patrick.net

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

When fear becomes collective, when anger becomes collective, it’s extremely dangerous.

Big bad Republicans, who are completely racist and eat poor peoples babies while secretly planning to put negroes back to pick cotton, are out to get you, so better vote for Bernie to save yourself! Quickly, before the Republicans get you, you don't have much time.

FortWayne says

Big bad Republicans, who are completely racist and eat poor peoples babies while secretly planning to put negroes back to pick cotton, are out to get you, so better vote for Bernie to save yourself! Quickly, before the Republicans get you, you don't have much time.

Ah the sarcasm. If only you realize there's truth in it.
A Republican presidential candidate has based his entire candidacy on divisional rhetoric.
Another Republican presidential candidate wants to carpet bomb civilians.
And then there's the myth of the pragmatic progressive.

This video describes clearly the state of electing a president in an empire.

www.youtube.com/embed/mBZLnfKSa_k

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

Ah the sarcasm. If only you realize there's truth in it.

Noam Chumsky is a brilliant man, but all his stuff is theories and ideas.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

A Republican presidential candidate has based his entire candidacy on divisional rhetoric.

Every single candidate is "divisional". You don't get a party nomination if you don't do that, for there is no "American" party. There are liberals and conservatives, D's and R's, you get the point... The most divisional are Democrats, they call everyone a racist, an anti-woman, Hitler, just about anything.

So the only difference is you picking the side you probably what easier appeals to you, if younger = Democrat, if older = Republican.

Whenever liberals want to drag out an "intellectual" they go pull old Noam out of the woodwork. In the times I get suckered into listening to him, I feel that his voice after about two minutes is like gargling nails. His circumlocutory rants are insane, nattering, endless logorrhea, like he needs his meds doubled or tripled to make him actually get some kind of syllogistic perspective going.

Taking a class from him, aside from the bizarre commentary, must be pure torture.

Ceffer says

In the times I get suckered into listening to him, I feel that his voice after about two minutes is like gargling nails. His circumlocutory rants are insane, nattering, endless logorrhea, like he needs his meds doubled or tripled to make him actually get some kind of syllogistic perspective going.

Taking a class from him, aside from the bizarre commentary, must be pure torture.

Excellent Ad-Hominem. Bravo! Not a single word actually critiquing the message.

FortWayne says

but all his stuff is theories and ideas.

That indicates you did not even listen to what he had to say. Mainstream academic papers, such as this are showing citizens have zero effect on public policy. Chomsky also cites IMF studies that show how subsidies benefit big corporations (corporate welfare).

Even with these practical references, calling what he says as "theories" is not sincere.

FortWayne says

Every single candidate is "divisional". You don't get a party nomination if you don't do that, for there is no "American" party. There are liberals and conservatives, D's and R's, you get the point... The most divisional are Democrats, they call everyone a racist, an anti-woman, Hitler, just about anything.

I think the establishment Democrats are divisive, but not Bernie.
He is pointing out why division is useful in a political sense, but very damaging in a human sense.

It's probably a standard freshman prank at the MIT cafeteria.

"Hey, there's the brilliant Noam Chomsky. He just loves to talk to freshman, why don't you go over there and say hello!"

Snigger, Snigger as they watch the expression on the newbie's faces as Noam launches off on one of his endless schizoaffective tirades.

They have guys like him on the street corners in Berkeley.

FortWayne says

Big bad Republicans, who are completely racist and eat poor peoples babies while secretly planning to put negroes back to pick cotton,

Well, let's go over the Republican record since the Southern Strategy was implemented. Republican were for
- segregation
- the Vietnam War
- shooting Vietnam War protesters (which they actually did at Kent State)
- pollution that causes miscarriages, birth defects, developmental diseases in fetuses and children, methylmercury poisoning
- destroying the middle class with economic policies that allow the owner class to steal vast quantities of wealth from the workers that produce that wealth
- a war on drugs that has killed millions including innocent grandmothers, sleeping children, and babies
- letting criminal police literally get away with murder
- preventing U.S. citizens from legally casting votes as is their right under the 15th Amendment
- gerrymandering districts to a ridiculous extent
- lying under oath to Congress and the American people during questioning about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and NSA domestic spying
- engaging in a political witchhunt against President Clinton derailing mid-East peace talks and ultimately lead to 9/11
- starting an illegal war on false pretenses which killed over a million civilians including children, a body count that is still rising, destroyed America's credibility, prevented us from stopping genocide in other areas, and allowed ISIS to rise to power
- allowing cops to strip search and body cavity at gunpoint search men, women, and children for traffic stops and other alleged minor offenses without them even being charged with a crime
- forcing every man, woman, and child to get a virtual strip search at airports using machines that record images of breasts and genitalia and saving these images, some of which have been circulated around the Internet
- yet at the same time bitching and moaning that a post-op transgender using a woman's bathroom is somehow a perversion and will lead to rape
- allowing the NSA and other agencies to remotely activate mobile phone cameras, steal pictures including nude selfies that adolescent girls take of themselves, and listen in on private phone conversations including sex talk between deployed soldiers and their wives, all without warrant, accountability, or oversight

