Bob

Just trying to bark at the Bullshit online!!

[Bob @Truthsnoopy]

People rant about socialism, but what is it really?

Is socialism having taxes fund the Army, Air Force, Marines, Space Force, and every other part of the military that protects everyone?

Is socialism having tax funded police and fire fighters that protect everyone?

Yes. That is socialism!

Those are big safety nets that we use in the U.S.A. built on taxes and covering everyone.

However, in American and Europe, the idea of socialism is restricted so that people have the personal ownership of business and property and the personal right to fail or succeed!

In NAZI socialism, or Communism, the government controls everything. This is absolutely NOT good!!!

Europe possibly has too much socialist style programs, and America may have a bit too few.

If the Military for All is funded by taxes to protect us, why not have a Medicare for All to protect our health?

How it is funded can be debated, but it is high time to get a law enacted to provide affordable health care for everyone!

The new Congress must take Medicare for All into serious consideration and move quickly on this issue, as well as affordable housing,ethics, war powers, and removing illegal tariffs in order to lower costs from health care to the grocery store!!

[Bob @Truthsnoopy]

Read my latest post on Medicare for All, and give me a responsible reply on how what we have now is better. We have a horrible system at present. Trump promised in his first term that he would "repeal and replace" Obamacare (The Affordable Care Act) with something better, but they never drafted any new law at all. Now is the time to get to something much, much, better, and have medical coverage for all just like we have military coverage for all!

[Bob @Truthsnoopy]

How would "Medicare for All" work?

My view is that the coverage of Medicare should extend to every man, woman and child in the U.S.A. The exact way to do it can be either through taxes entirely, or a combination of tax and personal insurance coverage.

If people who have not paid into the plan, and are young, the plan would not be free. They would need to pay, but it could be affordable because everyone would be in the plan!. Increasing the pool nationally to include every man, woman, and child would bring down costs. Insuance companies love to insure healthy people, and prior to Obamacare, loved to exclude sick people so that they make more money!!

An insurance company does not care about your sickness because it costs them money. They love it when you are healthy and pay them money!

Remember the basis of insurance is to take in money, and NOT to pay it out!!! Sick people equal paying out, healthly equals taking money in.
------------
The idea is that if the coverage of Medicare was available to every person, the pool of healthy people would rise. This is a major issue. Small pools create unreasonable rates for medical coverage.

The people who wanted to use the Medicare coverage would purchase it either personally on the market, or through taxes or a combo. The cost for the young people to purchase and use it would be more than the payment into the plan now for old age coverage, but it would still be way less than the current run away costs of insurance for young people.

The idea is that for everyone, from birth to death, coverage is available at a reasonable price. This is something the new Congress should pass into law!

Is that a bad thing? (Probably for MAGA it is, remember up is down in MAGALAND! )
________
How would this work?

Medicare has fixed payments to providers for certain procedures. These payments are reasonable, but are not as much as some doctors and or hospitals charge. So, costs to the consumer are capped, and the price of coverage can be more easily estimated and lowered as more healthy young people are in the plan.

What if people cannot afford any payment for healt plans at all?

What if they are out of a job, so poor that they can't pay etc.?
---
The pure zero pay Medicare for All that Bernie Sanders supports has a tax levy to pay for the coverage. My belief is that individuals would either pay via tax, or could buy in with insurance similar to the Advantage plans offered today, and a small tax would be levied to cover those who do not have the means to pay at all.

However, if you assume taxes are used to pay all coverage, below is what Gemini A/I shows as the tax amount for a family of 4 with 2 adults in their 30s, and 2 children under 10:

Currently, I know of a family who are nearly retired, and they were not yet eligible for Medicare until December. There are only 2 adults in the family, and their current medical coverage costs over $1700 monthly! Check how Gemini says Medicare for All with the Bernie Sanders method would look:
_____________

[Bob @Truthsnoopy]

The Articles of Impeachment against Hegseth were founded in part on the fact that the 1973 War Powers Resolution was violated.

MAGA Republicans who are still in power for a few weeks have evidently not received the message that they lost "bigly" in the election, and so they voted the Impeachment of Hegseth down on a procedural basis.

The allegations were brought by a Republican Congressman, and may be true.

Why have these allegations have not been used previously given that only Congress has power to declare war?

President's say that they are the "Commander in Chief", and can start a "military conflict" if they want to regardless of whether or not we are defending the U.S.A., and because it is just a "military conflict" or some other type of military engagement, it is NOT a war.

Therefore, when a war is called a "conflict", or "military action", or another label or name is not a war, or is it?

Do people get killed in a "conflict", or are munitions used up to near zero levels like they would be in a war? Both of these have happened in this Iran "conflict".

Is a duck still a duck even if you label it a mongoose or call it a turkey?

