FOCUS: Robert Reich | 'You're Fired!' America Has Already Terminated Trump

24 February 19 It's Live on the HomePage Now: Reader Supported News THIS FUNDRAISER IS OFFICIALLY A DISASTER - At this point it is already clear from the current pace at which donations are coming in that we have no chance whatsoever of finishing this fundraising drive - without an improvement. Who is willing to make a donation? “Some” donations are needed quite badly. / Marc Ash, Founder Reader Supported News Sure, I'll make a donation! FOCUS: Robert Reich | 'You're Fired!' America Has Already Terminated Trump  Robert Reich, Guardian UK Reich writes: "Robert Mueller's soon-to-be-delivered report will begin months of congressional investigations, subpoenas, court challenges, partisan slugfests, media revelations, and more desperate conspiracy claims by Donald Trump, all against the backdrop of the burning questions: Will he be impeached by the House?" READ MORE Contribute to RSN Update My Monthly Donation

Tax-the-Rich Road to Victory

Isn't it time to stop Welfare for the Wealthy and Big Corporations that don't contribute their FAIR SHARE?



Turns out, pundits have got it dead wrong.

Democrats and progressives can talk about taxes and win elections. Richard Eskow has written a great article about what the polls show about raising taxes on the wealthy and how this will play out in future elections.

For Democrats, a Tax-the-Rich Road to Victory

November 17, 2013

Richard Eskow

 

As we enter into yet another round of budget discussions, the Democratic Party is confronted with an opportunity – and a challenge. There’s an opportunity to shift the budget debate to an area where they hold the high ground. But it will be a challenge for some Democrats to take the initiative on a subject they seem reluctant to discuss.

The subject is taxes.

 

Tax increases are a subject people seem reluctant to mention in the nation’s capital. Republicans have convinced everyone inside the Beltway that new tax revenues are politically impossible. The talk on the Hill is that the White House is urging Senate and House Dems to accept a cuts-only budget deal for the next go-round. It seems that the conventional wisdom says tax increases are best left unmentioned.

But the conventional wisdom is wrong.

 

New polling by Hart Research Associates, conducted for Americans for Tax Fairness, confirms and amplifies findings from earlier studies showing that Americans strongly support higher taxes for the wealthy and corporations. And when we say “strongly,” we mean very strongly.

 

As that covert recording of Mitt Romney showed last year, some of the “1 percent” think other Americans aren’t pulling their own weight in this economy. As this new polling confirms, the feeling’s mutual. By a seventeen point margin (56 percent to 39 percent), the American people want the next budget agreement to include new tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy.

 

And despite the conventional wisdom which suggests that “moderates” reject tax hikes, the Hart polling shows that moderates actually want these tax hikes –by an overwhelming forty-two point margin. Registered independents, often thought of as the Holy Grail of electioneering, back them by a nineteen point margin.

 

The conclusion is inescapable: if Democrats make this budget battle a fight over who has the smartest spending cuts, they’re fighting on the Republicans’ turf. That will weaken them as they enter the 2014 campaigns. But if they make this a fight over taxes and jobs, that’s a fight they can win.

 

How would this play out in the real-life Battle of the Budget? Before the backroom dealing takes place, there’s always a period of public posturing. Every time the Republicans talk about spending, the Democrats need to bring up taxes. Every time the Republicans talk about cuts, the Democrats have to hit them with the same lines, over and over and over:

 

“Why are you protecting the rich?”

 

“Stop protecting offshoring corporations.”

 

“If you really care about deficits, why keep all these tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy?”

 

When the talk turns to cutting “entitlements” – Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid – Democrats will be on even firmer ground. When given a choice, 70 percent of Americans preferred offsetting the sequester cuts with tax increases for the wealthy and corporations. Only 12 percent thought they should be offset by reducing future Medicare and Social Security spending.

 

Many of the spending cuts being put forward by Republicans, along with some of those being proposed by the White House, are unpopular with voters. 85 percent of those polled opposed asking seniors pay more for Medicare. 83 percent opposed cuts to Medicaid coverage. And 67 percent – more than two thirds of those polled – opposed the “chained CPI” Social Security cut.

 

Democrats may be tempted to soften the blow for themselves by speaking of “entitlement cuts” rather than “cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.” That’s understandable, “entitlement cuts” don’t provoke the same negative reaction that “cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid” do. Well, forget it, Dems. In the twelve months remaining until the next election, they’ll have plenty of time to figure out whether or not these programs were cut – and who went along with it.

