Bernie Sanders

[RandomGuy]

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

LOL... poor Bernie.

[RandomGuy]

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.

LOL "the media"

Someday the right in this country will quit using that as a scapegoat for why no one likes their shitty policies and shitty candidates.

[RandomGuy]

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.

what level would you be taxed at?

How would that be worse than the fucktarded plans to cut taxes and run up more record deficits and debt by the GOP clowns crowd?

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21684780-republican-candidates-tax-plans-are-welcome-their-detail-not-their-contents-be


the plans’ central chapters: huge tax cuts for high earners. At 39.6%, America’s top federal income-tax rate is hardly high by global standards. Yet the candidates are racing to see who can promise to cut it most. Mr Bush aims for 28%; Mr Trump 25%. Ted Cruz wants to replace income tax entirely with a 10% flat tax and a value-added tax. Mr Rubio, whose promise of a 35% top rate seems timid by comparison, serves up largesse elsewhere by promising to abolish levies on capital gains and dividends.

The first problem with these schemes is their cost. On today’s growth forecasts, even Mr Bush’s relatively moderate plan would reduce revenues by $715 billion, or 13.5%, a year by 2026—more than the projected national defence budget. Paying for Mr Trump’s plan with reduced day-to-day spending (as opposed to mandatory spending on things like pensions and health care) would require cutting budgets by a staggering 82%.

The candidates claim that tax cuts will spur the economy, filling the government’s coffers with new revenue. But the pace of any economic acceleration is uncertain. The evidence that income-tax cuts for high earners boost growth is thin at best. Predictions that tax cuts in the early 2000s would cause enough growth to pay for themselves look foolish today.

This is no time to be taking chances with America’s budget. Retiring baby-boomers are increasing the cost of providing pensions and health care for the old. There is no appetite among Republicans for defence cuts, and other day-to-day spending has already been cut by 22% in real terms since 2010. If tax cuts were paid for with more borrowing rather than lower spending, they would end up as deadweight for the economy rather than as fuel

I always get a kick out of pointing out how fiscally irresponsible the GOP is when you give them governments.

Bush's tax cuts and his 2T+ invasion of Iraq have added more to the debt and your taxes than anything Democrats have done in the last 20 years, Obamacare included.

[Nbadan]

Bush's tax cuts and his 2T+ invasion of Iraq have added more to the debt and your taxes than anything Democrats have done in the last 20 years, Obamacare included\


Don't forget Medicare D.....all unfunded of course...

[boutons_deux]

\


Don't forget Medicare D.....all unfunded of course...

Medicare D and Medicare Advantage fund BigPharma and BigInsurnace. Medicare Advantage costs taxpayers 10%+ more than Medicare.

[boutons_deux]

Single-payer health plan wouldn't cost U.S. more

In our "read my lips/over my dead body" political culture, the threat of tax increases usually shuts down proposals for single-payer national health insurance. Lately, conservative pundits - and even liberals like Hillary Clinton - have been repeating the mantra that single-payer insurance would break the bank.

Never mind that Canadians, Australians, and Western Europeans spend about half what we do on health care, enjoy universal coverage, and are healthier. Their health-care taxes are higher.

Or are they? According to our study in the current issue of the American Journal of Public Health, American taxpayers picked up 65 percent of the total health-care tab last year - a figure that will soon rise to 67 percent.

We paid $2.1 trillion in taxes to fund health care - $6,560 per person. That's more per capita than Canadians or people in any other nation pay. Indeed, our tax-financed health-care bill is higher than total health spending (private as well as public) in any other nation except Switzerland.

Official accounts from agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services peg taxpayers' share of U.S. health spending at about 45 percent, a figure that includes Medicare, Medicaid, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Veterans Affairs. However, this kind of tally omits two important items.

First, it leaves out government spending to buy private health coverage for public employees like teachers, firefighters, and members of Congress. Indeed, government employers account for 28 percent of all employer health spending.

Second, it excludes tax subsidies for private employer-paid plans and other privately paid care - $326 billion last year - that mainly benefit affluent families.

Omitting these government expenditures from the official health-spending tabulations obscures the fact that our health-care system is already about two-thirds publicly funded. In contrast, the Office of Management and Budget, not to mention most health-policy experts, considers tax subsidies for private insurance to be tax expenditures.

Even many uninsured families pay thousands of dollars in taxes for the health care of others.

More than one-third of these tax dollars meander through private insurers on the way to the bedside. These private insurers siphon off 12 percent for their overhead and profits (vs. 2 percent in the Medicare program) and also inflict huge paperwork costs on doctors and hospitals. A shift to single-payer national health insurance would save at least $400 billion annually on paperwork alone, enough to cover all of the uninsured and eliminate co-payments and deductibles for the rest of us.

That means a national single-payer plan wouldn't cost Americans any more than we're currently spending. Moreover, the taxes to pay for it would be fully offset by the savings from eliminating private insurance premiums.

Moving from our current level of tax financing, 65 percent, to Canada's 70.7 percent would mean a tax increase of about $185 billion per year. But Americans would save at least that much on premiums. The vast majority of American households would come out ahead financially, and everyone would be covered.

Drug and insurance firms that would lose billions under single-payer health coverage generously fund its detractors (including Clinton, who has gotten more health-industry dollars than any other presidential candidate). These naysayers suggest that a single-payer plan (or "Medicare for all," as Bernie Sanders likes to call it) would downgrade Americans' coverage, and they also raise the specter of big tax increases.

But a national single-payer plan would give all Americans the first-dollar coverage enjoyed by Canadians and Brits, and guarantee them a free choice of doctors and hospitals - a choice that private insurers currently deny to many of us.

Surprisingly, American taxpayers already pay enough to fund national health insurance. We just don't get it.

http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=%2Fphilly%2Fopinion&id=367751861

[pgardn]

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


And Ouch!

[pgardn]

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.

At some point an individual human American must press a button in a voting "booth"

or write in a name.

Blame it on US.
And that's the bottom line.
All the shit you put up free on this site and all of the Koch brother's/Soros $ carpet bombing does not press the GD button.

[boutons_deux]

At some point an individual human American must press a button in a voting "booth"

or write in a name.

Blame it on US.
And that's the bottom line.
All the shit you put up free on this site and all of the Koch brother's/Soros $ carpet bombing does not press the GD button.

you don't understand that pushing the goddam button is irrelevant. Citizens are disenfranchised. They lost the vote.

The politicians do what their donors want, not what voters want.

Princeton Study: U.S. No Longer An Actual Democracy

A new study from Princeton spells bad news for American democracy—namely, that it no longer exists.

Asking "[w]ho really rules?" researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argues (https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf) that over the past few decades America's political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.

Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters.

(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/princeton-scholar-demise-of-democracy-america-tpm-interview)"The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy," they write, "while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

As one illustration, Gilens and Page compare the political preferences of Americans at the 50th income percentile to preferences of Americans at the 90th percentile as well as major lobbying or business groups. They find that the government—whether Republican or Democratic—more often follows the preferences of the latter group rather than the first.

The researches note that this is not a new development caused by, say, recent Supreme Court decisions allowing more money in politics, such as Citizens United or this month's ruling onMcCutcheon v. FEC (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/supreme-court-campaign-contribution-limits-mccutcheon-fec-2). As the data stretching back to the 1980s suggests, this has been a long term trend, and is therefore harder for most people to perceive, let alone reverse.

"Ordinary citizens," they write, "might often be observed to 'win' (that is, to get their preferred policy outcomes) even if they had no independent effect whatsoever on policy making, if elites (with whom they often agree) actually prevail."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy

[z0sa]

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.

No you wouldnt.

[rmt]

No you wouldnt.

Why do you think I wouldn't protest in the streets.

[z0sa]

Why do you think I wouldn't protest in the streets.

When's the last time you saw millionaires and other high income earners protesting in the streets?

[rmt]

When's the last time you saw millionaires and other high income earners protesting in the streets?

Now you're kidding me. You think a stay at home mom who's homeschooled for years and lived on one income is a high income earner?

[z0sa]

Now you're kidding me. You think a stay at home mom who's homeschooled for years and lived on one income is a high income earner?

I have no clue what you're talking about. But if you're going to be protesting Bernie's tax rates (which you self admitted, would never get through congress, right?) then you pretty much must be upper middle class and beyond. It's those people who Bernie wants to contribute significantly more, not "stay at home moms."

[rmt]

I have no clue what you're talking about. But if you're going to be protesting Bernie's tax rates (which you self admitted, would never get through congress, right?) then you pretty much must be upper middle class and beyond. It's those people who Bernie wants to contribute significantly more, not "stay at home moms."

Everyone under $250,000 will pay 8.8% more - even those in the lowest tax bracket (under $18,550). These people already qualify for Medicaid and get financial aid if they go to college. This will hurt them disproportionately.

All this comes down to is choice in how to spend MY money. That 8.8% might be the difference between me being able to stay home or having to go out and work - and for what? free college tuition? I've already saved for my kids' college but I would be forced to give up my lifestyle to pay for others' college. Instead of that 8.8% going toward my retirement, it'll be commandeered to pay for some one else's college? How about everyone earn their own money and pay for their own stuff?

A lot of people from the rest of the world want to come to the US because of the freedom we enjoy. Why in the world do people want to turn America into the rest of the world? And give up our freedom? Because that's what it results in - less money in my pocket means less freedom to spend it how I choose.

[z0sa]

You do realize America is $20 trillion in debt, right?

[rmt]

You do realize America is $20 trillion in debt, right?

I am extremely aware that America is $20 trillion in debt. We can't even afford what we have now and you want to add more obligations like healthcare, college tuition and parental leave? Does anything the government gets into ever run within budget? This is not even touching on Medicare and Social Security.

[z0sa]

Oh, now youre so worried about the national debt. Sounds a lot like you would protest in the streets about paying your fair share to dig us out of this hole.

[z0sa]

Ps, medicare and a single payer UHC system are what Bernie wants to consolidate. You are so afraid of the symptoms of the problem you dont even realize what the actual cause is.

[rmt]

Oh, now youre so worried about the national debt. Sounds a lot like you would protest in the streets about paying your fair share to dig us out of this hole.

You are the one who brought up the national debt. The additional 8.8% tax that I was talking about was for the healthcare, college tuition and parental leave. I already pay my fair share - the government MISUSED it and now we're supposed to hand over more taxes for more obligations. All these obligations will do is further expand the debt.

[z0sa]

You are the one who brought up the national debt. The additional 8.8% tax that I was talking about was for the healthcare, college tuition and parental leave. I already pay my fair share - the government MISUSED it and now we're supposed to hand over more taxes for more obligations. All these obligations will do is further expand the debt.

No, youre not paying your fair share. None of us are. And corporate America and Wall Street, the ppl youre really defending (whether you want to accept it or not) with your undying allegiancre, certainly arent.

Why do you hate your fellow Americans? Why do you want to keep taxes low and hold on to your money as greedily as possible when our nation needs you to do the opposite?

[rmt]

No, youre not paying your fair share. None of us are. And corporate America and Wall Street, the ppl youre really defending (whether you want to accept it or not) with your undying allegiancre, certainly arent.

Why do you hate your fellow Americans? Why do you want to keep taxes low and hold on to your money as greedily as possible when our nation needs you to do the opposite?

Where is the money we've contributed all these years to Social Security and Medicare? Is it being invested by the government and waiting for us when we retire? At the rate they are going, it's going to be bankrupt by the time I reach retirement age. And you want me to turn over more money for the government's promises? I am defending myself for the choice to spend my money the way I want - not have it confiscated by the government for them to waste. I believe that I am a better steward of that money than the government. I do not agree that taxes are low.

I do not hate my fellow Americans - I hold them in very high regard (especially since I believe they are children of God). That's why the direction this country is going in alarms me. It is frightening how many young people are buying into this free this and free that - nothing is for free. And it does them no good to think that they can get something for nothing. They are better served being encouraged to work hard and value the efforts of their work. If they don't work for it - they will not value it. And the people who it's taken from will resent it. What do you suppose the really rich people who will be taxed at a very high rate will do? Do you think they'll stay in the US?

And what about people like Danny Green who earn a high income for a short time? You're okay with him being taxed at 77%?

[z0sa]

Absolutely. Every single millionaire needs to be heavily taxed. And unfortunatepy, you keep repeating this free that free this matra as of its true. No, we agree higher taxes are necessary to CATCH UP TO THE REST OF THE WESTERN WORLD. Your children of god statement only proves that you are still caught in the age old pr9paganda of "our country is better thaj everyone elses because GOD".

Sorry, its not. Were being passed by, being bankrupted by paying for wars on drugs and terrorists we cant afford while puppets like you want to keep the status quo.

You are part of the problem. You are the selfish fool standing the way of progress. You can say you love america all you want, but judging by your actions, you are nothing but selfish. We are 20 trillion in debt. Honestly, you dont want america to be the greatest nation on earth again. Period. Talk the talking points all you want, but we see right through you.

[Shastafarian]

Everyone under $250,000 will pay 8.8% more- even those in the lowest tax bracket (under $18,550). [/b] These people already qualify for Medicaid and get financial aid if they go to college. This will hurt them disproportionately.Where did you get these figures? Link please.


All this comes down to is choice in how to spend MY money. That 8.8% might be the difference between me being able to stay home or having to go out and work - and for what? free college tuition? I've already saved for my kids' college but I would be forced to give up my lifestyle to pay for others' college. Instead of that 8.8% going toward my retirement, it'll be commandeered to pay for some one else's college? How about everyone earn their own money and pay for their own stuff?A hilariously simplistic view of local and global economics. The income tax increase, which I don't think will be 8.8%, will go towards universal healthcare. Paying for college tuition would come from some sort of high risk speculation tax, which admittedly doesn't make a ton of sense.


A lot of people from the rest of the world want to come to the US because of the freedom we enjoy. Why in the world do people want to turn America into the rest of the world? And give up our freedom? Because that's what it results in - less money in my pocket means less freedom to spend it how I choose.Wow. If you had a better education (say for instance in one of the countries ahead of us in education) you would understand that your statement is a false equivalency. A false equivalency brainwashed into republicans/conservatives for decades.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Where did you get these figures? Link please.

A hilariously simplistic view of local and global economics. The income tax increase, which I don't think will be 8.8%, will go towards universal healthcare. Paying for college tuition would come from some sort of high risk speculation tax, which admittedly doesn't make a ton of sense.

Wow. If you had a better education (say for instance in one of the countries ahead of us in education) you would understand that your statement is a false equivalency. A false equivalency brainwashed into republicans/conservatives for decades.

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

[Shastafarian]

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

I'm aware of his website. I don't see where it says every person in the U.S. will get a tax hike of 8.8%.

And let's say that *number* was accurate. How much will the average person save by not paying health insurance premiums or huge deductibles? It's disingenuous to say he would raise taxes when other models of a single payer system REDUCE costs.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Arguing with anti-authoritarianism that smacks of what you typically hear out of juvenile delinquents is a waste of time. "You cannot tell me what to do!"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm aware of his website. I don't see where it says every person in the U.S. will get a tax hike of 8.8%.

It doesn't. There is a ~2% hike on everyone and a 6% on payroll listed there. He is trying to pretend that it is all fungible and will be passed down. Of course that expense would be in lieu of firms having to provide health care coverage probably resulting in a net gain for most companies once you consider how much of their payroll goes towards health care.

[Shastafarian]

It doesn't. There is a ~2% hike on everyone and a 6% on payroll listed there. He is trying to pretend that it is all fungible and will be passed down. Of course that expense would be in lieu of firms having to provide health care coverage probably resulting in a net gain for most companies once you consider how much of their payroll goes towards health care.

Right exactly. I figured the numbers were completely made up but was curious if he had some breitbart or foxnews link that bullshited its way through to come up with 8.8%.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Right exactly. I figured the numbers were completely made up but was curious if he had some breitbart or foxnews link that bullshited its way through to come up with 8.8%.

there are from anarcho-capitalist blogs in this very thread.

[rmt]

Absolutely. Every single millionaire needs to be heavily taxed. And unfortunatepy, you keep repeating this free that free this matra as of its true. No, we agree higher taxes are necessary to CATCH UP TO THE REST OF THE WESTERN WORLD. Your children of god statement only proves that you are still caught in the age old pr9paganda of "our country is better thaj everyone elses because GOD".

Sorry, its not. Were being passed by, being bankrupted by paying for wars on drugs and terrorists we cant afford while puppets like you want to keep the status quo.

You are part of the problem. You are the selfish fool standing the way of progress. You can say you love america all you want, but judging by your actions, you are nothing but selfish. We are 20 trillion in debt. Honestly, you dont want america to be the greatest nation on earth again. Period. Talk the talking points all you want, but we see right through you.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I do NOT agree that higher taxes are necessary. I also do NOT agree that we need to catch up on the rest of the Western world. We have most of the finest universities and doctors in the world. People flock here to attend these universities and to see these doctors. Many others want to come here to enjoy the freedom that we enjoy.

I mention the children of God to point out that it is not just a patriotic (fellow citizen) pov that I subscribe to but a spiritual (which is very important to me). I give generously of my time and money (tithing) to others. And as far as your previous statement, "hold on to your money as greedily as possible," it is not greed to want to hold on to MY money and spend it the way I see fit - not have that decided by you, the government or anyone else.

The majority of our spending is on entitlements, SS, Medicare and servicing the debt. I already pay my fair share of taxes (we have not even touched on all the other taxes like property tax, state sales tax, gasoline tax, thankfully I don't live in a state where there is state income tax, etc). How much is enough? If the government takes so much, what incentive is there for anyone to work? How do you think we got into this mess in the first place? By the government MISUSING our taxes and being irresponsible. Where we differ is that you think government and more taxes are the solution. I think the opposite - that government and its waste and irresponsibility are the problem and we need less of it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You also have to consider the sophistry that is going with our typical GOP types around here. On the one hand they want a flat tax or complain about free riders and then on the other they complain in an equitable tax plan.

They are arguing for the Grover Cleveland conclusion and don't care how they get there.

