[Plantagenet]

Progressivism is about a level playing field. And an end to the injustices that have given us anything but. It's about standing up against the fleecing, the harvesting of Americas wealth, funneled into the pockets of a few.

Yup.

But Bernie is losing.

Hillary's big victory in the New York D primary means there will be no end to the injustices. Hillary is the candidate of BAU---her wall street and billionaire backers want more fleecing, more harvesting of Americas wealth, and all funneled into the pockets of the few wealthy people who can afford to pay $350,000 per ticket to get to sit down with Hillary for lunch, as just happened in Hollywood.

Hillary is the best politician money can buy.

[Cog]

A definition is in order here.

What does it mean "A level playing field"?

Does that mean that all have an opportunity to compete equally in the marketplace of capitalism?

Or does it mean that everyone will be "leveled" so that no one is richer or more successful than anyone else?

Definitions are important.

[onlooker]

Progressivism is about a level playing field. And an end to the injustices that have given us anything but. It's about standing up against the fleecing, the harvesting of Americas wealth, funneled into the pockets of a few.

And this is what we are up against an oligarchy that keeps the masses in check thus from the book 1984 "The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact."
Progressives understand history and the few tend to consolidate power/wealth at the expense of the many.

[Cid_Yama]

Tens of thousands of opponents of a proposed transatlantic trade deal poured onto German streets Saturday on the eve of a visit by US President Barack Obama.

A loose coalition of trade unions, environmentalists and consumer protection groups in the northern city of Hanover drew a crowd of 90,000 to a march and rally outside the city's opera house.

On a visit to London on Saturday, Obama sought to address sceptics' fears head-on, admitting that some ALL past trade agreements had "served the interests of large corporations and NOT necessarily of workers in the countries that participate in them".

The Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) has run into major opposition, not least in Europe's top economy Germany, where critics have raised the spectre of eroding ecological and labour market standards and condemned secrecy shrouding the talks.

A similar protest in October in Berlin drew up to 250,000 people, signalling an uphill battle for the deal's passage.

Dieter Berlin, a 73-year-old pensioner, said he had turned out over fears of a race to the bottom with free trade.

"We want to keep our educational standards, not adopt the American educational system. And we want to hold onto our environmental standards too," he said.

His friend Heino Kirchhof, 73, said TTIP would widen the gulf "between poor and rich -- that is going to threaten the stability of the world."

Another demonstrator, 38-year-old Ladislav Jelinek of the Czech Republic, said he worried that pollution and food safety protections could be hollowed out by the treaty.

link

Mr. President, so does this one. Fixed that statement for you. You fucking corporatist, the whole point of this trade pact is to undermine regulation in participating countries and the sovereign right of those countries to independently protect their currency and economies. You are fooling only those who are already fools.

[Pops]

Good thread Cid, I pretty-well agree right down the line. My knee-jerk has always been toward government as protector rather than benefactor. I think capitalism is the best system but I as a consumer have little power to affect the "free market" if the market is one I am compelled to participate in by necessity. Tipping the scale toward consumers and away from monopolists and rent-seekers is the role of government.

The whole argument about ACA and our random medical system is a perfect example. We wandered into a private-insurance-oriented, for-profit, fee-for-service, job-based system that at the center rewards "procedures" rather than outcomes and profit over care. The whole point of markets is that consumer choice is the "natural selection" that determines the commercial winners. The problem is, unlike buying a new toaster, I have no choice but to seek medical attention when I cut off an arm or need a drug to survive. Drug company profits are the perfect example.

If "common industry practice" is to cancel my health policy right at the point I need it; or prevents me from accessing it to begin with; or a provider charges me, as an uninsured person, 10/50/100 times what an insurance company pays... what ability do I have to influence the market or make a choice?

So while the "liberal" aspect, the OCare-Welfare is great (like Mitt, I too take every legal benefit) the more important part, the progressive part, is that which forces health insurers to actually provide a risk pool rather than just a racket for shareholders. Everyone in the country benefits from provisions that prevent insurance cos from bumping or disqualifying someone who has the audacity to get sick. It also begins to change the system toward health- rather than sick-care by forcing coverage of preventative medicine.

There is an argument to be made about the liberal aspect, the spending part. But I'm pretty sure there isn't much argument to be made from the consumer' standpoint (if not the donor-seeking politician's) about whether insurance companies should be able to cancel someone when they actually get sick.

I think that is the role of a progressive government, stepping in where the market fails.