Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 25, 2016, 07:22:40 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
95513 Posts in 2314 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Sen. Bernie Sanders
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Sen. Bernie Sanders  (Read 3209 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13701


« Reply #50 on: February 20, 2016, 07:01:41 PM »

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/02/18/meet-the-leader-of-the-national-socialist-american-workers-party/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37022


« Reply #51 on: February 21, 2016, 06:54:43 PM »

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/underneath-bernies-democratic-socialism-hides-a-dangerous-communist-revolutionary
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8009


« Reply #52 on: February 26, 2016, 12:52:17 PM »

Before Bernie rides off into the sunset it is important to recognize that his policies would only make things worse, just like Obama's did.
---------------------------------------------------------
https://lettertosanders.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/open-letter-to-senator-sanders-and-professor-gerald-friedman-from-past-cea-chairs/

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. ...

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 ...

lan 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
---------------------------------------------------------
If they truly are "evidence-based economists", when will they speak out against Obama's failed policies and false claims too!?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37022


« Reply #53 on: February 29, 2016, 08:39:55 PM »

http://www.nytimes.com.8i69.clonezone.link/warren-endorses-sanders
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5612


« Reply #54 on: February 29, 2016, 08:43:06 PM »

Doesn't matter.  He is done.

The only thing that could stop Hillary is event akin to Scalia's. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8009


« Reply #55 on: March 01, 2016, 11:10:57 PM »


Why did she endorse Sanders [more power at the base than in the establishment] and why did she wait until just after he lost to do it [professional courtesy]?


When a leftist tries to hold a leftist to the leftist agenda, do you call it 'keeping her honest'?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5612


« Reply #56 on: March 02, 2016, 09:50:34 AM »

Doug ,  good question.

Why endorse now at this late hour?  Trying to get Clinton to move left thinking she would try to get Warren's endorsement?   Then when that achieved as much as it could ( we all know that it doesn't matter what any Clinton says today ; it could be the opposite tomorrow) then throw a life line to the one she wanted?

If Trump had only been more of a gentlemen he might not have so many negatives. 

As far as being a conservative that, is another issue.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37022


« Reply #57 on: March 08, 2016, 12:58:38 AM »

http://www.dailywire.com/news/3952/sanders-dearborn-muslims-israels-existence-blame-robert-kraychik
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37022


« Reply #58 on: March 09, 2016, 05:01:05 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/mark.montana.94/videos/10209088078148566/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5612


« Reply #59 on: March 09, 2016, 05:38:43 PM »

There is a comment below the above Sanders video by a man who says ,  "as a black man I am saddened by the fact I have a 1/3 chance of going to jail"

This is an example of their warped logic.  Just because one in 3 blacks commit crimes and wind up in jail does not mean this guys' chances of going to jail is 1 in 3.  As long as he doesn't commit a crime his chances of going to jail is ZERO.   Oh I get it.  Police are going around the country rounding up blacks and throwing them in jail for no reason.  OK
 
What is it with blacks that they are always making excuses and blaming someone else for their lot and actions?

Nearly every other immigrant or minority group is blowing past them in life.  That says it all.

The entitlement mentality or the victim mentality is just endless.  If we pay then each 50 K or 100K reparations will that satisfy them ?  What's the deal?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13701


« Reply #60 on: March 10, 2016, 08:09:04 AM »

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/28/when-bernie-sanders-thought-castro-and-the-sandinistas-could-teach-america-a-lesson.html?via=desktop&source=twitter

When Bernie Sanders Thought Castro and the Sandinistas Could Teach America a Lesson

