$30k in healthcare expenses in one year

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday July 02, 2017 · 4:55 AM PDT

2017/07/02 · 04:55

NY.2014.png — New York's Health Insurance exchange

Last night I was at a get together in The Bronx and we all got to talking about healthcare (while watching the Yankees blow the Houston game! FUCKERS!).

Last year I had two visits: One to my doctor, the regular annual checkup, and a thyroid biopsy (malignant polyps, no worries). Mrs. BBB had one visit, the annual checkup. We had one copay, $15 at NYU Hospital. We have Empire Blue Cross.

We don't buy dental or vision insurance. We have had good experiences with the inexpensive students at NYU Dental School so we just pay them. We both had simple cleanings. Mrs. goes to a cheap local Lebanese eye guy in the hood coupled with Warby Parker.

The girls are in college in Georgia and pay their own premiums on in insurance they bought themselves on the Obamacare exchange. They each pay something under $100 per month. They have Humana. My oldest girl had some complications with her birth control that needed sorting out, but even on her hostess at the Joe's Crab Shack wages she managed the copay and the deductible on her plan is a thousand bucks annually. She swiped it and didn't ask us for a penny. My youngest girl had an incident in Savannah that required minor medical attention. Her job at the Panera Bread offers a plan but she buys her own through the exchange because, well, the plans are just significantly better.

Of course we all pay Medicare taxes.

We came around to a ballpark figure of around $30k in healthcare expenses and Medicare taxes for all four of us. We estimated we used, at most $3000-$3500 worth of healthcare at the most, most of that being my biopsy. We don't get Medicare as we are not old enough.

We are absolutely fine with this. This is how its supposed to work. Our family is healthy, we can afford to pay for the care of others. We try to eat well and exercise and so on, but these things are no guarantee for good health. We consider it all luck. Total and complete luck. Lucky folks should pay more for less.

So, when the day comes that something happens and the news is whatever it is, I'm not going to lose my shit over it. Know why? Because when I was healthy, able and willing, I did my part. I overpaid for zero deductible insurance. For just that very day when astronomical medical bad luck falls.

But there are plenty of folks who are quite well off and think they are paying too much despite their good health. In their minds 'if I'm healthy, I shouldn't pay anything!' This is PRECISELY how the Republican mind works and it is their source of their motivation for destroying our healthcare system.

Mika Brzezinski needs proof. Here:

brooklynbadboy

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday June 29, 2017 · 7:38 AM PDT

2017/06/29 · 07:38

Heh.

New census figures speak of new America

brooklynbadboy

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday June 27, 2017 · 9:48 AM PDT

2017/06/27 · 09:48

New figures published by the Census Bureau continue to tell one aspect of the tale of America's sharp new world coming into focus.

Economist Joel Kolko dug into the new numbers and computed the mode (or the most frequently occurring number) age of racial groups:

Race/Ethnicity Most common age in US

White 57

Asian 28

Native American 27

Black 26

Hispanic 10

Mixed 0

538 looked at the new numbers as well and came up with the equally interesting median age of racial groups:

In 2016, America grew yet more diverse. Just 61 percent of U.S. residents were non-Hispanic white, down from 64 percent in 2010 and 76 percent in 1990. Two forces boost racial and ethnic diversity in the U.S. First, immigration adds to diversity because most immigrants are Hispanic or Asian. But second, even if immigration stopped, diversity would still increase as more diverse younger generations replace older, whiter generations. As of June 2017, the median age for whites in the U.S. was 43, compared with 36 for Asians, 34 for blacks and 29 for Hispanics.

Of course we all have some sense of our Demographic future in the aggregate:

Even though politicians often describe “real America” as a small town in the Midwest, statistically the most typical metro area is New Haven, Connecticut. Small towns in Ohio today look demographically more like 1950s America than any place else does, but metro New Haven and Tampa, Florida, look most like America today. 4

America tomorrow, however, won’t look like America today: The Census Bureau has projected the age distribution and the racial and ethnic mix of the population out to 2060. The white share of the population is expected to fall from 61.3 percent in 2016 to 43.6 percent in 2060, while the shares of Hispanics and Asians increase significantly. The U.S. is projected to cease being majority non-Hispanic white in 2044. And the U.S. will continue to age, with the 55-plus share of the population rising from 28 percent in 2016 to 35 percent in 2060.

