Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
October 04, 2015, 11:01:35 PM
Login with username, password and session length
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
Dog Brothers Public Forum
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
Politics & Religion
Sen. Bernie Sanders
Topic: Sen. Bernie Sanders (Read 452 times)
Sen. Bernie Sanders
June 02, 2015, 12:37:51 PM »
From 4% to 16%?!?
Re: Sen. Bernie Sanders
Reply #1 on:
June 16, 2015, 01:45:09 PM »
Re: Sen. Bernie Sanders
Reply #2 on:
August 12, 2015, 10:29:11 AM »
As polls now show Bernie beating Hillary in NH, , ,
People who follow politics probably know that Bernie Sanders, the U.S. senator from Vermont who is challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, is a socialist. Whether they give a fig is a separate matter, which may tell you something about today’s Democrats.
Mr. Sanders is currently drawing the largest crowds of any candidate in either party. On Monday, he drew a crowd his campaign estimated at 27,500 to the Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena, including those in an overflow area outside, watching on giant video screens. Over the weekend, 28,000 people turned out to see him in Portland, Ore., and a campaign stop in Seattle pulled 15,000. The conventional wisdom is that Mr. Sanders’s bid is destined to fail. His progressive base is too white and too small for a party that places a premium on “diversity,” and the Democratic establishment has already settled on Mrs. Clinton.
All true, perhaps. The disruption of his Seattle appearance by “Black Lives Matter” protesters suggests that challenges lie ahead for him. But it is also true that no one is saying Bernie Sanders can’t win because America isn’t ready to elect an avowed socialist as president, which might have been the case not too long ago.
Mr. Sanders, a New York City native, moved to Vermont in 1968 after becoming involved with the radical left while attending the University of Chicago. He first ran for Senate in 1972 as the candidate of the socialist Liberty Union Party and garnered just 2% of the vote. He lost a few more statewide races, and then eked out a 10-vote victory in 1981 to become mayor of Burlington. In 1990, running as an independent, he became only the third socialist ever elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. The one preceding him—Victor Berger of Wisconsin—left office in 1929.
Berger was a founding member of the Socialist Party of America, which nominated labor leader Eugene Debs for president five times between 1900 and 1920. The first part of the 20th century was socialism’s heyday. Debs never won a state but he did win almost 6% of the popular vote in 1912, and the party elected about 1,200 candidates to local offices during that period. The socialists, however, with their calls for income redistribution and the nationalization of resources, were never able to compete with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s coalition of Big Labor, blacks and rural whites in the South.
In 1932, the Socialist Party won just 2% of the vote, and in 1936 it managed less than half of 1%. Depression-era Democrats wanted economic growth, not a cradle-to-grave welfare state. When a 1935 Gallup poll asked voters to assess the amount of government spending on relief and recovery, only one in 10 said spending was too low, and the respondents who said spending was too high outnumbered those who said it was adequate by 2 to 1.
“Socialist parties blossomed in every important country in Europe in the second half of the nineteenth century, mobilizing mass support for expanding the power of the state, both to provide welfare services (such as pensions) and to restrain the power of the market,” write John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge in their 2004 history of U.S. politics, “The Right Nation.” “But in America socialists cast their seed on barren ground.”
Notwithstanding FDR’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs, the authors note, when Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980 “on a wave of resentment against ‘big government,’ the United States had a lower tax rate, a smaller deficit as a proportion of GNP, a less developed welfare state and fewer government-owned industries than any other western industrialized nation.”
If the Democratic Party once felt the need to distinguish itself from socialism, that no longer seems to be the case. When Mr. Sanders entered Congress in 1991, “Democrats initially balked at accepting a Socialist in their caucus,” according to the “Almanac of American Politics.” Eventually, however, he was granted seniority status as a Democrat, and he used it to push a progressive agenda that included tax increases, single-payer health care, a 50% reduction in military spending and a national energy policy.
It was working-class voters who backed Debs a century ago, but Mr. Sanders’s socialism appeals mainly to upper-middle-class professionals and fits neatly within the parameters of mainstream, income-inequality-obsessed Democratic politics in the 21st century. He may have an affinity for a political ideology that has given the world everything from the Soviet Gulag to modern-day Greece, but in this age of Obama, the senator is just another liberal with a statist agenda.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the head of the Democratic National Committee, was visibly rattled when MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked her recently to explain “the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist.”
Her nonresponse: “The more important question is, ‘What is the difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican?’ ”
Mr. Matthews pressed her: “I used to think there was a big difference. What do you think it is? A Democrat like Hillary and a Socialist like Bernie Sanders.” Ms. Wasserman Schultz refused to answer. And why should she? These days, it’s largely a distinction without a difference.
Mr. Riley, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and Journal contributor, is the author of “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed” (Encounter Books, 2014).
Newt on Sen. Bernie Sanders
Reply #3 on:
August 14, 2015, 09:49:39 PM »
Take Bernie Sanders Seriously
Originally published at the Washington Times
It is time to take Bernie Sanders seriously. It is increasingly possible that the 73-year-old socialist from Vermont could be a real contender for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president.
