Entitlements - that's what the GOP calls Social Security. Never mind that every worker pays into Social Security for decades. I guess when you pay into it for that long one is "entitled" to expect a return on that investment in their future well-being. The real entitlements are the loop holes for the wealthy and the starvation of the IRS so that taking too many "entitlements" is never detected by audits. And, let's not forget the entitlements of the corporations, after all they are considered "people" by the Supreme Court so they should pay taxes like other tax paying citizens. Anyone paying even a dollar of taxes is paying more than the sum total of sixty of the largest corporations in the world making billions and trillions of dollars pay. Their profit isn't shared with the workers who are treated like expendable serfs rather than the significant contributors to profit they are. We, the People, all of us sharing the wealth this time!
Here's my take, excerpted from an essay I wrote, on Medicare and Social Security as "entitlements:"
"As entitlement programs, Medicare and Social Security are often lumped in with government assistance programs. However, unlike many welfare programs, they’re funded by your employment. “Entitlement” simply means that the Federal Government is obligated to provide benefits to those who meet eligibility requirements. In other words, the Federal Government is required by law to make payments to those who are “entitled” to the benefits. “Entitlement Reform” often conflates taxpayers’ desire to reduce handouts with the need to manage the financial well-being of these two important programs."
I'd much rather see the term, "entitlements" replaced with "earned benefits," and "eligible benefits" as applicable.
Exactly, and I'd be happier with different verbiage as well. Your suggestions don't carry the burden of opprobrium that 'entitlement' does and words do matter.
Thanks Cathy and Dave. It's actually part of a larger essay on Medicare and Social Security that I wrote several years ago to help folks who were soon to be signing up. Your comments encouraged me to set up my own Substack account and start posting. Here's the essay in case you're interested. I'd love to hear what you think.
Thank you, Bob. I've saved it and will read it and comment later this afternoon. It's a beautiful day here and my dog thinks it's spring so we're spending some time outside.
My Mom knew the difference. She was livid at the thought of SS being messed with. She slaved at a hosiery mill all her life and then died 4 years after eligible.
That situation was the foundation of early SocSec financing and the system has never completely adjusted to either increased longevity or a major change in income sourcing and distribution.
Almost ALL mainstream media outlets are owned by corporations...need anyone look any further for reasons why those media outlets choose to cover this story and hundreds of other very informative and important stories too casually?
And the Congress currently is "entitled" to their own form of retirement and healthcare insurance, both of which are more generous than Social Security or Medicare. Perhaps the Republicans should become part of the Social Security and Medicare programs before they talk about dismantling or reducing them?
You're right Cathy, you just have it precisely backwards. Those of us who paid into the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds are definitely entitled to the benefits we were promised. The loopholes, including the cap on income that is taxable for OASDI, the deductibility of interest on business loans and the portability of profits from one country to another based on tax rates, are all (gasp) WELFARE. The Democrats could short-circuit the GOP talking points and, perhaps, drive a stake through their electability by introducing legislation (which won't get out of the Rules Committee as it is about to be constituted but can still be publicized) that removes the income cap, maintains the benefits structure with COLA adjustments as it is and, because the devil must be given his due, gradually increases the age for full eligibility. Americans are, after all, living and working longer even if not always by choice, and our benefit programs must take that into account.
I agree with most of this except increasing the age for full eligibility. That's a horrible idea and should be a deal breaker. If you're raising the cap for income taxed by SS, which there shouldn't be a cap anyway, then there's no argument for increasing the age eligibility.
I agree that increasing the age limit is not a reasonable idea-we don't know what age changes these Republicans want to impose-perhaps 80? The workers who do hard physical labor for decades and those with significant disabilities may well not be able to work as long as office workers and may well fall through the cracks. The hoops that are imposed to obtain the benefits can be massive. A friend of mine had to try THREE times despite having multiple medical problems and a medicare lawyer.. Basically the SSA administration treats nearly everyone as liars, even if the prospective recipient has plenty of documentation.
I'm willing to listen to discussion, but don't see a priori why raising the age limit is a "horrible idea" that should end the conversation. The average age of the American population was increasing regularly until Covid and can reasonably be expected to continue that trend. If the data shows otherwise, there can always be amendments.
I didn't suggest raising the cap, I said it should be eliminated. While this would add another $200Billion annually to SocSec revenue, the change in age limit is needed for long term stability. The cap can only be removed once, any future changes would require higher tax rates which we'd all prefer to avoid.
Absolutely NOT! Raising the age is a non-starter. What about all of us who were laid off or furloughed at age 64 when we weren't eligible for Medicare, had to rely on COBRA or Obama care at an exorbitant price and wasn't able to get a new job? I speak from experience. With two master's degrees and loads of experience, but a salary that no one wanted to touch combined with ageism.......enough said.
Historically, changes in qualifications have been phased in over time in order not to deprive anyone of benefits they were due. Right now the age is just over 70 and would, at most, go to 72 over the next 5 years.
Raising the retirement eligibility would also be very regressive, hitting lower income people who are far more likely to work at physically demanding jobs.
I'm not suggesting raising the minimum age for filing which is currently 62. I'm suggesting raising the minimum age for full benefits. Yes, it is somewhat regressive but, losing the entire benefit system to bankruptcy or GOP shenanigans would be completely destructive of what little retirement support those people have. Removing the income cap and maintaining the current benefit program with COLA increases would provide as much support as it does now and with a much greater chance of it continuing.
If, however, you prefer an all or nothing approach, it's entirely possible that we could all end up with nothing.
I'd like to see our government pay back what they "borrowed" from SS before any changes are made to the program. Why, it could come from some of that $817 billion defense budget that was just allocated for 2023.
OK, please let's not dignify the idiotic demands of terrorists by offering them any concessions on the social safety net. Republicans threatening to default on the nation's debts and or shut down the government unless they can slash the social safety is just plain sociopathic bullshit. It's time to ignore this tired schtick of theirs.
Yes, eliminate the cap! Most who pay throughout the year don’t even realize there’s a cap. We need to message that ! Believe it’s over 160,000 for 2023.
Jan 9, 2023·edited Jan 9, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
This evening I watched the MSNBC documentary "Love and the Constitution" on Representative Jamie Raskin's perspective as a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Lead Manager for the second impeachment spanning the three years 2018 through 2020. This is a beautiful portrait of the man and an excellent depiction of the events of the last three years of DT's presidency. Just beautiful and filled with love and what it means to do something meaningful and right with one's life and renews one's faith in what our government and democracy can ... and will .... be again. We, the People, all of us doing what is right this time and all the time.
If the past week in Congress is viewed as a pro football matchup, the Democrats were the Kansas City Chiefs and the Republicans the Chicago Bears. Our team has, for far too long, ascribed superpowers to this ragged bunch of right-wing zealots, given their total willingness to lie--and their utter shamelessness when caught. Robert Hubbell continues to wisely assure his readers that GOP "victories" have been fairly few and even those have come at a considerable cost in terms of future voter support. This was never more glaringly apparent than listening to Kevin McCarthy's truly pyrrhic "victory" speech late on Friday, followed by Leader Hakeem Jeffries's brilliant "concession" speech. It was an exciting revelation to hear Cong. Jeffries list the reasons why voters will support Democrats--and why they will reject MAGA Republicans. His was true eloquence, but presented in down-to-earth cadences that assure our party that we have a sterling new leader.
We will, over the next two years, need to repel constant attempts by the ever-so-slightly empowered House Republicans to make their case to the American public. But I have no doubt that we will succeed in doing so. Better still, each false allegation, each phony investigation, each ludicrous attempt to impeach a member of the Biden administration for imaginary failings will only cement the view among the MAJORITY of voters that these shrill demagogues are incapable of actually governing. Fortunately, a Democratic Senate and the Biden administration will prevent any of their dingbat ideas from even coming close to enactment.
Repubs lie and slander better than Dems. The MAGAts have no clue how horrid the repubs have been, nor do they know how competent Dems have been. As Krugman said, “Competence has a well-known liberal bias.”
