Tag Archives: thinks

China Thinks It Can Nuke American Cities. Should We Worry?

China Thinks It Can Nuke American Cities. Should We Worry?World War III is no joke…



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

Trump reportedly picked his impeachment defense team based on how well he thinks they can perform on TV

Trump reportedly picked his impeachment defense team based on how well he thinks they can perform on TVTrump on Friday announced a legal team including long-time TV defender Alan Dershowitz, and former Clinton impeachment lawyer Kenneth Starr.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

A 29-year-old mayor is giving his city's poorest residents $500 per month. He thinks his policy could work on a national scale.

A 29-year-old mayor is giving his city's poorest residents $  500 per month. He thinks his policy could work on a national scale.Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs doesn't support a basic income program that has strings attached. That's why he is critical of Andrew Yang's plan.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

Elizabeth Warren Thinks Voters Are Stupid

Elizabeth Warren Thinks Voters Are StupidThe bad news is, Elizabeth Warren has some barmy ideas about raising your taxes. The good news is, she’s a proven coward. She says she likes to “nerd out” on the policy details. Okay, let’s do that.Warren estimates that her health-care scheme would cost about $ 2 trillion — every year, forever. As often is the case when we are talking about the federal budget, the numbers sound incomprehensible to many people: millions, billions, trillions, squidillions, whatever. To put that $ 2 trillion a year into perspective, a comparison: That is more money than the federal government collects annually in all of the personal and corporate income taxes combined. Put another way, even if the federal government were able to successfully double the revenue it gets from personal and corporate income taxes, the additional revenue would not pay for Warren’s health-care plan.In fiscal year 2019, all federal tax revenue from all sources combined amounted to $ 3.4 trillion. If a Warren administration and a Democratic Congress were successful in raising Americans’ taxes by 50 percent, the extra revenue still wouldn't be enough to fund Warren’s health-care program.And that does not take into account the rest of the fiscal scene, which is pretty grim. While Warren talks about Medicare for All, as it is the unfunded liability of Medicare over the next 75 years already tops $ 42 trillion, or just over twelve years’ worth of total federal tax revenue. Put another way: If the federal government continued collecting taxes at the current rate, stopped spending even a nickel on anything else, and put all of that money into Medicare, it would have to do so for twelve years just in order to cover the difference between what Medicare already has promised to pay out and what dedicated Medicare taxes will actually fund.And never mind, for the moment, that there are lots of things Warren and the other Democrats want to spend money on besides expanding Medicare: trillions of dollars in subsidies for college students and student-loan forgiveness, alternative-energy subsidies, etc. Warren proposes the better part of another trillion dollars a year in new spending on top of the $ 2 trillion a year for expanding Medicare.To pay for that, she would have to raise federal tax revenue by around 80 percent — and that still would do nothing about the trillion-dollar deficits we already have or the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and other entitlement programs that already are piling up even faster than the official national debt.Writing at Slate, Jordan Weissmann describes Warren’s plan to pay for her health-care proposal as “not entirely realistic.” Indeed. And it is worth keeping in mind that all of the above relies on Warren’s own estimates of the cost of her program. Other analysts have put the number much higher — about 50 percent higher, in fact. If those estimates are closer to the truth, then paying for all this means doubling or more than doubling federal tax revenue.And here it is worth reminding ourselves that tax rates and tax revenue are not the same thing. Progressives like to point out that during the Eisenhower years, the top tax rate was radically higher than it is today. And that is true. But tax revenue today is about what it was then: From 1950 to 1960, federal tax receipts averaged 15.9 percent of GDP, whereas in 2018 they were just a tad higher than that, at 16.2 percent of GDP. So don’t let anybody sell you the story that we could pay for all this with the tax rates of the 1950s or 1960s.And don’t let Elizabeth Warren sell you her story, either.The last time Democrats had a big idea about reorganizing U.S. health care — the grievously misnamed Affordable Care Act — they proposed to pay for part of it with a piddly little tax on manufactures of medical devices and the so-called Cadillac tax on expensive health-care plans. The Cadillac tax never has been implemented, because it annoys government workers, labor unions, and other important Democratic constituencies that have gold-plated health-care plans — paid for by somebody else, usually, often taxpayers. The medical-device tax was suspended, too. Does anybody remember who led the charge to repeal it? None other than Senator Elizabeth Warren. In theory, Senator Warren represents Massachusetts; in reality, she represents Boston and its wealthy suburbs, which are home to a number of medical-device companies.A politician who cannot stand up to a relatively minor special-interest demand back home — while serving as an elected Democrat in one of the most reliably Democratic states in the country — is not going to oversee the doubling of the federal tax burden in pursuit of a new welfare program that also would strip most Americans of the private insurance they already have and mostly want to keep. It’s not going to happen.It’s a fairy tale — or, properly understood, a lie.As the aforementioned Jordan Weissmann writes, the point of Warren’s nonsense story about how she’ll pay for her Medicare expansion is to “deflect unpleasant questions from debate moderators and journalists.” It does not have anything to do with the actual facts of the case — only with the contours of the fiction that is the Warren presidential campaign. One more piece of evidence that political partisans enjoy being lied to, if they are skillfully lied to.Give me the power now — we’ll work out the details later.There is only one reason that Elizabeth Warren would proceed in this manner: She thinks her voters are stupid.There isn’t any obvious reason to think she’s wrong about that.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

