8/15/15
Why the Nation’s Nurses are Supporting Bernie Sanders for President
Why the Nation’s Nurses are Supporting Bernie Sanders for President
"The more than 100,000 people who have jammed into arenas in Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, New Orleans, Madison, and other cities should be a wake up call for anyone still on the sidelines in the critical 2016 election campaign."
"The more than 100,000 people who have jammed into arenas in Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, New Orleans, Madison, and other cities should be a wake up call for anyone still on the sidelines in the critical 2016 election campaign."
Social Security at 80: Defending a Program Which Has Defended All of Us
Social Security at 80: Defending a Program Which Has Defended All of Us
"from the moment of Social Security's enactment onward, ideological opponents, backed by wealthy donors, railed against Social Security. But they were vastly outnumbered. Indeed, President Dwight Eisenhower, in a private letter to his brother, wrote, "There is a tiny splinter group...that believes you can [abolish Social Security.]...Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
The tiny splinter group tried to end Social Security in the 1930s and failed. They tried in the 1940's and failed. The 1950's and failed. The 1960's and again failed. So they changed their tactics. They started asserting that Social Security was a wonderful program but unaffordable and would bankrupt the country, crowding out spending for children and other important national priorities.
Though they have not been successful so far in actually cutting Social Security's cash benefits, they have stripped away an intangible benefit. As Social Security's name suggests, it is intended to provide security, peace of mind that if wages are lost, Social Security will always be there to partly replace those earnings. Eisenhower's small splinter group has effectively convinced too many Americans that Social Security is in danger of disappearing. That successful crusade to undermine confidence in the future has stripped away that peace of mind. But the reality is that it would take an act of Congress to end Social Security.
As the richest country in the world at the wealthiest moment in its history, the United States can afford a greatly expanded Social Security, while also greatly increasing spending on children, infrastructure, and other pressing needs. The issue is one of values and priorities. The choice is ours."
"from the moment of Social Security's enactment onward, ideological opponents, backed by wealthy donors, railed against Social Security. But they were vastly outnumbered. Indeed, President Dwight Eisenhower, in a private letter to his brother, wrote, "There is a tiny splinter group...that believes you can [abolish Social Security.]...Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
The tiny splinter group tried to end Social Security in the 1930s and failed. They tried in the 1940's and failed. The 1950's and failed. The 1960's and again failed. So they changed their tactics. They started asserting that Social Security was a wonderful program but unaffordable and would bankrupt the country, crowding out spending for children and other important national priorities.
Though they have not been successful so far in actually cutting Social Security's cash benefits, they have stripped away an intangible benefit. As Social Security's name suggests, it is intended to provide security, peace of mind that if wages are lost, Social Security will always be there to partly replace those earnings. Eisenhower's small splinter group has effectively convinced too many Americans that Social Security is in danger of disappearing. That successful crusade to undermine confidence in the future has stripped away that peace of mind. But the reality is that it would take an act of Congress to end Social Security.
As the richest country in the world at the wealthiest moment in its history, the United States can afford a greatly expanded Social Security, while also greatly increasing spending on children, infrastructure, and other pressing needs. The issue is one of values and priorities. The choice is ours."
Republicans' big plan for 2017: Privatizing Medicare
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/11/1410991/-Republicans-big-plan-for-2017-Privatizing-Medicare#
"according to the most recent polling on it, done last month by the Kaiser Family Foundation just 26 percent of voters support the idea of vouchers. It's universally hated. Only 31 percent of Republicans support it! And guess who votes? People who love their Medicare the way it is."
"according to the most recent polling on it, done last month by the Kaiser Family Foundation just 26 percent of voters support the idea of vouchers. It's universally hated. Only 31 percent of Republicans support it! And guess who votes? People who love their Medicare the way it is."
8/14/15
80 Years Later, Republicans Are Still Fighting Social Security
80 Years Later, Republicans Are Still Fighting Social Security
"To campaign against Social Security is to court political suicide. (It certainly didn’t help Alf Landon; he was trounced.) It therefore becomes imperative to convince voters instead that the program is unreliable. That’s the Republican strategy.
