Connect with us

Democrats

Democrats have too much pride to score major victories

Published

on

Democrats have too much pride to score major victories

There was a time, for better or worse, when politicians made concessions for gains. These times are a pipe dream, as the Democrats have moved drastically left of where they stood ten years ago. Now we find ourselves in a partial government shutdown with no signs of ending anytime soon. The Democrats claim that Trump is holding the government hostage until he gets the border wall. In doing so, they have already made large concessions of leverage.

Trump looks fairly formidable in this situation. He has the presidential veto. He has a Senate that won’t vote on anything the Whitehouse will not sign. Trump has accepted responsibility for the shutdown, eliminating much of the back and forth blame rhetoric these events have sparked in the past. Unlike in the past, when Ted Cruz bore responsibility for a shutdown, fewer people today are arguing about the blame rather than questioning the methods Trump is employing. In being unafraid of shutdown blame, Trump has given himself the advantage of indifference. Trump has employed this advantage in his preparation of a months long stalemate with the House.

While Trump has made concessions, even on the price of the wall itself, the Democrats are not striving to make gains. Instead they are seeking unconditional surrender and humiliation, forcing Trump to sign their Treaty of Versailles. Trump is not dumb enough to sign the surrender bill, though I cannot confidently say thirteen GOP Senators or so aren’t weak enough to vote for it. In fact, signing such a bill would be Trump surrendering his leverage voluntarily. Trump’s feet are taped to the bicycle. He cannot back down now, especially for 2020’s sake.

The Democrats, in contrast, could make a five billion dollar concession for numerous gains. They could fund Planned Parenthood for another decade; we know the GOP will have no trouble funding abortion. They could expand welfare. They could fund massive global warming projects and double the EPA. They could put more money towards Obamacare, Medicare/Medicaid, DoE, HUD, Social Security, and a bunch of other programs the government doesn’t need. They could fund terrorist groups and subsidize socialist regimes. Trump, believably, would sign that bill. Trump is willing to take major losses for the magnum opus of his presidential campaign. But the Democrats are unwilling to inflict such losses.

The Takeaway

As long as Democrats have the wrong idea about what’s being held hostage, the shutdown will be of no benefit to them. They have an opportunity to collect a king’s ransom for the wall yet because of pride and unwillingness to compromise with Trump, the shutdown will look as though Trump is steadfast in his promise of a border wall, while the Democrats show what lengths they will go to to support open borders. The Democrats have the wall hostage and are willingly blind to this fact. They could demand the king’s ransom for the wall. Trump would pay the ransom. Instead the Democrats believe their future necessitates open borders to sustain their increasingly socialist voter base.

The Democrats might be holding this card up their sleeves, waiting until they’ve exhausted their demands for unconditional surrender, but the longer they hold on to it, the worse their voters may feel.

A drawn out campaign that results in a wall is far worse than a quick indecisive draw that makes the one side (Democrats) look weak but in actuality funds all but one of their priorities. But because of pride the Democrats would rather lose a political Stalingrad than a quick Antietam.

Advertisement

0

Democrats

Jordan, Meadows blast House Democrats after Lewandowski hearing

Published

on

Jordan Meadows blast House Dems after Lewandowski hearing

Yesterday’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee by former Trump campaign manager Cory Lewandowski was a sham. It was poorly executed even as a bashing session for Democratic lawmakers to rant about the President’s campaign. One would think that after three years and multiple investigations, they’d give up. But this is all they have left. Democrats on Capitol Hill have nothing of substance left in their tanks.

House Freedom Caucus members Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows went on Fox News to blast their progressive colleagues for not only having the hearing in the first place, but also for their duplicity in handling all things associated with President Trump. The Democrats are not seeking the truth, otherwise they’d be looking into the real collusion and obstruction that has been taking place from their side of the fence. Instead, they’re talking impeachment as a distraction from their own shortcomings, their own failures.

This really comes down to a double-standard. The Democrats will hold hearings if the President sneezes wrong but if clear and unambiguous wrongdoing is uncovered about a Trump opponent, Democrats suddenly see nothing.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

‘Lite’ versions of Medicare-for-All are no better – and possibly worse – than the real thing

Published

on

Lite versions of Medicare-for-All are no better - and possibly worse - than the real thing

How do Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, and other Democratic candidates plan on sinking Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders? By highlighting how their radical Medicare-for-All proposals are several steps too far to the left for America and by offering “lighter” versions of their semi-popular healthcare plans. But there’s a problem with their proposals. All of them will lead to the same conclusion – single-payer healthcare – and all of them may actually be more damaging to the economy along the way.

This is saying a lot since the $32 trillion Medicare-for-All is an absolute existential threat to the United States economy. How could these lighter versions be worse?