[Shastafarian]

Please do not put words in my mouth. I do NOT agree that higher taxes are necessary. I also do NOT agree that we need to catch up on the rest of the Western world. We have most of the finest universities and doctors in the world. People flock here to attend these universities and to see these doctors. Many others want to come here to enjoy the freedom that we enjoy.Forget the western world. It would be nice to even sniff the jock strap of many eastern countries.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32608772

"Singapore heads the table, followed by Hong Kong, with Ghana at the bottom.
The UK is in 20th place, among higher achieving European countries, with the US in 28th." Ted Cruz should embrace his heritage because Canada is currently putting us to shame.



The majority of our spending is on entitlements, SS, Medicare and servicing the debt. I already pay my fair share of taxes (we have not even touched on all the other taxes like property tax, state sales tax, gasoline tax, thankfully I don't live in a state where there is state income tax, etc).:rollin Holy shit and you're complaining about taxes?

How much is enough? If the government takes so much, what incentive is there for anyone to work? How do you think we got into this mess in the first place? By the government MISUSING our taxes and being irresponsible. Where we differ is that you think government and more taxes are the solution. I think the opposite - that government and its waste and irresponsibility are the problem and we need less of it.You need to take a course on history because you have a warped view of how we got into this mess.

[rmt]

The numbers were taken from the chart discussed earlier in this thread. Everyone making under $250,000 pays an additional 8.8% in tax including those making UNDER $18,550 who already qualify for Medicaid and financial aid.

And I'm female - not male.

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

[z0sa]

Rmt cementing himself as one of the least knowledgable posters in the forum.

[z0sa]

The numbers were taken from the chart discussed earlier in this thread. Everyone making under $250,000 pays an additional 8.8% in tax including those making UNDER $18,550 who already qualify for Medicaid and financial aid.

And I'm female - not male.

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

That very article specifically says most people would not see an 8.8 percent increase in taxes. Either yo7 cant read and therefore are stupid, or youre an ignorant partisan hack who hates America.

[Shastafarian]

The numbers were taken from the chart discussed earlier in this thread. Everyone making under $250,000 pays an additional 8.8% in tax including those making UNDER $18,550 who already qualify for Medicaid and financial aid.

And I'm female - not male.

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

Sorry I usually give women more credit. My bad.

A key excerpt from that article:
Now, marginal rates aren't everything. Most people wouldn't see an actual tax increase of 8.8 percent, even if their marginal rate goes up that much. Effective tax rates — the amount you're actually paying as a percentage of income — also depend on deductions and credits.

Like I said, it's disingenuous to say we would all be getting a tax hike of 8.8%.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

from his article

Again I reiterate that payroll tax will be in lieu of firms/people having to pay health insurance premiums. the above take is obtuse to the following dynamic:


The report, published Tuesday by the Commonwealth Fund, found that the rate of growth for premium costs for employer-sponsored health insurance was higher before the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s signature health care reform law. Premiums increased 4.1 percent each year between 2010 and 2013, compared to 5.1 percent each year from 2003 to 2010.

“These recent slowdowns in health care cost growth are encouraging because they are happening even as the Affordable Care Act has given workers better health insurance coverage,” Sara Collins, Commonwealth Fund Vice President for Health Care Coverage and Access and the study’s lead author, said in a statement.

But during the last decade workers’ monthly contributions to employer-provided health insurance increased by 93 percent. Their high share of spending occurs because premiums are exceeding income growth. While income rose 11 percent, premiums rose 60 percent from 2003 to 2013.

The same was true for families over the same period. Premiums for family coverage increased 73 percent while the median family income rose 16 percent. Because of the recession, real median income for families is still said to be 8 percent lower than it was in 2007, the year before the financial downturn began.

“As employers struggle to keep health insurance premium costs manageable, they are asking their workers to pay a larger share of their insurance costs,” Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund, said in a statement. “The recent slowdowns in overall health care costs are promising, but clearly they have not translated into relief for workers, who are spending more of their incomes on health coverage.”

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/12/09/workers-are-spending-more-of-their-income-on-employer-health-insurance

[TheSanityAnnex]

Why do you want to keep taxes low and hold on to your money as greedily as possible when our nation needs you to do the opposite?Because our government doesn't have our nation's (us) best interest as a priority.

[boutons_deux]

Because our government doesn't have our nation's (us) best interest as a priority.

then, who or what does?

[ElNono]

You also have to consider the sophistry that is going with our typical GOP types around here. On the one hand they want a flat tax or complain about free riders and then on the other they complain in an equitable tax plan.

They are arguing for the Grover Cleveland conclusion and don't care how they get there.

There's always the twists and turns, but at the end of the day, the Tocqueville "american exceptionalism" meme always ends up rearing it's ugly head, tbh...

[boutons_deux]

https://www.facebook.com/snl/videos/10153895043656303/

[boutons_deux]

Bill Clinton, After Months of Restraint, Unleashes Stinging Attack on Bernie Sanders


http://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/02/08/us/08billclinton-web/08billclinton-web-master675.jpg

Bill Clinton in Milford, N.H., on Sunday. “When you’re making a revolution you can’t be too careful with the facts,” he said of the Sanders campaign.

— Bill Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/bill_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per) uncorked an extended attack on SenatorBernie Sanders (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/bernie-sanders-on-the-issues.html?inline=nyt-per) on Sunday, harshly criticizing Mr. Sanders and his supporters for what he described as inaccurate and “sexist” attacks onHillary Clinton (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/hillary-clinton-on-the-issues.html?inline=nyt-per).

“When you’re making a revolution you can’t be too careful with the facts,” Mr. Clinton said, deriding Mr. Sanders’s oft-mentioned call for a political revolution.

The former president, addressing a few hundred supporters at a junior high school here, portrayed his wife’s opponent for the Democratic nomination as hypocritical, “hermetically sealed” and dishonest.

He even likened an incident last year, in which Sanders staffers obtained access to Clinton campaign voter data, to stealing a car with the keys in the ignition.

“ ‘Anybody that doesn’t agree with me is a tool of the establishment,’ ” Mr. Clinton said, mocking what he described as the central critique of Mrs. Clinton by Mr. Sanders. :lol At least you got one thing right, Slick Willie

Mr. Clinton’s comments represented an escalation in the language that he and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign have used to attack Mr. Sanders, who has maintained a sizable advantage in the polls here. Mr. Clinton made headlines in 2008 for fiercely defending his wife, and leveling tough attacks on Senator Barack Obama, but he has been largely restrained so far in this campaign.

His heated remarks here reflected the frustration the Clintons felt two days before the primary in a state that has rewarded them in the past, but that appears ready to hand Mr. Sanders a decisive victory. Mr. Clinton seemed especially irritated that New Hampshire, after lifting his 1992 bid for the Democratic nomination and handing her a comeback win in 2008, would now abandon his wife.

Criticizing Mr. Sanders’s hastily presented health-care plan, which Mr. Clinton claimed the Vermont senator had already disavowed, the former president asked: “Is it good for America? I don’t think so. Is it good for New Hampshire? I don’t think so.”

He continued: “The New Hampshire I knew would not have voted for me if I had done that.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/bill-clinton-after-months-of-restraint-unleashes-stinging-attack-on-bernie-sanders.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[Nbadan]

Feel the Bern....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn4tP7ogWIA

[boutons_deux]

0.01%er Hillary doesn't GIVE A SHIT about these people, Bernie does

Who the Election Should Be For: The 7 Most Beaten-Down Americans

Wealthy Americans are afraid of too much change, the kind that might occur with a Democratic Socialist as president. But it's too late for gradual change. Only a popular uprising against big business greed can restore a semblance of normalcy to our perversely unequal society.

The election should be about the economy—but the economy of average Americans, not of establishment wealth. The election should be about these beaten-down groups of Americans:

The Black American

"I cringed when people would ask me where I lived... Just to say 'public housing' was basically saying that you’re dirty, you’re bad, you’re dumb, you’re lazy, you’re a problem." —Shana griffin (http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/how-new-orleans-has-lost-13-its-black-population-polices-make-people-disappear), New Orleans activist

Emergency home repairs? Not for black families. The average African American family had readily available liquid wealth of only $200 (http://globalpolicysolutions.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/BeyondBroke_Exec_Summary.pdf) in 2011, less than $1 for every $100 owned by whites.

We tend to believe that education is the great equalizer. But a middle-aged black person with a graduate degree has about the same odds (http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-millionaire-odds/) of being a millionaire as a white person with only a high school diploma.

The Child

"My little sister. She's hungry." —An Ohio boy (http://www.cdfohio.org/research-library/2016/the-early-childhood-hunger.pdf), sifting through his school's garbage bin

For every THREE homeless (http://www.homelesschildrenamerica.org/mediadocs/280.pdf) children in 2006 there are now FIVE. For every THREE children on food stamps (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-16.html) in 2007, there are now FIVE.

And yet spending on children's programs recently declined (http://www.childtrends.org/news/news-releases/survey-finds-decline-in-child-welfare-spending/) for the first time in nearly 20 years.

The Senior Citizen

"I am over 60, and I was pushed out of my job because of my age. My rent, car note, and electricity are all two months behind. I can barely get food. Utilities will be cut off soon." —A Laurel, Maryland senior citizen (http://www.foreffectivegov.org/euc-story-archive)

With the average cost (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/20/specialty-drugs-now-cost-more-than-most-household-incomes/) of a year's worth of life-preserving drugs over $50,000, 43 percent (http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2013/04/26/43-percent-of-US-working-age-adults-cant-afford-doctor/UPI-37621367028447/) of sick Americans skipped (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Newsletters/Washington-Health-Policy-in-Review/2011/Nov/November-14-2011/Sickest-Adults-in-US.aspx) doctor's visits and/or medication purchases in 2011-12 because of excessive costs. It keeps getting worse. About half (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-419) of households age 55 and older have no 401(k) or IRA or other retirement savings.

The Young Adult

"I was denied the license to practice in my profession because of my student loans...I make $8.50 an hour as a cashier at ACE Hardware." —Hilary (http://www.dailyfinance.com/photos/the-most-depressing-student-loan-stories/#%21fullscreen&slide=979299), a student

Over one generation, from 1984 to 2009 (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/11/07/the-rising-age-gap-in-economic-well-being/), the net worth of an American under 35 dropped from $11,521 to $3,662, a 68 percent decline, in good part because of debt. In approximately the same time, the percentage of stay-at-home (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/magazine/its-official-the-boomerang-kids-wont-leave.html) young adults rose from 11 percent to almost 24 percent (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/07/17/in-post-recession-era-young-adults-drive-continuing-rise-in-multi-generational-living/).

Just get a job at Apple? The company makes a $400,000 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/12/28/apple-makes-407000-profit-per-employee-walmart-and-retail-6300-whos-the-exploiter/#7ed96aac5d46) profit per employee while paying its retail specialists less than $30,000 (http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Apple-Salaries-E1138.htm) per year.

The Veteran

"This figure runs around the corner...it looked like a little kid to me." A silent white flash filled the computer screen. Bryant paused, then turned to his partner. "Did that look like a child to you?" —Brandon Bryant (http://www.gq.com/story/drone-uav-pilot-assassination), former drone operator

Over a third (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,128465,00.html) of American troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have been diagnosed with some sort of mental disorder. Yet from 1970 to 2002, the per capita number of public mental health hospital beds plummeted (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739034/) from 207 per 100,000 to 21 per 100,000 -- nearly a90 percent cut! After the recession state funding was cut (http://www.nami.org/getattachment/About-NAMI/Publications/Reports/StateMentalHealthCuts2.pdf) some more.

The American Woman

"My husband lost his job... I graduated from a four-year nursing school... but I have been unable to find a nursing job and was working part time... my student loans are all in deferral... I am expecting to give birth in one month, so I can't get a second job." —Woman in Bergenfield, NJ (http://www.foreffectivegov.org/euc-story-archive)

Women earn (http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/04/09/are-women-catching-up-in-pay/#434b1b1e7688) just 80% (http://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/cgi-bin/facts.php) of men's pay, and they have barely half (http://time.com/3969233/inside-the-next-social-security-crisis/) the retirement assets of men.

But women are earning (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/25-fewer-men-women-graduate-college-obama-its-great-accomplishment-america)more (http://www.russellsage.org/blog/rise-women-seven-charts-showing-womens-rapid-gains-educational-achievement) undergraduate degrees than men, more master's degrees than men, and more PhDs than men.

The Renter

"I have enough money to last about a month before I go homeless...a year-long waiting list for any housing assistance. I have nowhere to turn." —Renter in Missoula, Montana (http://www.foreffectivegov.org/euc-story-archive)

According to the Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-157.html), median income has dropped by 6.5 percent since 2007. But rents keep going up (http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf). As a result, the number of families spending more than half their incomes on rent (http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/09/housings-new-crisis-half-your-income-for-rent.html)—the 'severely' cost-burdened renters—has surged from 7.5 million to 11.4 million in the last decade, a stunning 50 percent increase.

Billionaire Steve Schwarzman (http://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2016/01/21/blackstone-ceo-surprised-american-voters-are-unhappy-with-economy-politics-life/#74566aea70d9) finds the growing anger among voters "astonishing."

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQZr2FkgeArJkP7_jIKJzN1Br1ZFNgMj AC-jvIULuYhyjpnyeWkWg

But his company, Blackstone (http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/paul-buchheit-profiting-from-america-s-misery/), is a corporate model for making money at the expense of desperate former homeowners. Since the recession, it has become the nation's leading landlord (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-20/wall-street-unlocks-profits-from-distress-with-rental-revolution.html), buying up tens of thousands (http://www.alternet.org/economy/wall-st-landlords-cul-de-sac-near-you) of homes at rock-bottom prices, and then renting (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/housing/report/2014/02/27/84750/when-wall-street-buys-main-street-2/) them back, often to the very people who lost them.

What is truly "astonishing" is that people like Schwarzman fail to see—or refuse to see—what their lust for money is doing to beaten-down Americans.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/08/who-election-should-be-7-most-beaten-down-americans

[boutons_deux]

Single-payer health plan wouldn't cost U.S. more

In our "read my lips/over my dead body" political culture, the threat of tax increases usually shuts down proposals for single-payer national health insurance. Lately, conservative pundits - and even liberals like Hillary Clinton - have been repeating the mantra that single-payer insurance would break the bank.

Never mind that Canadians, Australians, and Western Europeans spend about half what we do on health care, enjoy universal coverage, and are healthier. Their health-care taxes are higher.

Or are they? According to our study in the current issue of the American Journal of Public Health, American taxpayers picked up 65 percent of the total health-care tab last year - a figure that will soon rise to 67 percent.

We paid $2.1 trillion in taxes to fund health care - $6,560 per person. That's more per capita than Canadians or people in any other nation pay. Indeed, our tax-financed health-care bill is higher than total health spending (private as well as public) in any other nation except Switzerland.

Official accounts from agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services peg taxpayers' share of U.S. health spending at about 45 percent, a figure that includes Medicare, Medicaid, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Veterans Affairs. However, this kind of tally omits two important items.

First, it leaves out government spending to buy private health coverage for public employees like teachers, firefighters, and members of Congress. Indeed, government employers account for 28 percent of all employer health spending.

Second, it excludes tax subsidies for private employer-paid plans and other privately paid care - $326 billion last year - that mainly benefit affluent families.

Omitting these government expenditures from the official health-spending tabulations obscures the fact that our health-care system is already about two-thirds publicly funded. In contrast, the Office of Management and Budget, not to mention most health-policy experts, considers tax subsidies for private insurance to be tax expenditures.

Even many uninsured families pay thousands of dollars in taxes for the health care of others.

More than one-third of these tax dollars meander through private insurers on the way to the bedside. These private insurers siphon off 12 percent for their overhead and profits (vs. 2 percent in the Medicare program) and also inflict huge paperwork costs on doctors and hospitals. A shift to single-payer national health insurance would save at least $400 billion annually on paperwork alone, enough to cover all of the uninsured and eliminate co-payments and deductibles for the rest of us.

That means a national single-payer plan wouldn't cost Americans any more than we're currently spending. Moreover, the taxes to pay for it would be fully offset by the savings from eliminating private insurance premiums.

Moving from our current level of tax financing, 65 percent, to Canada's 70.7 percent would mean a tax increase of about $185 billion per year. But Americans would save at least that much on premiums. The vast majority of American households would come out ahead financially, and everyone would be covered.

Drug and insurance firms that would lose billions under single-payer health coverage generously fund its detractors (including Clinton, who has gotten more health-industry dollars than any other presidential candidate). These naysayers suggest that a single-payer plan (or "Medicare for all," as Bernie Sanders likes to call it) would downgrade Americans' coverage, and they also raise the specter of big tax increases.

But a national single-payer plan would give all Americans the first-dollar coverage enjoyed by Canadians and Brits, and guarantee them a free choice of doctors and hospitals - a choice that private insurers currently deny to many of us.

Surprisingly, American taxpayers already pay enough to fund national health insurance. We just don't get it.

http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=%2Fphilly%2Fopinion&id=367751861 (http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=%2Fphilly%2Fopinion&id=367751861)

[spurraider21]

https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/k6Ikg48R_jNgt5RgOeRGmQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW15O3c9NjQwO3E9NzU7c209MTtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://36.media.tumblr.com/ab819a3b3d35c25df6d93823c50b88f2/tumblr_inline_o2akps3z7H1qchxpg_1280.jpg

[baseline bum]

Sanders can't raise the money to win a general election and he won't get the black vote that Clinton will.

[boutons_deux]

Sanders can't raise the money to win a general election and he won't get the black vote that Clinton will.

add in that a lot of boomer chicks are voting HRC just because she's a woman (sexism!), not because of her policies.

[boutons_deux]

Should feminists feel ashamed for supporting Bernie Sanders?

Famed feminists Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright drew attention this weekend when they separately shamed young women for supporting Bernie Sanders.

Hillary Clinton’s older feminist supporters took campaign smack talk to a whole new level over the weekend, when two icons separately chided young women for supporting Bernie Sanders. Ms. Clinton is nearly 20 points behind (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/01/14/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-women-millennials/78810110/) her opponent in support among women ages 18 to 34, according to a USA Today/Rock the Vote poll.