As mayor of Burlington, Sanders praised the regimes of Nicaragua and Cuba—claiming bread lines were a sign of economic health and press censorship was necessary in wartime.
After the ISIS-orchestrated bloodbath in Paris last November, CBS News informed the three Democratic presidential candidates that a forthcoming debate it was hosting would be shifting focus from domestic to foreign policy.
It seemed like an uncontroversial decision. But it was enough to send Bernie Sanders’s campaign into paroxysms of panic. During a conference call with debate organizers, one Sanders surrogate launched into a “heated” and “bizarre” protest, complaining that CBS was trying to “change the terms of the debate…on the day of the debate,” according to a Yahoo News source.
Still, the clamor from Bernie’s camp wasn’t that bizarre. Bernie understands that the frisson Sanderistas audiences experience isn’t activated by conversations about the Iran nuclear deal. No, Sanders disciples are slain in the spirit by repeated-ad-infinitum sermons about billionaires twisting mustaches, adjusting monocles, and jealously guarding their “rigged system.” It was this message that vaulted Sanders from the mayor’s office to Congress and into the Senate. But foreign-policy questions, The New York Times noted, had a habit of pushing him “out of his comfort zone.”

So here we are: The candidate accused of not caring about foreign policy was the same politico who, years ago, was routinely accused of preferring foreign affairs to the tedium of negotiating overtime pay with the local firefighter’s union. Indeed, after he was elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Sanders turned the town into a fantasy foreign-policy camp. In his 1997 memoir, Outsider in the House, he asked, “how many cities of 40,000 [like Burlington] have a foreign policy? Well, we did.”
What were the policies and ideas that animated his small-town internationalism? In a recent interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo, Sanders was asked about a comment he made in 1974 calling for the CIA’s abolition. He qualified, hedged, and offered a potted history of CIA meddling in the affairs of sovereign countries, all while arguing half-heartedly that his views had long-since evolved toward pragmatism.
If CNN can ambush Sanders by reaching back to 1974 and his not-entirely-unreasonable criticism of the CIA, perhaps another enterprising television journalist will ask the candidate-of-consistency one of the following questions:
— Do you think that American foreign policy gives people cancer?
— Do you think a state of war—be it against the Vietnamese communists, Nicaraguan anti-communists, or al Qaeda’s Islamists—justifies the curtailment of press freedoms?
— Do you stand by your qualified-but-fulsome praise of the totalitarian regime in Cuba? Do you stand by your unqualified-and-fulsome praise of the totalitarian Sandinista regime in Nicaragua?
— Do you believe that bread lines are a sign of economic health?
— Do you think the Reagan administration was engaged in the funding and commissioning of terrorism?
A weird palette of questions, sure, but when Sanders was mayor of Burlington, he answered “yes” to all of them. Hidden on spools of microfilm, buried in muffled and grainy videos of press conferences and public appearances, Mayor Sanders enumerated detailed—and radical—foreign-policy positions and explained his brand of socialism. (If you find foreign-policy debates tedious, feel free to ask Sanders if he still believes that “the basic truth of politics is primarily class struggle”; that “democracy means public ownership of the major means of production”; or that “both the Democratic and Republican parties represent the ruling class.”)
In the 1980s, any Bernie Sanders event or interview inevitably wended toward a denunciation of Washington’s Central America policy, typically punctuated with a full-throated defense of the dictatorship in Nicaragua. As one sympathetic biographer wrote in 1991, Sanders “probably has done more than any other elected politician in the country to actively support the Sandinistas and their revolution.” Reflecting on a Potemkin tour of revolutionary Nicaragua he took in 1985, Sanders marveled that he was, “believe it or not, the highest ranking American official” to attend a parade celebrating the Sandinista seizure of power.
It’s quite easy to believe, actually, when one wonders what elected American official would knowingly join a group of largely unelected officials of various “fraternal” Soviet dictatorships while, just a few feet away, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega bellows into a microphone that the United States is governed by a criminal band of terrorists.
None of this bothered Sanders, though, because he largely shared Ortega’s worldview. While opposition to Reagan’s policy in Central America—including indefensible decisions like the mining of Managua harbor—was common amongst mainstream Democrats, it was rare to find outright support for the Soviet-funded, Cuban-trained Sandinistas. Indeed, Congress’s vote to cut off administration funding of the anti-Sandinista Contra guerrillas precipitated the Iran-Contra scandal.
GET THE BEAST IN YOUR INBOX!

