Discussion:
Jimmy Dore Show - Obamacare Rate Hikes Show Why Hillary's Down & Trump's Up
(too old to reply)
lo yeeOn
2016-11-04 23:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Obamacare Rate Hikes Show Why Hillary's Down & Trump's Up
The Jimmy Dore Show



Under Obama and Hillary, every American is and will be required to
have health insurance. You don't already have one? No problema!
There is Obamacare for you. But you have to pay a certain premium
they demand of you.

Well, Obamacare rates are going up by an average of 24% next year.
But if you don't have health insurance already, you will have to cough
up that extra 24% in premium next year or you won't have insurance and
will be in violation of the law.

You know... very very few American people get a 24% raise from year to
year, if you're one of those who survive from paycheck to paycheck
alone. Many American workers in fact don't get even a cost-of-living
raise at all these days, even though food price, housing costs, and
costs of transportation have all risen by large amounts recently.

And apparently we Americans pay twice as much as our Canadian and
Western European counterparts do for health care.

How can this be? How can America be already a great country, Hillary?

I know you have a plan to set up no-fly zones in Syria to confront
Putin and an extravagant plan to conduct US foreign policy the way
George Bush did. And obviously you think it would be OK to continue
to accrue trillions of debt every year to keep America "exceptional" -
at the expense of the welfare of the people!

So, after you break your fancy glass-ceiling with your Hollywood pals,
do you still have a plan to reshuffle the deck for the American
people? Or, did you ever have one, honestly?

Are you going to stop the Pharma and insurance companies from preying
on us the powerless people under your "we-can't-be-held-accountable"
administration? Or will you be too busy pursuing the extravagant and
callous military adventures to care?

lo yeeOn

"The self-identified liberal Center for American Progress (CAP) is
now calling for Syria to be bombed, and estimates America's current
military adventures will be tidied up by 2025, a tardy twist on
"mission accomplished". CAP, according to a report in The Nation,
has received funding from war contractors Lockheed Martin and
Boeing, who make the bombers that CAP wants to rain hellfire on
Syria." Dennis Kucinich

Why Is the Foreign Policy Establishment Spoiling for More War? Look at
Their Donors.
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-is-the-foreign-policy-establishment-spoiling-for-more-war-look-at-their-donors/

War is first and foremost a profitable racket.
By Dennis Kucinich October 25, 2016

Washington, DC, may be the only place in the world where people openly
flaunt their pseudo-intellectuality by banding together, declaring
themselves "think tanks", and raising money from external interests,
including foreign governments, to compile reports that advance
policies inimical to the real-life concerns of the American people.

As a former member of the House of Representatives, I remember 16
years of congressional hearings where pedigreed experts came to
advocate wars in testimony based on circular, rococo thinking devoid
of depth, reality, and truth. I remember other hearings where the
Pentagon was unable to reconcile over $1 trillion in accounts, lost
track of $12 billion in cash sent to Iraq, and rigged a
missile-defense test so that an interceptor could easily home in on a
target. War is first and foremost a profitable racket.

How else to explain that in the past 15 years this city's so called
bipartisan foreign policy elite has promoted wars in Iraq and Libya,
and interventions in Syria and Yemen, which have opened Pandora's box
to a trusting world, to the tune of trillions of dollars, a windfall
for military contractors. DC's think "tanks" should rightly be
included in the taxonomy of armored war vehicles and not as gathering
places for refugees from academia.

According to the front page of this past Friday's Washington Post, the
bipartisan foreign-policy elite recommends the next president show
less restraint than President Obama. Acting at the urging of "liberal"
hawks brandishing humanitarian intervention, read war, the Obama
administration attacked Libya along with allied powers working through
NATO.

The think tankers fell in line with the Iraq invasion. Not being in
the tank, I did my own analysis of the call for war in October of
2002, based on readily accessible information, and easily concluded
that there was no justification for war. I distributed it widely in
Congress and led 125 Democrats in voting against the Iraq war
resolution. There was no money to be made from a conclusion that war
was uncalled for, so, against millions protesting in the United States
and worldwide, our government launched into an abyss, with a lot of
armchair generals waving combat pennants. The marching band and
chowder society of DC think tanks learned nothing from the Iraq and
Libya experience.

The only winners were arms dealers, oil companies, and jihadists.
Immediately after the fall of Libya, the black flag of Al Qaeda was
raised over a municipal building in Benghazi, Gadhafi's murder was
soon to follow, with Secretary Clinton quipping with a laugh, "We
came, we saw, he died". President Obama apparently learned from this
misadventure, but not the Washington policy establishment, which is
spoiling for more war.

The self-identified liberal Center for American Progress (CAP) is now
calling for Syria to be bombed, and estimates America's current
military adventures will be tidied up by 2025, a tardy twist on
"mission accomplished". CAP, according to a report in The Nation, has
received funding from war contractors Lockheed Martin and Boeing, who
make the bombers that CAP wants to rain hellfire on Syria.

The Brookings Institute has taken tens of millions from foreign
governments, notably Qatar, a key player in the military campaign to
oust Assad. Retired four-star Marine general John Allen is now a
Brookings senior fellow. Charles Lister is a senior fellow at the
Middle East Institute, which has received funding from Saudi Arabia,
the major financial force providing billions in arms to upend Assad
and install a Sunni caliphate stretching across Iraq and Syria.
Foreign-government money is driving our foreign policy.

As the drumbeat for an expanded war gets louder, Allen and Lister
jointly signed an op-ed in the Sunday Washington Post, calling for an
attack on Syria. The Brookings Institute, in a report to Congress,
admitted it received $250,000 from the US Central Command, Centcom,
where General Allen shared leadership duties with General David
Petraeus. Pentagon money to think tanks that endorse war? This is
academic integrity, DC-style.

And why is Central Command, as well as the Food and Drug
Administration, the US Department of transportation, and the US
Department of Health and Human Services giving money to Brookings?

Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, who famously told Colin
Powell, "What's the point of having this superb military you're always
talking about if we can't use it", predictably says of this current
moment, "We do think there needs to be more American action." A
former Bush administration top adviser is also calling for the United
States to launch a cruise missile attack on Syria.

The American people are fed up with war, but a concerted effort is
being made through fearmongering, propaganda, and lies to prepare our
country for a dangerous confrontation, with Russia in Syria.

The demonization of Russia is a calculated plan to resurrect a raison
d'etre for stone-cold warriors trying to escape from the dustbin of
history by evoking the specter of Russian world domination.

It's infectious. Earlier this year the BBC broadcast a fictional show
that contemplated WWIII, beginning with a Russian invasion of Latvia
(where 26 percent of the population is ethnic Russian and 34 percent
of Latvians speak Russian at home).

The imaginary WWIII scenario conjures Russia's targeting London for a
nuclear strike. No wonder that by the summer of 2016 a poll showed
two-thirds of UK citizens approved the new British PM's launching a
nuclear strike in retaliation. So much for learning the lessons
detailed in the Chilcot report.

As this year's presidential election comes to a conclusion, the
Washington ideologues are regurgitating the same bipartisan consensus
that has kept America at war since 9/11 and made the world a decidedly
more dangerous place.

The DC think tanks provide cover for the political establishment, a
political safety net, with a fictive analytical framework providing a
moral rationale for intervention, capitol casuistry. I'm fed up with
the DC policy elite who cash in on war while presenting themselves as
experts, at the cost of other people's lives, our national fortune,
and the sacred honor of our country.

Any report advocating war that comes from any alleged think tank ought
to be accompanied by a list of the think tank's sponsors and donors
and a statement of the lobbying connections of the report's authors.

It is our patriotic duty to expose why the DC foreign-policy
establishment and its sponsors have not learned from their failures
and instead are repeating them, with the acquiescence of the political
class and sleepwalkers with press passes.

It is also time for a new peace movement in America, one that includes
progressives and libertarians alike, both in and out of Congress, to
organize on campuses, in cities, and towns across America, to serve as
an effective counterbalance to the Demuplican war party, its think
tanks, and its media cheerleaders. The work begins now, not after the
Inauguration. We must not accept war as inevitable, and those leaders
who would lead us in that direction, whether in Congress or the White
House, must face visible opposition.

Comments:

Cara Marianna says: October 26, 2016 at 1:03 pm

Thank you for this excellent commentary. Anyone writing for The Nation
who is guilty of sugarcoating Hillary Clinton should read this and
feel ashamed. Qatar and Saudi Arabia have donated millions to the
Clinton Foundation - paying for influence, however much democrats want
to pretend otherwise. Disgusting.

Robert Andrews says: October 26, 2016 at 11:25 am

I want to lay out two points. First, being an Ohioan, I have always
liked Dennis Kucinich and have followed his work, starting way back
when he was mayor of Cleveland. A politician with a spine who fights
for the greater good is always refreshing to see. You wrote a great
article Dennis.

The second point I wanted to lay out is how some people have commented
on how building a military is good for the economy. When an economy is
in a depression, the government needs to step in and generate
jobs. Generally, governments choose either infrastructure or military
to generate jobs. After the great depression, FDR was building massive
amounts of infrastructure, while the Nazis were focusing in on the
military. How unfortunate it is for us to be the leader on the planet
with building military. Waste not, want not.

Jim Boydston says: October 26, 2016 at 11:16 am

The emphasis of this article is absolutely correct. Kucinich is one of
the few antiestablishment politicians to have served in recent
history.

The only point left out of this, in my opinion, is that the best
avenue to accomplishment is to virulently oppose the duopoly; we need
to deny votes to both the Republicans and Democrats. We need to be
intolerant of "politics as usual," and demand integrity and true
accountability from our elected leaders. This is the only way we can
peacefully get our government back.

Joshua Spaulding says: October 28, 2016 at 10:16 pm

The problem with our politics is the Partisan Primary system.

As Lessig quotes, Boss Tweed's famous line "I don't care who does the
electing, so long as I get to do the nominating."

Our nomination process is rigged toward people who have a lot of money
or who (like Trump) can gain coverage by exploiting the media by
exchanging celebrity status for ad revenue

Or like the DNC which has used a number of dirty tricks from smear
campaigns to denying voter registries to limiting debates to control
opposition airtime (a tactic that would have beat Obama if used in
2008).

The best way to fix it is change the way we elect presidents: Many
countries and several states have a Top-2 runoff system where primary
election is a general election between all candidates and the second
election is a runoff between the two highest-voted in the first round.

This way, political parties and their associated press outlets hold
little power over who gets nominated. There's no spoilers in the
runoff election - it's just a head to head match.

It gets even better if you can vote for as many candidates as you
approve of during the primary. This way the two candidates that make
it to the general election are not the public's least favorites, but
their most favorites.
TT
2016-11-05 00:34:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by lo yeeOn
Under Obama and Hillary, every American is and will be required to
have health insurance. You don't already have one? No problema!
There is Obamacare for you. But you have to pay a certain premium
they demand of you.
Well, Obamacare rates are going up by an average of 24% next year.
This is misleading. Rises are compensated by subsidies and tax credits.

"85% of people with Obamacare policies are getting government subsidies
and tax credits that make the premiums more affordable."

So that means only the rich pay...
Besides, aren't many covered by their employee.
--
"He did touch my vagina through my underwear"
Loading...