At a rally in New Hampshire Saturday, Madeleine Albright, the first female US Secretary of State, repeated what is becoming her most famous feminist one-liner: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.” This time, she was addressing all female voters in the 2016 election.

“Young women have to support Hillary Clinton. The story is not over! (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/06/madeleine-albright-campaigns-for-hillary-clinton)” she said in her introduction of the Democratic candidate. “They’re going to want to push us back. Appointments to the Supreme Court make all the difference.”

In a similar vein, Ms. Albright’s Second Wave feminist peer, Gloria Steinem, made a controversial comment Friday about the young, female voters backing Mr. Sanders. In an interview with the talk show host Bill Maher, the writer and activist suggested that the young women are campaigning for Sanders just to meet men.

“When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie,’ ” Ms. Steinem said. Even Mr. Maher was taken aback. “Now if I said that,” he replied, “You’d swat me.”

The younger generations are dismayed. Many have taken to the internet to express anger and disappointment over the feminist pioneers that they had once looked up to.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2016/0207/Should-feminists-feel-ashamed-for-supporting-Bernie-Sanders

[boutons_deux]

Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says

Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%.

Those are just a few of the things that would happen if Bernie Sanders became president and his ambitious economic program were put into effect, according to an analysis given exclusively to CNNMoney.The first comprehensive look at the impact of all of Sanders' spending and tax proposals on the economy was done by Gerald Friedman, a University of Massachusetts Amherst economics professor.

This more sweeping analysis was not commissioned by the candidate, though Sanders' policy director called it "outstanding work."

Friedman has worked with Sanders in the past, but has never received any compensation. The Vermont senator asked Friedman to estimate the cost of Sanders' Medicare-for-all plan (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/17/politics/bernie-sanders-medicare-plan/index.html?iid=EL) -- which came out to $13.8 trillion over 10 years -- and included the analysis when he unveiled his proposal last month.

Friedman, who believes in democratic socialism like the candidate, found that if Sanders became president -- and was able to push his plan through Congress -- median household income would be $82,200 by 2026, far higher than the $59,300 projected by the Congressional Budget Office.

In addition, poverty would plummet to a record low 6%, as opposed to the CBO's forecast of 13.9%. The U.S. economy would grow by 5.3% per year, instead of 2.1%, and the nation's $1.3 trillion deficit would turn into a large surplus by Sanders' second term.

Other economists, however, feel that Friedman's analysis is overly optimistic, saying it would be difficult to achieve that level of economic prosperity. Last week, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/03/pf/taxes/bernie-sanders-health-plan/index.html?iid=EL) said Sanders' plan to pay for health care would fall short by at least $3 trillion.

Sanders' plan to pour $14.5 trillion into the economy -- including spending on infrastructure and youth employment, increasing Social Security benefits, making college (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/bernie-sanders-free-college-costs/index.html?iid=EL) free and expanding health care (http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/25/news/economy/sanders-health-care-plan/index.html?iid=EL) and family leave -- would juice GDP and productivity. (Friedman reduces the cost of Medicare-for-all to $10.7 trillion because he estimates the government would save $3.1 trillion by eliminating tax breaks for health insurance premiums.)

Also, Sanders would raise the minimum wage (http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/23/pf/minimum-wage-2016/?iid=EL), as well as shift income (http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/16/news/economy/census-poverty-income/?iid=EL) from the rich to the middle and working class through tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations.

"Like the New Deal of the 1930s, Senator Sanders' program is designed to do more than merely increase economic activity," Friedman writes. It will "promote a more just prosperity, broadly-based with a narrowing of economy inequality."

Many presidential hopefuls say their economic programs would boost growth. Donald Trump (http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/30/news/economy/donald-trump-economy-jeb-bush/?iid=EL) and Jeb Bush justify their big tax cuts by saying GDP would grow at a 4% rate. But their plans have been panned by experts as overly optimistic.

Friedman, however, argues that Sanders' plan would be more stimulative because it is pouring money into the economy, as opposed to cutting taxes. Several of Sanders' proposals -- such as spending $1 trillion on infrastructure -- will happen in the first few years of his administration.

The thinking goes: This enhanced government spending would increase demand on businesses, who would then hire more workers to meet their needs. The increase in employment (http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/05/news/economy/us-economy-january-jobs-report/index.html?iid=EL) will prompt people to buy more, leading other businesses to hire.

"If there is more spending, people will have more to do," Friedman said, noting that the share of the population with jobs could be restored to its 1999 level of more than 64%, up from its current 59.6% rate.

(http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/bernie-sanders-free-college-costs/?iid=EL)Sanders' policy director, Warren Gunnels, also defended the estimates, noting the candidate is thinking big.

"We haven't had such an ambitious agenda to rebuild the middle class (http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/04/news/economy/middle-class-government-help/index.html?iid=EL) since Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson," he said.

Still, some experts question whether the effects would be that large.

Stimulating demand can boost a weak economy during a recession, but "it's harder to accept as a long-run growth strategy," said William Gale, the former director of Brookings' Economic Studies Program.

Also, it would be very difficult to achieve and maintain an economic growth rate (http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/29/news/economy/us-economy-gdp-fourth-quarter/index.html?iid=EL) of 5.3% per year after inflation. That target hasn't been hit consistently since the 1960s, when technology was providing big advancements, the workforce was younger and there was increased demand for American products worldwide as other countries fully recovered from World War II.

"The 5.3% number is a fantasy," said Jim Kessler, senior vice president at Third Way, a centrist think tank.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/ (http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/)

USA has tried Repug austerity, extreme tax cutting for the "job creators", and it all sucks, always has sucked, always will suck.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

Bernie just killing Hillary today. Go Bernie!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sanders can't raise the money to win a general election and he won't get the black vote that Clinton will.

Sanders beats Clinton in January fundraising

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/268242-sanders-beats-clinton-in-january-fundraising

I put the money meme with the same sentiment towards Obama last year as well as the GOP establishment's take on Trump.

Now his political position on bus rights in the 70s will likely be difficult for him to overcome but then again the demographic doesn't seem to have a firm grasp on the issue. It will effect turnout moreso than how they vote.

[Reck]

:lmao

Bernie just killing Hillary today. Go Bernie!

He should enjoy this win.

He'll get killed in South Caronina and Nevada.

[Nbadan]

Sanders can't raise the money to win a general election and he won't get the black vote that Clinton will.

Didn't I start a thread about this already? ....and don't forget that Hispanics like the Clintons too...

[hater]

:lmao shillary got a 14 incher to the chin today :lol what a beat down :lol

[hater]

Seriously today money is no object for any of the candidates.

Sanders can easily raise 100 million if need be

[Koolaid_Man]

Sanders is a fraud..I like his message but he CANNOT DELIVER......it's amazing to see all these Dumb asses thinking he can..truly sad

[DJ Mbenga]

sanders can raise money, its already proven. but that whole what happens when the electorate isnt 100% white will be interesting. his campaign has already trashed hispanics that have endorsed hillary quite publicly, could backfire.

[hater]

There were few darkies in Sanders speech tbqh.

In trumps not so much :lmao

[hater]

Btw sanders would do well with brown and blacks. He's gonna raise the minimum wage :lol

Killer deal

[CosmicCowboy]

So you guys are betting on Hillary's miraculous recovery in the south?

[baseline bum]

So you guys are betting on Hillary's miraculous recovery in the south?

Niggas don't vote for white liberals. For whatever reason they love Bill and that twat though.

[boutons_deux]

So you guys are betting on Hillary's miraculous recovery in the south?

yeah, Slick Willy's saxophone/dark glasses gig convinced the blacks that Clintion's are black, but of course Bill signed the welfare reform which really screwed Ms of blacks, esp black women. All politicians, esp Repugs, count on the ignorance, stupidity of voters.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sanders is a fraud..I like his message but he CANNOT DELIVER......it's amazing to see all these Dumb asses thinking he can..truly sad

Whether or not he delivers is besides the point for me. The issues he pushes are definitely an uphill battle but that is no excuse to not try. It's time we started pounding the rock.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I really hope the ticket ends up Trump vs Sanders. Trumps favorability with independents is so shitty he's pretty much guaranteed to lose. it might also have the GOP revisit the primary system which while better than before still is shit.

[InRareForm]

sanders is too far left for me but i think ultimately the best choice

[boutons_deux]

sanders is too far left for me but i think ultimately the best choice

America is fucked, capital has destroyed, impoverished, emasculated labor.

Bernie's policies are very reasonable, extremely centrist for addressing the fuckedness, to return to an America For The People, rather than exclusively for the 1% and BigCorp.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

sanders is too far left for me but i think ultimately the best choice

I've said this before but if he would speak out against the single member district I would go complete fanboi. I get the concern that he is too into market intervention and I share it but his stance on corporate law, election reform, banking reform and health care are both in accord with my own and my top issues.

A lot of people say he cannot do that much because congress won't do whit but if the justice department were to enforce current anti-trust statutes witha purpose he could dismantle the worst of the corptocracy in health care, banking, and the rest of the corporate oligarchy. His Supreme court nominees would also be instrumental.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

sanders can raise money, its already proven. but that whole what happens when the electorate isnt 100% white will be interesting. his campaign has already trashed hispanics that have endorsed hillary quite publicly, could backfire.

Ayala and the hispanic fundraising machine went a long way in getting Obama elected. I find it disconcerting that they along with Obama went from their initial campaign positions to become establishment. Castro too and they are both from San Antonio.

I think he is right to criticize them as they failed along with the guy they backed to follow through on what they said they would.

[illusioNtEk]

im starting to feel the burn guys

[spurraider21]

America is fucked, capital has destroyed, impoverished, emasculated labor.

Bernie's policies are very reasonable, extremely centrist for addressing the fuckedness, to return to an America For The People, rather than exclusively for the 1% and BigCorp.
:lol

[Koolaid_Man]

Whether or not he delivers is besides the point for me. The issues he pushes are definitely an uphill battle but that is no excuse to not try. It's time we started pounding the rock.


I like Sanders message but the reality is voting Sanders is voting for Trump...Sanders will get trounced by Trump in the General.....Republicans haven't even went in on him yet and when they do its going to be a disaster.....you dont try stupid shit like this at a time the economy is fragile and still recovering.....and when Repubs control the House.....it's pointless....given the current state of politics what do you possibly think he will accomplish that Obama didn't? Sure he's not black like Obama so that will help a little but he's an avowed Socialist.....and the text book definition of a socialist will be driven home by the Republicans...it will be a disaster if Bernie beats Hillary....

A complete disaster.....to stay the course and keep the recover going we need to elect Hillary no matter what we think of her.....Bernie is too far out there and what he's advocating will never pass...it will die die die in the House and likely the Senate....he knows this....

He has a singular message about the middle class and that's it...its not enough for me.....he knows nothing about world affairs and its shameful for someone who's been in Congress for as long as he has....what has he a accomplished...he just comes out of nowhere talking this bullshit after being in Congress and part of the system for dam near 50 yrs...I simply don't beleive him....

I'm voting Hillary

[boutons_deux]

Young male voters proving key for Sanders in New Hampshire

NASHUA, N.H. — Gloria Steinem may have been right about one thing: Bernie Sanders is where the boys are.

The feminist icon took heat late last week for saying that young women are supporting Sanders (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/06/gloria-steinem-bernie-sanders-women/79943264/) to meet boys as an explanation of why Hillary Clinton is struggling with this demographic (Steinem later apologized).

But perhaps more interesting is the extent to which men are aligned with Sanders, who enjoys a 46-point advantage with male voters in New Hampshire, according to a recent CNN/WMUR poll. It's that overwhelming advantage that's helped give the Vermont senator a healthy lead in the Granite State, which holds its first-in-the-nation primary on Tuesday.

"The missing story, is why the heck is Bernie Sanders getting 70% support from Democratic men? It’s extraordinarily high," said Andy Smith, a University of New Hampshire pollster. In 2008, Clinton got 46% of the female vote while, Obama and Edwards combined got 59% of the male vote in the Granite State.

There are many reasons why Sanders is a magnet for young males beyond the fact that Clinton’s bid to become the first female president may not resonate as much with them. Younger men, who tend to prize independence, are especially receptive to Sanders’ anti-Wall Street calls for “revolution” versus Clinton’s more incremental approach, for example..

As Sanders made his final push in New Hampshire on Monday at Daniel WebsterCommunity College in Nashua, groups of mostly male students huddled in a barn listening to Willie Nelson’s On the Road Again (Clinton, by contrast, often begins her rallies with female empowerment music), as Sanders began his speech with a mention of the Super Bowl and paid tribute to the military.
Waving his arms and pointing his finger for emphasis, he also stressed elements of his core message, which included "anger" over youth unemployment and "Wall Street greed, recklessness."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/02/08/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-hillary-clinton-gender/80013184/

It looks like sexism is big, older/boomer women voting for Hillary primarily just because of her gender ("it's a woman's turn"), not because of her policies and history, and men voting Bernie because of his policies and gender.

[in2deep]

Obama ran as a near socialist with offering free healthcare for all. Sanders is running as a near socialist offering even more free healthcare for all.

you do the math.

[boutons_deux]

ACA/public option/medicare-for-all is not free

Bernie's done the math, and other people have to. Obviously, you're a fucking innumerate wanker.

[PublicOption]

this country needs to stop being so fucking selfish and help each other, and the planet. if the top 1% won't do it on there own.....its time to force them to. simple as that.

feel the bern and donate.

www.berniesanders.com

[Koolaid_Man]

this country needs to stop being so fucking selfish and help each other, and the planet. if the top 1% won't do it on there own.....its time to force them to. simple as that.

feel the bern and donate.

www.berniesanders.com

No..I'm not feeling the burn..I'm wearing a rubber bro....I like Bernie's message..it's just not feasible at this time...too risky.....we've made it these past 8 yrs no need for a major overhaul until Dems control congress....all Bernie is doing is spewing a populist message to get elected and then won't be able to deliver on shit....he's just going to start a long 4 yr debate if he wins because not a gotdam thing will change....even though he may have good intentions he's lying his fucking ass off and you guys are falling for it....Hillary ain't promising some pie in the sky bullshit that's why she has my vote

[in2deep]

Bernie just had breakfast with Al Sharpton.

Black Vote: check

now he probably will have lunch at Taco Bell and win the latino vote.

[in2deep]

ACA/public option/medicare-for-all is not free

Bernie's done the math, and other people have to. Obviously, you're a fucking innumerate wanker.

the words coming out of his mouth are "free healthcare for all" :lol

you do the math. dumbshit :lol

[boutons_deux]

the words coming out of his mouth are "free healthcare for all" :lol

you do the math. dumbshit :lol

free at the time of access, but universal coverage is paid out of everybody's income, just like SS and Medicare, and employer group plans are now

[Sportcamper]

I like Sanders message but the reality is voting Sanders is voting for Trump...Sanders will get trounced by Trump in the General.....Republicans haven't even went in on him yet and when they do its going to be a disaster.....you dont try stupid sht like this at a time the economy is fragile and still recovering....

I am aghast that people think that a successful capitalist with all of his connections would be bad for this economy…Do you really think that Donald Trump would be worse on the economy than a light weight junior Senator community organizer?

[I. Hustle]

Bernie just had breakfast with Al Sharpton.

Black Vote: check

now he probably will have lunch at Taco Bell and win the latino vote.

Why Taco Bell? Did he have Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles with Sharpton or something?

[Sportcamper]

Why Taco Bell? Did he have Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles with Sharpton or something?
The one in Hollywood is great…They have added an Obama special to the menu…Get the ice cream size scoop of butter on the side for your waffles…:lol

[I. Hustle]

The one in Hollywood is great…They have added an Obama special to the menu…Get the ice cream size scoop of butter on the side for your waffles…:lol

Why hasn't this caught on in SA? Can you imagine the lines?

[RandomGuy]

DEMOCRATS
ELECTORAL VOTES: 341 ✔
POPULAR VOTE: 52.3%
REPUBLICANS
ELECTORAL VOTES: 197
POPULAR VOTE: 46.0%
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

Assume modest turn out increases in all demographics

Assume college educated whites shift slightly Democratic, as more Dems turnout than GOP
Assume non-college educated whites shift slightly Republican as more of them turnout for GOP than Dems
Assume Hispanic (think much younger demographic, where Sanders wins hands-down) shift very slightly more Democratic, but turn out increases slightly more than other groups
Asians shift about the same as college educated whites.

That is the electoral college in a Trump/Sanders dust-up, as I see it.

Edit:

Analysis is very sensitive to what college educated whites do/think though. A few points either way shift key states from Dem to GOP.



DEMOCRATS
ELECTORAL VOTES: 235
POPULAR VOTE: 49.4%
REPUBLICANS
ELECTORAL VOTES: 303 ✔
POPULAR VOTE: 48.9%


A 3% shift the OTHER way for that demographic gives it to the GOP.

Leaving the question:

If you are a reasonably intelligent college educated white person, who would you vote for?

Interesting.

[CosmicCowboy]

If you are a reasonably intelligent college educated white person, who would you vote for?

Considering Bernie's plan would raise taxes dramatically across the board (including on these intelligent middle class college educated voters) it's hard to see a majority of them voting against their own self interests. Bernie HAS to raise taxes on the middle class because that's where the money is.

[DMX7]

He's not going to win. The game is really rigged in the democratic nomination process. The "super delegates" are almost all going to Hillary.

[z0sa]

Considering Bernie's plan would raise taxes dramatically across the board (including on these intelligent middle class college educated voters) it's hard to see a majority of them voting against their own self interests. Bernie HAS to raise taxes on the middle class because that's where the money is.

Actually, the money is in loopholes for corporations and the super rich. Bernie intends to hit them from both sides, by raising the minimum wage and exposing and closing these loopholes. Additionally, he's going to impose a speculation tax on wall street. Hundreds of economists back his plan, and a CNN Money article said if his entire economic plan went through would create a SURPLUS within his first term, as well as raising wages, increasing GDP growth, etc.

[z0sa]

He's not going to win. The game is really rigged in the democratic nomination process. The "super delegates" are almost all going to Hillary.

Almost sounds like 2008... the reality is, it is certainly an uphill battle, but Bernie has the money to drag the process out into late spring. And there is a good good thing about superdelegates - they can change their mind all the way up til the last moment.