Enter your email address
By clicking "Subscribe," you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
SUBSCRIBE
But despite its aversion to elections, brutal suppression of dissent, hideous mistreatment of indigenous Nicaraguans, and rejection of basic democratic norms, Sanders thought Managua’s Marxist-Leninist clique had much to teach Burlington: “Vermont could set an example to the rest of the nation similar to the type of example Nicaragua is setting for the rest of Latin America.”
The lesson Sanders saw in Nicaragua could have been plagiarized from an editorial in Barricada, the oafish Sandinista propaganda organ. “Is [the Sandinistas’] crime that they have built new health clinics, schools, and distributed land to the peasants? Is their crime that they have given equal rights to women? Or that they are moving forward to wipe out illiteracy? No, their crime in Mr. Reagan’s eyes and the eyes of the corporations and billionaires that determine American foreign policy is that they have refused to be a puppet and banana republic to American corporate interests.”
But Sanders was mistaking aspirational Sandinista propaganda for quantifiable Sandinista achievement. None of it was true, but it overlaid nicely on top of his own political views. Sanders’s almost evangelical belief in “the revolution” led him from extreme credulity to occasional fits of extreme paranoia.
For instance, in 1987 Sanders hosted Sandinista politician Nora Astorga in Burlington, a woman notorious for a Mata Hari-like guerilla operation that successfully lured Gen. Reynaldo Perez-Vega, a high-ranking figure in the Somoza dictatorship, to her apartment with promises of sex. Perez-Vega’s body was later recovered wrapped in a Sandinista flag, his throat slit by his kidnappers. When Astorga died in 1988 from cervical cancer, Sanders took the occasion to publicly praise Astorga as “a very, very beautiful woman” and a “very vital and beautiful woman,” positing that American foreign policy might have given her cancer. “I have my own feelings about what causes cancer, and the psychosomatic aspects of cancer,” he said. “One wonders if the war didn’t claim another victim; a person who couldn’t deal with the tremendous grief and suffering in her own country.”
(Sanders often lurched toward conspiracy theory to make banal historical events conform to an ideological narrative. He argued that Ronald Reagan was as Manchurian president created by millionaires who run corporations: “Some millionaires in California said ‘Ron, we want you to work for us. We want you to become governor.’ They sat around a table. A dozen millionaires. They made him governor. And then they made him president. And he did his job effectively for those corporations.”)
The conflict in Nicaragua exacerbated Sanders’s more extreme positions. He asked a group of University of Vermont students to consider how “we deal with Nicaragua, which is in many ways Vietnam, except it’s worse. It’s more gross.” His answer was to raise money and civilian materiel for the revolution, establish a sister city program in Nicaragua, and act as a mouthpiece for the Sandinista government.
The local Vermont journalist corps, with whom Sanders had an extraordinarily contentious relationship, occasionally questioned Sanders on Nicaragua’s increasingly dictatorial drift.
In 1985 Sanders traveled to New York City to meet with Ortega just weeks after Nicaragua imposed a “state of emergency” that resulted in mass arrests of regime critics and the shuttering of opposition newspapers and magazines. While liberal critics of Reagan’s Nicaraguan policy rounded on the Sandinistas (talk-show host Phil Donahue told Ortega that his actions looked “fascist”), Sanders refused to condemn the decision. He was “not an expert in Nicaragua” and “not a Nicaraguan,” he said during a press conference. “Am I aware enough of all the details of what is going on in Nicaragua to say ‘you have reacted too strongly?’ I don’t know…” But of course he did know, later saying that the Sandinistas’ brutal crackdown “makes sense to me.”
What “made sense” to Sanders was the Sandinistas’ war against La Prensa, a daily newspaper whose vigorous opposition to the Somoza dictatorship quickly transformed into vigorous opposition of the dictatorship that replaced it. When challenged on the Sandinistas’ incessant censorship, Sanders had a disturbing stock answer: Nicaragua was at war with counterrevolutionary forces, funded by the United States, and wartime occasionally necessitated undemocratic measures. (The Sandinista state censor Nelba Blandon offered a more succinct answer: “They [La Prensa] accused us of suppressing freedom of expression. This was a lie and we could not let them publish it.”)
