Why you SHOULDN'T caucus for Trump

 PETER NAVARRO NEGOTIATED SUCH A POOR TRADE DEAL WITH  CHINA THAT THEY'RE STILL LAUGHING ABOUT IT!

Why you SHOULDN'T caucus for Trump:

- Trump started a trade war, famers couldn't sell their crops and had to be bailed out by the government, increasing the national debt by TRILLIONS -- some of which we had to borrow from China

- Trump's trade deal resulted in America losing $200 billion to China and not one single manufacturing job was returned to America from Mexico

- Trump's Tax cuts were exclusively for business and billionaires and paid for by the middle class

- Trump's "secure border" was a stunt, all smoke and mirrors and paid for by robbing school funds from the children of American military

- The only economic boom under Trump was the sound of global economic collapse hitting bottom, followed by record unemployment, Americans had to stand in line to buy toilet paper and eggs like Soviet proles, leading to massive inflation and high gas prices

- Trump's idea of strength was writing gushy love letters to brutal dictators.

Iowans, Trump doesn't care if you die today, those are literally his words, so long as you put him FIRST.

Thank you Jim Wright!

Social Programs and PRIVATIZATION

 

Me:

If social programs are replaced with private alternatives how will this affect our middle class and poor?

AI:

If social programs are widely replaced by private alternatives, it could negatively impact lower income and disadvantaged groups in a few key ways:

1. Access and affordability: Private companies may "cherry pick" the most profitable customers and services, while excluding or underserving those less able to pay market rates. This could significantly reduce access to key services (healthcare, education etc.) for middle and low income families.

2. Quality and accountability: The profit motive and lack of government oversight could result in quality reductions, especially for services utilized by groups without political/economic power. Government social programs aim to maintain minimum standards and accessibility.

3. Job transitions and income instability: Privatization of previously government-run programs like healthcare, pension funds etc. could be accompanied by significant job losses and skill transitions. This instability could severely impact middle and lower class families already struggling financially.

4. Higher economic inequality: Greater reliance on private pay alternatives with variable access could exacerbate inequality levels if lower income groups struggle to afford quality housing, education, healthcare etc. This may widen divides and reduce economic mobility.

In summary, ill-planned replacement of social programs with private sector alternatives risks access, sustainability and quality of critical services for the middle and lower classes. Careful policy making is required to develop solutions fair and accessible to all income levels. An unregulated privatization agenda could seriously harm socioeconomic equity.

Me:

Is the selling of Medicare Advantage Plans a clue to the “shafting” of most Americans when privatization takes over?

AI:

Yes, the issues surrounding Medicare Advantage plans do provide some cautionary insights into the potential pitfalls of excessive privatization of public services:

1. Cherry-picking and gaps in coverage: Private insurers have faced accusations of trying to enroll healthier seniors in Medicare Advantage, while sicker, costlier patients remain in traditional Medicare. This raises long-term sustainability concerns and gaps in coverage.

2. Confusing choices and predatory marketing: Seniors face an overwhelming array of complex MA plan options from private insurers, with some engaging in aggressive and occasionally predatory marketing tactics. This confusion can result in suboptimal plan selections.

3. Prioritizing profits over health outcomes: Insurers have incentives to favor policies maximizing revenues and shareholder returns. This could come at the expense of appropriate care and support for the best interest of patient health.

4. Less regulation and accountability: There is evidence of insufficient regulation in some MA plans to date, with accusations of policies optimized for profits rather than patients. This lack of accountability can harm consumers.

The Medicare Advantage experience provides a microcosm highlighting the need for privatized public services to come with strong governmental guardrails around consumer protections, transparency, equitable access, and regulatory accountability. Without these, unfettered privatization can indeed contribute to consumers getting “shafted” in pursuit of corporate profits. Policymakers should heed these lessons.

Me:

Also the movement towards investments in the stock market if Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. will be disastrous for all but the very rich.

AI:

You raise an excellent point. Relying on volatile stock market investment returns to fund critical social programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security would be extremely risky and likely disastrous for most regular Americans:

1. Market risk and losses: Stock markets can be subject to big swings, crashes and prolonged downturns eroding portfolio values. The average American has little ability to withstand losses right before retirement. This could jeopardize funding for health and living costs.

2. Benefits the wealthy: Stock market gains tend to accrue disproportionately to the already wealthy. Lower and middle income families have far less exposure and would fail to benefit commensurately from any upside, while still facing loss risks.

3. Lack of guarantees: There are no guaranteed payouts with market investments unlike current social programs. This uncertainty around healthcare, retirement and living costs would severely impact most non-wealthy Americans unable to plan finances.