Urbanization is projected to continue as well with rural areas continuing to shrink and urban, suburban, and exurban areas continuing to expand. Notably:

In all, 1,350 nonmetro counties lost population from 2010 through 2016, a new record. Migration to other counties accounted for all of that decrease and then some. But the percentage of residents moving away from rural counties was actually much higher in the 1950s, 1960s and 1980s. What’s changed is that a steady decline through the decades in natural population increase (births minus deaths) in rural America means that the natural increase is no longer big enough to offset the outmigration. In hundreds of rural counties, in fact, deaths are now outpacing births.

Politically, what lessons can we glean from this data?

First, 80% of America's counties are rural but only represent 20% of the population and Trump won them overwhelmingly. Because of the way power is distributed in America, less and less people in older and whiter counties will continue to have extensive power in government at the federal level and over most states. Furthermore, if these older, whiter people continue feel as culturally alienated from the urban majority as they do now, we can expect them become increasingly more conservative and Republican.

Second is that the vast numbers of young people of color coming of age (and bearing their own children) are going to have to bear the increasing costs to care for the older, rural population. That creates interesting power dynamics in terms of support for entitlement programs and taxes to pay for them. Republicans may find themselves suddenly more supportive of entitlement programs for the rural elderly and the increasing tax burden for their care shifted onto younger folks who live in cities. Democrats might begin to think shifting resources to to younger urban people who vote for them makes more sense than paying for older rural people who don't.

In other words, I expect more and sharper political division for the foreseeable future. Mainly racially and culturally, but also economically. Extensively educated wealthier, younger whites who live in cities may prove to be as culturally alien to low income rural, older whites as poor city folk of color.

Economically, there is the second issue of technology and automation and its effects on employment and inequality. Obviously people of color aren't new to income inequality. That's been a feature of life in America since day one. But the number of of non-college educated whites who feel the pinch is likely to increase. These are probably the last urban and suburban city dwellers who feel similar cultural affinity with the rural folk as they see up close how outnumbered they are becoming.

In short, I expect America's future to be rocky and contentious until the cultural division is resolved by one side or the other. The elections of both Barack Obama and Donald Trump are examples of the push and pull between these two forces at work. I expect things will continue to swing back and forth until one side establishes a clear resolution.

What should the DNC actually do?

brooklynbadboy

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday June 23, 2017 · 2:12 AM PDT

2017/06/23 · 02:12

170223-tom-perez-dnc-candidate-1009a_7674add54ad612600372cf6c3f622d14.nbcnews-ux-600-480.jpg — DNC chairman and members

One of the things one sees a consistent debate about is the DNC. I really don't understand why, but there is a debate about it.

I've always thought of the DNC as basically a kind of fairly useless committee of unknown party apparatchiks who get together every 4 years to put on a national convention. All the important stuff of politics, winning elections, deciding policy, enacting laws, governing... my idea was that these things were generally done by candidates, elected officials and the voters who put them there. Local and state parties are where ballot access and candidate choices were made. Of course, in modern times the DNC has also served as a sort of 'campaign in waiting' for a presidential nominee and as a PR shop for an incumbent President. (President Clinton and Ron Brown revived the almost dead DNC, building it into a strong fundraising and PR outfit for his administration. President Obama barely used it at all and basically ignored the DNC his entire run in federal office. He preferred his own organization.)

David Jarman wrote the definitive piece on the role of party committees. His read is the most accurate I've seen.

Other Democrats and quite a few Progressives, however, seem to think the DNC should be far, far more powerful than it actually is. Also that it should be far more involved in political life beyond putting on a convention every four years and otherwise sitting moribund. They would have the DNC:

Choose candidates for public office.
Organize campaigns for public office.
Provide the financial and human resources for campaigns for public office.
Create and execute political strategies, media messaging, and overall direction.
Enforce adherence to a national progressive policy agenda.
Organize and rewrite state primary election laws.
Choose leadership positions among elected officials.
My god, this is ridiculous!