[DMX7]

Almost sounds like 2008... the reality is, it is certainly an uphill battle, but Bernie has the money to drag the process out into late spring. And there is a good good thing about superdelegates - they can change their mind all the way up til the last moment.

Obama had a different pull though. The establishment democrats really don't like a lot of Bernie's policy ideas whereas there was not much difference between Obama and Clinton in 2008.

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually, the money is in loopholes for corporations and the super rich. Bernie intends to hit them from both sides, by raising the minimum wage and exposing and closing these loopholes. Additionally, he's going to impose a speculation tax on wall street. Hundreds of economists back his plan, and a CNN Money article said if his entire economic plan went through would create a SURPLUS within his first term, as well as raising wages, increasing GDP growth, etc.

You really should read his plan instead of regurgitating spoon fed talking points. He dramatically raises taxes on the middle class.

[z0sa]

Obama had a different pull though. The establishment democrats really don't like a lot of Bernie's policy ideas whereas there was not much difference between Obama and Clinton in 2008.

Have you seen the exit polling for NH? 40% of the registered Democrats want someone MORE liberal than Obama.

[DMX7]

If it were to shape up as Trump vs. Sanders, Bloomberg would almost certainly enter the race.

[z0sa]

You really should read his plan. He dramatically raises taxes on the middle class.

This was covered in this very thread. You're lying. It's okay ConservativeCowboy, you can spread all the misinformation you want so you keep your taxes low.

[z0sa]

LOL editing your post. I have read his entire plan, and every page of his website, and watched dozens of his speeches. You're WAY behind the curve, old man.

[DMX7]

Have you seen the exit polling for NH? 40% of the registered Democrats want someone MORE liberal than Obama.

Yes, but the establishment and people running for congress in 2016 think he's too left. That's why the super delegates aren't going his way. They just want to win and are less idealistic. I'm not saying he can't win, I just think it's almost certain he won't.

[CosmicCowboy]

This is almost a flashback to the 60's - 80's where except for Clinton, Democrats time after time nominated unelectable liberals in the primaries.

[z0sa]

Yes, but the establishment and people running for congress in 2016 think he's too left. That's why the super delegates aren't going his way. They just want to win and are less idealistic. I'm not saying he can't win, I just think it's almost certain he won't.

He just won in a landslide and fought Hillary to a draw in the first two states where votes are counted... like I said, an uphill battle still, but making the inroads he has? Far from impossible.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I like Sanders message but the reality is voting Sanders is voting for Trump...Sanders will get trounced by Trump in the General.....Republicans haven't even went in on him yet and when they do its going to be a disaster.....you dont try stupid shit like this at a time the economy is fragile and still recovering.....and when Repubs control the House.....it's pointless....given the current state of politics what do you possibly think he will accomplish that Obama didn't? Sure he's not black like Obama so that will help a little but he's an avowed Socialist.....and the text book definition of a socialist will be driven home by the Republicans...it will be a disaster if Bernie beats Hillary....

A complete disaster.....to stay the course and keep the recover going we need to elect Hillary no matter what we think of her.....Bernie is too far out there and what he's advocating will never pass...it will die die die in the House and likely the Senate....he knows this....

He has a singular message about the middle class and that's it...its not enough for me.....he knows nothing about world affairs and its shameful for someone who's been in Congress for as long as he has....what has he a accomplished...he just comes out of nowhere talking this bullshit after being in Congress and part of the system for dam near 50 yrs...I simply don't beleive him....

I'm voting Hillary

What a bunch of nothing. Trump will beat Sanders because . . . .

Sanders has been dominating the independent votes taking 70% as opposed to Hillary. Trumps favorability int he same demographic is in the 30's. If you are going to troll in here you are going to have to do better than this shit. Empty platitudes are too easy to dismiss for all your verbosity.

[DMX7]

He just won in a landslide and fought Hillary to a draw in the first two states where votes are counted... like I said, an uphill battle still, but making the inroads he has? Far from impossible.

these are small states though... very small

Even so, he is still losing the delegate count... how sad is that?

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL editing your post. I have read his entire plan, and every page of his website, and watched dozens of his speeches. You're WAY behind the curve, old man.

:lmao

after all that you still claim he won't raise taxes on the middle class? :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is almost a flashback to the 60's - 80's where except for Clinton, Democrats time after time nominated unelectable liberals in the primaries.

If it was your generation and the WW2 generation like then you might have a point. The millennials are going to be even more powerful this election and they like that shit. Meanwhile your generation is dying off.

Carter and Kennedy won. I don't see Dukakis comparison and I see no REagan. Really the only comparable person to Sanders is McGovern but if you think Nixon would win in this electorate then we will just have to wait and see. Millennials remain very active though.

[z0sa]

Sanders raises 2.6 million hours after NH win (link) (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/268924-sanders-raises-26m-hours-after-nh-win)

[z0sa]

:lmao

after all that you still claim he won't raise taxes on the middle class? :lol

I never said he wouldn't. Just not the stupidly hyperbolic levels you're suggesting.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao

after all that you still claim he won't raise taxes on the middle class? :lol

You going to acknowledge the trade off for the payroll and 2% tax in insurance premiums?

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

Low test beta cucks feeling the Bern

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

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

[z0sa]

If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, I'm voting for the Donald. Either one would be better than Hillary the Two Faced Lying cunt and ______ establishment jesustard.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

these are small states though... very small

Even so, he is still losing the delegate count... how sad is that?

Compare and contrast to how he was predicted to do even 2 months ago.

[z0sa]

these are small states though... very small

Even so, he is still losing the delegate count... how sad is that?

Sad? It's actually amazing it's even a close race at all. Have you been keeping up with the Democratic side of the race?

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

Clinton waddled out on NH with the same # of delegates as Bernie. Too fucking funny.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268935-clinton-likely-to-leave-nh-with-same-number-of-delegates

[boutons_deux]

:lmao

Clinton waddled out on NH with the same # of delegates as Bernie. Too fucking funny.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268935-clinton-likely-to-leave-nh-with-same-number-of-delegates

the super delegates for HRC are Bernie's huge hurdle. I can't see how he overcomes that even if he wins all the primaries. system is rigged, but that's US corrupted democracy.

[Cry Havoc]

the super delegates for HRC are Bernie's huge hurdle. I can't see how he overcomes that even if he wins all the primaries. system is rigged, but that's US corrupted democracy.

If he starts winning more states, they'll shift.

[boutons_deux]

If he starts winning more states, they'll shift.

he has support of only 2 Dems in the entire Congress, etc, etc.

[z0sa]

he has support of only 2 Dems in the entire Congress, etc, etc.

Even in defeat, he will play the Obi Wan Kenobi role. 80%+ of people under 30 despise Hillary and the establishment, and the numbers aren;t much better for under-45.

[rmt]

:lmao

Clinton waddled out on NH with the same # of delegates as Bernie. Too fucking funny.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268935-clinton-likely-to-leave-nh-with-same-number-of-delegates

This is so unfair. It subverts the will of the people - whatever happened to democracy. Do the repubs do this too?

[Cry Havoc]

This is so unfair. It subverts the will of the people - whatever happened to democracy.

Citizens United and decades of the ultra-elite gradually buying into government.

[boutons_deux]

This is so unfair. It subverts the will of the people - whatever happened to democracy. Do the repubs do this too?

I've been telling you people, see the Princeton study I've referenced. Voter preferences have infinitesimal influence on legislation. Donors have all the influence.

Voters are effectively disenfranchised.

[101A]

Do the repubs do this too?

No.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No.

The executive council of the DNC is elected by the delegates. The executive council of the GOP has several positions that are unelected such as Ailes and Priebus. Further the GOP uses superdelegates as well so you should change that to a yes.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/can-gop-superdelegates-stop-trump/article/2580289

[z0sa]

No.

Republicans can possibly use superdelegates, but unlike the DNC, they can't vote differently than what the vote tally was in their respective states. The DNC version is a total sham, while the Republican one, slightly less so.

[101A]

The executive council of the DNC is elected by the delegates. The executive council of the GOP has several positions that are unelected such as Ailes and Priebus. Further the GOP uses superdelegates as well so you should change that to a yes.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/can-gop-superdelegates-stop-trump/article/2580289


From the RNC in your link:


rules obligate those RNC members to vote according to the result of primary elections held in their states.

There is a significant difference between the Democrat and Republican parties in terms of Superdelegates - and officially, the Republicans don't have any, and certainly no candidate has any of them pledged to them - whereas Clinton has something like 350 already in her pocket.

[DMX7]

Even in defeat, he will play the Obi Wan Kenobi role. 80%+ of people under 30 despise Hillary and the establishment, and the numbers aren;t much better for under-45.

I'm part of the 70% of people under 30 who prefer Sanders, but I'm telling you, the deck is stacked against him. He isn't going to win. I hope I'm wrong.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

From the RNC in your link:


There is a significant difference between the Democrat and Republican parties in terms of Superdelegates - and officially, the Republicans don't have any, and certainly no candidate has any of them pledged to them - whereas Clinton has something like 350 already in her pocket.

Fair enough. I thought they had gotten rid of all that electoral college nonsense in the 1970s.

At the same time the kingmakers in the GOP are not elected. Priebus and Ailes are never going to lose their posts.

[rmt]

Well, shouldn't you dems be protesting in the street over that? All these millenniums are gonna be surprised when Bernie seems like he's winning and he doesn't.

[boutons_deux]

http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Video/__NEW/2016-02-10T01-24-08-433Z--1280x720.nbcnews-video-reststate-800.jpg


Among New Hampshire Democrats, the biggest win ever for a non-incumbent was Michael Dukakis’ 16-point victory in 1988. Sanders defeated that record easily. In fact – here’s the really amazing part – Sanders’ 22-point win is actually larger than some of the Democratic primaries in which an incumbent Dem president faced a challenger: Jimmy Carter won by 10 points in 1980 and Lyndon Johnson won by 8 points in 1968.

Exit polls offer us some sense of how (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/new-hampshire-exit-poll-results-how-bernie-sanders-won) the Vermont independent pulled it off.

Values and demographics shaped the strong support Bernie Sanders received Tuesday in New Hampshire, according to the NBC News Exit Poll of Granite State Democrats.

The Vermont senator won 83 percent of millennial voters under the age of 30. He also won 66 percent of voters who describe themselves as very liberal, and at the same time took 72 percent of self-described independents.


That last point is of particular interest. Among New Hampshire Democrats, Clinton and Sanders actually tied (https://twitter.com/chucktodd/status/697236175459872768), but independents voted in the primary and propelled Sanders to his record victory.

Having set the stage, let’s now consider the What It All Means question.

For Sanders’ supporters, it’s quite simple: the senator’s easy win in New Hampshire, coupled with a strong, second-place showing in Iowa, means Sanders has the momentum he’ll need to win the Democratic nomination.

And that may yet happen. But some caution is in order.

Following up on our post-Iowa coverage (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/clinton-apparently-edges-sanders-iowa-showdown), FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver published a piece (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-could-win-iowa-and-new-hampshire-then-lose-everywhere-else/) back in July noting that Sanders is strongest in states where the universe of Democratic voters is very white and very liberal. Based on previous performance, that means the three best states in the Union for the senator are, in order, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Iowa.

This is no small detail. It means that, other than his own home state, Iowa and New Hampshire are quite literally the two strongest states in the nation for Sanders.

Sanders and his capable campaign team know exactly what they have to do as the race shifts to less-friendly terrain – expand the senator’s base of support, connect with constituencies that have not yet been as receptive to his message, etc. – but pulling it off is much easier said than done.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sanders-makes-history-new-hampshire-landslide?cid=sm_fb_maddow

[rmt]

LOL - Bernie gets all the democrat gun owners.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL - Bernie gets all the democrat gun owners.

When push comes to shove his stance on gun rights and small business is not typical of 'liberals.'

[boutons_deux]

CarLIE drops out

"Sit Down And Shut Up" Christie supposedly next out.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao

after all that you still claim he won't raise taxes on the middle class? :lol


You going to acknowledge the trade off for the payroll and 2% tax in insurance premiums?

Guess not. Not surprising but sticking your head in the sand is not a good way to uncover the truth, fattie.

[boutons_deux]

Right now, 1.9% paid off pay-slip for Medicare by employee and by employer

Employer kills his bullshit group plan. The money skimmed before tax is now given to employees to pay for their Medicare 1.9% to go up to 8% - 10% BEFORE TAX.

everybody's covered, NOT FREE, can change jobs w/o fear of losing health insurance increasing labor mobility, etc, etc, etc, etc.

no more BigInsurance network cartels, PPO, etc bullshit, no complexity, not even any annual signups. Lots of insurance companies to fail, good fucking riddance.

If you want 5-star coverage, you can go signup for private "top up" supplementary insurance (if you can find an insurer) just like Medicare people do now.

Medicare sets drug, device prices, treatment prices, etc, bringing down the cost of care.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Through my work I have met several hospital administrators and members of their boards. Good riddance indeed.

[boutons_deux]

How Bernie pays for his proposals

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

[spurraider21]

How Bernie pays for his proposals

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/
cool, but kinda misleading on some of them :lol...

https://i.gyazo.com/7d9ed9f18744f50de46dbcdc3c768961.png

"allows billionaire hedge fund managers"

implying its only billionaires that will be hit by this... there are an approximated 536 billionaires in the US

[boutons_deux]

cool, but kinda misleading on some of them :lol...

https://i.gyazo.com/7d9ed9f18744f50de46dbcdc3c768961.png

"allows billionaire hedge fund managers"

implying its only billionaires that will be hit by this

only billionaires are getting a fucking free ride avoiding, evading taxes. A lot of those billionaires bought up foreclosed homes, Ms of which the billionaires caused to be foreclosed on, and now renting them back at high prices. Some people are paying up to 50% of the income for rent.

fuck all the billionaires hard and fast in every orifice. They do much more damage to Americans than all the domestic and foreign terrorists combined.

[spurraider21]

my point is that it's not just "billionaires" who benefit from tax evading strategies

[boutons_deux]

my point is that it's not just "billionaires" who benefit from tax evading strategies

millionaires, too.

40M Americans on public assistance, retirees sucked dry with nothing saved, household debt cc debt of $15K, etc, etc.

nearly ALL American income is going to the top, top people playing with their money to make money, not investing in the real economy. And STILL they want their taxes cut even more.

[boutons_deux]

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

[boutons_deux]

Sanders won all demographic groups that were supposed to be easy wins for Clinton

according to New York Times exit polls (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/09/us/elections/new-hampshire-democrat-poll.html?_r=0), Sanders swept nearly everydemographic (http://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10955298/new-hampshire-primary-results-bernie-sanders-wins) on the way to his 22-point rout over Hillary Clinton.

In New Hampshire, Sanders won 83 percent of young voters (http://www.vox.com/2016/2/8/10940070/media-young-voters) ages 18 to 29, a virtually identical showing to his support among young (http://www.vox.com/2016/2/2/10893474/iowa-caucus-sanders-young-voters)voters in Iowa. Perhaps even more significantly, Sanders won (http://www.vox.com/2016/2/10/10958218/new-hampshire-exit-polls-bernie-sanders) 55 percent of women, to Clinton's 45 percent. But he also won the next two age brackets, finishing 8 points ahead of Clinton among voters ages 45 to 64. This age range is Clinton’s sweet spot, and losing it really bruises her mantle of popularity. Clinton did win among one generation, though – voters ages 65 and up swung 11 points in her favor.

Sanders scored strongly among men (66 percent), an unremarkable outcome given repeated polls showing men warming to him more than to Clinton. But he also won women handily, 55 percent to Clinton’s 45, taking the demographic that formed the corepitch (http://www.vox.com/2016/2/2/10893474/iowa-caucus-sanders-young-voters) of Clinton’s campaign.

And, perhaps most remarkably for Sanders, he swept the ideological spectrum, winning over voters who called themselves "very liberal" as well as "moderate." He won the latter category by 21 points, despite pitching his campaign as one that would not bend to the forces of moderation.

The fact that Sanders won nearly every demographic so handily lends credence to his idea that by riling up the populace with an economics-focused call to arms (http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10853502/bernie-sanders-political-revolution), he can turn out droves of voters who will help turn his radical ideas into reality. To his credit, Democratic turnout in New Hampshire was projected to top (http://nypost.com/2016/02/10/new-hampshire-primary-sees-record-turnout/) the previous record, set in 2008.

"Let us never forget, Democrats and progressives win when voter turnout is high," Sanders said in his victory speech (http://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10956632/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-speech-transcript/in/10714705)." Republicans win when people are demoralized and voter turnout is low."

Clinton did win among one demographic: people with incomes above $200,000. Those people, who made up 8 percent of voters, voted 53 percent in her favor to Sanders’s 46 percent. But given the themes of the night, this is probably not a victory that Clinton is eager to advertise.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/10/10958218/new-hampshire-exit-polls-bernie-sanders

[CosmicCowboy]

my point is that it's not just "billionaires" who benefit from tax evading strategies

Why is it tax "evasion" when you follow the law and legally plan to minimize your taxes?

[boutons_deux]

Why is it tax "evasion" when you follow the law and legally plan to minimize your taxes?

tax avoidance is legal, except the wealthy and BigCorp follow/abuse their own private tax regime with maximum bad faith, and of course they PAID to have the tax laws rigged for big money

tax evasion is illegal.

[ElNono]

Why is it tax "evasion" when you follow the law and legally plan to minimize your taxes?

Because the fact that's legal doesn't automatically mean it's perceived as just. The fact that socioeconomic status can greatly influence what shortcuts you can take with your taxes is plainly indicative of an uneven field.

I understand the vast majority of people want to keep their money and pay the absolute minimum in taxes, but if we're to apply the supposed fact that we're all the same under the law, then the law should apply evenly (and this doesn't mean we should all pay the same, it means that if loopholes and tax credits that distort the tax burden are available to one contributor, then they should be available to all contributors).

[boutons_deux]

"perceived as just."

come on, man, you know damn well the "law" isn't about truth and justice, but about "lawyering" the legal texts, technicalities, amorally ignoring truth, justice, fairness, ethics, with lawyers lawyering what the fuck ever they're paid to lawyer.