For months observers have scoffed at the idea.
Now we have a poll in New Hampshire which shows Sanders ahead of Hillary Clinton by 44 to 37.
Granted, New Hampshire is next to Vermont. Granted, it is only one poll.
In March, however, Sanders had 8 percent to Clinton's 44 percent. Clinton appeared to be among the most inevitable nominees ever for a non-incumbent.
This is quite a turnaround.
Furthermore, in the same period that Sanders overtook Clinton in New Hampshire, we learned that Clinton had been subpoenaed and forced to turn her email server over to the FBI. The very stories of corruption, sloppiness, and arrogance which have been dragging down her campaign for months are guaranteed to continue. Every day there is another example of Clinton problems.
Sanders, however, is much more than simply the anti-Clinton candidate. This week he drew a crowd of more than 27,000 people in Los Angeles. That is extraordinary.
The reason has less to do with Clinton than with the large and growing left-wing of the Democratic Party which dislikes compromise, Wall Street, big money, and politics as usual. As Matt Bai reported in his brilliant book The Argument, the Democrats have a powerful anti-war, hard-line environmentalist, social activist wing that helped defeat Clinton in 2008.
Bernie Sanders is a genuine socialist and that makes his messages very clear and very direct.
Sanders also has been a practicing politician for a long time. As Mark Steyn has noted, Sanders has spent years building a political machine as a socialist without a party or a large interest group to back him.
As a student, Sanders was a member of the Young People's Socialist League. He began running for public office more than 40 years ago. Finally, in 1981, he was elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont. As mayor of the state’s largest city he had a base on which to build his career. In 1990, he defeated a Republican to become Vermont’s lone congressman. Since Vermont has only one representative, the district is the same as a Senate seat. In 2006, after 16 years in the House, Sanders won the Senate seat.
This is a man who has been winning elections for 34 years. He is serious, energetic and determined.
He is also a good organizer.
As the Washington Post reports, he has been using the internet to build amazing crowds.
In three days he had 70,000 supporters show up in three west coast states, a long way from Vermont and New Hampshire.
He is doing all of this without spending much money.
And as Hillary Clinton gets weaker, he is getting stronger.
The left wing of the Democratic Party is not afraid to nominate a socialist. The left wing of the Democratic Party is socialist.
Everyone should realize that with six more months of Clinton corruption and confusion and six more months of pleasant, steady, and positive ideas from Bernie, the Democrats could easily find themselves on the edge of nominating a self-described socialist for President.
By then it may be too late for someone else to compete.
The last time this happened to the Democrats, they nominated George McGovern even though Hubert Humphrey and others tried to step in at the last minute.
The time to take Sanders seriously is now.
Re: Sen. Bernie Sanders
Reply #4 on:
August 15, 2015, 08:00:07 PM »
It's nice to see the dems embrace their true socialist core.
Sanders says America founded on racist principles
Reply #5 on:
September 14, 2015, 12:42:14 PM »
Re: Sanders says America founded on racist principles
Reply #6 on:
September 14, 2015, 05:39:32 PM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on September 14, 2015, 12:42:14 PM
Awesome! I'd love to see the Sanders campaign fit that on a bumpersticker.
WSJ: $18T price tag on BS's proposals
Reply #7 on:
September 15, 2015, 10:07:34 AM »
Price Tag of Bernie Sanders’s Proposals: $18 Trillion
Democratic presidential candidate’s agenda would greatly expand government
Sen. Bernie Sanders is proposing an array of federal government programs to fight poverty and income inequality that amount to at least $18 trillion in new spending over a decade. Photo: Associated Press
By Laura Meckler
Sept. 14, 2015 6:58 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON—Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose liberal call to action has propelled his long-shot presidential campaign, is proposing an array of new programs that would amount to the largest peacetime expansion of government in modern American history.
In all, he backs at least $18 trillion in new spending over a decade, according to a tally by The Wall Street Journal, a sum that alarms conservatives and gives even many Democrats pause. Mr. Sanders sees the money as going to essential government services at a time of increasing strain on the middle class.
His agenda includes an estimated $15 trillion for a government-run health-care program that covers every American, plus large sums to rebuild roads and bridges, expand Social Security and make tuition free at public colleges.
To pay for it, Mr. Sanders, a Vermont independent running for the Democratic nomination, has so far detailed tax increases that could bring in as much as $6.5 trillion over 10 years, according to his staff.
A campaign aide said additional tax proposals would be offered to offset the cost of some, and possibly all, of his health program. A Democratic proposal for such a “single-payer” health plan, now in Congress, would be funded in part through a new payroll tax on employers and workers, with the trade-off being that employers would no longer have to pay for or arrange their workers’ insurance.
Mr. Sanders declined a request for an interview. His campaign referred questions to Warren Gunnels, his policy director, who said the programs would address an array of problems. “Sen. Sanders’s agenda does cost money,” he said. “If you look at the problems that are out there, it’s very reasonable.”