Does the "Department of War", and the Secretary of War actually do military conflicts that are not wars?

If so, why did the label go back to the old school "Secretary of War" instead of Secretary of Defense?

Should the incoming Congress pass a definition of war so that the next Presidents have a clear understanding of what a war is? (Yes, absolutely!!!)

Just asking for some friends who are voters, and are sick and tired for over 70 years of U.S. lives being lost in these testosterone fueled wars that are mislabeled as something else!

I have a friend who is on the Viet Nam memorial wall, and there is no need for him, or anyone else to be there at all. LBJ's ego and poor judgment, just like Bush's and Trump's egos and poor judgment have killed Americans needlessly and innocent civilians as well.

If we are under attack like a Pearl Harbor, the President has power to respond, but in cases of some sort of purported political issue like the spread of Communism (LGB and Viet Nam), or the "threat of nuclear development" (Iraq, and Iran), we have no business in going to war.

Let us hope that a new wave of real American defense is at hand without the jingo involvement in needless war, and that the term "war" should be defined into law so that no President in the future can enter a Viet Nam, Iraq, or Iran by simply calling the "duck" a "turkey"!

[Bob @Truthsnoopy]

If you follow the news, you know that Jensen Huang, the CEO of NVIDIA had an affair with a Chinese woman who may have been a spy. Who is she, and where is she now are questions asked in this article from the Washington Post.

My question is how important this is to national security?Similar questions were raised when we had alleged Chinese spys as members of Mar-a-Lago during the time Trump had all the classified documents in the bathroom and storage.

Here is the link and headline from the Washington Post:
https://t.co/DpTHKElEtZ

[Bob @Truthsnoopy]

@Captain92394 @JGourd7 @OccupyDemocrats Police and military have the name on the chest, and rarely a covered face. This is all part of identification. ICE on the chest identifies the agency, but not the murderers!

[Bob @Truthsnoopy]

@Captain92394 @JGourd7 @OccupyDemocrats By definition, as the Colorado court ruled, there was indeed. If not, would you say there was one if the democrats had done the exact thing after Bush and Gore which was a much, much, much closer election. that was rigged by Republicans in Florida.

[Bob @Truthsnoopy]

@CrispyGin_CGE13 @TruthRick58928 Good joke, but not very relevant to most people or voters. The big issues are that Trump lied and said he would bring down prices and keep us out of wars. True MAGA believes that he did, but the normal voter realized he didn't!

[Bob @Truthsnoopy]

@byHeatherLong Thank God that Trump never lies or breaks promises! At last, prices are way down for all the MAGA faithful!! (Remember, up is down in MAGALAND!)

[Bob @Truthsnoopy]

@DougWahl1 If she endorsed someone who is an avid Trump supporter in Michigan, then she is either an Islamophobe or something other than a Democrat, so, it seems reasonable under the circumstances but with so little time left, it probably was better just to let the clock run out.

[Bob @Truthsnoopy]

No. I believe that vesting for pensions should happen only after the maximum term is reached, and there should be term limits of 20 years for the house and 18 for the Senate.

All funds could be held in a type of IRA and the politician could then either take the fund in a rollover, elect to roll over to the U.S. pension plan for Federal Employees (if it still exists), or simply take the funds and pay taxes on them.

If the pension talked about is something like an annunity, then the normal contribution to an annunity may indeed give a fairly large income when someone like Bobert is 62 or older. Details are missing in this issue, but it is a real issue.

The more the retirement in the political system looks the same as that of normal people, the better off we are!

Congress pays into Social Security, and there is no reason why it does not simply have a 401K type of plan or IRA or both as many businesses do. If it does already, ok. Social Security is good in that it gives back as an annunity a payment that is directly related to the amount of contributions and the length of contributions.

So, if you contribute only a year, you will not receive much of anything, but if you pay in for a lifetime of 30 or 40 years, you will get a fairly strong payment. Your level of wages and contributions matter as they do with all plans.

[Bob @Truthsnoopy]

Nope. And, if you don't like the description of masked thugs of ICE being NAZI, ok. They are simply masked untrained thugs who need to be charged for murder!

However, masked Gestapo types always rank as NAZI in my book, or of course, they could be Russian KGB or some other dictator force.

. We must never, ever have law enforcement that cannot be identified, just as we must never ever have criminals that can use he said she said to justify breaking the law.

However, officers who are in no danger themselves, can never, ever be judge, jury and executioner!

[Bob @Truthsnoopy]

Why the Justice Department did not use the technical insurrection charges in its indictments was probably because it was unnecessary because more direct charges could be made concerning the physical actions that day.

I believe that they should have use all of them.

However, in no case, was there a court indictment or charge that anyone should be summarily held on the ground and shot in the back like the murder of Preti!

