are great for GM stock holders. Hiring cheaper overseas labor is very profitable for owners but not so good for U.S. UAW workers.

Expanding the domestic labor pool is also great for profits because the greater supply of labor drives down the cost of domestic labor. It is the domestic equivalent of sending work abroad. There are other beneficiaries of massive immigration including teachers, social workers, and landlords. Again, supply/demand comes into play as a larger population increases demand and prices of housing. Cheaper foreign labor does most of the roofing while demand drives up house prices. Social service and infrastructure costs associated with all the additional cheap labor are billed to the middle class. Profits are privatized while costs are socialized. What's not to like for the 1%?

I'm amazed at how well the corporatist 1% behind the curtain package immigration and their hatred of tariffs. They own the media giants and recently the billionaire owned social media has been imposing a 1984 worthy censorship to go along with one sided corporate owned news. Censorship has also been privatized. My Facebook page is riddled with public service propaganda articles like Now This. Its sort of an electronic version of loudspeakers blaring out propaganda at every North Korean street corner.

[Jimaz]

New from Bernie:
Former Wall Street Banker: Big Banks Can Crash Our Economy Again

Listen to this former Wall Street banker explain how the big banks can crash our economy again if we don't break them up.

[Jimaz]

Millionaires Group Says Unfair Tax System Undermines Democracy

Patriotic Millionaires Chairman Morris Pearl says decades of Republican efforts to make the tax system less fair could lead to a dystopian future of concentrated wealth and ineffectual democratic institutions.

• PatrioticMillionaires.org

[Jimaz]

Attachment 36924
Disney Heiress Abigail Disney Is Here To Tell You Exactly What The 1% Did With Trump's Tax Cuts

Disney heiress Abigail Disney is here to tell you exactly what the 1% did with Trump's tax cuts

[Jimaz]

Three Richest Families' Wealth Grew 6,000%

The inheritances from previous generations' ultra wealthy metastasizing for this generation.

[Jimaz]

Attachment 37324
Robert Reich: The Big Economic Switcheroo

Robert Reich explains why the growing federal debt enriches Wall St. bankers and wealthy Americans.

Spoiler alert: Instead of paying taxes, the wealthy now lend those payments to the government so they not only recover those tax payments later but also collect additional interest on their unpaid taxes!

Receiving interest on unpaid taxes is unearned wealth.

Where is the moral outrage from the right?

[Jimaz]

This one caught me off guard. I thought I was just watching another archeology video about the bronze age but suddenly it started sounding like current events.

I'll skip directly to the eerie part: Bronze Age Miniseries [[Part 3 of 3).

At 11:25, those who did not produce food directly, e.g., those who live off the labor of others [[farmers and herders), are described as the parasitical people, or what I call the parasitic saboteurs in power™.

Ayn Rand acolytes depict the roles of makers and takers swapped, because that's what parasites do. They lie. Lying is their last resort as a survival strategy because they can no longer make.

Bronze Age Miniseries

• [[Part 1 of 3)
• [[Part 2 of 3)
• [[Part 3 of 3)

[Jimaz]

Snowflakes-- The Right's War on the Individual

[Jimaz]

Total duration 21 minutes: The New Feudalism.

[Richard]

^ a guy promoting a book,I stopped watching when he said zuckerburg quite possibly changed the election results.

I do notice the ones so bothered about capitalism,are useing capitalism to sell their book.

Through out history there have been haves and have nots,even in total socialist countries,so it depends on if one wants to control their own future or have it controlled for them.

[Jimaz]

'Capitalism will always create bullshit jobs': Owen Jones meets Rutger Bregman