Elements of the strategy include:
Insist that the program’s $2.8 trillion trust fund isn’t real, that it consists of “only IOUs” – a description that could just as easily be applied to the Treasury bonds held by billionaires and Wall Street banks, or any other legally executed instrument of debt.
Exaggerate minor imbalances between the retirement and disability funds – funds which many experts believe should have been merged long ago – in order to convince voters that one or both of them is “running out of money,” despite its $2.8 trillion size. This gamesmanship extracts a very real human cost.)
Repeatedly describe Social Security as “going broke,” despite its massive cash flow. Exaggerate relatively minor future shortfalls, without mentioning that they could easily be fixed – and benefits expanded – if millionaires and billionaires were willing to pay into the program at the same rates as middle-class Americans.
Starve Social Security’s administrative budget, even though that budget comes out of Social Security funds and not general revenues, just as millions of baby boomers claim retirement benefits for the first time. Use any resulting delays or difficulties to claim that “government isn’t as efficient as the private sector,” despite the fact that Social Security is run much more cost-effectively than any private corporation in the same general line of business.
The Social Security Act was signed on August 14, 1935. Eighty years later, that’s a heck of a way to wish it a happy birthday.
Why do they do it? Part of the objection is clearly ideological. They don’t want to admit that there are some things that government simply does better than the private sector. That helps explain the overheated rhetoric from the Fox set. To that extent, at least, Social Security’s detractors are sincere (if wrongheaded)."
"To campaign against Social Security is to court political suicide. (It certainly didn’t help Alf Landon; he was trounced.) It therefore becomes imperative to convince voters instead that the program is unreliable. That’s the Republican strategy.
Elements of the strategy include:
Insist that the program’s $2.8 trillion trust fund isn’t real, that it consists of “only IOUs” – a description that could just as easily be applied to the Treasury bonds held by billionaires and Wall Street banks, or any other legally executed instrument of debt.
Exaggerate minor imbalances between the retirement and disability funds – funds which many experts believe should have been merged long ago – in order to convince voters that one or both of them is “running out of money,” despite its $2.8 trillion size. This gamesmanship extracts a very real human cost.)
Repeatedly describe Social Security as “going broke,” despite its massive cash flow. Exaggerate relatively minor future shortfalls, without mentioning that they could easily be fixed – and benefits expanded – if millionaires and billionaires were willing to pay into the program at the same rates as middle-class Americans.
Starve Social Security’s administrative budget, even though that budget comes out of Social Security funds and not general revenues, just as millions of baby boomers claim retirement benefits for the first time. Use any resulting delays or difficulties to claim that “government isn’t as efficient as the private sector,” despite the fact that Social Security is run much more cost-effectively than any private corporation in the same general line of business.
The Social Security Act was signed on August 14, 1935. Eighty years later, that’s a heck of a way to wish it a happy birthday.
Why do they do it? Part of the objection is clearly ideological. They don’t want to admit that there are some things that government simply does better than the private sector. That helps explain the overheated rhetoric from the Fox set. To that extent, at least, Social Security’s detractors are sincere (if wrongheaded)."
Social Security Still Strong at 80
Social Security Still Strong at 80
"Despite such a strong record, Social Security is under attack from profiteers and their political allies who claim it will not be around when people retire and is in need of drastic reform. A myth, says the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) since “Social Security is fully funded through 2033. Even if nothing is done to shore up the system, Social Security can continue to pay three-fourths of promised benefits after the trust fund runs out. Though this would be far from ideal, it’s certainly no reason to preemptively cut benefits.” A decrease in Social Security benefits would leave over half of elderly Americans in poverty, hitting African Americans, Latinos and women the hardest.
Because Social Security is such a large public sector program, with almost $3 trillion in reserves, Wall Street has long wanted to get its hands on it. Various proposals to privatize or partially privatize the program would allow investment firms to run up fees for every transaction, profiting off of retirees and making the program vulnerable to economic crashes."
"Despite such a strong record, Social Security is under attack from profiteers and their political allies who claim it will not be around when people retire and is in need of drastic reform. A myth, says the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) since “Social Security is fully funded through 2033. Even if nothing is done to shore up the system, Social Security can continue to pay three-fourths of promised benefits after the trust fund runs out. Though this would be far from ideal, it’s certainly no reason to preemptively cut benefits.” A decrease in Social Security benefits would leave over half of elderly Americans in poverty, hitting African Americans, Latinos and women the hardest.
