RW talking point on the Chicago teachers' strike: poor, single working moms scrambling for daycare

[No Elephants]

First, since when are righties concerned with single working moms, who the right loves to remind us, vote Democratic (the implication, of course, being that these "queens" do so because they want a handout--equal pay for equal work, perhaps?)

Second, since when are they concerned with the poor? I don't recall any outrage from Joe Scarborough or Willie Heist when their political enemy, Obama, sent a budget to Congress containing cuts in fuel subsidy money.

They don't care if the poor freeze to death, but they are all worked up over the poor scrambling for daycare during a short period of time while Chicago school teachers negotiate for smaller class size and more resources in their kids' schools?

Third, are there no poor, single working Dads? How about that even middle class and rich working people in one or two parent homes can't find daycare on a dime, either? No, none of them are quite as heart-wrenching as the term they choose to use, the better to manipulate our emotions, my dear.

Fourth, Rahm and the unions have been negotiating for months. So, how come it's only the teachers' fault if agreement was not reached? Oh, yes, because they are striking for more money and only for more money and Rahm offered a more than generous increase, especially in hard econommic times, before the strike.

:puke:

Oh, and this is on MSNBC, the only network that even pretends to lean left. Not only on MSNBC, though.

For example, AP is featuring the same talking point on its website today under "Ten Things You Should Know For Monday," as the number 1 thing, in fact. Really, with all that is going on in the campaigns, in the Middle East, in Pakistan, in Iran, day care problems allegedly caused by a greedy teachers' strike is the most important thing for you to know about today?

And it is not only MSNBC and AP (and, I'm guessing, Fox).

Somehow RW talking points are always all over the place. All the people smart enough to make millions a year reporting news seem cynical enough--oh, sorry, I mean genuinely gullible enough--to believe them and spread them like gospel, without repeating any of the countervailing points.

Of course, leaning left is not popular with Democrats or Republicans these days. Only with the people of the United States who pay their salaries and the rest of the expenses of our massive, wasteful government.

The 99% don't know they are leaning left, because everyone has made "left" a dirty word. However, for just one example, over 70% of those polled strongly supported a public option. That ain't RW.

The other 30% was probably the same 30% that polled in favor of Bush until the bitter end--and even they were probably lying because they thought Obama was about to pass a public option and they would rather die than admit they wanted something they thought he was in the process of doing.

Of course, the public option was not liberal, either, just left of center. Liberals, which may be an even dirtier word than "left," wanted medicare for all. That's what the public would really have loved, but it was quietly taken off the table during the 2008 campaign, probably because the public would have loved it too much. Low info multitudes probably don't know it is even an option.

And single payer is not far left, either. Far left is the government building, owning and running medical facilities and hiring and firing the caregivers. I don't know many who want that. Then again, that was never remotely on the table. And even Romneycare got called socialist and communist. And we took it lying down, just as we always have and, I fear, always will.

Of course, we got the Republican "solution," the one that came out of the Republican Heritage Foundation in response to the Nixon employer mandate, the one that even Republicans in Massachusetts are running against on the ground Romneycare raised insurance premiums. (or are they "taxes" now? I forget.)

[No Elephants]

1. P.S. For those who do not know: fuel subsidies are not just

government money and not only a talking point.


I don't know about other states. In Massachusetts, despite global warming, a few people already freeze to death every year and others die from keeping the oven on for some heat or fires from other means they use to try to keep warm without being able to afford central heat.

And that is only Massachusetts. We are not as cold to states to our north.

Besides, Chavez gives to Joe Kennedy's charity in Massachusetts. I don't know if Chavez or anyone else does the same in other states. Chavez, but not the U.S. taxpayer?

Also, people who are not on welfare can qualify for lower rates on the electric bill and lower rates on their phone bills if they qualify for fuel subsidies.

So, when you cut the money for fuel subsidies, you may have to bump off the program people who make, say, $100 a year too much to qualify for the new, smaller fuel subsidy program. Then, they also lose the discounts on the electric bill and the phone bill, too, so they are maybe $1000 in the hole for that year. (I am not 100% sure the cuts work that way, but they can't bump people on welfare. there's no even pretending they have other ways to stay alive that are legal.)

We are talking homes with children, elderly and disabled poor, who may get their phone and/or electric shut off, while they turn on the oven to stay warm. Why would a utility or phone shut off be any kind of a problem in these homes? I'm sure ambulances cruise like taxicabs do and can just be hailed down when needed; and no one needs any life-sustaining devices that require electricity.

I never qualified for subsidies of any kind, because I've been blessed or lucky in my life to have been born healthy and with certain capabilities, and to get student loans for my education and so on, but I did need to get 100% of my nutrition from IV for about two years. Guess what powers that?

The phone company is already calling people in Massachusetts. giving them thirty days to prove they remain eligible for the discount.