And in the case of right wing extremist SCOTUS, trashing stare decisis whenever their paymasters are disadvantaged or needing more advantages.

[ElNono]

That's exactly what I was pointing out. I'm fully aware how the sausage is made, I'm pointing out why it can be perceived as just/unjust, despite the legality.

[rmt]

Because the fact that's legal doesn't automatically mean it's perceived as just. The fact that socioeconomic status can greatly influence what shortcuts you can take with your taxes is plainly indicative of an uneven field.

I understand the vast majority of people want to keep their money and pay the absolute minimum in taxes, but if we're to apply the supposed fact that we're all the same under the law, then the law should apply evenly (and this doesn't mean we should all pay the same, it means that if loopholes and tax credits that distort the tax burden are available to one contributor, then they should be available to all contributors).

Sounds like a flat tax - we all pay the same percentage - no deductions, no tax credits, no loopholes. Is that what you mean?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sounds like a flat tax - we all pay the same percentage - no deductions, no tax credits, no loopholes. Is that what you mean?

I'm not him but he was specific and explicit about saying loopholes and deductions and not base rate.

[rmt]

I'm not him but he was specific and explicit about saying loopholes and deductions and not base rate.

I guess evenly doesn't mean equally.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I guess evenly doesn't mean equally.

No it just means that we should go by what he says and not infer universalities like that when he is explicit and specific in the very next sentence.

[ElNono]

Because the fact that's legal doesn't automatically mean it's perceived as just. The fact that socioeconomic status can greatly influence what shortcuts you can take with your taxes is plainly indicative of an uneven field.

I understand the vast majority of people want to keep their money and pay the absolute minimum in taxes, but if we're to apply the supposed fact that we're all the same under the law, then the law should apply evenly (and this doesn't mean we should all pay the same, it means that if loopholes and tax credits that distort the tax burden are available to one contributor, then they should be available to all contributors).


Sounds like a flat tax - we all pay the same percentage - no deductions, no tax credits, no loopholes. Is that what you mean?

Was the bolded not clear enough?

[ElNono]

The advantages or disadvantages of a progressive tax system can certainly be debated, but regardless of the system in place, it's simply unfair if certain people, because they have connections, money or power, can simply skirt the law or write their own exceptions.

[boutons_deux]

"The advantages or disadvantages of a progressive tax system can certainly be debated"

that debate is only ongoing in USA. Other industrial countries all run progressive taxation, just like the USA did decades ago.

[z0sa]

cool, but kinda misleading on some of them :lol...

https://i.gyazo.com/7d9ed9f18744f50de46dbcdc3c768961.png

"allows billionaire hedge fund managers"

implying its only billionaires that will be hit by this... there are an approximated 536 billionaires in the US

why are you defending billionaires?

[hater]

Bernie is for real. After this debate he joined the big leagues.

Shillary is in for a fight of her life :lmao

[z0sa]

Bernie is for real. After this debate he joined the big leagues.

Shillary is in for a fight of her life :lmao

Agreed. He got off some nice zingers, especially "only one of us ran against Obama" one. That said, I don't think there were any voters stolen on either side.

[Reck]

Agreed. He got off some nice zingers, especially "only one of us ran against Obama" one.

Most of his zingers had no aplauses though.

This was a boring debate that ended up in a tie imo.

She had the crowd fully behind her back all night long. Owned him on a few points too.

[hater]

Sure but most of her "zingers" were half truths.

She is the one that seemed to be doing talking points a la Rubio IMO. LGBT this, black lives that, miners, unions.

Yet CNN all accuse Bernie of being the Rubio candidate. Despicable CNN group of liars and assholes.

Bernie won. It was close but he didn't even try to attack Shillary.

[hater]

On and his foreign policy is pretty solid. Similar to Obama the 1st yet he speaks more truths about US imperialism. Reminds me of dear Dr Paul

[hater]

Agreed. He got off some nice zingers, especially "only one of us ran against Obama" one. That said, I don't think there were any voters stolen on either side.

:lmao that was the quote of the night.

She was sucking Obama's dick the entire debate and accusing Bernie of critizicing Obama. Then Bernie says "one of us ran against him and it wasn't me" :lol crowd was shocked :lol

[Quetzal-X]

Sounds like a flat tax - we all pay the same percentage - no deductions, no tax credits, no loopholes. Is that what you mean?

lol trump supporter

[Quetzal-X]

I guess evenly doesn't mean equally.

lol are you serious gtfoh

[z0sa]

A lot of the pundits are saying how important it is she binds herself to Obama for these upcoming half-black voting populations. I mean, how much obvious can that be as pandering? Yet it's ignored and even praised. Bernie at least is straight up - he's had his disagreements, and as a senator with a long history, is it really surprising?

[z0sa]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ca_iPpGUcAABy-9.jpg:large

[rmt]

lol trump supporter

Trump doesn't support a flat tax.

[CosmicCowboy]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ca_iPpGUcAABy-9.jpg:large

:lol

[hater]

Yeah that was her Goldman Sachs dress tbqh. Noticed it the moment she showed her fat ass all over my screen :lol

[hater]

:lol PBS moderator can't contain herself when Sanders brings up Kissinger in Vietnam. Says "OH GOD..." :lol

WXB4xXhDVMQ

[rmt]

http://www.inquisitr.com/2789064/denmark-burned-bernie-sanders-country-prime-minister-says-presidential-hopeful-is-lying-to-those-who-feel-the-bern/

[z0sa]

http://www.inquisitr.com/2789064/denmark-burned-bernie-sanders-country-prime-minister-says-presidential-hopeful-is-lying-to-those-who-feel-the-bern/

Nice strawman. The USA would still be a mixed economy even if every single one of Sanders' reforms went through. Sanders says we should learn from these countries. Not be socialist like these countries, lol. Everyone knows Denmark is a mixed economy as well. The entire western world is dominated by mixed economies.

[boutons_deux]

Sanders Campaign Statement on Clinton’s Immigration Comments

FEBRUARY 12, 2016

LAS VEGAS — Bernie Sanders’ National Latino Outreach Director Arturo Carmona on Friday issued the following statement on Secretary Hillary Clinton’s comments on unaccompanied minors at last night’s Democratic debate:

“Secretary Clinton is wrong. We should never put children back into harm’s way to ‘send a message’ to anyone. That’s why Sen. Sanders has put forward a serious immigration plan that focuses on protecting kids and keeping families together. It is time for Secretary Clinton to do the same.

“Sen. Sanders believes we must end inhumane deportations and strongly opposes the summary expulsion of Central American immigrant children. He will expand access to health care for aspiring Americans and will strengthen the rights of immigrant workers. He’s the best choice for Democrats who believe our immigration policies must put families first.”

To read Sen. Sanders’ immigration plan, click here (https://berniesanders.com/a-fair-and-humane-immigration-policy/).

https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-campaign-statement-on-clintons-immigration-comments/

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton’s ‘Southern Wall’ Just Crumbled

Hillary Clinton’s 20+ point lead over Bernie Sanders in Nevada just evaporated.

In a new poll released by TargetPoint Consulting (http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/nv-toplines.pdf), Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are in a dead heat, with both pulling 45% of the vote in the next state in the Democratic nomination process.

This is the first poll conducted in the state since December, which matched national trends in finding Clinton defeating Sanders by an average of 20 points. In that time, Sanders has made huge gains in his publicity, virtually tieing the former Secretary of State in Iowa, and roundly defeating her (http://usuncut.com/news/bernie-sanders-just-delivered-his-political-revolution-in-new-hampshire/) in New Hampshire by a margin of 22.4%.

The poll used a sample size of 1,236, which is a large number of respondents for a poll of this kind, resulting in a very reliable margin of error of only 2.9 percentage points.

Furthermore, this poll was conducted February 8-10, before last night’s debate, which found Bernie Sanders the clear victor, according to a Nevada focus group that favored the Vermont senator over Clinton 25-9 despite being evenly split prior to the debate.

During the debate at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Clinton defended the Obama administration’s policy of deporting Central American families, including children, saying that it was necessary to “send a message” to those families back in Central America that it was not safe to send them. Sanders retorted that children should not be used to “send a message.”

Given that 27% of Nevada’s population is Latino and 35% of caucus-goers were minorities in 2008, immigration policy is of paramount concern to voters in that state, though it is unknown how severe the reaction will be to Clinton’s comments.

This new from Nevada follows a powerful endorsement video for Bernie Sanders featuring Erica Garner (http://usuncut.com/news/erica-garner-featured-in-bernie-sanders-new-ad/), daughter of Eric Garner (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Eric-Garner-Chokehold-Police-Custody-Cause-of-Death-Staten-Island-Medical-Examiner-269396151.html), which was released by the senator’s campaign in an attempt to erode Clinton’s vast lead in South Carolina among African American voters.

Furthermore, it seems that Clinton’s national edge is also slipping, as a Quinnipiac poll (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268362-sanders-tied-with-clinton-nationwide-poll) found Clinton leading by only 2 percent nationally, though most other polls still show her with a sizeable lead.

After Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders clearly holds the momentum, and Clinton is making changes in both her strategy and campaign staff to attempt to stop another presidency from slipping through her fingers.

The Democratic caucus in Nevada is scheduled for February 20.

http://usuncut.com/news/bernie-sanders-ties-hillary-clinton-in-nevada/

[Nbadan]

Feel the Bern..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=480&v=645mtthz8Io

[boutons_deux]

http://www.inquisitr.com/2789064/denmark-burned-bernie-sanders-country-prime-minister-says-presidential-hopeful-is-lying-to-those-who-feel-the-bern/

this bullshit. a social democracy like the euro countries still run have plenty of free markets. None of them are pure planned economies.

And Bernie is not promoting a pure socialist, planned economy, with state running everything.

yes, the Danish PM is full of shit. The Scandinavian govts do play huge role in taking care of social issues, but the economies are still mostly open, market economies.

[boutons_deux]

Here are 19 ways Bernie Sanders has stood up for civil and minority rights

Here are 19 ways Sanders has stood up for civil and minority rights, starting in the early 1950s up to the present year.

1. Raising Money For Korean Orphans: International solidarity was an unusual concept for any American to have in the 1950s, let alone a high school student. But one of Sanders’ first campaigns was to run for class president at James Madison High School in New York City. His platform was based around raising scholarship funds for Korean war orphans. Although he lost, the person who did win the campaign decided to endorse Sanders’ campaign, and scholarships were created (http://time.com/3896500/bernie-sanders-vermont-campaign-radical/).

2. Being Arrested For Desegregation: As a student at the University of Chicago, Sanders was active in both the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). In 1962, he was arrested (http://time.com/3896500/bernie-sanders-vermont-campaign-radical/) for protesting segregation in public schools in Chicago; the police came to call him an outside agitator, as he went around putting up flyers around the city detailing police brutality.

3. Calling For Full Gay Equality: 40 years ago, Sanders started his political life by running with a radical third party in Vermont called the Liberty Union Party. As a part of the platform, he called for abolishing all laws (http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago) related to discrimination against homosexuality.

4. Standing Up For Victims Of U.S. Imperialism In Latin America: While mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Sanders formally protested the Reagan government’s policy of sending arms to Central America to repress left-wing movements. In 1985, he traveled to Nicaragua to condemn the war on people there. He writes (https://books.google.com/books?id=F3OIZHfRhfgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:5ajP1L6ccdIC&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCIQuwUwAGoVChMIgcDM2KjoxgIVy5QNCh3qUQOB#v=on epage&q=nicaragua&f=false) about it in his book Outsider In The House: “The trip to Nicaragua was a profoundly emotional experience….I was introduced to a crowd of hundreds of thousands who gathered for the anniversary celebration. I will never forget that in the front row of the huge crowd were dozens and dozens of amputees in wheelchairs – young soldiers, many of them in their teens, who had lost their legs in a war foisted on them and financed by the U.S. government.”

5 Condemned And Opposed Welfare Reform and Dog Whistle Politics: While President Bill Clinton and most Democrats in Congress supported so-called welfare reform politics, Sanders not only voted against this policy change, but wrote eloquently (https://books.google.com/books?id=F3OIZHfRhfgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:5ajP1L6ccdIC&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCIQuwUwAGoVChMIgcDM2KjoxgIVy5QNCh3qUQOB#v=sn ippet&q=black&f=false) against the dog whistle politics used to sell it, saying, “The crown jewel of the Republican agenda is their so-called welfare reform proposal. The bill, which combines an assault on the poor, women and children, minorities, and immigrants is the grand slam of scapegoating legislation, and appeals to the frustrations and ignorance of the American people along a wide spectrum of prejudices.”

6. Vocally Condemned and Opposed Death Penalty and Prisons His Entire Political Career: Sanders has long been a critic of “tough on crime” policies. Here he is in 1991condemning (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZJ7f-3XGB4&feature=youtu.be) a crime bill for promoting “state murder” through expansion of the death penalty:

“My friends, we have the highest percentage of people in jail per capita of any nation on earth….What do we have to do, put half the country behind bars? Mister Speaker, instead of talking about punishment and vengeance, let us talk about the real issue. How do we get to the root causes of crime? How do we stop crime? … I’ve got a problem with a president and Congress that allows five million people to go hungry, two million people to sleep out on the street, cities to become breeding grounds for drugs and violence. And they say we’re getting tough on crime. If you want to get tough on crime, let’s deal with the causes of crime. Let’s demand that every man, woman, and child in this country have a decent opportunity and a decent standard of living. Let’s not keep putting poor people into jail and disproportionately punishing blacks.”


He also voted for an amendment in the crime bill to eliminate the death penalty with life imprisonment.

7. Voted Against Cutting Off Prisoners From Federal Education Funds: In the 1990s, there was a successful effort (http://www.alternet.org/education/how-congress-killed-one-few-lifelines-former-prisoners-and-why-its-time-bring-it-back) to end the Pell Grant program for prisoners, which was one of the most effective ways to reduce recidivism. Only a handful of members of Congress voted against the legislation, and almost all of them were members of the Black Caucus. Sanders was one of the few white members who opposed this effort. It passed by 351 to 39 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZJ7f-3XGB4&feature=youtu.be). Of those in the House who opposed that vote, few are still serving; Reps. John Lewis, Jose Serrano, Charlie Rangel, and Bernie Sanders stood together at that time and continue to serve today.

8. Took IMF To Task For Oppressing Developing World Workers: In a 1998 committee hearing, Sanders (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQQ6USZJWsM) took Clinton administration official Robert Rubin to task for not enforcing a provision to protect the rights of workers in Indonesia. “Tell the world now that no more IMF money goes to that country, goes to [dictator] Suharto!” he thundered to Rubin, who later went on to be the chief architect of policies (http://www.progressive.org/node/124962) that led us to the Great Recession. “The IMF historically does not have a good record in terms of the poor people of various countries,” he noted, standing up for the poorest black and brown people on the planet, tackling an institution few in Congress dare to criticize.

9. Achieved High Ratings From Leading Civil Rights Organizations: A frequent critique of Sanders is that he is from a very white state. While this is true, he certainly has not ignored issues that matter to people of color. In 2002, he achieved a 93 percent rating (http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htm) from the ACLU and a 97% rating by the NAACP in 2006.

10. Voted Against the PATRIOT Act: The USA PATRIOT Act was passed (http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml) in a 98-2 vote in the Senate and a 357-66 vote in the House. Sanders voted against it, and has voted against renewing it every single time. The law has been used to violate the rights of Arab and Muslim Americans, but few know how extensively it has been used in the drug war; from 2009 to 2010, the law was invoked (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/29/surprise-controversial-patriot-act-power-now-overwhelmingly-used-in-drug-investigations/) for 3,034 narcotics cases and only 37 terrorism cases.

11. Opposed Both Iraq Wars on Moral Grounds: Sanders was opposed to U.S. involvement in both Iraq wars. While many simply talked about the war in terms of the impact it would have on the United States, Sanders went further (http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/bernie-sanders-predicted-invading-iraq-would-cause-more-wars-years-come-1991-watch), saying that the “death and destruction caused” would “not be forgotten by the poor people of the Third World.”

12. Traveled to Costa Rica to Defend Exploited Workers: Sanders traveled to Costa Rica (http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2007/09/sanders-and-mic.html) to help organize workers opposing the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). While many critics of trade agreements do so on the grounds that Americans deserve jobs that could be lost to foreign countries, Sanders instead practices a form of solidarity politics, saying that workers in both countries are being exploited by corporations and so we must organize workers in both countries.

13. Endorsed Jesse Jackson, Spoke Up For Palestinians: In 1988, Jesse Jackson was the first competitive black candidate for the Democratic nomination for the presidency. He came under fierce attack for his advocacy of Palestinian statehood. Sanders came to his aid, organizing Vermonters and winning the state for Jackson. Sanders was asked about Jackson’s comments on Palestine and defended him, saying that the Israeli assault on Palestinians was “reprehensible (http://www.alternet.org/1988-bernie-sanders-condemned-israeli-attacks-palestinians-reprehensible).”

14. Strongly Condemned Police Violence Over the Past Year: One criticism of Sanders is that he avoids talking about police violence in favor of talking about the economy. While the economy forms the bulk of his pitch, he has repeatedly condemned police violence during the duration of the Black Lives Matter movement. Here he is in mid-August 2014 (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/nyt-learning-from-the-ferguson-tragedy), before frontrunner Clinton ever spoke about the issue. Here (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/citing-crisis-in-ferguson-sanders-to-propose-youth-jobs-bill) (8/20/14) are (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/citing-crisis-in-ferguson-sanders-to-propose-youth-jobs-bill) (8/24/14) a (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U51lixGY7Nw) (8/18/14) few (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22qFWTsnfh4)(6/6/2015) more (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbxobSrrC68) (4/30/2015) examples (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpgJYNaIeqo) (6/2015).

15. Embraced Immigrants When Hillary Clinton Refused To Talk To Them: In 2014, young immigration activists repeatedly tried to talk to Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton to ask her about executive action. While Clinton did not talk to them (http://inconvenienttruthsabouthillary.tumblr.com/post/101446326198/video-hillary-clinton-refuses-to-talk-to-dreamers), Bernie Sanders was not only willing to talk (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/217697-dreamers-praise-sanders-over-clinton-after-confronting-both-in-iowa), but agreed with their call for executive action.

16. Defended Voting Rights Against Voter Suppression Efforts: Sanders earned the endorsement (http://inthesetimes.com/article/18126/killer-mike-bernie-sanders) of radical rapper Killer Mike by his leadership on defending the Voter Rights Act and calling for expanding voting rights.

17. Fought Against Employment Discrimination: Sanders was a strong supporter of legislation (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senate-passes-employment-non-discrimination-act) to end workplace discrimination against LGBT Americans.

18. Called For End to War On Drugs, For-Profit Prisons and Migrant Detention Quotas: Sanders supports (http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/19/democratic-presidential-candidate-bernie-sanders-supports-decriminalizing-marijuana/) decriminalizing marijuna, and believes the war on drugs to be a failure. Additionally, he has vowed (http://www.alternet.org/bernie-sanders-intends-strike-heart-prison-industrial-complex) to end for-profit prisons and immigrant detention quotas.

19. Put Out Detailed Plan to End Economic Crisis in Minority Communities: Many argue that Sanders views the issue of racial justice in too myopic a fashion by focusing on the economy. But polling of both Latinos and African Americans shows that jobs and the economy is either their top concern or tied for their top concern. Gallup polling shows that 13 percent of Hispanics say immigration is their top concern; 47 percent say (http://www.gallup.com/poll/176180/hispanics-name-immigration-top-problem.aspx) the economy is. Meanwhile, among black Americans, 13 percent say “race relations” is their top concern, tied with “unemployment/jobs,” an additional 10 percentage points go to the “economy in general.” Combined, economic concerns make up 23 percentage points while race relations compose 13 percent. If you add in healthcare, at 6 percent, another major Sanders theme, it gets you up to 29 percent. Add in poverty at 7 percent and education at 5 percent and you’re up to 41 percent of African Americans naming Bernie Sanders’ top issues as their top issues.

This validates Sanders’ strategy of looking to the economy as the top concern of minority communities. He has put out a detailed strategy to target unemployment across America and particularly to attack Hispanic and black youth unemployment, which he introduced in August 2014 (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/citing-crisis-in-ferguson-sanders-to-propose-youth-jobs-bill), long before he announced for president.

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/here-are-19-ways-bernie-sanders-has-stood-up-for-civil-and-minority-rights/

Blacks voting for Hillary, just like rednecks voting for Repugs, is voting against their best interests.

[boutons_deux]

The DNC Just Declared War on Bernie Sanders’ Political Revolution

The Democratic National Committee, headed by the massively unpopular Debbie Wasserman Schultz (http://usuncut.com/politics/video-democrats-heckle-dnc-chair-at-new-hampshire-party-convention/), has just lifted the last restrictions preventing the DNC from receiving direct contributions from Wall Street and special interest lobbyists.

Under the new rules, political action committees (PACs) and other corporate lobbyists and special interests are now free to donate unlimited sums to the DNC itself. The previous restrictions were put in place by President Barack Obama after his own election, which he marked by saying, “We are going to change how Washington works.”

He continued by affirming that corporate PACs “will not fund my party. They will not run our White House. And they will not drown out the voice of the American people when I’m president of the United States of America.”

These changes in the campaign finance and fundraising system of the DNC (and of the election process in general) are a cornerstone of the campaign of Bernie Sanders, who in his victory speech in New Hampshire (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/10/the-transcript-of-bernie-sanderss-victory-speech/) referenced corruption in the campaign financing system no less than five times. He has also touted the fact that he has no super PACs funding his campaign and that the average contribution he receives is just $27.

However, some have speculated that these new rules will provide a boost (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html) to Hillary Clinton’s fundraising efforts, as Clinton has set up a joint fundraising committee with the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund. Sanders created his own (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/political-parties-go-after-million-dollar-donors-in-wake-of-looser-rules/2015/09/19/728b43fe-5ede-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html) to match Clinton’s, but it has raised only $1,000 compared to the $26.9 million raised through the Hillary Victory Fund.

This change in policy was preceded (http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/249052-dnc-to-allow-lobbyist-money-to-fund-conventions) by a decision to allow PACs to donate to the annual nominating conventions, after Congress cancelled the $20 million it previously provided in federal funding to both parties’ conventions.

Robert Reich, who was Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Labor and is a harsh critic (http://usuncut.com/politics/170-top-economists-back-bernie-sanders-plan-to-rein-in-wall-street/) of Wall Street and vocal supporter of Bernie Sanders (http://usuncut.com/politics/robert-reich-six-responses-to-bernie-skeptics/), was aghast at the DNC’s decision, posting a scathing Facebook post in which he accuses the DNC of being a “siphon for more corruption.”

http://usuncut.com/news/the-dnc-opens-the-gates-to-unlimited-wall-street-funding/

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders is right: The biggest banks in America have gotten bigger

In one of his many references to the country's financial schism during Thursday night's Democratic debate, Bernie Sanders argued for splitting up "too big to fail" banks because, since almost failing, they'd only gotten bigger.

"When you have three out of the four largest financial institutions in this country bigger today than they were when we bailed them out because they were too big to fail," Sanders said, "when you have six financial institutions having assets equivalent to 58 percent of the GDP of America, while issuing two-thirds of the credit cards and a third of the mortgages -- look, I think if Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, that great trust-buster would have said 'break them up.'"

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/02/Banks_v2.jpg&w=1484


All three have gotten bigger -- even outpacing the size of the banks from 2006, once adjusted for inflation. Of the 15 banks that received the most bailout money, 11 are now bigger than they were before the recession, even after adjusting for inflation. Two are bigger than they were prior to the recession if you don't adjust for inflation, and one, Alabama-based Regions Financial Corporation, is smaller.

Correction: The above chart originally included Citibank, a subset of Citigroup, the larger institution. Citibank's insured assets grew between 2006 and 2015, but Citigroup, the umbrella, contracted from $1.9 trillion to $1.7 trillion.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/02/Banks_TotalAssets.jpg&w=1484


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/12/bernie-sanders-is-right-the-biggest-banks-in-america-have-gotten-bigger/

And of course, the 99% have become poorer as the banks and capitalists have become incredibly richer.

[mingus]

A lot of the pundits are saying how important it is she binds herself to Obama for these upcoming half-black voting populations. I mean, how much obvious can that be as pandering? Yet it's ignored and even praised. Bernie at least is straight up - he's had his disagreements, and as a senator with a long history, is it really surprising?

Yeah, it was plainly and disgustingly clear pandering on her part. But I guess it shows you what she really thinks of African-Americans to do that. She must think they're all stupid. I hope they watched that and saw how phony that shit was, and how phony she is.

I like Bernie. I like Bernie for the same reason I like Trump: they each run their campaign politically in a way that is different from how campaigns are typically ran. May not agree with the content of what they say, but they are genuine. They don't fall into this phony shit that the Clinton, Rubio, Cruz and most other politicians do all the time. It's refreshing and I hope they collide in a primary.

[z0sa]

The DNC Just Declared War on Bernie Sanders’ Political Revolution

The Democratic National Committee, headed by the massively unpopular Debbie Wasserman Schultz (http://usuncut.com/politics/video-democrats-heckle-dnc-chair-at-new-hampshire-party-convention/), has just lifted the last restrictions preventing the DNC from receiving direct contributions from Wall Street and special interest lobbyists.

Under the new rules, political action committees (PACs) and other corporate lobbyists and special interests are now free to donate unlimited sums to the DNC itself. The previous restrictions were put in place by President Barack Obama after his own election, which he marked by saying, “We are going to change how Washington works.”

He continued by affirming that corporate PACs “will not fund my party. They will not run our White House. And they will not drown out the voice of the American people when I’m president of the United States of America.”

These changes in the campaign finance and fundraising system of the DNC (and of the election process in general) are a cornerstone of the campaign of Bernie Sanders, who in his victory speech in New Hampshire (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/10/the-transcript-of-bernie-sanderss-victory-speech/) referenced corruption in the campaign financing system no less than five times. He has also touted the fact that he has no super PACs funding his campaign and that the average contribution he receives is just $27.

However, some have speculated that these new rules will provide a boost (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html) to Hillary Clinton’s fundraising efforts, as Clinton has set up a joint fundraising committee with the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund. Sanders created his own (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/political-parties-go-after-million-dollar-donors-in-wake-of-looser-rules/2015/09/19/728b43fe-5ede-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html) to match Clinton’s, but it has raised only $1,000 compared to the $26.9 million raised through the Hillary Victory Fund.

This change in policy was preceded (http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/249052-dnc-to-allow-lobbyist-money-to-fund-conventions) by a decision to allow PACs to donate to the annual nominating conventions, after Congress cancelled the $20 million it previously provided in federal funding to both parties’ conventions.

Robert Reich, who was Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Labor and is a harsh critic (http://usuncut.com/politics/170-top-economists-back-bernie-sanders-plan-to-rein-in-wall-street/) of Wall Street and vocal supporter of Bernie Sanders (http://usuncut.com/politics/robert-reich-six-responses-to-bernie-skeptics/), was aghast at the DNC’s decision, posting a scathing Facebook post in which he accuses the DNC of being a “siphon for more corruption.”

http://usuncut.com/news/the-dnc-opens-the-gates-to-unlimited-wall-street-funding/

Hillary and the DNC sure make it clear how much they just LOVE Obama and his policies!

[z0sa]

Yeah, it was plainly and disgustingly clear pandering on her part. But I guess it shows you what she really thinks of African-Americans to do that. She must think they're all stupid. I hope they watched that and saw how phony that shit was, and how phony she is.

I like Bernie. I like Bernie for the same reason I like Trump: they each run their campaign politically in a way that is different from how campaigns are typically ran. May not agree with the content of what they say, but they are genuine. They don't fall into this phony shit that the Clinton, Rubio, Cruz and most other politicians do all the time. It's refreshing and I hope they collide in a primary.

Agreed. Like I said, if not Bernie, I'm voting Trump. Someone who is not establishment.

[boutons_deux]

but is he a better feminist than Hillary Clinton?

what also accounts for this split is how voters respond to and formulate their positions in relation to the three “I’s”: Identity, Ideology and Issues.

1. Identity

Identity refers to the unique characteristics voters believe distinguish their candidate from the opposition.

“Woman” is often understood as an identity category, as is “feminist”. Those voters who believe that – above all else – what the United States needs now is a woman president prefer Clinton. Those voters who identify as feminists could choose either Clinton or Sanders, as both candidates have declared themselves to be feminists.

Which candidate feminist voters will select depends on where they stand on ideology and issues.

2. Ideology

Ideology refers to the system of ideas and ideals that motivate social and political action.

Feminism itself is an ideology. (https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/International_Relations_Theory.html?id=vzsVAgAAQBA J&redir_esc=y) Yet there are many ideological strands of feminism. In this election, Clinton represents a liberal corporate feminism, while Sanders represents a democratic socialist feminism.

Feminists who believe that equality of opportunity for women should be pursued within the existing political and economic system favor Clinton’s feminism. Feminists who believe that women’s equality requires a democratic revolution against political and corporate power that drives economic inequality favor Sanders’ feminism.

Feminist ideologies differ not only by ideological strand but also by ideological stretch. All feminist ideologies consider how gender and sexuality privilege some people and disadvantage others, but not all feminist ideologies stretch as far as others. Some look only at how gender and sexuality affect women and/or heterosexuals, while others stretch the categories of gender and sexuality to include men, homosexuals and trans people.

3. Issues

Both Clinton and Sanders stretch their respective brands of feminism, but Sanders claims to have been stretching his feminism for far longer than has Clinton. This is evident in how each candidate presents their record on the issue of LGBT rights and marriage equality.

As secretary of state, Clinton famously declared “gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights” (http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2011/12/178368.htm) in her 2011 Human Rights Day speech. While a long-time supporter of partnership benefits and civil unions for same-sex couples, Clinton said in 2000 had she been a senator in 1996, she would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/18/how-hillary-clinton-evolved-on-gay-marriage), which denied federal benefits and marriage equality to same-sex couples. In 2013, Clinton announced her position had evolved in support of marriage equality (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/15/hillary-clinton-gay-marriage-presidential-campaign).

Sanders, on the other hand, voted against DOMA in 1996. Whether Sanders’ opposition to DOMA was because he is a strong states’ rights advocate or a strong LGBT advocate is debated (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-gay-marriage_us_569fcc4de4b0a7026bf9e06f). What is not debated is that when Sanders (like Clinton) urged the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn DOMA in 2013, he did so as one of the few consistent legislative opponents of this law.

Identity, ideology and issues combine differently for different voters – individually, as demographic groups and in relation to specific types of contests like caucuses and primaries versus national elections.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/bernie-sanders-isnt-a-woman-but-is-he-a-better-feminist-than-hillary-clinton/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[boutons_deux]

The Facebook Primary

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/facebook-primary/?ex_cid=538fb

[rmt]

The Facebook Primary

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/facebook-primary/?ex_cid=538fb

Those percentages don't seem too good for Bernie seeing as most of his supporters are young and on Facebook.

[boutons_deux]

Carrier in Indy, UTEC in Huntington to move units to Mexico, costing 2,100 jobs

http://www.indystar.com/story/money/2016/02/10/carrier-move-indy-unit-mexico-eliminate-1400-jobs/80181804/

===============

"The decision by United Technologies to ship 2,100 jobs from Indiana to Mexico is another example of how NAFTA and other trade policies have been a disaster for American workers.

In my view, we have got to fundamentally rewrite our failed trade policies so that American jobs are no longer our number one export.

I was proud to help lead the effort against NAFTA and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.

Unfortunately, Secretary Clinton supported these trade policies which have led to the loss of millions of jobs and thousands of factories.

Enough is enough!"

https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/?fref=nf

[boutons_deux]

How Low Will the Clinton Camp Go?


http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/article_imgs19/019955-bernie-sanders-021516.jpg

Bernie Sanders, right, a member of the Congress of Racial Equality steering committee, stands next to University of Chicago president George Beadle, who is speaking at a CORE meeting on housing sit-ins in 1962.


http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/35211-how-low-will-the-clinton-camp-go

[boutons_deux]

Surging Sanders Could Surprise Nevada Caucus


As the Nevada Democratic caucus on Saturday comes closer, Bernie Sanders is surging, Team Clinton is panicked and the contest will be much closer than pundits expected.

For the last six months the national Democratic party establishment, which is virtually united in its support for Ms. Clinton, made four major mistakes in writing off the chances for Mr. Sanders in Nevada.

First, Nevada was one of the hardest-hit states during the financial crash caused by the corruptions of the rigged financial system Mr. Sanders is challenging and battling to dramatically reform. With Nevada recovering from the crash more slowly than many states, and with continuing concern about the state of the national economy, the Sanders message of populism and change is more powerful in Nevada than the political and financial insiders of the establishment understand.

The reason Mr. Sanders won the New Hampshire primary by a landslide of more than 20 percent is that he broadened his support—from young people and true blue liberals—to include working class blue collar white voters and enough women to enable Mr. Sanders to win a majority of all female voters in the primary.

Second, the establishment pundits have always assumed Ms. Clinton would ultimately receive the near-unanimous support of black and Hispanic voters. While the Clintons have earned much goodwill from minority communities, many minority voters are too young to remember most of the good works of the Clintons, and as voters have come to learn more about the progressive populist history and platform of Mr. Sanders, and his good works over many years, his support across all communities has risen.
One of the most interesting questions that will be answered in the coming weeks, beginning with the Nevada caucus and South Carolina primary, will be the number of young black and Hispanic voters who turn to Mr. Sanders in the same way most young white voters have supported him in Iowa and New Hampshire. My guess is this number will be larger than most insider establishment pundits expect.

Third, while Mr. Sanders has campaigned throughout Nevada for his positive agenda to create a political revolution that will make the American economy less rigged and more fair, Ms. Clinton has become a largely negative candidate with nonstop 24/7 attacks against Mr. Sanders that harden the low favorability and high distrust ratings plaguing her candidacy.

When Ms. Clinton falsely tells Nevadans that Mr. Sanders is a one-issue candidate, she is bearing false witness in a way voters understand. Mr. Sanders has talked at length and in depth about free public college education, a truly universal health care system, major reform of the criminal justice system, far-reaching Wall Street reform, and cleaning up our democracy from the corruptions of dirty money among other things in his litany of changes he promises with authenticity and passion to bring. Does this sound like one issue to you?
Ms. Clinton has virtually stopped trying to offer her visions and dreams for America and has resorted to little more than condemning the dreams and plans of Mr. Sanders—a mistake I have been warning the Clinton campaign against for many months, and a mistake that caused her great damage with New Hampshire voters.

Nevada voters suffered great hardship in the last financial crisis, are concerned about the current economy, and would suffer great hardship in the next financial crisis. Mr. Sanders is offering direct solutions to the problems facing Nevada voters while Ms. Clinton is seen daily attacking his solutions without coherently explaining her own.

Fourth, as the Clinton campaign has become alarmed about the Nevada surge of Mr. Sanders, its campaign spinners have begun to disparage the Nevada caucus itself—a major blunder that is beginning to cause a substantial backlash from Nevada voters and even from prominent members of the Nevada establishment.

Until recently, Clinton officials have bragged that she had a huge lead over Mr. Sanders in the state and suggested that the reason is that Nevada is a far more diverse state than Iowa or New Hampshire.

Now that Team Clinton is panicking about the surge for Mr. Sanders, her campaign spinners have begun saying Nevada is an 80 percent white state, which is the exact opposite of what they have been saying for many months and is insulting to all Nevada voters.

Nevada Senator and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid has long championed the Nevada caucus with the argument—which is entirely correct—that Nevada is a very diverse state. For Clinton campaign officials to suddenly reverse course and say the exact opposite, in an apparent attempt to preemptively spin a disappointing caucus result for her, is anathema to all Nevada Democrats regardless of their age, race or faction.