So now, I don't blame Republicans for making negroes pick cotton in the 21st century; that's what they use illegal immigrants for. But I do blame Republicans for all the above. And feel free to challenge me on any of those issues so I can write a 15-page exposé on it.

Dan8267 says

Well, let's go over the Republican record since the Southern Strategy was implemented.

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. - freed slaves and made America great.
Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican. - fought against Monopolies and made America great and strong.

Jimmy Carter (D) - increased welfare, increased inflation, failed the nation miserably.
Kennedy and LBJ (D * 2) - started Vietnam war, failed America.

Dan8267 says

So now, I don't blame Republicans for making negroes pick cotton in the 21st century; that's what they use illegal immigrants for. But I do blame Republicans for all the above. And feel free to challenge me on any of those issues so I can write a 15-page exposé on it.

It's the Democrats who keep on trying to bring them here as much as possible and give them government assistance so subsidize their lifestyles. You probably missed that Republicans want these people out, or as usual like a typical liberal put your head in the sand to ignore reality.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

This video describes clearly the state of electing a president in an empire.

Damn good video.

Have to comment on the part that begins at minute 17.

U.S. Marines have no honor. They illegally attacked a hospital, the doctors and patients in it, because the hospital released honest casualty statistics, something that one expects from a hospital. As long as those marines, and the assholes who gave them the orders, are not tried and punish, this despicable act reflects on ALL marines. There is no honor in the U.S. Marine Corps until there is justice for this atrocity. Period.

FortWayne says

Jimmy Carter (D) - increased welfare, increased inflation, failed the nation miserably.

Carter's economic record is stronger than that of George W. Bush, in the sense of jobs created per capita and other metrics.

The inflation of the 1970s began under Nixon and Ford; Carter appointed Volcker, whose actions brought inflation under control early in Reagan's first term.

Most of the inflation was due to energy supplies. The Brent oilfield in the North Sea solved that problem.

HydroCabron says

Carter's economic record is stronger than that of George W. Bush, in the sense of jobs created per capita and other metrics.

The inflation of the 1970s began under Nixon and Ford; Carter appointed Volcker, whose actions brought inflation under control early in Reagan's first term.

Most of the inflation was due to energy supplies. The Brent oilfield in the North Sea solved that problem.

Carter's inflation was there because he was a tax and spend politician. He did not know how to "WIN" (if you remember those buttons). It took a visionary like Reagan to turn it around. And boy he did. Carter was proposing tax increases on the middle class, so that the government would spend the money. Reagan turned it around by letting us keep more of our money and spend it the way we want to.

FortWayne says

"WIN"

"Whip Inflation Now". We didn't until 1983.

1965 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.9 1.6

Great Society spending starts along with Vietnam, both from the same impulses at home and abroad:

1968 3.6 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.2

1970 6.2 6.1 5.8 6.1 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.4 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.7

1974 9.4 10.0 10.4 10.1 10.7 10.9 11.5 10.9 11.9 12.1 12.2 12.3 11.0

1980 13.9 14.2 14.8 14.7 14.4 14.4 13.1 12.9 12.6 12.8 12.6 12.5 13.5

1981 11.8 11.4 10.5 10.0 9.8 9.6 10.8 10.8 11.0 10.1 9.6 8.9 10.3

1982 8.4 7.6 6.8 6.5 6.7 7.1 6.4 5.9 5.0 5.1 4.6 3.8 6.2

1983 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.9 3.5 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.9 2.9 3.3 3.8 3.2

FortWayne says

Reagan turned it around by letting us keep more of our money and spend it the way we want to.