There are folks who beleive the DNC does all this now, even though they don't. Never have. Even more beleive that they should. That the DNC should be a sort of old soviet style politburo, managing thousands upon thousands of races in all 50 states from county sheriff in Wyoming all the way up to President. All from a comfy Washington, DC headquarters. Where a select team of data nerds and their progressive ideology overseers will tell you exactly what kind of Congressman you need, Omaha. You too Oklahoma City. And also you Orlando. Becuase 50 state something or other.

I take the opposing view. I think the DNC should do less. They should do basically nothing. Let the winning candidate of the presidential primary pay for and stage his or her own convention, have it last three hours in prime time on Sunday and that's it. Dispense with all the silly votes and committees and gavels and convention crap. Reduce the number of people on the committee from more than 400 to like... 5. Fire pretty much all the staff. What they could do is put out an annual phonebook. In that phonebook would be names of donors that state parties can call and ask for large donations. Annually they could put on a gala for those who made it into the phonebook. Other than that, they should leave things to state parties and mainly, to the candidates.

So, Tom Perez, I'm at least one guy out here who thinks you should be doing a lot less. Or, more in fact. In your home state of Maryland instead of in Washington.

Pelosi critics should indeed, get in her arena

brooklynbadboy

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday June 22, 2017 · 11:15 AM PDT

2017/06/22 · 11:15

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 10: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), speaks at her weekly news conference on Capitol hill, May 10, 2012 in Washington, DC. Leader Pelosi spoke on a number of topics including gay marriage and said President Obama"s announcement on gay marriage was "history being made". (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images) — Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

I like Pelosi's moxie! Today she heaped praise on herself and dared any Democrat with the balls to take her on to do it:

“When it comes to personal ambition and having fun on TV, have your fun,” Pelosi said during a press briefing in the Capitol, referring to her detractors making the cable news rounds.

“I love the arena; I thrive on competition; and I welcome the discussion. But I am honored by the support.”

...

tivated by her ability to usher major legislation through Congress during the Obama era, including the healthcare law and Wall Street reform.

Any effective leader, she said, would be a target of the opposition.

“Usually they go after the most effective leaders, because they want to diminish the opportunity that we have,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi touted her own leadership bonafides, characterizing herself as “a master legislator” and a “strategic, politically astute leader.”

“I am proud of the unity that we have had and, frankly, my leadership in terms of keeping everybody together,” she said.

“I think I’m worth the trouble.”

Hard to argue with any of that. Except the 'what have you done for me lately?' is still pretty much unanswered by anything except a lot of money raised and spent with no profit. She's basically running Uber without all the customers.

Still, she makes good points:

“I love the fray. I’m not disrespectful of people’s views. I respect any positive things that people want to say or even negative, as long as it’s constructive. But when it’s blatantly self-serving and beyond the normal competition that the press so enjoys focusing on, instead of, wouldn’t it better if all the press were focusing on the Senate heartless, mean-spirited bill?” Pelosi said.

Well, we know she won't be doing anything about said bill without a majority. But as a party leader, she should be just as good at making her case for a majority as she is at making her case for herself.

Still, those seeking to upend her leadership should stop being chickenshit about it. If you're going to oppose her, go out and declare. Convince colleagues, donors, staff, and activists to abandon her. Make the case why you should be leader. Don't just bitch to the media. Be a fucking grown up and put some ass on the line.

Otherwise shut the fuck up.

Study explores Democratic Party divisions

brooklynbadboy

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday June 20, 2017 · 7:44 AM PDT

2017/06/20 · 07:44

Interesting new study comes to a few conclusions about the 2016 Democratic Party and its divisions. Essentially, the concludes that on values and policy, there is much overlap and cohesion. Democrats largely agree with an activist role for the federal government to intervene in both economic and social life in America. The one, glaring, massive division between the two wings of the party is on the issue of America itself. Clinton voters have much more confidence in the nation's institutions, believe in its system of self-government, think opportunities exist for people like them. Sanders voters have litte confidence in the economic and political system, beleive it is fundamentally corrupt and rigged against people like them, and beleive it beyond reform, requiring a sweeping political revolution:

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders had very different records over the years on economic policy, and their best-informed surrogates reflect that division. But a massive new pile of research from the Voter Study Group on what really happened in the 2016 election shows that among rank-and-file Democrats, there isn’t much of a systematic disagreement about economic policy. The real divide is about American politics itself.