Because Social Security is such a large public sector program, with almost $3 trillion in reserves, Wall Street has long wanted to get its hands on it. Various proposals to privatize or partially privatize the program would allow investment firms to run up fees for every transaction, profiting off of retirees and making the program vulnerable to economic crashes."
8/12/15
Game of Groans: How focus on Trump Taunts Hides GOP War on Middle Class, Workers
Game of Groans: How focus on Trump Taunts Hides GOP War on Middle Class, Workers
"Last Thursday we had 10 rich white males on a debate stage seeking to represent the billionaire class (some 536 individuals in US, who have more wealth than the bottom half of the US population).
US billionaires are getting richer at a time when wages for working and middle class people have not kept pace with increases in productivity. Working and middle class Americans, unlike the stock market (80% of which is owned by the top 20% of the population), have never recovered from the bust of 2008. And no, it was not caused by ordinary people trying to live above their means. It was caused by bankers who were venal and corrupt and stole enormous sums from the public.
So what did the would-be representatives of the super-wealthy want? They wanted to take away health care from tens of millions of Americans. Why would you want to do that? Having to contribute to health care for the US public is an inconvenience to the business classes, many of whom don’t want Obamacare.
They want to take away your medicaid and social security. Again, this step is in the interest of the super-wealthy who don’t want the government to run such large entitlement programs for fear that Washington will end up taxing them for the operation. (In fact, social security would be healthier if the wealthy had to pay into it according to full income; at the moment, there is a cut-off for payments, which saves the billionaires a lot of money.)
So folks this is an amazing tableau. We had 10 persons up there who openly announce that they want to ruin the lives of the majority of Americans."
"Last Thursday we had 10 rich white males on a debate stage seeking to represent the billionaire class (some 536 individuals in US, who have more wealth than the bottom half of the US population).
US billionaires are getting richer at a time when wages for working and middle class people have not kept pace with increases in productivity. Working and middle class Americans, unlike the stock market (80% of which is owned by the top 20% of the population), have never recovered from the bust of 2008. And no, it was not caused by ordinary people trying to live above their means. It was caused by bankers who were venal and corrupt and stole enormous sums from the public.
So what did the would-be representatives of the super-wealthy want? They wanted to take away health care from tens of millions of Americans. Why would you want to do that? Having to contribute to health care for the US public is an inconvenience to the business classes, many of whom don’t want Obamacare.
They want to take away your medicaid and social security. Again, this step is in the interest of the super-wealthy who don’t want the government to run such large entitlement programs for fear that Washington will end up taxing them for the operation. (In fact, social security would be healthier if the wealthy had to pay into it according to full income; at the moment, there is a cut-off for payments, which saves the billionaires a lot of money.)
So folks this is an amazing tableau. We had 10 persons up there who openly announce that they want to ruin the lives of the majority of Americans."
The Proof That Obamacare Is Working Is Getting Really Hard To Ignore
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/08/10/3689845/obamacare-working-research/
"the states that embraced Obamacare have seen the largest drops in the number of residents going without health care."
"the states that embraced Obamacare have seen the largest drops in the number of residents going without health care."
Championing a 'President for All People,' Nurses Back Bernie
Championing a 'President for All People,' Nurses Back Bernie
"Championing "a president for all people," the National Nurses Union on Monday announced that it is throwing the full weight of its 185,000-member organization behind Senator Bernie Sanders in his bid for president."
"Championing "a president for all people," the National Nurses Union on Monday announced that it is throwing the full weight of its 185,000-member organization behind Senator Bernie Sanders in his bid for president."
Most 2016 GOP Presidential Candidates Would Push Seniors Into Poverty By Cutting Social Security @alternet
Most 2016 GOP Presidential Candidates Would Push Seniors Into Poverty By Cutting Social Security @alternet
"It sounds like everyone but Huckabee and Trump are taking their Social Security advice from their billionaire donors."
"It sounds like everyone but Huckabee and Trump are taking their Social Security advice from their billionaire donors."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)