Bernie Sanders

[Nbadan]

Single-payer, the Canadian-style system in which the government pays for universal health care, takes the health insurance industry out of the picture, saving huge amounts of money. But the health insurance industry has become so rich and powerful that it would never let it happen.

The health care industry is a multi-multi billion dollar business...it goes beyond logic that single payer would save billions to taxpayers and citizen american....the health care industry owns politicians...writes its own rules and regulations...even manages enforcement....human American lost when the Robert's court decided that corporations where people....we need serious political reform in the US or the Oligarchy will do what's good for the oligarchy....

[CosmicCowboy]

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/12508760_10153772065790520_4117774644894036487_n.j pg?oh=1d687482a5c55e7dbee64d7328364b31&oe=57363642

[Winehole23]

your bullshit is no better than boutons's, CC. yours may drown him out, but it's still bullshit.

[boutons_deux]

https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/photos/pcb.963611280360543/963610790360592/?type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/photos/pcb.963611280360543/963610783693926/?type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/photos/pcb.963611280360543/963610787027259/?type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/photos/pcb.963611280360543/963610877027250/?type=3&theater

Rubio the closest? :lol

[boutons_deux]

your bullshit is no better than boutons's, CC. yours may drown him out, but it's still bullshit.

:lol NOBODY drowns out The Great Boutons, Bitch Slapper Extraordinaire

The CC's "look at how rich I am, losers" bullshit and his rightwing crap is vastly inferior, as are his politicians, to mine.

[boutons_deux]

Dem debate:

https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/demdebate?source=fsup

... most emotions are positive, while in the Repug debate, most emotions were heavily negative.

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders Releases Outline of Universal Health Care Plan—And It's Pretty Good


Bernie’s plan will cover the entire continuum of health care, from inpatient to outpatient care; preventive to emergency care; primary care to specialty care, including long-term and palliative care; vision, hearing and oral health care; mental health and substance abuse services; as well as prescription medications, medical equipment, supplies, diagnostics and treatments....

As a patient, all you need to do is go to the doctor and show your insurance card. Bernie’s plan means no more copays, no more deductibles and no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges.

....Under this plan, a family of four earning $50,000 would pay just $466 per year to the single-payer program, amounting to a savings of over $5,800 for that family each year.


http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_berniecare.jpg


Well, that sure sounds good. And I'm all in favor of universal health care. But I'm also curious about how he's going to provide comprehensive care like this with no paymentby patients at all and at such a low cost. Here are his basic claims:



He will raise $630 billion by increasing the employer part of the payroll tax by 6.2 percent.
He will raise $220 billion via a 2.2 percent progressive income tax on everyone (he calls it a "premium").
He will raise $548 billion in various taxes on the rich along with the end of current tax breaks that subsidize health care
That's a total of $1.4 trillion
Current public spending on health care (mostly Medicare and Medicaid) runs around $1.2 trillion.
This means that Sanders is figuring that under his plan total national health care spending will be about $2.6 trillion.


http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/01/bernie-sanders-releases-outline-universal-health-care-plan%E2%80%94and-its-pretty-good

[boutons_deux]

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlp1/v/t1.0-9/12507639_963633427024995_7460461786208635965_n.png ?oh=c90bd5aa28fa6f39998159ea1dcc47c9&oe=57463DAF

... explains why Hillary's Wall St regs are little more than band-aids, while Bernie's Wall St is severely serious.

[Nbadan]

Bernie released the particulars of his proposed single payer health care plan

https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/

Under this plan the marginal income tax rate would be:


37 percent on income between $250,000 and $500,000.
43 percent on income between $500,000 and $2 million.
48 percent on income between $2 million and $10 million. (In 2013, only 113,000 households, the top 0.08 percent of taxpayers, had income between $2 million and $10 million.)
52 percent on income above $10 million. (In 2013, only 13,000 households, just 0.01 percent of taxpayers, had income exceeding $10 million.)

[boutons_deux]

Confirming Hillary-head-cheerleader Wasserman-Schultz strategy of fewer debates and debates scheduled for small audiences, keeping lesser known candidates lesser known

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CY-U-75WMAAJVjM.png

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/688933085287714816/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[CosmicCowboy]

Bernie Sanders Releases Outline of Universal Health Care Plan—And It's Pretty Good


Bernie’s plan will cover the entire continuum of health care, from inpatient to outpatient care; preventive to emergency care; primary care to specialty care, including long-term and palliative care; vision, hearing and oral health care; mental health and substance abuse services; as well as prescription medications, medical equipment, supplies, diagnostics and treatments....

As a patient, all you need to do is go to the doctor and show your insurance card. Bernie’s plan means no more copays, no more deductibles and no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges.

....Under this plan, a family of four earning $50,000 would pay just $466 per year to the single-payer program, amounting to a savings of over $5,800 for that family each year.


http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_berniecare.jpg


Well, that sure sounds good. And I'm all in favor of universal health care. But I'm also curious about how he's going to provide comprehensive care like this with no paymentby patients at all and at such a low cost. Here are his basic claims:



He will raise $630 billion by increasing the employer part of the payroll tax by 6.2 percent.
He will raise $220 billion via a 2.2 percent progressive income tax on everyone (he calls it a "premium").
He will raise $548 billion in various taxes on the rich along with the end of current tax breaks that subsidize health care
That's a total of $1.4 trillion
Current public spending on health care (mostly Medicare and Medicaid) runs around $1.2 trillion.
This means that Sanders is figuring that under his plan total national health care spending will be about $2.6 trillion.


http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/01/bernie-sanders-releases-outline-universal-health-care-plan%E2%80%94and-its-pretty-good




Just did the math on how Bernie's plan would affect me as an employer who currently pays 100% of the premiums for employees and family. Balancing that with the 6.5% increase in payroll tax I clear another $100,000 a year pre-tax.

That being said, few companies pay as much per employee for health care as I do.

In most cases the additional 6.2% additional tax on employers will be passed straight down to the employees through deferred pay increases and lower new hire wages.

[boutons_deux]

"who currently pays 100% of the premiums for employees and family"

the objective of govt insurance is to get employers out of the group insurance business completely, add those for-profit premiums to employees' salary (rather than skimming them off and sending to for-profit insurers and their investors), and then deduct GOVT insurance premiums just like other payroll taxes.

[InRareForm]

What's bernies wall street tax proposal?

[boutons_deux]

What's bernies wall street tax proposal?

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Tax_Reform.htm

[boutons_deux]

Krugman today says he supports Hillary's pro-corporate healthcare plan, because Bernie's is not acceptable to BigMedicine/BigInsurance.

iow, Krugman is saying BigMedicine/BigInsurance make national health care policy by corrupting politicians, and Americans don't have a say, are disenfranchised.

iow2, America is fucked and unfuckable, cannot stop the looting of Americans by BigMedicine/BigInsurance.

I recall that a lot of Obama voters, Obama having run on public option, didn't support ACA because it didn't go all the way to public option.

In fact, most Americans want a public option, but they can't have it because of the corruption of Congress

[boutons_deux]

Republicans offer unsolicited support to Bernie Sanders

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus was asked last week which Democratic presidential candidate he’d prefer to face in a general election. The RNC chief said (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/rnc-chair-sanders-a-tougher-candidate-to-beat-than-clinton-i?utm_term=.liGxKGjM3&bftw=pol#.nia4LvQBP) Bernie Sanders is probably the tougher candidate.

During Sunday’s Democratic debate, for example, reporters received emails from the candidates’ campaigns and their allies, but in a remarkable twist, the Republican National Committee also issued statements – two during the event, two after – defending Sanders (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/17/1471240/-RNC-Defends-Bernie-During-the-Debate-and-No-One-Should-Wonder-Why) against criticisms from Hillary Clinton and endorsing Sanders’ arguments.

Bloomberg Politics’ Sahil Kapur reported (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-19/republican-operatives-are-trying-to-help-bernie-sanders) that Republican operatives have “a strange crush on Bernie Sanders,” and it goes beyond the RNC’s pro-Sanders rapid-response during Sunday night’s debates.

After the debate, the Republican political action committee America Rising promoted the narrative that Sanders won the debate…. Meanwhile, American Crossroads, a group co-founded by Karl Rove, is airing an ad in Iowa bolstering a core tenet of Sanders’ case against Clinton: that she has received large sums of campaign contributions from Wall Street, and therefore can’t be trusted to crack down on big banks.

“Hillary rewarded Wall Street with a $700 billion bailout, then Wall Street made her a multi-millionaire,” a narrator in the ad says. “Does Iowa really want Wall Street in the White House?”


Yep, Karl Rove’s operation is not only complaining about the bailout his former boss signed into law, Team Rove is also suddenly worried about Wall Street’s influence in DC – just like Bernie Sanders.

Republicans taking steps to help Sanders is hardly unprecedented. It’s electoral mischief, but it’s a time-honored tradition.

I’d add just one thing: just because the right sees Sanders as easier to beat in November doesn’t meanRepublicans are correct. Conservatives appear convinced that Clinton would be a tougher candidate, but it’s possible they’re miscalculating. Sometimes the practice of “picking your opponent” backfires.


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-offer-unsolicited-support-bernie-sanders?cid=sm_fb_maddow

[rmt]

To pay for all this "free" stuff, Bernie's gonna tax rich people and corporations. So what's to stop these rich people and multi-national corporations from leaving the US if they are taxed too much? And taking the jobs with them?

[boutons_deux]

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders this week assailed rival (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/us/politics/bernie-sanders-attacks-hillary-clinton-over-regulating-wall-street.html)Hillary Clinton for taking large speaking fees from the financial industry since leaving the State Department.

According to public disclosures, by giving just 12 speeches to Wall Street banks, private equity firms, and other financial corporations, Clinton made $2,935,000 from 2013 to 2015:

https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/01/Screen-Shot-2016-01-08-at-12.09.55-PM.png


Clinton’s most lucrative year was 2013, right after stepping down as secretary of state. That year, she made $2.3 million for three speeches to Goldman Sachs and individual speeches to Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Fidelity Investments, Apollo Management Holdings, UBS, Bank of America, and Golden Tree Asset Managers.

The following year, she picked up $485,000 for a speech to Deutsche Bank and an address to Ameriprise. Last year, she made $150,000 from a lecture before the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

To put these numbers into perspective, compare them to lifetime earnings of the median American worker. In 2011, the Census Bureau estimated that (https://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr11-04.pdf), across all majors, a “bachelor’s degree holder can expect to earn about $2.4 million over his or her work life.” A Pew Research analysis published the same year estimated that a “typical high school graduate” can expect to make just $770,000 (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/05/16/lifetime-earnings-of-college-graduates/) over the course of his or her lifetime.

This means that in one year — 2013 — Hillary Clinton earned almost as much from 10 lectures to financial firms as most bachelor’s degree-holding Americans earn in their lifetimes — and nearly four times what someone who holds only a high school diploma could expect to make.

Hillary Clinton’s haul from Wall Street speeches pales in comparison to her husband’s, which also had to be disclosed because the two share a bank account.

“I never made any money until I left the White House,” said Bill Clinton (http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/6/hillary-bill-clintonwealthspeakerfees.html)during a 2009 address to a student group. “I had the lowest net worth, adjusted for inflation, of any president elected in the last 100 years, including President Obama. I was one poor rascal when I took office. But after I got out, I made a lot of money.”

The Associated Press notes (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5338f8a4c5fc497b8bcc0ff4f2b35cb4/01-clintons-collected-35m-financial-businesses) that during Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state, Bill Clinton earned $17 million in talks to banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, real estate businesses, and other financial firms.

Altogether, the couple are estimated to have made over $139 million (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b48dbe64654146298c3cc6a87d86acb3/clintons-paid-357-percent-federal-tax-rate-between-2007-14) from paid speeches.

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/08/hillary-clinton-earned-more-from-12-speeches-to-big-banks-than-most-americans-earn-in-their-lifetime/

[Blizzardwizard]

To pay for all this "free" stuff, Bernie's gonna tax rich people and corporations.

No shit, captain obvious. I'm sure BigCorp can console themselves with their billions of dollars they will still have after being taxed more.

[boutons_deux]

In her Iowa campaign stop, Hillary Clinton called Sanders’ plan a “risky deal,” saying, “I don’t believe number one we should be starting over. We had enough of a fight to get to the Affordable Care Act. So I don’t want to rip it up and start over.”

She is entitled to that opinion. But her campaign has given misleading statements on what exactly Sanders has proposed, leaving the impression that he would cede control to governors and “dismantle” insurance coverage altogether.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/clintons-attack-on-sanders-health-plan/

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton Declares War on Single-Payer Health Care

So, when new polls (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/12/iowa-quinnipiac-poll-sanders-leads-clinton/78695258/) revealed Sanders to be in a dead heat with Clinton in early primary states, Clinton took the offensive. She began acampaign to attack single-payer (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/clinton-campaign-keeps-attacking-bernie-health-care), painting it as something that would burden middle-class families, empower right-wing governors and put Americans' health insurance at risk by dismantling every major health-care institution in the country.

Clinton's claims are either patently false or incredibly misleading. By presenting them to a national television audience during interviews and the debates (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti2Nokoq1J4), she may be doing more damage to the single-payer movement than the pharmaceutical and insurance companies could ever hope to achieve. She is making these claims largely to Democratic primary voters, who support Medicare for All at a rate of 81 percent (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2015/december/kaiser-poll-58-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all), but could be misled by a politician whom many of them trust (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/13/democrats-hillary-clinton-presidential-debate) and admire.

"It is conceivable that the continued negative critiques - especially of the fearmongering variety - could have a deleterious impact on popular opinion," Dr. Adam Gaffney, a physician and health-care writer (http://theprogressivephysician.net/author/complex5/), told Truthout.

Worse yet, Clinton almost certainly knows she is wrong. Her experience with health-care reform has made her familiar with the economics of single-payer, according to documents (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2014/december/hillary-clinton-1994-statement-on-single-payer) that were belatedly made public by the Clinton Library in 2014. It is hard to ignore the fact that she has received (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/10/16/hillary-clinton-takes-big-money-from-drug-industry-even-she-seeks-cap-costs/NG7vw5SnNAgFocqvSWwu2K/story.html) more money from the pharmaceutical industry than any other candidate from either party in the 2016 election cycle, or that the health industry (https://theintercept.com/2016/01/13/hillary-clinton-single-payer/) paid her $2.8 million in speaking fees (http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34301-the-clintons-paid-speech-bonanza) between 2013 and 2015.

History will no doubt remember that the United States was, for a time, the only"developed" (http://hdr.undp.org/en) nation on the planet that didn't guarantee health care to its people as a right. And Clinton's name will now forever be associated with this shameful fact.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34499-hillary-clinton-declares-war-on-single-payer-health-care

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton Accuses Bernie Sanders Of Proposing Plans That Aren’t Based In Reality

While campaigning in Iowa, Clinton said (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-presidency-218066#ixzz3xuO4bqDY):

I’ll tell you, I’m not interested in ideas that sound good on paper but will never make it in the real world. I care about making a real difference in your life. And that gets us to the choice that you have to make in this caucus. Now, Senator Sanders and I share many of the same goals, but we have different records and different ideas about how to drive progress.

….

I know Sen. Sanders cares about covering more people as I do but rather than build on the progress we’ve made he wants to start over from scratch. In theory there’s a lot to like about some of his (Sanders’) ideas. But ‘in theory’ isn’t enough. A president has to deliver in reality. Sen. Sanders has been in Congress for 25 years, he’s introduced his health-care plan nine times but he’s never got a single vote or co-sponsor.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/21/clinton-sanders-reality.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

Hillary to Bernie, short version:

"Bernie, BigHealthCare will destroy your single-payer/public-option plans, just like they Harry-and-Louise'd my health care reform.

Be like me, I'm hard-core center-right Repug establishment.

iow, give up, Bernie, America is fucked and unfuckable"

[boutons_deux]

Union and Progressive Bosses Favor Clinton; Their Members Want Sanders

Every major union or progressive group that let its members decide who they want to endorse in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary have selected Bernie Sanders,

while all of Hillary Clinton’s major endorsements have come from groups in which the leadership decides.

“It’s perhaps the clearest example yet of Clinton’s powerful appeal to the Democratic Party’s elite, even as support for Sanders explodes among the rank and file,” reports Zaid Jilani at The Intercept:

For example, Clinton got an endorsement from the Human Rights Campaign this week. That decision was made not by a vote of HRC’s membership list but instead by a 32-member executive board that includes Mike Berman, the president of a lobbying firm that works for Pfizer, Comcast, and the health insurance lobby. Northrup Grumman is among its list of major corporate sponsors.

The Sanders campaign blasted the group as “establishment” and said that Sanders has a much stronger record on LGBT equality than Clinton. Outspoken gay activist Michaelangelo Signorile wrote that HRC had clearly traded its early endorsement for “access to the White House” for its leaders. […]

The one major labor union that did allow for a vote was the Communications Workers of America. CWA followed a three-month process that included meetings with members, telephone town halls, and an online polling voting process.

“We conducted an online membership poll from mid-September to early December,” said CWA spokesperson Candice Johnson in a statement to The Intercept. “Tens of thousands of members voted in the poll, with Sanders getting a decisive majority.” Johnson noted that CWA did not endorse in 2008 because they followed the same process and the three leading Democratic candidates all received around the same proportion of votes. […]


While all four major organizations that held membership votes endorsed Sanders, two that did not hold open membership votes also endorsed him: the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) and National Nurses United.



http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/a_clear_trend_union_and_progressive_bosses_favor_c linton_20160122?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+Truthdig+Truthdig%253A+Dril ling+Beneath+the+Headlines

... that certainly clarifies Bernie's claim the HRC (board) and PP (board) are establishment.