4. Higher inequality: Market return variances on a larger share of social program funding would amplify income and health inequalities between average and higher net worth families over the long run.

In essence, shifting more public social program funding to equity market investments helps concentrate gains with wealthy investors, while most Americans bear the brunt of risks and uncertainties around basic living standard provisions near retirement. This violates fundamentals of equitable accessibility and protection for citizens. Policy makers should maintain current defined benefit structures or explore low-risk alternatives such as Treasury funds.

Me:

Is the reality that more conservative lawmakers prefer this change?

AI:

Yes, it is fair to say that more conservative lawmakers do tend to prefer shifting social programs towards privatization models and market-based investments:

1. Ideological preferences: Many conservative politicians favor free market solutions and limiting the size of government. Privatization and market-based investments align with small government ideology.

2. Donor priorities: Conservative lawmakers often receive significant campaign financing from corporations, Wall Street, and wealthy donors who stand to benefit tremendously from privatization of public services and assets into new private investment channels.

3. Fiscal restraint arguments: Conservatives argue shifting social programs to private models could yield taxpayer savings from reduced bureaucracy. However, evidence on actual long-term costs is mixed at best, especially once corporate profits and externalities are considered.

4. Diversifying constituency: A greater reliance on volatile market returns potentially expands the constituency with a vested interest in capital markets and skews it towards higher net worth groups that more commonly vote conservative.

In summary, privatization and marketization of social programs broadly conforms with several conservative political priorities - small government ideology, donor corporate interests looking for new revenue streams, and consolidating upper income voter support. This does present potential conflicts with equitable access for the broader population. Hence, the reality is such reforms do currently find favor primarily in conservative policy circles.

Me:

A good analogy:

Those with enough seeds can increase their harvest. Those with too little or none may suffer and starve.

AI:

This is an excellent analogy to describe the potential disparities that could arise if social programs are increasingly privatized and tied to market returns.

"Those with enough seeds can increase their harvest" refers to how the wealthy have ample capital to invest in stocks and assets that would benefit from the privatization of public services and social programs. Their existing wealth enables them to reap even higher returns.

Meanwhile, "Those with too little or none may suffer and starve" alludes to lower-income and disadvantaged groups lacking investable capital. Unlike the wealthy, they cannot take advantage of privatized systems to substantially grow their assets.

Moreover, funding cutbacks for social programs now exposed to market volatility would directly hurt the needy by reducing accessibility and increasing uncertainty regarding healthcare, retirement benefits, and other critical living provisions near the poverty line. This could severely impair socioeconomic mobility.

Overall, tying social program finances to asset returns tends to disproportionately reward existing wealth while denying the poor similar growth opportunities and financial stability. Your analogy neatly summarizes how the Harvests of the Rich could swell through such measures while the impoverished are left to starve. Policy makers would do well to heed the wisdom behind this imagery you have conveyed.

Jerry Neal

MASSACHUSETTS: It's a FELONY to keep pets outside in EXTREME WEATHER - HOT OR COLD!

 

MASSACHUSETTS: It's a FELONY to keep pets outside in EXTREME WEATHER - HOT OR COLD!

KEEP REPEATING & SHARING!

Feds demand Texas stop blocking Border Patrol agents access to border TEXAS: DEFINING INHUMANITY!

 
comment:
Don't excuse! Don't look away! "Just following orders." was the Nuremberg defense. Every person who stood there watching was afraid of what might happen to themselves if they did the right, compassionate thing for a fellow human being. Hate and fear are the tools of despots!

Feds demand Texas stop blocking Border Patrol agents access to border

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security fires off cease and desist letter to Texas after three migrants drown crossing Rio Grande near Eagle Pass

BY NEELAM BOHRA AND SNEHA DEY

JAN. 13, 2024

The Biden Administration has demanded Texas authorities stop blocking federal Border Patrol agents’ full access to part of the U.S. border with Mexico in a cease and desist letter sent to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Last Wednesday, Texas troopers took control over Eagle Pass’s 47-acre Shelby Park along the Rio Grande, denying federal Border Patrol agents entry to the park. On Friday evening, a woman and two children drowned trying to cross and two others were rescued by Mexican authorities.

The letter sent to Paxton’s office on Sunday signed by Jonathan Meyer, general counsel for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, insists that Texas’ actions have “impeded operations of border patrol,” and are in “conflict with the authority and duties of Border Patrol under federal law,” and are unconstitutional.

The state has until Wednesday to stop blocking Border Patrol’s access and remove all barriers. If the state does not comply, federal authorities will “refer the matter to the Department of Justice for appropriate action and consider all other options available to restore Border Patrol’s access to the border,” the letter said.

Paxton could not be immediately reached for comment as of Monday morning.