Clinton supporters were fundamentally happy with the United States of America, the American political system, and the trajectory for people like themselves within it. Sanders supporters, by contrast, were not, and Clinton’s various leftward feints on policy could not address that gap.

I think that sounds about right. You can see that issue play out on the issue of money in politics. For most Clinton voters, money is fungible. You raise it for the purpose of using it to further your political goals. Doesn't really matter where it comes from as long as its legal and you aren't keeping it for yourself. Furthermore, Clinton voters have no problem with political people making money in the private sector, like giving speeches or signing book deals. Clinton voters don't see the inherent bad 'optics' of being seemingly allied with industries that do not enjoy high public esteem, like Wall Street or Health Insurers.

But for Sanders voters, money is a moral choice. If you accept money from certain kinds of morally objectionable people, those people then 'own' you and this creates an inherently corrupt bargain. For them, it is objectionable to raise political money from wealthy people (depending on the industry), for example, but morally acceptable to accept it from a large number of poor people. This creates a more virtuous and more democratic form of political ownership. Sanders frequently, for example, touted his moral superiority and ethical virtue by means of his method of fundraising and not too rich personal wealth.

There is, I beleive, a sweet spot here. First, I think Sanders voters have a good point about our political system. It does need reform. It always needs reform. It does NOT, however, require revolution and is not a gigantic nefarious conspiracy out to get people. The game isn't rigged, but it could be better. Clinton voters would do well to look at innovative ways to promote more engagement and to depend a lot less on donations from wealthy people. I think a good candidate can take this issue off the table.

Sanders voters are going to have to accept that the this is the system we have and plent of Americans, far more than they could ever beat in a national election, are fine with it. Hot Red Leftist Revolution isn't as popular as they think, and that gets proven time after time at the ballot box. A focus on reform would help us unify around a common agenda and common message.

What Jeff Bezos could do with his money

brooklynbadboy

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday June 16, 2017 · 4:27 AM PDT

2017/06/16 · 04:27

Jeff Bezos, chief executive officer of Amazon.com Inc., introduces the Kindle Fire HD tablets at a news conference in Santa Monica, California, U.S., on Thursday, Sept. 6, 2012. Amazon.com Inc. is updating its line of Kindle e-readers and tablets in a bid — Jeff Bezos

I am to understand that Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is heading towards dethroning Bill Gates as the world's richest man, sitting on north of $83 billion. Nicely done, sir.

But he hasn't done much charitable giving I am told. At least not on the scale of Gates or Warren Buffett:

He is the only one of the top five billionaires in America who has not signed the Giving Pledge, the promise created by Mr. Gates and Warren Buffett for the superrich to give away at least half of their wealth. He has never appeared on the Philanthropy 50, a list of America’s 50 largest donors, that is published yearly by The Chronicle of Philanthropy. According to public data and news reports, Mr. Bezos and his family have bestowed around $100 million in total on charities — about one-tenth of 1 percent of his fortune.

To figure what to do with all that gigantic Amazon wealth, Bezos took to Twitter to ask the general public about what he should do with the money, with the following proviso:

“I’m thinking about a philanthropy strategy that is the opposite of how I mostly spend my time — working on the long term,” he wrote. “For philanthropy, I find I’m drawn to the other end of the spectrum: the right now.”

I'd prefer he did do something long term, like pilot a guaranteed basic income experiment in Seattle just to see what happens. After all, it is businesses like Amazon that are reducing the necessity of human labor across a wide spectrum of the economy. I'm sure he is seeing that at the Washington Post (he owns it) where printers, delivery men, and inkmakers are all being replaced by probably one content girl. Two at the most.