As the Nevada Democratic caucus comes closer the result is now highly unpredictable. There is no question the Sanders campaign is surging and the Clinton campaign is nervous. The huge Nevada landslide for Ms. Clinton that was once widely assumed is now highly unlikely to happen. Ms. Clinton must still be called the favorite, but the Sanders magic is now on the march in Nevada and a stunning Sanders upset may not be likely but is certainly now possible.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/16/surging-sanders-could-surprise-nevada-caucus

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders arrested at 1963 racial protest – video

http://redgreenandblue.org/2016/02/17/bernie-sanders-arrested-at-1963-racial-protest-video/

but

Congressional Black Democrats Unload on Bernie Sanders

http://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/11/african-american-democrats-unload-sanders/

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton Donors Hear Concerns About Nevada Outcome (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/17/hillary-clinton-donors-hear-concerns-about-nevada-outcome/)

Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager briefed some of her most loyal and active fund-raisers this morning about the upcoming Nevada caucuses and responded to frustrations among some of her donors that the campaign needed to do a better job of demonstrating its successful mobilization of grassroots activists and small donors.

Robby Mook, the Clinton campaign manager, sat at the head of a conference table in the New York office of Clinton donor and Wall Street investor Marc Lasry, according to accounts from people in the room. Joining them for the state-of-the-race conversation over coffee were members of the campaign’s finance steering committee, including Maureen White, the former Democratic National Committee finance chairwoman, Alan Patricof, Michael Kempner, Robert Zimmerman, Betsy Cohen, Jay Snyder and others.

Mr. Mook told the donors that the outcome in Nevada, a state he ran for Mrs. Clinton in the 2008 campaign, was hard to predict and that, depending on turnout, Mrs. Clinton could win by a lot or win or lose by a tiny margin, according to several donors who requested anonymity to discuss the private meeting. But Mr. Mook stressed that the map leaned in Mrs. Clinton’s favor as the race moved to South Carolina, where he was confident she would win, and that she would do well on March 1, when more states voted.

The collected fundraisers, who for years have bundled checks for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, listened approvingly as Ms. White, who seemed especially frustrated, expressed bewilderment that the campaign’s mobilization of grassroots support had been eclipsed in the news media by Bernie Sanders’s criticism of Mrs. Clinton as the establishment candidate representing big money.

Mr. Mook, who had furnished the donors with a Washington Post clip (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/16/clinton-campaign-says-it-is-attracting-small-donors-online/) about the campaign’s “small donor boom,” told the steering committee that he repeatedly told reporters about Mrs. Clinton’s small donors, but “they don’t listen.”

Donors also voiced some frustration with the lack of media scrutiny of Mr. Sanders, who they said was essentially getting a pass. They pressed Mr. Mook to demonstrate that the Vermont senator’s policy proposals were entirely implausible promises and that his responses to essentially all substantive questions drew on excerpts of his stump speech and rants about the “millionaires and billionaires.”

One donor also asked Mr. Mook to go after the youth vote. With a straight face, attendees said, the operative took the suggestion under advisement.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/17/hillary-clinton-donors-hear-concerns-about-nevada-outcome/

[boutons_deux]

The New York Times disclosed today that in a meeting held in a large Wall Street investor's office, big money donors instructed Secretary Hillary Clinton's campaign manager Robby Mook to go after Sen. Bernie Sanders for offering so-called unrealistic proposals and by claiming that all his solutions are related back to "millionaires and billionaires."

Not surprisingly those are exactly the attacks that the Clinton campaign is now dutifully lobbing.

With no small amount of irony, the mega-donors also asked Mook to highlight the Clinton campaign's support from small donors.

Jeff Weaver, campaign manager for Bernie 2016 said,

"One of the biggest differences between our campaigns is that Bernie’s campaign does not take its marching orders from Wall Street and big money donors. It's shameful that the Clinton campaign is parroting attacks at Sen. Sanders that The New York Times has documented come right from her big money backers. Now we are beginning to get a glimpse into what goes on in all those closed door meetings with Wall Street interests."

https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/?fref=nf

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders Surges Ahead of Hillary Clinton For the First Time in New National Poll (http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-ahead-in-national-poll/)

A new Fox News poll released Thursday evening shows the Vermont senator beating the former First Lady and Secretary of State (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/269944-sanders-ahead-of-clinton-in-national-poll), 47 to 44, among likely Democratic primary voters. This is the first time Sen. Sanders has beaten Clinton, the longtime frontrunner, in any nationwide poll.

Clinton has been ahead of Sanders by as much as 35 points nationally, though in the wake of her narrow win in Iowa and decisive loss in New Hampshire, Sanders has been closing in on her lead. Since January, Sanders has cut Clinton’s national polling advantage in half (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/269930-poll-sanders-cuts-clintons-national-lead-by-half). Another national poll conducted by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal shows Clinton ahead by just 11 points.

The Fox News poll may be an outlier for now, but polling averages from Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html) show Clinton trending downward and Sanders trending upward since the start of 2016:

http://3p3mq242g5jc2ki76r3wi6fq.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/rcpaveragedems.png (http://3p3mq242g5jc2ki76r3wi6fq.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/rcpaveragedems.png)

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-ahead-in-national-poll/

[boutons_deux]

Watch Bernie Sanders Go After Obama's Opponents in this Passionate Rebuttal of RacismBy the way, I am appalled, people can agree with Barack Obama, you can disagree with Barack Obama, but anybody who doesn't understand that the kind of obstructionism and hatred thrown at this man, the idea of making him a delegitimate :lol president by suggesting he was not born in America because his dad came from Kenya—no one asked me. I'm a citizen and my father came from Poland. Gee, what's the difference? Maybe the color of our skin... All of us together have got to say no to xenophobia and to racism and to bigotry of all forms.


http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/02/sanders-obama-racism-birther-trump

[boutons_deux]

Thomas Piketty on the rise of Bernie Sanders: the US enters a new political era

Let’s glance back for an instant. From the 1930s until the 1970s, the US were at the forefront of an ambitious set of policies aiming to reduce social inequalities. Partly to avoid any resemblance with Old Europe, seen then as extremely unequal and contrary to the American democratic spirit, in the inter-war years the country invented a highly progressive income and estate tax and set up levels of fiscal progressiveness never used on our side of the Atlantic. From 1930 to 1980 – for half a century – the rate for the highest US income (over $1m per year) was on average 82%, with peaks of 91% from the 1940s to 1960s (from Roosevelt to Kennedy), and still as high as 70% during Reagan’s election in 1980.

This policy in no way affected the strong growth of the post-war American economy, doubtless because there is not much point in paying super-managers $10m when $1m will do. The estate tax, which was equally progressive with rates applicable to the largest fortunes in the range of 70% to 80% for decades (the rate has almost never exceeded 30% to 40% in Germany or France), greatly reduced the concentration of American capital, without the destruction and wars which Europe had to face.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2016/feb/16/thomas-piketty-bernie-sanders-us-election-2016?CMP=fb_gu

iow, the decline of the 99% began in the 1970s as the VRWC, aka "movement conservatism", became established, organized, and BigCorp realized it didn't need to Give A Patriotic Fuck about America, only about screwing wealth out of Americans in every manner possible.

[rmt]

In addition to the doctor strike:

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35608992

[boutons_deux]

In addition to the doctor strike:

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35608992

Americans overpay $1T+ EVERY YEAR, iow, IN THE HOLE to BigHealthCare, and not everybody has access to health care.

[spurraider21]

Americans overpay $1T+ EVERY YEAR, iow, IN THE HOLE to BigHealthCare, and not everybody has access to health care.
thanks obama

[rmt]

thanks obama

for the $2.1 billion website with no backend

[boutons_deux]

thanks obama

nope, that's not ACA. The BigHealthCare screwing Americans. ACA doesn't set prices

[spurraider21]

nope, that's not ACA. The BigHealthCare screwing Americans. ACA doesn't set prices
obama was supposed to fix healthcare

thanks obama

[boutons_deux]

obama was supposed to fix healthcare

thanks obama

ACA's priority was increasing health access to Ms of Americans. That's a huge success.

"fix healthcare" is a strawman, GFY

[boutons_deux]

Latino Group Defends Sanders Against Clinton Attacks Over Immigration Vote

LAS VEGAS – Like clockwork, whenever Bernie Sanders gets hit for his vote against a 2007 immigration bill — which Hillary Clinton’s campaign has cited in an attempt to make his immigration record an issue — Sanders begins by saying that LULAC, the League of United Latin American Citizens, opposed the legislation, too.

At the time the group said, “LULAC cannot support a bill that will separate families and lead to the exploitation of immigrant workers,” pointing to, as Sanders has, guest worker provisions that it found to be morally wrong.

But LULAC eventually dropped its opposition to the filibuster of the bill, hoping, like other Latino and immigrant groups such as NCLR, that it could be improved in the House.

So how does the group feel about Sanders using them as a shield to protect himself from attacks on the vote? It turns out they’re annoyed with Clinton for making Sanders’ vote an issue.

“I really think it’s unfair for Hillary to make an issue of that vote,” LULAC executive director Brent Wilkes told BuzzFeed News. “I don’t really know, it’s hard to separate Hillary’s record from [Bill Clinton’s]. The Clintons, when they were in office, weren’t exactly friends to immigrants.”

Wilkes said that, at the time, President Bush was saying that “temporary means temporary” when it came to the guest workers staying in the country, in effect making the workers second-class citizens vulnerable to exploitation.

“We thought it was cruel and would lead to bracero-like abuses,” he said, pointing to the 1940s program that brought in millions of Mexican nationals, who were in turn treated badly. Many were eventually deported in the infamous “Operation Wetback.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/latino-group-defends-sanders-against-clinton-attacks-over-im#.ckY177d6qz

[boutons_deux]

Arrest photo of young activist Bernie Sanders emerges from Tribune
archives


http://www.trbimg.com/img-56c7bb9b/turbine/ct-willis-wagons-school-segregation-chicago-1963-photos-20160218/750/750x422

A Chicago Tribune archival photo of a young man being arrested in 1963 at a South Side protest is Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/politics-government/government/bernie-sanders-PEPLT005768-topic.html), his campaign has confirmed, bolstering the candidate's narrative about his civil rights activism.The black-and-white photo shows a 21-year-old Sanders, then a University of Chicago student, being taken by Chicago police toward a police wagon. An acetate negative of the photo was found in the Tribune's archives, said Marianne Mather, a Chicago Tribune photo editor.

(http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/photo/vintage/)"Bernie identified it himself," said Tad Devine, a senior adviser to the campaign, adding that Sanders looked at a digital image of the photo. "He looked at it — he actually has his student ID from the University of Chicago in his wallet — and he said, 'Yes, that indeed is (me).'"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bernie-sanders-1963-chicago-arrest-20160219-story.html

Bernie's been givin' 'em HELL for 50+ years! :lol

[boutons_deux]

The White House Just Defended Bernie Sanders Against Clinton’s Attacks

Press Secretary Josh Earnest said at a recent press briefing that the Obama administration has experienced no such animosity from Bernie.

“Senator Sanders stood not too far away from where I’m standing,” Earnest said. “You can just peek out the window and see the spot he was standing. Where he spoke to all of you after having spent an hour with the President of the United States in the Oval Office. Where he talked to all of you about how proud he was of the progress our country has made under President Obama’s leadership. And I think that’s a pretty strong statement about how supportive and proud Senator Sanders is of President Obama’s legacy.

Press Secretary Earnest is referring to Bernie’s recent visit to the White House on January 27th. After visiting President Obama, Bernie spoke with the press.

“There’s no secret that we have, as is the case in a Democratic society, we have differences of opinion,” Sanders said (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/politics/obama-bernie-sanders-to-meet/). “I was on the floor of the Senate disagreeing with him over taxes. We disagree over (the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal). By and large, over the last seven years on major issue after major issue, I have stood by his side to where he has taken on unprecedented Republican obstructionism, has tried to do the right thing for the American people.”

Earnest has even expressed some happiness on behalf of the Obama administration that Hillary isn’t running unopposed, saying (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/earnest-dem-primary-race-good) “It’s good for the Democratic Party for there to be such a robust debate going on about who should be our party’s nominee.”

http://usuncut.com/politics/white-house-just-defended-bernie-sanders-against-hillary-clintons-attacks/

[boutons_deux]

http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_07/1426401/nv_dem_men_age_hcomp_342ec169eddde94ad4ea65e1f03a5 6aa.nbcnews-ux-600-480.jpg

[Nbadan]

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/t31.0-8/12671666_1001171599976204_5633075423236621134_o.jp g

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

http://i.imgur.com/V6JAJf9.jpg

[DMX7]

Nevada Caucus is a joke. Sanders is within 500 votes but the clear loser.

[boutons_deux]

Nevada Caucus is a joke. Sanders is within 500 votes but the clear loser.

IA Dems hide the caucus votes, NV Dems publish theirs?

[DMX7]

IA Dems hide the caucus votes, NV Dems publish theirs?

Yes, unless I'm misinterpreting what I see on cable news.

[boutons_deux]

Calling Clinton's Bluff, Sanders Reveals What His Paid Speeches Look Like

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton said (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/18/hillary-clinton-says-she-will-release-closed-door-wall-street-speeches-when-everyone-else-does/) during a town hall on Thursday evening she will release transcripts of paid, closed-door speeches she gave to Wall Street firms "when everyone else does."

That may be sooner than she thinks.

On Friday morning, rival Bernie Sanders appeared to throw down the gauntlet by posting a video of one of the speeches he was paid to give in 2011—and how much he was paid for it.

Clinton's speaking fees (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/01/23/hillary-clinton-laughs-when-asked-if-she-will-release-transcripts-her-goldman-sachs)—which have netted the former secretary of state millions in recent years—have come under scrutiny (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/04/clinton-brushes-wall-street-ties-are-voters-buying-it) during the campaign, with Sanders and others suggesting they show she is too closely aligned with big banks.

Politico reported (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969) earlier this month that when she addressed Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at a summit in Arizona in October of 2013,"she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs, according to people who saw her remarks."

:lol :lol Your friendly, benevolent Planetary Vampire Squid doing God's work :lol

The New York Times reported (http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/bernie-sanders-comes-clean/) in May 2015 that in the year prior, Sanders had collected $1,867.42 for three appearances, "a grand sum that is chump change in presidential politicking but enough for the senator to respectably donate the money to charity."

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/19/calling-clintons-bluff-sanders-reveals-what-his-paid-speeches-look

[boutons_deux]

Here's how the (establishment) press is screwing Bernie with absent and/or negative coverage
After Nevada, Sanders faces struggle to broaden appealBernie Sanders' high-flying Democratic presidential campaign fell back to Earth

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-democrats-idUSKCN0VU04G?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews

==========
Hillary Clinton Beats Bernie Sanders in Nevada Caucuseshttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/us/politics/nevada-caucus.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-abc-region&region=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region

In fact, Hillz barely "beat" Bernie, escaping with a just handful more delegates than Bernie, when she was supposed to crush him everywhere.

etc, etc, etc.

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders Overtakes Hillary Clinton in 3 More States



According to recent polls in both Democratic strongholds and swing states, Bernie Sanders’ once insurgent campaign is snowballing into a serious movement.

In the critical swing state of Colorado, where Sanders once trailed Hillary Clinton by as much as 28 points (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/colorado/release-detail?ReleaseID=2303) prior to the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, Sanders is now ahead of Clinton by 6 points. The new numbers were released today by the Washington Free Beacon, which also showed Sanders leading the former Secretary of State and First Lady among voters under 30 by a 46-point margin.

Furthermore, Sanders led with a 40-point advantage among women voters under 30. In Colorado, which has a significant Hispanic element in its Democratic electorate, Hispanics are supporting Sanders over Clinton by a margin of 41-38. Colorado Democrats will caucus on March 1.

Additional polls show Sanders’ campaign is swaying voters in early March primary states, as well. In Massachusetts, Sen. Sanders is leading Clinton by 7 points, according to a Public Policy Poll (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/vermont/) (PPP) conducted between February 14 and February 16.

This is a significant change from previous polls, which had Clinton leading Sanders in the Democratic stronghold state by a 25-point margin (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ma/massachusetts_democratic_presidential_primary-3891.html) in a Boston Globe/Suffolk poll in November. An Emerson College poll in October had Clinton ahead by 34 points.

The same PPP poll that had Sanders ahead in Massachusetts also shows Bernie with an insurmountable 76-point lead in his home state of Vermont.

This all comes on the heels of the news of Sanders passing Clinton for the first time in a national poll (http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-ahead-in-national-poll/) yesterday, as a Fox News poll showed Sanders beating the Democratic frontrunner by 3 points. However, Bernie has some catching up to do in states with a predominantly-black Democratic voting bloc — Clinton is leading in 10 of the 12 early primary states surveyed by PPP.

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-leading-in-3-more-states/

VT is heavily FOR Bernie, while several red, slave states, having tasted the shit of Repug MISgovernance, don't even support their own Repug governors, like TX, LA, NJ, FL, WI. :lol

[DMX7]

Arrest photo of young activist Bernie Sanders emerges from Tribune
archives


http://www.trbimg.com/img-56c7bb9b/turbine/ct-willis-wagons-school-segregation-chicago-1963-photos-20160218/750/750x422

A Chicago Tribune archival photo of a young man being arrested in 1963 at a South Side protest is Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/politics-government/government/bernie-sanders-PEPLT005768-topic.html), his campaign has confirmed, bolstering the candidate's narrative about his civil rights activism.The black-and-white photo shows a 21-year-old Sanders, then a University of Chicago student, being taken by Chicago police toward a police wagon. An acetate negative of the photo was found in the Tribune's archives, said Marianne Mather, a Chicago Tribune photo editor.

(http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/photo/vintage/)"Bernie identified it himself," said Tad Devine, a senior adviser to the campaign, adding that Sanders looked at a digital image of the photo. "He looked at it — he actually has his student ID from the University of Chicago in his wallet — and he said, 'Yes, that indeed is (me).'"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bernie-sanders-1963-chicago-arrest-20160219-story.html

Bernie's been givin' 'em HELL for 50+ years! :lol




Fair & serious question: What has Hillary done to deserve the African-American vote?

[hater]

Fair & serious question: What has Hillary done to deserve the African-American vote?