An ABC News anchor was caught on a hot mic saying that the network killed her Epstein exposé in 2015 and that she thinks the sex offender was '100%' murdered

An ABC News anchor was caught on a hot mic saying that the network killed her Epstein exposé in 2015 and that she thinks the sex offender was '100%' murderedThe video, which seemed to be shot between news segments in August, was leaked to the right-wing organization Project Veritas and published Tuesday.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

Barack Obama thinks 'woke' kids want purity. They don't: they want progress

Barack Obama thinks 'woke' kids want purity. They don't: they want progressThe former president took black and progressive movements to task, without understanding his own failure to deliver change • Call-out culture: how to get it right (and wrong)Former president Barack Obama speaks with actress, model, and activist Yara Shahidi during the Obama Foundation summit in Chicago, on 29 October. Photograph: Ashlee Rezin Garcia/APOn Tuesday, in Chicago, former president Barack Obama joined actress Yara Shahidi in a conversation with activists from his Obama Foundation program. Over the nearly 1.5-hour Obama Foundation summit event, the beloved political figure deployed his trademark charm and humor while discussing the challenges of movement politics.Media attention has focused on a particular part of the conversation – Obama’s criticism of call-out culture and what he perceived as an excessively strident activist left. “We can’t completely remake society in a minute,” Obama said, “so we have to make some accommodations to the existing structures.”He added, “This idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re always politically woke and all that stuff, you should get over that quickly. The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws. People who you are fighting may love their kids and share certain things with you.”He then made a separate point about social media activism:“If I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right or used the wrong verb, I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself. ‘Man you see how woke I was, I called you out.’” But “that’s not activism. That’s not bringing about change.”On its face, these are fair remarks. During the session, both Obama and Shahidi drew from examples of the nonviolent civil rights movement of the early 1960s, which required enormous faith, patience and compromise from its activists in the face of threats to their lives and livelihood. Today, as social justice activists’ material conditions have relatively improved, they will encounter people in positions of power with wealth and access, and they have to learn to work with them on some level, Obama implied. And no, tweeting about a verb probably won’t bring about change.However, we can’t look at Obama’s remarks in a vacuum. From 2016 – as he prepared to exert his influence over who would be the next Democratic nominee – to the present, Obama has often aimed his political critiques at youth-led, black and progressive movements. While upholding the necessity of nuance, Obama himself seems to force these movements into a box, cherry-picking anecdotes for a strawman: that these movements expect purity and demand perfection.> This idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re always politically woke … you should get over that. The world is messy. There are ambiguities> > Barack ObamaIn an early instance of this ideological pattern, at a 2016 youth town hall in London, Obama spoke generally of Black Lives Matter while referring to the handful of activists who confronted the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for her role in criminalizing black youth:“Once you’ve highlighted an issue and brought it to people’s attention … then you can’t just keep on yelling at them. And you can’t refuse to meet because that might compromise the purity of your position. The value of social movements and activism is to get you at the table, get you in the room.”A few months later in a Howard commencement address, with Chicago protests of the police killing of Laquan McDonald not far in the distance, he told the audience of mostly black students about his criminal justice reform as a state senator:“I can say this unequivocally: without at least the acceptance of the police organizations in Illinois, I could never have gotten those [criminal justice reform] bills passed … If you think that the only way forward is to be as uncompromising as possible, you will feel good about yourself, you will enjoy a certain moral purity, but you’re not going to get what you want.”And earlier this year, Obama again raised the amorphous specter of purity politics as people have embraced a leftward policy shift:“One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States … is a certain kind of rigidity where we say, ‘Uh, I’m sorry, this is how it’s going to be’ and then we start … a ‘circular firing squad’, where you start shooting at your allies because one of them has strayed from purity on the issues.”Obama has offered these platitudes without much evidence that progressives, Black Lives Matter activists or young voters expect purity. Impatience with the status quo is not purity. A consistent political project is not purity. And being patient has its limits.> For many Americans, the normalization of genuinely leftwing policies is providing the hope and change Obama campaigned onYou can gather from the general direction of Obama’s career, from turning down a route in corporate law to his community organizing, that he has some commitment to social justice. However, his remarks indicate discomfort with more radical tactics in achieving it, reducing them to petulant zeal and not a legitimate strategy among the broad scope of tools needed to dismantle oppressive systems.While discussing Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King as examples of patient progress, he freezes them in time. He failed to note either King’s or Parks’s evolutions. Over time King became more radicalized and questioned integration. When Parks was forced to Detroit to retreat from the backlash against her bus boycott activism, she became a proponent of the Panthers’ self-defense demands and identified Malcolm X as her personal hero.Obama also failed to discuss how, despite King’s strategies negotiating with Lyndon Johnson to sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress waffled in passing further civil rights measures until the 1968 riots after King’s assassination, when Congress was forced to swiftly pass the Fair Housing Act.Or go back further: despite the negotiations and patience of abolitionists in the 1800s, it was a steady stream of black uprisings, and an entire civil war, that gave abolition laws and the Emancipation Proclamation any teeth.Obama’s fundamental problem is in confusing a strategy of pragmatism with the strategy. Pragmatic approaches can coexist with more radical politics. But Obama’s pattern of dismissing radical demands altogether shows a serious unwillingness to appreciate the times. Obama is committed to a notion of reaching across the aisle that may have seemed necessary in 2012, but not so much in 2019.Americans in the throes of economic struggle and social oppression have been advised to hold their nose for so long that they’re suffocating. The labor movement is experiencing more worker strikes now than in the past 40 years. We’re in a 1968 moment, not 1963. But Obama has not accepted this evolution.As people demand universal policies for basic needs of shelter, food, freedom from police terror, and economic security, and when wealth inequality is the worst in a century, Obama has to reckon with his own questions. How is his form of calling out – scolding black, young and progressive movements – bringing about change? Is he part of the solution or part of the problem?For many Americans, the normalization of genuinely leftwing policies is providing the hope and change Obama campaigned on. This is the time for him to finally help achieve it.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