True to a degree. MAGA republicans are never going to change BUT they are only about 20% of the electorate and the real Republicans and Independent and the younger voters are the base Democrats need and will
I would guess more like 30%. Could 20% really wreak the havoc that we have seen. Rupert’s propaganda range snares idiots, the educated, and “salt of the earth” types in my experience. The formerly “real Republicans” in my family have jumped ship, but I will say the males have been more recalcitrant. Or maybe it’s just misogyny
Another terrific post -- thank you. I was struck by the description of Trump's election as "accidental." By chance I had just finished watching the 2017 documentary "Trumping Democracy: Real Money, Fake News, Your Data" before reading the post. The film makes clear that Trump's election was anything but accidental. Rather, it was carefully engineered and paid for by Robert Mercer, who, no longer plagued by the annoyances of campaign financing law and reporting requirements, initially had funded Ted Cruz to the tune of $5 million, to set him up to be the accessible and controllable face of far-right extremism going forward. But seeing that Cruz couldn't sustain his momentum and Trump was gaining traction in co-opting the Republican party, Mercer dumped the Texan and started backing the fat orange thing from New York.
With Mercer's money and through the efforts of Bannon and Conway (who were already in Mercer's orbit), Cambridge Analytica, and others (including the complicit Facebook), the disinformation and voter manipulation machinery went into high gear, especially micro-targeting exactly the right subset of vulnerable, susceptible voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. And the rest, unfortunately, is history...
Yes; the Mercer's played an important role in corrupting the election. What I meant to convey is that Trump did not expect to win. He had no transition plan in place; had no policies to promote; no staff ready. He did not expect to win, even if others were trying to make it so.
Fair enough. In that vein, the film also points out that as a further reflection of the degree of control Mercer achieved (beyond establishing Bannon, Conway, and David Bossie in the White House inner circle), Rebekah Mercer, not Trump or even the usual Republican power brokers, organized and set up Trump's first cabinet. Unfortunately, the film doesn't take that line of the story any further.
The Mercers' actions provide a clear, real-life, documented illustration of oligarchic control of government in as anti-democratic a manner as possible thanks to Citizens United and a toothless FEC.
Bravo to your comments tonight Robert with the caveat that we could have won thehouse of representatives With a national campaign and a national spokesman about what the Republicans were about to do. It was lost in a handful of races that were winnable.
I am looking for a sober analysis of the weakness of the Democratic national committee and national party and how to correct such weakness so that we do not lose seats in California and New York again.
Correct one of the weaknesses with the simple theme/ phrase:
“When Republicans win, you lose.”
Robert quoted this phrase awhile back.
I don’t recall who said it but it had to do with Dems NOT having an across the board powerful simple theme/ phrase going into the mid-terms that cut to the chase and was easy to digest by anybody who heard or read it. Let’s resurrect and use it repeatedly over the next two years (and beyond if necessary).
The originator of the motto was Dr. Rachel Bitecofer, in a panel discussion led by Jill Wine-Banks on November 1 (?), 2022, which Robert participated in and wrote about, including the following:
"Jill Wine-Banks asked the panel what messaging they would recommend for Democrats. Without hesitation, Rachel Bitecofer said, “If Republicans win, you lose . . . .” In the moment, the slogan seemed brilliant. With the benefit of reflection, it seems even better than I originally thought. It is compact, aggressive, flexible, and true!
At its core, the message communicates an essential truth: The Republican Party is working against the interests of every American . . . on democracy, the economy, taxes, Social Security, drug prices, climate, reproductive liberty, gun safety, personal privacy, LGBTQ equality, . . . [fill in the ellipsis as appropriate for the circumstance]."
I agree with much that you say—but Democrats are NOT “The loyal opposition.” We are the party in power, controlling the presidency and the Senate. While it will be difficult to deal with the House Republicans, much can still be accomplished—consider how much was accomplished by President Obama with both houses controlled by Republicans. Or all the bipartisan bills passed in the last two years. We need to move forward, not just oppose.
Yes because they talk destruction but won’t do it. Watch what happens when they attack Social Security and other entitlements plus watch the markets react to defaulting on the budget.
A great summation of this historic event that Republicans will want to forget as soon as possible. I may be prejudiced but it seems to me that Democrats are a much kinder gentler people that Republicans, at least as far as the political parties go. Thy seem to have more compassion, more empathy where it comes to others who are struggling. Trump has always appeared to me to be angry, mean spirited, cold, unfeeling, vindictive, and he attract to him others like that. Maybe McCarthy will surprise us and suggest a pay cut or reduced pension for members of Congress and a cut in their medical benefits before initiating a cut for the poor and elderly. Yeah, right!
Of course, Jen. They are the ones I was referring to. although maybe unfair of me to even lump all them together in the same way. There are many reasons people think and behave the way they do. Some really are mean spirited and stingy by nature but others may be easily influenced or jump on the bandwagon just to show solidarity, say when a particular law or rule is proposed or voted on. We all make mistakes of judgement sometimes or later regret certain actions that seemed reasonable at the time. We are after all works in progress. We are really all at different stages of spiritual evolution you might say. One rather far out belief is that we can't really advance very much in one short lifetime, that it takes many lifetimes to achieve a high spiritual level. Lrt's assume for the moment this is true, we can hardly judge those further back than us as it simply means they haven't learned a better way yet. But in time they will. Just as there are those ahead of us that shake their heads at our foolishness, but know in time we too shall learn a better way after much trial and error. Un hus biography General Patton claimed he could remember vividly his other lives. https://youtu.be/l7ER08F9rGo
Neat that you have that knowledge, VN, it is a controversial subject and understandable. Like a belief in life after death it can't be proven scientifically. I have mentioned the subject at coffee to friends on occasion and get blank looks. But having experienced a near death type experience where I apparently "visited" the other side and got to observe the various levels of consciousness I came to the realization that no one dies, that we all go on to a different reality which we sort of do ever night when we are dreaming and are unaware it is a dream until we wake up. The at some point we reincarnate again. I've even re-lived incidents from past lives in great detail. There are many stories about reincarnation and many famous historical figures who believed in it, but a story of great interest in Readers Digest some years ago also later on ABC stuck in my mind about a young boy who surprised his parents by "recalling" events from WWII in great detail including airplane jargon and descriptions and copilots names all later verified. ,A whole department at the University of Virginia has spent years interviewing and documenting these kinds of stories from all over the world. Doctor Bruce Greyson and doctor Jim Tucker have written extensively on their research ABC recently carried the following story on reincarnation:
"Could a little boy be the reincarnation of downed World War II pilot James Huston Jr.?
April 15— Nearly six decades ago, a 21-year-old Navy fighter pilot on a mission over the Pacific was shot down by Japanese artillery. His name might have been forgotten, were it not for 6-year-old James Leininger.
Quite a few people — including those who knew the fighter pilot — think James is the pilot, reincarnated.
James' parents, Andrea and Bruce, a highly educated, modern couple, say they are "probably the people least likely to have a scenario like this pop up in their lives."
But over time, they have become convinced their little son has had a former life.
From an early age, James would play with nothing else but planes, his parents say. But when he was 2, they said the planes their son loved began to give him regular nightmares.
"I'd wake him up and he'd be screaming," Andrea told ABCNEWS' Chris Cuomo. She said when she asked her son what he was dreaming about, he would say, "Airplane crash on fire, little man can't get out."
Reality Check
Andrea says her mom was the first to suggest James was remembering a past life.
At first, Andrea says she was doubtful. James was only watching kids' shows, his parents say, and they weren't watching World War II documentaries or conversing about military history.
But as time went by, Andrea began to wonder what to believe. In one video of James at age 3, he goes over a plane as if he's doing a preflight check.
Another time, Andrea said, she bought him a toy plane, and pointed out what appeared to be a bomb on its underside. She says James corrected her, and told her it was a drop tank. "I'd never heard of a drop tank," she said. "I didn't know what a drop tank was."