Bill Clinton kissed a black baby on national tv in 1996

[boutons_deux]

Fair & serious question: What has Hillary done to deserve the African-American vote?

afaik, nothing as S. I think the black support for Hillary is a vestige of the black support for Bill, plus some black leaders/Congresspeople, establishment now, have announced support for Hillary.

Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote

From the crime bill to welfare reform, policies Bill Clinton enacted—and Hillary Clinton supported—decimated black America.

http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/ (http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/)

[DMX7]

afaik, nothing as S. I think the black support for Hillary is a vestige of the black support for Bill, plus some black leaders/Congresspeople, establishment now, have announced support for Hillary.

Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote

From the crime bill to welfare reform, policies Bill Clinton enacted—and Hillary Clinton supported—decimated black America.

http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/ (http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/)




And she is also running on Obama's legacy, and no objective observer can seriously say that the African-American community is much better off under Obama. If someone wants to make an argument to the contrary, then I will gladly listen.

[boutons_deux]

no objective observer can seriously say that the African-American community is much better off under Obama


ACA, with subsidized insurance and expansion of Medicaid, has helped Ms of poor blacks access health care.

If poor blacks aren't taking advantage of ACA, it's ain't Obama's fault.

Of course, most slave, red states have blocked expansion of Medicaid, so those "death panel" states are killing poor people, black, brown, white.

It took a Dem gov in LA to expand Medicaid, since juice-brains Jindal refused.

[spurraider21]

"I'll take 'what cucks look like' for 400, Alex"

https://i.gyazo.com/8de99d8d0fcb57626fff19af64d4bc1c.png

[boutons_deux]

"I'll take 'what cucks look like' for 400, Alex"

https://i.gyazo.com/8de99d8d0fcb57626fff19af64d4bc1c.png

Bernie's got more balls than you can even dream about

[spurraider21]

Bernie's got more balls than you can even dream about
i never dream about balls, so that's probably accurate

[Pelicans78]

It doesn't matter how many people have Medicaid if doctors aren't gonna see those patients. Medicaid doesn't reimburse much, don't pay for a lot of necessary procedures, and doesn't cover many prescriptions. That makes those patients very hard to treat and a lot of doctors don't want to deal with the headache that medicaid brings.

[boutons_deux]

5 Reasons You Should Not Vote for Bernie Sanders

#5. You Think Rich People Don’t Have it Quite Easy Enough in This Country

It’s no big secret that Bernie plans to pay for his proposals in large part by raising taxes (https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/). One area he plans on raising taxes is on capital gains taxes, which would certainly impact the wealthier families in this country more so than the middle class. The investor class is worried though, that if you raise their taxes they might not be able to afford that second or third home they had their eye on. If we go and ask them for a few more pennies on their dollar, they might just decide to up and leave this country, because that’s what patriots do when their fellow citizens ask them to pay a little more in taxes (that they can totally afford) — they abandon them.
If you know that rich people are the most important people in America, you won’t vote for Senator Sanders.

#4. You Think Education is for Pussies and Liberals

A big part of Senator Sanders’ plan for America involves making education “free” for students up to their first couple years of Junior College. But why on Earth would we invest in smarter people? Who needs education when you can just go slave away working four or five minimum wage jobs. Then, and only then, can you go to college. I mean, good luck finding the time and money to scrape together to afford it, but hey, it’s better than expecting to get a good education so you can support yourself, you hippie!

#3. You Think Corporations Have It Too Easy and Aren’t Making Enough Money Yet

One of the biggest ways Bernie is proposing to pay for his proposals is to close loopholes on corporate taxes (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40623.pdf). Conservatives will remind us though, that taxes here in America are high, even though we know a whole shit-ton of super-profitable companies are in fact not paying any taxes. In fact, in 2014 we know that at least 15 of the Fortune 500 companies paid zero taxes (http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2015/04/fifteen_of_many_reasons_why_we_need_corporate_tax_ reform.php#.VsTPLBUrKUk), but do you really think that means they’re not paying their fair share in taxes, just because they’re literally not paying any taxes? What kind of libtard are you? Life in America will never be great until corporations and the One Percent own every single dollar out there, and if you vote for Bernie, you’re basically saying you want those 15 companies to pay taxes, you cold hearted jerk!

#2. You’re All Like, “War? That’s Totes Dope Rad!”

A vote for Sanders is a vote for a guy who was right about the Iraq War (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdFw1btbkLM) invasion. Now, ask yourself, do you really want someone in charge of our troops if they aren’t willing to put them in harm’s way for profit? Is that really American? Does that really display our values — showing prudence and caution when discussing military options? Diplomacy is great and all, but if you vote for Bernie, you might be voting for a guy who won’t start wars of choice! What in the hell will our military do with itself? Like, help people instead of blowing them up? Pfffft.

#1. You’ve Never Been Outside This Country So You’re Sure Democratic Socialism Could Never Work

If you’re like a lot of Americans, you’ve never set foot in a Democratically Socialist country. So that’s why you know it won’t work; your politicians and pundits have told you so. I mean, look at those damn socialists in Great Britain! They’re always on the brink of collapse. Ditto Germany. Oh, and that other country with those Democratically Socialist programs like Social Security, Medicare, and the largest military in the world paid for by the taxpayers entirely…what’s the name of it again, the Shmunited Shmates of Shmumerica or something? Anyway, socialism is bad because you know it’s bad, and no amount of facts, evidence, or historical data will sway you, because you’re smart and discerning!

http://modernliberals.com/5-reasons-not-vote-bernie-sanders/

[boutons_deux]

Why Bernie Sanders’s Proposals Would Spur Economic Growth

http://robertreich.org/post/139547626540


Single Payer System Cost?

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost

[spurraider21]

boots why is the democrat base voting for shillary if its against their best interest? i thought thats only what dumb repug voters did?

[baseline bum]

I don't think Bernie's proposals make sense. We can't have nice stuff like Europe since we have no sugar daddy to subsidize our military costs the way we do for Europe.

[baseline bum]

But he's still 100x better than Cunton.

[boutons_deux]

I don't think Bernie's proposals make sense. We can't have nice stuff like Europe since we have no sugar daddy to subsidize our military costs the way we do for Europe.

tax cuts, tax avoidance, tax evasion cost govt revenues $Ts more than $1T/year on maintaining USA' predatory, planetary mililtary/commercial empire.

We The People can have a social democracy, aka "government of the people, by the people, for the people",

by rolling back tax cuts,

enabling IRS to pursue US tax avoiders all over the planet,

make BigCrop and 1% pay their share, and

instead of skimming employees salaries to send to BigInsurance, skim LESS from the salaries to send to the Medicare for All treasury.

iow, kill the rigging of the economy.

[baseline bum]

We'd have to kill the empire too. It costs us an enormous amount of money. Let Europe pay for their own peace.

[rmt]

Bernie Sanders Overtakes Hillary Clinton in 3 More States



According to recent polls in both Democratic strongholds and swing states, Bernie Sanders’ once insurgent campaign is snowballing into a serious movement.

In the critical swing state of Colorado, where Sanders once trailed Hillary Clinton by as much as 28 points (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/colorado/release-detail?ReleaseID=2303) prior to the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, Sanders is now ahead of Clinton by 6 points. The new numbers were released today by the Washington Free Beacon, which also showed Sanders leading the former Secretary of State and First Lady among voters under 30 by a 46-point margin.

Furthermore, Sanders led with a 40-point advantage among women voters under 30. In Colorado, which has a significant Hispanic element in its Democratic electorate, Hispanics are supporting Sanders over Clinton by a margin of 41-38. Colorado Democrats will caucus on March 1.

Additional polls show Sanders’ campaign is swaying voters in early March primary states, as well. In Massachusetts, Sen. Sanders is leading Clinton by 7 points, according to a Public Policy Poll (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/vermont/) (PPP) conducted between February 14 and February 16.

This is a significant change from previous polls, which had Clinton leading Sanders in the Democratic stronghold state by a 25-point margin (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ma/massachusetts_democratic_presidential_primary-3891.html) in a Boston Globe/Suffolk poll in November. An Emerson College poll in October had Clinton ahead by 34 points.

The same PPP poll that had Sanders ahead in Massachusetts also shows Bernie with an insurmountable 76-point lead in his home state of Vermont.

This all comes on the heels of the news of Sanders passing Clinton for the first time in a national poll (http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-ahead-in-national-poll/) yesterday, as a Fox News poll showed Sanders beating the Democratic frontrunner by 3 points. However, Bernie has some catching up to do in states with a predominantly-black Democratic voting bloc — Clinton is leading in 10 of the 12 early primary states surveyed by PPP.

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-leading-in-3-more-states/

VT is heavily FOR Bernie, while several red, slave states, having tasted the shit of Repug MISgovernance, don't even support their own Repug governors, like TX, LA, NJ, FL, WI. :lol




I'm interested in what proof you have that Floridians don't support the current governor of Florida (as opposed to the former Democrat governor who was raising state university tuition 15% per year). 6% sales tax, no income tax, pensions in good shape, assessed value for property tax capped at max 3% increase per year, portability of that cap within FL - what's not to like about Florida. Under this current governor, all national merit recipients get a FULL ride at 6 Florida universities.

[Shastafarian]

I'm interested in what proof you have that Floridians don't support the current governor of Florida (as opposed to the former Democrat governor who was raising state university tuition 15% per year). 6% sales tax, no income tax, pensions in good shape, assessed value for property tax capped at max 3% increase per year, portability of that cap within FL - what's not to like about Florida. Under this current governor, all national merit recipients get a FULL ride at 6 Florida universities.

Charlie Crist was a REPUBLICAN governor. And that 15% increase? That was in a bill that was sponsored by republicans and passed by republicans.


Sponsors

Ken Pruitt (FL - R) (Out Of Office)
Co-sponsors

James E. 'Jim' King Jr. (FL - R) (Out Of Office)
Evelyn J. Lynn (FL - R) (Out Of Office)

https://votesmart.org/bill/9291/26840/allowing-universities-to-levy-tuition-differential-charges#.Vsov35OAOkp

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2014/apr/03/rick-scott/charlie-crist-signed-automatic-15-percent-annual-t/

[rmt]

Charlie Crist was a REPUBLICAN governor. And that 15% increase? That was in a bill that was sponsored by republicans and passed by republicans.



https://votesmart.org/bill/9291/26840/allowing-universities-to-levy-tuition-differential-charges#.Vsov35OAOkp

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2014/apr/03/rick-scott/charlie-crist-signed-automatic-15-percent-annual-t/

My bad about when he was Democrat. First he was republican, then he was unaffiliated, then he was Democrat - flip-flopped. We are much better off under this current governor.

[Shastafarian]

My bad about when he was Democrat. First he was republican, then he was unaffiliated, then he was Democrat - flip-flopped. We are much better off under this current governor.

Tell that to the babies that keep dying in West Palm Beach. Deregulation is WJWD.

[rasuo214]

I don't think Bernie's proposals make sense. We can't have nice stuff like Europe since we have no sugar daddy to subsidize our military costs the way we do for Europe.

This plus Health Care innovations. Taxing the "Millionaires and Billionaires" won't be enough, even if you take all of their money.

[boutons_deux]

This plus Health Care innovations. Taxing the "Millionaires and Billionaires" won't be enough, even if you take all of their money.

It's just no indivdual tax avoiders and evaders. it's BigCorp. $Ts of taxes are lost to these mofos.

[rasuo214]

It's just no indivdual tax avoiders and evaders. it's BigCorp. $Ts of taxes are lost to these mofos.

Over what period of time? Also they have no obligation to bring the money back and they sure as hell aren't going to bring it back to pay it all in taxes.

[boutons_deux]

aren't going to bring it back to pay it all in taxes.

You Lie "all" :lol

So let them keep their profits overseas. I'm sure they'll find illegal ways to get it back to USA, or how to spend it overseas.

[vy65]

This week, four respected economists who served Democratic presidents wrote a letter bluntly pointing out that “no credible economic research” supports Sanders’s economic assumptions and predictions. They were referring to the claims by Gerald Friedman, an economist who has tried to make Sanders’s math work. To do so, Friedman assumes that per capita growth would average 4.5 percent (more than double the rate over the past three decades), and that the employment-to-population ratio would suddenly reverse its long decline and reach 65 percent, the highest ever. Even more magically, productivity growth would rise to 3.18 percent. As Kevin Drum has pointed out in Mother Jones, “there has never been a 10-year period since World War II in which productivity grew by 3.18 percent.”

Sanders’s supporters argue that all this criticism misses the point. Sanders is setting forth an “idealistic” vision on purpose — his goal is to shift the spectrum. But that argument is premised on the notion that, in fact, the United States would be better off with $30 trillion of extra spending, absolutely free public colleges (and thus essentially government-controlled), high tariffs and top marginal tax rates of about 85 percent. It wouldn’t. Even unabashedly liberal scholars don’t believe that the economy would function better under these circumstances.

But this is nitpicking. He is painting with a broader brush, being an authentic man who speaks his mind, willing to present bold ideas geared to capture the imagination. Never mind that establishment elites criticize them as unworkable or divisive or radical.

Am I speaking about Bernie Sanders — or Donald Trump?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sanderss-plans-make-republicans-look-serious/2016/02/18/4dbddb40-d684-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html?postshare=1531456164123251&tid=ss_fb-bottom

[vy65]

Dear Senator Sanders and Professor Gerald Friedman,

We are former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers for Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. For many years, we have worked to make the Democratic Party the party of evidence-based economic policy. When Republicans have proposed large tax cuts for the wealthy and asserted that those tax cuts would pay for themselves, for example, we have shown that the economic facts do not support these fantastical claims. We have applied the same rigor to proposals by Democrats, and worked to ensure that forecasts of the effects of proposed economic policies, from investment in infrastructure, to education and training, to health care reforms, are grounded in economic evidence. Largely as a result of efforts like these, the Democratic party has rightfully earned a reputation for responsibly estimating the effects of economic policies.

We are concerned to see the Sanders campaign citing extreme claims by Gerald Friedman about the effect of Senator Sanders’s economic plan—claims that cannot be supported by the economic evidence. Friedman asserts that your plan will have huge beneficial impacts on growth rates, income and employment that exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans about the impact of their tax cut proposals.

As much as we wish it were so, no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes. Making such promises runs against our party’s best traditions of evidence-based policy making and undermines our reputation as the party of responsible arithmetic. These claims undermine the credibility of the progressive economic agenda and make it that much more difficult to challenge the unrealistic claims made by Republican candidates.

Sincerely,

Alan Krueger, Princeton University

Chair, Council of Economic Advisers, 2011-2013

Austan Goolsbee, University of Chicago Booth School

Chair, Council of Economic Advisers, 2010-2011

Christina Romer, University of California at Berkeley

Chair, Council of Economic Advisers, 2009-2010

Laura D’Andrea Tyson, University of California at Berkeley Haas School of Business

Chair, Council of Economic Advisers, 1993-1995

https://lettertosanders.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/open-letter-to-senator-sanders-and-professor-gerald-friedman-from-past-cea-chairs/

Crofl

[boutons_deux]

https://lettertosanders.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/open-letter-to-senator-sanders-and-professor-gerald-friedman-from-past-cea-chairs/

Crofl

These assholes have been, along with Krugman, trashed for trashing Friedman on Sanders plans.

Krugman and His Gang’s Libeling of Economist Gerald Friedman for Finding That Conventional Models Show That Sanders Plan Could Work (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/02/krugman-and-his-gangs-libeling-of-economist-gerald-friedman-for-finding-that-conventional-models-show-that-sanders-plan-could-work.html)

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/02/krugman-and-his-gangs-libeling-of-economist-gerald-friedman-for-finding-that-conventional-models-show-that-sanders-plan-could-work.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capi talism%29

CROFL at you simplistic, gullible rightwingnut cretins.

[baseline bum]

I think spurraider hit the nail on the head that Captain Free Shit is probably the best candidate since he's the one least likely to get his crazy shit through congress.

[vy65]

CROFL at you simplistic, gullible rightwingnut cretins.





Dear Senator Sanders and Professor Gerald Friedman,

We are former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers for Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. For many years, we have worked to make the Democratic Party the party of evidence-based economic policy.

[vy65]

I think spurraider hit the nail on the head that Captain Free Shit is probably the best candidate since he's the one least likely to get his crazy shit through congress.

Odds the fucker dies during his presidency?

[spurraider21]

Odds the fucker dies during his presidency?
only if his doctors are paid off by billionahs on wole street

[baseline bum]

only if his doctors are paid off by billionahs on wole street

Bern's too smart to go to the VRWC Clinic

[vy65]

Mock him all you want, but the field of candidates proves Buttons is right when he says America is fucked and unfuckable

[boutons_deux]

"We are former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers for Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. For many years, we have worked to make the Democratic Party the party of evidence-based economic policy."

I repeat, you're gullible. those guys represent the Dem establishment, are probably angling for positions in the Clinton administration.

the articles in N/C I posted explain in detail how these assholes are wrong, and why Friedman is reasonable, and even right in his analysis.

[rasuo214]

:lol Trump and Bernie supporters have a lot in common.

[rasuo214]

You Lie "all" :lol

So let them keep their profits overseas. I'm sure they'll find illegal ways to get it back to USA, or how to spend it overseas.

Ok, so how does Bernie pay for his proposals?

[boutons_deux]

Ok, so how does Bernie pay for his proposals?

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

[rasuo214]

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


Paid for by making corporations pay taxes (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40623.pdf) on all of the “profits” (http://americansfortaxfairness.org/files/24-International-Tax-Experts-Letter-to-Congress-9-25-15-FINAL-for-printing.pdf) they have shifted to the Cayman Islands and other offshore tax havens, which the Congressional Research Services estimates may currently create losses that approach $100 billion annually, and other loopholes


You Lie "all" :lol

So let them keep their profits overseas. I'm sure they'll find illegal ways to get it back to USA, or how to spend it overseas.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

https://lettertosanders.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/open-letter-to-senator-sanders-and-professor-gerald-friedman-from-past-cea-chairs/

Crofl

Citing economists for the democratic establishment is amusing I guess.

[vy65]

Citing economists for the democratic establishment is amusing I guess.

I certainly think so. That you ostensibly don't makes it all the more delicious