Thom Hartmann: What Does Socialism Mean to You?

Source:The New Democrat

One of the things if not issues with socialism is the ideological diversity of socialism. There are still Marxist or Statist Socialists who believe in the state owning the means of production for society. In simple English that means the state meaning the central government owns the economy. With the central government managing and operating the entire economy. No private sector, no capitalism, probably no property rights other than maybe one’s home or automobile.

Then there  are people who I could call Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists. Like U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders the only self-described Socialist in Congress who believe in a certain level of capitalism. But that it is heavily taxed and regulated to benefit the people and to finance a very large welfare state. If not superstate designed to provide people with the services that they need to live well. Social services like education, health care, health insurance, pension to use as examples. As well as a safety net to help people who fall through the cracks of the capitalist economic system.

Outside of maybe New York City, New England, the Northwest and the San Francisco Bay Area, for Socialists to succeed at all in America as well as the places I’ve mentioned, the more progressive social democratic route has to be the way they go politically. Because Americans like the idea of the safety net and basic regulations to protect workers and consumers. And don’t mind generally paying the taxes to support those programs, but there is a limit even in the more socialist areas of the country of what we want government at any level trying to do for us. And we like our freedom including economic freedom as well.

Bernie Sanders: The War On Poverty

Source:The New Democrat

Senator Sanders giving several examples of federal programs that have been created to help people in poverty pay their bills and so forth. But didn’t give any examples of how these programs have moved people from poverty and into the middle class with the skills, tools and freedom to be able to take care of themselves. Or are people struggling back fifty-years ago now seeing their kids and grandkids struggle as they are still struggling themselves today. Or are their lives collectively better today than they were then. 

Has the trillions of taxpayer dollars that have been spent on the so-called War on Poverty fifty-years later, has it created more economic freedom for people so they can take care of themselves and not need public assistance? Which is what the War on Poverty section of this blog focus’s on. How are are these programs working to move people out of poverty and off of public assistance with the freedom to take care of themselves. 

I would argue that at best the so-called War on Poverty has a mixed record. Yes it has prevented things like starvation and further homelessness that would've gone on top of the homelessness that we are dealing with today as a developed country. And yes of course those are good things. But the War on Poverty has failed to lessen poverty to the point that we see real reductions of poverty in this country. Other than in the 1990s which was a boom decade economically for America. 

LBJ Library: President Johnson's 1964 State of the Union address, 1/8/64

Source:The New Democrat

This is the speech where President Lyndon Johnson calls to continue President John Kennedy’s agenda. Putting his tax cut plan through Congress that President Kennedy badly wanted. As well as calling for the Civil Rights Act it be passed that was finally passed in the summer of 1964. As well as calling for medical insurance for the elderly and poor which became Medicare and Medicaid. As well as all sorts of new programs to help low-income Americans that became part of the so-called War on Poverty. Late 1963 and 1964 was about finishing President Kennedy’s agenda in that Congress. Because again remember Lyndon became President, because President Jack Kennedy was assassinated and LBJ was Vice President at the time. So LBJ didn’t become President under his own mandate. If he had a mandate in 63-64, it was full fill President Kennedy’s agenda.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur: The Only Group Opposing Racial Equality

Source:The New Democrat  

Not sure if America is a center-right or center-left country and not sure how Cenk Uygur gets that. But we certainly aren’t a country that goes very far right or left even though we certainly have a Far-Right and Far-Left in this country. That at times I believe has too much power, but that is really a different discussion. But we certainly are a county that believes in a high degree of both economic and personal freedom. And a big reason why I believe Jack Kennedy, Ron Reagan and Bill Clinton were so successful as presidents politically as well, because they all believed in both of those things and connected very well with average voters.

Where I agree with Cenk Uygur is that Americans believe in things like equality of opportunity. And of course some Americans will always start off life better than others because of how they were raised. But equality of opportunity and not results which is different and a topic for another blog, is about all Americans having the opportunity to be successful in America. And that starts with education growing up that all Americans have the opportunity to go to good schools. Regardless of their parents incomes and even the ability to go to college as well. And that our low-skilled workforce has the opportunity to be successful as well with educational and job training opportunities to move up and do well in life.

So maybe Cenk is right in the sense that America is a Center-Left country. But Center-Left not being as far to the left as he would like it, but more about expanding freedom to more Americans. And having more Americans with real economic power in this country so they do not need public assistance to pay their bills. But not a country that expects government to provide a lot if not most of the services that we need to do well. Just there to see that we all have those opportunities for success in life on our own.

Our Future: Heather Digby Parton: 'ObamaCare Is Up And Running. But That's Not The End Of The Story'

Source:Common Dreams- Blogger Heather Digby Parton.

Source:The New Democrat

"When Capitalism: A Love Story came out I was lucky enough to be at a screening with Michael Moore present and there was, as you might imagine, quite a bit of discussion about the Health Care Reform that was ending its way through congress since Moore was so influential in raising the public consciousness about the horrors of the system with his previous film Sicko. He was, at the time, very positive about President Obama and optimistic about the eventual outcome.