Then James' violent nightmares got worse, occurring three and four times a week. Andrea's mother suggested she look into the work of counselor and therapist Carol Bowman, who believes that the dead sometimes can be reborn.
With guidance from Bowman, they began to encourage James to share his memories — and immediately, Andrea says, the nightmares started become less frequent. James was also becoming more articulate about his apparent past, she said.
Bowman said James was at the age when former lives are most easily recalled. "They haven't had the cultural conditioning, the layering over the experience in this life so the memories can percolate up more easily," she said.
Trail of Mysteries
Over time, James' parents say he revealed extraordinary details about the life of a former fighter pilot — mostly at bedtime, when he was drowsy.
They say James told them his plane had been hit by the Japanese and crashed. Andrea says James told his father he flew a Corsair, and then told her, "They used to get flat tires all the time."
In fact, historians and pilots agree that the plane's tires took a lot of punishment on landing. But that's a fact that could easily be found in books or on television.
Andrea says James also told his father the name of the boat he took off from — Natoma — and the name of someone he flew with — "Jack Larson."
After some research, Bruce discovered both the Natoma and Jack Larson were real. The Natoma Bay was a small aircraft carrier in the Pacific. And Larson is living in Arkansas.
"It was like, holy mackerel," Bruce said. "You could have poured my brains out of my ears. I just couldn't believe it.
James 2 = James M. Huston Jr.?
Bruce became obsessed, searching the Internet, combing through military records and interviewing men who served aboard the Natoma Bay.
He said James told him he had been shot down at Iwo Jima. James had also begun signing his crayon drawings "James 3." Bruce soon learned that the only pilot from the squadron killed at Iwo Jima was James M. Huston Jr.
Bruce says James also told him his plane had sustained a direct hit on the engine.
Ralph Clarbour, a rear gunner on a U.S. airplane that flew off the Natoma Bay, says his plane was right next to one flown by James M. Huston Jr. during a raid near Iwo Jima on March 3, 1945.
Clarbour said he saw Huston's plane struck by anti-aircraft fire. "I would say he was hit head on, right in the middle of the engine," he said.
Bruce says he now believes his son had a past life in which he was James M. Huston Jr. "He came back because he wasn't finished with something."
The Leiningers wrote a letter to Huston's sister, Anne Barron, about their little boy. And now she believes it as well.
My further thoughts: There are many books on reincarnation. Jess Stearn (who I didn’t get to meet until he was on his death-bed) wrote several. He wrote some wonderful books about Edgar Cayce. For example, Edgar Cayce: The Sleeping Prophet. (Edgar Cayce was a straight-laced Southern Presbyterian Sunday school teacher, who, although not schooled beyond ninth grade, became a remarkable physician/healer while in a state of literal unconsciousness). Edgar described himself as …"the dumbest man in Christian county awake." But he was certainly far from that in a trance state.
See also, There is a River: The Story of Edgar Cayce by Thomas Sugrue, and Many Mansions by Gina Cerminara. When Edgar was told about previous lives of his patients he was shocked. After all, the whole concept clashed strongly with his tradition Christian beliefs. But he had no choice but to accept the logic of what was given to him. Besides, thousands of well documented medical cures were the results of his life’s work. He said if he ever made one mistake of diagnosis and treatment he would stop the work immediately.
Even if the reader can’t quite bring himself or herself to accept reincarnation, it is assumed if you
have read this far you would like to know more about why we are here and more about a possible existence after death. All of us should only accept what we read if it feels right to us. No one person or group has a monopoly on the truth. Truth is where you find it. Speaking of which…..
The following book recommendation is in regard to children and previous life relationships with their parents. The author is very thorough in her investigations and has also worked with Dr. Stevenson of the Department of Psychiatric Medicine at The University of Virginia Health System. The author is very thorough in her investigations and has also worked with Dr. Stevenson of the University of Virginia.
by Carol Bowman. Another book of Carol’s is Children’s Past Lives. Her site is Her site is www.childpastlives.org My friend, Ian Lawton is also bringing out a new little book with some amazing accounts of reincarnation. The title is: The Little Book of the Soul. See www.rspress.org
Another book I have recently purchased and look forward to reading is: What Happens When We Die, by Dr. Sam Parnia.
Another recommendation is from Dr. Greyson who is continuing Dr. Stevenson's work at the University of Virginia: This is from an e-mail he sent me....
"I would also recommend a new book by Jim Tucker, who is carrying on Ian Stevenson's work with children who remember previous lives. It's called Life Before Life, and it's a very readable account of what we know after 40 years of studying these children.".
Yet another important researcher is Dr. Brian Weiss. He has written several important books on the subject, including Many Lives, Many Masters
Hello Robert. Thanks for contacting me! I would like to reply just for you to read. I am new on this forum so will writing back to you here be the way to do that?
Sure, email is ozauthor@Yahoo.com (I write Oz stories as a hobby :) Nothing published officially but have them on Amazon Kindle Like Abducted to Oz as an example (co-written with a friend)
Since the elections in November I have been taking some serious flack for my optimistic attitude concerning this 2023 House of Representatives. Just yesterday I was soundly called out for my "positive platitudes" concerning this Republican House. I have also been soundly called out for "sticking my head in the sand" when I called for less addiction to the media whipping up one more of the same story designed to get clicks.
Now I see commenters and Mr. Hubbell preaching the same. Yay!
There is a better way to live than going through the day kicking and screaming over the latest thing a Republican has said.
Thank you. Let's focus on what we CAN do. And there is a lot. Like judges and and other government positions to fill with competent people (for a change). Executive orders.
The Senate and President Biden are a firewall. The House will embarrass itself. We can focus on how the funding of infrastructure, etc. will produce good jobs.
If the House shuts down the government, it will be painful. But a lot of rich people are going to be pissed off. Including the Mercers and Kochs.
I don't give a damn about the Mercers and the Kochs. They are permanently pissed off which just goes to show money can't buy happiness. I've been watching a lot of speeches lately and I've been pleasantly surprised by the humor the Democrats put into theirs. It's a relief.
If the House shuts down the Government many many people will be homeless and without medical care. Millions live on Social Security. And that's just the beginning.
I absolutely agree with you. After listening to Jefferies' speech, I have been all but dancing in the aisles. Pelosi and Biden have been schooling the next generation of leaders in the art of politics, not the "art of the deal." It is going to take both brains and heart to tackle the myriad issues we have ahead of us and you can't do that with hot air. But leaders can't do it alone and all of us have to help out and not allow ourselves to be distracted by the negative, aggressive bottom feeders.
Jan 9, 2023·edited Jan 9, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
After failing in our attempt to urge seemingly “moderate,” establishment Republicans, who already had signaled a willingness to work with like-minded people across the aisle, to join with centrist Democrats to find a consensus Speaker, a thoughtful Robert Reich Substack subscriber wrote (I mostly am paraphrasing): Whether or not we accomplish a stated goal, we have no choice but to renew our resolve to be diligent, continuing to form alliances where we can, and working together to heal our fractured society and our struggling democracy.
I imagine others here also might have invested in the two sides giving their votes to a mutually agreeable alternative, who, in return, would have rejected Kevin McCarthy’s bid for Speaker and would have raised public awareness that a cross-party coalition were possible.
Based on the foregoing, I would note, while attempts to improve conditions typically proceed incrementally, it is impossible to foretell precisely when any of our endeavors will reach critical mass, suddenly producing powerful results. Moreover, I would be remiss were I not also to underscore, in late December, that fellow Reich subscriber, replying to one of my comments, wrote, “Don’t convince yourself that it’s all futile, or it most certainly will be.”
TC, With all due respect, I dismiss any commentary that involves an attack on the character or intellect of a person. If we are in dispute, I expect a logical refutation, not personal attacks.
Yes, thanks - it's what happens when you get a lot of email and think you're clicking on one when you're clicking on another. You'll notice it is disappearing. Sorry about that. Old Fumblefingers strikes again!