Reagan turned it around by writing a rubber check for 2 trillion dollars, 1980's dollars. The godhead of the republican party was the greatest keynsian of the 20th century. How soon they forget.

FortWayne says

Carter's inflation was there because he was a tax and spend politician. He did not know how to "WIN" (if you remember those buttons). It took a visionary like Reagan to turn it around.

Carters inflation was mostly the collapse of nxon's (hint, republican) wage price controls along with energy prices going up by a factor of 4 in an extremely energy inefficient economy. I don't suppose you've ever heard of nixon's wage price controls. Whip Inflation Now (WIN) was ford (hint republican) not carter. It took a visionary like volcker to turn it around. I'm guessing you honestly don't know volcker was appointed by carter. I'm also guessing that you don't have a clue that government spending went from 24% gdp to 21% gdp under carter's tax and spend then up to 26% gdp under reagan. Don't let facts interfere with your babbling.

There is this really cool tool called google that lets you look shit up before you spout out nonsense and look like a total fool. Check it out sometime.

FortWayne says

Jimmy Carter (D) - increased welfare, increased inflation, failed the nation miserably.

He is the one President who actually spoke the truth on energy crisis.
He wanted to wean US addiction to oil.
He is also spot-on in recognizing US is an oligarchy.

www.youtube.com/embed/hDsPWmioSHg

FortWayne says

It took a visionary like Reagan to turn it around. And boy he did.

Oh yes, boy did he kill the middle class by cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Creating a middle class is always a choice, and by embracing Reaganomics and cutting taxes on the rich, we decided back in 1980 not to have a middle class within a generation or two. George H.W. Bush saw this, and correctly called it “Voodoo Economics.”

Despite what you might read in the Wall Street Journal or see on Fox News, capitalism is not an economic system that produces a middle class. In fact, if left to its own devices, capitalism tends towards vast levels of inequality and monopoly. The natural and most stable state of capitalism actually looks a lot like the Victorian England depicted in Charles Dickens’ novels.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias - Colbert.

bob2356 says

I don't suppose you've ever heard of nixon's wage price controls

Yes, Phases I and II--inflation was already hitting 3% and 4% by 1968 before Nixon was elected--up from the less than 2% in 1965. The controls were a cynical way of trying to reign in inflation to ensure Nixon's re-election, but both phases failed, building up huge inflationary pressures by the end of 1973 which exploded in 1974 when they were removed at the end of '73, hardly accounting for the still virulent inflation through the 70's and early 1980's.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

capitalism is not an economic system that produces a middle class

It seemed to do so for the better part of the 20th century until the federal government decided to insinuate itself into every molecule of human existence from the mid-60's on. And where are the cars of socialism? I know Sweden has the Volvo, about as exciting as, well, a Volvo. What socialist country could have given us the 1957 Chrysler 300, '64 Riviera, '92 Viper or even the 400 HP Corvette of today? My friend has a photo of his mother in her 1929 Packard Dual-Cowl Pheaton her first husband bought her after they sold out their chain of food stores in Arkansas when he anticipated the Depression. They were flush with cash and the Packard was the car to be seen in during the Depression when as she often said other people were jumping out of windows. How ironic is it that Cubans are still driving the icons of American capitalism 57 years later when American capitalism brought the automobile in 50 years from the horseless carriage in 1905 to a fully fleshed out factory hotrod complete with V-8 and AC by 1955.

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

Well, let's go over the Republican record since the Southern Strategy was implemented.

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. - freed slaves and made America great.

Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican. - fought against Monopolies and made America great and strong.

Exactly, you have to go before the Southern Strategy (SS), before the entire population switched parties. The Dixiecrats, the entire American South, changed into Republicans when Nixon adopted the Southern Strategy and the Northerns gained power in the Democratic Party and started a pro-civil-rights platform.

Your ancestors were all in the Democratic Party before then. Yes, your slave-owning, slave-raping, pro-segregation, anti-gay, anti-interracial marriage, conservative ancestors were all Democrats back then. And now you want to take credit for the actions of liberals in the pre-SS Republican Party? Honey, every time you attempt that you admit that liberalism is good and conservatism is evil. The anti-abolition movement, that was liberal. Teddy Roosevelt, a liberal who was strongly for environmental protection and preventing the extinction of species. He started the liberal, green national park system. He was a socialist and an environmentalist!

