Serious health insurance reform, such as single payer, should reduce overall costs, especially if there is more control over the costs of prescription drugs.
The speaking fees the former secretary of state has gotten from Goldman Sachs mean she can’t credibly crack down on Wall Street behavior. So the question is do you want Wall Street cracked down on or not?
http://townhall.com/columnists/donaldlambro/2016/02/05/you-want-socialism-look-at-the-10-percent-jobless-rate-in-europe-n2114920/page/full-printed out 3 pages. Democrats who plan to vote for either Sanders or Clinton (an undeclared Socialist…she even answered a reporter’s question by saying she didn’t know about Socialism…(Q=is there a difference between Socialism and the Democrat economics?)-As Lambro says, “Look at the 10% Jobless Rate in Europe.”-The US is already at the brink of depression, IMO. We still have 94 Million who want a job but cannot find a job. And it doesn’t count the retirees. It is 94 million Americans with used-up benefits but jobless and who want to work and earn a steady paycheck!-I hear a conservative experienced money advisor 5 days a week on AFR, a Christian FM radio station. Dan Celia.His ongoing analysis of government data have been showing a 7-year approximate annual “growth” of just over ONE Per Cent! (Reagan’s annual numbers were 3% or more! )-Socialism takes away from successful earners to use for government programs and to dribble crumbs to needy voters.Our young voters had to be liberally “educated” in order to see an attraction for Socialism, and give Sanders, a Socialist and not really a “Democrat”, good poll numbers. And Hillarycompetes with trying to come up with better bribes for voters!Both or Either will raise taxes if elected, and add to the spending that went from $10.6 Trillion January 2009 to Feb.1st total Debt of $19 Trillion. IMO that is unsustainable.
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/venezuelas-socialist-bernie-sanders-any-questions/-Excellent article and I love the suggestion from IBD for voters considering voting for Socialism’s 2 “frontrunners” this year:Sanders, openly a Socialist and Clinton, a “secret Fabian-type” closet-Socialist judging from her political stances on all issues. IMO.-Venezuela voted to change their government to Socialist;in 2016, after 8 years, the results are very visible=Inflation: now at 720%. Shortages of necessities make life difficult for the People. State Planning created those shortages in medicines and diapers and most important, FOOD!-Biggest export—crude oil—was stolen from the People by dictator Hugo Chavez, and now oil must be Imported! And all done by Socialism in the nation with the largest world oil reserves!- No wonder Venezuela now has the world’s highest crime rate.It is reported that families are sending their young people into exile in other, better countries. Americans should ask them about the consequences of voting for Socialism.
from Britannica.com/hugo-chavez=(Marxist-Socialist ruler 1999 until his death 3/5/13.)
Chávez sincerely saw himself as a modern-day Bolívar, continuing the work of the 19th-century statesman who had led the fight for Latin America’s independence from Spain and advocated the creation of a league of Latin American states. Combining Bolívar’s vision of a unified Latin America, free from the interference of foreign powers, with REVOLUTIONARY MARXIST IDEOLOGY, Chávez worked to create a Latin American alliance powerful enough not only to expel U.S. influence from the region but also to compete politically and economically with the United States and the European Union. To this end, he actively promoted the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), a regional bloc for social, political, and economic integration created with Castro in 2004, and PetroCaribe, a Venezuelan-led regional energy program created in 2005. These initiatives found considerable support as alternatives to globalization and the economic policies that many Latin Americans felt were pushed on them by the United States and by international lending agencies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. However, while Chávez found common ground with many Latin American countries, he alienated others. Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, and Peru at some point each accused Chávez of meddling in their domestic affairs. Furthermore, Chávez’s critics cited Venezuela’s massive arms buildup, its transfer of money and arms to the Colombian guerrilla group FARC, its military alliance with Russia, and its continent wide media coverage as proof of Chávez’s intent to destabilize large sections of Latin America in a sort of “superinsurgency.”
Within Venezuela the people were deeply divided, and this polarization, combined with a lack of transparency on the part of the government, made it difficult to gauge the success of Chávez’s revolution. Government statistics were often contradicted by independent sources, and nonbiased assessments were rare. His opponents pointed to Chávez’s increasing authoritarianism, a more than doubling of the country’s homicide rate under his rule, shortages of basic foods like sugar, milk, and beans, one of the highest inflation rates in Latin America, and a stubbornly high infant mortality rate, which suggested that government oil profits still were not reaching the poorest citizens. Critics also noted that democracy was dramatically weakened under Chávez’s rule. He and his coalition indeed controlled all the institutions of the state—the National Assembly, the Supreme Court, the Justice Department, and the National Election Council. Analysts said that the Chávez government could act with impunity, while those who opposed it had little legal recourse and were often subject to state-sponsored harassment. On the other hand, Chávez proponents pointed to successful education programs, increased access to health care, a rise in employment, and a more than 20 percent drop in the poverty rate under Chávez’s rule.
Kip W over 8 years ago
You can’t see the “S” on Hillary’s ball. It stands for all the GOP characters who keep slinging mud at her and missing.
lonecat over 8 years ago
Serious health insurance reform, such as single payer, should reduce overall costs, especially if there is more control over the costs of prescription drugs.