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders smeared as communist sympathizer as Hillary Clinton’s allies sling mud

Attacks on Bernie Sanders by rival Democrats are likely to turn increasingly to his record on the economy and foreign affairs, according to a new dossier seen by the Guardian that accuses him of sympathising with communists and “not believing in capitalism”.

On Thursday, Sanders aides accused David Brock, a political operative who runs aSuper Pac set up to defend Clinton (http://correctrecord.org/about/), of “mudslinging” after he claimed Sanders was acting as if “black lives don’t matter” (http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/jan/21/clinton-ally-says-sanders-slights-minorities-in-ne/)in a new campaign ad.

This follows a week of steadily mounting criticism from other campaign surrogates such as Chelsea Clinton, who accused the senator of wanting to “dismantle Obamacare” (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/265601-chelsea-clinton-sanders-wants-to-scrap-obamacare), and foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan who warned that Sanders’s proposals for tackling Isis would put Israel at risk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpanzGLYArw&feature=youtu.be).


The dossier, prepared by opponents of Sanders and passed on to The Guardian by a source who would only agree to be identified as “a Democrat”, alleges that Sanders “sympathized with the USSR during the Cold War” because he went on a trip there to visit a twinned city while he was mayor of Burlington.

Similar “associations with communism” in Cuba are catalogued alongside a list of quotes about countries ranging from China to Nicaragua in a way that supporters regard as bordering on the McCarthyite (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/08/democratic-candidate-bernie-sanders-socialist)rather than fairly reflecting his views.

Sanders has insisted on many occasions this year (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/19/bernie-sanders-defends-democratic-socialism)that his own philosophy of democratic socialism is very different to that of authoritarian regimes, and much more in keeping with the tradition of American reformers such as Franklin D Roosevelt.

The Vermont senator has also ridiculed suggestions – repeated by the attack dossier – that his policies would see nationalisation of US industries.

the latest public attack on the campaign for airing an advert (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nwRiuh1Cug&feature=youtu.be%20https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nwRiuh1Cug&feature=youtu.be%20https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nwRiuh1Cug&feature=youtu.be)only containing a handful of non-white faces. “From this ad, it seems black lives don’t matter much to Bernie Sanders,” Brock said in an interview with the Associated Press.

“25 years ago it was Brock – a mud-slinging, right-wing extremist – who tried to destroy Anita Hill, a distinguished African American law professor. He later was forced to apologize for his lies about her. Today, he is lying about Sen Sanders. It’s bad enough that Hillary Clinton is raising millions in special-interest money in her Super Pacs. It is worse that she would hire a mudslinger like David Brock. She should be ashamed of her association with Brock.”

Brock recently denied reports (https://twitter.com/davidbrockdc/status/688586034154729473)that he was questioning Sanders’ health, but admitted he was preparing to raise the issue (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-20/david-brock-i-was-prepared-to-bring-up-sanders-s-medical-records)

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/bernie-sanders-smeared-as-communist-sympathiser-as-hillary-clintons-allies-sling-mud/

[boutons_deux]

Obama ridicules Bernie while promoting Hillary

Obama nudges Democrats toward Clinton, even as White House strains to remain neutral in primary

Obama abandoned almost all pretense of disengagement by suggesting in an interview (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/podcast-president-barack-obama-218169) that Clinton is a “good, smart, tough” person up against a “bright, shiny” new alternative who remains less tested than her, a reminder about picking a nominee who can win a tough general election.

“She can govern and she can start here, Day One, more experienced than any non-vice-president has ever been who aspires to this office,” he told Politico.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-democratic-race-20150125-story.html

“bright, shiny” Bernie ? :lol

Bernie has more experience in govt at local, state, Federal than Obama had 2008. And Obama was a complete neophyte in foreign policy.

What did Hillary accomplish as Secy of State? She travelled a lot, but what major or minor progress did she make in foreign affairs?

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders Blocks Obama’s FDA Nominee for Big Pharma Ties

Sanders announced the hold on Califf’s appointment to head the FDA, identifying his close ties to Big Pharma.

“Dr. Califf’s extensive ties to the pharmaceutical industry give me no reason to believe that he would make the FDA work for ordinary Americans, rather than just the CEOs of pharmaceutical companies,” Sanders said in an official statement (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/sanders-places-hold-on-fda-nominee).

A New York Times story (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/health/fda-nominee-califfs-ties-to-drug-industry-raise-questions.html?_r=0) from this past fall identified many of Califf's connections to pharmaecutical industry. The piece explains that, "he has written scientific papers with pharmaceutical company researchers, and his financial disclosure form last year (https://www.dcri.org/about-us/conflict-of-interest) listed seven drug companies and a device maker that paid him for consulting and six others that partly supported his university salary, including Merck, Novartis and Eli Lilly."

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/bernie-sanders-blocks-obamas-fda-nominee-big-pharma-ties?akid=13917.187590.9qq0Hn&rd=1&src=newsletter1049614&t=10

Feel The Bern, Califf!

[boutons_deux]

Bill Black: Wall Street Declares War Against Bernie Sanders (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/01/bill-black-wall-street-declares-war-against-bernie-sanders.html)

Stephen Schwarzman, one of the wealthiest and most odious people in the world, told the Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/video/blackstone-ceo-bernie-sanders-scares-the-markets/96E0815D-2B90-4F89-8F96-6F889EAF8F2C.html?mod=trending_now_video_5) that one of the three principal causes of the recent global financial trauma was “the market’s” fear that Sanders may be elected President. Schwarzman is infamous for ranting (http://www.newsweek.com/schwarzman-its-war-between-obama-wall-st-71317) that President Obama’s proposals to end the “carried interest” tax scam that allows private equity billionaires like Schwarzman to pay lower income tax rates than their secretaries was “like when Hitler invaded Poland.”

Schwarzman and Pete Peterson co-founded the private equity firm Blackstone. Peterson leads the effort to destroy the safety net in America. His greatest dream is to privatize Social Security so that Wall Street could increase its revenues by tens of billions of dollars. Blackstone is a major owner of Sea World, and it was in this sphere that Schwarzman went beyond his delusional rants about Hitler and became vile. When an Orca killed its trainer, Schwarzman (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/tourism-central-florida-blog/os-blackstone-chief-blames-brancheau-for-own-death-contradicting-seaworld-20140124-post.html) lied and blamed the death on the trainer,

Schwarzman’s claim that the global financial markets are tanking because of Bernie’s increasing support is delusional, but it is revealing that he used the most recent market nightmare as an excuse to attack Bernie. The Wall Street plutocrats, with good reason, fear Bernie – not Hillary. Indeed, it is remarkable how vigorous and open Wall Street has been in signaling through the financial media that it has no problem with Hillary’s Wall Street plan. CNN, CNBC, and the Fiscal Times (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/11/17/Here-s-Why-Wall-Street-Has-Little-Fear-Hillary-Clinton), under titles such as: “Here’s Why Wall Street Has Little to Fear from Hillary Clinton,”

Michael Bloomberg was the second Wall Street billionaire to pile on to Bernie this week. Bloomberg leaked to dozens of media outlets that he was again considering a run for the presidency. The same leaks explained that Bloomberg’s fear of Bernie was the key. Bloomberg is infamous for organizing the mass arrests designed to crush the Occupy Wall Street movement. He is Wall Street and he openly represented Wall Street as Mayor (http://nypost.com/2011/10/07/bloomberg-accuses-wall-st-protesters-of-trying-to-hurt-nyc-economy/) of New York City.

Mayor Bloomberg was outraged that Wall Street banksters were criticized for their roles in leading the world’s largest criminal enterprises. Bloomberg (http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2011/11/3971362/bloomberg-plain-and-simple-congress-caused-mortgage-crisis-not-bank) invented a fictional alternate history in which the banksters were the victims of Congress, which purportedly forced them to make millions of bad and fraudulent loans – and then to sell the fraudulently originated loans to the secondary market through fraudulent representations and warranties. This is deranged, but Wall Street billionaires are deranged. They are surrounded by media, gofers, and politicians who treat their incoherent ramblings as genius. Bernie scares all of these groups.

Political scientists’ research (http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~jnd260/cab/CAB2012%20-%20Page1.pdf) has revealed the crippling grip on power that the Wall Street billionaires have in practice and the fact that the wealthy have, on key public policies, strikingly different views than do the America people. In particular, the 1% are exceptionally hostile to Social Security and anything that protects the weak from predation by the wealthy. They are also stunningly unconcerned about problems such as global climate change while they are paranoid about debt, deficits, and inflation even during the depths of the Great Recession. The domination of the plutocrats of our economy and the shards of our democracy has led to decades of terrible policies designed to ensure that financial regulation will fail. These policies have crushed the middle class and abused the poor.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/01/bill-black-wall-street-declares-war-against-bernie-sanders.html

[boutons_deux]

Sanders slams Clinton for finance industry fundraiser

Bernie Sanders threw one of his most direct rhetorical punches yet at Hillary Clinton over her financial-industry ties on Wednesday night, telling a packed crowd, "My opponent is not in Iowa tonight. She is raising money from a Philadelphia investment firm."

After the crowd — jammed into a "Music Man"-themed hall — was done booing loudly, Sanders said, "Frankly, I'd rather be here with you."
Story Continued Below


Clinton has been barnstorming Iowa in recent days, and she canceled a pair of New York fundraisers set for Thursday in order to spend more time in the state campaigning.

But she left the state on Wednesday for a campaign cash event hosted by Franklin Square Capital Partners and featuring a concert by Jon Bon Jovi.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-philadelphia-218311#ixzz3yYnYLflD

[boutons_deux]

the "establishment" coming after Bernie

New York Times Gets it Wrong: Bernie Sanders Not “Top Beneficiary of Outside Money” (https://theintercept.com/2016/01/29/nyt-outside-spending/)

The New York Times caused a stir by publishing a classic man-bites-dog style campaign finance story in its Friday editions titled “Bernie Sanders Is Top Beneficiary of Outside Money (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/politics/bernie-sanders-is-democrats-top-beneficiary-of-outside-spending-like-it-or-not.html?smid=tw-share).” The article charges that despite his fiery campaign rhetoric against Super PACs and big money in politics, Sanders has gained much more from Super PAC spending than his Democratic opponents.

“In fact,” the Times reports, “more super PAC money has been spent so far in express support of Mr. Sanders than for either of his Democratic rivals, including Hillary Clinton, according to Federal Election Commission records.”

While more money has indeed been spent on a certain type of campaign spending in support of Sanders, the article leaves the wrong impression by suggesting that pro-Sanders Super PACs have outpaced outside groups supporting Hillary Clinton or Martin O’Malley. If that sounds confusing, that’s because the Times article hinges on a technicality in campaign finance law.

When total Super PAC spending is measured, Clinton groups are leading the way.

The newspaper calculated totals using only “independent expenditures” spent by Super PACs. If the Times had taken into account all pro-Clinton Super PAC campaign spending from this cycle, outside money spent in support of Clinton is more than twice the amount spent in support of Sanders.

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/29/nyt-outside-spending/

[boutons_deux]

What Paul Krugman gets wrong about Bernie Sanders

As everyone knows by now, Paul Krugman is not “feeling the Bern.” After the fourth Democratic debate — which most pundits believed Sen. Bernie Sanders won — the New York Times columnist went on a bit of an anti-Sanders spree, with a critical blog post on the candidate’s “unrealistic” health care plan (released the night of the debate), a column (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/opinion/how-change-happens.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fpaul-krugman&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection) on his faulty and idealistic view of change

“In an ideal world, I’d be a single-payer guy,” he wrote in 2007 (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/why-not-single-payer/). “But I see the chance of getting universal care, imperfect but fixable, just a couple of years from now. And I want to grab that chance.”

So then, Krugman’s criticisms of Sanders are in line with his past views (though other “wonk” critiques of Sanders, like Ezra Klein’s, appear to be more duplicitous (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/01/vox-bernie-sanders-single-payer-ezra-klein-matt-yglesias/)). Krugman is no shill, but this does not mean he’s not wrong in his broad critique. “The question Sanders supporters should ask,” writes Krugman, “is When has their theory of change ever worked?”

But what exactly is Sanders’ theory of change? According to Krugman, it is the belief that a “sufficiently high-minded leader can conjure up the better angels of America’s nature and persuade the broad public to support a radical overhaul of our institutions.” But this is a straw man.

The Sanders campaign is not about conjuring up the better angels of America’s nature. It is about creating a nationwide movement demanding real change. Clinton is running to play within the current broken system — the system she has thrived in. Sanders is running to overhaul it, which he regularly admits will not happen without a “political revolution” in the same vein as past protest movements. Former Secretary of Labor (under the Clinton administration), Robert Reich, summed it up succinctly on Facebook:


“Hillary Clinton is clearly the most qualified candidate to become president of the political system we currently have. Bernie Sanders is clearly the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have.”


Rudolf Rocker, wrote many years ago:

“What is important is not that governments have decided to concede certain rights to the people, but the reason why they have had to do this.”

Sanders has made our corrupt political system the cornerstone of his campaign, and his rhetoric is not hyperbole.


According to a Princeton University study (https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf) that examined decades worth of policies that became law in America and policies that Americans broadly supported — based on decades of public polling data —


it was found that the “preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

On the other hand, economic elites “have far more independent impact upon policy change.


http://www.salon.com/2016/01/28/what_paul_krugman_gets_wrong_about_bernie_sanders/

iow, America is totally a corrupted by 1%/BigCorp who buy the govt policies that empower/enrich/protect themselves while screwing everybody else AND the environment.

iow2, 1%/BigCorp $Bs have totally disenfranchised Americans. Americans' votes are totally meaningless, useless in affecting govt policy.

[InRareForm]

On the Showtime mini political series "the circus", Bernie shows more of a sense of humor and a likeable person. He should do that more imo

[boutons_deux]

Washington Post’s Wild Swings at Sanders

It’s not surprising that the Washington Post (owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos) would be unhappy with a presidential candidate running on a platform of taking back the country from the millionaires and billionaires. Therefore the trashing of Sen. Bernie Sanders in an editorial, “Bernie Sanders’ Fiction-Filled Campaign” (1/27/16 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanderss-fiction-filled-campaign/2016/01/27/cd1b2866-c478-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html?tid=ss_tw)), was about as predictable as the sun rising.

While there is much here that is misleading, it’s worth focusing on the central theme. The piece tells readers:

The existence of large banks and lax campaign finance laws explains why working Americans are not thriving, he says, and why the progressive agenda has not advanced. Here is a reality check: Wall Street has already undergone a round of reform, significantly reducing the risks big banks pose to the financial system. The evolution and structure of the world economy, not mere corporate deck-stacking, explained many of the big economic challenges the country still faces. And even with radical campaign finance reform, many Americans and their representatives would still oppose the Sanders agenda.


If we can confront the Post’s “reality check” with real-world reality, it is worth noting that the largest banks are in fact much larger than they were before the crisis, as a result of a wave of mergers that was approved at the peak of the panic. Furthermore, the industry as a whole is getting bigger, not smaller. It was under 17.0 percent of national income in 2007; last year it was almost 18.0 percent (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&904=2006&903=181&906=a&905=2015&910=x&911=0).

There has been research in recent years from both the Bank of International Settlements (http://www.bis.org/publ/work381.pdf)and International Monetary Fund (https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1508.pdf) showing that a large financial sector is a drag on growth. For this reason, Sanders’ proposal for a financial transactions tax, which would be a big step towards downsizing the industry, would be well-received by a more reality-based newspaper (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/opinion/the-need-for-a-tax-on-financial-trading.html?ref=international).

As far as the rest of the story, longer and stronger patent protections were not just the “evolution of the world economy.” They were the result of deliberate policy that had the effect of redistributing income upward to the pharmaceutical companies, the entertainment industry and the software industry. The same is true of a pattern of international trade that was quite explicitly designed to put manufacturing workers in direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world.

etc, etc, etc.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/01/29/washington-posts-wild-swings-sanders

[boutons_deux]

Sanders Surge Panics Washington Establishment

Virtually the entire Washington and Wall Street establishments are now in a state of panic about the possibility of a Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) victory in the Iowa Democratic caucus next Monday.

In response, the virtual bedlam that has been behind the scenes in the Washington establishment in recent weeks is now coming into the open. It is a sight to behold!

In the last 24 hours, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been seen on television criticizing the Sanders proposal for Medicare for all, which has huge support throughout the Democratic Party and, arguably, majority support throughout the nation.

In the last 24 hours, the editorial board of The Washington Post launched a major broadside against Sanders.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/01/29/sanders-surge-panics-washington-establishment

[boutons_deux]

Pelosi distances Democrats from Sanders's plan to raise taxes

"We're not running on any platform of raising taxes," Pelosi said during a press briefing to launch the Democrats' yearly issues conference in Baltimore, Md.

"We do want to have a fairer tax system, and … we hope that we can do that this year."

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/267236-pelosi-distances-dems-from-sanderss-plan-to-raise-taxes

Of course, very wealthy Pelosi and hubby would see huge increases in their tax bill.

She knows damn well a "fairer tax system" is something to which she will give only botoxed lip service, knowing that Repugs will block any "fairness"

[InRareForm]

Boutons are you a bot ?

[boutons_deux]

Washington Post Publishes Another Anti-Sanders Hit Piece—Still Gets it Wrong

Jeff Bezos-owned Post is going full-tilt against the Vermont Democratic Socialist.

The Washington Post again went after Senator Bernie Sanders in its lead editorial (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-sanderss-ideas-are-not-too-bold-they-are-too-facile/2016/01/28/e7125bca-c60a-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html), telling readers that the Senator's proposals were "facile." It might be advisable for

a paper that described President Bush's case for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as "irrefutable"

to be cautious about going ad hominem, but this is the Washington Post.

Getting to the substance, the Post is unhappy with Sanders proposal for single payer health insurance which it argues will cost far more or deliver much less than promised.