Hey TC. As you know, I am one of your fans. But the person commenting on Reich's newsletter was looking for an off ramp. Looking for a fresh idea to defeat our common enemy - the wingnuts. Whoever that was...is not a moron. Just someone presenting an idea. Naive? Maybe. But when we make all out war all the time, the peace will never come.
As to Robert Reich, his political, social and economic positions are more than "spot on". I don't agree with every single one of his suggestions, but I support his core thinking about economics and politics. Especially his view of the Fed and the destruction Powell is raining down on the average working class American (98% of us). His descriptions of corporate profiteering are eloquent and powerful.
And to a broader point, if I disagree with a comment on TAFM - does that mean I think you should just stick to writing screenplays? No. I love your many thoughts about a wide range of subjects from WWII battles to kitties. And I feel the same respect and passion for Robert Reich's stories and philosophies of life. He is on our "team".
I love your feistiness but sometimes it is off base. And misdirected.
Unfortunately there is no off-ramp with the current crop of Republicans, who are either jackbooted thugs out kicking people in the street, or spineless idiots tut-tutting all that and hurrying away from the scene of the crime.
Scarier still is that so many millions of Americans support ANYTHING that "they" would do to us and the US. It's all based on fear and anger. Fear of the other. Fear and ignorance. A dangerous combination that makes them like wounded caged beasts - incapable of reason, compassion or common sense. It's as if rabies was sweeping the nation.
I was just reading this excerpt from a new book mentioned by Axios.
"The U.S. "total fertility rate," the average number of children born to a woman over her lifetime, was 2.12 in 2007.
It was down to 1.65 in 2021, the lowest ever recorded in the United States, economists Melissa Kearney and Phillip Levine write."
Sounds like a new Japan coming. And yet, there are hundreds of thousands of people who want to help us with this huge structural problem - literally applying to help - to no avail. The frightened ones would rather see their Social Security and Medicare collapse. You just can't fix stupid "broken from birth" brains.
TC, It is my opinion that you just referred to the that person’s political intellect in what sounded a lot like an attack by the right wing nut jobs. That person may be politically illiterate… hey, I feel politically illiterate, but in this forum I feel free to express myself and have not been made to feel badly when asking or making “stupid” questions/comments. I won’t insult you or lecture on this. I will say out loud that at this time in our present world dilemma it is very important that any kind of name calling be curtailed. Adopting even a whiff of extreme behavior is- well- a slippery slope. Educate, educate, educate… tell us, them, everyone why they are getting something wrong. I welcome each and every nudge that might round out my intellect.
My point was made this evening, when the Republicans fvote 220-213 to accept McCarthy's House Rules package, after several of the "moderates" were mewling this weekend how "upset" they were that these rules would make their lives hard. But they showed they had backbones of marshmallow, just like the worthless Senate Republican "moderates."
There are no Republican "moderates" any more, at least not as that term was understood in the 20th Century.
Maybe I should offer a 1 mil dollar reward if somebody can conjure up a moderate Republican who will act like one. Being retired, I have no worries about having to pay up…
Jan 9, 2023·edited Jan 9, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
What we have been witnessing from the GOP over the past several decades amounts to a slow-motion coup of the elites, the ultimate goal of which is to replace democratic government serving an ever expanding middle class with a corporate and billionaire autocracy. With the January 6th insurrection, the real aim of the GOP exploded into view, as they resorted to desperate fascist measures to stop what they feared (correctly) would be a very popular Democratic Party agenda under President Biden, an agenda where the middle class in this country would again make gains at the expense of the wealthy like they had during the New Deal era. Under Trump and with the reactionary Supreme Court finally cemented, the GOP was on the precipice of installing the autocracy of their dreams. Thankfully they failed in the 2020 election and on January 6th of 2021. Now starting on January 6th 2023 with their new House slim majority (achieved with dubious means), the GOP is again using desperate means to get America and its government back under the control of the wealthy minority. They are now making their aims more clear about gutting the social safety net, eradicating regulatory agencies, and undermining the bargaining power of workers. We must not let the Democrats make any deals with this anti-democratic and illegitimate organization, the GOP.
The most important statement in Today’s Edition is the fact that the Republican controlled House cannot pass legislation with out the Democratic Senate and President Biden’s approval. Somewhere in this world there is a time when the domestic terrorists of the Republican Party antics will be totally ineffective and will turn voters off and I think we are close to that time. Robert is right the comparison between McCarthy and Jeffries is stark and the American voters will see this and hopefully get the message.
I am having difficulty understanding why it matters if a single member can move to vacate the chair. That is just a motion, right? And the Ds have a vote, right? And even if the Ds did not have a vote, the "Freedom Caucus" and its ilk are in the small minority among Rs, right? And if such a motion were ever to succeed we would be back to another speaker vote, right? I am tending to think that if they want to spend their time with such motions that may be preferable to noxious investigations. Perhaps another reader can explain what I am missing here.
You are right on all counts. A single vote won't remove the Speaker but it creates an inherent instability in the Speaker's position. Every vote on legislation becomes a referendum on his speakership. If he proposes legislation (or declines to support legislation) that Gaetz, Boebert, Gosar, Perry, and Good dislike, he is history. WE could be stuck in an endless cycle of fights for the Speakership. The same would not be true if the threshold for such a motion was (e.g.) 10% of the caucus. So the threshold of a single vote creates instability.
The much ballyhooed “investigation” of ongoing criminal and national-security proceedings will go nowhere, because it will be a clear (and intentional) violation of the separation of powers. Also, some of the “investigators” will be actual or potential subjects of DOJ probes, and hardly in a position to investigate those who are looking into their activities.
I wouldn't go conflating the Benghazi hearings with what the Republicans will attempt regarding J6. For one thing, the Conservative Entertainment Complex (CEC) was not as highly developed as it now is. Faux Snooze may not have broadcast any coverage of the J6 Committee, but that will be very different with this committee.
Remember that anything and everything these guys will do in the next two years will have the full-throated support of the CEC propagandists. Unlike the way Democrats were treated by the DC Press Corpse and the New York Times.
You could be right, TC. But look what happened to the GOP rebuttal report on J6 that was promised after the final J6 committee hearing. It was news for about four hours on Fox News, which quickly lost interest because there was nothing in the report. If they had anything to share, one would expect that they would have done so, already.
Entitlements - that's what the GOP calls Social Security. Never mind that every worker pays into Social Security for decades. I guess when you pay into it for that long one is "entitled" to expect a return on that investment in their future well-being. The real entitlements are the loop holes for the wealthy and the starvation of the IRS so that taking too many "entitlements" is never detected by audits. And, let's not forget the entitlements of the corporations, after all they are considered "people" by the Supreme Court so they should pay taxes like other tax paying citizens. Anyone paying even a dollar of taxes is paying more than the sum total of sixty of the largest corporations in the world making billions and trillions of dollars pay. Their profit isn't shared with the workers who are treated like expendable serfs rather than the significant contributors to profit they are. We, the People, all of us sharing the wealth this time!
Here's my take, excerpted from an essay I wrote, on Medicare and Social Security as "entitlements:"
"As entitlement programs, Medicare and Social Security are often lumped in with government assistance programs. However, unlike many welfare programs, they’re funded by your employment. “Entitlement” simply means that the Federal Government is obligated to provide benefits to those who meet eligibility requirements. In other words, the Federal Government is required by law to make payments to those who are “entitled” to the benefits. “Entitlement Reform” often conflates taxpayers’ desire to reduce handouts with the need to manage the financial well-being of these two important programs."
I'd much rather see the term, "entitlements" replaced with "earned benefits," and "eligible benefits" as applicable.
Exactly, and I'd be happier with different verbiage as well. Your suggestions don't carry the burden of opprobrium that 'entitlement' does and words do matter.
I hope this essay has been published widely. This needs to be clarified and separated from welfare handouts. Thanks for the better terms.