 

Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat who heads the Senate Budget Committee, recently wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post which proposed ending some corporate tax loopholes and using part of the revenue to restore sequester cuts to health, education and other vital programs. She’s on to something. The loopholes she describes are urgently in need of repair.

 

Sen. Murray is also right to propose using the revenue raised from closing tax loopholes to fund important government programs. The public strongly agrees with that approach, and not with another idea that currently being floated around the nation’s capital – that of using revenue raised from tax loopholes to reduce overall tax rates for corporations and high earners.

 

That idea’s a loser with the public. An overwhelming 82 percent of the public would use the money raised from these loopholes for government “investment” and deficit reduction. Only 9 percent of those polled supported the idea of using this revenue to reduce overall tax rates for corporations and the wealthy.The investments described in the poll include “making classrooms less crowded, improving roads and bridges, and making us energy independent.” They’re not just good for the country on their own merits.These investments also create jobs. And Democrats urgently need to shift the debate back to jobs – because jobs are urgently needed, and because their own political fate probably depends on finding a message that resonates with voterz.

 

Fortunately for Dems, job creation still polls extremely well. By more than a two to one margin, voters polled by Hart preferred a budget approach which emphasizes jobs over one which focused only on the deficit.

 

With polling numbers like these, why would Democrats focus on spending cuts rather than on job creation funded by taxes from the wealthy and corporations?

 

In another important finding, pollsters found that the public trusts Democrats over Republicans when it comes to “In whom do you have more confidence to have the right approach in trying to reach a budget agreement dealing with government spending and taxes?”

 

But that margin of confidence in Democrats could be stronger. If Dems are going to win the trust of more

Americans, and earn the trust of those who already believe in them, they’re going to have to shift the debate away from spending cuts in toward jobs and taxes. That means resisting the conventional wisdom, an act of courage for which they could be richly rewarded in next November’s election.

 

 

http://ourfuture.org/20131117/for-democrats-a-tax-the-rich-road-to-victory?utm_source=signon&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=eskowgo

 

 

 

Right Wing Moneybags Organizations Are Multiplying Like Rabbits I guess it's to be expected.

 

 

Reproduction and Reality et al

Meme GOP added a new photo.

So much for another pathetic Right Wing SCOTUS decision......

Disturbing beyond words.

Maureen Westrick via Karen Hall
"...the US Supreme Court overturned the state court’s verdict and award. Justices cited the fact that all generic drugs and their manufacturers, some 80% of all drugs consumed in the United States, are exempt from liability for side effects, mislabeling or virtually any other negative reactions caused by their drugs. In short, the Court ruled that the FDA has ultimate authority over pharmaceuticals in the US. And if the FDA says a drug is safe, that takes precedent over ACTUAL FACTS, REAL VICTIMS and any and all adverse reactions."

Drug companies failed to warn patients that toxic epidermal necrolysis was a side effect. But the Supreme Court ruled they're still not liable for damages.

July 7, 2013

Supreme Court rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits

July 7, 2013. Washington. In case readers missed it with all the coverage of the Trayvon Martin murder trial and the Supreme Court’s rulings on gay marriage and the Voting Rights Act, the US Supreme Court also made a ruling on lawsuits against drug companies for fraud, mislabeling, side effects and accidental death. From now on, 80 percent of all drugs are exempt from legal liability.

In a 5-4 vote, the US Supreme Court struck down a lower court’s ruling and award for the victim of a pharmaceutical drug’s adverse reaction. According to the victim and the state courts, the drug caused a flesh-eating side effect that left the patient permanently disfigured over most of her body. The adverse reaction was hidden by the drug maker and later forced to be included on all warning labels. But the highest court in the land ruled that the victim had no legal grounds to sue the corporation because its drugs are exempt from lawsuits.

Karen Bartlett vs. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company

In 2004, Karen Bartlett was prescribed the generic anti-inflammatory drug Sulindac, manufactured by Mutual Pharmaceutical, for her sore shoulder. Three weeks after taking the drug, Bartlett began suffering from a disease called, ‘toxic epidermal necrolysis’. The condition is extremely painful and causes the victim’s skin to peel off, exposing raw flesh in the same manner as a third degree burn victim.