While the Post is correct that Sanders has put forward a campaign proposal rather than a fully worked out health reform bill, it is not unreasonable to think that we can get considerably more coverage at a lower cost than we pay now. After all, there is nothing in our national psyche that should condemn us to forever pay twice as much per person for our health care as people in other wealthy countries. (I have written more about this issue here (http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/paul-krugman-bernie-sanders-and-medicare-for-all-2).)

On financial reform the Post seems to want everyone to think that after Dodd-Frank things are just fine on Wall Street. It apparently has not noticed that the big banks are even bigger than ever and that the financial sector continues to grow as a share of the economy, imposing an ever larger drag on growth. For these reasons, Sanders proposal to break up the big banks makes good sense, as does his plan for a financial transactions tax. The latter would both raise a huge amount of money and downsize the industry. (I have some more comments here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/bernie-sanders-hillary-cl_b_9074110.html).)

Finally, it is worth applying some econ 101 to the Post’s never-ending complaints about Sanders and other politicians not having a plan to deal with its imagined long-term budget crisis. First, much of the projected shortfall stems from the projected growth in health care costs. (The rate of projected health care cost growth has plummeted in the last five years, but this has not affected the Post’s complaints.)

First if Sanders succeeds in reining in health care then most of the projected budget gap disappears. However there is still the issue of rising costs due to an aging population. Of course this is not new. We have had a rising ratio of retirees to workers for the last half century. For some reason the Post seems to view it as an end of the world scenario if somewhere in the next two decades we were to raise payroll taxes to cover the costs of longer retirements, just like we did in the decades of the fifties, sixties, seventies and eighties.

Fans of basic economics know that it matters hugely more to workers if their before-tax wages keep pace with productivity growth, implying wage gains of 15-20 percent over the course of a decade, than if their payroll taxes are increased by 1-2 percentage points. However the paper endlessly obsesses on the latter, while almost completely ignoring the former.

The Post almost never discusses the negative impact that unnecessarily restrictive Fed policy has had on wage growth. It also does its best to ignore the impact on the typical workers’ pay of the policy of selective protectionism that we apply in trade (protected doctors and lawyers, exposed manufacturing workers).

The Post gets very upset when political figures like Bernie Sanders raise issues about before tax wage. Instead, it wants workers to fixate on the possibility that they may at some point face a tax increase. And when politicians diverge from the Post’s chosen path, it calls them names.

http://www.alternet.org/media/washington-post-publishes-another-anti-sanders-hit-piece-still-gets-it-wrong?akid=13930.187590.9832d4&rd=1&src=newsletter1049812&t=4

[spurraider21]

The funny thing is booboo is gna be slurping that Clinton dick when she gets the nomination

[boutons_deux]

Bernie and Hillary kicking RNC/DWS in the teeth

Clinton and Sanders agree to 4 more debates
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/clinton-and-sanders-four-more-debates-218448#ixzz3ylA2ORX5

If the DNC doesn't "sign on", hold the debates anyway. DNC is biased hard for Hillary. Hillary will do, will change nothing, just like she did at State, leaving the rigged economy, Wall St, voter suppression/gerrymandering, etc UNtouched.

[SnakeBoy]

Boutons are you a bot ?

He's just got a hard on because Bernie is as crazy as him.

[DarrinS]

Lol

http://www.weaselzippers.us/254089-anti-bernie-sanders-ads-popping-up-around-the-country/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lol

http://www.weaselzippers.us/254089-anti-bernie-sanders-ads-popping-up-around-the-country/

Uneducated white male is the top demographic. way to pigeonhole yourself.

[vy65]

http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/why-bernie-sanders-has-to-raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class/

disgusting

[boutons_deux]

Uneducated white male is the top demographic

... is the Trump base, low-wage, low-info, low education, both Repugs and Dems. Majority of college-educated Repugs don't support Trump.

[boutons_deux]

Up to foot of snow in IA tonight, and some snow just about everywhere.

If it reduces caucus turnout, who benefits?

I figure Hillary's supporters think she has it in the bag, so won't bother to go out in the snow.

But Bernie's supporters know he needs every vote, and would love to start winning with IA.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/why-bernie-sanders-has-to-raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class/

disgusting

Have anything not from an Austrian school laissez faire think tank?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Up to foot of snow in IA tonight, and some snow just about everywhere.

If it reduces caucus turnout, who benefits?

I figure Hillary's supporters think she has it in the bag, so won't bother to go out in the snow.

But Bernie's supporters know he needs every vote, and would love to start winning with IA.

Nice wishcasting.

[vy65]

Have anything not from an Austrian school laissez faire think tank?

Do you have an actual reply? Or just nonsequitters filled with words you picked up from the neighborhood coffee shop?

[CosmicCowboy]

Up to foot of snow in IA tonight, and some snow just about everywhere.

If it reduces caucus turnout, who benefits?

I figure Hillary's supporters think she has it in the bag, so won't bother to go out in the snow.

But Bernie's supporters know he needs every vote, and would love to start winning with IA.

Seems all these new young hip Bernie voters would have registered. Oops. They didn't.

[ChumpDumper]

Seems all these new young hip Bernie voters would have registered. Oops. They didn't.There are no young, hip people in Iowa.

[z0sa]

To pay for all this "free" stuff, Bernie's gonna tax rich people and corporations. So what's to stop these rich people and multi-national corporations from leaving the US if they are taxed too much? And taking the jobs with them?

Bye faggots. USA and its people first, not money and big corporations, traitor. Th3 vast majority of jobs in the USA are service jobs anyway. The manufacturing jobs are all outsourced by these same fucked up rich corps youre defending.

[z0sa]

your bullshit is no better than boutons's, CC. yours may drown him out, but it's still bullshit.

:toast

[TeyshaBlue]

There are no young, hip people in Iowa.
:lol

[hater]

:lmao shillary clinton

Getting assrammed by a geriatric museum piece :lmao

[baseline bum]

Bernie gets the nomination and you're just turning power over to the retard House.

[ChumpDumper]

Bernie will probably be out in mid-March.

[TheGreatYacht]

The next president of the United States.

donaLd is only like 3 years younger than him lmao, fat boy just has hair plugs and a horrible tan

[ducks]

Bernie atleast making Clinton spend some money

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do you have an actual reply? Or just nonsequitters filled with words you picked up from the neighborhood coffee shop?

I am talking about the FEE which you linked, counselor crayola.

They were founded to support laissez fair principles. They have been described as anarcho-capitalist since 1946 and the founder literally was a follower of Austrian economics.

This account has about as much critical thinking as the Darrin account regarding sources and about as much acumen in your claimed profession.

[vy65]

I am talking about the FEE which you linked, counselor crayola.

They were founded to support laissez fair principles. They have been described as anarcho-capitalist since 1946 and the founder literally was a follower of Austrian economics.

This account has about as much critical thinking as the Darrin account regarding sources and about as much acumen in your claimed profession.

Guess the answer to the question is a no.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Guess the answer to the question is a no.

Youre using the true scotsman argument. I ignore stupid questions. As I said, your supposed professional acumen is apparent, counselor crayola.

Your source is just as bad as nakedcapitalism and the other stuff boutox posts. Good job.

[angrydude]

Youre using the true scotsman argument. I ignore stupid questions. As I said, your supposed professional acumen is apparent, counselor crayola.

Your source is just as bad as nakedcapitalism and the other stuff boutox posts. Good job.

Dismissing articles because of their source is really stupid. Even a broke clock is right twice a day.

And even if you disagree with it, that article is 100X more analytical than anything botox spams.

Besides, credibility is in the eye of the beholder. I mean do you consider the New York times opinion pages credible? Lol.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Dismissing articles because of their source is really stupid. Even a broke clock is right twice a day.

And even if you disagree with it, that article is 100X more analytical than anything botox spams.

Besides, credibility is in the eye of the beholder. I mean do you consider the New York times opinion pages credible? Lol.

Sorry but vetting sources is not stupid. Editorials are not subject to the press verification services so no I don't find them credible as they go to the highest bidder. The journalism portion of the NYT I do find credible. There is a clear and obvious distinction and objective standard.

You guys aren't even making points of fact but instead declaring emotional responses. It's asinine.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol the article opens up comparing Sanders to a bank robber.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The entire article's thesis is based around an uncertainty.


His proposed capital gains taxes are so high that they are likely well past the point of positive returns. The US corporate tax rate of 40 percent is already the highest in the world, and even Sanders hasn’t proposed increasing it.

The only way to solve his revenue problem is to raise rates on the middle and upper-middle classes, or flatten the structure to make the top rates start kicking in much lower.

The 1200 lbs elephant in the room is expanding medicare. All the other shit is small potatoes and on Sanders site he even says there will be a household based tax increase of 2.2%


Paid for by a 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers, a 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households, progressive income tax rates, taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work, limiting tax deductions for the rich, adjusting the estate tax, and savings from health tax expenditures.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/

So the tradeoff is that you pay a consistent 2.2% of your annual income and in exchange you no longer have to pay the spiraling insurance industries rates. Looks like FEE didn't bother to look at Sanders site when continuing their echo chambers.

Continue on with your fear mongering.

[vy65]

Youre using the true scotsman argument. I ignore stupid questions. As I said, your supposed professional acumen is apparent, counselor crayola.

Your source is just as bad as nakedcapitalism and the other stuff boutox posts. Good job.

Words missing in this post include: Bernie, Sanders, Income, Tax, Rate, Middle, and Class.

[vy65]

The entire article's thesis is based around an uncertainty.



The 1200 lbs elephant in the room is expanding medicare. All the other shit is small potatoes and on Sanders site he even says there will be a household based tax increase of 2.2%



https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/

So the tradeoff is that you pay a consistent 2.2% of your annual income and in exchange you no longer have to pay the spiraling insurance industries rates. Looks like FEE didn't bother to look at Sanders site when continuing their echo chambers.

Continue on with your fear mongering.


A 2.2 percent "income-based premium" paid by all Americans on their taxable income, including capital gains. This is meant to replace the premiums employees already pay for private health insurance today.
A 6.2 percent income-based premium paid by employers on wage income. This is basically a payroll tax, and most economists agree that the cost of "employer-paid" payroll taxes are passed on entirely to workers in the form of lower wages in the long run. For that reason, I'm treating all payroll taxes as paid by employees, regardless of their ostensible target.
New 37 percent, 43 percent, 48 percent, and 52 percent income tax brackets.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814798/bernie-sanders-tax-rates

Vox is well known for its conservative fear mongering ...

[boutons_deux]

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814798/bernie-sanders-tax-rates

Vox is well known for its conservative fear mongering ...

Vox is owned by Comcast

[101A]

The entire article's thesis is based around an uncertainty.



The 1200 lbs elephant in the room is expanding medicare. All the other shit is small potatoes and on Sanders site he even says there will be a household based tax increase of 2.2%



https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/

So the tradeoff is that you pay a consistent 2.2% of your annual income and in exchange you no longer have to pay the spiraling insurance industries rates. Looks like FEE didn't bother to look at Sanders site when continuing their echo chambers.

Continue on with your fear mongering.

2.2% - so the think the employer will just eat his/her 6.2% of that?

And it's not Medicare; Bernie's plan is "better" than Medicare. NO out of pocket, ever, for anyone. No Copays, deductibles, coinsurance for anything! This will (if any laws of supply/demand/cost etc. actually exist in Bernie's world drive UP utilization and cost. Free will get used more, after all. So we are going to put an 8.4% payroll tax on every working man woman and child to pay for (according to Ezra Klein) about 45% of the population's healthcare (that's the number who currently get their healthcare from their employers). I assume Medicare will get rolled into this after all, since it does include inconveniences like deductibles and copays; I can't imagine Bernie making retirees pay more than everyone else. So, a minimum wage employee, who currently gets coverage through an exchange at no cost to them; now has an 8.4% hickey, and no choice in the matter. Meanwhile, old people, with nothing but time on their hands, can make, and attend even more doctor's appointments than they already do.

Bernie's obviously go this all sorted out

[101A]

NM

[boutons_deux]

"no copays ... Free will get used more"

serious countries with national, universal health care "for the people" have copays, even small ones, to discourage abuse. But Americans ALWAYS knows best because, it claims, it IS the best.

[101A]

"no copays ... Free will get used more"

serious countries with national, universal health care "for the people" have copays, even small ones, to discourage abuse. But Americans ALWAYS knows best because, it claims, it IS the best.






I didn't write the plan; Bernie did.

[ElNono]

My main criticism of that article is trying to pass the "Laffer curve" as some sort of empirical evidence. As a matter of fact, there's all sorts of studies that point out that the peak of that curve moves all the times, based on a plethora of factors. It can go as low as 30% to as high as 70%... drawing any kind of conclusions from that is garbage, tbh...

[boutons_deux]

a basic idea of govt health insurance is that the $1000s/year that employers skim from employees to hose directly to insurers will be stopped and replaced by the employer sending LESS money to the non-profit Federal insurance, just like other payroll deductions.

Ideally (won't happen), the per-employee diff, the savings between for-profit group cost and the govt insurance cost would be paid as salary to the employee.

[boutons_deux]

DSW/DNC again caught rigging for Hillary

Bernie Sanders Campaign Criticizes State Party for Failing to Collect Votes (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/02/sanders-campaign-criticizes-state-party-for-failing-to-collect-votes/)

Campaign aides for Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont said Monday night that the Democratic Party did not collect the results of 90 Iowa precincts, which is about 5 percent of all votes cast in the state, because the party had failed to properly staff the precincts.

Rania Batrice, a spokeswoman for the campaign based in Iowa, said that the party reached out to the campaigns of Mr. Sanders and Hillary Clinton and asked them to help tally the results. “It’s just offensive that they dropped the ball like this,” she said. “It’s ridiculous.”

Monday night it was unclear how the issue would be resolved.

Ms. Batrice said the party was supposed to properly staff all precincts with caucus chairs but that some of those people responsible for calculating the results did not shown up.

The Democratic Party pushed back against reports that the caucus sites were not staffed appropriately.

“We are currently getting results from our small number of outstanding precincts, and results continue to be reported on our public website,” the party said in statement.

“These outstanding precincts have chairs who we are in the process of contacting to get their results. It is inaccurate to report that these precincts did not have chairs.”

The party said that it was seeking help from the campaigns in contacting their precinct chairs.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/02/sanders-campaign-criticizes-state-party-for-failing-to-collect-votes/

Hillary/DNC won by 0.3% (so far, stay tuned for final tally)

[vy65]

My main criticism of that article is trying to pass the "Laffer curve" as some sort of empirical evidence. As a matter of fact, there's all sorts of studies that point out that the peak of that curve moves all the times, based on a plethora of factors. It can go as low as 30% to as high as 70%... drawing any kind of conclusions from that is garbage, tbh...

I didn't get the sense that the author was relying on the laffer curve in any serious way. Nor do I think it necessary to make his point that the tax burden for "mah free shit" will be pushed onto the middle class.

[boutons_deux]

How Iowa went wrong for Hillary Clinton

Iowa wasn’t just supposed to be a tentative first step in Clinton’s inevitable march to the Democratic nomination, it was meant to be the cornerstone of a rebuilt political persona – and her national team was built from Iowa outward, with a foundational goal of winning here, and winning big.

her inability to ride a first-class ground organization to triumph underscores the candidate’s weakness and the lack of a message that resonates with primary voters.

there is nothing more dangerous than Hillary Clinton as a candidate with her back against the wall. You're going to see two energized campaigns

How Clinton squandered such a commanding advantage in Iowa is an all-too familiar tale with echoes of 2008, of grit and a top-dollar organization undercut by the candidate’s flaws, the stubborn ambivalence of a state that has now delivered two embarrassments – but above all her inability to capture the zeitgeist of her own party.

Clinton suffered from the same structural disadvantage here that hurt her in 2008. Her appeal was limited, mostly, to older frequent caucus goers – with a goal of maximizing turnout and pulling from a poll of about 20,000 Democratic voters who never participate in the labor-intensive caucus process. Sanders, who attracted big crowds on college campuses and high schools, had a much larger reservoir of young people to draw from – and he apparently did just that on caucus night,

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-iowa-performance-218607

[boutons_deux]

The race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in Iowa was so close that six precincts had to resort to coin tosses to decide who won.

The situation came in precincts where both candidates received close to the same amount of voters, but had an odd number of delegates so they couldn’t be evenly split.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1956329-coin-toss-breaks-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-deadlock-in-iowa-precincts/

[boutons_deux]

one guy is reporting that 3 caucus coin tosses were all won by Hillary

[baseline bum]

LOL that stupid cunt won 6/6 coin tosses. Heads I win, tails you lose.

[Pelicans78]

LOL that stupid cunt won 6/6 coin tosses. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Yeah that's bullshit; Typical lying, cheating Hillary. Those coin tosses still wasn't enough to offset her terrible night. She sucks as a candidate.

[101A]

LOL that stupid cunt won 6/6 coin tosses. Heads I win, tails you lose.

1/64 chance of that happening.

Sounds legit.

[boutons_deux]

185K caucus-ed, 50% from 2012

-- WaPo

[Warlord23]

You can't win national elections by running against the establishment - not with the level of misinformation / propaganda that envelops American voters. Unless Sanders cuts a deal with the DNC and their donors, he has a snowball's chance in hell of beating Clinton. Look at Obama as a prime example, he campaigned like Sanders on a platform of change, but accepted huge amounts of corporate money and governed pretty much like Clinton/Bush.

That's the formula that Cruz is going for - pose as an unbending conservative while accepting money from corporate donors. If he hadn't mocked and alienated half his Senate colleagues, he'd have been a real contender. Trump has figured out how to manipulate the uninformed, but again doesn't have enough backing to pull off a full-scale revolt. He might still try and cut a deal with the establishment though if he's playing this game for more than just media exposure and fame.

