Tuesday, April 05, 2016

Skype Sleazeballs

Skype has unexpectedly cut off my account. When I emailed them, asking them why, they say I've violated their agreement! How this could be is a complete mystery to me since I simply use the service to call my mother.  I have a lot of money remaining in my Skype account, money that they apparently plan on keeping. Needless to say, I'm completely taken back by all this. It's impossible to get anyone on the phone or a chat who has authorization to resolve this. (And they have my money for free, so where's their motivation?) For all of you who are considering Skype, I'd think again about giving them any money. Skype is a sleazy company. There are much better and cheaper services available, such as Google Hangouts.

Monday, September 21, 2015

Wall Street Journal's bogus attack on Sanders

Robert Reich has a good article debunking a very poor article in the Wall Street Journal that assesses Bernie Sander's proposals.

4 Reasons Why The Wall Street Journal’s Attack on Bernie is Bogus

I’ve had so many calls about an article appearing earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal – charging that Bernie Sanders’s proposals would carry a “price tag” of $18 trillion over a 10-year period – that it’s necessary to respond.
The Journal’s number is entirely bogus, designed to frighten the public. Please spread the truth:
1. Bernie’s proposals would cost less than what we’d spend without them. Most of the “cost” the Journal comes up with—$15 trillion—would pay for opening Medicare to everyone. 
This would be cheaper than relying on our current system of for-profit private health insurers that charge you and me huge administrative costs, advertising, marketing, bloated executive salaries, and high pharmaceutical prices. 
(Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, whom the Journal relies on for some of its data, actually estimates a Medicare-for-all system would actually save all of us $10 trillion over 10 years).
2. The savings from Medicare-for-all would more than cover the costs of the rest of Bernie’s agenda—tuition-free education at public colleges, expanded Social Security benefits, improved infrastructure, and a fund to help cover paid family leave – and still leave us $2 trillion to cut federal deficits for the next ten years.
3. Many of these other “costs" would also otherwise be paid by individuals and families – for example, in college tuition and private insurance. So they shouldn’t be considered added costs for the country as a whole, and may well save us money.
4. Finally, Bernie’s proposed spending on education and infrastructure aren’t really “spending” at all, but investments in the nation’s future productivity. If we don’t make them, we’re all poorer.
That Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal would do this giant dump on Bernie Sanders, based on misinformation and distortion, confirms Bernie’s status as the candidate willing to take on the moneyed interests that the Wall Street Journal represents.