Author Archives: JamisonJose503

Obamacare Is One of the Best Social Welfare Programs Ever Passed

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Jeff Stein reports on Democratic plans to fight any attempt to repeal Obamacare:

“We are united in our opposition to these Republican attempts to Make America Sick Again,” Schumer said, cracking a slight smile at the inversion of Donald Trump’s campaign slogan. The line suggests that Schumer wants to reframe the fight over Obamacare into one about the broader GOP health care agenda, which includes proposals to change Medicaid andMedicare.

Since the health care law passed in 2009, Schumer and other Democrats in Congress have learned that defending it can be a political loser. Republicans stayed unified in their opposition, and public opinion stayed on their side. But in their final push to save it, Democrats are moving the battle to new turf, fighting over Americans’ shared frustration with the inadequacies of the country’s health care system, not the law itself.

This is sadly true. Democrats have never been willing to defend Obamacare, and they still aren’t. It’s crazy. Obamacare isn’t perfect. Nothing this side of the pearly gates is. But if politicians limited themselves to defending programs with no problems, we’d never hear from them again.1

But considering where we started—with a Rube Goldberg medical system dominated by well-heeled special interests and all but indifferent to the near-poor—Obamacare is almost miraculously close to perfect. I know that Republicans have convinced everyone otherwise, but take a look at the results of this Kaiser tracking poll from November. Virtually every single aspect of Obamacare is not just popular, but very popular:

Even Republicans like practically everything about Obamacare, including the taxes to pay for it. People like the subsidies; they like the exchanges; they like the out-of-pocket caps; they like the Medicaid expansion; they like the pre-existing conditions ban; and they like taxing the rich to fund it all. The only unpopular part of the whole law is the individual mandate.

What’s more, Obamacare has been a huge success. It’s provided health coverage to 20 million people. It’s massively reduced the cost of health coverage for low-income families. It’s slashed the number of uninsured by half among blacks and whites and by a quarter among Hispanics. It’s allowed people with expensive chronic illnesses to get treatment. It will help keep overall health costs down in the future. It’s had no negative impact on the employer health care system. And it’s done all this without raising the deficit. In fact, it’s cut the deficit.

And yet, Democrats are still afraid to defend it loudly and proudly. This just boggles me. Sure, Obamacare has some problems. Certain regions don’t have enough competition. Deductibles are high if you buy a bronze plan. And a small part of the population has been hit with large premium increases.

But this is something like 10 percent of Obamacare. The other 90 percent is purely positive. Why are so many liberals unwilling to say so? Why aren’t they willing to defend Obamacare with the same fervor they defend other imperfect programs, like Medicare or the ADA or the Clean Air Act or Social Security? Obamacare is at least as good as any of them. But no one will ever believe it if Republicans are attacking it relentlessly while Democrats mutter resentfully that there’s no public option and politicians hide in their offices in the hope that nobody will blame them if their premiums have gone up.

If Democrats aren’t willing to defend Obamacare, it’s hardly a surprise that Republicans feel free to go after it without consequence. Maybe they should start.

1Yes, I know, that might not be a bad thing.

Link:  

Obamacare Is One of the Best Social Welfare Programs Ever Passed

Posted in Cyber, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obamacare Is One of the Best Social Welfare Programs Ever Passed

A Brief History of Donald Trump’s 9/11 Controversies

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Sunday, Americans will commemorate the 15th anniversary of the September 11 attacks. In the years since this national tragedy, Donald Trump has landed in a handful of 9/11-related controversies. Here’s a look back:

He falsely said “thousands and thousands” of Muslims in Jersey City cheered the destruction of the Twin Towers.

“I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down,” Trump claimed at a rally last November, and refused to back down after the comments sparked a firestorm. “There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos the next day. Trump also insisted, falsely, that it was “well covered at the time.”

The claim was actually a conspiracy theory that had no evidence or reports to back it up. Trump himself had made no mention of celebration at the time. Media outlets that fact-checked the claim, including the Washington Post and the Newark Star-Ledger, could find only isolated, unverified reports that small celebrations might have taken place. “There is no media record. There is no police record. There is nothing,” Jersey City’s mayor, Steven Fulop, told the Star-Ledger.