Before we answer that, let’s look at what would happen if Buttigieg’s Medicare-for-All-Who-Wants-It, Biden’s Obamacare 2.0, or Harris’s Medicare-for-All plus private supplements ever become law in America. They all come at it from different angles, but what they’re describing is a public option for health insurance that would be taxpayer-funded and remove the out-of-pocket expenses from those who choose to take it instead of a private healthcare plan. This sounds reasonable to many Americans who want health insurance available to everyone, even those who cannot afford it, but who do not want to lose their own health insurance.

But what nobody’s mentioning is that the holes in a public option create problems for everyone, including:

  • Dichotomous healthcare services. There will be “good” healthcare offered to those with private insurance and “bad” healthcare offered to those taking the public option. We see this in action with the VA, which was intended to offer superior services to veterans. But the opposite has been proven to be the case. When government injects itself as an option against the private market, invariably the solutions they present are unambiguously inferior to the private variations. Americans will not be told of this dichotomy. Instead, they will find out when it’s too late that the healthcare they’re receiving is horrible compared to what they would have received under the private market option.
  • Increased costs across the board. What does a public option mean for the private market? Fewer customers. Fewer businesses enticing employees with health insurance benefits. Fewer healthy people paying for healthcare while higher-cost participants make private insurance more expensive for everyone. As for those on the public option, their acceptance of taxpayer-funded health insurance will, of course, drive up taxes for nearly everyone, including the middle class that nobody seems to want to admit will get hit with these taxes.
  • An eventual shift towards single-payerAs private health insurance becomes less lucrative and eventually becomes a money-loser, companies will start pulling out. We already saw this without the public option in Obamacare. Throw in a public option and it eventually becomes cost-prohibitive to offer anything other than supplemental insurance for uncovered procedures such as cosmetic surgery. The public option will become single payer by default within 3-5 years after it’s launched.

Nobody outside of the health insurance industry likes the health insurance industry, but over a hundred million Americans rely on this industry to keep themselves and their families from paying the extremely high costs for medical care. The combination of health insurance driving medical expenses and a government driving the health insurance industry has resulted in diapers costing $20 each after birth. They know most American will not care about the details as long as they’re not paying for it out of pocket, so they can encourage hospitals and doctors to charge outrageous rates. This all changes for the worst once single-payer is in place.

Back to the original premise – these “lighter” options could actually be worse for America than full-blown and immediate Medicare-for-All. With the latter, everything is upfront. They will tax us at extremely high rates to pay for their pet project. It will be horrible. But it will be understood from the beginning. With the half-measures proposed by the “moderates” in the group, the way it all pans out will be in a constant state of radical evolution. Prices will fluctuate so rapidly that changes will need to be made on the fly. It’s like inserting a knife into our backs slowly instead of just plunging it right in. The constant tearing of tissues over time may make us bleed out faster than if they just stabbed us quickly.

The various public option proposals are all single-payer-in-training. They will invariably become Medicare-for-All because private insurance will die a slow death as a result. Meanwhile, our healthcare quality and economy will die much more rapidly.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

The real reason behind California Democrats’ attack on Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash

Published

on

Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) speaks at a rally after her measure to limit when companies can label workers as independent contractors was approved by a Senate committee on July 10.(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

Today, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 5 into law which would limit the use of independent contracts.

Newsom in a signed written statement said that the new law, “will help reduce worker misclassification — workers being wrongly classified as ‘independent contractors’ rather than employees, which erodes basic worker protections like the minimum wage, paid sick days and health insurance benefits.”

The author of AB 5, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), in a written statement said, “As one of the strongest economies in the world, California is now setting the global standard for worker protections for other states and countries to follow.”

This might sound great but does Newsom or Gonzalez genuinely care about these workers or is there a more devious reason?

Here is the real reason -the Janus Decision.

In Janus vs. AFSCMF, the US Supreme Court ruled that labor unions are inherently political and that employees cannot be compelled to support them financially. What has been the result? Tens of thousands of government employees have opted out of their unions and the typical $800 to $1,200 a year they hand over to unions are gone.

Where does that money go? The vast majority of those tens of millions of dollars goes to the Democrat Party and candidates like Newsom and Gonzalez.

So by reclassifying Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash drivers as employees, what is Newsom and Gonzalez hoping to occur? According to the LA Times, Newsom stated, “the need to ensure workers in the new tech sector businesses can join labor unions.”

There you go, folks. Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash drivers can join a union because they are now employees.

What will be the result?

These companies will have to drastically raise their rates to comply with the new law, thus you will pay much more to use these services. These companies will have to dismiss tens of thousands of drivers that relied on these jobs to supplement their income or even their only source of income.

For the driver’s that are lucky to keep their jobs, what will happen to them? You can rest assured that the unions will be there to extract their hard-earned money as they are pressured to join the union. Conveniently, the tens of millions they raise will be going into these politicians political bank accounts.

Now I have no love-loss for these companies. I’m a transportation CEO and they are my direct competition. This might even help me make more money.

Even if that is true or not, the facts are this had nothing to do with protecting these drivers. It was a devious plot to fill their campaign war chests will millions of dollars at the expense of you and these drivers.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending