CARTOON: TrumpThump Update Of The Day: “I don’t like chaos!”
"This polling makes it crystal clear. Voters overwhelmingly reject efforts to cut critical supports that working families rely on."
BIG WHOOPSIE, Dude!!!
Trump Voter Rips Trump Policies: ‘Not What We Signed Up For!’
“I don’t like the turbulence. I don’t like the chaos in the market,” said Paul Bisson, a 58-year-old, who writes proposals for a flight safety company and co-owns a dog daycare in San Antonio. Bisson voted for Trump, but feels “his policies have led to that chaos.”
Bisson is hoping to retire in the not-too-distant future, and is worried that won’t be possible if Trump follows through with his tariff threats rather than just using them as a negotiating tactic.
“That will make the economy worse, and that’s not what we signed up for,” Bisson said. “We’ve already cut back. There’s no more cutting back to do.”
Link to full story [2/8/24]
Freaked Out MAGA Voter: ‘I DON’T LIKE CHAOS!!!’
[Editor’s Note: While I agree with what Kyle Kulinski says regarding Daddy Trump and his nervous followers, his suggestion that the bought-off, supine, hypocritical, AIPAC-owned, genocidal Democratic Party really gives a whit for the American people is as disingenuous as it is ahistorical. Abandon both corporate parties. Seek direct action, resistance and support the labor movement. BOTH parties are owned and will continue to screw us all. — Mark Taylor]
Secular Talk (2/11/25)
16-minute video
'Crystal Clear' Polling Shows Voters Oppose Cutting Essential Services To Fund Tax Cuts For Billionaires
"Voters are clear about what they want: Lower prices, better jobs, vital programs protected and expanded, and for the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes. And yet, Republicans in both chambers of Congress are working overtime to achieve the exact opposite."
By Julia Conley
Common Dreams (2/11/25)
The Republican Party is intent on permanently extending the 2017 tax cuts which primarily benefited the wealthiest earners and corporations—a priority that would cost an estimated $4.6 trillion and which has sent lawmakers searching for potential spending offsets including cuts to Medicare, food assistance, and renewable energy programs.
But polling released Tuesday suggested the GOP is likely to face widespread outcry—and potential opposition from vulnerable Republicans who don't want to risk angering voters—as a majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to paying for tax cuts for the wealthy by slashing public programs.
The new poll, taken by Data for Progress on behalf of the progressive advocacy groups Groundwork Collaborative and the Student Borrower Protection Center, found that although Republican lawmakers have demonized efforts to provide relief to student loan borrowers, the party's potential overhaul of the income-based repayment program isn't popular among voters of any political ideology.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they don't want the repayment plan eliminated, including 56% of Republican voters and 70% of Independents who said they oppose funding cuts for federal student loans and grants.
The GOP's plan would save an estimated $127.3 billion over 10 years by forcing the average student loan borrower to pay nearly $200 more per month.
"Most people don't have an extra $200 a month to throw toward their student loan bill," Michele Shepard Zampini, senior director of college affordability at the Institute for College Access & Success, toldCNBC on Monday.
"Voters overwhelmingly reject efforts to cut critical supports that working families rely on."
Despite that fact, said Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for the Student Borrower Protection Center, the GOP's budget proposals would "cut taxes for their billionaire buddies by raiding the pockets of Americans with student debt and families already struggling to pay for college."
"This polling makes it crystal clear," she said. "Voters overwhelmingly reject efforts to cut critical supports that working families rely on."
Universal support for Medicaid and Medicare
Republicans can also expect to see pushback if they attempt cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, the survey found. Ninety percent of respondents said they want Medicare funding to increase or remain the same; 87% said the same for Medicaid. Republicans are planning to unveil the first-ever work requirements for Medicaid, which provides healthcare coverage for low-income people and those with disabilities, in an upcoming budget bill.
As Politico reported Sunday, Republican lawmakers are "increasingly alarmed" that Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), chair of the House Budget Committee, "keeps raising Medicare reforms as a potential spending offset."
More than 80% of respondents also don't want Republicans to make cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps, which the GOP is also planning to make subject to expanded work requirements.
Those who want funding for SNAP to increase or stay the same include 67% of Republicans and 75% of Independents.
How best to care for our wonderful billionaire owners?
The polling may leave Republican leaders wondering what programs they will be able to cut without facing outcry from angry voters who rely on public services—but Elizabeth Pancotti, managing director of policy and advocacy for Groundwork Collaborative, suggested in a statement Tuesday that the answer is simple: The GOP must abandon its plan to dole out more tax breaks for the rich.
"Voters are clear about what they want: Lower prices, better jobs, vital programs protected and expanded, and for the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes," said Pancotti. "And yet, Republicans in both chambers of Congress are working overtime to achieve the exact opposite."
President Donald Trump has called on the GOP to advance his taxation, immigration, and energy agenda in "one big, beautiful bill," while Senate Republican leaders have begun work on two separate bills, with taxes dealt with later in the year.
"Whether one bill or two," said Pancotti, "House and Senate GOP members are aligned on wanting to cut lifesaving programs in order to enrich their billionaire friends and donors, and voters are taking note."
Common Dreams work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
MATT TAIBBI: A Brief Note On Wedneday's House Hearing
A loss for all — In a House hearing on speech, a weird, unpleasant microcosm of American politics breaks out.
By Matt Taibbi
Racket News (1/12/25)
Hours into my latest turn as a witness in Jim Jordan’s House Judiciary Committee, I tried to pass the time by playing a game. Every time a Democratic member described the digital censorship as a joke or a non-issue, I scratched a notation. By the end, I had a notebook page full of entries:
“Bullshit.”
“Distractions.”