He claimed he saw people jumping from the World Trade Center from his Midtown apartment.

“I witnessed it, I watched that,” Trump said at a rally in Columbus, Ohio, last November. “I have a view, a view in my apartment that was specifically aimed at the World Trade Center.”

As CNN pointed out, Trump’s apartment in Trump Tower is located more than four miles from the World Trade Center, making this claim dubious at best.

He got $150,000 in economic recovery aid for small businesses for his building at 40 Wall Street.

Trump was one of many of the big names who got recovery funds after the attack from a New York state agency called the Empire State Development Corporation. Trump’s building fit the criteria for aid: it was south of Manhattan’s 14th Street, had suffered economic harm from the attacks, and employed fewer than 500 people. But the last condition was controversial. The New York Daily News found in 2006 that the program had “ignored the federal definition of a small business and adopted a much looser standard. The ESDC used employee counts…to determine whether applicants were small businesses. Federal law requires that the size category of the types of businesses most common in lower Manhattan—finance, insurance, real estate and law firms—be determined based on annual revenue.”

Local politicians fumed about the aid money to the Daily News earlier this year, and Rep. Jarrod Nadler (D-N.Y.), whose district includes the World Trade Center, issued an open letter demanding that Trump return the money. “On behalf of the countless New York citizens and businesses who worked so hard to heal after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, I have a simple question: When do you plan on returning the taxpayer money that was designated to ease the suffering of our city’s small business owners?” Nadler wrote in May.

He did give an eloquent defense of New York’s response to 9/11.

When Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) attacked what he called “New York values” during a Republican debate in January, Trump responded with a defense of the city’s spirit in recovering and rebuilding after the World Trade Center collapsed. “We rebuilt downtown Manhattan, and everybody in the world watched,” Trump said to applause, “and everybody in the world loved New York and loved New Yorkers.”

On the other hand…

Trump ignored pleas to help 9/11 first responders pass the reauthorization of the James Zadroga Act, the law that set up a health care fund for the police, firefighters, and other rescue workers. Several other candidates had backed the reauthorization, but Trump remained silent despite receiving “multiple letters and calls requesting his support” from Citizens for the Extension of the James Zadroga Act, according to ABC. “Talk is cheap,” Rich Alles, one of the group’s board members, told ABC. “I’m mortified that he can stand in front of the nation…and wrap himself in the flag.”

But, as Mother Jones‘ David Corn reported in April, Trump somehow escaped widespread criticism for dodging the issue, even during the New York primary.

View the original here: 

A Brief History of Donald Trump’s 9/11 Controversies

Posted in Casio, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Brief History of Donald Trump’s 9/11 Controversies

Big Banks Lose a Battle

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In order to close a $70 billion gap in highway funding, Congress plans to raid the Federal Reserve and sell some oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Yesterday I called these moves “ill considered,” but David Dayen writes that there’s at least one pay-for in the transportation bill that’s also pretty good public policy.

Ever since its founding, the Fed has paid banks a 6 percent annual dividend on the stock they buy to become members of the Federal Reserve system. In 1913 this was designed to entice banks to join the newfangled scheme. Today, it’s just an annual gift. So Senate drafters decided to cut the dividend to 1.5 percent and use the rest of the money for the transportation bill. Banks went ballistic, but in the end they were unable to keep their full handout:

When the final bill was released Tuesday, the dividend reduction remained in there, albeit with some modifications.

The reduction now applies only to banks with over $10 billion in assets, compared to the $1 billion threshold in the original bill. Instead of cutting the dividend to 1.5 percent, the rate will now match the interest rate of the highest-yield 10-year Treasury note at the point that the dividend is due. For context, the high yield at the last Treasury auction was 2.304 percent.

It’s a small thing, but it’s always nice to see big banks lose a battle now and again. It keeps us all on our toes.

View article: 

Big Banks Lose a Battle

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Big Banks Lose a Battle