But he's been watching the law unfold with clear eyes and is unsparing about the shortcomings of the new program. In an op-ed in the NY Times he pointed some of them out including this one:

For many people, the “affordable” part of the Affordable Care Act risks being a cruel joke. The cheapest plan available to a 60-year-old couple making $65,000 a year in Hartford, Conn., will cost $11,800 in annual premiums. And their deductible will be $12,600. If both become seriously ill, they might have to pay almost $25,000 in a single year. (Pre-Obamacare, they could have bought insurance that was cheaper but much worse, potentially with unlimited out-of-pocket costs.)" 

You can read the rest of Heather Digby's article at Our Future

"In Vermont, incumbent Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin has nearly been unseated in a shocking upset. In a process unique to Vermont, projections now show the governor’s race will be decided by the state Legislature after neither Shumlin nor his Republican challenger reached the necessary threshold of 50 percent. The state Legislature remains solidly Democratic, so Shumlin will likely keep his seat. But Shumlin was not considered a vulnerable candidate before last night, and Scott Milne, his challenger, was a relative unknown. The election is seen as a possible referendum on healthcare reform after Shumlin has vowed to make Vermont the first state with a single-payer healthcare system. The state’s embattled health insurance exchange implemented under Obamacare has been down since September." 

Source:Free Speech TV- Governor Peter Shumlin (Democrat, Vermont)

From Free Speech TV

Heather Digby, who is no one's centrist or conservative, is making the case for federalism when it comes to health care and health insurance in America. She's saying that blue states should offer the health care plans that they want, including a public option and that if red states continue to decide to leave millions of their own people without affordable health care, then that's on them. And perhaps democracy will take care of that for them. 

For all of you so-called Progressives out there (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) or people who define your politics as progressive (even if you are not vert progressive) who may read this post: federalism is not about centralizing more power with the Federal Government and having less for the states, locals, and individuals. The opposite is true. 

But for you leftists (Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats) who like to see some type of public healthcare system available to all Americans, whether it be single payer or something else, federalism is the route you should be looking at. Because it could actually accomplish your goal, instead of you running to the Federal Government and holding protests and rallies at Congress and the White House and other places demanding that they pass Medicare For All single payer. Just so we clear that up.

One of the public option proposals that I’ve seen that I’m in favor of comes from perhaps the two least federalist members of Congress. From Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont and Representative Jim McDermott (Democrat, State of Washington) two of the most leftist members of Congress, that leftist hippie could possibly dream of, on his best marijuana high. 

Senator Sanders and Representative McDermott have a different Medicare For All proposal.  What they do is to say: “We’ll allow each state to set up their own Medicare plan and system that would have to meet basic federal standards. But each state would be able to run their own Medicare system and manage their health insurance system themselves coming from Medicare.” Instead of the Federal Government running the health care system for everyone in the country on their own. 

Most of the single payer proposals have been Medicare For All run completely by the Federal Government. But the Sanders-McDermott plan would be a federalist, Medicare For All, single payer plan and each state would have their own Medicare system. Which is probably the only way we’ll ever get Medicare for all. Meaning no other form of health insurance in this country private or public. We are already seeing states trying to pass something like this like in Vermont and California. 

Vermont and California (to name a couple of states) are trying to set up their own  public option plans, that I’m in favor of, that I mentioned last night, would be done with a federalist system. Meaning the states would be able to run their own Medicare public option. And this is how you get a country behind you. Instead of trying to force things down their throats, you give them choices and options and the freedom to manage their own affairs.

The New York Times: Michael Moore: 'The ObamaCare We Deserve'

Source:Michael Moore- should go back to Detroit and leave government to people who know how to govern.

Source:The New Democrat

“Today marks the beginning of health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act’s new insurance exchanges, for which two million Americans have signed up. Now that the individual mandate is officially here, let me begin with an admission: Obamacare is awful. 

That is the dirty little secret many liberals have avoided saying out loud for fear of aiding the president’s enemies, at a time when the ideal of universal health care needed all the support it could get. Unfortunately, this meant that instead of blaming companies like Novartis, which charges leukemia patients $90,000 annually for the drug Gleevec, or health insurance chief executives like Stephen Hemsley of UnitedHealth Group, who made nearly $102 million in 2009, for the sky-high price of American health care, the president’s Democratic supporters bought into the myth that it was all those people going to get free colonoscopies and chemotherapy for the fun of it.

I believe Obamacare’s rocky start – clueless planning, a lousy website, insurance companies raising rates, and the president’s telling people they could keep their coverage when, in fact, not all could – is a result of one fatal flaw: The Affordable Care Act is a pro-insurance-industry plan implemented by a president who knew in his heart that a single-payer, Medicare-for-all model was the true way to go. When right-wing critics “expose” the fact that President Obama endorsed a single-payer system before 2004, they’re actually telling the truth.

What we now call Obamacare was conceived at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and birthed in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney, then the governor. The president took Romneycare, a program designed to keep the private insurance industry intact, and just improved some of its provisions. In effect, the president was simply trying to put lipstick on the dog in the carrier on top of Mitt Romney’s car. And we knew it. 

By 2017, we will be funneling over $100 billion annually to private insurance companies. You can be sure they’ll use some of that to try to privatize Medicare. 

For many people, the “affordable” part of the Affordable Care Act risks being a cruel joke. The cheapest plan available to a 60-year-old couple making $65,000 a year in Hartford, Conn., will cost $11,800 in annual premiums. And their deductible will be $12,600. If both become seriously ill, they might have to pay almost $25,000 in a single year. (Pre-Obamacare, they could have bought insurance that was cheaper but much worse, potentially with unlimited out-of-pocket costs.)

And yet – I would be remiss if I didn’t say this – Obamacare is a godsend. My friend Donna Smith, who was forced to move into her daughter’s spare room at age 52 because health problems bankrupted her and her husband, Larry, now has cancer again. As she undergoes treatment, at least she won’t be in terror of losing coverage and becoming uninsurable. Under Obamacare, her premium has been cut in half, to $456 per month.”  

From The New York Times 

“Michael Moore marked the start of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate Wednesday with a blistering op-ed in The New York Times in which he admits something he says “many liberals” have been too scared to say out loud before now: “Obamacare is awful.”..

Source:Secular Talk- Michael Moore is the perfect example of a filmmaker, who should just stick with fiction and making films. Because he's not good with reality.

From Secular Talk

"Jared Bernstein says on CNBC that Obamacare is not a jobs program (March 8, 2013)" 

Source:GOP War Room- former Obama White House adviser Jared Bernstein, on CNBC. But for why, I don't know.

From GOP War Room

It is easy for Michael Moore living in Los Angeles or Michigan and never working for the Federal Government at least in Washington, to say what the Obama Administration should’ve tried to pass as it relates to health care reform in 2009-10. But as Progressive economist Jared Bernstein said who worked for Vice President Joe Biden during this period, who knows quite a bit about Congress and the Federal Government in general, there were never the votes in Congress for Medicare For All.

There were never the votes even in a Democratic Congress with large majorities in both the House and Senate, for a single-payer, Medicare for all program nationalizing the health insurance industry and eliminating the private insurance system. And telling Americans who tend not to like being told by government what they can do with their own money, that they have to take Medicare and have no choice in where they get their health insurance.

And if you are wondering why the votes were never there for single payer, I just explained why. You think the Affordable Care Act is now unpopular, pass single payer and take away Americans ability to choose their own health insurance. And we are looking at a total Republican Congress right now and not just a Republican House and perhaps a Republican president as well with single payer being repealed and we are back to square one on health care reform.

Single payer never had the votes and anyone who disagrees doesn’t know much about the U.S. Congress. Or Americans in general when it comes to their politics and spends most of their time in the Northeast or Northwest or California living in their socialist utopia’s. And not talking to the rest of the country. But the public option, had a real shot and it did pass both chambers of Congress in late 2009. But then got stripped away from the final bill by the Democratic Senate. Because some Democratic Senators perhaps worried about their reelection possibilities.

The public option is exactly that and would give Americans under sixty-five the ability to pay into Medicare. And use it as their main, if not sole health insurance plan. But at the end of the day, the same people would make that choice and not government telling them what they can have. You could even set up a Medicare public option that the states would like, even Republican governors, by allowing for them to run their own Medicare plan in their state. Which is something that Democratic states are looking into right now and creating their own public options.

The difference between fans and players when it comes to government, is that players have to govern and at the end of the day get something done in a liberal democracy like America. That means working with different people and different factions who do not agree with each other on everything. And coming up with the best plan that everyone can support and agree to and say: “This is a good plan and something that we should do.” Which is a big reason why we got the 2010 Affordable Care Act. 

MLB Classics: MLB 1986-ALCS-Game 5-Boston Red Sox @ Anaheim Angels: Full Game

Source:The New Democrat

Perhaps the best MLB playoff game at least in my lifetime. And the biggest choke in my lifetime at least in MLB with the Angels blowing a 3-1 series lead with the opportunity to win the American League Championship at home with their offense, defense and pitching. And they simply didn’t close the door to a team they probably should’ve beaten at least in six games if not five. Wally Joyner not in the Angels lineup certainly hurt them in-game 5. But you got to know that they had the Red Sox beat in the ninth inning with their closer Donnie Moore who was lights out most of the 1986 season on the mound. He makes a bad pitch to Dave Henderson and that forces the game to extra innings. But Joyner would’ve been a big force in the Angels lineup in-game 6 and 7, when the Red Sox blew out the Angels at Fenway Park.