To underscore his point, Sanders would usually indulge in counterfactual whataboutism: “If we look at our own history, I would ask American citizens to go back to World War II. Does anyone seriously think that President Roosevelt or the United States government [would have] allowed the American Nazi Party the right to demonstrate, or to get on radio and to say this is the way you should go about killing American citizens?” (It’s perhaps worth pointing out that La Prensa never printed tutorials on how to kill Nicaraguans. And it’s also worth pointing out that in 1991, Sanders complained of the “massive censorship of dissent, criticism, debate” by the United States government during the Gulf War.)
Or how about the Reagan counterfactual: “What would President Reagan do if buildings were being bombed? If hospitals were being bombed? If people in our own country were being killed? Do you think President Reagan would say, ‘of course we want the people who are killing our children to get up on radio and explain to the citizens of the country how they are going to kill more of our people?’”
Or perhaps Abraham Lincoln can convince you: “How many of you remember what happened in the American Civil War and Abraham Lincoln’s feeling about how you have to fight that war? And how much tolerance there was in this country, during that war, for people who were not sympathetic to the Union cause?”
While Freedom House and Amnesty International agitated on behalf of La Prensa, Sanders was making excuses for the government that censored its articles, prevented it from buying newsprint, harassed its staffers, and arrested its journalists. “The point is,” he argued, “in American history the opposition press talking about how you could kill your own people and overthrow your own government was never allowed…Never allowed to exist.”
The Burlington Free Press mocked Sanders for playing the role of internationalista dupe and lampooned him for expressing, after just a brief, government-guided tour of Nicaragua, “such approval of the Sandinistas on the basis of what was at best a cursory inspection,” an instinct that “says more about his naïveté in the foreign policy field than anything else.”
Sanders countered that he was free to quiz real Nicaraguans on their political allegiances, but they “laughed” when he asked which party they backed because “of course they are with the government.” When asked about the food shortages provoked by the Sandinistas’ voodoo economic policy, Sanders claimed that bread lines were a sign of a healthy economy, suggesting an equitable distribution of wealth: “It’s funny, sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is, that people are lining up for food. That is a good thing! In other countries people don’t line up for food: the rich get the food and the poor starve to death.” When asked about Nicaragua’s notoriously brutal treatment of the Miskito Indians, the Free Press noted that Sanders “attempted to cut off” the line of questioning. (Ted Kennedy called the Sandinistas’ crimes against the indigenous Miskitos “unconscionable,” “intolerable,” and “disturbing,” commenting that they were relocated at gunpoint to “forced-labor camps which resemble concentration camps.”)
Through the Mayor’s Council on the Arts, Sanders tried to bring some revolutionary third-worldism to Vermont when he funded cable-access television that showed “films from Cuba [and] daily television fare from Nicaragua.” At a press conference, Sanders highlighted the grants that allowed the importation of “films produced in Nicaragua, that appear on Nicaraguan [state] television, on Channel 15. We have films from Cuba on Channel 15.”
Ah, yes, let us not forget the democratic socialist Shangri-La in Havana. In 1989 Sanders traveled to Cuba on a trip organized by the Center for Cuban Studies, a pro-Castro group based in New York, hoping to come away with a “balanced” picture of the communist dictatorship. The late, legendary Vermont journalist Peter Freyne sighed that Sanders “came back singing the praises of Fidel Castro.”