Mr. Blawt over 8 years ago
The speaking fees the former secretary of state has gotten from Goldman Sachs mean she can’t credibly crack down on Wall Street behavior. So the question is do you want Wall Street cracked down on or not?
Nov Nov Man over 8 years ago
Reduce war, suddenly we have endless funds available for the overall good.
kline0800 over 8 years ago
http://townhall.com/columnists/donaldlambro/2016/02/05/you-want-socialism-look-at-the-10-percent-jobless-rate-in-europe-n2114920/page/full-printed out 3 pages. Democrats who plan to vote for either Sanders or Clinton (an undeclared Socialist…she even answered a reporter’s question by saying she didn’t know about Socialism…(Q=is there a difference between Socialism and the Democrat economics?)-As Lambro says, “Look at the 10% Jobless Rate in Europe.”-The US is already at the brink of depression, IMO. We still have 94 Million who want a job but cannot find a job. And it doesn’t count the retirees. It is 94 million Americans with used-up benefits but jobless and who want to work and earn a steady paycheck!-I hear a conservative experienced money advisor 5 days a week on AFR, a Christian FM radio station. Dan Celia.His ongoing analysis of government data have been showing a 7-year approximate annual “growth” of just over ONE Per Cent! (Reagan’s annual numbers were 3% or more! )-Socialism takes away from successful earners to use for government programs and to dribble crumbs to needy voters.Our young voters had to be liberally “educated” in order to see an attraction for Socialism, and give Sanders, a Socialist and not really a “Democrat”, good poll numbers. And Hillarycompetes with trying to come up with better bribes for voters!Both or Either will raise taxes if elected, and add to the spending that went from $10.6 Trillion January 2009 to Feb.1st total Debt of $19 Trillion. IMO that is unsustainable.
kline0800 over 8 years ago
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/venezuelas-socialist-bernie-sanders-any-questions/-Excellent article and I love the suggestion from IBD for voters considering voting for Socialism’s 2 “frontrunners” this year:Sanders, openly a Socialist and Clinton, a “secret Fabian-type” closet-Socialist judging from her political stances on all issues. IMO.-Venezuela voted to change their government to Socialist;in 2016, after 8 years, the results are very visible=Inflation: now at 720%. Shortages of necessities make life difficult for the People. State Planning created those shortages in medicines and diapers and most important, FOOD!-Biggest export—crude oil—was stolen from the People by dictator Hugo Chavez, and now oil must be Imported! And all done by Socialism in the nation with the largest world oil reserves!- No wonder Venezuela now has the world’s highest crime rate.It is reported that families are sending their young people into exile in other, better countries. Americans should ask them about the consequences of voting for Socialism.
kline0800 over 8 years ago
from Britannica.com/hugo-chavez=(Marxist-Socialist ruler 1999 until his death 3/5/13.)
Chávez sincerely saw himself as a modern-day Bolívar, continuing the work of the 19th-century statesman who had led the fight for Latin America’s independence from Spain and advocated the creation of a league of Latin American states. Combining Bolívar’s vision of a unified Latin America, free from the interference of foreign powers, with REVOLUTIONARY MARXIST IDEOLOGY, Chávez worked to create a Latin American alliance powerful enough not only to expel U.S. influence from the region but also to compete politically and economically with the United States and the European Union. To this end, he actively promoted the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), a regional bloc for social, political, and economic integration created with Castro in 2004, and PetroCaribe, a Venezuelan-led regional energy program created in 2005. These initiatives found considerable support as alternatives to globalization and the economic policies that many Latin Americans felt were pushed on them by the United States and by international lending agencies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. However, while Chávez found common ground with many Latin American countries, he alienated others. Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, and Peru at some point each accused Chávez of meddling in their domestic affairs. Furthermore, Chávez’s critics cited Venezuela’s massive arms buildup, its transfer of money and arms to the Colombian guerrilla group FARC, its military alliance with Russia, and its continent wide media coverage as proof of Chávez’s intent to destabilize large sections of Latin America in a sort of “superinsurgency.”
Within Venezuela the people were deeply divided, and this polarization, combined with a lack of transparency on the part of the government, made it difficult to gauge the success of Chávez’s revolution. Government statistics were often contradicted by independent sources, and nonbiased assessments were rare. His opponents pointed to Chávez’s increasing authoritarianism, a more than doubling of the country’s homicide rate under his rule, shortages of basic foods like sugar, milk, and beans, one of the highest inflation rates in Latin America, and a stubbornly high infant mortality rate, which suggested that government oil profits still were not reaching the poorest citizens. Critics also noted that democracy was dramatically weakened under Chávez’s rule. He and his coalition indeed controlled all the institutions of the state—the National Assembly, the Supreme Court, the Justice Department, and the National Election Council. Analysts said that the Chávez government could act with impunity, while those who opposed it had little legal recourse and were often subject to state-sponsored harassment. On the other hand, Chávez proponents pointed to successful education programs, increased access to health care, a rise in employment, and a more than 20 percent drop in the poverty rate under Chávez’s rule.
Brian A. Nelson
Dtroutma over 8 years ago
And Trump is dragging around a garbage truck, with right-wingers proclaiming nothing else can smell so sweet.