Thanks Cathy and Dave. It's actually part of a larger essay on Medicare and Social Security that I wrote several years ago to help folks who were soon to be signing up. Your comments encouraged me to set up my own Substack account and start posting. Here's the essay in case you're interested. I'd love to hear what you think.
https://open.substack.com/pub/bobmorgan/p/medicare-and-social-security-plan?r=dwgog&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Thank you, Bob. I've saved it and will read it and comment later this afternoon. It's a beautiful day here and my dog thinks it's spring so we're spending some time outside.
Cathy has a good point Bob. Where can we find the entire essay?
Bob posted the link 43 minutes ago.
https://open.substack.com/pub/bobmorgan/p/medicare-and-social-security-plan?r=dwgog&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
My Mom knew the difference. She was livid at the thought of SS being messed with. She slaved at a hosiery mill all her life and then died 4 years after eligible.
That situation was the foundation of early SocSec financing and the system has never completely adjusted to either increased longevity or a major change in income sourcing and distribution.
Yes; and we must find a way to inform teach any one who doesn’t know this, lord knows that MSM isn’t helping
Almost ALL mainstream media outlets are owned by corporations...need anyone look any further for reasons why those media outlets choose to cover this story and hundreds of other very informative and important stories too casually?
Rupert showed them how to turn News into money making bull schitt
And the Congress currently is "entitled" to their own form of retirement and healthcare insurance, both of which are more generous than Social Security or Medicare. Perhaps the Republicans should become part of the Social Security and Medicare programs before they talk about dismantling or reducing them?
I always felt that Congress should have to live by their own laws!
Hear, hear. Absolutely.
Capital idea Sheila and one that I support wholeheartedly for both parties.
McCarthy Speaker is irrational, scary. This community is reassuring.
They are scoundrels, hypocrites without moral conscience. Just my big two cents.
I am thankful for Robert Hubbell’s reasoned analysis and that of readers here.
Hakeem Jeffries -- magnificent.
You're right Cathy, you just have it precisely backwards. Those of us who paid into the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds are definitely entitled to the benefits we were promised. The loopholes, including the cap on income that is taxable for OASDI, the deductibility of interest on business loans and the portability of profits from one country to another based on tax rates, are all (gasp) WELFARE. The Democrats could short-circuit the GOP talking points and, perhaps, drive a stake through their electability by introducing legislation (which won't get out of the Rules Committee as it is about to be constituted but can still be publicized) that removes the income cap, maintains the benefits structure with COLA adjustments as it is and, because the devil must be given his due, gradually increases the age for full eligibility. Americans are, after all, living and working longer even if not always by choice, and our benefit programs must take that into account.
I agree with most of this except increasing the age for full eligibility. That's a horrible idea and should be a deal breaker. If you're raising the cap for income taxed by SS, which there shouldn't be a cap anyway, then there's no argument for increasing the age eligibility.
I agree that increasing the age limit is not a reasonable idea-we don't know what age changes these Republicans want to impose-perhaps 80? The workers who do hard physical labor for decades and those with significant disabilities may well not be able to work as long as office workers and may well fall through the cracks. The hoops that are imposed to obtain the benefits can be massive. A friend of mine had to try THREE times despite having multiple medical problems and a medicare lawyer.. Basically the SSA administration treats nearly everyone as liars, even if the prospective recipient has plenty of documentation.
I'm willing to listen to discussion, but don't see a priori why raising the age limit is a "horrible idea" that should end the conversation. The average age of the American population was increasing regularly until Covid and can reasonably be expected to continue that trend. If the data shows otherwise, there can always be amendments.
I didn't suggest raising the cap, I said it should be eliminated. While this would add another $200Billion annually to SocSec revenue, the change in age limit is needed for long term stability. The cap can only be removed once, any future changes would require higher tax rates which we'd all prefer to avoid.
Absolutely NOT! Raising the age is a non-starter. What about all of us who were laid off or furloughed at age 64 when we weren't eligible for Medicare, had to rely on COBRA or Obama care at an exorbitant price and wasn't able to get a new job? I speak from experience. With two master's degrees and loads of experience, but a salary that no one wanted to touch combined with ageism.......enough said.
Historically, changes in qualifications have been phased in over time in order not to deprive anyone of benefits they were due. Right now the age is just over 70 and would, at most, go to 72 over the next 5 years.
My mom would have died before getting a penny, is that the point!
Raising the retirement eligibility would also be very regressive, hitting lower income people who are far more likely to work at physically demanding jobs.
I'm not suggesting raising the minimum age for filing which is currently 62. I'm suggesting raising the minimum age for full benefits. Yes, it is somewhat regressive but, losing the entire benefit system to bankruptcy or GOP shenanigans would be completely destructive of what little retirement support those people have. Removing the income cap and maintaining the current benefit program with COLA increases would provide as much support as it does now and with a much greater chance of it continuing.
If, however, you prefer an all or nothing approach, it's entirely possible that we could all end up with nothing.
I'd like to see our government pay back what they "borrowed" from SS before any changes are made to the program. Why, it could come from some of that $817 billion defense budget that was just allocated for 2023.
OK, please let's not dignify the idiotic demands of terrorists by offering them any concessions on the social safety net. Republicans threatening to default on the nation's debts and or shut down the government unless they can slash the social safety is just plain sociopathic bullshit. It's time to ignore this tired schtick of theirs.
Just wait for the “entitled” to die, works every time.
But I agree with eliminating the cap!
Yes, eliminate the cap! Most who pay throughout the year don’t even realize there’s a cap. We need to message that ! Believe it’s over 160,000 for 2023.
There is absolutely no need to abolish this program, but there is a need to rid ourselves of the bottom feeders.
Thank you, Cathy. Well stated.
This evening I watched the MSNBC documentary "Love and the Constitution" on Representative Jamie Raskin's perspective as a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Lead Manager for the second impeachment spanning the three years 2018 through 2020. This is a beautiful portrait of the man and an excellent depiction of the events of the last three years of DT's presidency. Just beautiful and filled with love and what it means to do something meaningful and right with one's life and renews one's faith in what our government and democracy can ... and will .... be again. We, the People, all of us doing what is right this time and all the time.
If the past week in Congress is viewed as a pro football matchup, the Democrats were the Kansas City Chiefs and the Republicans the Chicago Bears. Our team has, for far too long, ascribed superpowers to this ragged bunch of right-wing zealots, given their total willingness to lie--and their utter shamelessness when caught. Robert Hubbell continues to wisely assure his readers that GOP "victories" have been fairly few and even those have come at a considerable cost in terms of future voter support. This was never more glaringly apparent than listening to Kevin McCarthy's truly pyrrhic "victory" speech late on Friday, followed by Leader Hakeem Jeffries's brilliant "concession" speech. It was an exciting revelation to hear Cong. Jeffries list the reasons why voters will support Democrats--and why they will reject MAGA Republicans. His was true eloquence, but presented in down-to-earth cadences that assure our party that we have a sterling new leader.
We will, over the next two years, need to repel constant attempts by the ever-so-slightly empowered House Republicans to make their case to the American public. But I have no doubt that we will succeed in doing so. Better still, each false allegation, each phony investigation, each ludicrous attempt to impeach a member of the Biden administration for imaginary failings will only cement the view among the MAJORITY of voters that these shrill demagogues are incapable of actually governing. Fortunately, a Democratic Senate and the Biden administration will prevent any of their dingbat ideas from even coming close to enactment.
Repubs lie and slander better than Dems. The MAGAts have no clue how horrid the repubs have been, nor do they know how competent Dems have been. As Krugman said, “Competence has a well-known liberal bias.”
True to a degree. MAGA republicans are never going to change BUT they are only about 20% of the electorate and the real Republicans and Independent and the younger voters are the base Democrats need and will
Attract
I would guess more like 30%. Could 20% really wreak the havoc that we have seen. Rupert’s propaganda range snares idiots, the educated, and “salt of the earth” types in my experience. The formerly “real Republicans” in my family have jumped ship, but I will say the males have been more recalcitrant. Or maybe it’s just misogyny
My experience is diehard Republicans hate Trump and MAGNA but have a tough time voting for a Democratic regardless
Go, Chiefs (longtime hometown team!)!!!!!
