Jared Bernstein: The Supreme Court & ObamaCare: Somehow Commonsense Prevailed

Source:On The Economy-

Source:The New Democrat

Jared Bernstein, progressive economist from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, has a very good pice about the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act today. He talks about Chief Justice John Roberts and why he ruled in favor of Burwell, in King V Burwell. U.S. Secretary Sylvia Burwell, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Burwell, being the Obama Administration in King V Burwell. Bernstein, argues that Chief Justice John Roberts and the other Justices who ruled in favor, 6-3 decision by the way, ruled in favor of the ACA and the subsidies, based on Congressional intent.

Chief Justice Roberts, ruled that when Congress passed the ACA in 2010, it was based on three parts.

Better rules and regulations for how private health insurance is given in America. Including protections for patients, so they don’t lose their health insurance simply, because they actually need to use it. Or have a pre-existing condition. Just a couple of examples.

The individual mandate. So everyone is in the system and is covered and paying for their costs of their health care. And not passing their costs onto others. And making health insurance more expensive for everyone involved.

And the last one and perhaps the most important, because it goes to expanding health insurance and health care in America. The tax credits for lower middle-income working class Americans. People who aren’t technically poor and who are working, but can’t afford private health insurance and make too much money to qualify for Medicaid.

The Chief Justice, arguing that Congress didn’t intend to leave the tax credits up to the states that have a health care exchange, or have the Feds handle it. He said that under the ACA, the Feds can give out tax credits to people who don’t live in state with a health insurance exchange. Chief Justice Roberts, wasn’t saying he supports the law, but was simply ruling on the intent of the law and how it was written. And the ACA, clearly tries to expand health insurance in America. Which is what the tax credits are about and why the Feds fund them.

The Huffington Post: David Woolner: 'Seeking The Four Freedoms is as Important Today as it Was 74 Years Ago'

Source:The Huffington Post- in Chicago, Illinois, to cover Hillary Clinton's presidential announcement.

Source:The New Democrat

"Hillary Clinton's decision to hold the first major public rally of her campaign at Four Freedoms Park in New York City reminds us not only of the many challenges the United States has faced in the past, but also the many challenges we face today as we seek to build a better future for ourselves and for our children. 

Hillary Clinton's decision to hold the first major public rally of her campaign at Four Freedoms Park in New York City reminds us not only of the many challenges the United States has faced in the past, but also the many challenges we face today as we seek to build a better future for ourselves and for our children.

It was on January 6, 1941, in one of the darkest moments of the Second World War, after Hitler had announced his decision to establish a "new order" in occupied Europe, that Franklin Roosevelt took to the world's airways to propose a different idea -- a "moral order," based not on "the tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb," but on four fundamental human freedoms: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear." 

From The Huffington Post 

"Hillary's official campaign launch at Four Freedoms Park on Roosevelt Island, New York City. She lays out her vision for the country, inspired by the stories she’s heard from everyday Americans." 

Source:Hillary Clinton- announcing his 2016 presidential campaign.

From Hillary Clinton

If today’s so-called Progressives, (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) believe that Hillary Clinton is going to run for President as the female Bernie Sanders and the other self-described Democratic Socialist, or even as an, to quote the heavy metal band Judas Priest: (which I’m not a fan of and especially heavy metal) they have another thing coming. 

Hillary, will speak to Democratic economic concerns and the broader economic concerns of the country and even offer policies to address those concerns. But don’t expect some expansion of the New Deal or a Swedish welfare state. Other than new infrastructure investment, job training for displaced, unemployed and low-skilled, low-income workers.

Center-Left Democrats, which is Hillary Clinton is one, should be all about freedom and pushing for it and that includes economic freedom. But they need to be more clever and go even further and put more thought into how we accomplish it. Instead of being about individual rights and trying to out socialist Socialists and what government can do for people and how government can take care of people, they should be about individual rights. And what government can do for people who are struggling to move ahead, or even keep current pace, to be able to move forward on their own and achieve economic freedom for themselves by empowering them to improve their own skills. And encouraging more economic, especially small business development. Even for people who are current unemployed or underemployed.

Democrats, could expand economic freedom, by first getting elected and getting reelected. But to do that, by talking to Americans who are struggling regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender, that they have a plan to help them get ahead: 

Improve their skills through further education and job training, including college. 

Infrastructure investment for underserved communities. 

Small business expansion and even cooperatives for workers who are struggling to move ahead and give them the opportunity to become successful small business owners. 

But if Democrats talk about how big government can take care of you, if we just give them more money and not have to do things for ourselves, it will be 1972 George McGovern again. Because Americans, are still a people that like to move ahead, live in freedom and be able to take care of themselves.

