I Stand With Bernie Sanders

[Uriel]

I'm not an American, and I know that Hilary Clinton will almost certainly secure the Democratic nomination. But while it's still early, it would be fun to bandwagon with easily the most energizing and appealing figure in the entire presidential race.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t35.0-12/11539192_10153433536832236_4445985072235331246_o.j pg?oh=c1855f5c9642681d53d6fe0ad6dd654d&oe=55990062&__gda__=1436092689_b4c16d883252de9d59459b63d143790 f

[Drachen]

I heard that he out raised her by 5 million dollars over the last two months, nearly all from small donations. I don't expect that to continue, but the democrat side maut be more interesting than originally thought.

[Drachen]

I heard incorrectly. They said 15, not 50.

[boutons_deux]

"I heard that he out raised her by 5 million dollars over the last two months"

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2015/04/15/clinton-vs-sanders-follow-money

she's WAY ahead in total take, and way ahead in polling vs Sanders.

Sanders' problem is that he's a populist, but America is owned and operated by VRWC/BigCorp/1% behind their bullshit myths and propaganda, not by the disenfranchised "vox populi".

He may pull Hillary to the left in the campaign, but if she wins, she'll abandon any campaign-ish "people" policies, and operate center-right, serving her paymasters.

[LnGrrrR]

Feel the Bern! Honestly, I'd rather he be the candidate than her.

[Clipper Nation]

Of course OP stands with Bernie. He's a faux-intellectual libtard who would rather mooch off the government teat than work for a living. Pretty much sums up the average Sanders voter.

Sanders is only popular because he's promising "free" handouts and goodies for all. The ironic thing is, if he ever got elected with a supportive Congress, 90% of his base would be alienated when the reality sets in that they'd be paying out the ass in taxes to subsidize all those entitlement giveaways.

[TeyshaBlue]

With Warren on the ticket as VP or vice versa.

[Blizzardwizard]

Of course OP stands with Bernie. He's a faux-intellectual libtard who would rather mooch off the government teat than work for a living. Pretty much sums up the average Sanders voter.

Sanders is only popular because he's promising "free" handouts and goodies for all. The ironic thing is, if he ever got elected with a supportive Congress, 90% of his base would be alienated when the reality sets in that they'd be paying out the ass in taxes to subsidize all those entitlement giveaways.

Yet you side with senile inbred dumbasses like the Paul family. I give up :lol You just refuse to accept that supporting vulnerable people is a good thing.

[Clipper Nation]

Yet you side with senile inbred dumbasses like the Paul family. I give up :lol You just refuse to accept that supporting vulnerable people is a good thing.
:lol "Supporting vulnerable people"
:lol Bullshit-to-English translation: "buying votes and keeping people dependent on the government"

[Blizzardwizard]

:lol "Supporting vulnerable people"
:lol Bullshit-to-English translation: "buying votes and keeping people dependent on the government"

People should be dependent on the government. Look what happens when you give power to the rich corporation owners instead of the government, they fuck around and let their workers die because the sleazy assholes won't take any money out of their pockets to give people a living wage otherwise it'll cost them their profit. And thus we have your much loved conservatism.

[Clipper Nation]

People should be dependent on the government.
http://i.imgur.com/naVMQgh.jpg


Look what happens when you give power to the rich corporation owners instead of the government, they fuck around and let their workers die because the sleazy assholes won't take any money out of their pockets to give people a living wage otherwise it'll cost them their profit. And thus we have your much loved conservatism.
Look what happens when an entire population is dependent on the government:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/north-korean-defector-lifts-lid-on-worlds-most-secret-state/ar-AActzhM

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/03/how-animal-farm-gave-hope-to-stalins-refugees/253831/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/12/refugee-reveals-the-horrors-of-communist-china-how-there-are-state-workers-whose-only-job-is-to-capture-women/

[Blizzardwizard]

http://i.imgur.com/naVMQgh.jpg


Look what happens when an entire population is dependent on the government:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/north-korean-defector-lifts-lid-on-worlds-most-secret-state/ar-AActzhM


Clearly wasn't implying a full on Communist state. At that point a democratic government doesn't even exist, but a massive social and equality divide not too dissimilar to your typical conservative ruled country, which is why communism doesn't work. People should be able to depend on the government as a safety net, like in FDR's day. In an individualist laissez-faire world, there'd be no government left for anyone to fall back on when shit goes wrong i.e. natural disaster or injury. Do you really want that?

[Clipper Nation]

People should be able to depend on the government as a safety net, like in FDR's day.
In FDR's day, it took a world war AND a sweeping post-war budget cut to finally recover from the Great Depression (which, by the way, began under another big-spending, economy-interfering POTUS in Hoover). His "safety net" was a disaster, even his own Treasury secretary admitted this at the end of his quasi-monarchy.


In an individualist laissez-faire world, there'd be no government left for anyone to fall back on when shit goes wrong i.e. natural disaster or injury.
Private mutual aid societies and charity > the government:

https://mises.org/library/welfare-welfare-state

But you're right - what would we do without FEMA? We're all going to die if the government doesn't get to exploit natural disasters for kickbacks, bribes, and embezzlement!

http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2014/03/opinion-tpm-sorensen-natural-disasters.html

[Blizzardwizard]

In FDR's day, it took a world war AND a sweeping post-war budget cut to finally recover from the Great Depression (which, by the way, began under another big-spending, economy-interfering POTUS in Hoover). His "safety net" was a disaster, even his own Treasury secretary admitted this at the end of his quasi-monarchy.


Private mutual aid societies and charity > the government:

https://mises.org/library/welfare-welfare-state

But you're right - what would we do without FEMA? We're all going to die if the government doesn't get to exploit natural disasters for kickbacks, bribes, and embezzlement!

http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2014/03/opinion-tpm-sorensen-natural-disasters.html

You talk about Hoover as if he was some Liberal big government advocate. This guy refused to implement federal government job programs leaving it all to the individual states and local governments, and it didn't work. The guy was an individualist, he even wrote a book on it.

Private companies are established for and only for making someone a profit. Private healthcare companies for example are willing to cut back on medical equipment and spend as little as possible on patients if it means they make an overall profit to keep their business churning. You really think that if the welfare state is gone these 'charities' will sufficiently provide people who need aid with all the coverage they need?

[Uriel]

Of course OP stands with Bernie. He's a faux-intellectual libtard who would rather mooch off the government teat than work for a living. Pretty much sums up the average Sanders voter.

Sanders is only popular because he's promising "free" handouts and goodies for all. The ironic thing is, if he ever got elected with a supportive Congress, 90% of his base would be alienated when the reality sets in that they'd be paying out the ass in taxes to subsidize all those entitlement giveaways.
You're starting to sound like a right-wing boutons_deux, tbh. :lol

[Clipper Nation]

You talk about Hoover as if he was some Liberal big government advocate. This guy refused to implement federal government job programs leaving it all to the individual states and local governments, and it didn't work. The guy was an individualist, he even wrote a book on it.
Hoover was a total interventionist:

https://mises.org/library/hoovers-attack-laissez-faire

Even FDR himself ripped Hoover to shreds for spending so much money in peacetime while campaigning against him.


You really think that if the welfare state is gone these 'charities' will sufficiently provide people who need aid with all the coverage they need?
Read the article about the charities and mutual aid societies I posted. They did just that. The whole reason welfare exists nowadays is because the government was jealous of how efficient the private sector was at giving the needy a hand up and decided to undercut them by removing the incentive to find work.

[admiralsnackbar]

Read the article about the charities and mutual aid societies I posted. They did just that. The whole reason welfare exists nowadays is because the government was jealous of how efficient the private sector was at giving the needy a hand up and decided to undercut them by removing the incentive to find work. You make it sound as though government has feelings either way, when -- in reality -- it only has lobbyists. If you read the article you linked, fraternal societies were snuffed out of existence to benefit business interests and corporations who wanted to expand their market share by obliterating their competition through regulation. If that strategy bothers you, you find yourself in Sanders' corner more than you seem to realize. For a recent example: Texas (along with many other states) shut down the majority of Planned Parenthood clinics because religious lobbies (and lobbies representing the new for-profit surgery centers popping up everywhere, I suspect) fought to revise standards that had worked for low-income families for decades.

[LnGrrrR]

Obviously, the answer is that Rand Paul should tap Bernie Sanders to be his veep.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm pretty sure I'll be voting Paul for the primary.

[Shastafarian]

With Warren on the ticket as VP or vice versa.

:tu

[boutons_deux]

With Warren on the ticket as VP or vice versa.

nah, rather than be a "bucket of warm spit", Liz heading SEC or Treasury much better.

[boutons_deux]

This Is Bernie Sanders' Plan to Beat Hillary Clinton


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/bernie-sanders-plan-to-beat-hillary-clinton

[boutons_deux]

One Of The Nation’s Most Influential Labor Leaders Has Endorsed Bernie Sanders



In another show of union support for Bernie Sanders, one of the nation’s most influential labor leaders on Friday endorsed the Democratic Party presidential candidate.

"Larry Cohen, the past president of the Communications Workers of America, gave his backing to Sanders at a news conference held here in a local union hall.“This is not a close call,” Cohen said at the news conference. “This is a guy who for his entire life has been there for working people.”

“I am proud to have the support of Larry Cohen and so many workers in the American trade union movement,” Sanders said. “They know we need an economy that works for the middle class and not just the wealthy.”


Sanders and Cohen were joined by members from other labor groups including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the National Association of Letter Carriers, the Iron Workers Union, the Laborers’ International Union of North America, National Nurses United, the International Association of Firefighters, the American Postal Workers Union and 75 others.

Cohen’s endorsement was significant because it came on the heels of a Politico report that AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka was working behind the scenes to squash the growing momentum among union members for Bernie Sanders.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/03/nations-influential-labor-leader-endorsed-bernie-sanders.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[spursncowboys]

The idea that after 8 years of failed liberal programs America will vote for someone more liberal, and a self proclaimed socialist, is laughable! The pendelum is swinging back to my side. Put anyone you want on the D ticket. It doesn't matter! I just hope Conservatives elect a real future president and not Bush, Trump, or Christie.

[spursncowboys]

This is 08 all over again.

[boutons_deux]

8 years of failed liberal programs

:lol This kind of shit is why you rightwingnut bubbas are so fucking laughable.

which "liberal programs"? :lol

[LnGrrrR]

The idea that after 8 years of failed liberal programs America will vote for someone more liberal, and a self proclaimed socialist, is laughable! The pendelum is swinging back to my side. Put anyone you want on the D ticket. It doesn't matter! I just hope Conservatives elect a real future president and not Bush, Trump, or Christie.

So... not the 3 conservatives who are the frontrunners in the eyes of most Republican voters? CROFL

[spursncowboys]

So... not the 3 conservatives who are the frontrunners in the eyes of most Republican voters? CROFL
yeah good point. Because Guilianni and Clinton maintained their lead all the way through the process.