Again, in the richest country in the world (allegedly).

So, no, not just an anti-Obama or anti-right talking point. It's literally life and death in quite a few states in the richest country in the world (allegedly).

American exceptionalism. USA, USA!

Not Republicans. Not Joe Lieberman. Not Blue Dogs. Not Congress.

Recently-elected liberal President with a mandate who promised a couple of weeks before inauguration to "reform" "entitlements, appointed the cat food commission not long after, by-passed the Senate to cut a tax deal with Mitch McConnell, and sought a grand bargain, but only after Republicans took back control of the House.

I just can't wait for us to fall off the edge of the financial cliff after the election. I am pretty sure neither the D of D nor Homeland Security, nor the CIA or the FBI or the military contractors will be going over it with us, what with exercises in the Straits off Iran, fires all over the Middle East and marines deployed to protect our embassies.


Where was the outcry?

Well, the Republican political junkies who even knew about the fuel cuts were too secretly glad to even pretend to attack Obama on the cuts, which would only bring it to the attention of people who might actually care about their fellow Americans dying from poverty; and the Democratic political junkies who even knew about it were loyal to "their" guy.


But there was plenty of money to hold congressional hearings on important issues that never went anywhere amd were probably never intended to go anywhere, like voting, and life and death issues, like which baseball players used steroids, a very important issue to....?

[Enthusiast]

3. This is my favorite America exceptionalism parody video.

http://youtu.be/sWS-FoXbjVI :rofl:

[Enthusiast]

2. I'm with you on this.

I have especially been concerned about the one-sided media that you speak of. It seems like every issue that concerns me has a strict media meme that does not allow my leftish perspective to be heard. I mean, not even heard, at all!

Look at the single payer health care issue for example. The media is essentially forbidden to discuss the issue. We know that single payer is more effective and far cheaper. But this notion is carefully excluded from the public discourse. President Obama said, "Single payer would cost too much." He knew better. But he also knew the media had his back.

Look at the Social Security issue. You will seldom hear that Social Security is a self funded entity and fully solvent. The media meme is, "Social security is the cause of the deficit." That is all you will ever hear on the media. It's no different than Pravda.

The understanding that the media is completely slanted is getting out there. Their wall of secrecy is leaking. And there is no way for them to avoid it.

[No Elephants]

4. Hr 676 had about 100 sponsors--in theory. Mostly members of the

House Progressive Caucus (now down to around 70 members). Yet, AFAIK, it never went to the CBO to be rated.

During the campaign, Obama said that single payer was really the best, but would not work in the U.S. as it had in other nations because the U.S. "has all these pre-existing" things in place.

Huh?

Didn't every nation that went either government-owned or single payer have pre-existing things?

After he was elected, he said no one wanted government-run health care because it would be like *snort* the Post office.

a) no single payer is not government run health care. It's governmemnt-run health insurance. And, no, it wouldn't be anything like the Post Office. It would be just like Medicare.

b) Thanks for putting in the mouth of a popular Democratic President the Republican meme that the Post office sucks.

What the hell is wrong with the Post Office?

I put a stamp that costs under half a buck on a birthday card, stick it into the mail slot in the lobby of my building in Massachusetts and it gets to the lobby of the building of the California birthday boy a day or two later. Commerical mailers even get a much better deal than that.

Plus, they have been under a mandate to fund their pension for 75 years out. (Enron, anyone?)

So, I repeat, what the hell is wrong with the Post Office? That it is not in private hands? That its workers belong to a beleagured union?

[Enthusiast]

5. Well......

I remember him saying that also. He was just wrong on the "pre-existing" things statement. The pre-existing things, like the insurance industry, were the things that were wrong with our health care. Why would you carefully preserve the problem?

The President appears to have adopted the Republican position on both public education and the postal service. I find this EXTREMELY curious.

[No Elephants]

6. Health insurers did not need preserving, but they did need to make sure their profits

did not decrease as boomers aged (or sickened) into Medicare, perhaps costing insurers money with their illnesses before they hit 65 or total disability.

One of the pre-existing things was employer health insurance plans. Just think how much the job creators would have benefited if they did not have to offer employees health insurance!

As far as the Post Office, he reappointed Bush appointees to the Commission, which has to consent to any increase in postal rates, which the USPO needs if it is going to meet that onerous 75 year requirement. Surprise, surprise, the Commission has turned down several requests for postal rate increases.

The Commission does have to have a certain number of Republicans, but the tie breaker he appointed was the guy who practically wrote the 2006 postal restructuring bill that threatens to put the P.O., enshrined in our Constitution, out of business at last.

The postal workers reacted to that appointment with an article in their union newspaper with a title something like, "What were you thinking, Mr. President?"

And they were not referring to Bush.