Karen Bartlett sued Mutual Pharma in New Hampshire state court, arguing that the drug company included no warning about the possible side effect. A court agreed and awarded her $21 million. The FDA went on to force both Mutual, as well as the original drug manufacturer Merck & Co., to include the side effect on the two drugs’ warning labels going forward.

Now, nine years after the tragedy began, the US Supreme Court overturned the state court’s verdict and award. Justices cited the fact that all generic drugs and their manufacturers, some 80% of all drugs consumed in the United States, are exempt from liability for side effects, mislabeling or virtually any other negative reactions caused by their drugs. In short, the Court ruled that the FDA has ultimate authority over pharmaceuticals in the US. And if the FDA says a drug is safe, that takes precedent over actual facts, real victims and any and all adverse reactions.

Court ruling

The Court’s ruling a week ago on behalf of generic drug makers is actually a continuation of a ruling made by the same Court in 2011. At that time, the Justices ruled that the original inventors and manufacturers of pharmaceutical drugs, also known as ‘name brand’ drugs, are the only ones that can be sued for mislabeling, fraud or adverse drug reactions and side effects.

If the generic versions of the drugs are made from the exact same formula and labeled with the exact same warnings as their brand name counterparts, the generics and their manufacturers were not liable.

The Court ruled, “Because it is impossible for Mutual and other similarly situated manufacturers to comply with both state and federal law, New Hampshire's warning-based design-defect cause of action is pre-empted with respect to FDA-approved drugs sold in interstate commerce."

And that ruling flies in the face of both common sense and justice. And as Karen Bartlett can now attest, it leaves 240 million Americans unprotected from the deadly and torturous side effects of pharmaceutical drugs. As a reminder, the number one cause of preventable or accidental death in the US is pharmaceutical drugs.

---

The news shouldn't be left wing or right wing, conservative or liberal. It should be the news. It should be independent - Whiteout Press

---

Critics react
Immediately upon the Supreme Court’s ruling, both drug manufacturers and Wall Street investors were celebrating. As one financial analyst pointed out, drug company profits should skyrocket going forward. Not only do the pharmaceutical companies no longer have to worry about safety or side effects, they are exempt from the multi-million dollar court-imposed settlements awarded to victims of their drugs.

One industry critic was quoted by Reuters after the verdict. "Today's court decision provides a disincentive for generic makers of drugs to monitor safety of their products and to make sure that they have a surveillance system in place to detect adverse events that pose a threat to patients," Michael Carome, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group told the news outlet.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) was quick to react to the ruling by writing a stern letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, "A consumer should not have her rights foreclosed simply because she takes the generic version of a prescription drug.”
But an attorney for the drug companies, Jay P. Lefkowitz, took the opposing position saying,

“It makes much more sense to rely on the judgments of the scientific and medical experts at the FDA, who look at drug issues for the nation at large, than those of a single state court jury that only has in front of it the terribly unfortunate circumstances of an adverse drug reaction."

In other words, if the FDA says something is safe, it doesn’t matter if that decision is wrong or the result of lies, fraud or deception on the part of the world’s pharmaceutical companies. And there’s no way to sue the FDA for being wrong and costing millions of unsuspecting Americans their lives. That result leaves 240 million Americans unprotected from an industry responsible for more preventable deaths in the US than any other cause.

http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q32013/supreme-court-rules-drug-companies-exempt-from-lawsuits/

Needham for Elizabeth Warren shared God's photo.

Middle Aged Woman Talking

I am repeatedly asked if I think ALEC is using women's reproductive freedoms and the War Against Women as a distraction and the answer is, no, I don't. The fact that women’s reproductive freedoms are being eroded is a reality, not a distraction, and part, not separate, from ALEC’s agenda, as is eroding the voting rights of minorities; destroying unions with right to work laws; destroying public education through the use of a voucher system; the privatization of prisons; austerity, which is a fancy name for starve the beast; and eviscerating environmental law. To refer to the War on Women as a distraction from more important issues is to devalue and negate the importance of equal rights, equal pay for equal work, and reproductive freedom. That the Republican party chooses to focus on women's vaginas, rather than jobs, is just that, a choice. Blaming the War on Women for the Republicans refusal to deal with the genuinely serious issues facing this country is akin to blaming the rape victim for being raped.