As it stands, the only thing left to see is which establishment figurehead (Clinton/Rubio being the most likely ones) solemnly informs the public about the next war in the middle-east sometime in 2017/18.

[z0sa]

^^ thats exactly what we are trying to avoid. Why act helpless when youve identified the issue and know we need real change?

[101A]

You can't win national elections by running against the establishment - not with the level of misinformation / propaganda that envelops American voters. Unless Sanders cuts a deal with the DNC and their donors, he has a snowball's chance in hell of beating Clinton. Look at Obama as a prime example, he campaigned like Sanders on a platform of change, but accepted huge amounts of corporate money and governed pretty much like Clinton/Bush.

That's the formula that Cruz is going for - pose as an unbending conservative while accepting money from corporate donors. If he hadn't mocked and alienated half his Senate colleagues, he'd have been a real contender. Trump has figured out how to manipulate the uninformed, but again doesn't have enough backing to pull off a full-scale revolt. He might still try and cut a deal with the establishment though if he's playing this game for more than just media exposure and fame.

As it stands, the only thing left to see is which establishment figurehead (Clinton/Rubio being the most likely ones) solemnly informs the public about the next war in the middle-east sometime in 2017/18.

Spot On.

I've seen exactly two presidential ads here in Pa. (primary isn't until April 26). One anti-Rubio, one pro-Rubio.

Weird.

[101A]

^^ thats exactly what we are trying to avoid. Why act helpless when youve identified the issue and know we need real change?

In my case because the standard bearers of that change in this particular election are undesirable. Not that I'm not pulling for a Trump/Bernie ballot choice in November, but please, either of them is pretty much a disaster. Any of the others, however, is more of the same.

[boutons_deux]

Hillary or Bernie won't get any progressive shit done due to scorched-earth, all-fronts obstructionist Repug Congress and SCOTUS.

The risk with Hillary is that she will sign (some) regressive Repug bills that continue to fuck America into unfuckability.

[baseline bum]

The risk with Hillary is that she will sign (some) regressive Repug bills that continue to fuck America into unfuckability.

The risk with Sanders is he is unelectable and President Rubio will sign all of those bills.

[ElNono]

I didn't get the sense that the author was relying on the laffer curve in any serious way. Nor do I think it necessary to make his point that the tax burden for "mah free shit" will be pushed onto the middle class.

He was, though. (The fee.org article). He used the Laffer curve as matter-of-factly to explain that after certain percentage, tax receipts from the rich will dwindle, pushing the collection burden towards the middle. But that's not really empirical at all, it's highly dependent on a lot of factors.

I would generally agree that people don't want to pay more taxes, but it's just as much true that people want the free shit (especially when it comes the time to cut it).

[vy65]

He was, though. (The fee.org article). He used the Laffer curve as matter-of-factly to explain that after certain percentage, tax receipts from the rich will dwindle, pushing the collection burden towards the middle. But that's not really empirical at all, it's highly dependent on a lot of factors.

But that's true though. You can only tax one demographic so much before having to move on to another.


I would generally agree that people don't want to pay more taxes, but it's just as much true that people want the free shit (especially when it comes the time to cut it).

Agreed.

[ElNono]

But that's true though. You can only tax one demographic so much before having to move on to another.

It isn't true though if your rate does bring the revenue you need, even if it's less efficient than whatever the theoretical "maximized revenue rate" is. What's normally left untold about this stuff is that this "maximized revenue rate" is a moving target that's heavily dependent on a lot of other factors (tax law loopholes, recession, stagflation, etc). But, you see this kind of dogmatic assumptions all the time. ie: "Tax cuts always bring growth" is another one. You compound that with people that don't understand anything about sovereign money, etc, and think a household economy is the same as a country economy and you end up with really dumbed down articles that pass as informative.

[z0sa]

In my case because the standard bearers of that change in this particular election are undesirable. Not that I'm not pulling for a Trump/Bernie ballot choice in November, but please, either of them is pretty much a disaster. Any of the others, however, is more of the same.

Honestly just dont understand your POV. Bernie is the furthest thing from a disaster - he is the only non PAC owned politician running on either side. Perhaps more importantly, he is addressing the real issues and not distracting from them. You may not agree with his solutions, fine, but it is beyond sa that youd rather say oh he is just not my guy and forget or worse, ignore about the impact an actual HONEST politician could have on the whole process. Hes breaking records raising money and it is on average, 15 dollars a contribution. You, like the previous poster, act helpless when you have already identified the issue. You act helpless and blame the ignorance of the voting electorate when that is EXACTLY what Bernie is calling BS on.

[ElNono]

I actually prefer fiscal conservatism in general as an economic policy, because I hate inflation, but I am for single-payor healthcare with a government tight grip on cost. I always found profit motive not being compatible with the government mandate of it's citizen's well-being.

[vy65]

It isn't true though if your rate does bring the revenue you need, even if it's less efficient than whatever the theoretical "maximized revenue rate" is. What's normally left untold about this stuff is that this "maximized revenue rate" is a moving target that's heavily dependent on a lot of other factors (tax law loopholes, recession, stagflation, etc). But, you see this kind of dogmatic assumptions all the time. ie: "Tax cuts always bring growth" is another one. You compound that with people that don't understand anything about sovereign money, etc, and think a household economy is the same as a country economy and you end up with really dumbed down articles that pass as informative.

But it's true that at a certain point, you reach a rate beyond which you can't tax -- whether that be 50, 60, or 70 percent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't read anything suggesting that Bernie can pay for all his free shit simply by taxing the shit out of the rich -- he's got to move to the middle class at some point.

[z0sa]

But it's true that at a certain point, you reach a rate beyond which you can't tax -- whether that be 50, 60, or 70 percent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't read anything suggesting that Bernie can pay for all his free shit simply by taxing the shit out of the rich -- he's got to move to the middle class at some point.

The majority of Bernie Sanders supporters, including youths around my age, understand higher taxes is necessary if we want to climb out of the enormous shithole we are currently in. The baby boome4s, by and large, passed us the bill.

[vy65]

The majority of Bernie Sanders supporters, including youths around my age, understand higher taxes is necessary if we want to climb out of the enormous shithole we are currently in. The baby boome4s, by and large, passed us the bill.

ok

[ElNono]

But it's true that at a certain point, you reach a rate beyond which you can't tax -- whether that be 50, 60, or 70 percent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't read anything suggesting that Bernie can pay for all his free shit simply by taxing the shit out of the rich -- he's got to move to the middle class at some point.

AFAIK, from some of what I read, he's also doing away from companies paying into the employee's health plan, so that's a tax credit. I'm not claiming his numbers are sound, but there's more to it than just 'tax, tax, tax', AFAIK.

[vy65]

The majority of Bernie Sanders supporters, including youths around my age, understand higher taxes is necessary if we want to climb out of the enormous shithole we are currently in. The baby boome4s, by and large, passed us the bill.

How old are these youths?

[vy65]

AFAIK, from some of what I read, he's also doing away from companies paying into the employee's health plan, so that's a tax credit. I'm not claiming his numbers are sound, but there's more to it than just 'tax, tax, tax', AFAIK.

From what I've read, Bernie's estimates are too low, meaning that you can't have a single payer system supported by a 6.2% payroll tax AND do away with employers paying for their employee's health insurance


Sanders doesn’t just call for incremental steps toward single-payer. He’s proposing to shift all of health care to federal taxes in one fell swoop. That’s one reason for the enormous, sudden increase in taxes the plan would require—$1.38 trillion on top of existing federal spending, according to Sanders’ own estimates. As Harold Pollack has pointed out, that $1.38 trillion is just about equal to total federal income and estate tax collections in 2014—in other words, the plan would require doubling that revenue. Sanders insists that he’s shown how he would pay for it through a 6.2 increase in payroll taxes (which he calls an “income-based premium paid by employers,” though the cost will fall on employees); a 2.2 percent increase in income taxes on everyone; higher estate taxes; taxing capital gains and interest as ordinary income; limiting tax deductions for the rich; and higher income-tax rates on the upper brackets (which, combined with other increased taxes he’s also calling for, would bring the top marginal federal rate to 77 percent, as Dylan Matthews shows at Vox).

But Sanders’s estimate of the needed increase in taxation, despite its whopping size, is too low. The plan would actually cost another $1.1 trillion a year, according to an analysis by Kenneth Thorpe, a health-care economist at Emory University, who has long experience working with single-payer proponents. In 2006, the Vermont legislature hired Thorpe to cost out a single-payer proposal, and in 2014 progressive legislators in Vermont hired him again. So this is not an estimate from an economist generally opposed to universal health care or to single-payer. Thorpe’s estimates indicate that workers would have to pay an additional 20 percent of compensation to pay for Sanders’s plan.

http://prospect.org/article/false-lure-sanders-single-payer-plan

[boutons_deux]

How old are these youths?

the usual upper limit is 35

[z0sa]

How old are these youths?

20s

[vy65]

What's their yearly tax bill?

[ElNono]

From what I've read, Bernie's estimates are too low, meaning that you can't have a single payer system supported by a 6.2% payroll tax AND do away with employers paying for their employee's health insurance

http://prospect.org/article/false-lure-sanders-single-payer-plan

That would make sense if you're keeping costs current. But, AFAIK, his proposal also include negotiating cost control measures (ie: steep reductions with pharmaceuticals, like most other countries, negotiating provider pricing, etc).

I'm dubious he can pull it off in America, but that's really the only way to go if you wanna reduce healthcare costs.

[vy65]

That would make sense if you're keeping costs current. But, AFAIK, his proposal also include negotiating cost control measures (ie: steep reductions with pharmaceuticals, like most other countries, negotiating provider pricing, etc).

I'm dubious he can pull it off in America, but that's really the only way to go if you wanna reduce healthcare costs.

That's exactly it. The severe cost controls you're mentioning are utopian.

[z0sa]

What's their yearly tax bill?

Pointless line of questioning considering i JUST posted we are ready to payer higher tax rates so we can climb out of the shithole this country is currently in.

Theres no. Way. Around. Paying. Higher. Taxes.

Period. At least, if we EVER want to eliminate the deficit, cut out chasing profits in healthcare, and end the ever growing bubble of higher education debt.

The rich need to get raped. The middle class needs to pay more. The working class needs to pay more. The rabid expansion of big corporations and wall street must end, as well, so Americans can make a living wage. It is really not that complicated. The problem is, no one wants to take responsibility, no one wants to make sacrifices. Thats good old establishment poliics for ya, and exactly the emotion they want you to feel.

[z0sa]

That's exactly it. The severe cost controls you're mentioning are utopian.

If other countries can pull it off, we can as well. Even if it is not through Bernie now, the very fact he is bringing the discussion to the table distinguishes him. The faster the voting populace realizes this is not a fairy tale, it is happening already in other countries NOW, the quicker real, systematic change can occur.

[vy65]

The rich need to get raped. The middle class needs to pay more. The working class needs to pay more.

Speaking of pointless . . .

It's very easy to be willing to pay higher taxes when others shoulder a much, much higher tax burden so that you get your free shit.

[vy65]

If other countries can pull it off, we can as well. Even if it is not through Bernie now, the very fact he is bringing the discussion to the table distinguishes him. The faster the voting populace realizes this is not a fairy tale, it is happening already in other countries NOW, the quicker real, systematic change can occur.


But what about other countries that Sanders often cites? Don’t those examples show that a system of national health insurance is cheaper and better than one with private insurance?

Here’s where I agree with that argument: If we could wind back the clock to the 1940s, when health care was just 4 percent of GDP and private insurance was just beginning to develop, we might well be able to design a national insurance program—as Harry Truman proposed—that would have kept down the growth of costs. But we can’t wind back the clock. In the mid-to-late 20th century, a very different system developed with the rise of both private, employer-based insurance and the adoption of public programs that accommodated the interests of physicians and hospitals.

This is a story I’ve told in two books—The Social Transformation of American Medicine (1983) and Remedy and Reaction (revised edition, 2013). The financing arrangements that emerged in the United States had two complementary effects: They created incentives for high-cost specialized care and protected much of the public from the full, direct cost of that system. As a result, starting from 4 percent of GDP, health care grew to 17.5 percent, far more than in any other country. That level of costs is reflected in investments in medical technology, the physical infrastructure of hospitals and other facilities, the patterns of medical training and specialization, and the size and structure of the health-care labor force. Adopting a government insurance plan won't undo a system that's been built up over decades, though it would certainly alter its future evolution.

While having the federal government take over all private health expenditures (and state and local government spending too, unless Sanders can also appoint new justices to the Supreme Court), the Sanders plan attempts to squeeze per capita health expenditures down to Canadian levels. The plan doesn’t explain how it is going to bring this about, and Thorpe’s analysis says it won’t. But if the federal government did impose sufficient controls, the results would be to bankrupt many institutions that are counting on future streams of revenue to cover debt payments, meet payroll, and satisfy other obligations.

[101A]

The majority of Bernie Sanders supporters, including youths around my age, understand higher taxes is necessary if we want to climb out of the enormous shithole we are currently in. The baby boome4s, by and large, passed us the bill.

Umm. Bernie is not selling debt reduction. His plans, by any reasonable accounting, cost even more than the taxes he will raise to fund them. He's got a shovel, not a ladder.

[z0sa]

Speaking of pointless . . .

It's very easy to be willing to pay higher taxes when others shoulder a much, much higher tax burden so that you get your free shit.

Lol the free shit angle thats been overcome again and again and again. Lets ignore the fact that investing in educating our workforce and paying them a living wage is worth many times the cost. For me, it is quite simple: If you are not willing to pull your load getting America back on its feet in the middle of this multifaceted crisis occurring right the fuck now, you dont belong here.

[101A]

Pointless line of questioning considering i JUST posted we are ready to payer higher tax rates so we can climb out of the shithole this country is currently in.

Theres no. Way. Around. Paying. Higher. Taxes.

Period. At least, if we EVER want to eliminate the deficit, cut out chasing profits in healthcare, and end the ever growing bubble of higher education debt.

The rich need to get raped. The middle class needs to pay more. The working class needs to pay more. The rabid expansion of big corporations and wall street must end, as well, so Americans can make a living wage. It is really not that complicated. The problem is, no one wants to take responsibility, no one wants to make sacrifices. Thats good old establishment poliics for ya, and exactly the emotion they want you to feel.

No one wants to make sacrifices? Our highest income tax bracket (counting states that have income taxes, payroll taxes, and FIC - is ~55%; Netherlands = 60%. Not a huge difference, is it. Check the low end of the scale, where here it is 0, and there - 36%. The high payroll earners in this country (people with salaries over $250K, but below $1 M, and the ones carrying the water - the 1%'s - the .01's are getting a break, as are the bottom 80 - 85.

As for the "profit" in healthcare? Is Bernie talking about, or only about the profit in healthcare insurance? Are you ready to salary cap the doctors? Is that a sacrifice your non ever gone to medical school ass is willing to make?

How big of you.

[vy65]

Lol the free shit angle thats been overcome again and again and again. Lets ignore the fact that investing in educating our workforce and paying them a living wage is worth many times the cost. For me, it is quite simple: If you are not willing to pull your load getting America back on its feet in the middle of this multifaceted crisis occurring right the fuck now, you dont belong here.

So now we're not talking about hard numbers anymore and instead about the value-add to America's economic competitiveness by paying for some ****'s gender studies degree? Is that your position now?

[z0sa]

Umm. Bernie is not selling debt reduction. His plans, by any reasonable accounting, cost even more than the taxes he will raise to fund them. He's got a shovel, not a ladder.

Thats a blanket statemwnt, so I dont really agree. And, fwiw, I dont agree with Bernie on every issue. I am actually fiscally moderate, leaning conservative, believe it or not - but now is NOT the time for sticking to principle. We need effective change and a real discussion about it. It doesnt take a genius to realize we all need to pay higher taxes right now considerin the massive deficit. It doesnt take a massive leap to see cuttin out the middleman in healthcare is the logical next step for protscting ourselves from profiteers in HC industr. Or making college affordable. These are issues that MUST be addressed. Im a realist and I know Bernie wont be able to.pull everything hes saying off. The point is the discussion, the momentum hes creating demanding we look at these issues and make the hard decisions instead of the same partisan bullshit weve seen for most of my lifetime.

[vy65]

I am actually fiscally moderate, leaning conservative, believe it or not - but now is NOT the time for sticking to principle.

Crofl.

[spurraider21]

Pointless line of questioning considering i JUST posted we are ready to payer higher tax rates so we can climb out of the shithole this country is currently in.

Theres no. Way. Around. Paying. Higher. Taxes.

Period. At least, if we EVER want to eliminate the deficit, cut out chasing profits in healthcare, and end the ever growing bubble of higher education debt.

The rich need to get raped. The middle class needs to pay more. The working class needs to pay more. The rabid expansion of big corporations and wall street must end, as well, so Americans can make a living wage. It is really not that complicated. The problem is, no one wants to take responsibility, no one wants to make sacrifices. Thats good old establishment poliics for ya, and exactly the emotion they want you to feel.
vy's point is that if you're currently a student in his 20's, then its easy to say "yeah im ready to pay higher taxes" when you aren't on your own making rent, car, insurance payments while on a tight budget or supporting a family

[101A]

Lol the free shit angle thats been overcome again and again and again. Lets ignore the fact that investing in educating our workforce and paying them a living wage is worth many times the cost. For me, it is quite simple: If you are not willing to pull your load getting America back on its feet in the middle of this multifaceted crisis occurring right the fuck now, you dont belong here.

It's pretty much been determined throughout history that people pull their load to pull themselves and their own up; not for some enlightened sense of responsibility and pride. Greed/self serving are real, and are the ONLY consistent, true motivators.

[rmt]

LOL that stupid cunt won 6/6 coin tosses. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Rigged - DNC will do anything for HRC. This lying, teflon-lined ____ has nine lives.