On Friday, Border Patrol agents received a call that a group of migrants was attempting to cross the river from Grupo Beta, a group affiliated with the Mexican government, according to the Homeland Security letter. Border Patrol contacted Texas officials and requested access to the border, and Texas refused.

Later, a rescue team from Mexico was able to rescue two individuals from the group, both with signs of hypothermia, the letter said. Three others, the woman and two children, drowned.

“Texas’s failure to provide access to the border persists even in instances of imminent danger to life and safety,” Meyer said in the letter.

In a recent press release, the Texas Military Department has disagreed with this timeline, stating that “claims of Border Patrol requesting access to save distressed migrants are inaccurate.”

The state press release says Border Patrol requested access to the park after the drownings had already occurred.

“Turns out @RepCuellar (& some media) were so eager to point finger at Texas for drowning of migrants they forgot to get the facts,” Gov. Greg Abbott said on X, formerly known as Twitter, about the deaths.

Initially, U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, had said in a written statement on Saturday that Border Patrol officers went in person to verbally notify the state of the attempted crossing after they attempted to contact the Texas Military Department, National Guard and Department of Public Safety via telephone about the distress call. Texas Military Department personnel still denied them entry.

“Texas Military Department soldiers stated they would not grant (Border Patrol) access to the migrants – even in the event of an emergency – and that they would send a soldier to investigate the situation,” Cuellar had said in the statement on X, formerly known as Twitter.

The bodies of the three migrants were recovered by Mexican authorities on Saturday morning, Cuellar said. Officials have not yet released the names or any other information on the deceased.

“This is a tragedy, and the state bears responsibility,” Cuellar, a ranking member of the House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, wrote.

U.S. Custom and Border Protection condemned the state actions in a statement to The Texas Tribune.

“We remain gravely concerned by actions that prevent the U.S. Border Patrol from performing their essential missions of arresting individuals who enter the United States unlawfully and providing humanitarian response to individuals in need,” the CBP spokesperson said on Saturday.

Starting on Wednesday night, the Texas Department of Public Safety erected concertina wire and fencing at Shelby Park to close off access to the public, said Eagle Pass Mayor Rolando Salinas earlier this week. The move from the state was against the wishes of city officials.

Some of the 2.5-mile stretch that Texas troopers have blocked off are also on federal land, Meyer said in the letter. The federal government, he said, has legal access to private land within 25 miles of the border.

Federal agents had routinely used the park to patrol the border, used a boat ramp to launch their boats and a staging area to inspect migrants who have been apprehended, according to a court filing from the U.S. Department of Justice.

“Texas’ new actions since the government’s filing demonstrate an escalation of the state’s measures to block Border Patrol’s ability to patrol or even to surveil the border and be in a position to respond to emergencies,” Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the DOJ’s solicitor general, wrote in the filing to the Supreme Court.

Eagle Pass, about 140 miles southwest of San Antonio, has been the epicenter of Abbott’s immigration enforcement efforts in the past year. Thousands of migrants have crossed the border illegally in the area, and many have been injured trying to get through the concertina wire that the state deployed on the banks of the Rio Grande.

Texas National Guard troops patrol Shelby Park at the Texas-Mexico border in Eagle Pass, on Friday. Credit:

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/13/henry-cuellar-texas-border-eagle-pass/

IOWA

 

Iowans, as you head out into the blizzard, remember that the guy Republicans want you to caucus for today will tomorrow face the beginning of his second trial for publicly and repeatedly defaming a woman he raped.

Also, remember last time republicans were in charge, you couldn't buy eggs, unemployment was at levels not seen since the Great Depression, you had to stand in line to buy a roll of toilet paper like a soviet proletarian, hospitals had to rent freezer trucks to store all the dead bodies, and the guy in the White House was telling you to put horse dewormer and lightbulbs up your butt while bragging about making women second class citizens.

What I'm saying here is: If a candidate demands you go out in a blizzard to vote for him even if you die, you should definitely not vote for that guy.

Ever.

That said, if you get nothing else from today, please enjoy watching Ron DeSantis go down in flames leaving his dreams as ravaged and empty as a Florida school library.

Jim Wright

Тrսmр Wife DIVORCES HIM in Public, Audience REACTS in HORROR

 

Bigoted Losers Try to Rewrite History, Immediately Get Owned

 

If you're still flying the Confederate flag and advocating for others to 'respect' it's 'heritage', you should really take a hard look in the mirror and reevaluate your priorities. Rick Strom breaks it down. Give us your thoughts in the comments below!

Trսmp FАІΝТЅ Durіng LІVЕ ТЕLЕVIЅІОΝ ІΝТЕRVІЕW, Меdісаl ЕМЕRGЕΝСΥ