Andy Reid coached the Eagles for a long time but the Eagles are the ones.
Great comment. I wish I'd written it!
It’s the Philadelphia Eagles. It the Kansas City Chiefs
Another terrific post -- thank you. I was struck by the description of Trump's election as "accidental." By chance I had just finished watching the 2017 documentary "Trumping Democracy: Real Money, Fake News, Your Data" before reading the post. The film makes clear that Trump's election was anything but accidental. Rather, it was carefully engineered and paid for by Robert Mercer, who, no longer plagued by the annoyances of campaign financing law and reporting requirements, initially had funded Ted Cruz to the tune of $5 million, to set him up to be the accessible and controllable face of far-right extremism going forward. But seeing that Cruz couldn't sustain his momentum and Trump was gaining traction in co-opting the Republican party, Mercer dumped the Texan and started backing the fat orange thing from New York.
With Mercer's money and through the efforts of Bannon and Conway (who were already in Mercer's orbit), Cambridge Analytica, and others (including the complicit Facebook), the disinformation and voter manipulation machinery went into high gear, especially micro-targeting exactly the right subset of vulnerable, susceptible voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. And the rest, unfortunately, is history...
Yes; the Mercer's played an important role in corrupting the election. What I meant to convey is that Trump did not expect to win. He had no transition plan in place; had no policies to promote; no staff ready. He did not expect to win, even if others were trying to make it so.
Fair enough. In that vein, the film also points out that as a further reflection of the degree of control Mercer achieved (beyond establishing Bannon, Conway, and David Bossie in the White House inner circle), Rebekah Mercer, not Trump or even the usual Republican power brokers, organized and set up Trump's first cabinet. Unfortunately, the film doesn't take that line of the story any further.
The Mercers' actions provide a clear, real-life, documented illustration of oligarchic control of government in as anti-democratic a manner as possible thanks to Citizens United and a toothless FEC.
Thank you, pts, for this back story. It fills in some gaps for me.
Bravo to your comments tonight Robert with the caveat that we could have won thehouse of representatives With a national campaign and a national spokesman about what the Republicans were about to do. It was lost in a handful of races that were winnable.
I am looking for a sober analysis of the weakness of the Democratic national committee and national party and how to correct such weakness so that we do not lose seats in California and New York again.
Let me know if you find one! I would be interested in reading and sharing!
Correct one of the weaknesses with the simple theme/ phrase:
“When Republicans win, you lose.”
Robert quoted this phrase awhile back.
I don’t recall who said it but it had to do with Dems NOT having an across the board powerful simple theme/ phrase going into the mid-terms that cut to the chase and was easy to digest by anybody who heard or read it. Let’s resurrect and use it repeatedly over the next two years (and beyond if necessary).
The originator of the motto was Dr. Rachel Bitecofer, in a panel discussion led by Jill Wine-Banks on November 1 (?), 2022, which Robert participated in and wrote about, including the following:
"Jill Wine-Banks asked the panel what messaging they would recommend for Democrats. Without hesitation, Rachel Bitecofer said, “If Republicans win, you lose . . . .” In the moment, the slogan seemed brilliant. With the benefit of reflection, it seems even better than I originally thought. It is compact, aggressive, flexible, and true!
At its core, the message communicates an essential truth: The Republican Party is working against the interests of every American . . . on democracy, the economy, taxes, Social Security, drug prices, climate, reproductive liberty, gun safety, personal privacy, LGBTQ equality, . . . [fill in the ellipsis as appropriate for the circumstance]."
https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/if-republicans-win-you-lose
I agree with much that you say—but Democrats are NOT “The loyal opposition.” We are the party in power, controlling the presidency and the Senate. While it will be difficult to deal with the House Republicans, much can still be accomplished—consider how much was accomplished by President Obama with both houses controlled by Republicans. Or all the bipartisan bills passed in the last two years. We need to move forward, not just oppose.
Okay, it was a metaphor. Apparently it didn't work.
Like your last name.
Yes, I think moving forward is essential. The Republicans offer nothing other than backward petulance.
Repubs goal is destruction, can Dems “loyal opposition” stop that.
Yes because they talk destruction but won’t do it. Watch what happens when they attack Social Security and other entitlements plus watch the markets react to defaulting on the budget.
A great summation of this historic event that Republicans will want to forget as soon as possible. I may be prejudiced but it seems to me that Democrats are a much kinder gentler people that Republicans, at least as far as the political parties go. Thy seem to have more compassion, more empathy where it comes to others who are struggling. Trump has always appeared to me to be angry, mean spirited, cold, unfeeling, vindictive, and he attract to him others like that. Maybe McCarthy will surprise us and suggest a pay cut or reduced pension for members of Congress and a cut in their medical benefits before initiating a cut for the poor and elderly. Yeah, right!
I am as compassionate as any Dem, but I would tar and feather every last magat
Of course, Jen. They are the ones I was referring to. although maybe unfair of me to even lump all them together in the same way. There are many reasons people think and behave the way they do. Some really are mean spirited and stingy by nature but others may be easily influenced or jump on the bandwagon just to show solidarity, say when a particular law or rule is proposed or voted on. We all make mistakes of judgement sometimes or later regret certain actions that seemed reasonable at the time. We are after all works in progress. We are really all at different stages of spiritual evolution you might say. One rather far out belief is that we can't really advance very much in one short lifetime, that it takes many lifetimes to achieve a high spiritual level. Lrt's assume for the moment this is true, we can hardly judge those further back than us as it simply means they haven't learned a better way yet. But in time they will. Just as there are those ahead of us that shake their heads at our foolishness, but know in time we too shall learn a better way after much trial and error. Un hus biography General Patton claimed he could remember vividly his other lives. https://youtu.be/l7ER08F9rGo
YOU ROCK! I have been around for many lifetimes.
Neat that you have that knowledge, VN, it is a controversial subject and understandable. Like a belief in life after death it can't be proven scientifically. I have mentioned the subject at coffee to friends on occasion and get blank looks. But having experienced a near death type experience where I apparently "visited" the other side and got to observe the various levels of consciousness I came to the realization that no one dies, that we all go on to a different reality which we sort of do ever night when we are dreaming and are unaware it is a dream until we wake up. The at some point we reincarnate again. I've even re-lived incidents from past lives in great detail. There are many stories about reincarnation and many famous historical figures who believed in it, but a story of great interest in Readers Digest some years ago also later on ABC stuck in my mind about a young boy who surprised his parents by "recalling" events from WWII in great detail including airplane jargon and descriptions and copilots names all later verified. ,A whole department at the University of Virginia has spent years interviewing and documenting these kinds of stories from all over the world. Doctor Bruce Greyson and doctor Jim Tucker have written extensively on their research ABC recently carried the following story on reincarnation:
"Could a little boy be the reincarnation of downed World War II pilot James Huston Jr.?
ABCNEWS.com"
Second Lives
Could a Little Boy Be Proof of Reincarnation?
ABCNEWS.com
April 15— Nearly six decades ago, a 21-year-old Navy fighter pilot on a mission over the Pacific was shot down by Japanese artillery. His name might have been forgotten, were it not for 6-year-old James Leininger.
Quite a few people — including those who knew the fighter pilot — think James is the pilot, reincarnated.
James' parents, Andrea and Bruce, a highly educated, modern couple, say they are "probably the people least likely to have a scenario like this pop up in their lives."
But over time, they have become convinced their little son has had a former life.
From an early age, James would play with nothing else but planes, his parents say. But when he was 2, they said the planes their son loved began to give him regular nightmares.
"I'd wake him up and he'd be screaming," Andrea told ABCNEWS' Chris Cuomo. She said when she asked her son what he was dreaming about, he would say, "Airplane crash on fire, little man can't get out."