[LnGrrrR]

yeah good point. Because Guilianni and Clinton maintained their lead all the way through the process.

Your hope for Cruz seems... quixotic in nature.

[spursncowboys]

Your hope for Cruz seems... quixotic in nature.
Yeah. So were a few others of mine though: Steve Forbes, Duncan Hunter, Anybody but McCain, etc. Kind of like Sanders though or Warren if she actually gets in, ever!
Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama (two years before the election) were probably considered illogical and wishful too.

[LnGrrrR]

I think we're getting too close to the election for an unknown to really make a run, but I've been wrong before.

[boutons_deux]

"Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama"

Unlike Krazy Kruz, none was an extreme left or right wing asshole

[boutons_deux]

The Real Reasons Bernie Sanders is Transforming the Election: Here’s Why He Galvanizes the Left

The pundits are confused but it's quite simple.

CNN dubbed this “the summer of Sanders (http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/hillary-clinton-summer-of-bernie-sanders/index.html) [3]” as media outlets finally picked up on the large crowds Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has attracted during campaign stops. His rocketing poll numbers in early primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire led to countless stories heralding a Sanders surge — but the story is as much about the issues as it is about the man.

Even Republican candidates have taken notice of Sanders’ rise. Ahead of a recent stop in Madison, Wisconsin, likely 2016 contender and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker welcomed Sanders to the state with a series of tweets (http://www.salon.com/2015/07/02/bernie_sanders_is_for_real_new_poll_shows_him_chip ping_away_at_hillarys_lead_in_iowa/) [4] attacking the democratic socialist once dismissed as too fringe. Walker may not have taken too fondly to Sanders attracting a record 10,000 people in his home state.

But Sanders’ campaign, surely more so than that of any of the Republican candidates, seems to be gaining traction more for the ideas he espouses than because of a cult of personality.

Granted, many supporters have pointed to Sanders’ straightforward manner and willingness to call out bad actors as refreshingly appealing, but unlike with Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump and Chris Christie, it isn’t just a brash style that’s being sold.

Sanders makes a direct effort to address many of the issues that have arisen since the Hope & Change campaign of 2008 and it appears as though he is tapping into very real and long-simmering sentiments in the Democratic base.

More than a protest vote against Hillary Clinton, as some have suggested, Sanders’ support appears to be support for issues Clinton’s yet to fully address. Here are some of the ways that Sanders is gaining support by leading on issues or movements that other candidates ignore:

VA Scandal

Sanders was chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee when Democrats last controlled the chamber, and following the VA scandal, Sanders worked with Republicans in the House to pass legislation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senators-reach-bipartisan-deal-on-bill-to-fix-va/2014/06/05/0c380a50-ecf3-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html) [5] that expands health care access for veterans and makes it easier to fire underperforming officials.

His record and work on veterans’ affairs issues has earned Sanders top awards from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion and the Military Officers Association of America, and now it appears as though that recognition is translating to support for his campaign. ( and from a 1960s hippie! )

The Boston Globe writes (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/06/27/bernie-sanders-surge-partly-fueled-veterans/e1qNTpzFpIaoxIGKygKa9J/story.html) [6] that Sanders’ “surge is partly fueled by veterans,” citing “entire Reddit threads (http://www.reddit.com/r/VetsForBernie/comments/3aex76/welcome_to_rvetsforbernie_check_out_this_quick/) [7] [that] are dedicated to how veterans can best pitch Sanders to other veterans” and “a Facebook page promoting Sanders to veterans.” As the Globe notes, in the early voting state of South Carolina veterans make up about 11 percent of the electorate.

Occupy Wall Street

The short-lived global protest movement suddenly shifted the national debate in the aftermath of the recession from talk of austerity to a focus on growing income inequality by introducing terms like the 1 Percent to national prominence in time for the 2012 campaign. But the Occupy Wall Street movement achieved no great legislative win, and after the encampments were broken down many of the grievances remained unacknowledged, let alone addressed.

Sanders’ 2016 campaign embodies much of the demands of the OWS movement. Speaking to the largest campaign crowd of this cycle (http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/national/political/story/2015/jul/01/wisconsin-sanders-appeals-like-minded-liberal/312598/) [8] in Wisconsin this week, Sanders said,

“The big money interests — Wall Street, corporate America, all of these guys — have so much power that no president can defeat them unless there is an organized grassroots movement making them an offer they can’t refuse.”

For activists who organized, protested and camped out in Zuccotti Park and squares across America, this message of unfinished business is powerful. The acknowledgement of a continued struggle and willingness to put up a fight is what was galvanized the Draft Warren movement and it has now seemingly shifted to Sanders.

Student Debt Movement

Some Occupy Wall Street activists joined a movement against student debt, which has now surpassed $1 trillion in the U.S. The activists, some of whom had refused to make any more payments on their federal student loans (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/student_loans/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) [9], achieved a major victory this year when Corinthian colleges (you know them by their annoying commercials hawking their schools like Everest, Heald and WyoTech) shuttered the last of their remaining U.S. campuses, and the erasure of $13 million in debt. The movement has successfully overseen the closure of campuses in Canada the year before.

Sanders has proposed the College for All Act, (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file) [10] a plan to provide tuition-free education at public colleges funded by a small tax on Wall Street transactions.

Citizens United

Since the 2010 Supreme Court ruling allowing unlimited political contributions by corporations and unions saw the rise of the Super PAC in electoral campaigns, Americans are shockingly united in their opposition to such obscene levels of money in politics. The overwhelming majority of Americans, including Republicans, (http://time.com/3063942/poll-support-for-campaign-finance-reform-strong-in-key-senate-races/) [11] support limits on campaign contributions.

Sanders is the only candidate to have completely sworn off all Super PAC funds (http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/30/sanders-unable-superpacs/28184005/) [12], although a couple of independent political action committees have formed in support of his candidacy.

But Sanders has objected to their existence, saying, “A major problem of our campaign finance system is that anybody can start a super PAC on behalf of anybody and can say anything. And this is what makes our current campaign finance situation totally absurd.”

Obamacare

The Supreme Court may have upheld the Affordable Care Act twice, but the political battle over the health care law promises to rage on five years after its passage. With health care costs rising only marginally more slowly than they before the law’s passage and a continuation of premium increases, even Democrats who support the law have called for marked improvements as millions of Americans are left uninsured because Republican lawmakers refuse to expand Medicaid.

Sanders has promised to return the debate to early 2007, when during the Democratic presidential primary the public option was on the table.

Sanders has long called for a “Medicare-for-all” single-payer health care plan similar to what was tossed aside as too radical shortly after the talks began on health care reform once Obama took office.

http://www.alternet.org/print/real-reasons-bernie-sanders-transforming-election-heres-why-he-galvanizes-left

[Jacob1983]

Boutons,are you going to vote for Bernie or stick with granny?

[Slutter McGee]

In an individualist laissez-faire world, there'd be no government left for anyone to fall back on when shit goes wrong i.e. natural disaster or injury. Do you really want that?

Maybe, but at least we wouldn't have full of shit libs passing feel good anti price gouging laws that hurt communities when natural disasters hit.

Slutter McGee

[Clipper Nation]

Just came across this old article in which the real Bernie Sanders is exposed by leftists as a flip-flopping, pro-war statist who is just more of the same:

http://www.uvm.org/iaag/why-occupy.htm


Bernie became an imperialist to get elected in 1990. In August, 1990--after the Bush administration enticed Iraq into invading Kuwait--Sanders said he wasn't "going to let some damn war cost him the election," according to a staff member who was present at the time. So Sanders backed the buildup in the Persian Gulf and dumped on the left anti-imperialist peace movement, singling out his former allies like Dave Dellinger for public criticism.


Bernie has repeatedly blocked third party building. His closet party, the Democrats, are very worried about a left 3rd party forming in Vermont. In the last two elections, Sanders has prevented Progressives in his machine from running against Howard Dean, our conservative Democratic Governor who was ahead of Gingrich in the attack on welfare.


Since 1991 the Democrats have given Bernie membership in their Congressional Caucus. Reciprocally, Bernie has become an ardent imperialist. Sanders endorsed Clinton in 1992 and 1996. In 1992 he described Clinton as the "lesser of evils," (a justification he used to denounce when he was what the local press called an "avowed socialist"). By 1996 he gave Clinton an unqualified endorsement. He has been a consistent "Friend of Bill's" from since 1992.


Bernie regularly rides out with the rest of the Vermont Congressional delegation defending the military contracts in Vermont against cuts by the Pentagon, while arguing that some moderation in military spending is possible on the grounds "that the threat of communism is over" (WCAX interview, 10/94)


He promises working people, the aged, the poor, and the "vanishing middle class" that he will defend them while he repeatedly blocks the building of the anti-capitalist political movement and party that might actual make such promises legitimate.

:lmao Gullible "progressives"
:lmao Voting for a Hillary clone just because he's eccentric and calls himself a socialist

[Winehole23]

Maybe, but at least we wouldn't have full of shit libs passing feel good anti price gouging laws that hurt communities when natural disasters hit.

Slutter McGeefor example? not sure what you're referring to here...

[LnGrrrR]

You're using something from 1999 against Bernie? Hmmm too bad he hasn't said anything about wars since then... and every politician defends military contractors locally. They aren't idiots. Just like you can support health care for states but not the government, you can argue that the military is too big while defending your local precinct.

[Clipper Nation]

You're using something from 1999 against Bernie? Hmmm too bad he hasn't said anything about wars since then... and every politician defends military contractors locally. They aren't idiots. Just like you can support health care for states but not the government, you can argue that the military is too big while defending your local precinct.
Yes, it's from 1999. So what? He didn't have the name recognition, presidential ambitions, or devoted Internet/welfare-queen fanbase back then. He was just some no-name from Vermont. Even in what is pretty much a no-pressure situation, Bernie still was a conniving career politician and a flip-flopper. It shows how manufactured his "outsider" persona really is.

[Th'Pusher]

Just came across this old article in which the real Bernie Sanders is exposed by leftists as a flip-flopping, pro-war statist who is just more of the same:

http://www.uvm.org/iaag/why-occupy.htm

:lmao Gullible "progressives"
:lmao Voting for a Hillary clone just because he's eccentric and calls himself a socialist

Petty weak shit tbh. Do you have anything more sensational?

[boutons_deux]

"he's eccentric and calls himself a socialist" :lol

In the TOTAL ABSENCE of a Repug agenda policies (guns/god/gays/immigration/poor-vaginas), here are some of BS's very popular POLICIES:

It’s Bernie Sanders’ America: 5 “radical” ideas Americans strongly support


Health Care For All

The idea is extremely popular among Democrats, with nearly 80 percent in supportaccording to a January 2015 poll by the Progressive Change Institute (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/229959-majority-still-support-single-payer-option-poll-finds). The poll found that a majority of Americans overall supported a Medicare-for-all insurance option.

And seven in 10 Democrats and Democratic-leaning respondents agreed with the statement, “it is the responsibility of the government in Washington to see to it that people
have help in paying for doctors and hospital bills.” Three-quarters of Republicans and Republican-leaning respondents disagreed according to the most recent Gallup survey. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/4708/healthcare-system.aspx)

Taxing The Rich

Sixty-four percent of Americans say they are bothered a lot by the feeling that some corporations aren’t paying what’s fair in federal taxes, and 61 percent say the same about some wealthy people, according to a recent Pew poll (http://www.people-press.org/2015/03/19/federal-tax-system-seen-in-need-of-overhaul/). Meanwhile, 67 percent of Americans recently told Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/166904/dissatisfied-income-wealth-distribution.aspx) they were dissatisfied with the way income and wealth are distributed in the U.S.

Tuition-Free College

Sanders has proposed the College for All Act, (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file) a plan to provide free education at public colleges funded by a small tax on Wall Street transactions.
Sixty-three percent of respondents supported (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/230064-poll-majority-support-obamas-free-tuition-plan) a similar proposal from President Obama earlier this year, including 47 percent of Republicans.

Campaign Finance Reform

A New York Times poll (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/02/us/politics/money-in-politics-poll.html?_r=0) released this month found that “Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, agree that money has too much influence on elections, the wealthy have more influence on elections, and candidates who win office promote policies that help their donors.”

Eighty-four percent of respondents said money has too great an influence on political campaigns.

Sixty-six percent agreed that the wealthy have the most influence.

Seventy-seven percent want to limit the amount of money individuals can contribute to political campaigns.

Same-Sex Marriage

Sanders has been a supporter dating back four decades (http://www.salon.com/2015/06/30/bernie_sanders_supported_full_marriage_equality_40 _years_ago_partner/), voting against 1996’s Defense of Marriage Act and supporting his state’s legalization of same-sex marriage.
According to a May 2015 Pew (http://www.pewforum.org/2014/09/24/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/)poll, 57 percent of Americans agree, including most Republicans under 45 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/us/politics/social-issues-splitting-young-republicans-from-their-elders.html).

Sanders’ willingness to call himself a democratic socialist may set him apart in American politics but as the polling shows, his views are hardly out-of-step with American voters.

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/05/its_bernie_sanders_america_5_radical_ideas_america ns_strongly_support/ (http://www.salon.com/2015/07/05/its_bernie_sanders_america_5_radical_ideas_america ns_strongly_support/)

[Blizzardwizard]

Exactly. As soon as Americans start owning up to having some socialist tendencies, you'll feel better.

[Spurminator]

Just came across this old article in which the real Bernie Sanders is exposed by leftists as a flip-flopping, pro-war statist who is just more of the same:

http://www.uvm.org/iaag/why-occupy.htm

:lmao Gullible "progressives"
:lmao Voting for a Hillary clone just because he's eccentric and calls himself a socialist


Well this seems bulletproof. Good post, Clippers_deux.

[Blizzardwizard]

Yes, it's from 1999. So what? He didn't have the name recognition, presidential ambitions, or devoted Internet/welfare-queen fanbase back then. He was just some no-name from Vermont. Even in what is pretty much a no-pressure situation, Bernie still was a conniving career politician and a flip-flopper. It shows how manufactured his "outsider" persona really is.

The Paul family are known conservative hacks pretending to be 'for freedom and the good of the people :cry'. Perfectly happy to rid of Obamacare and to remove all government aid and benefits. For the good of the people my ass.

[Slutter McGee]

for example? not sure what you're referring to here...

I don't mind providing evidence to back up controversial claims, but pretty sure the existence of price gouging laws is an obvious one. And although Republican's are also responsible for them, Democrats and democratic state legislatures have been far more complicit in there existence thanks to their attempts to demonize big business.

But I am going to assume you are a retard and just explain it to you. Anti price gouging laws impede the ability for a population to exit a natural disaster area as well as impede the ability for goods, services, and equipment to enter them, because they disrupt the pricing mechanism forcing shortages.

Slutter McGee

[Winehole23]

I don't mind providing evidence to back up controversial claims, but pretty sure the existence of price gouging laws is an obvious one.It's unsurprising to me that there are such laws, though I was not specifically aware of them. I've never lived in a disaster zone and must've missed the media furores related to price-gouging, as well as the various legislative responses thereto. If being unfamiliar with every jot and tittle of state law makes me a retard, so be it.

[boutons_deux]

Slut wants exploiting assholes to charge exorbitant rates for essentials during a disaster? no surprise, conservatives a socio-pathologically heartless, profit-at-all-costs driven.

[Jacob1983]

Boutons, you love Bernie?

[Slutter McGee]

Slut wants exploiting assholes to charge exorbitant rates for essentials during a disaster? no surprise, conservatives a socio-pathologically heartless, profit-at-all-costs driven.

And liberals don't understand basic economics. The great rightwing conservative Paul fucking Krugman agrees with me. Lets say you have a disaster, like Hurricane Katrina, and you have some guy who buys a bunch of generators drives to the affected area and tries to sell them at profit. This is a true story, and this is illegal. but what is wrong with it?

An ignorant liberal like yourself might argue that the evil man is trying to take advantage of people. Intelligent people like myself would recognize that there are now a bunch more generators in the affected areas. So what if only rich people buy them? Now the government relief efforts don't have to worry about the rich and they can hand out more generators for the poor people.

Ok, now other evil people trying to exploit poor people start buying more generators and taking them to the effected area because they saw the profit that guy made. Now generators are less scarce and there is competition, prices drop, all of a sudden the middle class is buying generators...and guess what, now government relief efforts can worry about them less and help the poor more.

But I guess you don't give a shit about the poor.

Slutter McGee

[LnGrrrR]

Yes, it's from 1999. So what? He didn't have the name recognition, presidential ambitions, or devoted Internet/welfare-queen fanbase back then. He was just some no-name from Vermont. Even in what is pretty much a no-pressure situation, Bernie still was a conniving career politician and a flip-flopper. It shows how manufactured his "outsider" persona really is.

I put more weight on the last 16 years than the first.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't mind providing evidence to back up controversial claims, but pretty sure the existence of price gouging laws is an obvious one. And although Republican's are also responsible for them, Democrats and democratic state legislatures have been far more complicit in there existence thanks to their attempts to demonize big business.

But I am going to assume you are a retard and just explain it to you. Anti price gouging laws impede the ability for a population to exit a natural disaster area as well as impede the ability for goods, services, and equipment to enter them, because they disrupt the pricing mechanism forcing shortages.

Slutter McGee

I would love to see the proof. I'm not quite sure how jacking up the price of gas, water, and other essential items helps the population exit.

[LnGrrrR]

And liberals don't understand basic economics. The great rightwing conservative Paul fucking Krugman agrees with me. Lets say you have a disaster, like Hurricane Katrina, and you have some guy who buys a bunch of generators drives to the affected area and tries to sell them at profit. This is a true story, and this is illegal. but what is wrong with it?

An ignorant liberal like yourself might argue that the evil man is trying to take advantage of people. Intelligent people like myself would recognize that there are now a bunch more generators in the affected areas. So what if only rich people buy them? Now the government relief efforts don't have to worry about the rich and they can hand out more generators for the poor people.

Ok, now other evil people trying to exploit poor people start buying more generators and taking them to the effected area because they saw the profit that guy made. Now generators are less scarce and there is competition, prices drop, all of a sudden the middle class is buying generators...and guess what, now government relief efforts can worry about them less and help the poor more.

But I guess you don't give a shit about the poor.

Slutter McGee

I don't think you've ever actually dealt with a natural disaster, or the response to it. Good luck trying to just give welfare/handouts/help to the poor and not the rich. And if you successfully do so, good luck dealing with the blowback. And I think it's strange that you used the example of someone seeing an inefficiency and bringing goods in, when the point of that legislation is to prevent artificially raising prices on things already there. If the market functioned efficiently as you stated, why would there be a need to price gouge? Is there any law saying he can't sell them at the normal price he sells them? Or just a law saying he can't sell them for double what he normally does?

[boutons_deux]

And liberals don't understand basic economics. The great rightwing conservative Paul fucking Krugman agrees with me. Lets say you have a disaster, like Hurricane Katrina, and you have some guy who buys a bunch of generators drives to the affected area and tries to sell them at profit. This is a true story, and this is illegal. but what is wrong with it?

An ignorant liberal like yourself might argue that the evil man is trying to take advantage of people. Intelligent people like myself would recognize that there are now a bunch more generators in the affected areas. So what if only rich people buy them? Now the government relief efforts don't have to worry about the rich and they can hand out more generators for the poor people.

Ok, now other evil people trying to exploit poor people start buying more generators and taking them to the effected area because they saw the profit that guy made. Now generators are less scarce and there is competition, prices drop, all of a sudden the middle class is buying generators...and guess what, now government relief efforts can worry about them less and help the poor more.

But I guess you don't give a shit about the poor.

Slutter McGee

selling stuff at retail prices to disaster victims is fine, selling it an 2x or more isn't. GFY

[Slutter McGee]

I would love to see the proof. I'm not quite sure how jacking up the price of gas, water, and other essential items helps the population exit.

This seems like a legitimate question. So I am going to try and answer it without the sarcasm and insults I often use. Lets start with some explanation before getting into gas prices. This might be a TLDR post, but it is really gonna take that to explain. Skip to the end if you want.

Classical economic theory has often been proven wrong. Up until the 1990's economists were convinced that an increase in the minimum wage would automatically lead to an increase in unemployment. As we got better data, that simply proved to not necessarily be true. You may remember the supply curve, the demand curve, and the equilibrium point that at intersection that determines price and quantity. Set a price ceiling below the equilibrium point and all of a sudden you have a shortage. Set a price floor and you have a surplus. However, the labor market is very different than the product market. Labor is inelastic....the percentage increase in unemployment is far less than a percentage increase in the minimum wage. This is combined with the fact that their is a decrease in the marginal expense of hiring workers means that a small increase in the minimum wage can actually lead to an increase in employment. However, an incredibly large increase (or strictly binding) would still produce the same effects that classical theory predicts.

Lets take some silly number that even liberal economists wouldn't even recommend for a minimum wage. 30 dollars an hour. (Honestly about the highest you see recommended by some of the most brilliant liberal economists is around 14...and I think that is way too high.) We can all see how that would cause unemployment. My point with this tangent is that classical theory still applies to highly inelastic markets with many many variables, but when it comes to marginal increases it doesn't necessarily hold.

The product market though is far different. For the most part it is much more elastic, and competition is much more present. If classical theory still applies to the labor market, surely it holds in the product market which has many more of the assumptions necessary for classical theory application i.e. perfect competition. Now there are very few markets that meet the criteria for that assumption. Grain, corn, commodities, etc. But gasoline is pretty damn close.

There are 3 basic pricing mechanisms for gasoline prices. Sticky prices, cost based pricing, and Edgeworth price cycles and Intertemporal Price Discrimination. Sticky pricing basically means that prices rise quickly to accommodate increased demand or decreased supply, but fall slowly when the opposite happens. You are more likely to see this when you only have a few firms competing. Cost Based pricing is generally a function of implied price fixing. Basically everyone prices just above cost. This price fixing is fine because there is no implicit agreement by competitors to price higher above cost. Besides, price wars often break out which is good for consumers. And then there are Edgeworth cycles which is a really cool thing that you don't see much in the US, but it pisses consumers off because they think they are getting screwed, when in fact it is a function of a highly competitive model with one large firm, many small firms...and they are actually far better off.

My point is that retail gasoline is not ripping you off. They are not a monopoly. They can't be a monopoly because barriers to entry are relatively low. All three of the pricing structures are subject to supply and demand...a monopoly in a small town can't jack up prices too high because competition will spring up.

Now lets also differentiate between macroeconomic theory and microeconomic theory. Liberal economists, Conservative economists, and Libertarian economists often disagree when it comes to macro policy. But there is very little disagreement when it comes to micro...even the damn Austrian school economists agree and they hate math. And retail gasoline is definitely a micro phenomenon. And because of the low barriers to entry no natural monopoly exists.

So what happens when you set a price ceilings on gas? You get shortages. Look at the 1970s. We saw and experienced those shortages, and we also experienced the natural rationing process that went into them. Rationing means a longer wait to get needed supplies (longer waits mean more people in a city while a natural disaster approaches.) Shortages means not enough gas to go around to everyone. (More people are stuck in the city without the ability to get gasoline). Low prices means that people are topping off their gas tanks when they already have enough gas to leave. It means that families are taking their belongings instead of taking their neighbors and combining their funds to afford that natural increase in price resulting from the increase in demand.

The problem with so many people is that they think (jacking up the price) means businesses are taking advantage of people, when they are simply responding to an increase in demand. This a natural rationing, and it is far better than the alternative. And I have not even gotten into the black market consequences.

Ultimately, price gouging laws are absolute dogshit.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Slutter McGee]

selling stuff at retail prices to disaster victims is fine, selling it an 2x or more isn't. GFY

What if demand is 2 times more?

Slutter McGee

[boutons_deux]

What if demand is 2 times more?

Slutter McGee

Disasters aren't a bidding war, an auction, with the rich buying their way out, as you dog-eat-dog rightwingnuts would prefer.

[Slutter McGee]

when the point of that legislation is to prevent artificially raising prices on things already there.

This is the whole point...The price rise is not artificial. Its the result of a natural disaster...Not some monopolist trying to screw people over.

Slutter McGee

[Slutter McGee]

Disasters aren't a bidding war, an auction, with the rich buying their way out, as you dog-eat-dog rightwingnuts would prefer.

You are right, Lets not allow the rich to buy their way out. They will be stuck right there with the poor. That is how you liberals want it right? Sure, the government will have to help those who could have bought their way out at the same time as the poor, which means they can help less poor people. But you are a liberal...you don't really give a shit about the poor. You just hate the rich, and if you can fuck over the rich at the expense of a few of the poor, well then I guess you are happy.

I am not, Id like to help the most people possible in the fewest amount of time (rich or poor), without screwing over anybody.

Slutter McGee

[boutons_deux]

You are right, Lets not allow the rich to buy their way out. They will be stuck right there with the poor. That is how you liberals want it right? Sure, the government will have to help those who could have bought their way out at the same time as the poor, which means they can help less poor people. But you are a liberal...you don't really give a shit about the poor. You just hate the rich, and if you can fuck over the rich at the expense of a few of the poor, well then I guess you are happy.

I am not, Id like to help the most people possible in the fewest amount of time (rich or poor), without screwing over anybody.

Slutter McGee

:lol, Slut displaying the typical ignorance, misinformation, rampant among rightwingnuts.

[Slutter McGee]

:lol, Slut displaying the typical ignorance, misinformation, rampant among rightwingnuts.

boutons, tell me why I am wrong. Try it out. See if you can do it.

Slutter McGee

[boutons_deux]

boutons, tell me why I am wrong. Try it out. See if you can do it.

Slutter McGee

blatantly false: "you don't really give a shit about the poor. You just hate the rich,"

The poor, even the non-poor have been, are being fucked over DAILY by the rich. It's way past time to stop that fucking and to reverse the fucking.

[Slutter McGee]

blatantly false: "you don't really give a shit about the poor. You just hate the rich,"

The poor, even the non-poor have been, are being fucked over DAILY by the rich. It's way past time to stop that fucking and to reverse the fucking.

So you admit you want to fuck the rich at the expense of the poor. Very well.

And I mean.. tell me what I was wrong about price gouging. I wrote a fucking book a few posts ago. If you can read at a high enough level to respond I would be interested.

Slutter McGee

[boutons_deux]

So you admit you want to fuck the rich at the expense of the poor. Very well.

And I mean.. tell me what I was wrong about price gouging. I wrote a fucking book a few posts ago. If you can read at a high enough level to respond I would be interested.

Slutter McGee

of course, fucking the rich back for fucking everybody else is way overdue. Fucking people in dog-eat-dog America is how the country operates. You aren't A Real American unless you're fucking over somebody, or voting for someone to fuck over people.

Price gouging? It's immoral, unethical (not that either of those concern you rightwingnuts), screwing the poor in a disaster who can't pay to pander to the rich.

fucking book? :lol

[Slutter McGee]

You aren't A Real American unless you're fucking over somebody, or voting for someone to fuck over people.

Zero sum "fucking over people" was disproven in the 1800's by David Ricardo.


Price gouging? It's immoral, unethical (not that either of those concern you rightwingnuts), screwing the poor in a disaster who can't pay to pander to the rich.

Read my post and respond to specifics. Try it out. I think you can read?


fucking book? :lol

Long ass post I made you idiot.

Slutter McGee

[Th'Pusher]

I don't mind providing evidence to back up controversial claims, but pretty sure the existence of price gouging laws is an obvious one. And although Republican's are also responsible for them, Democrats and democratic state legislatures have been far more complicit in there existence thanks to their attempts to demonize big business.

Slutter McGee
You mean like this liberal: http://archive.courierpostonline.com/article/20121028/NEWS01/310270045/Christie-Price-gouging-will-punished

you trot out this price gouging straw man whenever you want to paint "liberals" as economically challenged. Grow up. And fuck off with your partisan politics you shitbag.

[Th'Pusher]

This seems like a legitimate question. So I am going to try and answer it without the sarcasm and insults I often use. Lets start with some explanation before getting into gas prices. This might be a TLDR post, but it is really gonna take that to explain. Skip to the end if you want.

Classical economic theory has often been proven wrong. Up until the 1990's economists were convinced that an increase in the minimum wage would automatically lead to an increase in unemployment. As we got better data, that simply proved to not necessarily be true. You may remember the supply curve, the demand curve, and the equilibrium point that at intersection that determines price and quantity. Set a price ceiling below the equilibrium point and all of a sudden you have a shortage. Set a price floor and you have a surplus. However, the labor market is very different than the product market. Labor is inelastic....the percentage increase in unemployment is far less than a percentage increase in the minimum wage. This is combined with the fact that their is a decrease in the marginal expense of hiring workers means that a small increase in the minimum wage can actually lead to an increase in employment. However, an incredibly large increase (or strictly binding) would still produce the same effects that classical theory predicts.

Lets take some silly number that even liberal economists wouldn't even recommend for a minimum wage. 30 dollars an hour. (Honestly about the highest you see recommended by some of the most brilliant liberal economists is around 14...and I think that is way too high.) We can all see how that would cause unemployment. My point with this tangent is that classical theory still applies to highly inelastic markets with many many variables, but when it comes to marginal increases it doesn't necessarily hold.

The product market though is far different. For the most part it is much more elastic, and competition is much more present. If classical theory still applies to the labor market, surely it holds in the product market which has many more of the assumptions necessary for classical theory application i.e. perfect competition. Now there are very few markets that meet the criteria for that assumption. Grain, corn, commodities, etc. But gasoline is pretty damn close.

There are 3 basic pricing mechanisms for gasoline prices. Sticky prices, cost based pricing, and Edgeworth price cycles and Intertemporal Price Discrimination. Sticky pricing basically means that prices rise quickly to accommodate increased demand or decreased supply, but fall slowly when the opposite happens. You are more likely to see this when you only have a few firms competing. Cost Based pricing is generally a function of implied price fixing. Basically everyone prices just above cost. This price fixing is fine because there is no implicit agreement by competitors to price higher above cost. Besides, price wars often break out which is good for consumers. And then there are Edgeworth cycles which is a really cool thing that you don't see much in the US, but it pisses consumers off because they think they are getting screwed, when in fact it is a function of a highly competitive model with one large firm, many small firms...and they are actually far better off.

My point is that retail gasoline is not ripping you off. They are not a monopoly. They can't be a monopoly because barriers to entry are relatively low. All three of the pricing structures are subject to supply and demand...a monopoly in a small town can't jack up prices too high because competition will spring up.

Now lets also differentiate between macroeconomic theory and microeconomic theory. Liberal economists, Conservative economists, and Libertarian economists often disagree when it comes to macro policy. But there is very little disagreement when it comes to micro...even the damn Austrian school economists agree and they hate math. And retail gasoline is definitely a micro phenomenon. And because of the low barriers to entry no natural monopoly exists.

So what happens when you set a price ceilings on gas? You get shortages. Look at the 1970s. We saw and experienced those shortages, and we also experienced the natural rationing process that went into them. Rationing means a longer wait to get needed supplies (longer waits mean more people in a city while a natural disaster approaches.) Shortages means not enough gas to go around to everyone. (More people are stuck in the city without the ability to get gasoline). Low prices means that people are topping off their gas tanks when they already have enough gas to leave. It means that families are taking their belongings instead of taking their neighbors and combining their funds to afford that natural increase in price resulting from the increase in demand.

The problem with so many people is that they think (jacking up the price) means businesses are taking advantage of people, when they are simply responding to an increase in demand. This a natural rationing, and it is far better than the alternative. And I have not even gotten into the black market consequences.

Ultimately, price gouging laws are absolute dogshit.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee
Maybe we should do an analysis of the supply and demand of your time as ^this was wildly inefficient considering there are literally hundreds of articles detailing the price gouging phenomenon specific to natural disasters.

Fuckin Google, slut. It Could have saved you from having written a "book". Moron :lol

[LnGrrrR]

This is the whole point...The price rise is not artificial. Its the result of a natural disaster...Not some monopolist trying to screw people over.

Slutter McGee

So how exactly does raising prices on suddenly scarce commodities lead to a greater ability to exit the disaster area?

[LnGrrrR]

You are right, Lets not allow the rich to buy their way out. They will be stuck right there with the poor. That is how you liberals want it right? Sure, the government will have to help those who could have bought their way out at the same time as the poor, which means they can help less poor people. But you are a liberal...you don't really give a shit about the poor. You just hate the rich, and if you can fuck over the rich at the expense of a few of the poor, well then I guess you are happy.

I am not, Id like to help the most people possible in the fewest amount of time (rich or poor), without screwing over anybody.

Slutter McGee

The problem with your scenario is that only the rich can afford to buy their way out in your theoretical "allow gas/water/essentials prices to raise to levels where poor people can't afford it"... pretty much by definition. How are you helping out all people, in that case? Opt A: Water, gas etc is kept at an affordable level, and everyone can purchase them. Opt B: Water, gas, etc are raised to levels only the rich can afford. How does Opt B help people exit a disaster area more than Opt A? It seems that your solution doesn't change the amount of people leaving; it just shifts the type of people leaving (from FIFO to wealth based).

[LnGrrrR]

This seems like a legitimate question. So I am going to try and answer it without the sarcasm and insults I often use. Lets start with some explanation before getting into gas prices. This might be a TLDR post, but it is really gonna take that to explain. Skip to the end if you want.

Classical economic theory has often been proven wrong. Up until the 1990's economists were convinced that an increase in the minimum wage would automatically lead to an increase in unemployment. As we got better data, that simply proved to not necessarily be true. You may remember the supply curve, the demand curve, and the equilibrium point that at intersection that determines price and quantity. Set a price ceiling below the equilibrium point and all of a sudden you have a shortage. Set a price floor and you have a surplus. However, the labor market is very different than the product market. Labor is inelastic....the percentage increase in unemployment is far less than a percentage increase in the minimum wage. This is combined with the fact that their is a decrease in the marginal expense of hiring workers means that a small increase in the minimum wage can actually lead to an increase in employment. However, an incredibly large increase (or strictly binding) would still produce the same effects that classical theory predicts.

Lets take some silly number that even liberal economists wouldn't even recommend for a minimum wage. 30 dollars an hour. (Honestly about the highest you see recommended by some of the most brilliant liberal economists is around 14...and I think that is way too high.) We can all see how that would cause unemployment. My point with this tangent is that classical theory still applies to highly inelastic markets with many many variables, but when it comes to marginal increases it doesn't necessarily hold.

The product market though is far different. For the most part it is much more elastic, and competition is much more present. If classical theory still applies to the labor market, surely it holds in the product market which has many more of the assumptions necessary for classical theory application i.e. perfect competition. Now there are very few markets that meet the criteria for that assumption. Grain, corn, commodities, etc. But gasoline is pretty damn close.

There are 3 basic pricing mechanisms for gasoline prices. Sticky prices, cost based pricing, and Edgeworth price cycles and Intertemporal Price Discrimination. Sticky pricing basically means that prices rise quickly to accommodate increased demand or decreased supply, but fall slowly when the opposite happens. You are more likely to see this when you only have a few firms competing. Cost Based pricing is generally a function of implied price fixing. Basically everyone prices just above cost. This price fixing is fine because there is no implicit agreement by competitors to price higher above cost. Besides, price wars often break out which is good for consumers. And then there are Edgeworth cycles which is a really cool thing that you don't see much in the US, but it pisses consumers off because they think they are getting screwed, when in fact it is a function of a highly competitive model with one large firm, many small firms...and they are actually far better off.

My point is that retail gasoline is not ripping you off. They are not a monopoly. They can't be a monopoly because barriers to entry are relatively low. All three of the pricing structures are subject to supply and demand...a monopoly in a small town can't jack up prices too high because competition will spring up.

Now lets also differentiate between macroeconomic theory and microeconomic theory. Liberal economists, Conservative economists, and Libertarian economists often disagree when it comes to macro policy. But there is very little disagreement when it comes to micro...even the damn Austrian school economists agree and they hate math. And retail gasoline is definitely a micro phenomenon. And because of the low barriers to entry no natural monopoly exists.

So what happens when you set a price ceilings on gas? You get shortages. Look at the 1970s. We saw and experienced those shortages, and we also experienced the natural rationing process that went into them. Rationing means a longer wait to get needed supplies (longer waits mean more people in a city while a natural disaster approaches.) Shortages means not enough gas to go around to everyone. (More people are stuck in the city without the ability to get gasoline). Low prices means that people are topping off their gas tanks when they already have enough gas to leave. It means that families are taking their belongings instead of taking their neighbors and combining their funds to afford that natural increase in price resulting from the increase in demand.

The problem with so many people is that they think (jacking up the price) means businesses are taking advantage of people, when they are simply responding to an increase in demand. This a natural rationing, and it is far better than the alternative. And I have not even gotten into the black market consequences.

Ultimately, price gouging laws are absolute dogshit.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Ok, I understand all this, but this doesn't speak to price gouging during a disaster. In normal times, you can go to a competitor that's selling gas for slightly less. But in a disaster, people have to get certain items... gas, water, etc. These supplies aren't affected by normal supply and demand, due to their extreme need. One can't really choose to "shop around" for the best deals in a disaster area. Regarding gas, you mentioned shortages, but given a finite supply of gas, shortages are going to occur, whether prices are raised or not. The only thing that changes is who gets to leave. With static prices, whoever gets there first, gets gas. With price gouging, only the rich people get to leave. I'd argue the first is more "fair". Let's face it, raising the price during an emergency IS taking advantage of people; they weren't prepared, now there's more demand, so you can raise your prices because supplies are more scarce (and you have them). As you noted, it's "natural" because I believe it's arguable that it's better than the alternative. In a non-disaster scenario, sure. In a disaster scenario, I don't think we should ration by "whoever can afford it escapes".

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders was decades ahead of the country on gay rights and ending the war on drugs

Most Americans now support legally allowing gay and lesbian relationships (http://www.vox.com/2014/6/8/5786368/the-origins-of-lgbt-pride-month), same-sex marriage (http://www.vox.com/cards/gay-marriage-supreme-court-decision/same-sex-marriage-public-opinion), and personal marijuana use (http://www.vox.com/cards/marijuana-legalization/-popular-opinion-changing-marijuana-legalization) after decades of shifting public opinion. But one Democratic candidate for president, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, was calling for many of these changes decades ago.

In a 1972 letter to a local newspaper — which was recently resurfaced by Chelsea Summers at the New Republic (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122005/he-was-presidential-candidate-bernie-sanders-was-radical) — Sanders wrote that he supported abolishing "all laws dealing with abortion, drugs, sexual behavior (adultery, homosexuality, etc.)" as part of his campaign for Vermont governor:

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/7/8905905/sanders-drugs-gay-rights

[boutons_deux]

Jeb Bush: People Need to Work Longer Hours
Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush said Wednesday that in order to grow the economy “people need to work longer hours” -- a comment that the Bush campaign argues was a reference to underemployed part-time workers but which Democrats are already using to attack him.

“My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours” and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in.”

A 2014 Gallup poll (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/elections/gallup-poll.htm) found that already many Americans employed full-time report working, on average, 47 hours a week, while nearly 4 in 10 say they work at least 50 hours a week.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jeb-bush-people-work-longer-hours/story?id=32313997

Bernie Sanders Busts Jeb Bush For Blaming Obama For His Brother W’s Failed Economy

The Democratic presidential candidate said:Well, I don’t think much of Mr. Bush’s comments and to be criticizing Obama after his brother left us an economy in which we were hemorrhaging 800,000 jobs a month when President Obama took office doesn’t make much sense to me.The truth is that Gov. Bush is wrong on a number of counts. First of all, the American people already work the longest hours of any people in a major country on Earth. Today, we have 85% of male workers working more than forty hours a week. Sixty-six percent of women workers are working more than forty hours a week. I am not quite sure how much more Gov. Bush wants our people to be working.

Needless to say, he is opposed to the overtime rule that would allow millions of workers to finally get time and a half. I’ve not heard him support raising the minimum wage to a living wage, or pay equity for women workers. So it sounds to me like it’s the same old, same old trickle-down economics which benefits the wealthy and large corporations.

Bernie Sanders is taking on the Republican frontrunner, and exposing what his agenda means for the working people of America.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/09/bernie-sanders-busts-jeb-bush-blaming-obama-brother-ws-failed-economy.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

JEB is one stupid motherfucker, just another Wall St/1%/VRWC shill.

"4% annual growth as far as the eye can see"? :lol

Bernie's huge problem is that he speaks the truth, and myth-loving, fantasyland, exceptional God's own America HATES the truth

[Slutter McGee]

These supplies aren't affected by normal supply and demand, due to their extreme need.

I don't think you have a fucking clue what supply and demand means.

Slutter McGee

[admiralsnackbar]

I don't think you have a fucking clue what supply and demand means.

Slutter McGee

I don't think the quote you cherry-picked from LnGrrrR's post reflected his greater point, which was that disasters are extreme events that destabilize or temporarily shatter quotidian economic theories -- how to address that destabilization depends on one's ethical calculus and concept of government's duties/social contract. You're clearly a fan of the Austrian school and want to leave it all to the affected individuals and outside entrepreneurs to define the market. As many have already pointed out, however, this means only people of means can participate in the market once disaster-goosed extreme demand causes extreme price inflation for necessities. You also think the market will sort itself out, so why intercede? Unfortunately, disaster victims don't have time to wait for markets to stabilize. I'd go further and question whether your example of generators is all that useful or accurate -- I'm sure there were people who received them and sold them at windfall prices because they had another alternative to promote their survival, but if this was the norm, then the injection of govt-subsidized generators would have brought prices down sharply, and would further suggest that these generators weren't actually necessary in the first place (which means, by extension, that the price inflation of generators wouldn't have occurred in the first place).

[LnGrrrR]

I don't think you have a fucking clue what supply and demand means.

Slutter McGee

You are starving and need bread. You will die without the bread. At what price will you choose not to pay? Oh, wait, any price, because you absolutely need it. "But wait, there's probably other people around with bread, who can charge lower!" In a disaster situation, it's likely there isn't anyone else around. I was stationed at Keesler after Katrina, and have been through quite a few hurricanes. It's not like the roads are empty during evacuation, and most people don't have the financial freedom to run around all over looking for better prices. Information asymmetry usually affects the consumer far more than the provider.

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders: Your cable bill is too damned high

In a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, Sanders -- along with Democratic Sens. Al Franken of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey of Massachusetts -- said American consumers are being burdened by ever-increasing monthly bills and a thicket of hidden fees. Citing lack of competition and increased industry consolidation, the senators say the cable and broadband landscape has devolved into a smattering of “de facto telecommunications monopolies throughout the United States.” As a result, they say, cable and Internet providers are able to stick consumers with higher prices and poor service with impunity.

The senators are asking the FCC to investigate how much Americans pay for cable and broadband services by state; how much they pay, on average, by provider; and how much city dwellers pay compared with consumers who live in rural areas.

“We need healthy competition to foster innovation and ensure fair prices for consumers,” the letter states. “At the very least, Americans should be able to understand the price of the product they are buying and what their neighbors are paying for the same service.”

The FCC already tracks cable prices through its Media Bureau, which puts out an annual report on average monthly bills.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/bernie-sanders-your-cable-bill-is-too-damned-high/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

Why stop there? go after no-competition cellphone rip-offs

[boutons_deux]

Bern Notice: A 13 Point Swing Has Sanders Gaining Ground On Clinton In North Carolina

A new poll from PPP reveals that Bernie Sanders is gaining ground on Hillary Clinton in North Carolina.According to PPP: (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/07/trump-leads-gop-field-in-north-carolina.html)On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton still has a dominant lead, but things are tightening up some in the way that they are in other places across the country.

Clinton’s at 55% to 20% for Bernie Sanders, 7% for Jim Webb, and 4% each for Lincoln Chafee and Martin O’Malley.

Clinton’s dropped from 62% to this 55% standing over the last month, while Sanders has made an almost corresponding lead from 14% to 20%. Webb’s up 2 points from a month ago, and Chafee and O’Malley have stayed in place.

Hillary Clinton remains the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic nomination, but she is being pushed by Sen. Sanders in a way that the media never anticipated. Sanders’s rise in the poll can be attributed to Democratic voters getting to know him.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/08/bern-notice-13-point-swing-sanders-gaining-ground-clinton-north-carolina.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[Clipper Nation]

Good article about how Sanders' polling is deceptive:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/246734-the-bernie-sanders-hoax

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol PPP

[boutons_deux]

:lol PPP

wanna rilly laff?

Donald Trump tops another poll. Will he stay there?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0711/Donald-Trump-tops-another-poll.-Will-he-stay-there-video

Trump exposing you rightwingnuts as racists, xenophobes, jingoists, ignorant mofos, all the worst in America.

[TeyshaBlue]

Polls at this stage are as useless as your shit takes.

[boutons_deux]

Polls at this stage are as useless as your shit takes.

Trump equalling or beating the establishment candidates at any point is :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol just like TB :lol

Kock Bros' Kockenstein monster from Kockenstan is polling at or near the top, too. Repugs! :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Another worthless shit take.

[boutons_deux]

Another worthless shit take.

TB :lol still butthurt and stalking The Great Boutons

[TeyshaBlue]

And yet another shit take.

[SnakeBoy]

Sanders vs Trump in the general would be awesome.

[TeyshaBlue]

Sanders would destroy Trump in 5 minutes.

[Clipper Nation]

Sanders would destroy Trump in 5 minutes.
Trump would beat Sanders in the biggest landslide in history.

[Blizzardwizard]

Trump would beat Sanders in the biggest landslide in history.

:rolleyes

[boutons_deux]

Sanders, Democrats urging Obama to expand Social Security

Scores of Democrats are calling on President Obama to champion an expansion of Social Security benefits for millions of seniors nationwide.

In a letter to be delivered to the White House Monday, the lawmakers say evolving trends surrounding employer retirement packages have put a financial squeeze on the nation's retirees. They want the president to fill the gap by expanding Social Security."As employers continue moving from a defined benefit model to a defined contribution model of retirement savings, it is critical that we fight to protect and expand Social Security –– the only guaranteed source of income in retirement," the lawmakers write.

Their campaign coincides with Monday's White House Conference on Aging, a once-in-a-decade event where administration officials will discuss specific policy prescriptions for the nation's seniors.

The Democrats want a Social Security expansion to be "the number one retirement security recommendation" put forth by the White House.

The Democrats cite polls indicating that such an expansion is both necessary –– "more than half (53 percent) of today's working Americans are not expected to have sufficient resources upon retirement to maintain their standard of living," they write –– and enormously popular.

"This support crosses party lines: 90 percent of Democrats, 73 percent of Independents, and 73 percent of Republicans favor expanding Social Security," they write.

http://ourfuture.org/20150713/the-rally-to-economic-populism-thanks-to-bernie-organizing-hillary?utm_source=progressive_breakfast&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pbreak

[boutons_deux]

The thing Bernie Sanders says about inequality that no other candidate will touch

“Unchecked growth – especially when 99 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent – is absurd,” he said. “Where we’ve got to move is not growth for the sake of growth, but we’ve got to move to a society that provides a high quality of life for all of our people. In other words, if people have health care as a right, as do the people of every other major country, then there’s less worry about growth.

If people have educational opportunity and their kids can go to college and they have child care, then there’s less worry about growth for the sake of growth.”

Sanders’s position inverts decades of orthodoxy among liberal and conservative candidates alike, by prizing redistribution above all else.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/13/what-bernie-sanders-is-willing-to-sacrifice-for-a-more-equal-society/

[boutons_deux]

‘Jesus was a socialist’: Bernie Sanders excites previously unmotivated Alabama voters

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) drew about 300 supporters to a rally in deeply conservative Alabama – including one woman who has never voted in 22 years of eligibility.

The Vermont independent, who is running for president as a Democrat, appeared Sunday at the Good People Brewing Company in Birmingham, reported AL.com (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/07/alabama_feeling_the_bern_for_s.html).

One of the those supporters was 40-year-old Elizabeth Hewitt, of Blount County, who said she has never felt like her vote mattered because she never heard a candidate’s message that resonated with her until Sanders.

“I didn’t like either candidate,” she told the newspaper. “I didn’t care who won because I felt it didn’t matter.”

Another voter, 56-year-old Peter Stuart, of Lincoln, said the liberal senator had gotten him excited in politics again.

“He’s not just in it for the money or his own career,” Stuart said. “To me, he’s what politicians should be.”

Stuart plans to continue his monthly donations to the Sanders campaign because the senator’s democratic socialist views match his own Christian beliefs better than Republican’s lip service on family values.

“I think Jesus was a socialist,” Stuart said.

The rally was organized by three Sanders supporters from Alabama who found one another through Facebook – and who expected about 30 people when they began planning the event.

The candidate has drawn packed crowds (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/many-are-shocked-by-the-size-of-the-crowds-bernie-sanders-is-drawing/) at rallies in the Midwest and New Hampshire, surprising many political observers.

Sanders appeared Sunday morning on “Face the Nation,” where he promised that his campaign would visit states traditionally written off by Democratic candidates.
“We’re going to go to Alabama, we’re going to go to Mississippi, we’re going to go to conservative states,” Sanders said.

Supporters said they were excited by the turnout.

“For a state that’s so red, it’s exciting to see [hundreds] of people for this,” Marty Colbert, a 27-year-old from Pelham, told the newspaper. “It sticks to the grassroots theme.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/jesus-was-a-socialist-bernie-sanders-excites-previously-unmotivated-alabama-voters/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[CosmicCowboy]

Sanders is irrelevant. I can't believe the media is even taking him seriously. They will kick his commie ass to the curb when Biden announces. They currently just need someone besides Hillary to talk about.

[Clipper Nation]

Sanders is irrelevant. I can't believe the media is even taking him seriously. They will kick his commie ass to the curb when Biden announces. They currently just need someone besides Hillary to talk about.
He's a distraction from Hillary's scandals and nothing more.

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders has raised more money than every GOP campaign so far. But there’s a catch.
https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/MgHwbcF_P5euNBdfWg4p9ihnju4=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3874210/Fundraising%20just%20campaigns.png

https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/AkacftUSwXQ8shDVMQRE1E3AFU0=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3874282/Total%20fundraising.png

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/15/8968333/bernie-sanders-fundraising

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders Blindsided by New York Times Blackout


Media bias: sometimes it’s invisible until you look for it


http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/alphabet/rsn-T.jpghe front page story is about such issues as “work force anxieties, “shrinking middle class,” “stagnant wages,” and a growing income gap at pre-Depression levels. The candidate who has been raising these issues longer and louder than any others is Bernie Sanders. Yet the New York Times story about these issues does not even mention Bernie Sanders, although it mentions others with less credibility.

That is the level of intellectual dishonesty actually achieved by the Times in its July 13 page one story headlined “Growth in the ‘Gig Economy’ Fuels Work Force Anxieties (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/13/business/rising-economic-insecurity-tied-to-decades-long-trend-in-employment-practices.html?_r=0).” Two of the most relevant words excluded from the 1700-word story are “Bernie Sanders,” even though it includes two Republican and Hillary Clinton.

It’s intellectually dishonest to write about these issues without mentioning the Independent senator from Vermont now running for the Democratic nomination for president as a Democratic Socialist. It is also deceitful and would be journalistic malpractice for anyone purporting to practice actual journalism.

But the Times has long since ceased to be “the paper of record” in this country, which no longer has a paper (or any media) of record. The Times still serves, as it always has, as the voice of the establishment. That explains the paper’s “balanced” view here of the “gig economy” and the two generations of economic suffering it represents. Reporter Noam Scheiber’s anecdote-ridden story shimmers with an upper income bias, as befits any ambitious Times reporter looking with disdainful sympathy at lesser earners driven increasingly into jobs that are variously part-time, short-term, temporary, or freelance but almost universally more insecure and lower-paying than people could expect from the American economy 50 years ago (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/).

Hillary Clinton takes on “the vision thing” in a Bushlike manner

Bernie Sanders has railed against such economic injustice for almost as long, but Scheiber and/or his editors lack the integrity to mention that, even when they quote a supporter of Hillary Clinton saying: “People know things are changing. They don’t feel like anyone has a handle on it. There’s a yearning for a political vision that addresses that.”

Well, yes, that seems to be true. That also seems to explain why Bernie Sanders continues to surge in the polls since declaring for president in May. Though Clinton still holds a formidable lead, it has been shrinking, and her total support has been shrinking for several months.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/31318-focus-bernie-sanders-blindsided-by-new-york-times-blackout

[DarrinS]

I like his new KFC commercials.

[Clipper Nation]

The NY Times "blackout" of Bernie Sanders in action:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/16/a-rally-for-bernie-sanders-may-wind-up-in-your-living-room/?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/14/hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-meet-again-in-the-senate/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/upshot/readers-turn-on-bernie-sanders-idealism-vs-pragmatism-just-win.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/upshot/class-or-ideology-my-conversation-with-bernie-sanders.html

http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/07/07/can-bernie-sanders-beat-hillary-clinton-reporters-notebook/

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/11/sanders-courts-marthas-vineyard-donors/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/opinion/bernie-sanders-in-the-1960s-serious-not-wild.html

This is just from the past month alone. :cry "But, but, the media isn't talking about Bernie Sanders every waking hour of the day, it must be a conspiracy!" :cry

If anything, the media is talking about Bernie too much in order to shift everyone's focus away from Hillary's scandals.

[boutons_deux]

The plot to marginalize Bernie Sanders: The shared agenda that links Fox News and Hillary Clinton surrogates

Both parties are owned by plutocrats. Sanders' challenge threatens them both, and their responses are oddly similar

The point is that there are no socialist candidates running for president. However elastic the term has become, “socialist” does not mean progressive or liberal Democrat. Socialism, at minimum, requires the abolition of private property and government ownership of the means of production.

Nothing in Bernie Sanders’ platform qualifies as socialist, if that term has any relation at all to its historical meaning. Obsessing over Sanders’ socialist leanings is an exercise in distraction. The choice today, the only choice we really have, is between different species of capitalism. Republicans are absolutists; they fetishize the free market. People like Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal want no regulation, no safety nets, and no constraints on private power. They represent the true believers, the ones who despise government and make a divinity of the market. Sanders rejects this brand of capitalist theology, but that doesn’t make him a socialist.

Take a look at Sanders’ actual platform (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/agenda/).

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/agenda/

He’s not calling for the elimination of private ownership of productive forces. His agenda fits neatly under a capitalist paradigm – as it must. Yes, he wants to regulate commercial activities. Yes, he wants to break up too-big-to-fail banks. Yes, he supports unions. And yes, he believes healthcare and education are human rights. He is, however, a capitalist. What he – and many other Americans – reject is corporate welfare and monopoly capitalism and the complete financialization of the American economy. Again, that doesn’t make him a socialist. Even the conservative columnist George Will (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanderss-socialist-charade/2015/06/03/5a905c44-0952-11e5-95fd-d580f1c5d44e_story.html) has acknowledged that Sanders’ vision is just a diluted version of the “social democracy” practiced in much of Europe.

What Sanders proposes is a reasonable equilibrium between public goods and private interests, one that existed for much of the 20th century. He doesn’t want to change America so much as make it work in ways it once did. The hysteria surrounding his candidacy is manufactured, a ploy to marginalize his voice, which is much more mainstream than his opponents would have you believe.

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/14/the_plot_to_marginalize_bernie_sanders_the_shared_ agenda_that_links_fox_news_and_hillary_clinton_sur rogates/

[Blizzardwizard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9pq3XGjUMc

[Blizzardwizard]

If anything, the media is talking about Bernie too much in order to shift everyone's focus away from Hillary's scandals.

Well Hillary is a conservative so you're basically criticising one of your own.

[TeyshaBlue]

Well Hillary is a conservative so you're basically criticising one of your own.

Fair dinkum.

[boutons_deux]

Hilary's scandals, ALL FABRICATED, ALL FALSE OUTRAGE, to inflame you bubbas, rurals, rednecks and distract from Repugs who have no agenda, won't govern.

[Tuddy]

Unless you're in the top 0.1% income bracket in the US, you should be voting for him. The country has been going downhill for 40 years, wasting money on imaginary wars, and giving Tax breaks to the absolute richest people in the country while bridges and highways fall to pieces, the education standard keeps plummeting and the middle class shrinks.

[Clipper Nation]

Unless you're a productive member of society and not a welfare leech, you should be voting for him.
FIFY

[Will Hunting]

Hilary's scandals, ALL FABRICATED, ALL FALSE OUTRAGE, to inflame you bubbas, rurals, rednecks and distract from Repugs who have no agenda, won't govern.

Sorry boutons, but no. The benghazi "scandal" was bullshit, but the email thing was wrongdoing on her part and we still might not know anywhere near the full story.

When I see Hillary speaking, particularly about the email thing, she looks like she has something to hide.

[Tuddy]

FIFY
Exactly. The welfare leechers are the top 0.1% who leech of tax rebates while everyone else pays their way.

[Will Hunting]

Bernie Sanders' problem in the end will still be that he sounds like a whiny rabbi.

I would still prefer Martin O'Malley/Tommy Carcetti as a candidate, but any politician from Maryland probably has skeletons in his closet we don't know about.

[m>s]

I see people shilling for this socialist Bernie faggot everywhere these days, that kike can fuck off back to tel aviv

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders' problem in the end will still be that he sounds like a whiny rabbi.

I haven't heard a rabbi whine.

Bernie identifies many shit sandwiches the 1%/VRWC/BigCorp have served the 99% for decades.

[Clipper Nation]

:cry Give me a handout, I'm entitled! :cry

[boutons_deux]

Sorry boutons, but no. The benghazi "scandal" was bullshit, but the email thing was wrongdoing on her part and we still might not know anywhere near the full story.

When I see Hillary speaking, particularly about the email thing, she looks like she has something to hide.

FLASHBACK: When Millions Of Lost Bush White House Emails (From Private Accounts) Triggered A Media Shrug

The emails had been run through private accounts controlled by the Republican National Committee and were only supposed to be used for dealing with non-administration political campaign work to avoid violating ethics laws.

Yet congressional investigators already had evidence (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12emails.html) private emails had been used for government business, including to discuss the firing of one of the U.S. attorneys. The RNC accounts were used by 22 White House staffers, including then-Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who reportedly used his RNC email for 95 percent (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2007/03/26/11362/rnc-emails-waxman/) of his communications.

As the Washington Post reported (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/11/AR2007041102167.html), "Under federal law, the White House is required to maintain records, including e-mails, involving presidential decision- making and deliberations." But suddenly millions of the private RNC emails had gone missing; emails that were seen as potentially crucial evidence by Congressional investigators.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/10/flashback-when-millions-of-lost-bush-white-hous/202820

Tell us again who BROKE THE LAW and WHO HAD SOMETHING TO HIDE?

[Will Hunting]

FLASHBACK: When Millions Of Lost Bush White House Emails (From Private Accounts) Triggered A Media Shrug

The emails had been run through private accounts controlled by the Republican National Committee and were only supposed to be used for dealing with non-administration political campaign work to avoid violating ethics laws.

Yet congressional investigators already had evidence (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12emails.html) private emails had been used for government business, including to discuss the firing of one of the U.S. attorneys. The RNC accounts were used by 22 White House staffers, including then-Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who reportedly used his RNC email for 95 percent (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2007/03/26/11362/rnc-emails-waxman/) of his communications.

As the Washington Post reported (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/11/AR2007041102167.html), "Under federal law, the White House is required to maintain records, including e-mails, involving presidential decision- making and deliberations." But suddenly millions of the private RNC emails had gone missing; emails that were seen as potentially crucial evidence by Congressional investigators.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/10/flashback-when-millions-of-lost-bush-white-hous/202820

Tell us again who BROKE THE LAW and WHO HAD SOMETHING TO HIDE?




Yeah, I hate George Bush a lot more than Hillary Clinton. Not sure where I've defended him.

Not sure what this post has anything to do with Hillary Clinton either.

[boutons_deux]

Yeah, I hate George Bush a lot more than Hillary Clinton. Not sure where I've defended him.

Not sure what this post has anything to do with Hillary Clinton either.

Hillary didn't break the law. Your "feeling" about her is useless. I don't like her but being Pres isn't a personality/popularity contest, beauty contest. She's miles better than ANY Repug Klown.

[Will Hunting]

Hillary didn't break the law. Your "feeling" about her is useless. I don't like her but being Pres isn't a personality/popularity contest, beauty contest. She's miles better than ANY Repug Klown.

I think she's equally as bad as Rand Paul.

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders keeps single-payer dream alive: What the GOP Obamacare naysayers will never understand about health care


While Bush, Rubio and Paul speak in platitudes, Sanders — and the public — has a radical, popular, workable idea


But first, we should note what Bernie Sanders had to say, as he also spoke broadly, but without the deception or obfuscation. The broad statements he made could be backed up with specific facts. He also skillfully praised what Democrats had accomplished without forgetting for a moment that more remained to be done:


Today, because of the Supreme Court’s decision to protect the modest gains made under the Affordable Care Act, it is a good day for millions of Americans who will be able to keep their access to health care.

It’s also a good day for the small business owners who, before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, couldn’t afford the escalating cost of providing insurance for their employees.

But while I am glad the Supreme Court upheld the law, in my view, the only long-term solution to America’s health care crisis is a Medicare-for-all single-payer system.

This brings us back to Bernie Sanders, and what he had to say. Remember, Sanders already acknowledged that Obamacare has helped millions of Americans, a basic reality that all the GOP candidates are in denial about—similar to global warming, evolution or gay marriage. When the ruling came down, the latest figures from Gallup were 11.9% uninsured (http://www.gallup.com/poll/182348/uninsured-rate-dips-first-quarter.aspx) in the first quarter of 2015, down from a high of 18% before Obamacare went into effect. Since then, second-quarter figures came in at 11.4% uninsured (http://www.gallup.com/poll/184064/uninsured-rate-second-quarter.aspx). This is a program that’s working. But it’s still a far cry from what other countries have done.



That’s the comparative background for what Sanders had to say as his response continued: “But while I am glad the Supreme Court upheld the law, in my view, the only long-term solution to America’s health care crisis is a Medicare-for-all single-payer system.”


I start my approach to health care from two very simple premises:

1. Health care must be recognized as a right, not a privilege–every man, woman and child in our country should be able to access quality care regardless of their income.

2. We must create a national system to provide care for every single American in the most cost-effective way possible.
Tragically, the United States fails in both areas.


It very clearly is quite doable to ensure health care as a right. We simply have to make it a priority. Sanders continued:

The health insurance lobbyists and big pharmaceutical companies make “national health care” sound scary. It’s not.

In fact, a large single-payer system already exists in the United States. It’s called Medicare and the people enrolled give it high marks. More importantly, it has succeeded in providing near-universal coverage to Americans over age 65 in a very cost-effective manner.

It’s time to expand that program to all Americans.


What Sanders is proposing is far simpler than Obamacare—simple to say, simple to understand and simple to implement, too, considering the Medicare system already in place. What’s more, the idea already enjoys significant support, despite not being widely talked about—which Sanders is doing his best to change via his campaign. In the “Big Ideas” poll (http://act.boldprogressives.org/survey/pci_bigideas_poll_results/) commissioned by the Progressive Change Institute (featured in my previous story about Sanders (http://www.salon.com/2015/07/11/america_is_ready_for_socialism_massive_majorities_ back_bernie_sanders_on_the_issues_and_disdain_dona ld_trump/)), people were asked if they supported or opposed a wide range of proposals, including two important questions about expanding Medicare.

The first is basically a re-articulation of the “public option (http://prospect.org/article/history-public-option)” proposal, a toned-down derivative of the single-payer position health care activists supported overwhelmingly heading into the 2008 election, which Edwards, Clinton and Obama all agreed to during the 2008 primary.

While the public option enjoyed around 60% support in the polls in 2009 (see poll summary at top of a critical story here (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/10/does_the_public_want_a_public_1.html)), this presentation did significantly better—71% of all respondents supported it, with only 13% opposed, including Democrats (77-9), Independents (71-13) and Republicans (63-18). At these levels, Republicansnow support it more strongly than the public as a whole supported the public option in 2009.