[vy65]

It's pretty much been determined throughout history that people pull their load to pull themselves and their own up; not for some enlightened sense of responsibility and pride. Greed/self serving are real, and are the ONLY consistent, true motivators.

[z0sa]

vy's point is that if you're currently a student in his 20's, then its easy to say "yeah im ready to pay higher taxes" when you aren't on your own making rent, car, insurance payments while on a tight budget or supporting a family

Im doing all those things. I dont relish the thought of higher taxes AT ALL. But i understand the necessity. More and more people are realizing if we ever want to reduce the amount of people on the government teat, we need to educate them and make sure they get paid enough money to support themselves. If we ever want to reduce the deficit and raise the value of our money, we need to work together and pay more.

Again, if you want to act helpless, blame the populace for being ignorant and greedy in massive blanket statements, go ahead. Some of us are actually willing to put our money up and bet on America actually being the greatest nation on earth again some day.

[spurraider21]

I am actually fiscally moderate, leaning conservative, believe it or not - but now is NOT the time for sticking to principle.
this is just your way of saying that you aren't actually leaning conservative fiscally. if you lean conservative fiscally, then you'd think fiscal conservatism will lead to a better road ahead. if not, then you aren't leaning conservative.

[101A]

It doesnt take a massive leap to see cuttin out the middleman in healthcare is the logical next step for protscting ourselves from profiteers in HC industr.

You think making the United States Government the middle man is going to reduce costs?

Why would you believe that? The US government is the most inefficient payor that has ever been conceived.

If you want to cut out the middle man, make everyone pay their own way, out of their own pocket. Get rid of all third party payors.

That would lower what we spend on healthcare a whole lot. You are on to something.

[rmt]

It's pretty much been determined throughout history that people pull their load to pull themselves and their own up; not for some enlightened sense of responsibility and pride. Greed/self serving are real, and are the ONLY consistent, true motivators.

Some underestimate human nature and the profit/greed motive. Much better motivator/driver than "FREE." Does anyone wonder what will happen to the VALUE of a bachelor's when it's free? Or what will happen to the cost of college when govt is paying for it?

[101A]

Im doing all those things. I dont relish the thought of higher taxes AT ALL. But i understand the necessity. More and more people are realizing if we ever want to reduce the amount of people on the government teat, we need to educate them and make sure they get paid enough money to support themselves.

You want to wean people off the government by making all healthcare and education free for all provided by the government?!?!!!

Not taken many classes that demand you draw logical conclusions yet, huh?

[101A]

Some underestimate human nature and the profit/greed motive. Much better motivator/driver than "FREE." Does anyone wonder what will happen to the VALUE of a bachelor's when it's free? Or what will happen to the cost of college when govt is paying for it?

My wife (the Biochemistry professor) certainly does.

[vy65]

Again, if you want to act helpless, blame the populace for being ignorant and greedy in massive blanket statements, go ahead. Some of us are actually willing to put our money up and bet on America actually being the greatest nation on earth again some day.

How does a woefully inaccurate health care plan make America great again?

[ElNono]

That's exactly it. The severe cost controls you're mentioning are utopian.

I see what you posted about other countries, but the proof is in the pudding. We're spending way, way more than any other country on healthcare, both on pharma and procedures and our outcomes are not drastically superior. Healthcare tourism is a thriving industry. What's more, at least as far as pharma goes, we're actually subsidizing the rest of the world. It's stupid and it has to change if you ever want to bring the costs down. We can argue that due to cronyism and money in politics it will never happen, but that doesn't make it any less right.

[z0sa]

this is just your way of saying that you aren't actually leaning conservative fiscally. if you lean conservative fiscally, then you'd think fiscal conservatism will lead to a better road ahead. if not, then you aren't leaning conservative.

No, i dont do black and white im this or im that. Thats partisan bullshit.

We follow a more socialist plan now, pay higher taxes, eliminate the deficit over time, eliminate TBTF bullsit, force companies to plan around their employees rather than just their bottom line while paying their fair sure.

When things are good again, the deficit is gone, people are off foodstamps, the tax loopholes have been eliminated, our money is worth something again, change to a more fiscally comservative plan - lower taxes as much as possible, promote business with decreased regulations (within reason), offer tax breaks (within reason enact legislature and elect politicians who can keep the budget relatively balanced, etc.

No one system works all the time. Thats why we have a mixed eonomy. As the pendulum swings, so should we, as a unit, as a NATION.

[vy65]

I see what you posted about other countries, but the proof is in the pudding. We're spending way, way more than any other country on healthcare, both on pharma and procedures and our outcomes are not drastically superior. Healthcare tourism is a thriving industry. What's more, at least as far as pharma goes, we're actually subsidizing the rest of the world. It's stupid and it has to change if you ever want to bring the costs down. We can argue that due to cronyism and money in politics it will never happen, but that doesn't make it any less right.

Agreed.

Now, the question is, does someone like Bernie spur the conversation to where it needs to go (i.e., what you identified above)? Or does he stifle conversation about pragmatic reforms with the promise of a utopian single-payer system?

[ElNono]

Also, "what's the tax bill" of other voters doesn't really matter, their votes have the same value as yours. This is why demographics and income inequality matter. It's great to be in the top 10% of income earners, but if the gap between that 10 and the other 90 becomes too wide, you're going to find yourself with a lot more Bernie Sanders and the votes to push them through (that said, I'm not saying we're there yet).

[DMX7]

We do subsidize the rest of the world on so many drugs. It's insane.

The other issue having an effect on our health and healthcare is the food we eat. Other countries eat junk food too but our insanely sugar loaded non-nutirious crap is consumed so much more here. It's like our culture to eat crap.

[rmt]

You think making the United States Government the middle man is going to reduce costs?

Why would you believe that? The US government is the most inefficient payor that has ever been conceived.

If you want to cut out the middle man, make everyone pay their own way, out of their own pocket. Get rid of all third party payors.

That would lower what we spend on healthcare a whole lot. You are on to something.

That's right. $80 diagnostic (above screening) mammogram and $80 bilateral breast ultrasound - CASH - couldn't believe it.

[vy65]

Also, "what's the tax bill" of other voters doesn't really matter, their votes have the same value as yours. This is why demographics and income inequality matter. It's great to be in the top 10% of income earners, but if the gap between that 10 and the other 90 becomes too wide, you're going to find yourself with a lot more Bernie Sanders and the votes to push them through (that said, I'm not saying we're there yet).

Disagree here. Never said that one's vote matters more or less than others.

When you're a single kid in your 20s, its easy to say "I'm for raising taxes." Basing policy on the whims of idealistic 20 year olds is a bad idea.

[z0sa]

You want to wean people off the government by making all healthcare and education free for all provided by the government?!?!!!

Not taken many classes that demand you draw logical conclusions yet, huh?

You do realize this is happening in other countries right?

[rmt]

We do subsidize the rest of the world on so many drugs. It's insane.

The other issue having an effect on our health and healthcare is the food we eat. Other countries eat junk food too but our insanely sugar loaded non-nutirious crap is consumed so much more here. It's like our culture to eat crap.

Part of it is the government's fault - their food pyramid with 11 servings of carbs at the bottom is terrible. Pushing low-fat, high carb diet was bad. IMO, it would be better to invert with fats and protein on the bottom and carbs at the top.

[101A]

I see what you posted about other countries, but the proof is in the pudding. We're spending way, way more than any other country on healthcare, both on pharma and procedures and our outcomes are not drastically superior. Healthcare tourism is a thriving industry. What's more, at least as far as pharma goes, we're actually subsidizing the rest of the world. It's stupid and it has to change if you ever want to bring the costs down. We can argue that due to cronyism and money in politics it will never happen, but that doesn't make it any less right.


This is all true. The problem is we are too busy fussing about HOW to pay for healthcare rather than talking about WHY it costs so much, and why we use so much of it.

1. We are the most medicated, most overweight, unhealthiest country on the planet. Therefore it takes more healthcare to keep us going (if you wreck your car more, it stands to reason you pay more for car repairs than someone who doesn't drive, right?)

2. The costs of our care ARE higher than other countries. Why? First, we have no price controls; all countries with socialized medicine DO have those (as do our Medicare and Medicaid systems). We should discuss this, but we do not. "Price Controls" don't sound as good as "Single Payor". Our doctors make MUCH more than doctors in other countries. Dentists in Germany (dental not socialized) make more than doctors (medical care is price controlled).

3. It would be more efficient to have a single pool of risk than the many pools split between different payors, however, if that single payor is the U.S. government, we need to look at ITS track record in efficiency to determine whether it would return the same efficiency that, say, Canada's does vs. just assuming it will.

4. Something not often discussed is the number of jobs provided by our "inefficient" system. There are still a lot of Americans, there are not, however, as many jobs as there used to be. Manufacturing is gone, farming is all but gone, middle management is a dinosaur, banks have consolidated - technology displacing people right and left. People need jobs - inefficient healthcare delivers those. Doctors, Nurse Practioners, RN's, LVN's, CNA's, office staff, insurance companies, agents, support staff in all those companies. It is damn inefficient, it's also a lot of unemployed if we go single payor.

[vy65]

The other issue having an effect on our health and healthcare is the food we eat. Other countries eat junk food too but our insanely sugar loaded non-nutirious crap is consumed so much more here. It's like our culture to eat crap.

I wonder if other countries have an equivalent of McDonald's and Coca-Cola deeply embedded in their culture. I haven't seen anything close in Europe, the ME, or Asia.

[DMX7]

Part of it is the government's fault - their food pyramid with 11 servings of carbs at the bottom is terrible. Pushing low-fat, high carb diet was bad. IMO, it would be better to invert with fats and protein on the bottom and carbs at the top.

As long as the government is controlled by special interests, we can't take seriously what it tells us to eat. It's why pizza (or at least the tomato paste) is considered a vegetable serving in school cafeterias.

[ElNono]

Agreed.

Now, the question is, does someone like Bernie spur the conversation to where it needs to go (i.e., what you identified above)? Or does he stifle conversation about pragmatic reforms with the promise of a utopian single-payer system?

He's running for President. He's taking one position that's very popular with the center-left in general, IMO, and running with it. Doesn't mean he doesn't believe in it (Even if I think he's flat out wrong on certain matters, I think he's genuine).

I'm sure he has tried to "spur the conversation" in Congress, but we both know it's a non-starter with how much money is in the balance.

That said, I think it's coming and inevitable. Even the UK, one of the last remaining bastions of conservatism has had universal healthcare for a long ass time. i might be dead before it comes to pass in America, but I think the marking is on the wall.

[101A]

You do realize this is happening in other countries right?

Yes. Doesn't change what I said, or the lack of logic in your statement.

[101A]

I wonder if other countries have an equivalent of McDonald's and Coca-Cola deeply embedded in their culture. I haven't seen anything close in Europe, the ME, or Asia.

I was shocked at the number of McDonalds and Burger Kings in Europe, actually. They were nearly as ubiquitous there as here. Europeans, however, don't have the "Supersize" on their menus.

[z0sa]

Yes. Doesn't change what I said, or the lack of logic in your statement.

Umm, it is a statement of fact. Apparently you think the best way for people to get off foodstamps involves something other than paying them more money (or, if in the future deflation occurs, paying them a living wage whatever that may be) and educating them so they can advance in their chosen professions. I guess good luck with that

[DMX7]

I wonder if other countries have an equivalent of McDonald's and Coca-Cola deeply embedded in their culture. I haven't seen anything close in Europe, the ME, or Asia.

I don't know, but even the fast food from American brands is often different there. Check out this McDonald's in Hong Kong:

675233471841873924

[hater]

There are tons of McDonalds, etc in Europe and elsewhere. But so far ppl eat there rarely. It's a delicacy. Of course this is changing as the price becomes more affordable. But ppl usually eat a piece of fruit or a small sandwich overseas. Rarely they go to McDonalds.

On the other hand here in.the US even homeless ppl.binge on bigmacs :lol fat motherfuckers

[z0sa]

And as for lowering healthcare costs... that is pretty much mutually exclusive with a private for profit HC industry. Theres not a simple answer, but mandating we all pay our insurance companies their premiums or else certainly isnt it.

[vy65]

I don't know, but even the fast food from American brands is often different there. Check out this McDonald's in Hong Kong:

675233471841873924

That's crazy shit. The Japs know what's up.

[DMX7]

McDonalds does have a good presence in Europe. But you can find Americans who eat fast food 6 or 7 days a week. You don't see that in my experience in Europe all that much.

[101A]

Umm, it is a statement of fact. Apparently you think the best way for people to get off foodstamps involves something other than paying them more money (or, if in the future deflation occurs, paying them a living wage whatever that may be) and educating them so they can advance in their chosen professions. I guess good luck with that

You can't educate someone, they have to want to learn. You also can't make them want to work, they must have incentive and desire to do so. People need to have jobs that pay them a fair value for the work they are performing. They need to be proud of that work, and want to do that job better. I think trade schools are a great idea, as is the military. It think daycare assistance (extend the already functioning school system a few years younger is a simple way to do this) would be very helpful. Tax breaks for hiring/retaining and training employees is an idea worth looking at.

I already think there are too many people going to college/university. There aren't that many jobs that require a bachelor's degree. Again, look at Europe. I have specific knowledge of Germany. There, only 1/3 of students go to high school that even tracks them to college. Then only half of those graduates (now 1/6 of the 18 year olds) get to go to university. It is fully paid for, but over 80% of the population is barred from it. The rest go into trades. Apprentice/master. There, btw, the 1st Euro earned is taxed - and people must sell personal property before they are given "charity" (government assistance). The system works pretty well, but would be unpalatable on many levels in this country - to both the left and right.

[ElNono]

It's not just McDonalds... there's a lot in the ingredients too... things like High Fructose Corn Syrup which is used everywhere here, whereas in other countries pure cane sugar is cheaper, healthier and more readily available...

[ElNono]

This is all true. The problem is we are too busy fussing about HOW to pay for healthcare rather than talking about WHY it costs so much, and why we use so much of it.

1. We are the most medicated, most overweight, unhealthiest country on the planet. Therefore it takes more healthcare to keep us going (if you wreck your car more, it stands to reason you pay more for car repairs than someone who doesn't drive, right?)

2. The costs of our care ARE higher than other countries. Why? First, we have no price controls; all countries with socialized medicine DO have those (as do our Medicare and Medicaid systems). We should discuss this, but we do not. "Price Controls" don't sound as good as "Single Payor". Our doctors make MUCH more than doctors in other countries. Dentists in Germany (dental not socialized) make more than doctors (medical care is price controlled).

3. It would be more efficient to have a single pool of risk than the many pools split between different payors, however, if that single payor is the U.S. government, we need to look at ITS track record in efficiency to determine whether it would return the same efficiency that, say, Canada's does vs. just assuming it will.

4. Something not often discussed is the number of jobs provided by our "inefficient" system. There are still a lot of Americans, there are not, however, as many jobs as there used to be. Manufacturing is gone, farming is all but gone, middle management is a dinosaur, banks have consolidated - technology displacing people right and left. People need jobs - inefficient healthcare delivers those. Doctors, Nurse Practioners, RN's, LVN's, CNA's, office staff, insurance companies, agents, support staff in all those companies. It is damn inefficient, it's also a lot of unemployed if we go single payor.

True, but those jobs are going to get lost in the long run anyways, due to automation, etc, and you can argue you're getting less quality of health because an NP does 85% of your visit and your doctor can't even remember why you're visiting him.

[z0sa]

I agree wholeheartedly with trade schools being put front and center for many people. Many public institutions do offer certificates and education similar to those, and i think by and large that area should be a key focus of any state provided or subsidized education plan. Thats definitely an area bernie never touches on that I strongly feel should be part of the discussion

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814798/bernie-sanders-tax-rates

Vox is well known for its conservative fear mongering ...

:lol Counselor Crayola's google sophistry on full display. Can you even quote the salient portion of the article or you just going to go full Darrin and we're supposed to do your critical thinking for you?


It seems quite possible, then, that Sanders's plans would spur people owning stocks and other investments to sell them less regularly, reducing tax revenue by enough to offset any gain from the increase in the rate.

That article uses the same Laffer curve logic of uncertainty although it is more comprehensive than the shit pile you linked the first time.

[boutons_deux]

Yes, Bernie Sanders Dominated The 30 And Younger Crowd In Iowa


According to NBC News exit polling (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/primaries/IA), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) won 84 percent of Iowa caucusgoers under the age of 30 Monday night. Clinton earned just 14 percent of them and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley won 2 percent of that demographic.

But, it was not just the so-called millennials feeling "the Bern," caucus voters between the ages of 30 and 44 also boosted Sanders en masse. According to the NBC exit poll, 58 percent of them supported Sanders. Clinton was more than 20 points behind with 37 percent of that demographic.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/young-voters-flock-to-bernie-sanders?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29


good news, but Bernie will have a hard time overcoming "sexist identity politics" (women voting for woman BECAUSE she is woman), the black vote for Hillary, and blatant MSM bias for Hillary.

[spurraider21]

Yes, Bernie Sanders Dominated The 30 And Younger Crowd In Iowa


According to NBC News exit polling (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/primaries/IA), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) won 84 percent of Iowa caucusgoers under the age of 30 Monday night. Clinton earned just 14 percent of them and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley won 2 percent of that demographic.

But, it was not just the so-called millennials feeling "the Bern," caucus voters between the ages of 30 and 44 also boosted Sanders en masse. According to the NBC exit poll, 58 percent of them supported Sanders. Clinton was more than 20 points behind with 37 percent of that demographic.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/young-voters-flock-to-bernie-sanders?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29


good news, but Bernie will have a hard time overcoming "sexist identity politics" (women voting for woman BECAUSE she is woman), the black vote for Hillary, and blatant MSM bias for Hillary.
:lol thinking "sexist identity politics" is anything goes new. Same happens with race and religion too

[101A]

I agree wholeheartedly with trade schools being put front and center for many people. Many public institutions do offer certificates and education similar to those, and i think by and large that area should be a key focus of any state provided or subsidized education plan. Thats definitely an area bernie never touches on that I strongly feel should be part of the discussion

Common Ground. Nice.

[Warlord23]

Agreed.

Now, the question is, does someone like Bernie spur the conversation to where it needs to go (i.e., what you identified above)? Or does he stifle conversation about pragmatic reforms with the promise of a utopian single-payer system?


You want to wean people off the government by making all healthcare and education free for all provided by the government?!?!!!

Not taken many classes that demand you draw logical conclusions yet, huh?

I'm gonna take a wild guess ... The US is the only country you've lived and worked in.

The argument behind managing healthcare centrally is to do with (a) cost control and (b) better outcomes for every dollar spent. I moved from the US to the UK in 2009, and I can tell you that I prefer the UK system any day. Having a public health system that's free at the point of use for most scenarios while still having employer-sponsored private cover for potentially faster access to specialised treatment is the best combination IMO.

This has nothing to do with keeping people motivated and/or weaning people off the government, unless you think people intentionally fall sick so they can enjoy a hospital stay. Either way, I prefer looking at real data than ideological hypothetical. The UK spends half of what the US does both as a % of GDP and on a per-capita basis on healthcare and gets better outcomes. If that isn't fiscally conservative, I don't know what is.

When you have drug companies that are unable to replicate their blockbuster successes of yesteryear, but are trying to maximise revenue based on ever more specialty treatments, and insurance companies that don't really want a free market nationwide - it sets up all kinds of misguided incentives - the cost of which is borne by the taxpayer ultimately. Just because it doesn't get deducted as a tax from your paycheck, don't think you aren't getting the shaft.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Words missing in this post include: Bernie, Sanders, Income, Tax, Rate, Middle, and Class.

I hope you do a better job in court. You have no clue how to control a conversation other than petulance and you drop arguments left and right.

Here's a hint: just because I don't answer your questions how you want me to doesn't mean I didn't answer your question.

[boutons_deux]

With total count in, Hillary's "lead" drops from 0.3% to 0.2%.

winning 6 straight flips is 1 in 64, or 0.15625 P.

[boutons_deux]

In Ames, Clinton was awarded county delegates based on a coin toss only after 60 caucus participants suddenly disappeared, for unknown reasons.

Moreover, a widely circulated video uploaded to C-SPAN (http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4578575/clinton-voter-fraud-polk-county-iowa-caucus) alleges that Clinton supporters committed voter fraud in Polk County, Iowa. The post claims that the video shows the caucus chair and Clinton precinct captain not conducting an actual count of Clinton supporters and deliberately misleading the caucus.

Mere hours after being uploaded, the C-SPAN post had hundreds of thousands of views.

These circumstances led critics on social media to use the hashtags #coingate, #coinspiracy and #coinghazi.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaL8oQqVIAAcS6E.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaMKoD7VAAA2vPJ.jpg

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/02/critics_cry_foul_over_coingate_hillary_clinton_had _1_6_chance_of_winning_6_coin_tosses_that_made_her _winner_in_iowa/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

2.2% - so the think the employer will just eat his/her 6.2% of that?

And it's not Medicare; Bernie's plan is "better" than Medicare. NO out of pocket, ever, for anyone. No Copays, deductibles, coinsurance for anything! This will (if any laws of supply/demand/cost etc. actually exist in Bernie's world drive UP utilization and cost. Free will get used more, after all. So we are going to put an 8.4% payroll tax on every working man woman and child to pay for (according to Ezra Klein) about 45% of the population's healthcare (that's the number who currently get their healthcare from their employers). I assume Medicare will get rolled into this after all, since it does include inconveniences like deductibles and copays; I can't imagine Bernie making retirees pay more than everyone else. So, a minimum wage employee, who currently gets coverage through an exchange at no cost to them; now has an 8.4% hickey, and no choice in the matter. Meanwhile, old people, with nothing but time on their hands, can make, and attend even more doctor's appointments than they already do.

Bernie's obviously go this all sorted out

On the one hand you complain tragedy of the commons and then on the other you complain about low wage workers having to pay something.

Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.

As for the payroll tax, with medicare expansion will employers have to pay the insurance company full coverage premium's still?

[boutons_deux]

CNN blatantly rigging for Hillary

CNN really lets Paul Begala analyze Clinton vs Sanders? The revolving door spins out of control

If you’re running for president, you couldn’t dream of anything better than having a longtime ally helping lead a major network’s news coverage the day of an election.

That’s just what Hillary Clinton got last night on CNN, where Clinton booster Paul Begala shot down, time and again, even the most tepid praise for Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Sanders essentially finished tied with Clinton in the Iowa caucuses, trailing in the delegate count by the most narrow of margins (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/iowa-caucus-2016-donald-trump-bernie-sanders-218547).

According to Begala, however — who famously advised Bill Clinton during his presidency and got $220,000 from pro-Hillary super PAC Priorities USA Action (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/05/22/17381/liberal-operatives-paid-big-bucks-embattled-pro-clinton-super-pac) — the Bernie revolution is a total fiction.

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/02/cnn_really_lets_paul_begala_analyze_clinton_vs_san ders_the_revolving_door_spins_out_of_control/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Old people and their cable news.

[z0sa]

Common Ground. Nice.

We all have common ground if we look hard enough. :)

[baseline bum]

With total count in, Hillary's "lead" drops from 0.3% to 0.2%.

winning 6 straight flips is 1 in 64, or 0.15625 P.

No, it's P = 0.015625

[boutons_deux]

No, it's P = 0.015625

yep, my first mistake this decade, thanks

[101A]

On the one hand you complain tragedy of the commons and then on the other you complain about low wage workers having to pay something.

Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.

As for the payroll tax, with medicare expansion will employers have to pay the insurance company full coverage premium's still?

Right now employers have the right to NOT offer health insurance. Many don't.

[boutons_deux]

Right now employers have the right to NOT offer health insurance. Many don't.

... and therefore aren't competitive for the best people, but probably they hire shitty people anyway, plenty of them around.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Right now employers have the right to NOT offer health insurance. Many don't.


Sure and they get a penalty. The corporate penalty is much more severe than the personal one.

At the end of the day we still pay 25% of our GDP towards a healthcare system that is tied primarily to corporate payrolls while subverting competition and negotiations. This serves to drive up the cost of labor with no real added benefit to anyone but the industry.

[Spurminator]

Does anyone wonder what will happen to the VALUE of a bachelor's when it's free? Or what will happen to the cost of college when govt is paying for it?

The college education would be free, not the diploma. The value of a degree is based on the level of education you completed and, often, your grades. Not how much you paid.

[rmt]

The college education would be free, not the diploma. The value of a degree is based on the level of education you completed and, often, your grades. Not how much you paid.

Supply and demand - when there are many more diplomas, does that change the perceived value to the employer with the same limited amount of jobs?

[MultiTroll]

Does Bern now regret saying We're sick of hearing about the emails?

It would seem a commercial with Hillary giving her initial snarky responses would be spot on. Trump and Crudz must be waiting to unleash it.

[Spurminator]

Supply and demand - when there are many more diplomas, does that change the perceived value to the employer with the same limited amount of jobs?

Not all diplomas are created equal. There are already useless diplomas that cost money.

[Th'Pusher]

Supply and demand - when there are many more diplomas, does that change the perceived value to the employer with the same limited amount of jobs?

More diplomas means a larger pool of potential candidates from which to select talent while introducing more competition. A conservative gal like you should be applauding that.

[rmt]

Does Bern now regret saying We're sick of hearing about the emails?

It would seem a commercial with Hillary giving her initial snarky responses would be spot on. Trump and Crudz must be waiting to unleash it.

I don't see why he doesn't call her out on them. Responsible behavior is a pre-requisite for the highest office in this land. Geez, if you're going to spend all this time running, give it all you've got, fight hard - no regrets.

[rmt]

Not all diplomas are created equal. There are already useless diplomas that cost money.

So we'll have more useless diplomas that cost tax payer money?

[spurraider21]

More diplomas means a larger pool of potential candidates from which to select talent while introducing more competition. A conservative gal like you should be applauding that.
Yep

[Spurminator]

So we'll have more useless diplomas that cost tax payer money?

And more good ones, too.

[vy65]

And more good ones, too.

Isn't the solution then to subsidize the good ones and not fund the shitty ones?

[rmt]

More diplomas means a larger pool of potential candidates from which to select talent while introducing more competition. A conservative gal like you should be applauding that.

Some of the kids in college have no business being there - can't handle the work. I remember one Spur poster saying he helped his wife grade college papers and how discouraged he was for the future of the country.

[spurraider21]

Some of the kids in college have no business being there - can't handle the work. I remember one Spur poster saying he helped his wife grade college papers and how discouraged he was for the future of the country.
Umm, they aren't guaranteeing admission into every school. Nor are they guaranteeing graduation.

Just because a selective public school like UCLA would become tuition free that doesn't mean they need to compromise admission standards. If anything it would make admission even more competitive because you will have more applicants

[baseline bum]

Some of the kids in college have no business being there - can't handle the work. I remember one Spur poster saying he helped his wife grade college papers and how discouraged he was for the future of the country.

It was 101A, I think his wife is a chemistry professor. Not surprising considering how anti-science this country is becoming with things like the big bang theory, global warming, evolution, vaccinations, the stupid organic food movement, etc.

[vy65]

It was 101A, I think his wife is a chemistry professor. Not surprising considering how anti-science this country is becoming with things like the big bang theory, global warming, evolution, vaccinations, the stupid organic food movement, etc.

?

I thought that shit was fairly well accepted?

[spurraider21]

It was 101A, I think his wife is a chemistry professor. Not surprising considering how anti-science this country is becoming with things like the big bang theory, global warming, evolution, vaccinations, the stupid organic food movement, etc.
Neil degrasse Tyson 4 prez

[101A]

Some of the kids in college have no business being there - can't handle the work. I remember one Spur poster saying he helped his wife grade college papers and how discouraged he was for the future of the country.
Guilty. It was specifically converting metric units - Chem 101 lab. Meters to centimeters - moving a decimal. Over half couldn't.

[baseline bum]

Guilty. It was specifically converting metric units - Chem 101 lab. Meters to centimeters - moving a decimal. Over half couldn't.

:depressed

Please tell me this was at least a class for humanities majors and not one you'd get GE credit for in a science or engineering degree.

[101A]

Non chem majors. Nutritionists, safety science etc. Chen 111 is the tougher path

[ElNono]

Funny though that a lot of this questions (OMG will the world end when College is free!?!?!) have already been answered a long time ago outside the US, mostly with positive results. Even in cases where free public college is available, there's still a thriving market for private paid institutions, for those that can afford it and want perhaps a more 'prestigious' degree. And there's also kids that still don't go to college even when it's available at no cost.

But, it does provide access to education to everyone regardless of their socioeconomic status, which a lot of these countries deem a crucial state role.

[rmt]

Funny though that a lot of this questions (OMG will the world end when College is free!?!?!) have already been answered a long time ago outside the US, mostly with positive results. Even in cases where free public college is available, there's still a thriving market for private paid institutions, for those that can afford it and want perhaps a more 'prestigious' degree. And there's also kids that still don't go to college even when it's available at no cost.

But, it does provide access to education to everyone regardless of their socioeconomic status, which a lot of these countries deem a crucial state role.

I disagree that there is access to college for everyone. In some countries, they take exams and if you don't score high enough - tough. Or you are tracked toward a vocation or trade. These exams turn into high pressure events - imagine one or set of exam(s) determining your entire future. Here in the US - there are second chances.

The way it is here, if you're good enough, you'll get a scholarship. If you're poor enough, you'll get financial aid. If you're not poor enough or not good enough to get a scholarship, work part time and study part time - go to community college and transfer to local public university.

[101A]

I disagree that there is access to college for everyone. In some countries, they take exams and if you don't score high enough - tough. Or you are tracked toward a vocation or trade. These exams turn into high pressure events - imagine one or set of exam(s) determining your entire future. Here in the US - there are second chances.

The way it is here, if you're good enough, you'll get a scholarship. If you're poor enough, you'll get financial aid. If you're not poor enough or not good enough to get a scholarship, work part time and study part time - go to community college and transfer to local public university.

or GI Bill. Good post.

[spurraider21]

Umm, they aren't guaranteeing admission into every school. Nor are they guaranteeing graduation.

Just because a selective public school like UCLA would become tuition free that doesn't mean they need to compromise admission standards. If anything it would make admission even more competitive because you will have more applicants

[101A]

Also spoke to some German friends of ours this weekend. Son is the equivalent of a Junior here. He is in Gymnasium - the highest track. Wants to be a Dentist - follow in Dad's footsteps. But as his mother said - he cannot. He is average. He has not worked hard enough, he will not be a dentist. This wasn't hyperbole. It was a fact. 16 years old; that much of his future is detemined.

[rmt]

Also spoke to some German friends of ours this weekend. Son is the equivalent of a Junior here. He is in Gymnasium - the highest track. Wants to be a Dentist - follow in Dad's footsteps. But as his mother said - he cannot. He is average. He has not worked hard enough, he will not be a dentist. This wasn't hyperbole. It was a fact. 16 years old; that much of his future is detemined.

Seems like "freeness" comes with a price - lack of FREEDOM. And isn't that the whole CRUX of the matter?

[baseline bum]

Also spoke to some German friends of ours this weekend. Son is the equivalent of a Junior here. He is in Gymnasium - the highest track. Wants to be a Dentist - follow in Dad's footsteps. But as his mother said - he cannot. He is average. He has not worked hard enough, he will not be a dentist. This wasn't hyperbole. It was a fact. 16 years old; that much of his future is detemined.

I thought in Germany you can still go to college even if not in the highest track if you put in a couple of solid years apprenticeship to prove that you can hack it in the universities, so that you're not locked out of good earning potential by being stupid in your teen years if you can prove yourself later on.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What is wrong with merit being a deciding factor? We can argue about what is merit but that prospects are tested shouldn't be a problem.

[ElNono]

I disagree that there is access to college for everyone. In some countries, they take exams and if you don't score high enough - tough. Or you are tracked toward a vocation or trade. These exams turn into high pressure events - imagine one or set of exam(s) determining your entire future. Here in the US - there are second chances.

The way it is here, if you're good enough, you'll get a scholarship. If you're poor enough, you'll get financial aid. If you're not poor enough or not good enough to get a scholarship, work part time and study part time - go to community college and transfer to local public university.

Every country has their systems, but accessibility is always there. "financial aid" is oftentimes a big pile of debt, whether you finish your career or not, and they're almost all govt subsidized loans.

So making a bad choice when you're very early in your life not only penalizes you professionally, but also lingers with you financially for a long ass time. The worst part is that the loan makers get paid not matter what. There's no "free market" in it.

I frankly can't see how that's preferable to a merit test, where if you don't cut the mustard, you can either A) prepare better and try again, or B) move on to vocational or trade, but you always walk away scot-free.

[101A]

I thought in Germany you can still go to college even if not in the highest track if you put in a couple of solid years apprenticeship to prove that you can hack it in the universities, so that you're not locked out of good earning potential by being stupid in your teen years if you can prove yourself later on.


According to Ulrike - emphatically, her son was out of the running.

[ElNono]

I thought in Germany you can still go to college even if not in the highest track if you put in a couple of solid years apprenticeship to prove that you can hack it in the universities, so that you're not locked out of good earning potential by being stupid in your teen years if you can prove yourself later on.

This is correct. You can enter College in Germany if you completes the Gymnasium (automatically gives you the Abitur, which qualifies you for college). The problem in Germany is that almost half of students don't finish the Gymnasium, but that doesn't mean they can't enter college. You can complete a aptitude test (Begabtenprüfung) and still be admitted. Or you can attend vocational school for a couple years and pass the admission test (Eingangsprüfung) and you're good to go too.

[ElNono]

According to Ulrike - emphatically, her son was out of the running.

Sounds to me Ulrike doesn't feel his son is worthy. There's also that strictness about Germans, tbh...

[baseline bum]

According to Ulrike - emphatically, her son was out of the running.

Hmmm, I took a free online course in functional analysis for fun a couple of years ago and one of the students there I talked to told me he was doing an apprenticeship to prepare for studying math in one of the universities. But he was in his early 20s.

[rmt]

Every country has their systems, but accessibility is always there. "financial aid" is oftentimes a big pile of debt, whether you finish your career or not, and they're almost all govt subsidized loans.

So making a bad choice when you're very early in your life not only penalizes you professionally, but also lingers with you financially for a long ass time. The worst part is that the loan makers get paid not matter what. There's no "free market" in it.

I frankly can't see how that's preferable to a merit test, where if you don't cut the mustard, you can either A) prepare better and try again, or B) move on to vocational or trade, but you always walk away scot-free.

How can you say accessibility is always there? 101A just gave you an example of in Germany of it's decided at 16 years old - no second chance - no dentistry. I have a friend from Singapore who wanted to be a physical therapist. She didn't score high enough and left Singapore to come to the US, attended community college and went on to become a physical therapist. If she had stayed in Singapore, she would never have fulfilled her dream.

What some don't realize is that resources are limited. If a country is gonna pay for free college and free that, something must give. There just isn't enough to go around - certainly not the way Americans are used to or will tolerate. Telling people that NO you can't be xxxx would be anathema to Americans. If some one REALLY wants it, let them work/study part-time and earn it.

[ElNono]

How can you say accessibility is always there? 101A just gave you an example of in Germany of it's decided at 16 years old - no second chance - no dentistry. I have a friend from Singapore who wanted to be a physical therapist. She didn't score high enough and left Singapore to come to the US, attended community college and went on to become a physical therapist. If she had stayed in Singapore, she would never have fulfilled her dream.

I know how the German system works, and it doesn't work like that, period. Not saying 101A is lying, just probably didn't get the right info. I know 101A is a standup person.

And other countries might be worse than the US... all I said is that there's plenty of examples of countries where College is free, not even admission tests and it works pretty well, including a secondary market for private, paid schools.


What some don't realize is that resources are limited. If a country is gonna pay for free college and free that, something must give. There just isn't enough to go around - certainly not the way Americans are used to or will tolerate. Telling people that NO you can't be xxxx would be anathema to Americans. If some one REALLY wants it, let them work/study part-time and earn it.

Uh, no, that's actually not true, but you're not well versed enough in economics to understand why that's not true. The question actually is much different, and it has to do with what do the people of the given country feel the role of the state should be in certain areas. That obviously varies from country to country, but taking the German example, they feel the state should provide education and health for it's citizens. What's even more interesting/extreme with Germany is that College is free even for foreigners. It's not uncommon for Americans to get a free College education in Germany.

[rmt]

I know how the German system works, and it doesn't work like that, period. Not saying 101A is lying, just probably didn't get the right info. I know 101A is a standup person.

And other countries might be worse than the US... all I said is that there's plenty of examples of countries where College is free, not even admission tests and it works pretty well, including a secondary market for private, paid schools.



Uh, no, that's actually not true, but you're not well versed enough in economics to understand why that's not true. The question actually is much different, and it has to do with what do the people of the given country feel the role of the state should be in certain areas. That obviously varies from country to country, but taking the German example, they feel the state should provide education and health for it's citizens. What's even more interesting/extreme with Germany is that College is free even for foreigners. It's not uncommon for Americans to get a free College education in Germany.

If the Germans feel the state should provide education and health for its citizens, they have to accept whatever rules the state decides. Suppose there are x jobs in a field and x +100 people that year want to become an x. Doesn't the state then say we have to limit it to only x people and you 100 people must choose something else? If the Germans are willing to accept the state telling them what to do in return for free college, then that's their decision. I don't think that's gonna go down in the US.

[ElNono]

If the Germans feel the state should provide education and health for its citizens, they have to accept whatever rules the state decides. Suppose there are x jobs in a field and x +100 people that year want to become an x. Doesn't the state then say we have to limit it to only x people and you 100 people must choose something else? If the Germans are willing to accept the state telling them what to do in return for free college, then that's their decision. I don't think that's gonna go down in the US.

It doesn't work like that. People can move and work in other countries where there's demand. We're talking Europe here, you can take a train and be in Belgium in 45 mins. You can keep trying to find excuses why that system wouldn't work, but meanwhile in the real world, people do graduate, and have good careers. As I said, it's not uncommon for US students to earn a college degree in Germany basically for the cost of staying there, and come back to the US and build their careers here.

The main concern of the German government for entering College is that you have enough skills to keep up with it. For foreigners it might mean taking a one year course to sharpen your language and writing skills.

[ElNono]

Now I don't disagree with you that the US might never adopt anything similar. But IMO, it has everything to do with the moneymaking, not because there's no altruistic reason to do so.

[ElNono]

I mean, in this day and age we're still discussing what should be part of the contents of a school book... I'll be long dead by the time there's an actual discussion on what the role of the state should be when it comes to college education. We seem to have some flare ups about that discussion whenever somebody remembers there's like a trillion dollars in student debt and only going up, but those are normally reserved for campaign season.

[baseline bum]

Now I don't disagree with you that the US might never adopt anything similar. But IMO, it has everything to do with the moneymaking, not because there's no altruistic reason to do so.

LOL no shit. I can't believe what textbooks cost here for example. Thank jeebus for ebay and $15 paperback Indian editions of books. Shit, I have saved money by ordering British printings of US textbooks.

[ElNono]

I almost forgot to add, I find it pretty galling that some of the same people that decry about mortgaging our children future when it comes to our national debt, are irreversibly supportive of exactly that when it comes to spiraling student debt.

[baseline bum]

I'll be long dead by the time there's an actual discussion on what the role of the state should be when it comes to college education.

Beetus flaring up? You'd think swimming the river would be good for that tbh.

[ElNono]

Beetus flaring up? You'd think swimming the river would be good for that tbh.

:lol nah... but I don't have another 80+ years left...

[rmt]

Maybe the solution is financial education early in high school. It doesn't help that students choose to go to schools that cost too much. IMO, as a parent, I'd ban that US News and World Report College Ranking magazine - unless parents are easily able to afford sending their kids to "brand name" schools, don't even look at them. I have a daughter who was an excellent student and I let her know at the beginning of high school that I would pay for her to go for a state university. Anything else, she had to get a scholarship and I strongly discouraged ANY student debt - even for graduate school (meaning work, go part-time and use whatever tuition reimbursement the company offers). If I couldn't afford to pay for college, then go to cc/work part time and then local state uni.

[baseline bum]

State school is expensive as hell too. I couldn't believe in a span of about 10 years UTSA in-state tuition had increased to about what Rice was charging before.

[rmt]

My advice to any above average student is to do as many SAT practice tests as possible (unless you're a natural test taker). It's possible to raise PSAT scores 40+ points with extensive practice. Try to make National Merit in your state. Then many scholarships are available to you - full ride at University of Houston, almost full ride at University of Alabama, full tuition at Texas A&M, etc.

[baseline bum]

My advice to any above average student is to do as many SAT practice tests as possible (unless you're a natural test taker). It's possible to raise PSAT scores 40+ points with extensive practice. Try to make National Merit in your state. Then many scholarships are available to you - full ride at University of Houston, almost full ride at University of Alabama, full tuition at Texas A&M, etc.

Yeah, test books really help out. I raised my SAT a couple hundred points in about three months by buying two $10 books of practice tests and working a couple a week. No need to take an expensive class for it.

[Nbadan]

ummmmpppphhh..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmkFYuUf6kY

[angrydude]

I almost forgot to add, I find it pretty galling that some of the same people that decry about mortgaging our children future when it comes to our national debt, are irreversibly supportive of exactly that when it comes to spiraling student debt.

That's because it's 1965 again and you can totally work your way through college.

[rmt]

State school is expensive as hell too. I couldn't believe in a span of about 10 years UTSA in-state tuition had increased to about what Rice was charging before.

State tuition varies WIDELY. Tuition at University of Florida (where I went) is $6310 per year which is very reasonable. Our National Merit students get a full ride from Florida Incentive Scholarship. Of course, ds DIDN'T do any preparation for the PSAT over the summer, got a 214 (which was the cutoff for Florida last year but it's a brand new test this year - the format's been changed) and I've gotta bite my nails till late August to see if he qualified.

[boutons_deux]

"UTSA in-state tuition had increased"

just another effect of "small govt". Repugs systematically cut funding for health and education so they can cut taxes and increase subsidies for their paymasters.

[ElNono]

That's because it's 1965 again and you can totally work your way through college.

I sense sarcasm... but, the world isn't moving back to 1965, and we're still largely peddling a college degree as a must to be competitive in the market today (a storyline that is it's own can of worms, tbh)...

[DarrinS]

LOL no shit. I can't believe what textbooks cost here for example. Thank jeebus for ebay and $15 paperback Indian editions of books. Shit, I have saved money by ordering British printings of US textbooks.

Back in my day, I just checked out the textbooks from the library.

[baseline bum]

Back in my day, I just checked out the textbooks from the library.

I had a friend from Iran and one from China and I'd give them about $25 and a list of the textbooks I needed every time they went home to see their families. I always thought they were illegal copies but it turns out they were 100% legal. It's just that outside of the US no one will pay $100 for a fucking textbook. That's why I like buying science and cs books on ebay now. They're about $15-$25 usually to get shipped from India but cost like $7 if you bought them there. Same publishers too, they tried to sue to make importing their books illegal but the Supreme Court told them to fuck off. But the publishers still write shit like "not for import to the US" on the books. :lol

[boutons_deux]

Sanders Calls for Raw Count after Virtual Tie with Clinton

Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton squeaked out a win in the Iowa Democratic Party caucus by just 0.2 percent, prompting Bernie Sanders to call for a raw vote count on Tuesday to definitively determine the outcome of the virtual tie between the two candidates.

With all Iowa precincts reporting, Clinton beat Sanders by the remarkably narrow margin of 49.8 percent to 49.6 percent.Sanders’ campaign team has said that they do not plan to contest the outcome, but would like more information about what happened in the vote.

A raw vote count is typically not released in Iowa, but the progressive senator from Vermont has said that he would like that data to be made public.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Sanders-Calls-for-Raw-Count-after-Virtual-Tie-with-Clinton-20160202-0024.html

I suspect Bernie suspects he won the raw count but lost the caucus count by 0.3%. Sorta like America electing Gore by 600K votes, then stolen OH, FL, and SCOTUS electing dubya and dickhead.

[boutons_deux]

Scenes of ‘Chaos’ Across Iowa Leave Voters Wondering If Correct Winner Was Called on Caucus Night

“Chaotic” scenes across a number of Iowa precincts have voters wondering if the correct winner was called on caucus night.

The Republican winner does not appear to be a controversial issue, with Donald Trump conceding to Ted Cruz. But on the Democratic side, the close race has prompted Bernie Sanders and his supporters to raise questions about how the voting proceeded.

Hillary Clinton ended up winning by 0.29 percent, according to the Democratic Party. The final delegate equivalent was Clinton: 700.59; and Sanders: 696.82.

Sanders campaign staff told the Des Moines Register (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/02/02/missing-iowa-precinct-sanders-clinton/79693834/) that they’ve found some discrepancies between tallies at the precinct level and numbers that were reported to the state party, and believe errors were made by untrained volunteers.

“We feel like that there’s a very, very good chance that there is,” said Rania Batrice, a Sanders spokeswoman. “It’s not that we think anybody did anything intentionally, but human error happens.”

Iowa Democratic Party Chairwoman Andy McGuire insisted that the count was correct, though, and said there will not be any sort of recount. Clinton declared victory and a spokesman said there was no uncertainty over who won. He also said the raw vote tally will not be released.

On a local level, though, volunteers, observers, and voters described scenes of “chaos.”

At precinct No. 42, for example, Jill Joseph, a Democratic voter who backed Sanders, said none of the 400-plus Democrats who came to vote wanted to be in charge, so a man who had originally just shown up to vote stepped forward.

As Joseph was leaving with the untrained caucus chairman, who is one of her neighbors, “I looked at him and said, ‘Who called in the results of our caucus?’ And we didn’t know.”

In Ames precinct 1-3, the crowd was so big and the check-in line was so slow that the voting started two hours later.

“There wasn’t a clear person in charge,” said Peter Myers, a finance major and member of the student government at Iowa State University, who caucused for the first time.

No one was there to lead the caucus, so “a pregnant lady took charge and counted the Bernie supporters, and a Hillary captain took the small group to a corner and counted the supporters,” he said.

In another precinct in Des Moines Polk County, footage later posted on C-Span (http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4578601/clinton-voter-fraud-polk-county-iowa-caucus) shows Sanders’ supporters confronting officials about potentially miscounting their group’s votes.

Democrat Mary Ann Dorsett of Des Moines said there were 492 voters in her precinct, but only a few people to check them in.

“It was a very large room, so clearly they expected a large turnout. The lines snaked through the corridor and out the door. It took over an hour to check in. Republicans in the same precinct were seated long before this, and already listening to speeches,” she said.

“If all the smartphones were eliminated, it could have been 1820, and we were re-enacting the roles of a bunch of farmers sitting in a church hall, counting heads. Is this the 21st century? This may well be my last caucus unless the Democratic Party cleans up its act.”

While still trying to get a grip on what happened, Sanders campaign is also focusing on moving forward.

“As an empirical matter, we’re not likely to ever know what the actual result was,” Jeff Weaver, Sanders’s campaign manager, told theWashington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/02/sanders-campaign-reviewing-iowa-caucus-totals-says-actual-result-may-never-be-known/).

He cited as complicating factors the narrow margin, the “arcane” rules of the caucuses, the delayed reporting of some precincts and the technology used to reports the results.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1957359-scenes-of-chaos-across-iowa-leave-voters-wondering-if-correct-winner-was-called-on-caucus-night/

IA caucusing, what joke. Wonderfully, rural, tiny IA is totally irrelevant to the final Presidential election (but they still get two fucking Senators, eg, ball biter Joni Ernst.)

[spurraider21]

lol chaos

[boutons_deux]

lol chaos

yes, you saw it first hand

[boutons_deux]

What Would Sanders Do? An Analysis of His Proposals


http://www.truth-out.org/images/Images_2016_02/2016_0203bernie.jpg

Senator Bernie Sanders has proposed an ambitious program of social reform, including regulatory changes to raise wages and protect workers' rights, progressive tax reforms, and universal health insurance (Improved Medicare for All). Taken together, these policies would not only dramatically increase employment and national income, but would also raise wages, reduce poverty, and narrow the gap between rich and poor Americans.

The Sanders program will end wage stagnation. (See Figure 1.)

I project that, under the Sanders program, real wages would grow by 2.5% a year, returning to the growth rates of the late 1990s. Faster wage growth would result from 1) faster economic growth, which would raise wages by improving the bargaining position of workers, and 2) government regulations restoring the real value of the minimum wage and protecting workers' rights to overtime pay, equal pay for women, and workers' right to organize unions. In addition, universal health insurance financed through progressive taxation would lift the burden of health insurance premiums off workers and employers, freeing up employers' expenses on labor to be paid in higher money wages.
http://www.truth-out.org/images/Images_2016_02/2016_0203bernie1.jpg
Faster growth, pro-worker regulation, and universal health insurance would all help push wages up. (See Figure 2.)

CBO economic forecasts imply that annual real wages for the average American worker will grow by about $1,300, or about 3%, for the next decade as a whole. Faster growth under the Sanders program would add about another $2,200 in average wages. Regulatory programs, notably a higher minimum wage, would add nearly another $3,000 - still more for women who would benefit from new pay-equity regulations. Finally, universal health insurance would add nearly another $5,000 for workers who would no longer have to pay private health insurance premiums. Only a small increase is expected in average wages from the Workplace Democracy Act - which would establish card-check unionization and first-contract arbitration - because these policies would likely do little to increase union membership.

http://www.truth-out.org/images/Images_2016_02/2016_0203bernie2.jpg

Taxes on the wealthy would pay for widely shared benefits. (See Figure 3.)

Sanders would finance expanded infrastructure, universal free pre-K education, free public higher education, universal health insurance, and other programs with progressive taxation and through the elimination of tax deductions for rich individuals and large corporations. While the benefits of the increased spending would be widely shared, increases in income taxes and other targeted tax changes would be borne mostly by the richest Americans; almost half of the tax changes would be paid by the richest 5% and nearly 30% by the richest 1%. In addition, measures like a financial transactions tax and elimination of favored tax treatment for fossil fuels would promote greater economic efficiency by discouraging economically and environmentally harmful activities.
http://www.truth-out.org/images/Images_2016_02/2016_0203bernie3.jpg

The Sanders program would dramatically bring down poverty. (See Figure 4.)

Since the 1960s, the U.S. poverty rate has remained stuck between 11% and 15%. Economic growth, as forecast by CBO, would do little to lower the poverty rate over the next decade. Faster growth and targeted increases in wages and Social Security benefits under the Sanders program, in contrast, would dramatically lower the poverty rate. Higher employment, higher wages, and, especially, increases in the minimum wage would lift virtually all working Americans and their families out of poverty. Increasing the minimum Social Security benefit and using a more appropriate price index to adjust benefits for inflation, meanwhile, would lift the elderly and disabled out of poverty.
http://www.truth-out.org/images/Images_2016_02/2016_0203bernie4.jpg

Sanders's regulatory and tax programs would sharply reduce inequality. (See Figure 5.)

The ratio of the average income of the richest 5% to that of the poorest 20% has increased from less than 11:1 in the early 1970s to about 23:1 today. Economic policy and growth rates forecast by the CBO would allow this ratio to widen further - to over 27:1 by 2026. While faster economic growth due to the Sanders program would narrow differentials slightly, this effect is limited because faster growth also increases corporate profits. By raising wages at the bottom, the Sanders regulatory program - especially the higher minimum wage - would do much more to reduce inequality. By ensuring that the rich pay their fair share of taxes, meanwhile, Sanders's progressive-taxation program will also dramatically bring down inequality.
http://www.truth-out.org/images/Images_2016_02/2016_0203bernie5.jpg


http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34675-what-would-sanders-do

[Pelicans78]

Those who dismiss Bernie do so at their own peril. He's a legitimate force who can become stronger throughout the nomination process.

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Raised a Record-Breaking $3 Million in 24 Hours Following Iowa Caucus


The surging grassroots campaign powered by small donors has broken its one-day fundraising record.

Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign had its best small-donor fundraising day yet following Monday night’s photo finish with Hillary Clinton in Iowa’s caucuses. The campaign brought in $3 million, and four out of 10 givers were new donors.

“I think the significance is, for folks who did not think Bernie Sanders could win, that we could compete against Hillary Clinton — I hope that that thought is now gone,” Sanders told (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/bernie-sanders-iowa-caucuses-2016/) CNN on Tuesday morning.

The fact that Sanders is not just raising the funds needed to compete in the next primary and caucus states, but apparently is growing his donor base signals the contest for the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination will continue well into March. More than 1,000 delegates are at stake the first Tuesday in March.

Sanders has continually railed against the country’s corrupt campaign finance system, in which a handful of wealthy supporters reach out to their networks and expect their candidate, if elected, to mirror their interests. Sanders says that wealth- and class-based bias is why Congress does not pass domestic legislation favored by the working- and middle-classes.