Neither Lincoln nor Teddy Roosevelt, nor their policies, would be tolerated in today's Republican Party. Neither would Dwight Eisenhower and his policies. Eisenhower warned that the military industrial complex and America's dependency on oil were the two greatest threats to our nation and our democracy. And he was right. Eisenhower taxed the rich at 90%. Eisenhower believed in social safety nets like Social Security and anti-poverty programs. Eisenhower was more socialist than Bernie Sanders!

So thank you for pointing out how great liberalism is regardless of what party is the liberal one, and how god-awful conservatism is regardless of which party is the conservative one.

FortWayne says

It's the Democrats who keep on trying to bring them here as much as possible and give them government assistance so subsidize their lifestyles. You probably missed that Republicans want these people out, or as usual like a typical liberal put your head in the sand to ignore reality.

That's bullshit. Mexicans -- and we're really talking about Mexicans here -- come to the U.S. legally as temp workers for big farm because Republicans insist on farm bills that make this possible. Instead of importing the workers once and turning them into U.S. citizens with permanent residence, in order to keep farm labor cheap by preventing them from having any bargaining power, Republicans make these workers temporary so they have to lose their jobs and homes or become illegal workers who cannot bargain for higher wages or fewer hours. There are 14-year-old boys picking strawberries for 18 hour long days because of Republican policies.

To keep labor cheap, more and more labor must be imported from Mexico. And the laborers must be prevented from becoming citizens or they could vote in local elections to improve their lot in life. So the federal, state, and local government must demonized these people while ensuring that massive numbers or "illegal immigrants" are always available as a cheap labor source.

So yes, this is a problem Republicans made, and they are very happy with the status quo. As a liberal, I say either make these people citizens immediately or stop this slave trade altogether and let produce prices go to $50/lb as the free market demands. Good luck in finding American-born workers picking fruit in the hot sun for less than $50/hr. That's the price even plumbers charge and they work in air conditioned houses.

Boy, you conservatives really don't let the facts get in the way of your fantasies.

FortWayne says

Jimmy Carter (D) - increased welfare, increased inflation, failed the nation miserably.

Disproved by others above, so no need to repeat.

FortWayne says

Kennedy and LBJ (D * 2) - started Vietnam war, failed America.

Yes, the single greatest mistakes of both those presidents was the result of giving into enormous pressure from conservatives. The liberals did not want the war. The left did not want the war. Only conservative "kick some commy ass" small-dick warmongers wanted the war, just like always.

P N Dr Lo R says

It seemed to do so for the better part of the 20th century until the federal government decided to insinuate itself into every molecule of human existence from the mid-60's on. And where are the cars of socialism?

Are you freaking kidding me?
FDR's financial reforms were necessary to regulate the banking system and stop speculation with other people's money.
The largest federal government program at the time of 1930s was the New Deal.
You don't get to rewrite history with your own belief system.

P N Dr Lo R says

I know Sweden has the Volvo, about as exciting as, well, a Volvo.

Got me laid many a times.

Of course, it depends on what you like. I like cruising comfortably and looking sexy. I don't care about drag racing because I'm not 17 years old. That's why I picked this car over the BMW 3 series. Plus, it's a far safer car.

www.youtube.com/embed/hEkC28QI1vc

Dan8267 says

I don't care about drag racing because I'm not 17 years old. That's why I picked this car over the BMW 3 series. Plus, it's a far safer car.

I believe you know the point I was making--the cars I mentioned are super cars that are super expensive, but apparently a significant market exists in our capitalist society that allows them to be produced in significant numbers. If you don't want one of those, then there is a car for, as Alfred P. Sloan of GM stated nearly 100 years ago, every purse and purpose, given to us, again, by the engine of capitalism in quantities far beyond the capabilites of any other economic system--this is a significant feat considering next to your home your car is your most expensive purchse. Capitalism works so well it allowed GM to begin giving away its nearly 50% market share after 1970 by building crappy cars and conceding their market to the Japanese, Germans and later South Koreans who started late in the game, but when they did they started building the best cars in the world, but significantly not North Korea or East Germany, and now GM has a well deserved less than 20% market share and no more Oldses or Pontiacs. By the way, Buick is considered a symbol of high status in Communist China today.

P N Dr Lo R says

1982 8.4 7.6 6.8 6.5 6.7 7.1 6.4 5.9 5.0 5.1 4.6 3.8 6.2

1983 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.9 3.5 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.9 2.9 3.3 3.8 3.2

Interesting how the inflation numbers came in line after Reagan finally raised taxes (which he did 11 times), as he grew the federal government.