The Alfred Hitchcock Hour: Captive Audience (1962)

Source:Alfred Hitchcock TV Series- left to right: Arnold Moss & Ed Nelson.

Source:The New Democrat

The Captive Audience, is about a man Warren Barrow, played by James Mason, who is a mystery writer, who at the very least wants his publisher to believe that he’s going to kill his girlfriend’s husband and then later his girlfriend, Janet West, played by Angie Dickinson. And sends his publisher, Victor Hartman, played by Arnold Moss, what today would be called a cassette book. Barrow, has written a book on tape about the murders that he wants his publisher to believe that he’s committed. Barrow, at the very least, is unstable, after losing his wife in a car accident and suffering brain injuries that he’s never recovered from.

Victor Hartman, brings in one of his other writers, Tom Keller, played by Ed Nelson, to listen to Barrow’s self-confession tapes, to see what Keller thinks of the tapes. Hartman and Keller, are trying to figure out whether Barrow has just completed his latest murder mystery, or is he serious about murdering these two people. His girlfriend and her husband. They decide that Barrow is serious about these murders and even talk to him about his book. And give him some constructive criticism about his book. Barrow, being unstable, doesn’t take the criticism well and freaks out about it. And takes it as if Hartman and Keller simply don’t understand the book.

Angie Dickinson, is hardly an angel on this show. Just looks like one, but her character Janet West, is married to a wealthy man whose old enough to be her father and she’s not in love with him. She uses men to get what she wants and uses Barrow as well and doesn’t love him either. And this is all part of why Barrow is at the very least considering murdering her. He’s very unstable and doesn’t handle rejection and being used very well. They do a very good job with this episode of not making it clear whether Barrow actually murders his girlfriend, or is this simply part of his book. He’s writing a murder mystery that actually doesn’t happen in real-life. And it's one of the better murder mysteries that I at least, have ever seen.

The Alfred Hitchcock Hour: Murder Case (1962)

Source:Alfred Hitchcock TV Series- Gena Rowlands & John Cassavetes.

Source:The New Democrat

This is one of the better episodes of the Alfred Hitchcock Hour, simply because of the people in it. You have two up incoming actors Diana Justin, played by Hollywood Goddess Gena Rowlands and Lee Griffin, played by John Cassavetes, who were once a couple themselves, who meet again on set in London for a play they’re in. They discover that they’re still hot for each other and want to get back together. The problem is, Diana is married to Charles Justin, played by Murray Matheson. Charles, is a very wealthy jewelry dealer, who is also old enough to be Diana’s father. To put it mildly, Diana is not with Charles because she loves him. But that is fine with Charles, as long as she makes him feel good.

This new couple, sets out to murder Diana’s husband. They fail once with the breaks in Charles’s car and try it again. Another thing I like about this show, is Charles is not rich, because he’s stupid, or dense. He knows that Diana and Lee are back together and might even try something dangerous. Which is why he sends his wife on vacation to get her away from her boyfriend. Diana, figures out that Charles is on to her, but Charles still wants her. And if you’re familiar with Gena Rowlands, you can easily see why. Doesn’t take a genius, or even someone with average intelligence to figure it out. And Charles, is not going to give up his goddess wife without a clean fight.

Murder Case, despite its simplistic and dull as a brand new pencil title, is one of the better episodes in the Alfred Hitchcock Hour series. It has a great cast and a great plot. Normally in shows like this when the older wealthy husband figures out that his young gorgeous sexy wife, is having an affair with a young man, he dumps his wife as soon as he can. He hires detectives, he gets all the evidence that he needs to get a clean divorce. So he doesn’t have to pay his cheating wife anything. But Charlie, fights for his wife and knows exactly what is going on all the way up to the end. And is just one example of why this is such a great show.

Sam Seder: 'The Rise of the New Left With Cliff Schecter'

Source:The Majority Report- talking about the New-Left in America.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Cliff Schecter joined us last Friday to discuss how the Bill De Blasio wins means a resurgence of an economically progressive left, why we are leaving the age of Reagan and Clinton behind, why younger voters are so economically left wing and how Clinton and Obama governed from the right...

From The Majority Report

I actually agree with a lot of what Sam Seder and Cliff Schecter and are saying here. Which might be the first and last times I ever say that. But they’re also being overly optimistic. The Millennial Generation, is the largest generation that we’ve ever had. And they’re still very young and even if they have the largest support of socialism than any generation that we’ve seen since the 1930s, (or whatever) that doesn’t mean this is a socialist generation.