China Thinks a Nuclear Submarine Can Sink Half of An Aircraft Carrier Battle Group

China Thinks a Nuclear Submarine Can Sink Half of An Aircraft Carrier Battle GroupBeijing is trying to find out how to sink U.S. aircraft carriers. France might know how to stop them.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

UPDATE 1-Surprised over Doral flap, Trump thinks he's still in hospitality business -Mulvaney

UPDATE 1-Surprised over Doral flap, Trump thinks he's still in hospitality business -MulvaneyU.S. President Donald Trump was surprised at the resistance to his now-revoked decision to host next year’s Group of Seven summit at his Florida golf resort, his acting chief of staff said on Sunday, adding that Trump still considers himself to be in the hospitality business. Trump on Saturday announced on Twitter that he was abandoning the move to host the meeting at Trump National Doral near Miami in June, citing “Crazed and Irrational Hostility” from Democrats and the news media. “At the end of the day, he still considers himself to be in the hospitality business, and he saw an opportunity to take the biggest leaders from around the world and he wanted to put on the absolute best show, the best visit that he possibly could and he was very confident of doing that at Doral,” Mulvaney said.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

2020 Vision: Hillary Clinton thinks Russia will back Tulsi Gabbard to help Trump stay in power

2020 Vision: Hillary Clinton thinks Russia will back Tulsi Gabbard to help Trump stay in power“This is not some outlandish claim,” Clinton said in an interview this week. “This is reality.”



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

Fox News Anchor Julie Banderas Thinks It’s Illegal to Burn the American Flag

Fox News Anchor Julie Banderas Thinks It’s Illegal to Burn the American FlagFox News anchor Julie Banderas is apparently unaware of Texas v. Johnson. Towards the end of a discussion on the seemingly never-ending Nike/Betsy Ross flag controversy during Friday’s broadcast of chat-fest Outnumbered, the conversation shifted to the arrest of two men who burned an American flag outside the White House on July 4.“There was a video of somebody who stopped burning of the protest—I think it was yesterday—with his hands,” co-host Carley Shimkus said. “It means a lot to a lot of people.”Banderas, meanwhile, noted that two people were arrested after the protest before adding a bit of commentary.“And it’s a crime to burn the American flag,” she declared. “That’s how much we respect our American flag.”While it is true that two men were arrested following the flag-burning, the U.S. Secret Service noted that one person was arrested for “felony assault on a police officer and malicious burning.” As they pointed out, while the burning of the American flag is not illegal, the burning occurred outside the parameters of the protesters’ permit issued by the National Parks Service.Ironically, one of the men arrested was Gregory “Joey” Johnson, who was the defendant in the landmark Texas v. Johnson Supreme Court case in 1989 that ruled flag-burning was protected speech under the First Amendment, invalidating then-current laws on the book prohibiting flag desecration.Despite tossing out this explicit falsehood, she went unchallenged by her colleagues, including guest host Dean Cain, who bragged during the broadcast that he majored in history.Later in the day, filling in for Fox News anchor Shepard Smith, Banderas introduced a segment on Johnson's arrest by noting that "it is not technically illegal to burn a flag due to free speech and the Constitution." She did not, however, mention how she had incorrectly labeled flag-burning a crime earlier that afternoon. Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines