Bernie Sanders

[boutons_deux]

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

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

“Dr. Califf’s extensive ties to the pharmaceutical industry give me no reason to believe that he would make the FDA work for ordinary Americans, rather than just the CEOs of pharmaceutical companies,” Sanders said in an official statement.

A New York Times story from this past fall identified many of Califf's connections to pharmaecutical industry. The piece explains that, "he has written scientific papers with pharmaceutical company researchers, and his financial disclosure form last year listed seven drug companies and a device maker that paid him for consulting and six others that partly supported his university salary, including Merck, Novartis and Eli Lilly."

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-pol...er1049614&t=10

Feel The Bern, Califf!

[boutons_deux]

Bill Black: Wall Street Declares War Against Bernie Sanders

Stephen Schwarzman, one of the wealthiest and most odious people in the world, told the Wall Street Journal that one of the three principal causes of the recent global financial trauma was “the market’s” fear that Sanders may be elected President. Schwarzman is infamous for ranting that President Obama’s proposals to end the “carried interest” tax scam that allows private equity billionaires like Schwarzman to pay lower income tax rates than their secretaries was “like when Hitler invaded Poland.”

Schwarzman and Pete Peterson co-founded the private equity firm Blackstone. Peterson leads the effort to destroy the safety net in America. His greatest dream is to privatize Social Security so that Wall Street could increase its revenues by tens of billions of dollars. Blackstone is a major owner of Sea World, and it was in this sphere that Schwarzman went beyond his delusional rants about Hitler and became vile. When an Orca killed its trainer, Schwarzman lied and blamed the death on the trainer,

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

Michael Bloomberg was the second Wall Street billionaire to pile on to Bernie this week. Bloomberg leaked to dozens of media outlets that he was again considering a run for the presidency. The same leaks explained that Bloomberg’s fear of Bernie was the key. Bloomberg is infamous for organizing the mass arrests designed to crush the Occupy Wall Street movement. He is Wall Street and he openly represented Wall Street as Mayor of New York City.

Mayor Bloomberg was outraged that Wall Street banksters were criticized for their roles in leading the world’s largest criminal enterprises. Bloomberg invented a fictional alternate history in which the banksters were the victims of Congress, which purportedly forced them to make millions of bad and fraudulent loans – and then to sell the fraudulently originated loans to the secondary market through fraudulent representations and warranties. This is deranged, but Wall Street billionaires are deranged. They are surrounded by media, gofers, and politicians who treat their incoherent ramblings as genius. Bernie scares all of these groups.

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

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/...e-sanders.html

[boutons_deux]

Sanders slams Clinton for finance industry fundraiser

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

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


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

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

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz3yYnYLflD

[boutons_deux]

the "establishment" coming after Bernie

New York Times Gets it Wrong: Bernie Sanders Not “Top Beneficiary of Outside Money”

The New York Times caused a stir by publishing a classic man-bites-dog style campaign finance story in its Friday editions led “Bernie Sanders Is Top Beneficiary of Outside Money.” The article charges that despite his fiery campaign rhetoric against Super PACs and big money in politics, Sanders has gained much more from Super PAC spending than his Democratic opponents.

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

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

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

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

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/29/...side-spending/

[boutons_deux]

What Paul Krugman gets wrong about Bernie Sanders

As everyone knows by now, Paul Krugman is not “feeling the Bern.” After the fourth Democratic debate — which most pundits believed Sen. Bernie Sanders won — the New York Times columnist went on a bit of an anti-Sanders spree, with a critical blog post on the candidate’s “unrealistic” health care plan (released the night of the debate), a column on his faulty and idealistic view of change

“In an ideal world, I’d be a single-payer guy,” he wrote in 2007. “But I see the chance of getting universal care, imperfect but fixable, just a couple of years from now. And I want to grab that chance.”

So then, Krugman’s criticisms of Sanders are in line with his past views (though other “wonk” critiques of Sanders, like Ezra Klein’s, appear to be more duplicitous). Krugman is no shill, but this does not mean he’s not wrong in his broad critique. “The question Sanders supporters should ask,” writes Krugman, “is When has their theory of change ever worked?”

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

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

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

Rudolf Rocker, wrote many years ago:

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

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

According to a Princeton University study that examined decades worth of policies that became law in America and policies that Americans broadly supported — based on decades of public polling data —

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

On the other hand, economic elites “have far more independent impact upon policy change.http://www.salon.com/2016/01/28/what...ernie_sanders/

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

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

[InRareForm]

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

[boutons_deux]

Washington Post’s Wild Swings at Sanders

It’s not surprising that the Washington Post (owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos) would be unhappy with a presidential candidate running on a platform of taking back the country from the millionaires and billionaires. Therefore the trashing of Sen. Bernie Sanders in an editorial, “Bernie Sanders’ Fiction-Filled Campaign” (1/27/16), was about as predictable as the sun rising.

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

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

If we can confront the Post’s “reality check” with real-world reality, it is worth noting that the largest banks are in fact much larger than they were before the crisis, as a result of a wave of mergers that was approved at the peak of the panic. Furthermore, the industry as a whole is getting bigger, not smaller. It was under 17.0 percent of national income in 2007; last year it was almost 18.0 percent.

There has been research in recent years from both the Bank of International Settlementsand International Monetary Fund showing that a large financial sector is a drag on growth. For this reason, Sanders’ proposal for a financial transactions tax, which would be a big step towards downsizing the industry, would be well-received by a more reality-based newspaper.

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

etc, etc, etc.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...swings-sanders

[boutons_deux]

Sanders Surge Panics Washington Establishment

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

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

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

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

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

[boutons_deux]

Pelosi distances Democrats from Sanders's plan to raise taxes

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

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

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/26...to-raise-taxes

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

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

[InRareForm]

Boutons are you a bot ?

[boutons_deux]

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

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

The Washington Post again went after Senator Bernie Sanders in its lead editorial, telling readers that the Senator's proposals were "facile." It might be advisable for

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.alternet.org/media/washin...ter1049812&t=4

[spurraider21]

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

[boutons_deux]

Bernie and Hillary kicking RNC/DWS in the teeth

Clinton and Sanders agree to 4 more debates
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz3ylA2ORX5

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

[SnakeBoy]

Boutons are you a bot ?

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

[DarrinS]

Lol

http://www.weaselzippers.us/254089-a...d-the-country/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lol

http://www.weaselzippers.us/254089-a...d-the-country/

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

[vy65]

http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/why-...-middle-class/

disgusting

[boutons_deux]

Uneducated white male is the top demographic

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

[boutons_deux]

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

If it reduces caucus turnout, who benefits?

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

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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/why-...-middle-class/

disgusting

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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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

If it reduces caucus turnout, who benefits?

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

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

Nice wishcasting.

[vy65]

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

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

[CosmicCowboy]

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

If it reduces caucus turnout, who benefits?

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

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

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

[ChumpDumper]

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

There are no young, hip people in Iowa.

[z0sa]

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

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