Reality Check
Andrea says her mom was the first to suggest James was remembering a past life.
At first, Andrea says she was doubtful. James was only watching kids' shows, his parents say, and they weren't watching World War II documentaries or conversing about military history.
But as time went by, Andrea began to wonder what to believe. In one video of James at age 3, he goes over a plane as if he's doing a preflight check.
Another time, Andrea said, she bought him a toy plane, and pointed out what appeared to be a bomb on its underside. She says James corrected her, and told her it was a drop tank. "I'd never heard of a drop tank," she said. "I didn't know what a drop tank was."
Then James' violent nightmares got worse, occurring three and four times a week. Andrea's mother suggested she look into the work of counselor and therapist Carol Bowman, who believes that the dead sometimes can be reborn.
With guidance from Bowman, they began to encourage James to share his memories — and immediately, Andrea says, the nightmares started become less frequent. James was also becoming more articulate about his apparent past, she said.
Bowman said James was at the age when former lives are most easily recalled. "They haven't had the cultural conditioning, the layering over the experience in this life so the memories can percolate up more easily," she said.
Trail of Mysteries
Over time, James' parents say he revealed extraordinary details about the life of a former fighter pilot — mostly at bedtime, when he was drowsy.
They say James told them his plane had been hit by the Japanese and crashed. Andrea says James told his father he flew a Corsair, and then told her, "They used to get flat tires all the time."
In fact, historians and pilots agree that the plane's tires took a lot of punishment on landing. But that's a fact that could easily be found in books or on television.
Andrea says James also told his father the name of the boat he took off from — Natoma — and the name of someone he flew with — "Jack Larson."
After some research, Bruce discovered both the Natoma and Jack Larson were real. The Natoma Bay was a small aircraft carrier in the Pacific. And Larson is living in Arkansas.
"It was like, holy mackerel," Bruce said. "You could have poured my brains out of my ears. I just couldn't believe it.
James 2 = James M. Huston Jr.?
Bruce became obsessed, searching the Internet, combing through military records and interviewing men who served aboard the Natoma Bay.
He said James told him he had been shot down at Iwo Jima. James had also begun signing his crayon drawings "James 3." Bruce soon learned that the only pilot from the squadron killed at Iwo Jima was James M. Huston Jr.
Bruce says James also told him his plane had sustained a direct hit on the engine.
Ralph Clarbour, a rear gunner on a U.S. airplane that flew off the Natoma Bay, says his plane was right next to one flown by James M. Huston Jr. during a raid near Iwo Jima on March 3, 1945.
Clarbour said he saw Huston's plane struck by anti-aircraft fire. "I would say he was hit head on, right in the middle of the engine," he said.
Bruce says he now believes his son had a past life in which he was James M. Huston Jr. "He came back because he wasn't finished with something."
The Leiningers wrote a letter to Huston's sister, Anne Barron, about their little boy. And now she believes it as well.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My further thoughts: There are many books on reincarnation. Jess Stearn (who I didn’t get to meet until he was on his death-bed) wrote several. He wrote some wonderful books about Edgar Cayce. For example, Edgar Cayce: The Sleeping Prophet. (Edgar Cayce was a straight-laced Southern Presbyterian Sunday school teacher, who, although not schooled beyond ninth grade, became a remarkable physician/healer while in a state of literal unconsciousness). Edgar described himself as …"the dumbest man in Christian county awake." But he was certainly far from that in a trance state.
See also, There is a River: The Story of Edgar Cayce by Thomas Sugrue, and Many Mansions by Gina Cerminara. When Edgar was told about previous lives of his patients he was shocked. After all, the whole concept clashed strongly with his tradition Christian beliefs. But he had no choice but to accept the logic of what was given to him. Besides, thousands of well documented medical cures were the results of his life’s work. He said if he ever made one mistake of diagnosis and treatment he would stop the work immediately.
Even if the reader can’t quite bring himself or herself to accept reincarnation, it is assumed if you
have read this far you would like to know more about why we are here and more about a possible existence after death. All of us should only accept what we read if it feels right to us. No one person or group has a monopoly on the truth. Truth is where you find it. Speaking of which…..
The following book recommendation is in regard to children and previous life relationships with their parents. The author is very thorough in her investigations and has also worked with Dr. Stevenson of the Department of Psychiatric Medicine at The University of Virginia Health System. The author is very thorough in her investigations and has also worked with Dr. Stevenson of the University of Virginia.
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/
The book is Return from Heaven
by Carol Bowman. Another book of Carol’s is Children’s Past Lives. Her site is Her site is www.childpastlives.org My friend, Ian Lawton is also bringing out a new little book with some amazing accounts of reincarnation. The title is: The Little Book of the Soul. See www.rspress.org
Another book I have recently purchased and look forward to reading is: What Happens When We Die, by Dr. Sam Parnia.
Another recommendation is from Dr. Greyson who is continuing Dr. Stevenson's work at the University of Virginia: This is from an e-mail he sent me....
"I would also recommend a new book by Jim Tucker, who is carrying on Ian Stevenson's work with children who remember previous lives. It's called Life Before Life, and it's a very readable account of what we know after 40 years of studying these children.".
Yet another important researcher is Dr. Brian Weiss. He has written several important books on the subject, including Many Lives, Many Masters
See http://www.brianweiss.com/
Hello Robert. Thanks for contacting me! I would like to reply just for you to read. I am new on this forum so will writing back to you here be the way to do that?
V
Sure, email is ozauthor@Yahoo.com (I write Oz stories as a hobby :) Nothing published officially but have them on Amazon Kindle Like Abducted to Oz as an example (co-written with a friend)
Since the elections in November I have been taking some serious flack for my optimistic attitude concerning this 2023 House of Representatives. Just yesterday I was soundly called out for my "positive platitudes" concerning this Republican House. I have also been soundly called out for "sticking my head in the sand" when I called for less addiction to the media whipping up one more of the same story designed to get clicks.
Now I see commenters and Mr. Hubbell preaching the same. Yay!
There is a better way to live than going through the day kicking and screaming over the latest thing a Republican has said.
Thank you. Let's focus on what we CAN do. And there is a lot. Like judges and and other government positions to fill with competent people (for a change). Executive orders.
The Senate and President Biden are a firewall. The House will embarrass itself. We can focus on how the funding of infrastructure, etc. will produce good jobs.
If the House shuts down the government, it will be painful. But a lot of rich people are going to be pissed off. Including the Mercers and Kochs.
I don't give a damn about the Mercers and the Kochs. They are permanently pissed off which just goes to show money can't buy happiness. I've been watching a lot of speeches lately and I've been pleasantly surprised by the humor the Democrats put into theirs. It's a relief.
I believe the House is preparing to get wiped out in 2024. And we can sit back and watch them destroy what's left of the name Republican Party.
Stop focusing on the House when controlling the Senate is the bigger issue.
If the House shuts down the Government many many people will be homeless and without medical care. Millions live on Social Security. And that's just the beginning.
So you think shutting down the government will be painful. Really???
I absolutely agree with you. After listening to Jefferies' speech, I have been all but dancing in the aisles. Pelosi and Biden have been schooling the next generation of leaders in the art of politics, not the "art of the deal." It is going to take both brains and heart to tackle the myriad issues we have ahead of us and you can't do that with hot air. But leaders can't do it alone and all of us have to help out and not allow ourselves to be distracted by the negative, aggressive bottom feeders.
After failing in our attempt to urge seemingly “moderate,” establishment Republicans, who already had signaled a willingness to work with like-minded people across the aisle, to join with centrist Democrats to find a consensus Speaker, a thoughtful Robert Reich Substack subscriber wrote (I mostly am paraphrasing): Whether or not we accomplish a stated goal, we have no choice but to renew our resolve to be diligent, continuing to form alliances where we can, and working together to heal our fractured society and our struggling democracy.