Read More on Capital Journal
Capital Journal is WSJ.com’s home for politics, policy and national security news.
What to Watch for in the GOP’s Foreign-Policy Debate
As Sanders Rises in Polls, Questions Arise Over Clinton Campaign’s Path Forward
Fiorina Prepares for the Main Stage
Iran Nuclear Deal Lands In the Middle of 2016 Debate
Calling himself a democratic socialist, Mr. Sanders has long stood to the left of the Democratic Party, and at first he was dismissed as little more than a liberal gadfly to the party’s front-runner, Hillary Clinton. But he is ahead of or tied with the former secretary of state in the early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, and he has gained in national polling. He stands as her most serious challenger for the Democratic nomination.
Mr. Sanders has filled arenas with thousands of supporters, where he thunders an unabashedly liberal agenda to tackle pervasive economic inequality through more government services, higher taxes on the wealthy and new constraints on banks and corporations.
“One of the demands of my campaign is that we think big and not small,” he said in a recent speech to the Democratic National Committee.
Enacting his program would be difficult, if not impossible, given that Republican control of the House appears secure for the foreseeable future. Some of his program would be too liberal for even some centrist Democrats. Still, his agenda articulates the goals of many liberals and is exerting a leftward pressure on the party’s 2016 field.
The Sanders program amounts to increasing total federal spending by about one-third—to a projected $68 trillion or so over 10 years.
For many years, government spending has equaled about 20% of gross domestic product annually; his proposals would increase that to about 30% in their first year. As a share of the economy, that would represent a bigger increase in government spending than the New Deal or Great Society and is surpassed in modern history only by the World War II military buildup.
By way of comparison, the 2009 economic stimulus program was estimated at $787 billion when it passed Congress, and President George W. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts were estimated to cost the federal treasury $1.35 trillion over 10 years.
Re: Sen. Bernie Sanders explains the 18 trillion cost
Reply #8 on:
September 16, 2015, 11:22:21 AM »
Where is the Republican fast response team on this? The view of Bernie Sanders, Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Cass Sunstein, etc. is a threat to the republic as we knew it. Better be able to explain why they are wrong (rather than just wait for Hillary to implode).
It is naive (or just stupid) to think Sanders is too left to win in America, when the furthest left Senator before him just won twice. Of course ha can win - unless we have learned something.
Republicans are going to face intense scrutiny and ridicule in the msm and leftists like this are going to get a pass. Until we figure out how to change that, we play under their rules.
Sanders says he is just shifting private spending to public spending, and will tax the productive sector of the economy to death without figuring in any negative impact from that. So what's the big deal?
MITCHELL: Now, today's "Wall Street Journal" itemizes what they say would be the price tag of what you are proposing, the social programs. $18 trillion over ten years. Is that sustainable given the economy, given where the budget is and the deadlock in Congress?
SANDERS: Andrea, that is not the reality. We will be responding to "The Wall Street Journal" on that.
I think most of the expense that they put in there, the expenditures have to do with the single payer health care system. They significantly exaggerated the cost of that and they forgot to tell the American people in that article that that means eliminating the costs that you incur with private health insurance.
The truth of the matter is right now, as a nation, we spend far, far more on health care per person than do the people of any other nation and yet we continue to have about 30 million people who have no health insurance, many more who are underinsured and we pay, again, by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.
No question to my mind that moving toward a Medicare for all single payer program is the most cost-effective way to provide health care to all of our people.
Second point, which they really didn't get into, is we are going to demand that the wealthiest people and the largest corporations in this country do start paying their fair share of taxes.
When we have massive income and wealth inequality, when 58 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent, when you have major corporations in a given year paying zero in federal income taxes, yes, we need real tax reform to bring in substantially more revenue so in fact that we can make sure that every kid in this country who has the ability can go to college, because we are going to make public colleges and universities tuition-free.
"58 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent"
Oddly, that is what happens under leftist taxation, wealth by crony government stimulus, and leftist limits on economic freedom, not what happens under the old Dem idea that 'a rising tide lifts all boats'.
Economic studies consistently show the
of redistribution tax and spend policies to change inequality. (See political economics thread) Whether it is Hillary, Sanders, Biden or whoever, the mantra is: 'double down on failure'.
Re: Sen. Bernie Sanders, the foreign policy mayor
Reply #9 on:
September 16, 2015, 11:30:53 AM »
As mayor of Burlington, Vermont during the Reagan administration, Burlington City Hall hosted a foreign policy speech by Noam Chomsky. In his introduction, Sanders praised Chomsky as "a very vocal and important voice in the wilderness of intellectual life in America" and said he was "delighted to welcome a person who I think we're all very proud of."
Reply #10 on:
September 28, 2015, 12:03:19 PM »
Please select a destination:
DBMA Martial Arts Forum
=> Martial Arts Topics
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
=> Politics & Religion
=> Science, Culture, & Humanities
=> Espanol Discussion
Powered by SMF 1.1.19
SMF © 2013, Simple Machines