“Wasting time.”
“Induces insomnia.”
“Dumb.”
“A waste of time.”
Ranking member Jamie Raskin in his opening mentioned I’d been deamplified by Elon Musk, and suggested he hoped to ask me about that. Ultimately he didn’t, possibly remembering that Committee Democrats were busy threatening me with jail around that same time.
Democrats hit three themes: Musk, Trump, and weirdly, the price of eggs. Republicans went after the Biden administration and Europe. At times it devolved into pure crosstalk, but Jordan at least tried to call attention to suppression of non-conservatives, bringing up figures like New York Times reporter Alex Berenson. Democrats engaged exclusively with witness Craig Aaron of Free Press (this one, not that one). The only question a Democrat asked me was if Congress is part of government. Michael Shellenberger, Rupa Subramanya (of the other Free Press) and I were repeatedly told any non-Trump, non-Musk censorship story was both “debunked” and in the past.
Democrats more scary
Today reminded me why Democrats of this generation will always scare me more. They genuinely don’t see the issue, and that lack of self-awareness makes them more dangerous. There’s of course a layer of partisan politics here (Republicans are laser-focused on sins of the left, while Democrats say everything is either Trump’s or Musk’s fault), but the deeper issue continually came out in Democrats’ statements. Whether it was references to “referees” throwing flags on misinformation, or pleas about how Trump’s behavior on J6 cost lives, or especially Raskin’s closing about America being a society of determinable “facts,” it’s plain these members really think truth is a mathematical entity that righteous minds can determine with precision.
As Rupa mentioned, polls in recent years have shown a big change in attitudes on this question. 55% of Americans now endorse laws against wrong information. To favor such measures one has to believe both that identifying disinformation is logistically possible, and that government should hold that role. The former idea is metaphysically crazy, the latter unconstitutional. Members in both caucuses used to have roughly similar thoughts on that score, but the cult of binary thinking that’s conquered Europe and Canada and Australia has spread here to constitutional lawyers like Raskin. These people believe. Worse, they believe something stupid, i.e. in this creepy dream of global factual consensus.
Fifteen years ago I interviewed a Democratic Senator. The instant my tape clicked off he relaxed and he began firing jokes like a person. There’s no hidden human underneath Dan Goldman or Ted Lieu. What you see is what you get, all the way down. The characters in Flatland are more complex. It never stops being a surprise.
It’s a shame
Lastly, there was a time when members took their jobs seriously and respect was earned across the aisle when investigations were well done. Republicans behind the scenes were always impressed by Carl Levin’s finance probes, and even Democrats who disliked Chuck Grassley’s politics conceded his team knew how to protect whistleblowers and dig for Pentagon corruption. Jordan’s team worked its ass off on this issue. Their fight to get documents out of the likes of Facebook and Stanford will go down as classically impactful congressional inquiries that reflect well on the whole institution. I could swear I sensed tinges of collegiality at these moments in the past. Now, not so much. It’s a shame.
Anyway, still slogging home. Have a good night, everyone.
IS IT REALLY WATER IN THAT CUP? Sec. Of War Pete Hegseth Needs Help Remembering U.S. Motto During Speech To Troops
"I need a drink of water," the flustered secretary of defense said.
Dressed Like A Dorky Little Cub Scott For A July 4th Parade: The US secretary of [War], Pete Hegseth, gestures during a visit to the headquarters of US European Command and Africa Command in Stuttgart on Tuesday. Photograph: Michael Probst/AP
By Ron Dicker
HuffPost (2/12/25)
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on Tuesday struggled to say “e pluribus unum,” fumbling the traditional motto before U.S. troops helped him complete it. (Watch the video below.)
The latin phrase for “out of many, one” appears on the Great Seal of the United States, but Hegseth couldn’t quite spit it out during a speech in Stuttgart, Germany.
Hegseth, a controversial Cabinet choice who faced accusations of heavy drinking, serial infidelity and sexual assault, was telling the audience that axing diversity, equity and inclusion practices was about “getting back to basics.” (The Trump administration’s targeting of diversity initiatives generated student protests on the military base where Hegseth spoke.)
He pledged the administration would treat every service member with respect regardless of gender, race or background, claiming that equality has been a bedrock of the military “for quite some time.”
“We should be damn proud of that, and we should continue to live that way,” he continued. “That’s the message we want coming out of the changes that are made.”
“E plubirus,” he declared, appearing to mix up the letters. “E ... help me out.”
“E pluribus unum,” soldiers can be heard responding in unison.
Hegseth repeated the phrase. “I need a drink of water,” he said, drawing laughter.
“Out of many, one,” he continued. “E pluribus unum. Out of many, one.”
“If there’s one institution that represents that perspective, it’s the United States military.”
E pluribus unum was the official national motto before it was changed to “In God We Trust” in 1956.
Fast-forward to 25:25 below for Hegseth’s tongue-tied moment.
Link to story and 56-minute video
I wish people would stop referring to Dems as 'the left'. There's nothing left about them as as far as I can see. Does the western world actually have a functioning left? There are lots of lefties with nowhere to go. A great opportunity for actual leftist parties.
Cuts in Medicare, Mark, but apparently no cuts for Israhell.
Every year my SS creeps up a minuscule amount. And withdrawals for Medicare creep up more. So I’m not only not breaking even, I’m taking a loss.
I’m certain this is true for most recipients.
Back to Diana’s wise comment: where were the TRUE independents back when we needed an alternate party?
It’s not too late and it comes from both sides of the aisle. Thomas Massie, Rand Paul, Chris van Hollen, Rashida Tlaib, Mark Pocan, Ilhan Omar… WHY do you continue to identify with your respective parties? Either join the Greens or start your own!