The Millennial’s are made of what I call Paul Conservative Libertarians, (named for Ron and his son Rand Paul) and then you have Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialists. And then you have what I at least call a classical liberal wing of this generation, people who aren’t anti-government, but don’t want big government running their lives for them. Which is why they support things like same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, big believers in privacy and personal freedom in general. But they also don’t want big government in their wallets and trying to manage their economic affairs either.

Millennial’s, whether they say it or not, like private enterprise and capitalism in general. A lot of them are small business managers and owners. The ones, who’ve actually been able to find jobs. And don’t believe their business should have to pay a lot in taxes. But they believe government needs to do certain things for us like education, infrastructure, environmental protection, regulating predators, a safety net for people who need it. But they don’t want that Bernie Sanders socialist superstate that’s going to tax a lot of our money away from us to take care of us. And they don’t want big government in our personal affairs either.

The presidential candidate next year that can speak to young people especially Millennial’s, who says that government doesn’t have all the answers and shouldn’t try to do everything for everybody but can be a force for good by empowering people to take control over their own lives, will win this generation and probably win Independents in general as well. Who also believe in a limited government that does what we all need it to do in the areas of security, economic investment, to use as examples. 

You win these two huge groups and Millennial’s tend to be independent as well, that candidate will be the next President of the United States. I could be wrong about this, but I’m willing to bet it with anyone.

Black Rose Books: Dimities Roussopoulos- The New Left: Legacy & Continuity

Source:Black Rose Books-

Source:The New Democrat

I think I agree with Dimitrios Roussopoulos on just about everything here. Pre-1960 or so, the Left in America, as least the Center-Left, was made up for Liberals and Progressives, who believed in things like civil liberties, personal freedom and economic freedom and that government should help people in need help themselves so they can live in freedom, as well as help the middle class be able to move up. But they also believed in a strong defense and if anything perhaps more anti-communist than the Right in America. Especially if you look at Liberal Democrats like John Kennedy. And believed in being strong at home both economically and militarily, so other countries like Russia, wouldn’t want to attack you.

But then in the 1960s, you have the Baby Boomers coming of age. Who were much more radical and revolutionary with their own politics. And didn’t think that status-quo or establishment America was good enough for them. And you have the Vietnam War and all of these new leftist radical kids in school, who didn’t like the establishment. If anything hated the establishment and wanted to see it overthrown. And you have all of these movements on campus trying to overthrow the establishment and protest the issues of the day. The Vietnam War, poverty in America, the wealth gap, gays coming out of the closet and starting to want their freedom as Americans.

The New Left, then was a radical Left and even Far-Left and still is today. And I don’t mean that as a criticism, but when you’re talking about Democratic Socialists and even Communists in a country like America, you’re talking about people who are pretty radical. And that is what the New-Left was made up of back then and are still represented by the Tom Hayden’s, Bill Ayers’s, Chris Hedges’s, Thom Hartmann’s and others. And publications like Salon, The Nation, AlterNet, TruthDig, TruthOut and many others today on the New-Left in America. That might be Center-Left and Sweden and perhaps a few other countries, but Far-Left in America.
Source:Black Rose Books

WUSA-TV: Rick Snider- Will United Stadium Deal Lure Redskins to RFK?

Source:WUSA-TV-

Source:The New Democrat

The Redskins, are coming back home, so to speak. Back to Washington and back downtown in the nation’s capital where they belong. Getting United out of RFK Stadium with the new United stadium deal, is one of the keys to doing that. So they can either renovate RFK, or knock it down and build a new one. The City, wants the Redskins back, even if they are still called the Redskins, or not. The name, is simply about Far-Left political correctness politics, more than anything else. The Redskins, want to come home. Dan Snyder, wants the Redskins home. The City Government, wants the Redskins home. Now, it’s just a matter in how that happens. New RFK, or renovate the old one.

Me personally, I would like to see the Redskins come back to RFK. And knock the two upper decks, but leave in the lower bowl. And build the new stadium with the skyboxes and everything else the stadium needs, on top of the lower bowl. So you keep in the fan atmosphere un the stadium as far as the noise, with seats moving up and down. And the fans being on top of the action. But with the skyboxes and seating capacity and every other modern feature that NFL stadiums need to be profitable. And even add a retractable roof, to make it a very attractive spot for the Super Bowl and other events at the stadium.

The Redskins are coming home. The City of Washington, had finally figured out economic development and what you need to be a financially prosperous city. And has even become a fairly safe big city of six-hundred and fifty-thousand people or so and still growing. I think the only questions are about when and how. New RFK, or renovate the old one and when. 2020, or after that, because the Redskins want to come home. Their fans, certainly want them back in the city. And I think Washington wants their NFL team back in the city as well. And negotiating the final stadium deal in the city is the last hurdle to get over to make it happen.