No matter how you try to justify, Preti's killing was murder pure and simple.
_________
Below is what Perplexity A/I states as the most serious charges, verdicts, and court rulings concerning the insurrection.:

"The Judicial Definition

Because Section 3 was barely litigated for 150 years, courts reconstructing the framers' understanding converged on a working definition with four elements:

1. An assemblage of persons

2. Acting to prevent execution of one or more federal laws or constitutional functions for a public purpose

3. Through violence, force, or intimidation by numbers

Crucially, the New Mexico court in Griffin held an insurrection need not "rise to the level of trying to overthrow the government" — it is enough to forcibly obstruct a specific lawful government function.

Does Chasing Congress Out of Session Qualify?

Yes — that precise scenario is exactly what courts have already ruled on, in the January 6 litigation. The Colorado Supreme Court, upholding the trial court's findings, held that January 6 was "a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful transfer of power... Under any viable definition, this constituted an insurrection". The Colorado trial court's definition was: "(1) a public use of force or threat of force (2) by a group of people (3) to hinder or prevent execution of the Constitution".

What made it insurrection rather than an ordinary riot was precisely the target: a constitutionally mandated proceeding — the joint session counting electoral votes — that the mob halted by force, forcing Congress to flee. The courts found the mob acted "in a concerted way" with "unity of purpose" in seeking to prevent the certification, and that the intrusion into the House and Senate chambers was for that purpose.
----------
Also from Perplexity A/I, here are the most serious charges and most convictions resulting from the attack on the Capitol:

[Bob @Truthsnoopy]

I am Not a leftist, I am an Independent from Oklahoma! My father fought in World War II and I know what a NAZI looks like when I see them dressed as masked thugs purportedly enforcing the law.

I hate no one, not even MAGAs, but I do not understand why when data is so clear, they do not understand that Trump is not God! He is the opposite, and his policies have shown that he is an incompetent liar.

For nearly 5 decades I voted Republican, and believe in small government that does not interfere with people other than to keep them safe and provide a safety net. However, after the disasterous Iraq invasion, and now with the insurrection of January 6, 2021, Iran war of choice, unlawful tariffs (an old Democratic tool), and the mased Gestapo agents of ICE, I cannot see how anyone can support this President and his policies.

[Bob @Truthsnoopy]

@DougWahl1 Finally, a Republican who actually stands for something! (even if it is as he is going out the door)

[Bob @Truthsnoopy]

The President of the Dallas Federal Reserve just announced that she believes 2 more rate hikes of .25% are needed to combat inflation. This seems like swatting a fly with a sledge hammer, and starting to be in the mold of the Volker experiment.

What Volker did was essentially stop the economy, force a depression, and that indeed does stop inflation. However, with Volker, as with the FED today, the causes of inflation are not merely overspending by the government (which is absolutely a cause), but also the disruption of the energy, and trade markets.

Volker was appointed to the Federal Reserve by Jimmy Carter who inherited the inflation caused by OPEC. As OPEC's strangle on oil loosened up, the cause of inflation slowed. That coupled with Volkers bazooka shot pushing interest rates to absurd levels, tanked the economy. The day Reagan was inagurated President, the prime rate of interest was 21%, and mortgages betweeen 17% to 18%. The only way to sell a home was with a "quasi legal land contract".

By the end of the 1980s, mortgage rates came down to under 10%, and the housing market started to recover. Today, we are in another housing crisis. This is because the prices have risen much, much, much more than normal worker's wages, and now mortgage rates are about at a level of 7.5%.

So, should the FED tank housing altogether with another rise in interest rates? Will that "whip inflation now" as President Ford's motto touted? Or, will it hasten a recession that can be avoided?

The Democrats and Republicans who are not still suffering from MAGA fever, must fix the issues that Trump generated to blast inflation higher, and to stop the FED from tanking the entire economy.

They must eliminate tariffs to the levels they were at before the Illegal Tax King put them into effect, they must also get oil and refineries humming again worldwide. Fixing these two items will go a long way to reducing inflation so that the FED takes the foot off the gas pedal on raising interest rates!

My opinion is that rates are high enough now to cause a major stall in the economy and STAGFLATION!

How do I know?

Just look at the recent comment from Zillow on housing.

Housing leads into a recession and out of one as well. It is a screaming canary in the coal mine!!!

The FED should pay attention!

Their pomp and egos should not be the guage to "not be late" with raising interest rates. They have raised them pleanty, and now they need to wait until the higher rates show their lagging consequence.

Yes, the FED was beat up on being late after the Pandemic and stating that inflation was "transitory". It actually was but took a couple of years to work through the economy. Today, is NOT late!!! It has already put the emergency brake on the economy and needs to pause more as oil prices start to come down, tariffs are repealed, and inflation abates!

From CNBC: