At a time when so many businesses are woefully short-staffed, one would think that making childcare more affordable would appeal to Republicans. But we know that’s a pipe dream.
Childcare and parental leave are light years more progressive in other well-off countries. But then again most of those counties have strong central governments that care about improving the lives of their citizens.
At a time when so many businesses are woefully short-staffed, one would think that making childcare more affordable would appeal to Republicans. But we know that’s a pipe dream.
Childcare and parental leave are light years more progressive in other well-off countries. But then again most of those counties have strong central governments that care about improving the lives of their citizens.
According to a segment on pre-K education that I heard on NPR several years ago, Oklahoma Republicans established an extensive government-funded education program starting with three-year-olds. They sold it not on humanitarian grounds but on economic grounds and verified a few years later that their expectations were justified: pre-K education more than paid for itself in reduced expenditures for remedial programs that had previously been necessary in later childhood and for teenagers. It seems likely that affordable, high-quality childcare would pay for itself in the same way. It would, therefore, appeal to rational conservatives if there were any rational conservatives in positions of authority in government.
Rex Thanks for this shard of sunlight from Oklahoma, where every county voted for Trump in 2016 and again in 2020. Personally, I think that anyone who denigrates child care is also a humbug about Santa Claus.
I would not expect a humanitarian rationale for child care from an Oklahoma legislature. Still, I applaud its ‘economic rationale’ for pre-K education that would appeal to conservatives.
Incidentally, in Montgomery Township NJ, my ‘Democratic’ community, last November the voters approved (by less than 50 votes) to fund a pre-K school program.
Perhaps an economic rationale for “Medicare for all” would work as well. Private healthcare insurance costs American companies an arm and a leg - about twice what public healthcare costs in other industrialized nations. American companies bear most of those costs, and those costs cut into profits and make them less competitive globally. “Medicare for all” makes excellent sense as business policy, we could even sell it as a tax cut (portraying private health insurance as taxation).
“ Beyond the Affordable Care Act: A Physicians’ Proposal for Single-Payer Health Care Reform establishes the vision and principles that will empower Americans to replace our expensive, inadequate, and inefficient collection of health care systems with an improved Medicare for All.”
American healthcare often costs far more than twice as much as in other industrialized countries.
Add to that the completely unnecessary hospital bureaucracy, repeating tests carried out hours or days beforehand, all to maximize profitability.
Such a pity. American medicine is potentially so good, but the medical profession is caught in crossfire between often barely relevant forces... lawyers, insurance companies, pharmaceuticals corporations, administrators... even populist politicians.
Last night, we watched documentary films on Dr. Burzynski in Houston, TX.
Beginning with his own observation and and elegantly simple idea he had in 1967, Dr. B. pioneered a new, holistic, non-toxic way to treat many desperate cancer patients. And for many, his out-of-the-box turn-around worked!
Patients tried his protocol when conventional medicine had failed and given up on them. Many survived deadly, hopeless prognoses given by their own doctors. Some survivors had been living normal, cancer-free lives for years, often for decades.
While it wasn't surprising that Dr. B. and his work were viciously attacked non-stop by conventional medicine for decades, the degree of effort, resources, and extremism invested shocked even us. The lack of care for the evidently needless suffering and deaths of patients by the medical profession, FDA, cancer institutes, etc under a rigid, profit-driven structure stunned us.
THIS is how it works, not just for 'treating' patients in a hugely profitable industry (cancer) or even just for American medicine. This is how and why our economic, political, social, and yes, medical troubles are so incomprehensibly broken and intractable. They don't serve the people. They serve their inhumane corporate masters only. Way beyond crossfire...
I know nothing about this doctor's work... and my default starting point is one of skepticism. That is the way my mind has worked since childhood. In old age -- and over 20 years now since the start of a rare cancer, treated by chemo etc. until seven years ago -- I am more aware now of the limits of skepticism. The only remark I am, then, willing to make in this particular context is to express my understanding that cancer is a highly individual phenomenon; just as no two individuals are identical, the way a cancer will manifest will vary from one person to the next. So, if we use "shoes" as a metaphor for treatment, shoes will help but "one size shoes fits all" cannot.
The metaphor's not quite right, but it does express reasonable skepticism about any and every approach, especially about panaceas. What works for one may harm another.
As for the "rigid, profit-driven structure", that's the best America has been capable of providing. And here, America's best is not good enough. Precisely because of the systematic application of an economic panacea grounded in nothing more substantial than beliefs convenient to powerful corporate and political interests.
