Bernie Sanders

[DMX7]

So you Bernie supporters, how are WE going to pay for free college tuition, free health care for all and free parental leave when we are already 18+ trillion in debt? Think the 1% has enough money for all that?

Corporations should pay for parental leave (and many already do). I don't think Bernie is arguing for free health care, nearly everyone will have to contribute something in the form of higher taxes. We can figure out something for free college tuition at state universities.

[boutons_deux]

here's one way, SURE to be killed by VRWC/Billionaire Boy Toy Repugs

Sanders, Warren introduce bill to hike Social Security checks

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are teaming up on a bill that would hand Social Security recipients a $580 check and pay for it by trimming tax perks for corporate executives.
The progressive duo unveiled new legislation Thursday that would cut checks for millions of Americans that rely on Social Security benefits, weeks after the Obama administration announcedthere would be no cost-of-living increase to payments in 2016.

“At a time when senior poverty is going up and more than two-thirds of the elderly population rely on Social Security for more than half of their income, our job must be to expand, not cut, Social Security," said Sanders, who is running for president."

At the very least, we must do everything we can to make sure that every senior citizen and disabled veteran in this country receives a fair cost-of-living adjustment to keep up with the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs and health care."

Sanders has made expanding Social Security one of the signature issues of his presidential campaign, and has repeatedly called for taxing the wealthy to pay for an expansion of benefits.

Under his bill with Warren, Americans who receive benefits from Social Security, veterans benefits or equivalent state or local programs would receive a one-time payment. The pair noted that the check would equal 3.9 percent of existing benefits, the same percentage that CEO pay rose in 2014.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/25...ecurity-checks

[boutons_deux]

How Does Bernie Sanders Plan to Pay for all this "Free" Stuff?


http://berniementum.blogspot.com/201...or_29.html?m=1

[Warlord23]

So you Bernie supporters, how are WE going to pay for free college tuition, free health care for all and free parental leave when we are already 18+ trillion in debt? Think the 1% has enough money for all that?

First off, you need to re-educate yourself on the concept of debt. I've probably posted about this a couple of times before, but most people treat the topic of aggregate debt just like they would treat household/individual debt. That doesn't quite work in a debt-based monetary system. Because 95%+ of the money in circulation is created by the creation of debt, repaying all this debt would be tantamount to extinguishing money.

If you want to know more about this, watch these videos:



The corollary is simple: it is not possible for the world to be free of debt. Some of the debt will be repaid, some of it will be restructured, some of it will be forgiven. But more new debt will keep getting created.

Therefore what is important is not the absolute debt, or even debt to GDP. What is important is the rate of growth of debt compared to rate of growth of GDP. And with the drastic reduction of the deficit as a % of GDP in Obama's 8 year term, the rate of growth of debt is starting to get under control. The $18 Trillion number sounds huge but is meaningless by itself.

[rmt]

nothing wrong with USA being in debt. Bond buyers still buying US bonds. We need more for $Ts in govt spending to fix infrastructure, the environment, renewables, scientific research.

yes, the 1%, the 5% have enough, not gonna take it away, but we should stop them from ac ulating $Ts more.

If high-tax, high-cost countries like Canada, Germany, Scandinavia can do it, why can't falling-behind, ruthlessly brutal USA?

Soon the payment of interest on our increasing debt will overwhelm us. That will accelerate the printing of more money which will devalue our dollar. Remember that 18+ trillion doesn't include Social Security and Medicare obligations. 10,000 baby boomers retire every day and people are living longer and longer. Just staying the same (without more debt for those things you mentioned above) and keeping our heads above water with the coming aging of baby boomers will be a task.

Because those high-tax, high-cost countries don't spend much of their budget on defense and don't lead the world in innovations in drugs, medical research, technology, etc. as the US does.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/...list-paradise/

[boutons_deux]

Soon the payment of interest on our increasing debt will overwhelm us. That will accelerate the printing of more money which will devalue our dollar. Remember that 18+ trillion doesn't include Social Security and Medicare obligations. 10,000 baby boomers retire every day and people are living longer and longer. Just staying the same (without more debt for those things you mentioned above) and keeping our heads above water with the coming aging of baby boomers will be a task.