This was Reagan's panicked reaction to the unemployment rate jumping to 11% as a result of his initial ill-considered tax cuts.

FortWayne says

It's the Democrats who keep on trying to bring them here as much as possible and give them government assistance so subsidize their lifestyles.

This statement is correct. Establishment Democrats are also FOR corporate welfare.
And that is the exact problem that Bernie is highlighting, without the divisiveness.

FortWayne says

You probably missed that Republicans want these people out, or as usual like a typical liberal put your head in the sand to ignore reality.

I think you have your head in the sand expecting Republicans to solve this problem, because they are completely unhinged.

Dan8267 says

Only conservative "kick some commy ass" small-dick warmongers wanted the war, just like always.

Ah, I miss Carlin -- but there's always Youtube.

www.youtube.com/embed/BtSv3x6lh3o

PCGyver says

If he really wanted to be a hero he would have cut spending as well as taxes

To hell with the facts, it was morning in America. LMAO.

PCGyver says

Reagan increased the national debt 130% in his first six years. Far more than Obama has percentage wise. If he really wanted to be a hero he would have cut spending as well as taxes

That's not exactly how it went. You see he fixed tax system by lowering overall taxes. Because when he came into the office a millionnaire could pay less in taxes (as in total amount) than a many earning 80,000. Reagan fixed that crony Democrat driven system of bullshit. Some of it was horse trading, but he got the job done. Can't say the same about many others that followed him. He was a rare great individual. No Bush's or Clintons and much less Obama have done as well, they all failed in comparison.

And btw Comrade, Reagan won the cold war. He took a brilliant position and won it. Obama so far has hightailed out of every situation where he is under pressure.

FortWayne says

That's not exactly how it went. You see he fixed tax system by lowering overall taxes. Because when he came into the office a millionnaire could pay less in taxes (as in total amount) than a many earning 80,000. Reagan fixed that crony Democrat driven system of bullshit

You are seriously on crack. Reagan LOWERED taxes for billionaires and RAISED taxes for lower income families. He called it "broadening" the tax base. Under the Tax reform act of 1986, the top tax rate for individuals was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%. He also lowered cap gains tax rates as well.

Reagan made inequality worse, not better.

Facts on Ronald Reagan:

1. Spent enormous sums on military while cutting social programs for the poor.
2. Reduced taxes on wealthy and doubled both military budget and national debt
3. Deregulated industries and eroded environmental standards (there is something called 'EXTERNALITIES' which require regulation)
4. Deregulated savings and loans institutions which led the start of TOO BIG TO FAIL, by 1995 costs $87 billion for taxpayers
5. Helped Repeal the Fairness Doctrine leading to enormous right-wing brainwashing

i thought the military WAS a social program for the poor.

Ceffer says

i thought the military WAS a social program for the poor.

No, it's a social program for rich fat-cats who run weapons companies like Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. Cannon fodder, er, soldiers, don't get paid shit.

FortWayne says

And btw Comrade, Reagan won the cold war. He took a brilliant position and won it.

Bullshit. Reagan simply presided during the end of the cold war which was winding down years before he was even elected. It's like walking past a slot machine, putting a coin in, and getting lucky that the machine decided that it's time for a payout. That's not skill; it's luck.

Any social program that doesn't allow you to stand round on street corners smoking rock, fucking welfare moms and swigging Colt 45 while planning your next firefight to riddle rival gangs with firepower is a failure.

Social programs that impose discipline are inhumane.

FortWayne says

That's not exactly how it went. You see he fixed tax system by lowering overall taxes. Because when he came into the office a millionnaire could pay less in taxes (as in total amount) than a many earning 80,000. Reagan fixed that crony Democrat driven system of bullshit.

You want to put up some real world examples of millionaires paying less in taxes than people earning 80,000 before reagan's tax reform? I thought not. It's true because I feel it should be true.

The tax act of 1986 brought in 54.9 billion in additional revenue in 1987. It's true look it up. How is that lowering overall taxes?

Does your anal orifice ever hurt from pulling so much of your "information" from it?

Dan8267 says

That's bullshit. Mexicans -- and we're really talking about Mexicans here -- come to the U.S. legally as temp workers for big farm because Republicans insist on farm bills that make this possible.

Now lets understand this here, because you are missing a lot.