“I think there is tremendous ignorance in this country as to what is going on in Cuba,” Sanders told The Burlington Free Press before he left. It’s a country with “deficiencies,” he acknowledged, but one that has made “enormous progress” in “improving the lives of poor people and working people.” When he returned to Burlington, Sanders excitedly reported that Cuba had “solved some very important problems” like hunger and homelessness. “I did not see a hungry child. I did not see any homeless people,” he told the Free Press. “Cuba today not only has free healthcare but very high quality healthcare.”
Sanders had a hunch that Cubans actually appreciated living in a one-party state. “The people we met had an almost religious affection for [Fidel Castro]. The revolution there is far deep and more profound than I understood it to be. It really is a revolution in terms of values.” It was a conclusion he had come to long before visiting the country. Years earlier Sanders said something similar during a press conference: “You know, not to say Fidel Castro and Cuba are perfect—they are certainly not—but just because Ronald Reagan dislikes these people does not mean to say the people in these nations feel the same.”
There is, of course, a mechanism to measure the levels of popular content amongst the campesinos. Perhaps it’s too much to expect a democratic socialist to be familiar with the free election, a democratic nicety the Cuban government hasn’t availed itself of during its almost 60 years in power.
But Sanders has long been attracted to socialist countries that eschewed democracy. He recalled “being very excited when Fidel Castro made a revolution in Cuba” in 1959. “It just seemed right and appropriate that poor people were rising up against a lot of ugly rich people.” In an interview with The Progressive, almost 30 years later, Sanders was still expressing admiration for the Cuban dictatorship: “And what about Cuba? It’s not a perfect society, I grant, but there aren’t children there going hungry. It’s been more successful than almost any other developing country in providing health care for its people. And the Cuban revolution is only 30 years old. It may get even better.”
During his tenure as mayor, Burlington established sister-city programs in Nicaragua and the Soviet Union, and tried—and failed—to create one in Cuba.
By the 1980s, certain elements of the radical left were still defending the honor of the Cuban revolution. But few had kind words for the Soviet Union, with most political pilgrims having long since wandered to Cuba, Vietnam, China, and Cambodia. And Sanders too was routinely critical of the Kremlin, criticizing the invasion of Afghanistan and acknowledging the lack of freedom in the Soviet Union, while still managing a bit of socialist fraternity, praising Moscow for constructing the “cleanest, most effective mass transit system I have ever seen in my life…you wait 15 seconds in rush hour between trains.” He was “impressed” by the state-run youth programs “which go far beyond what we do for young people in this country.”
Sanders has long claimed to be a “democratic socialist”—the type of lefty who loves Sweden, but is offended by the totalitarian socialism that dominated during the Cold War—but he has long employed the tepid language of “imperfection” when discussing the criminal failures of undemocratic socialism. Totalitarians with unfriendly politics are correctly met with derision and thundering demands for extradition and prosecution. So Sanders succinctly described the Chilean murderer, torturer, and destroyer of democracy Augusto Pinochet as a “mass murderer, torturer, and destroyer of democracy.” And Filipino dictator Ferdinand Marcos is rightly tagged as a “crook and murderer.”
Perhaps at this point I don’t need to point out that Fidel Castro is likewise a crook and a murderer. Or that Sandinista strongman Daniel Ortega, while achieving none of the milestones Bernie Sanders once claimed he had achieved, stole enormous amounts of money from the Nicaraguan people and was, to name just one example, behind the infamous bombing at La Penca which killed seven people (including three journalists).
So to my fellow journalists: the next one of you who gets caught in one of Sanders’s riffs about the CIA’s involvement in the overthrow of Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh, ask him one of my questions. Ask him how consistent he has been on foreign policy. And help him answer a question posed by a Burlington Free Press journalist in 1985, who wondered if his useful idiot trip to Nicaragua would come back to haunt him in a future race.
“The answer is ‘probably.’ But I’ll be damned if I know how.”
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37022