Because those high-tax, high-cost countries don't spend much of their budget on defense and don't lead the world in innovations in drugs, medical research, technology, etc. as the US does.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/...list-paradise/

with govt bond rate being SO CHEAP now, it's the PERFECT time to sell them.

BigPharma spends twice as much on advertising as it does on research, so your point sucks, like so many of them.

The MIC's corporate welfare sucks down $600B+ every year, and hasn't won a war, or had any positive effect, since 1945. And another $500B spent by Dept of State on supporting the Corporate Imperial Empire.

[boutons_deux]

A Bernie supporter goes on book tour

Robert Reich: What Happened on My Tour Through Red State America

I’ve just returned from three weeks in “red” America.

It was ostensibly a book tour but I wanted to talk with conservative Republicans and Tea Partiers.

I intended to put into practice what I tell my students – that the best way to learn is to talk with people who disagree you. I wanted to learn from red America, and hoped they’d also learn a bit from me (and perhaps also buy my book).

But something odd happened. It turned out that many of the conservative Republicans and Tea Partiers I met agreed with much of what I had to say, and I agreed with them.

For example, most condemned what they called “crony capitalism,” by which they mean big corporations getting sweetheart deals from the government because of lobbying and campaign contributions.

I met with group of small farmers in Missouri who were livid about growth of “factory farms” owned and run by big corporations, that abused land and cattle, damaged the environment, and ultimately harmed consumers.

They claimed giant food processors were using their monopoly power to squeeze the farmers dry, and the government was doing squat about it because of Big Agriculture’s money.

I met in Cincinnati with Republican small-business owners who are still hurting from the bursting of the housing bubble and the bailout of Wall Street.

“Why didn’t underwater homeowners get any help?” one of them asked rhetorically. “Because Wall Street has all the power.” Others nodded in agreement.

Whenever I suggested that big Wall Street banks be busted up – “any bank that’s too big to fail is too big, period” – I got loud applause.

In Kansas City I met with Tea Partiers who were angry that hedge-fund managers had wangled their own special “carried interest” tax deal.

“No reason for it,” said one. “They’re not investing a dime of their own money. But they’ve paid off the politicians.”

In Raleigh, I heard from local bankers who thought Bill Clinton should never have repealed the Glass-Steagall Act. “Clinton was in the pockets of Wall Street just like George W. Bush was,” said one.

Most of the people I met in America’s heartland want big money out of politics, and think the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision was shameful.

Most are also dead-set against the Trans Pacific Partnership. In fact, they’re opposed to trade agreements, including NAFTA, that they believe have made it easier for corporations to outsource American jobs abroad.

A surprising number think the economic system is biased in favor of the rich. (That’s consistent with a recent Quinnipiac poll in which 46 percent [3] of Republicans believe “the system favors the wealthy.”)

The more conversations I had, the more I understood the connection between their view of “crony capitalism” and their dislike of government.

They don’t oppose government per se. In fact, as the Pew Research Center has found [4], more Republicans favor additional spending on Social Security, Medicare, education, and infrastructure than want to cut those programs.

Rather, they see government as the vehicle for big corporations and Wall Street to exert their power in ways that hurt the little guy.

They call themselves Republicans but many of the inhabitants of America’s heartland are populists in the tradition of William Jennings Brian.

I also began to understand why many of them are attracted to Donald Trump. I had assumed they were attracted by Trump’s blunderbuss and his scapegoating of immigrants.

That’s part of it. But mostly, I think, they see Trump as someone who’ll stand up for them – a countervailing power against the perceived conspiracy of big corporations, Wall Street, and big government.

Trump isn’t saying what the moneyed interests in the GOP want to hear. He’d impose tariffs on American companies that send manufacturing overseas, for example.

He’d raise taxes on hedge-fund managers. (“The hedge-fund guys didn’t build this country,” Trump says [5]. “They’re “getting away with murder.”)

He’d protect Social Security and Medicare.

I kept hearing “Trump is so rich he can’t be bought.”

Heartland Republicans and progressive Democrats remain wide apart on social and cultural issues.