Like all things American, this irrelevant profit-driven machine has been applied elsewhere, although nowhere as systematically as in the USA. So that the health of the US population is quite surprisingly poor in relation to the country's wealth... and other countries that apply what right-wing American politicians like to condemn out of hand as "socialism" have easier access, lower prices and better public health.
Money should lubricate machinery, in America it puts sand into it.
And bureaucracy is bureaucracy is an endemic disease, regardless of whether an organization is public or private. Virulent forms affect healthcare-for-profit. Grave problems arise when the primary purpose of a public service is not, say, education or maximizing public health, but maximizing profits paid to shareholders. Healthcare shouldn't be all about making strangers rich.
*
I'm going to add to this an note on bureaucratitis, contemporary version:
The purpose is to maximize profits at everyone else's expense: company employees are screwed -- SYSTEMATICALLY -- customers are screwed -- SYSTEMATICALLY.
And all systems are designed to maximize frustration and rage.
Bad enough in France.
Can be deadly in a country where every other citizen has an armory with the firepower of a platoon, if not a company, of soldiers at the time when the Holy Holy Holy Second Amendment was passed.
I write like this because at this moment I am being messed about by a typical US business called UPS. Quite superlative when it comes to delivering RAGE and FRUSTRATION...
Thanks for nothing, America, when it comes to poisoning the planet with a stinking business model...
Becky The Republican bloviating about ‘death panels’ was nonsense. As already recognized in some states (and countries) individuals with terminal illnesses should have the right to die with dignity. This process requires safeguards, as has already been done in some places.
We’ve just had a friend with terminal cancer who lived in great pain and was down to 45 pounds before she died. I believe that she should have had a more humane choice.
I am glad that even in dark red Oklahoma they, for whatever reason, funded pre-K education. However, my take on this most of the policies of this country including the insane lack of gun control, we do not give a rat's behind about children. Actually we love to complain about everything, but staunchly refuse to realize that it will take both political will and money to solve these problems. As an aside, the news had a story about experimental "casitas" that could be used to help with housing. They are made with mass wood which seems to be thin pieces of wood pressed together and are very strong. Our governor and one of our Senators were there praising the project. They did look like livable space.
Michele NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Arden set an admirable standard by nursing her baby when she attended the United Nations, but the thought of Majorie Taylor Greene as a mother I find revolting.
I find Gangrene revolting in any role....can't imagine her as a mother. Probably one of those who sends Christmas cards with pics of everyone in the family holding locked and loaded.
Its interesting to me that when a program is framed in a humanitarian light, Republicans go all ape-crap at “socialism”, yet when finances get involved, viola’, it works
Dave I like your idea of sprinkling gold dust on such “socialist” programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and even ‘child care.” How would this work with ‘fair share’ of taxes?
Here’s how that works; “fair share of taxes” is a concept that requires an out of box belief that “the entirety of American Society” allows for the ultra rich to become richer. Without the multitudes of the unwashed, the elite have no one to suck money from, therefore they “owe” the unwashed their rightful due in the form of a tax structure that nurtures said unwashed in the manner of living conditions to sustain them with clean water, roads, education, and infrastructure to maintain a humane society
Given the vast wealth they pilfer from the rest of society, it is only fair that they sustain that which gives them the life they enjoy, us; the people that buy their stuff. They may feel thats not fair, but thats because they’re still thinking inside the box
Just to be clear, to get all the goodies we on the liberal pro human side of the aisle think society needs, tax rates will have to rise for individuals and companies. There is no shortcut. This means that a huge majority of people will need to accept and support increased taxation.
Living in Texas, I observed that resistance to taxes, especially for programs one disliked, let to resistance to all "gummint" programs.
Yes, tax revenue must be increased, but the Piketty data shows that capitalism is stabilized by steeply progressive taxation on both income and net worth. Wage earners already pay over 14% of income in FICA taxes (as a fraction of compensation, including the part of the FICA tax employers are required to pay), which is already more than the bottom half of them would need to pay in a tax regime consistent with a stable, capitalist economy. So, taxes may need to rise slightly on above-median incomes but not enough to put any serious economic stress on anyone. However, taxes would rise sharply in the top 1% and substantially more sharply on the top 0.1%. There would be a lot of squeeling pigs in the wealthy class, but if Americans were rational in their election choices (they aren’t and probably never will be, but bear with me for a moment), the squeeling could be ignored and eventually turned against the squeelers.
Rex Among the ‘squealers’ would be the providers of private jets. The last time I flew I paid an extra $75 for a little more leg room in economy. As for booze and vittles, I carried on a coffee and a sandwich.
When Germany planned for the reopening their workforce after the pandemic, they put childcare and preschool-12th grade as where to start so workers could get back to work. Golly, logical thinking…
Yes they did. My grandson started first grade in September, and his younger brother, 3, started what they call kindergarten, but is actually preschool. The teachers are great, and very caring. Both boys love school.
My guess is that Republicans view the idea of government childcare assistance as a threat to the traditional female role of mother and domestic worker.
It appears to me that it is essential to install a stratified society for authoritarianism to function. First of all, it creates friction between classes, it provides the divides that enable conquering, and establishes a chain of rewards and terrors ultimately controlled from the top. At the bottom are disadvantaged, disenfranchised groups, that even the most exploited party loyalists get to boss around, cementing a critical mass of citizens with a stake in the system, who typically fight like hell for the status quo.
Those who believe in universal empowerment face an entrenched and powerful enemy, with a an invested following. I think the US has always been at war with itself over whether the democratic or despotic model would prevail and the balance has shifted back and fourth, sometimes in several opposing directions at once, depending on which aspect of society we talk about.
If we, the governed are to be, collectively, the ultimate consent for governmental power, why would we not want robust and accessible childcare? Why would we not want equitable protection and justice under law?
J L, Reading your comment I try to imagine myself wanting to hate, or degrade, or control, or oppress others. I just can't see that. It seems so obvious to want to work together, to uphold one another, to celebrate humanity. Thanks for clearly describing this division because for my brain and heart it is really hard to fathom .
Ultimately, JL, many of said "governed" want to be on "top" more than they want anyone else to get anything to which they don't "deserve" based upon their race, gender, sexual/gender identity, and religion. Simple as that. Many of them don't see a problem with anything that keeps us "others" in our place, even as it keeps them from success on their own "merits".
"Merits" can be pretty subjective. Certainly that is relevant to wealth. To some degree, hard work and diligence is a factor, as is total slacking, but I would not call DJT "diligent" or a "workaholic". It some point having money makes more money, and that tends to snowball. Robert Reich claims that Trump would be richer if he had put his huge inheritance into an index fund and walked away. Luck, of circumstances, especially which parents you were born to, has a great deal to do with it. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/16/super-rich-family-dynastic-wealth-pandemic . "Human rights are universal.
At some people, being on "top", or at least lording it over others, seems to be "the only thing". You see it in road rage, where a diver make risk their own life and those of others over a real or imagined petty slight. You see it in the war crimes being committed by Russia against Ukraine.
When one is asked how he/she measures their success the usual earmarks are proffered. Job status, money, respect, love, possessions, etc. Never do you hear humility, or kindness, but one does witness it as the greatest gift of the poor.
They emulate the Roman elite. Your only purpose is to serve them. The Roman Empire led by its industrial elite failed. That game plan lost the super bowl especially so after the lions were removed.
It's also an indication of how much they love the "child" in the womb but once that brat gets born, it and it's parents are really on their own. I'll never forget the couple I met in New Zealand. They were from one of the Nordic countries and were using some of each of their state-provided parental leave to travel with their adorable 2 year old son. This country seems more and more barbaric when it comes to the basics: health and well-being across the age span, good education, decent housing, etc.
MisT Are Majorie Taylor Greene and Bubba Boebert examples of ‘good Republican mothers?’ A frightening thought. Who could possibly wish to provide child care, if they ever had kids [identifiable by the AK 15s in their baby hands?]
There is now talk of MTG angling to be Trump's vice-presidential running mate. Better to have her at home taking care of the kids, even though that's a revolting thought.
The "GOP"s plutocratic patrons also see government childcare assistance complicating, and in sometimes directly competing with a profit making opportunity they aspire to own. I have talked to or read more than one Republican who claims to believe that any form of government ownership or service is intolerable, and that literally everything, roads, parks, schools and universities, even police, fire fighters, and soldiers should exclusively be provided by profit making enterprises.
JL Graham: in my SC county:" may I count the dangerous pot holes one by one"...it is dangerous to drive at night if I have not learned where the deepest ones are located....