Sander, in contrast, is showing the country an alternative to that model—a national movement fueled by millions of donors giving an average of $29, the figure he cited in his Iowa caucus night speech. What’s especially noteworthy about his donor base is the vast majority of donors are nowhere near maxing out under the legal limit. They can keep giving in dribs and drabs, adding up to millions, as long as the Sanders campaign keeps making progress.

“Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign is funded by small donors who gave an average of about $29 each in the past year while Hillary Clinton has relied on the wealthy to bankroll her presidential bid, new financial disclosure reports reveal,” the campaign said in a press release accompanying its January 31 Federal Election Commmission report.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-raised-record-breaking-3-million-24-hours-following-iowa-caucus?akid=13943.187590.Kxcsjg&rd=1&src=newsletter1050072&t=6

[baseline bum]

Those who dismiss Bernie do so at their own peril. He's a legitimate force who can become stronger throughout the nomination process.

And then get slaughtered in the general election when all the money runs to Rubio.

[Pelicans78]

And then get slaughtered in the general election when all the money runs to Rubio.

Potentially yes, but I think mainstream Democrats and liberals will gravitate towards Bernie. Plus, Rubio has to prove he can win the minority vote.

[boutons_deux]

And then get slaughtered in the general election when all the money runs to Rubio.

90% of BigFinance money went to Romney in 2012, he got slaughtered.

[baseline bum]

90% of BigFinance money went to Romney in 2012, he got slaughtered.

Bernie's not going to raise $1 billion like Obama did. :lol

[boutons_deux]

Bernie's not going to raise $1 billion like Obama did. :lol

the billionaires have a piss poor record getting their hand-picked whores elected.

We'll see if Hillary's BigFinance PACs can destroy Bernie.

[baseline bum]

Holy shit, boutons actually believes in American elections. No more fucked and unfuckable?

[boutons_deux]

Sanders subtweets Clinton: “You cannot be a moderate and a progressive"


http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10907792/sanders-clinton-moderate-progressive

[boutons_deux]

Holy shit, boutons actually believes in American elections. No more fucked and unfuckable?

bad read

American voting is a charade, a scam. The politicians do whatever their donors want them to do, with insignificant nod to what their voters want (and what they campaigned on).

No WH Dem will get ANY progressive legislation passed as long as Repugs control Congress and SCOTUS.

Bernie will veto more Repug shit than Hillary, who will veto less Repug shit than Bernie, while Hillary will sign a bunch of really nasty Repug bills, just like Bill did, and get only tiny, insignificant progressive "incremental" amendments in.

Bernie is of course in a class by himself.

[SnakeBoy]

:lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWl6TLvlFEk

[boutons_deux]

Scumbag news

Goldman Sachs chief Lloyd Blankfein: Sanders candidacy a 'dangerous moment'

The head of Goldman Sachs said on Wednesday that Bernie Sanders' insurgent candidacy "has the potential to be a dangerous moment."

In January, Sanders was asked by Bloomberg Politics to list an example of corporate greed, and he listed Blankfein.

“I don’t take it personally since we never met," Blankfein responded.

But he added that Sanders' attacks on the "billionaire class" and bankers could be dangerous.

“It has the potential to personalize it, it has the potential to be a dangerous moment. Not just for Wall Street not just for the people who are particularly targeted but for anybody who is a little bit out of line,” Blankfein said. “It’s a liability to say I’m going to compromise I’m going to get one millimeter off the extreme position I have and if you do you have to back track and swear to people that you’ll never compromise. It’s just incredible. It’s a moment in history.”

Blankfein avoided saying whether he supported former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, though both Clintons have long ties to Blankfein and to Goldman Sachs, which has been a heavy donor to Bill Clinton's charity work.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/lloyd-blankfein-bernie-sanders-218689

[boutons_deux]

Criminal Inside Trader news

Wall Street Billionaire Appears to Be Genuinely Puzzled by Bernie Sanders' Populist Crusade Against the Richest 1%

Multi-billionaire Stephen A. Schwarzman (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-21/billionaire-blackstone-ceo-trolls-american-public-%E2%80%93-doesnt-get-why-people-are-angry) says he’s puzzled by the amount of discontent apparently felt by other Americans these days

He’s worth $12 billion, give or take a few hundred million. He is a poster boy for Wall Street success and self-esteem and cluelessness. He’s the co-founder, chairman, and CEO of the Blackstone Group (https://www.blackstone.com/), one of the world’s largest financial firms, specializing in private equity, hedge funds, and mergers. He’s a Republican, and his life has been going pretty well for him lately, as it has for decades.

But he freely admits (or pretends to admit) that he doesn’t understand why the rest of America isn’t just as content as he is. On January 21, at the World Economic Forum (http://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2016/01/21/blackstone-ceo-surprised-american-voters-are-unhappy-with-economy-politics-life/#51a4c81870d9) in Davos, Switzerland, Schwarzman spoke to a gathering of his peers who run the world about his perception of the US presidential election campaign:

“I find the whole thing astonishing and what’s remarkable is the amount of anger whether it’s on the Republican side or the Democratic side…. Bernie Sanders, to me, is almost more stunning than some of what’s going on in the Republican side. How is that happening, why is that happening?”

One clue to “why is that happening,” a clue Schwarzman presumably noticed last October, wasthe $39 million fine (http://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-235.html) Schwarzman’s Blackstone Group advisors had to pay for bilking customers. Blackstone entered into a “consent agreement” with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) finding that “it breached its fiduciary duty” to its customers. The consent agreement, admitting no guilt, is a tactic often used by corporate shysters to cut their losses when caught with their hands in other people’s pockets. Blackstone’s “cooperation” with the SEC (https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2015/ia-4219.pdf) was cited as a reason the SEC fined the company only $10 million.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/wall-street-billionaire-appears-be-genuinely-puzzled-bernie-sanders-populist-crusade-against?akid=13945.187590.hMjKXr&rd=1&src=newsletter1050151&t=6


http://www.alternet.org/economy/wall-street-billionaire-appears-be-genuinely-puzzled-bernie-sanders-populist-crusade-against?akid=13945.187590.hMjKXr&rd=1&src=newsletter1050151&t=6

[boutons_deux]

Robert Reich: The Real Reason Hillary Won't Effect Change, but Bernie Could

the second view about how presidents accomplish big things that powerful interests don’t want: by mobilizing the public to demand them and penalize politicians who don’t heed those demands.

Teddy Roosevelt got a progressive income tax, limits on corporate campaign contributions, regulation of foods and drugs, and the dissolution of giant trusts – not because he was a great dealmaker but because he added fuel to growing public demands for such changes.

It was at a point in American history similar to our own. Giant corporations and a handful of wealthy people dominated American democracy. The lackeys of the “robber barons” literally placed sacks of cash on the desks of pliant legislators.

The American public was angry and frustrated. Roosevelt channeled that anger and frustration into support of initiatives that altered the structure of power in America. He used the office of the president – his “bully pulpit,” as he called it – to galvanize political action.

Could Hillary Clinton do the same? Could Bernie Sanders?

Clinton fashions her prospective presidency as a continuation of Obama’s. Surely Obama understood the importance of mobilizing the public against the moneyed interests. After all, he had once been a community organizer.

After the 2008 election he even turned his election campaign into a new organization called “Organizing for America” (now dubbed “Organizing for Action”), explicitly designed to harness his grassroots support.

So why did Obama end up relying more on deal-making than public mobilization? Because he thought he needed big money for his 2012 campaign.

Despite OFA’s public claims (in mailings, it promised to secure the “future of the progressive movement”), it morphed into a top-down campaign organization to raise big money.

In the interim, Citizens United had freed “independent” groups like OFA to raise almost unlimited funds, but retained limits on the size of contributions to formal political parties.
That’s the heart of problem. No candidate or president can mobilize the public against the dominance of the moneyed interests while being dependent on their money. And no candidate or president can hope to break the connection between wealth and power without mobilizing the public.

(A personal note: A few years ago OFA wanted to screen around America the movie Jake Kornbluth and I did about widening inequality, called “Inequality for All” – but only on condition we delete two minutes identifying big Democratic donors. We refused. They wouldn’t show it.)

In short, “the real world we’re living in” right now won’t allow fundamental change of the sort we need. It takes a movement.

Such a movement is at the heart of the Sanders campaign. The passion that’s fueling it isn’t really about Bernie Sanders. Had Elizabeth Warren run, the same passion would be there for her.

It’s about standing up to the moneyed interests and restoring our democracy.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/robert-reich-real-reason-hillary-wont-effect-change-bernie-could

[boutons_deux]

30 years of speeches

https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/videos/925757774145894/

[boutons_deux]

The Des Moines Register: Newspaper Calls for Audit of Results of Iowa Democratic Caucuses

Editorial: Something smells in the Democratic Party


http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/caucus/2016/02/03/editorial-something-smells-democratic-party/79777580/

[spurraider21]

"establishment" is the new version of maverick

[HI-FI]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CShWi9zUsAE0qhS.jpg

[tlongII]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CShWi9zUsAE0qhS.jpg

:lmao

[boutons_deux]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CShWi9zUsAE0qhS.jpg

:lol the typically brilliant level of rightwingnut opposition. absolutely brilliant.

[boutons_deux]

Elizabeth Warren Rushes to Bernie Sanders’ Defense Against Wall Street CEO Attack

Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Wall Street titan Goldman Sachs, just called Bernie Sanders “dangerous.” Elizabeth Warren is having none of it.
In an interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box, Blankfein called the Senator’s rise “a dangerous moment,” (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/lloyd-blankfein-bernie-sanders-218689) and suggested his presidency would be harmful to Wall Street. Sanders’ campaign message has been very critical of the financial sector, saying Wall Street’s business model is “fraud,” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-wall-street-fraud_us_5647fb78e4b08cda3489294a) and he has promised to break up too-big-to-fail banks (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-02/bernie-sanders-wants-to-break-up-big-banks-here-s-why) by bringing back the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 to lessen the damage of another economic meltdown.

Sanders also wants to implement a small sales tax on all Wall Street transactions to simultaneously pay for tuition-free college (https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/) while discouraging the kind of high-frequency trading that creates instability in financial markets.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) just came to Sanders’ defense, saying he’s right to criticize the behavior of big banks like Goldman, which reaped record profits off of the financial crisis and resulting bailout.

“He thinks it’s fine to prosecute small business owners, it’s fine to go hard after individuals who have no real resources, but don’t criticize companies like Goldman Sachs and their very, very important CEO — that’s what he’s really saying,” Warren told International Business Times (http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/election-2016-elizabeth-warren-defends-bernie-sanders-goldman-sachs-criticism).

“When Blankfein says that criticizing those who break the rules is dangerous to the economy, then he’s just repeating another variation of ‘too big to fail,’ ‘too big to jail,’ ‘too big even to prosecute,’” Sen. Warren added.

Warren has made a name for herself as the toughest Wall Street watchdog in the U.S. Senate.

Shortly after she was sworn in, Warren made headlines after numerous hearings in which she grilled top Federal Reserve officials and officials at the U.S. Department of the Treasury (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F6YkBa_Tig), chastising them over their kid-gloves treatment of Wall Street bankers who broke the law.

She recently put out a detailed report detailing multiple instances in which the Obama administration was too soft on corporate crime (https://theintercept.com/2016/01/29/elizabeth-warren-challenges-clinton-sanders-to-prosecute-corporate-crime-better-than-obama/).

Elizabeth Warren has yet to endorse a candidate in the Democratic primary.

http://usuncut.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-bernie-goldman-sachs/

Come on, Liz, you've been effectively on Bernie's side for years, now announce it formally.

[boutons_deux]

"establishment" is the new version of maverick

:lol you got it beautifully ass backwards

[boutons_deux]

Democratic establishment starts to gang up on Sanders

Democratic lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol are turning their fire on Bernie Sanders as he marches toward a big win in Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary.

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), a supporter of Hillary Clinton, warned that Sanders could drag down Democratic candidates running for the House and Senate if he wins the nomination.

“I believe it could have real serious down-ballot consequences,” Connolly told The Hill.Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.), who is one of the biggest Republican targets in the 2016 election cycle, suggested his constituents would view Sanders, a self-described Democratic socialist, as too extreme.

“I’m not comfortable with it at all,” Peters, who has endorsed Clinton, said of the prospect of Sanders heading the ticket.

“He certainly wouldn’t match my district very well,” Peters added. “People in my district are looking for pragmatic, problem-solving leaders and he would not fit that bill. Some on the Republican side, I think, would be equally objectionable to my district as well.”

Other pro-Clinton Democrats dismiss Sanders’s leadership credentials, with that criticism coming even from members of the clubby Senate. Sanders is a great advocate, those Democrats say, but not nearly as qualified as Clinton to serve as commander in chief.

“Bernie has been here for 25 years. Lots and lots of people in Congress know Bernie well. We like Bernie, we admire Bernie. But of the almost 200 members of Congress who are Democrats, I think two of them have endorsed Bernie Sanders,” said Sen. Claire McClaskill (D-Mo.), a Clinton booster.

“This is about leadership. It’s about who can bring people together and accomplish the things we all want.

McCaskill said congressional Democrats don’t have much faith in Sanders’s ability to get things done if elected president “because he’s not been able to move the needle in 25 years in Congress.”

Such comments have generated strong pushback from Sanders allies on Capitol Hill, who accuse their Democratic colleagues of using scare tactics.

“Campaign operatives of hers and some surrogates continue to promote the attitude that we should be dismissive. That it can’t be done. That he’s no qualified,” said Rep. Raúl Grijalva, who has endorsed Sanders.

He said McCaskill’s approach “evokes the ghost of [former Wisconsin Sen. Joseph] McCarthy [R].”

“It’s red-baiting and you’ll probably see more of that unfortunately, but I don’t think it’s going to stick.”

When asked about Grijalva's comments, McCaskill emphasized that she likes Sanders personally.

"I love Bernie, and the values that he and Hillary share are so important to all Americans, that electability really matters," she said.

Grijalva and Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.) are the only two Democrats in Congress to have endorsed Sanders. They are the co-chairmen of the Progressive Caucus.

Clinton, meanwhile, has won the support of 150 out of 188 House Democrats and 39 out of 46 Senate Democrats, according to a tally (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/239559-2016-lawmaker-endorsements-for-president) kept by The Hill.

The sniping between the two presidential camps has raised fears of a nasty primary battle that could drag on until the Democratic convention, which is scheduled for the end of July in Philadelphia.

Democrats are worried because “the mean-ness of the attacks back and forth has gone up,” one Democratic senator said Thursday.

“Is this going to play out all the way until the convention? That’s what Secretary Clinton did in 2008. She went all the way until June against Obama,” the lawmaker said. “If Bernie does the same thing, you know, these attacks keep escalating.”

Sanders has vowed to fight to the end, and is making good on his promise by leaving behind a staffer in Iowa to fight for every delegate.

"We are in this for the long haul," Sanders said just before the caucuses began Monday night.

For supporters of Clinton, her razor-thin victory in the Iowa caucuses Monday night has created fresh anxiety about her ability to avoid a prolonged fight with Sanders.
While the consensus among Democrats supporting Clinton is that she’ll perform better in the primaries after New Hampshire, they’re not sitting back and waiting for their campaign to catch fire.

Instead, they’re sharply questioning Sanders’s electability and leadership qualifications.

“I think Bernie’s terrific as an advocate. There’s a difference between a strong community advocate and being someone who can get things done,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who has campaigned extensively for Clinton.

McCaskill said Republicans are chomping at the bit to run against Sanders.

“The Republicans won’t touch him because they can’t wait to run an ad with a hammer and sickle,” she told the New York Times.

Such rhetoric against Sanders has angered his supporters.

Ellison said Republicans would unload vicious attacks on the Democratic nominee no matter who it is.

“That kind of thinking presupposes that they’re not going to try to rip the skin off of any Democratic nominee. I don’t know when us Dems are going to figure out the Republicans are trying to beat us,” he said.

“The day will never come when the Republicans will say, ‘You know what? Your Democratic presidential nominee is just fine.’ ”

Ellison flipped the argument of Clinton allies that Sanders is not practical by praising his willingness to stick to principle.

He said Clinton has far many more endorsements because her campaign made it a high priority to collect them early.

With polls showing Sanders enjoying (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/268320-poll-sanders-holds-2-to-1-lead-over-clinton-in-nh) a 2-1 lead over Clinton in New Hampshire, some Democrats are beginning to wonder what it would mean if he won the race.
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), who represents a reliably liberal Manhattan district, said a Sanders nomination could provide a “fresh face” for the party — or result in utter disaster.

“His candidacy, were he the nominee, could conceivably be a real problem down-ballot. It could be a big loser because people are still terrified by the word ‘socialist,’ et cetera. Or not,” Nadler said.

“One of the reasons I’m supporting Hillary is that I don’t want to take that gamble,” he added.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/268325-democratic-establishment-starts-to-gang-up-on-sanders

When even the allegedly pro-people Democratic party establishment is vehemently against the honestly, repeatedly, demonstrably pro-people, America is fucked and unfuckable.

[rmt]

boutons, the Democratic establishment knows that even though Bernie is honest, likable, for the people, etc - his plan to tax so highly is never going to fly (with Congress or the American people). Little ole me would be protesting in the streets before I am taxed at that level. The government is wasteful, inefficient, corrupt, inept - they should not be deciding how I spend most of my money - I should. And no matter how deceitful, corrupt, lying, etc. that Hillary is, they feel that she has a better chance in a general election.

[spurraider21]

:lol you got it beautifully ass backwards
i'm aware... i'm just referring to the hot-button term that's the flavor of this election

[rmt]

Did Hillary really say, "HONESTLY, ...Sanders is the only person who would characterize me a woman running to be president ... as exemplified as the ESTABLISHMENT." It never ceases to amaze me how this woman can stand in front of Americans and say such rubbish and not get called out by the media. I'd LOL if it weren't so pathetic.