But there’s a growing overlap on economics. The populist upsurge is real.

I sincerely hope Donald Trump doesn’t become president. He’s a divider and a buffoon.

But I do hope the economic populists in both parties come together.

http://www.alternet.org/print/tea-pa...-state-america

Robert, don't you realize that the slave staters and red staters vote abortion, vote Christian Sharia, vote LGBT hate, vote xenophobia, vote racism, vote hate-govt, vote guns, etc, BEFORE they'll vote their own self interests?

[rmt]

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies…

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit."

- Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), March 20, 2006

[boutons_deux]

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies…

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit."

- Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), March 20, 2006

the national debt is directly tied to tax revenues which were greatly reduced by the Repug Reign of Error, make much worse by Repugs tripling the national debt with their bull Iraq War for Oil.

The annual deficit, and national debt, would go down if tax revenues were raised.

you are really, really way out of your depth

[Warlord23]

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies…

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit."

- Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), March 20, 2006

When 90%+ of the population is largely ignorant about our monetary system, this is exactly what you'd expect politicians to say. They know that voters don't know any better. It's why Trump can claim that he'll renegotiate the entire national debt and still be taken seriously. Or Rubio, Jeb, Cruz, Carson proposing steep tax cuts without explaining how they'll reduce the deficit.

Mercifully they have largely tended to abandon this rhetoric when governing. Which is why the debt ceiling has been raised 70+ times in the last 50-odd years. Only 3 times was the debt ceiling increase accompanied by political theater:
1995 when Clinton was President; Gingrich shut down the government
2011 when Obama was President; the US government's credit rating was downgraded
2013 when Obama was President; the sequester happened

So while both parties play up the rhetoric on debt to an uninformed public, only one of them has attempted to use it as political football - and that too only when the other side has the Presidency. We get the government we deserve.

[boutons_deux]

Why has Wasserman-Schultz has so severely limited the number of Dem debates (for which she has been vehemently opposed by many Dems), and put them on Saturday nights?

Hillary is already well known, and can only hurt herself if she gaffes badly in one or more weeknight debates. Presumptive nominee, she has nothing to gain from debates.

Hillary's challengers are much less well known, so hiding, smothering them in a fewer debates on Sat nights will keep them unknown.

[rmt]

Why has Wasserman-Schultz has so severely limited the number of Dem debates (for which she has been vehemently opposed by many Dems), and put them on Saturday nights?

Hillary is already well known, and can only hurt herself if she gaffes badly in one or more weeknight debates. Presumptive nominee, she has nothing to gain from debates.

Hillary's challengers are much less well known, so hiding, smothering them in a fewer debates on Sat nights will keep them unknown.

Wow, boutons - we actually agree on something.

[boutons_deux]

Wow, boutons - we actually agree on something.

more precisely, for once you are unwrong.

[rmt]

more precisely, for once you are unwrong.

Never short of a reply, eh? You should post without a link more often - higher chance of it being read.

[boutons_deux]

Never short of a reply, eh? You should post without a link more often - higher chance of it being read.

you should read what I post, lower chance of being stupid

[spurraider21]

cucky sanders: climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism

[rmt]

you should read what I post, lower chance of being stupid

What is with this forum and the negative personal comments? People just can't discuss their opinions. They have to resort to insults. Or is this the way you normally talk?

[spurraider21]

What is with this forum and the negative personal comments? People just can't discuss their opinions. They have to resort to insults. Or is this the way you normally talk?

boutons is one of the more delusional folks around, dont mind him

[boutons_deux]

cucky sanders: climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism

the cuck insult, wannabe Macho Man shtick, lasted about 2 weeks max.

AGW and Repugs are much bigger threats, more fatal, more destructive, than terrorism.

[spurraider21]

that kind of over the top alarmism is why people tune out climate change as a pressing issue

we're going to run out of oil by 2000
we're going to run out of oil by 2010

etc etc

[boutons_deux]

America has never recovered from Ronald Reagan. That’s why Bernie Sanders is so important.

reminding everyone that some of the most popular social programs we have today — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid — were all once labeled socialist and aggressively opposed by monied interests, who FDR called “economic royalists.”