And what HCR mentions frequently - they promote the trope that this takes money from hard-working people (white men) and gives it to those lazy, slacker folks (minorities).
You can have a strong central government that is proactive, like those other countries, or you can have a strong central government that basically is reacting to the effects of it's not being proactive.
The rhetoric of the GOP/conservative movement is contradictory. They want mom to stay home and take care of the children, but one income stream is woefully inadequate to raise a family. Meanwhile, they oppose and block any measures that would actually help realize this goal. They profess to be “pro life”, but refuse to legislate any acts that would give expectant and new mothers aid. The only consistent interpretation of this stance that I can see is that they want most of us in poverty.
You’d think that this would appeal to Republicans, if they were sincere about their rhetoric. I think this LFAA, along with so many others, makes it clear that they don’t care about American workers. In fact, they seem to prefer a tiny middle class and impoverished working- and under-classes, with the wealth mostly in their donors’ hands and the lower 90% scratching and fighting for whatever they can get. It makes it much harder to organize against them and ensures that the vast majority of the money is theirs.
I strongly believe that before you run for office, you must live for a year on the income of someone who represents the typical struggling American.
I also believe that We the People need to determine whether or not they receive a pension after they serve, and that we also have the same healthcare package that they do.
Hedge Funds have been buying up "Child Care" centers like Americans gobble Big Macs.
So, "affordable" Child Care in our "Capitalist" system is very unlikely to appear because some Latino guys in Congress participate in raising their kids.
1. The people in power in the states are NOT Latino. Nor is any political majority in Congress.
2. Hedge funds will payoff anyone who attempts to lower the cost of "child care".
3. "Business" as usual will continue Making Americans Poor Again.
Private equity has notched decades of high returns for investors by following a well-worn strategy: acquire distressed or undervalued companies or real estate, increase profits and then sell them. Greatest hits include foreclosed homes, highway rest stops and coal mines bought out of bankruptcy.
New York, where I live, just "partnered" with a Private Equity fund to "revamp" their rest stops. McDonald's was removed everywhere.
Not that I am a fan of McDonalds but they have an affordable coffee and an Egg McMuffin. So, you don't have to hand over your entire bank account just to use the restroom, get a coffee and a bit to eat.
So, now? When I travel in NY I will have to load a bag of money in the trunk with the luggage just to, umm, make a "rest stop".
In 1536 Henry VIII began his Dissolution of the Monasteries. About 12,000 men and women lived and worked in these 900 institutions , who were suddenly turned out of their homes in a country of 500,000. They were also the seats of learning and education, hospitality, and the main source of charity for orphans, the aged, and the infirm. England’s social safety net was torn and the country was overwhelmed with the poor and needy.
:). Very True Anne-Louise. I was referencing all of the current Republican party to Henry. Just throw corporations under the bus as well. For good measure.
BK As Trumpites realize that they have been screwed by the ‘evangelical Christians,’ expect an upswing in their “deaths of despair.” Any chance that they will be going to heaven, as I shout an “up yours!” Farewell?
At a time when so many businesses are woefully short-staffed, one would think that making childcare more affordable would appeal to Republicans. But we know that’s a pipe dream.
Childcare and parental leave are light years more progressive in other well-off countries. But then again most of those counties have strong central governments that care about improving the lives of their citizens.
According to a segment on pre-K education that I heard on NPR several years ago, Oklahoma Republicans established an extensive government-funded education program starting with three-year-olds. They sold it not on humanitarian grounds but on economic grounds and verified a few years later that their expectations were justified: pre-K education more than paid for itself in reduced expenditures for remedial programs that had previously been necessary in later childhood and for teenagers. It seems likely that affordable, high-quality childcare would pay for itself in the same way. It would, therefore, appeal to rational conservatives if there were any rational conservatives in positions of authority in government.
Rex Thanks for this shard of sunlight from Oklahoma, where every county voted for Trump in 2016 and again in 2020. Personally, I think that anyone who denigrates child care is also a humbug about Santa Claus.
I would not expect a humanitarian rationale for child care from an Oklahoma legislature. Still, I applaud its ‘economic rationale’ for pre-K education that would appeal to conservatives.
Incidentally, in Montgomery Township NJ, my ‘Democratic’ community, last November the voters approved (by less than 50 votes) to fund a pre-K school program.