Farm workers with work visas = legal. Republicans support, unions (read Democrats) against this.
Illegals that run the border by millions, or overstay = illegal, Democrats support, Republicans want to remove.

The problem here is with your team, your team wants illegals here.

FortWayne says

Farm workers with work visas = legal. Republicans support, unions (read Democrats) against this.

Illegals that run the border by millions, or overstay = illegal, Democrats support, Republicans want to remove.

The problem here is with your team, your team wants illegals here.

Bullshit. Your Republicans, who are in the pockets of big farm, want slave labor. It's impossible to have rotating workers on farms because you can't get your slave labor to leave the country. And even if you could, you wouldn't want to because illegals keep the wages down for Mexicans with work Visas.

The solution is quite simple. Stop all work Visas. Stop the flow of slave workers into the U.S.

If workers are needed, then grant U.S. citizenship and permanent residency to the farm workers already here.

Conservatives wanted black slaves and when the Civil War prevented them from having that, conservatives wanted child slaves. When child labor laws prevented that, conservatives wanted economic slaves through "illegal alien" status. There's a big theme in conservatism, and it's slavery.

Hell, stop all work Visas and deport all the Mexican farm workers and watch farming profits immediately disappear. Watch as supermarkets scramble to import basic foodstocks from Mexico, Canada, and South America. It'll be fun.

The last thing Democrats or liberals want are millions of people living at the poverty line in this country who can't even vote. Sorry, that's a conservative wet dream, not ours.

Dan8267 says

Bullshit. Your Republicans, who are in the pockets of big farm, want slave labor. It's impossible to have rotating workers on farms because you can't get your slave labor to leave the country. And even if you could, you wouldn't want to because illegals keep the wages down for Mexicans with work Visas.

Those people come and leave. It's when your liberal peeps hire illegals is when we have a problem. But it's cute how you blame Republicans for what your team supports.

Dan8267 says

The last thing Democrats or liberals want are millions of people living at the poverty line in this country who can't even vote.

Dan, you make good points about capital vs labor, which you sometimes call conservative vs "Democrats or liberals" (obviously two different and increasingly uncorrelated groups). You seem to have overlooked however a point about whom the Democrats represent. PatNet has two threads about a book on the topic, arguing that Democrats have shifted from labor to the professional class, though I think even the professional class get betrayed, e.g. 70% of doctors oppose Obamneycare. I will relate a story that I observed, and maybe try to add links later, but the connection would be only anecdotal.

Here in the SFBA, the large number of illegal aliens began to draw cottage industries that catered to them, including illegal pharmacies that sold Rx drugs imported illegally from Mexico, at or near Mexican prices. As in Mexico, customers could buy Rx drugs without an Rx, thus saving 90% compared to the American system. These pharmacies began occasionally to get reported on the evening news, though only ever in the rare occasions of somebody getting hurt or arrested.

What happened in this "liberal" Democratic city? Presto: "Healthy San Francisco." It provides nearly free comprehensive medical coverage to indigent persons, and essentially to illegal aliens whose assets are south of the border. The means test excludes nearly all legal residents of San Francisco, so as not to take paying customers away from the legal pharmacies. BTW, it is the only way to get full coverage at San Francisco General Hospital, which has the only Level 1 trauma facility in San Francisco (population more than 800,000). So, if you with your Florida Obamneycare insurance policy happen to visit SF and get hit by a car, you are at best only partially covered, subject to "balance billing" for whatever astronomical number the hospital corporation makes up, but an illegal alien on Healthy SF is covered in full, because his assets in Mexico might be too difficult to find.

Cue also the earnest programs on PBS talking about how we need to get more insurance programs for illegal aliens because they are not buying enough pills and "services", as indicated by their utilization statistics. It's presented as "liberal," as all mandatory medical insurance programs tend to be.

So yes, Democrats have found a reliable way to profit from the presence of illegal aliens. The Democrats don't represent the laborers whom illegal aliens compete with. The Democrats represent Marcus and other government workers, whose government jobs are immune from NAFTA. And, the more illegal aliens there are, and the more they they can be incentivized to claim "poverty" (whether true or false), the more "services" must be funded, enriching the providers. I had not understood this when I lived on the east coast, but I see it here. I love Mexico and have had only good experiences there, and I don't worry about how many illegal aliens might be here, but I do worry about Democrats building so-called "liberal" patronage networks to "help" them. And, seeing and hearing the construction crews doing the local remodels, I can understand the frustration of American laborers who do face that competition, and whose taxes pay for those "services".