I imagine others here also might have invested in the two sides giving their votes to a mutually agreeable alternative, who, in return, would have rejected Kevin McCarthy’s bid for Speaker and would have raised public awareness that a cross-party coalition were possible.
Based on the foregoing, I would note, while attempts to improve conditions typically proceed incrementally, it is impossible to foretell precisely when any of our endeavors will reach critical mass, suddenly producing powerful results. Moreover, I would be remiss were I not also to underscore, in late December, that fellow Reich subscriber, replying to one of my comments, wrote, “Don’t convince yourself that it’s all futile, or it most certainly will be.”
TC, With all due respect, I dismiss any commentary that involves an attack on the character or intellect of a person. If we are in dispute, I expect a logical refutation, not personal attacks.
TC, I presume this reply to Karen mistakenly was posted as a reply to me.
Yes, thanks - it's what happens when you get a lot of email and think you're clicking on one when you're clicking on another. You'll notice it is disappearing. Sorry about that. Old Fumblefingers strikes again!
Hey TC. As you know, I am one of your fans. But the person commenting on Reich's newsletter was looking for an off ramp. Looking for a fresh idea to defeat our common enemy - the wingnuts. Whoever that was...is not a moron. Just someone presenting an idea. Naive? Maybe. But when we make all out war all the time, the peace will never come.
As to Robert Reich, his political, social and economic positions are more than "spot on". I don't agree with every single one of his suggestions, but I support his core thinking about economics and politics. Especially his view of the Fed and the destruction Powell is raining down on the average working class American (98% of us). His descriptions of corporate profiteering are eloquent and powerful.
And to a broader point, if I disagree with a comment on TAFM - does that mean I think you should just stick to writing screenplays? No. I love your many thoughts about a wide range of subjects from WWII battles to kitties. And I feel the same respect and passion for Robert Reich's stories and philosophies of life. He is on our "team".
I love your feistiness but sometimes it is off base. And misdirected.
Thank you for following up as well on TC's comment. Your voice is respected in these comments.
Unfortunately there is no off-ramp with the current crop of Republicans, who are either jackbooted thugs out kicking people in the street, or spineless idiots tut-tutting all that and hurrying away from the scene of the crime.
Agreed. They found their anti-christ or whatever.
Scarier still is that so many millions of Americans support ANYTHING that "they" would do to us and the US. It's all based on fear and anger. Fear of the other. Fear and ignorance. A dangerous combination that makes them like wounded caged beasts - incapable of reason, compassion or common sense. It's as if rabies was sweeping the nation.
I was just reading this excerpt from a new book mentioned by Axios.
"The U.S. "total fertility rate," the average number of children born to a woman over her lifetime, was 2.12 in 2007.
It was down to 1.65 in 2021, the lowest ever recorded in the United States, economists Melissa Kearney and Phillip Levine write."
Sounds like a new Japan coming. And yet, there are hundreds of thousands of people who want to help us with this huge structural problem - literally applying to help - to no avail. The frightened ones would rather see their Social Security and Medicare collapse. You just can't fix stupid "broken from birth" brains.
TC, It is my opinion that you just referred to the that person’s political intellect in what sounded a lot like an attack by the right wing nut jobs. That person may be politically illiterate… hey, I feel politically illiterate, but in this forum I feel free to express myself and have not been made to feel badly when asking or making “stupid” questions/comments. I won’t insult you or lecture on this. I will say out loud that at this time in our present world dilemma it is very important that any kind of name calling be curtailed. Adopting even a whiff of extreme behavior is- well- a slippery slope. Educate, educate, educate… tell us, them, everyone why they are getting something wrong. I welcome each and every nudge that might round out my intellect.
TC please don't attack another commenter. The political environment is toxic enough. No way should you transfer that here.
My point was made this evening, when the Republicans fvote 220-213 to accept McCarthy's House Rules package, after several of the "moderates" were mewling this weekend how "upset" they were that these rules would make their lives hard. But they showed they had backbones of marshmallow, just like the worthless Senate Republican "moderates."
There are no Republican "moderates" any more, at least not as that term was understood in the 20th Century.
Maybe I should offer a 1 mil dollar reward if somebody can conjure up a moderate Republican who will act like one. Being retired, I have no worries about having to pay up…
That said, Reich is usually on target.
Are you saying that since all the republicans supported DFG and the GOP in lockstep- that they are, none of them, moderate???
How about addressing what TC said to Barbara Jo first?
I would say that
What we have been witnessing from the GOP over the past several decades amounts to a slow-motion coup of the elites, the ultimate goal of which is to replace democratic government serving an ever expanding middle class with a corporate and billionaire autocracy. With the January 6th insurrection, the real aim of the GOP exploded into view, as they resorted to desperate fascist measures to stop what they feared (correctly) would be a very popular Democratic Party agenda under President Biden, an agenda where the middle class in this country would again make gains at the expense of the wealthy like they had during the New Deal era. Under Trump and with the reactionary Supreme Court finally cemented, the GOP was on the precipice of installing the autocracy of their dreams. Thankfully they failed in the 2020 election and on January 6th of 2021. Now starting on January 6th 2023 with their new House slim majority (achieved with dubious means), the GOP is again using desperate means to get America and its government back under the control of the wealthy minority. They are now making their aims more clear about gutting the social safety net, eradicating regulatory agencies, and undermining the bargaining power of workers. We must not let the Democrats make any deals with this anti-democratic and illegitimate organization, the GOP.
Yep! Correct on all points!!
The coup rolls on, while we remain the polite loyal opposition
Thanks so much for your letter tonight!
The most important statement in Today’s Edition is the fact that the Republican controlled House cannot pass legislation with out the Democratic Senate and President Biden’s approval. Somewhere in this world there is a time when the domestic terrorists of the Republican Party antics will be totally ineffective and will turn voters off and I think we are close to that time. Robert is right the comparison between McCarthy and Jeffries is stark and the American voters will see this and hopefully get the message.
Sure they will, hahaha, but no funny no where
You gotta believe and have faith in the good people of this country
I am having difficulty understanding why it matters if a single member can move to vacate the chair. That is just a motion, right? And the Ds have a vote, right? And even if the Ds did not have a vote, the "Freedom Caucus" and its ilk are in the small minority among Rs, right? And if such a motion were ever to succeed we would be back to another speaker vote, right? I am tending to think that if they want to spend their time with such motions that may be preferable to noxious investigations. Perhaps another reader can explain what I am missing here.
You are right on all counts. A single vote won't remove the Speaker but it creates an inherent instability in the Speaker's position. Every vote on legislation becomes a referendum on his speakership. If he proposes legislation (or declines to support legislation) that Gaetz, Boebert, Gosar, Perry, and Good dislike, he is history. WE could be stuck in an endless cycle of fights for the Speakership. The same would not be true if the threshold for such a motion was (e.g.) 10% of the caucus. So the threshold of a single vote creates instability.
The much ballyhooed “investigation” of ongoing criminal and national-security proceedings will go nowhere, because it will be a clear (and intentional) violation of the separation of powers. Also, some of the “investigators” will be actual or potential subjects of DOJ probes, and hardly in a position to investigate those who are looking into their activities.
Wow. Thank you. That resulted in my upgrading to a paid subscriber.
Thanks, Marsha. Much appreciated.
I wouldn't go conflating the Benghazi hearings with what the Republicans will attempt regarding J6. For one thing, the Conservative Entertainment Complex (CEC) was not as highly developed as it now is. Faux Snooze may not have broadcast any coverage of the J6 Committee, but that will be very different with this committee.
Remember that anything and everything these guys will do in the next two years will have the full-throated support of the CEC propagandists. Unlike the way Democrats were treated by the DC Press Corpse and the New York Times.
You could be right, TC. But look what happened to the GOP rebuttal report on J6 that was promised after the final J6 committee hearing. It was news for about four hours on Fox News, which quickly lost interest because there was nothing in the report. If they had anything to share, one would expect that they would have done so, already.