Not only were social programs opposed and called socialism; so were any kind of laws or regulations that intervened with the “free market” for the betterment of society. “Unemployment insurance, abolishing child labor, the 40-hour work week, collective bargaining, strong banking regulations, deposit insurance, and job programs that put millions of people to work were all described, in one way or another, as ‘socialist,’” explained Sanders.

Of course, capitalists never come out and say that they want the government to get out of their way so that they can take advantage of workers or employ children or contaminate the water supply. They fear-monger about the threat of socialism and claim that as long as the government intervenes with their business, we can never have true freedom.

A young propagandist named Ronald Reagan issued such a warning in the early sixties, in opposition to what is seen as the predecessor to Medicare. “Federal programs,” Reagan warned, “will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country, until one day… we will wake to find that we have socialism.” Sounds familiar.

The truth, of course, is that an unfettered free market has disastrous affects on society, and that the freedom the Koch brothers and people like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KT) promote is a kind of barbaric freedom.

This was witnessed back 2011, when Rand’s father, Ron Paul, was questioned at a GOP primary debate whether a healthy uninsured 30-year-old man who fell into a coma after something “terrible happened” should be treated or simply left to die.

“What he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for himself,” Paul said, “That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risk,” which was followed by some fans shouting “Yes!” to the question of whether he should simply be left to die (which led Paul to backtrack, realizing the barbarity of his answer).

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/22/amer..._so_important/

[boutons_deux]

Democratic candidate Sanders condemns Pfizer-Allergan deal as 'disaster

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders condemned the Pfizer Inc acquisition of Allergan Plc on Monday and urged the Obama administration to block the deal.

Pfizer said it would buy Botox maker Allergan in a record-breaking deal worth $160 billion to cut its U.S. tax bill by moving its headquarters to Ireland.

"The Pfizer-Allergan merger would be a disaster for American consumers who already pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs," Sanders said in a statement.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...Z1uiac4RwI3.97

Any Repugs gonna object to this patient-crushing BigPharma consolidation?

[boutons_deux]

With $160 billion merger, Pfizer moves to Ireland and dodges taxes

In what’s called a “reverse-inversion,” Allergan, a small Dublin-based drug company that makes products such as Botox, will technically buy the US-based pharmaceutical behemoth Pfizer, which makes products such as Viagra and Lipitor.

The $160 billion merger, officially announced Monday, will allow Pfizer to move its executive offices to Ireland, thus lowering its tax rate, while also morphing into the world’s largest drug maker.

Such inversions, which are said to cost the American government billions in lost tax revenue, have drawn scorn from the Obama Administration and the Treasury Department. Last year, President Obama referred to the deals as “unpatriotic” loopholes and proposed to close them. And last week, the Treasury announced new rules to make such deals more difficult.

But Pfizer’s reverse-inversion skirts the rules, in part by keeping ownership split somewhat evenly between the two companies. After the deal is complete, current shareholders of Allergan, which has the majority of its operations in the US, will own 44 percent of the mega company. The remaining 56 percent will be owned by current Pfizer shareholders.

In Monday’s announcement, Pfizer said that the deal will deliver $2 billion in cost savings per year for the first three years. By 2018, the combined company, which will also be called Pfizer, will have an operating cash flow of $25 billion.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/...-dodges-taxes/

[boutons_deux]

Republicans Are in Corporations' Pockets on Tax Inversions -- Democratic Senate Candidates Should Hammer Them for It


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-re...b_5915924.html

Where's the Repug outrage about US corporations using inversions to avoid $Bs in taxes?

[rmt]

Republicans Are in Corporations' Pockets on Tax Inversions -- Democratic Senate Candidates Should Hammer Them for It


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-re...b_5915924.html

Where's the Repug outrage about US corporations using inversions to avoid $Bs in taxes?

Repubs want to lower the corporate tax rate to attract the corporations - so that US is the tax haven - not Ireland (Actavis/Allergan) or Canada (Burger King).

They want to have an amnesty period to bring back the trillions parked out of the country and tax at 10% iirc. Dems just want to tax, tax, tax - don't know how Bernie's gonna pay for his free college tuition, free health care and free parental leave.