But ok, here and now.

So, Mr. Bezos, here's what I propose you do:

Go find as many young working mothers as you can, and pay off all their student loans. Just pay off every damn dime and leave them without any student loan debt at all. So that its one less thing they have to worry about while trying to build a family. DON'T give a big number and then have it split up evenly among a bunch of people so that everyone ends up with $500 bucks. Pay EVERYTHING. Do it with fewer people if you have to but you're fuckin loaded so you don't have to.

Normally I wouldn't be telling anyone what to do with their money, but he asked. I don't use Twitter.

Angela Merkel at 64% approval, up 15% for reelect

brooklynbadboy

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday June 15, 2017 · 5:16 AM PDT

2017/06/15 · 05:16

Marakel_Angela_Merkel_(2008).jpg — Chancellor Angela Merkel

The last line defender of Post-War Western Civilization and Leader of the Free World is in a commanding position to retain power. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is enjoying renewed popularity and so is her Christian Democratic Union (What a great name for a party! Describes my old Pops perfectly.):

The chancellor's popularity had plummeted after she welcomed nearly 900,000 asylum seekers - most of them from Syria and Afghanistan - into Germany.
But now, 64 percent of those surveyed say there are satifisfied with the job Merkel has been doing as chancellor, making her the most popular politician in the country.

...

The chancellor is also the reason why her conservative party came out ahead when Germans were asked who they would vote for if they could vote now and not have to wait until the September election.

Nearly 40 percent of those surveyed said they would vote for the CDU or its Bavarian sister party the CSU. By contrast, just under 25 percent said they would vote for the SPD with its new leader Martin Schulz.

She is buttressed by a vigorous new young leader in French President Emmanuel Macron and establishment success in elections throughout other European nations. It appears populist craziness is being contained by European voters not willing to follow the US and to a lesser extent the UK into destroying the world order it took so much blood to build. Her taking in refugees and standing firm in the face of withering criticism will be remembered by the German people long after Mutti is gone.

Another dramatic development in the polling is the low regard Germans now have for the US. Only 5 percent said they trust the new US president.

And only 21 percent of those polled said the US - long considered Germany's most important ally - could be trusted, about the same as for Russia.

Meanwhile, a whopping 94 percent said they had faith in France, especially after the election of President Emmanuel Macron.

Nice going America. We are now as popular as Vladimir Putin's Russia.

Isn't it ironic that 73 years ago today American boys were giving their lives and limbs to save Europe from Germany, and now the Germans are trying to save Europe from us?

Hey Sanders, the Working Families Party is available! And willing!

brooklynbadboy

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday June 14, 2017 · 7:55 AM PDT

2017/06/14 · 07:55

You did all you could and it still wasn't enough.

Look Man,

She's just not that into you. You've charmed her, begged her, browbeat her, shouted at her, showered her with love notes, hate notes, gifts and threats. She's just not coming around, bro.

Dude, you've done all you could. You got a haircut. Worked hard in the gym. Shaved your back. Took a shower. Bought a new suit. Even brushed your teeth for a change. Yeah, no six pack but what does she want from you for crissake? Blood?! A limb?! You took dance classes for this woman. Did you really think you were going to out dance the previous guy? That guy had moves. Self-centered jerk though he was. Why do they always fall for bad boys?

Dude! Dude.

Right over here is one more in your league. She's smart, personable, and she's got great hair. Ok, she's not rich and famous like the other one but cmon man. Be realistic. You're no spring rooster. You don't see that this one is a better fit? She's got serious potential bro. She's already totally into you!

You and I both know these high maintenance types don't ever work out. She even told you the ring was 4 million carats too small. The ungratefulness! She'll never be happy just because you show up and say 'ME.' She's gonna crash and burn man. Do yourself a favor and pop the question to the one more deserving of all that manliness you bring to the table.

She's the one, bro. Open your eyes!