Perhaps an economic rationale for “Medicare for all” would work as well. Private healthcare insurance costs American companies an arm and a leg - about twice what public healthcare costs in other industrialized nations. American companies bear most of those costs, and those costs cut into profits and make them less competitive globally. “Medicare for all” makes excellent sense as business policy, we could even sell it as a tax cut (portraying private health insurance as taxation).
“ Beyond the Affordable Care Act: A Physicians’ Proposal for Single-Payer Health Care Reform establishes the vision and principles that will empower Americans to replace our expensive, inadequate, and inefficient collection of health care systems with an improved Medicare for All.”
https://pnhp.org/
John There you go being ‘rationale’ again. Wouldn’t get through to the Fox News audience.
No, but it might get through to the corporate donors to the GOP.
And to the fence-sitters that typically sit out every election.
How is Faux News going to spin C/2023 E3 coming on Feb1 & 2. Apparently the Comet will appear to be green in color not orange. OK to Look Up.
C/2022 E3 (discovered in 2022). Here's a link to details on where to look and when, probably more detail than many of us need but it's an interesting article. https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/new-comet-might-get-bright-enough-for-binoculars/
American healthcare often costs far more than twice as much as in other industrialized countries.
Add to that the completely unnecessary hospital bureaucracy, repeating tests carried out hours or days beforehand, all to maximize profitability.
Such a pity. American medicine is potentially so good, but the medical profession is caught in crossfire between often barely relevant forces... lawyers, insurance companies, pharmaceuticals corporations, administrators... even populist politicians.
Last night, we watched documentary films on Dr. Burzynski in Houston, TX.
Beginning with his own observation and and elegantly simple idea he had in 1967, Dr. B. pioneered a new, holistic, non-toxic way to treat many desperate cancer patients. And for many, his out-of-the-box turn-around worked!
Patients tried his protocol when conventional medicine had failed and given up on them. Many survived deadly, hopeless prognoses given by their own doctors. Some survivors had been living normal, cancer-free lives for years, often for decades.
While it wasn't surprising that Dr. B. and his work were viciously attacked non-stop by conventional medicine for decades, the degree of effort, resources, and extremism invested shocked even us. The lack of care for the evidently needless suffering and deaths of patients by the medical profession, FDA, cancer institutes, etc under a rigid, profit-driven structure stunned us.
THIS is how it works, not just for 'treating' patients in a hugely profitable industry (cancer) or even just for American medicine. This is how and why our economic, political, social, and yes, medical troubles are so incomprehensibly broken and intractable. They don't serve the people. They serve their inhumane corporate masters only. Way beyond crossfire...
We still have our jaws on the floor.
I know nothing about this doctor's work... and my default starting point is one of skepticism. That is the way my mind has worked since childhood. In old age -- and over 20 years now since the start of a rare cancer, treated by chemo etc. until seven years ago -- I am more aware now of the limits of skepticism. The only remark I am, then, willing to make in this particular context is to express my understanding that cancer is a highly individual phenomenon; just as no two individuals are identical, the way a cancer will manifest will vary from one person to the next. So, if we use "shoes" as a metaphor for treatment, shoes will help but "one size shoes fits all" cannot.
The metaphor's not quite right, but it does express reasonable skepticism about any and every approach, especially about panaceas. What works for one may harm another.
As for the "rigid, profit-driven structure", that's the best America has been capable of providing. And here, America's best is not good enough. Precisely because of the systematic application of an economic panacea grounded in nothing more substantial than beliefs convenient to powerful corporate and political interests.
Like all things American, this irrelevant profit-driven machine has been applied elsewhere, although nowhere as systematically as in the USA. So that the health of the US population is quite surprisingly poor in relation to the country's wealth... and other countries that apply what right-wing American politicians like to condemn out of hand as "socialism" have easier access, lower prices and better public health.
Money should lubricate machinery, in America it puts sand into it.
And bureaucracy is bureaucracy is an endemic disease, regardless of whether an organization is public or private. Virulent forms affect healthcare-for-profit. Grave problems arise when the primary purpose of a public service is not, say, education or maximizing public health, but maximizing profits paid to shareholders. Healthcare shouldn't be all about making strangers rich.
*
I'm going to add to this an note on bureaucratitis, contemporary version:
The purpose is to maximize profits at everyone else's expense: company employees are screwed -- SYSTEMATICALLY -- customers are screwed -- SYSTEMATICALLY.
And all systems are designed to maximize frustration and rage.
Bad enough in France.