The second proposal tested is precisely what Sanders proposes: “Enact a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded, universal form of Medicare.” This had the support of 51%, with 36% opposed. Democrats supported it overwhelmingly (79-11), while independents gave it a plurality (45-43) and Republicans opposed it (23-61). That means that outside the Republican Party, it enjoyed landslide support 66-24, and Democrats supported it roughly as much as they supported the more modest public option.

Sanders proposes a fresh start. Instead of taking up the toned-down public option idea, he returns to Medicare for all, which Democrats support as strongly as the public option. The reasons is simple: It will get the job done. It will ensure universal health care as a right; the public option will not.

By taking up the “more extreme” position, Sanders frames the debate on his terms: Will we have health care for all Americans? Or only for a fortunate subset? (Whose numbers we have swollen lately, but could well ebb once again, particularly if GOP lawmakers have their way.)

There is no question that we could have health care for all Americans—they do that in almost every country in Europe, as already noted. So let’s have the Republicans debate about who shouldn’t have health care, and why. Doesn’t that sound like a good Christian thing to do? A debate in the spirit of Matthew 25:31-46 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25:31-46). That will be the position Republicans are in if they’re arguing against Bernie Sanders and Medicare for all, instead of against Obamacare.

That’s a debate that an ever-growing number of people would like to see.





http://www.salon.com/2015/07/18/bernie_sanders_keeps_single_payer_dream_alive_what _the_gop_obamacare_naysayers_will_never_understand _about_health_care/

[Clipper Nation]

Thanks to McCain and his Senate colleague Bernie Sanders, their legislation to cover up the VA scandal, in which 1,000+ veterans died (http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/24/us/senator-va-report/) waiting for medical care, made sure no one has been punished, charged, jailed, fined or held responsible.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/07/19/donald-trump-republican-party-presidential-candidate-editorials-debates/30389993/

Bernie lied and a thousand veterans died.

[boutons_deux]

Thanks to McCain and his Senate colleague Bernie Sanders, their legislation to cover up the VA scandal, in which 1,000+ veterans died (http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/24/us/senator-va-report/) waiting for medical care, made sure no one has been punished, charged, jailed, fined or held responsible.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/07/19/donald-trump-republican-party-presidential-candidate-editorials-debates/30389993/

Bernie lied and a thousand veterans died.

Trump? you're quoting Trump? :lol

[Slutter McGee]

You are starving and need bread. You will die without the bread. At what price will you choose not to pay? Oh, wait, any price, because you absolutely need it. "But wait, there's probably other people around with bread, who can charge lower!" In a disaster situation, it's likely there isn't anyone else around. I was stationed at Keesler after Katrina, and have been through quite a few hurricanes. It's not like the roads are empty during evacuation, and most people don't have the financial freedom to run around all over looking for better prices. Information asymmetry usually affects the consumer far more than the provider.

And people wont buy more bread than they need? You haven't allowed the market to function. Is it possible that some people will buy more than they need because they were further ahead in the queue? I don't know why I am arguing this. Even the most liberal of economists agree with me.

Slutter McGee

[Slutter McGee]

I don't think the quote you cherry-picked from LnGrrrR's post reflected his greater point, which was that disasters are extreme events that destabilize or temporarily shatter quotidian economic theories -- how to address that destabilization depends on one's ethical calculus and concept of government's duties/social contract. You're clearly a fan of the Austrian school and want to leave it all to the affected individuals and outside entrepreneurs to define the market. As many have already pointed out, however, this means only people of means can participate in the market once disaster-goosed extreme demand causes extreme price inflation for necessities. You also think the market will sort itself out, so why intercede? Unfortunately, disaster victims don't have time to wait for markets to stabilize. I'd go further and question whether your example of generators is all that useful or accurate -- I'm sure there were people who received them and sold them at windfall prices because they had another alternative to promote their survival, but if this was the norm, then the injection of govt-subsidized generators would have brought prices down sharply, and would further suggest that these generators weren't actually necessary in the first place (which means, by extension, that the price inflation of generators wouldn't have occurred in the first place).

There are plenty of times when classical economic theories are shattered. The minimum wage is one of them. A classic shortage brought on by a disaster is not.

Slutter McGee

[admiralsnackbar]

There are plenty of times when classical economic theories are shattered. The minimum wage is one of them. A classic shortage brought on by a disaster is not. Slutter McGee So you're content to let the market correct itself even when it clearly has no time to do so?

[Slutter McGee]

So you're content to let the market correct itself even when it clearly has no time to do so?

How does it not have time to do so? The market changes based off information. Gas stations don't see a storm coming, laugh, call their buddies, and all jack up prices at once just to fuck the little guy, despite what liberals like to think they do...and then wait for the numbers.

[Slutter McGee]

Double post

[Th'Pusher]

How does it not have time to do so? The market changes based off information. Gas stations don't see a storm coming, laugh, call their buddies, and all jack up prices at once just to fuck the little guy, despite what liberals like to think they do...and then wait for the numbers.
You got a couple of people to take a swipe at your little straw man. I like the way you keep claiming these are liberal policies while simultaneously conceding the most liberal of economists agree this happens. At least I provided a GOP presidential candidate warning that price gouging is illegal in the state he governs. Who are these liberals championing anti-price gouging legislation?

[admiralsnackbar]

How does it not have time to do so? The market changes based off information. Gas stations don't see a storm coming, laugh, call their buddies, and all jack up prices at once just to fuck the little guy, despite what liberals like to think they do...and then wait for the numbers. That's some Elvis judo, friend. Fat and lazy.

[LnGrrrR]

And people wont buy more bread than they need? You haven't allowed the market to function. Is it possible that some people will buy more than they need because they were further ahead in the queue? I don't know why I am arguing this. Even the most liberal of economists agree with me.

Slutter McGee

Usually, people in a queue can only buy a limited quantity of items, in order to ensure a greater number of individuals can purchase supplies. In fact, a "free market" solution would tend to over buying far more, as the first person in line buys all he can, then when the store runs out, that first person can charge extra because supply is low and demand is high. (Much like a ticket scalper.)

True or False: In a crisis, supply is usually lowered and/or demand is raised, so supplies one might normally afford could become unaffordable to lower classes.

You've failed to explain how price gouging makes things better. Is it introducing more supply? Unless it is, you're just shifting who gets to purchase limited amounts. It depends on how you define fairness. If you think fairness is anyone setting whatever price they want, then that's your call.

[Winehole23]

Freddie DeBoer attacks Sanders from the left:


insurgent Democratic campaigns frequently end up merely corralling critics of mainstream Democratic politicians into support for the eventual mainstream candidate. As Smith writes, “by steering liberal and left supporters into a Democratic Party whose policies and politics he claims to disagree with, Sanders—no matter how critical he might be of Hillary Clinton—is acting as the opposite of an ‘alternative.’”

This phenomenon is often referred to as “sheepdogging,” a term suggesting that candidates like Sanders simply function to capture left-wing unhappiness within the party and subdue it. (Indeed, it isn’t difficult to find images depicting Sanders as a literal sheepdog, herding voters toward Clinton, in online left-wing communities.) In a scathing piece (http://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary) for Black Agenda Report, the essential journal of radical black politics, Bruce A. Dixon writes, “Bernie Sanders is this election’s Democratic sheepdog…. Sheepdogs are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party.” The Sanders candidacy, according to Dixon, will simply redound to the benefit of inevitable nominee Clinton, and in so doing turn activist energy into just more politics as usual.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/is-bernie-sanders-a-socialist-in-name-only-120545.html#ixzz3gvXOFj2H

[boutons_deux]

Latest National Poll Shows Bernie Sanders Beating Scott Walker, Donald Trump, Jeb Bush

A just released CNN poll (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2179399-cnn-orc-poll-2016-election-9-a-m-july-26-2015.html) finds Sanders out-polling all of the GOP's major candidates, though pretty much tied with Jeb Bush. Here's how Sanders stacks up:

SANDERS: 48%
BUSH: 47%

SANDERS: 48%
WALKER: 42%

SANDERS: 59%
TRUMP: 38%

If you limit the poll sample to just registered voters, Bush defeats Sanders by a single point.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/latest-national-poll-shows-bernie-sanders-beating-scott-walker-donald-trump-jeb-bush

JEB is for destroying Medicare, suggesting that he really is more stupid that his privatize-SS brother.

[Winehole23]

historical curiosity:

1341868197499158529

[Ball Buster]

https://twitter.com/pattheberner/status/1341933171244331011?s=21

[spurraider21]

https://twitter.com/in_pubs/status/1342078161606090752?s=21
Chris (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1656) in shambles rn
national socialist party of trump

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/in_pubs/status/1342078161606090752?s=21
Chris in shambles rn

It's Christmas.

Go outside or something.

[Spurtacular]

Latest National Poll Shows Bernie Sanders Beating Scott Walker, Donald Trump, Jeb Bush

A just released CNN poll (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2179399-cnn-orc-poll-2016-election-9-a-m-july-26-2015.html) finds Sanders out-polling all of the GOP's major candidates, though pretty much tied with Jeb Bush. Here's how Sanders stacks up:

SANDERS: 48%
BUSH: 47%

SANDERS: 48%
WALKER: 42%

SANDERS: 59%
TRUMP: 38%

If you limit the poll sample to just registered voters, Bush defeats Sanders by a single point.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/latest-national-poll-shows-bernie-sanders-beating-scott-walker-donald-trump-jeb-bush

JEB is for destroying Medicare, suggesting that he really is more stupid that his privatize-SS brother.




Fake news all along. Have been.

[ChumpDumper]

Trump lost.

[boutons_deux]

historical curiosity:

1341868197499158529



Here's from 2018, there was one in 2020

Medicare for all would save billions in waste

single-payer Medicare for all would save an estimated $617 billion annually

by slashing the administrative waste of private insurance ($504 billion) and

bargaining down drug prices ($113 billion),

freeing up enough money for universal coverage without any net increase in U.S. health spending.

https://pnhp.org/news/medicare-for-all-would-save-billions-in-waste/#:~:text=But%20single%2Dpayer%20Medicare%20for,inc rease%20in%20U.S.%20health%20spending.

The immovable block is that the $600B/year is now going into exec and investor pockets, noted "wasted", where a tiny bit of $600B goes to bribe protection from the whores in Congress.

Recently, Pelosi, Biden, Schumer ALL came out against MfA,

so it's just another badly needed solution to a huge American problem that will remain a problem.

Capitalist for-profit health sucking down Americans' wealth for decades of their entire working careers, for INSURANCE, not for actual health care.

and the same with for-profit retirement plans, $100Ks sucked out individual plans in (mostly secret) fees.

[Ef-man]

Trump lost.

Sad but it was all brokeback derptacular's fault, par.

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Evc_YalXUAYZMrh?format=jpg&name=900x900