A brief story about coal and the wealth gap

brooklynbadboy

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday June 13, 2017 · 3:24 PM PDT

2017/06/13 · 15:24

1200px-The_Elms__Newport__Rhode_Island_-_View_from_Great_Lawn_edit1.jpg — The Elms, Newport

I was in Newport, Rhode Island this past weekend. Beautiful place, visit if you can. There are a large quantity of distinctive 19th Century mansions around this area, long a summer resort for America's wealthiest families. Me and better half of me toured a few. As we would say in the hood, these cribs were laced. With all that expensive Manhattan shit! Considering the details and costly materials, you have to think it would cost a gigantic fortune to construct homes like these today. Even though we have cheaper materials, new building methods, advanced construction machines, CAD, etc. the marble, the craftsmanship, the patience...all very expensive and in short supply.

Take The Elms, for example, pictured above. The Elms was built by Mr. Edward J. Berwind of Philadelphia. After a ten year stint with the Navy, Berwind went on to get busy in the promising coal mining business. Backed up by J. P. Morgan, by the 1890s he built a vast network of anti-union coal mining operations throughout Pennsylvania, Kentucky and West Virginia. Working conditions were, as you can imagine, awful.

Berwind built, in addition to this house in Newport among other homes, a couple of mining towns named after himself. Berwind, West Virginia and Windber, Pennsylvania. The Berwind Family which inherited the founder's business and still own it today, have taken little interest in either towns general welfare. Today these towns are places of massive population decline and absolute soul crushing white poverty. The family has largely moved on from coal into chemicals and other commercial products, real estate and private equity. The family members keep a low profile, like most families of this sort. They maintain a family office to manage their wealth, estimated today to be possibly two or three billion and spread out among many of them with several distinct branches.

The Elms was completed in 1901 for about $1.4 million. That's about $38 million today. Today, $1.4 million will buy a nicely sized upper middle-class home on small lot in Newport. Certainly nothing like The Elms. Berwind died in 1936 and left the mansion to his sister Julia. Julia Berwind was something of an eccentric, keeping the house running normally through the Depression and the War. After she died in 1961, the House was made a museum and landmarked.

To recap, guy built a successful business, erected a lavish Summer manse near the beach, and founded a couple of towns in Appalachia. When he dies he leaves the business to his children, the manse to his little sister, and the towns, which did the hard work to bring him his wealth, zilch.

In the decades that followed, no matter if the taxes were Truman high or Bush low, the towns shrank and poverty prevailed. No matter when the social services were LBJ generous or Reagan spartan, decline and blight continued. Ironically, Windber, Pennsylvania and its surrounding county voted for Donald Trump by almost 80% of the vote. In Berwind, WV even more.

Two 70-year old House Dems maneuver to push out 90-year old House Dem

brooklynbadboy

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday June 12, 2017 · 6:38 AM PDT

2017/06/12 · 06:38

There's a thing to be said for youth and strength

I don't know much about French politics, but I've become genuinely interested in how 39-year old Emmanuel Macron defeated a whole slew of baby boomers from across the political spectrum. In a piece about many of the young people who he is bringing into Parliament in droves, the one thing that stands out is their youth and lack of extensive political experience:

That showing has helped Mr. Macron recruit dozens of nonpoliticians to run for him across the country: a famous female ex-bullfighter, a renowned mathematician, a fighter pilot, a former top paramilitary police commander, a handball champion, and lots of owners of small- and medium-size businesses.

Many, exceptionally for France, are also minorities, and 50 percent are women. After the last elections, one researcher found a mere 12 members of Parliament of minority origin, barely 2 percent of the legislature — hardly representative of France’s diverse population.

Like Mr. Berville, over 50 percent have never held political office (only 5 percent are incumbents), and their average age is under 50. Mr. Berville is not even the youngest.

Herve Berville, an economist and refugee from Rwanda and who went on to earn a degree from the LSE, is just 27 years old.

If you want to see what a real political revolution looks like, its France. Not in the United Kingdom and certainly not here. Macron has basically destroyed both traditional parties and defeated both far right and far left lunatics. But most importantly, he's infused the Republic with fresh blood and new thinking. Nothing against the old folks, but sometimes its a good thing to step aside and give the young people a shot.