Can be deadly in a country where every other citizen has an armory with the firepower of a platoon, if not a company, of soldiers at the time when the Holy Holy Holy Second Amendment was passed.
I write like this because at this moment I am being messed about by a typical US business called UPS. Quite superlative when it comes to delivering RAGE and FRUSTRATION...
Thanks for nothing, America, when it comes to poisoning the planet with a stinking business model...
I’ve been saying this for years. Cut out the middleman like other great countries have done. We’d pay less!!!!!
Maybe so, but "Death panels!". Best to let people die without health care.
Becky The Republican bloviating about ‘death panels’ was nonsense. As already recognized in some states (and countries) individuals with terminal illnesses should have the right to die with dignity. This process requires safeguards, as has already been done in some places.
We’ve just had a friend with terminal cancer who lived in great pain and was down to 45 pounds before she died. I believe that she should have had a more humane choice.
(Sorry, I should have used my sarcasm font).
Don't look back to "Death Panels," we're going forward, not back!
LOVE THIS APPROACH!
Good morning, Keith,
I am glad that even in dark red Oklahoma they, for whatever reason, funded pre-K education. However, my take on this most of the policies of this country including the insane lack of gun control, we do not give a rat's behind about children. Actually we love to complain about everything, but staunchly refuse to realize that it will take both political will and money to solve these problems. As an aside, the news had a story about experimental "casitas" that could be used to help with housing. They are made with mass wood which seems to be thin pieces of wood pressed together and are very strong. Our governor and one of our Senators were there praising the project. They did look like livable space.
Michele NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Arden set an admirable standard by nursing her baby when she attended the United Nations, but the thought of Majorie Taylor Greene as a mother I find revolting.
I find Gangrene revolting in any role....can't imagine her as a mother. Probably one of those who sends Christmas cards with pics of everyone in the family holding locked and loaded.
Michele Gangrene Greene! I’m envious at your brilliance. Her puss is oozing through the Republican Animal House.
It's all about the almighty $$ for most repuglitans
Its interesting to me that when a program is framed in a humanitarian light, Republicans go all ape-crap at “socialism”, yet when finances get involved, viola’, it works
Frame it like they like it, huh?
They’ll never know
Ironically the way to get it to catch the attention of gop is to make it sound as “unchristian” as possible.
Ml Jesus, you are right!
Dave I like your idea of sprinkling gold dust on such “socialist” programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and even ‘child care.” How would this work with ‘fair share’ of taxes?
Here’s how that works; “fair share of taxes” is a concept that requires an out of box belief that “the entirety of American Society” allows for the ultra rich to become richer. Without the multitudes of the unwashed, the elite have no one to suck money from, therefore they “owe” the unwashed their rightful due in the form of a tax structure that nurtures said unwashed in the manner of living conditions to sustain them with clean water, roads, education, and infrastructure to maintain a humane society
Given the vast wealth they pilfer from the rest of society, it is only fair that they sustain that which gives them the life they enjoy, us; the people that buy their stuff. They may feel thats not fair, but thats because they’re still thinking inside the box
Just to be clear, to get all the goodies we on the liberal pro human side of the aisle think society needs, tax rates will have to rise for individuals and companies. There is no shortcut. This means that a huge majority of people will need to accept and support increased taxation.
Living in Texas, I observed that resistance to taxes, especially for programs one disliked, let to resistance to all "gummint" programs.
Yes, tax revenue must be increased, but the Piketty data shows that capitalism is stabilized by steeply progressive taxation on both income and net worth. Wage earners already pay over 14% of income in FICA taxes (as a fraction of compensation, including the part of the FICA tax employers are required to pay), which is already more than the bottom half of them would need to pay in a tax regime consistent with a stable, capitalist economy. So, taxes may need to rise slightly on above-median incomes but not enough to put any serious economic stress on anyone. However, taxes would rise sharply in the top 1% and substantially more sharply on the top 0.1%. There would be a lot of squeeling pigs in the wealthy class, but if Americans were rational in their election choices (they aren’t and probably never will be, but bear with me for a moment), the squeeling could be ignored and eventually turned against the squeelers.
Rex Among the ‘squealers’ would be the providers of private jets. The last time I flew I paid an extra $75 for a little more leg room in economy. As for booze and vittles, I carried on a coffee and a sandwich.
Dave D. - You mean 'voila', not 'viola'. A viola is something that sounds good, unlike Republican ape-crap.