FortWayne says

The problem here is with your team, your team wants illegals here.

FortWayne says

But it's cute how you blame Republicans for what your team supports.

To be honest - it is tiring to keep arguing "your team vs. my team". Conversations need to get above the level of a 5 year old to really understand the root causes. In my reading of Dan's posts, he has criticized the establishment Democrats as much as the batshit crazy Republicans -- for all the wreck that they have caused to this country. And I also think he is highlighting a clear distinction between a classical liberal (honoring rights of an individual, morality and justice) and an establishment liberal (yet another hypocrite like the batshit crazy conservatives).

FWayne -- some of the points you make are legit.
But you have a very skewed perception given your level of ignorance on Reagan and the batshit crazy Republicans in general. You keep arguing that Democrats are causing all the problems, while being blind to the fact that the Rep-Dem Duopoly oligarchy that is beholden to private for-profit corporations and is at the heart of problems.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle.

FortWayne says

Farm workers with work visas = legal. Republicans support, unions (read Democrats) against this.

Illegals that run the border by millions, or overstay = illegal, Democrats support, Republicans want to remove.

You are too funny for words. You are seriously in the running to displace tbp as the most hallucinogenic poster on patnet. Do you smoke lots of dope or make this stuff up while straight?

Every major corporation hires tons of illegals, they depend on illegals as part of their business plan. Farm workers? What a joke. The huge agri corporations (let's take a minute to get all misty eyed for the mythical family farmer that all those billions of dollars in agri subsidies goes to) hire millions of illegals. Who do you think butchers all the meat? Cleans all the fish? Republicans want to remove illegals about as much as the want to cut off their dicks or be faithful to their wives. There was something like 6 corporations prosecuted for hiring illegals during the 8 bush years. Average fine around 1000 dollars. Yep that certainly shows a serious republican commitment to getting tough on illegals.

FortWayne says

It's when your liberal peeps hire illegals is when we have a problem

Liberals aren't running factory farms with mass slave labor. That's conservatives. You are simply lying.

curious2 says

Dan, you make good points about capital vs labor, which you sometimes call conservative vs "Democrats or liberals" (obviously two different and increasingly uncorrelated groups). You seem to have overlooked however a point about whom the Democrats represent. PatNet has two threads about a book on the topic, arguing that Democrats have shifted from labor to the professional class, though I think even the professional class get betrayed, e.g. 70% of doctors oppose Obamneycare. I will relate a story that I observed, and maybe try to add links later, but the connection would be only anecdotal.

This is all true.

Liberals want the U.S. population to be
- equal under law, which includes all residents being citizens with the rights of citizens including the right to vote and run for office. Having large segments of the population being non-citizens with few rights is detrimental to liberty.
- the population to be educated so they can support rational and wise policies and aren't easy to manipulate. This means schooling for everyone.
- don't want economic slavery in which people are coerced by financial or legal means to live in poverty they cannot escape

Democrats used to be the party of labor, but right now there is no party of labor. However, Democrats are significantly less bad for labor than Republicans and don't support the mass economic slavery of immigrant workers that Republicans do. Democrats aren't good on the issue, but Republicans are far worse.

However, Democrats do support a path to citizenship for all the current immigrants, something that Republicans don't want because they rightfully know that the immigrants will not support Republican economic tyranny.

curious2 says

It provides nearly free comprehensive medical coverage to indigent persons, and essentially to illegal aliens whose assets are south of the border.

Turning to economic policy... If the cost of basic health care for imported workers is greater than the productivity of those imported workers, that's the free market telling you not to import workers and potentially not to produce the products those workers would produce. Maybe the real problem is that food is too cheap in our country today and we waste too much of it. Our grandparents spent a larger percentage of their income on food and a much smaller percentage on education, health care, and housing. Maybe if we made the later three things more affordable, we could afford to spend more on food production and we wouldn't even need to import labor, or if we did, we could pay that labor and provide health care for it.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

In my reading of Dan's posts, he has criticized the establishment Democrats as much as the batshit crazy Republicans

criticism isn't a solution. Dan doesn't know how to solve problems, and he is just like every Democrat he criticizes supports all the same principles and values that are failing our nation today. If he were in child services, I'm sure well over 90% of the people would lose their children to government. And if he was in education our education would go down faster than a drunk girl on a prom night.