In stark, raving contrast we have this kind of drama unfolding in the Democratic House Caucus:

In a June 8 letter obtained by POLITICO, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (Calif.) — the third highest ranking Democrat on Judiciary — warned Rep. Jerry Nadler (N.Y.), who is No. 2 behind Conyers, that she has heard Nadler is meeting with fellow Democrats about replacing Conyers. Lofgren warned Nadler that there is no current vacancy atop Judiciary, but if it does happen, she would be interested in the job, too.

John Conyers has been in Congress since 1964 and is 88 years old. He insists he isn't going anywhere. Probably ever. The young whipper snappers gunning for him, Nadler, 70 and Lofgren, 69, are the fresh faces the Democrats are putting forward on what could be a very high profile committee should they win a majority.

Christ, they've got Ted Lieu, 48 on that committee and he's been a real voice. Probably because he

UNITED STATES - FEBRUARY 26: Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., is interviewed by CQ Roll Call in his Cannon Building office, February 26, 2015. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call) — Congressman Ted Lieu

isn't tired and bogged down with decades of studied boredom. Ted Lieu was JAG lawyer. Christ, lets just put him in for crissake!

Look. I used to box when I was a young man and I loved it. I loved the training, the focus, the glory, and yes especially the bruises I got to show off to the ladies. But now I'm a middle aged guy with kids and a mortgage. I have no business in a boxing ring no matter how much I want to do it. I could win a fistfight in a pinch, but I am in no way capable of a pro fight. There are exceptional guys who maybe can fight into their 40s, but most cannot do it. I'm more than happy to leave it to ambitious young men with something to prove.

I don't blame the party here. I blame the voters. We went through this very same thing here in my district, where a sclerotic, moribund, bored and lethargic pair of guys named Ed Towns and Major Owens sat like potted plants for decades. Brought back basically nothing and did virtually nothing. We got them out and put in fresh blood, but it was a battle.

Progressives, in my view, should challenge these people. Seriously... if you're a Sanders type and want to rack up some easy wins, I can't think of a better place to do it than urban districts where the Democrat has basically sat there aging before our eyes and doing zilch. There's plenty of them. If you really want revolution, start there. Not in Assbackwards, West Virginia.

Give Corbyn some room

brooklynbadboy

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday June 11, 2017 · 7:27 AM PDT

2017/06/11 · 07:27

Jeremy_Corbyn_leadership_election_rally_August_2016.jpg — Labour’s leader Jeremy Corbyn

Lets face facts: Jeremy Corbyn did much better than anyone expected, but he still didn't win. If you're a Labour supporter who wants to actually govern, and not just consume socialist speeches, its also clear that Labour has to reach beyond the folks they've won so far.

Communists, radical socialists, anarchists, and other academic movement protester types are already won. Corbyn is one of their own.

Young people who want to be able to leave Britain for Europe, got those too. (With boffo turnout I must point out). They also liked Corbyn's message of free everything.

Labour also did somewhat marginally better among the disgruntled working classes with promises of sticking it to rich people. (In spite of that, Labour won Kensington!)

So that seems to be enough to get Labour back into the game, but how do they get enough to get a majority? Or, at least enough to be the largest party and therefore form a government?

Seems to me there's just one missing piece here: a chunk of the white collar middle class.

Yes, the horrible Blair people.

Face facts, Tony Blair is 3-0, and Jeremy Corbyn is 0-1. You can't get to power without some measure of people who aren't angry at everyone and don't hate the system. Despite what you all might think, this is voting. Not revolution. There are no riots, no molotov cocktails, and no armed rebellions afoot and people would not support that. Most of the public is perfectly content to settle things at the ballot box peacefully. That is because they are content, not angry.

Fist in the air, speak truth to power type people should give Corbyn some room to moderate the message to appeal to that last little bit needed for the win. Give the man room to maneuver. Don't castigate him for it either. Because as Corbyn sits back down on the opposition bench, if there isn't going to be a five year wait, and a dozen years of Tory Government, he has broaden his appeal. His hardcore supporters should trust him and let him.

Newer
Older

RSS