😁. When I was in school we used to say “viola” in order to sound faux sophisticated
When Germany planned for the reopening their workforce after the pandemic, they put childcare and preschool-12th grade as where to start so workers could get back to work. Golly, logical thinking…
Germans and logic. Seems normal.
Maybe so, but, "Indoctrination"! "Grooming"! so best to keep them ignorant.
Did they keep it?
Yes they did. My grandson started first grade in September, and his younger brother, 3, started what they call kindergarten, but is actually preschool. The teachers are great, and very caring. Both boys love school.
That was my question too..in today’s climate in OK I would doubt it; but if already in place and is actually saving money, maybe?
My guess is that Republicans view the idea of government childcare assistance as a threat to the traditional female role of mother and domestic worker.
Bingo! The only thing that they love more than money is people knowing their place.
It appears to me that it is essential to install a stratified society for authoritarianism to function. First of all, it creates friction between classes, it provides the divides that enable conquering, and establishes a chain of rewards and terrors ultimately controlled from the top. At the bottom are disadvantaged, disenfranchised groups, that even the most exploited party loyalists get to boss around, cementing a critical mass of citizens with a stake in the system, who typically fight like hell for the status quo.
Those who believe in universal empowerment face an entrenched and powerful enemy, with a an invested following. I think the US has always been at war with itself over whether the democratic or despotic model would prevail and the balance has shifted back and fourth, sometimes in several opposing directions at once, depending on which aspect of society we talk about.
If we, the governed are to be, collectively, the ultimate consent for governmental power, why would we not want robust and accessible childcare? Why would we not want equitable protection and justice under law?
J L, Reading your comment I try to imagine myself wanting to hate, or degrade, or control, or oppress others. I just can't see that. It seems so obvious to want to work together, to uphold one another, to celebrate humanity. Thanks for clearly describing this division because for my brain and heart it is really hard to fathom .
Ultimately, JL, many of said "governed" want to be on "top" more than they want anyone else to get anything to which they don't "deserve" based upon their race, gender, sexual/gender identity, and religion. Simple as that. Many of them don't see a problem with anything that keeps us "others" in our place, even as it keeps them from success on their own "merits".
"Merits" can be pretty subjective. Certainly that is relevant to wealth. To some degree, hard work and diligence is a factor, as is total slacking, but I would not call DJT "diligent" or a "workaholic". It some point having money makes more money, and that tends to snowball. Robert Reich claims that Trump would be richer if he had put his huge inheritance into an index fund and walked away. Luck, of circumstances, especially which parents you were born to, has a great deal to do with it. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/16/super-rich-family-dynastic-wealth-pandemic . "Human rights are universal.
At some people, being on "top", or at least lording it over others, seems to be "the only thing". You see it in road rage, where a diver make risk their own life and those of others over a real or imagined petty slight. You see it in the war crimes being committed by Russia against Ukraine.
When one is asked how he/she measures their success the usual earmarks are proffered. Job status, money, respect, love, possessions, etc. Never do you hear humility, or kindness, but one does witness it as the greatest gift of the poor.
They emulate the Roman elite. Your only purpose is to serve them. The Roman Empire led by its industrial elite failed. That game plan lost the super bowl especially so after the lions were removed.
And the Pharaohs, and anyone else who lives to bully.
Will, REALLY….it’s one of their “commandments”: Woman, know thy place!
It's also an indication of how much they love the "child" in the womb but once that brat gets born, it and it's parents are really on their own. I'll never forget the couple I met in New Zealand. They were from one of the Nordic countries and were using some of each of their state-provided parental leave to travel with their adorable 2 year old son. This country seems more and more barbaric when it comes to the basics: health and well-being across the age span, good education, decent housing, etc.
MisT Are Majorie Taylor Greene and Bubba Boebert examples of ‘good Republican mothers?’ A frightening thought. Who could possibly wish to provide child care, if they ever had kids [identifiable by the AK 15s in their baby hands?]
Whether anyone is a good parent is not for us to say. As many bad adults were raised by good parents as good adults were raised by bad ones.
I love Nora Ephron's definition of a good parent: one who raises a child that can pay for their own therapy. 😇
There is now talk of MTG angling to be Trump's vice-presidential running mate. Better to have her at home taking care of the kids, even though that's a revolting thought.
She was a stay-at-home mom for many years. All of her children are now adults.
Hard to believe they are adults having grown up under her tutelage.