Live loud, love fierce, and suffer no fools. Katherine Manaan MAWT

The Pragmatic Progressive Page shared The Big Slice's photo.

Heh.--Dave.

Rude and Rotten Republicans shared Glen Beks's photo.

 

Science Sunday!

A humorous take on things from our friends at Third Wave Feminism

 

PROSPERITY AND POVERTY BROUGHT TO YOU BY REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS!

- Ayn Rand collected Social Security

Too Informed To Vote Republican

Image from Biased towards Logic and Reasoning
mmc

 

Fire Mitch McConnell 2014 added a new photo.

 

 

American Women United shared Steve Marmel's photo.

Well, in Texas we know why they're doing it....so that Perry's family can profit from it. NOT COOL!!!! Fight back, Texas!!! You're being lied to about their reason for trying to stop abortions!!!!!!!!!! They're doing this strictly to line their pockets, and the pockets of their rich friends!!!!!

GUESS WHOSE FAMILY LOOKS TO MAKE THE MOST MONEY PROVIDING ABORTIONS TO THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD IT?

RICK PERRY'S. SURPRISED? APPARENTLY HE'S LESS PRO-LIFE AND MORE... "PRO-LIFESTYLE."

- - - http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/06/1221712/-Follow-the-Money-Rick-Perry-Abortion-Edition- - - - -

While it is truly hard to keep up with the sheer amount of graft, giveaways, turning of blind eyes, and special favors that has emanated from Rick Perry's 13 years in the Governor's mansion, when following the tale of SB5/SB1 it is hard to miss the crucial results of one of the provisions:

#SB5 requires every abortion provider to be licensed as an ambulatory surgery center. This requirement will costs providers about $1 million and will have to comply with 117 pages of regulation. It is expected that all but five clinics would not be able to afford to stay open because they simply cannot afford to comply with these regulations.

Wait, an ambulatory surgery center, that's just the religious right chipping away at abortion around the edges, right? No one could possibly stand to gain from this provision, could they? Follow me below the fold.

Thank you Houston Chronicle for following the money:

If the bill passes, only five Texas abortion clinics would remain open—those that are already equipped as ambulatory surgical centers, advocates say. But a question remains: would the 420 other ambulatory surgical centers that exist in Texas begin performing the operation? Abortion rights advocates predict that the demand for the procedure won’t disappear with passage of the law.
One company that will be faced with that decision is United Surgical Partners International, based in Addison, TX. Their vice-president of government affairs is Milla Perry Jones, Gov. Rick Perry’s sister. She is also on the board of the Texas Ambulatory Surgical Center Society.

So if this bill passes, it provides Rick Perry's sister's company an opportunity to move into a new field, one where poor women can be charged an exorbitant rate for a desperate procedure. Expect abortions in Texas to continue, just at 2-3 times the previous going rates.

 

Via Occupy Democrats

 

Rude and Rotten Republicans shared Teanderthal Party's photo.

 

 

"Fox is Fixed and Fake 'news' - Unfair, Imbalanced and Unashamed. shared Stop the World, the Teabaggers Want Off's photo.

Fox Fraud has been the 24/7 free advertising source for the "Tea Baggers" since they devolved upon America's history, against the same "government regulations" that just saved over 300 lives on the Asiana Arline Crash thanks to better-regulations of plane seats, fire-resistant materials and a hundred other national and international regulations that make cars/restaurants/roads/sanitation/hospitals/cars/buses/airplanes more safe.
We can't put a price on lives, but with Fox Fiction trumpeting everything from the Iraq War to "bomb, bomb Iran", we know their priorities are for their rich friends and big oil.

 

 

 

Lady Liberals

Scott Walker's profile in courage.

Walker quietly signed into law serious restrictions on the rights of women in Wisconsin. The Republican-controlled Legislature passed the strict measure in June, but Walker waited until the middle of the long holiday weekend to sign it.

Congratulations Wisconsin women, you get to choose..........which ultrasound you want that is. The ultrasound requirement allows women to choose between transvaginal ultrasounds and less-invasive abdominal ultrasounds.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/05/scott-walker-signs-bill-to-tighten-abortion-restrictions-in-wisconsin/

 

 

Being Liberal

(M) Corporate welfare is something we should really be concerned about. Thanks to Liberal And Proud Of It for sharing this.

Posted on the Being Liberal fan page.