Also please note from the article (bolding mine):
And from the same article:
So in summary: the “radical Left” is baselessly attacking Housley because they are losing. You can tell they’re losing because they are LEADING THE POLLS BY TEN POINTS.
When you put it that way, it sounds ridiculous!
I’ll try to find a way to put it that doesn’t sound ridiculous. Be back in about 10,000 years.
Oh but those are the skewed Fake News polls
/handwave
Of course! :smack:
That reminds me of a stupid Republican idea I’d like to see gain wider traction:
A dating site for Trump supporters leaked all of its clients’ information on its first day of existence.
Donald Daters, A Dating App for Donald Trump Supporters, Leaked Its Private User Info On Launch Day?
Even the republicans with half a brain have a dysfunctional half. The stupid is strong in them.
Tweet from Robert Reich:
Evil!
This was their game all along - there’s absolutely no surprise here. They’re going to take entitlements and everyone who uses them as hostage. What I’m wondering is just how far they’re willing to go with it. I’m guessing medicaid would be their first target, and effectively raising the retirement age to 70+ would be another proposal. But at some point, if they’re going to go through with politically unpopular moves such as these, there has to be some sort of real-world pressure to do so. I wonder: do they create a default crisis first? Create an "Ah ha! See? Told you all that this is what these social programs are doin to y’all.’
This is why this country’s fucked over the next decade no matter what. Sure, strutting our stuff with the stock market and - for now - robust employment. But either way, whether the deficits and national debt spirals out of control, or whether we gut entitlements to balance the budget, we’re screwed. Allow the debt to spiral out of control and we’ll be paying more taxes toward interest than on actual public services - with borrowing costs going steadily upward. On the other hand, gutting social spending will have a much greater impact on people than people realize. It’s not just the individuals who would suffer as a result of cuts to these programs: for every individual taking medicare, medicaid, or SS, there’s a family member that’s glad that the government is picking up the tab that they would otherwise feel obligated to pay. This will take the bottom half of what we call the middle class, and essentially bring them closer to the poverty line, regardless of whether they’re the ones receiving entitlements. And why would they have to bear that financial burden? Well, so that the “job creators” could get a nice fat tax cut.
Not to mention the jobs in the businesses, agencies, and institutions that serve this client population. Without funding, programs and clients, those jobs are kaput. Unless the Pubbies expect nonprofits to take up ALL the slack with private funding? Wait–what am I saying? They don’t give a fuck.
Jeff Sessions Is Quietly Transforming the Nation’s Immigration Courts
“Reflective of the people [they] serve”? I don’t think so.
This is why Jeffy Beauregard will never resign. He’s on a mission.
First, why announce they want to cut popular programs such as Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid* only 3 weeks before the election? I don’t understand their rationale for the timing.
But the crisis might not be a “default crisis” (by which I assume you mean the federal government defaulting on some of its obligations) but an affect on the United States’ credit profile.
I don’t have a decent grasp on this sort of thing – Is Moody’s “affecting the credit profile” a softer way of saying a downgrade to the US credit rating?
- I think Medicaid is unpopular among their base when they think of it as a handout to “those” people, but much more popular when it’s a way to pay for Granny’s long-term care.
Bolding mine.
So Trump can ride to the rescue and claim to stop it? He’s done the same shit before. Float a stupid idea and then claim that he is a hero for not doing it. I can see the republicans working with him on this.
Otherwise, doesn’t make much sense, people don’t see Medicare and Social Security as “entitlements”. After all, your paystub has them listed as separate deductions.
The two are related: Moody’s downgrades US credit out of fear that the US may ditch some of its debt obligations.
When Obama was president, the idea was to try to use the debt ceiling to take the US creditworthiness hostage and see if Obama and Democrats would blink. They didn’t, and the Republicans backed off of their threats. Now that they’re in charge, they’re going to jack up the deficits and the debts and force taxpayers to choose between the threat of default - which is pretty effing serious stuff - and decades-old entitlement programs. That’s the false dichotomy; the better option would be to raise taxes on the wealthy to fund the government. But we saw where Republican priorities lie when they passed their obscene tax cut last year - a tax cut decoupled from budget restraint.
The oligarchs control the government now, which means they’re going to take away things that make the middle class, middle class. The wealth concentration intensifies, and all the while, the republican machine ensures that the average Joe has fewer means to fight back legally and constitutionally. Fewer services, less access to the political system. The plutonomy means that the rest of us depend on what the billionaires club decides to do with their money. Hint: it won’t be investing in infrastructure that everyone can else; it’ll be using everyone’s tax dollars to invest in infrastructure that we use – and infrastructure that they own, and profit from, and can further decide who gets to use that infrastructure, and how much they have to pay to use it. The shift away from democracy…toward oligarchy and kleptocracy.
I doubt that’s why.
It’s reminding the billionaire donor class that they’re seriously behind in Q3 fundraising and that the billionaires club needs to remember what’s at stake in the election. The plutocrats have a chance to fundamentally change America’s economy and society as they know it: the great regressive experiment. It’s been a good 90 years almost since the dawn of the Great Society, the time when government asserted itself in the name of the common man and confronted the abuses of private power. In the decades since, private power has been scheming for ways to tilt that balance of power back to where it was pre-1933. They’re almost there.
Occam’s razor.
I feel like we are at a magic show, and the magician on stage is doing a very poor job.
The magician fans out a deck of cards, and asks the volunteer to pick one. The card is picked, and the magician instructs the volunteer to show him the card, tell him what it is, then hand it back to him. The volunteer does this, and the magician holds up the card, asking, “Is this your card?”
You are sitting in the audience, thinking to yourself, “Who the fuck would ever be fooled by that trick?”
Meanwhile, the audience member next to you claps excitedly, and exclaims, “How did he do that?!”
And now:
Pat Robertson, the notable quivering mass of insects in a rubber suit that pretends to be Christian, says that holding the Saudis responsible for murder isn’t worth losing an arms contract over.
Big fan of war and money, that Jesus fellow.