The "GOP"s plutocratic patrons also see government childcare assistance complicating, and in sometimes directly competing with a profit making opportunity they aspire to own. I have talked to or read more than one Republican who claims to believe that any form of government ownership or service is intolerable, and that literally everything, roads, parks, schools and universities, even police, fire fighters, and soldiers should exclusively be provided by profit making enterprises.
JL Graham: in my SC county:" may I count the dangerous pot holes one by one"...it is dangerous to drive at night if I have not learned where the deepest ones are located....
Puke
And what HCR mentions frequently - they promote the trope that this takes money from hard-working people (white men) and gives it to those lazy, slacker folks (minorities).
The worker to slacker part is true if you think about 1% slacker, DJT. No wonder he tired to hide is tax returns.
Yes, just like Lauren and Marjorie. 🤡
You can have a strong central government that is proactive, like those other countries, or you can have a strong central government that basically is reacting to the effects of it's not being proactive.
The rhetoric of the GOP/conservative movement is contradictory. They want mom to stay home and take care of the children, but one income stream is woefully inadequate to raise a family. Meanwhile, they oppose and block any measures that would actually help realize this goal. They profess to be “pro life”, but refuse to legislate any acts that would give expectant and new mothers aid. The only consistent interpretation of this stance that I can see is that they want most of us in poverty.
You’d think that this would appeal to Republicans, if they were sincere about their rhetoric. I think this LFAA, along with so many others, makes it clear that they don’t care about American workers. In fact, they seem to prefer a tiny middle class and impoverished working- and under-classes, with the wealth mostly in their donors’ hands and the lower 90% scratching and fighting for whatever they can get. It makes it much harder to organize against them and ensures that the vast majority of the money is theirs.
Good summary that captures the cruelty of our plight.
I strongly believe that before you run for office, you must live for a year on the income of someone who represents the typical struggling American.
I also believe that We the People need to determine whether or not they receive a pension after they serve, and that we also have the same healthcare package that they do.
Michael, it is not only that Republicans will not support reduced Child Care. Our entire system will buck against it because:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/16/us/child-care-centers-private-equity.html
Hedge Funds have been buying up "Child Care" centers like Americans gobble Big Macs.
So, "affordable" Child Care in our "Capitalist" system is very unlikely to appear because some Latino guys in Congress participate in raising their kids.
1. The people in power in the states are NOT Latino. Nor is any political majority in Congress.
2. Hedge funds will payoff anyone who attempts to lower the cost of "child care".
3. "Business" as usual will continue Making Americans Poor Again.
I just read that article...
Private equity has notched decades of high returns for investors by following a well-worn strategy: acquire distressed or undervalued companies or real estate, increase profits and then sell them. Greatest hits include foreclosed homes, highway rest stops and coal mines bought out of bankruptcy.
Interesting you mention rest stops.
New York, where I live, just "partnered" with a Private Equity fund to "revamp" their rest stops. McDonald's was removed everywhere.
Not that I am a fan of McDonalds but they have an affordable coffee and an Egg McMuffin. So, you don't have to hand over your entire bank account just to use the restroom, get a coffee and a bit to eat.
So, now? When I travel in NY I will have to load a bag of money in the trunk with the luggage just to, umm, make a "rest stop".
Exactly.
And many of those have strong capitalistic economies as well.
They work in a different way than the U.S..
I am so taken with this thread. Thank you everyone.
Bingo! Thanks, Michael.
YES!
In 1536 Henry VIII began his Dissolution of the Monasteries. About 12,000 men and women lived and worked in these 900 institutions , who were suddenly turned out of their homes in a country of 500,000. They were also the seats of learning and education, hospitality, and the main source of charity for orphans, the aged, and the infirm. England’s social safety net was torn and the country was overwhelmed with the poor and needy.
Sound familiar?
Well done. In 2024 I hope we outvote the Henry Vlll party.
Similar build, but he had twice the number of wives...
:). Very True Anne-Louise. I was referencing all of the current Republican party to Henry. Just throw corporations under the bus as well. For good measure.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Thank you!
This deserves a great deal more attention.
Absolutely!!!!!
Thank you BK
BK As Trumpites realize that they have been screwed by the ‘evangelical Christians,’ expect an upswing in their “deaths of despair.” Any chance that they will be going to heaven, as I shout an “up yours!” Farewell?
Graham hit that note hard
Thank you for providing the link!
Addiction is one of the tragic consequences of our failed imperial wars