« Reply #61 on: March 10, 2016, 03:14:19 PM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy-realist/2016/03/08/c7f3422e-e48a-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37022


« Reply #62 on: March 15, 2016, 10:39:33 AM »

http://www.dickmorris.com/sanders-surging-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13701


« Reply #63 on: March 19, 2016, 11:05:46 AM »

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2016/03/feelthebreadline.html

Friday, March 11, 2016
#FeeltheBreadLine
Posted by Daniel Greenfield

After Bernie Sanders visited the Marxist Sandanista regime in Nicaragua on a propaganda tour, he argued that the bread lines in major cities were a good thing. “American journalists talk about how bad a country is, that people are lining up for food. That is a good thing!”

The bread lines had been caused by the radical regime’s socialist agricultural policies of land seizures from farmers. Those farmers who refused to be drawn into Soviet-style communal farms rebelled, along with Indian and Creole racial minorities, and became the core of the Contras, the heroic resistance fighters whose mass murders at the hands of Sandinista terrorists were cheered by American leftists.

What had been productive farmland vanished into a warren of newly invented government agencies run by leftist university graduates with no agricultural background obsessed with seizing land, but with no idea of how to run it. The remaining farmers were forced into grinding poverty by a government purchasing monopoly while the profits went not to their farms, but to the political class of the Sandanistas who lived in luxury while farmers fled and city workers waited on bread lines.

Think of them as the Bernie Bros of Nicaragua. Except they wore khaki fatigues, not pajamas. And instead of angrily tweeting, they marched their victims into churches and set them on fire.

The unfortunates that the Democratic Party’s aspiring top Socialist saw lining up for bread were the victims of a regime that had destroyed the country through socialist thievery. And he learned absolutely nothing from the experience. Just as the Sandinistas had learned nothing from the Soviet Union and Venezuela’s Socialists learned nothing from the Sandinistas so that once again today crowds wait for bread, milk and toilet paper in an oil-rich country that has run out of everything except Socialists.

“You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants when children are hungry in this country,” Sanders sneered last year.

But it’s the scarcity that the smelly Socialist is shoving at Americans that leads to children going hungry. A choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants means a lot of jobs manufacturing, marketing, stocking and selling them. Those jobs, not Bernie’s self-righteous posturing, allow parents to feed their children.

Children aren’t going hungry in America because we have too many types of deodorant, but because too much of our manufacturing backbone was destroyed by leftist redistributionist policies.


Bernie Sanders’ plan is to double down on failure by adding $15 trillion in taxes. Tax hikes averaging $9,000 would gut the income of American workers and lower household after-tax income by 12 percent. The middle class would lose 8.5% of after-tax income to Bernie Sanders’ insatiable government greed.

This would be the largest tax increase in American history outside of a war. But some days it seems as if Americans have lost a war without a shot being fired and that these are the wages of the occupation.

The Sanders socialist top tax rate proposal goes to 54 percent, but in the past he has favored a 100 percent tax rate. Back in the seventies, he proposed to “make it illegal to amass more wealth than a human family could use in a lifetime” and to seize any income over one million dollars a year.

That would effectively get rid of the underarm spray deodorant factories, not to mention most other manufacturing jobs and agriculture with it. It’s a formula for creating bread lines along the same lines as the Marxist regimes that Bernie Sanders admired.

Sanders was still pushing a 100 percent tax in 1992. It’s a safe bet that his current tax hike proposals are a starting point for massive redistribution from all classes, from the top to the bottom, to the political class of the government that he represents. Given the opportunity, he will get to 100 percent.

Even before all that, Sanders is pushing a carbon consumption tax. Carbon taxes effectively raise the prices of everything, stealing from working families from the supermarket to the job market.

Food prices have already risen sharply under Obama. The dirty secret of the carbon tax is its impact on the price of food. And if that isn’t bad enough, environmentalists have been salivating over the idea of a special tax on what they call “greenhouse-gas-intensive food” which would permanently put meat out of the reach of working families. To the left, such a brutalization of the working class is its most attractive feature.

CBO accounting found that the regressive carbon hoax tax hits low income families hardest. That should bury the myth that Bernie Sanders is fighting for the poor. Liberals fight for the poor the way that KFC fights for chickens.

As the Tax Policy Center analysis puts it, Bernie’s big carbon tax would force “households and businesses to take account of the environmental costs of their activities.” The Big Green beatings will continue until the morale of the workers improves.

The left claims that its carbon tax schemes will offer all sorts of aid to the poor. But what that really means is shoving more working families onto public assistance. Like the Sandinistas, their solution to the poverty and food crisis they want to create is to take away more jobs and add more bread lines.

And we already know that Bernie Sanders is a big fan of bread lines.

Meanwhile more middle class families would find themselves squeezed into the ranks of the working poor. Bernie Sanders rants about the 1 percent stealing from the middle class, but he’s the one who is plotting the biggest heist of money from the middle class in this nation’s history.

Poor workers would lose hours and jobs. Savings would be discouraged. Lower real wages would destroy the future of working families even long after Bernie has gone to the big red gulag in the ground.

And then there are the farms that grow the food. Depending on how a carbon tax is structured, it could hit farms hard. That’s why even the leftist governments that have implemented this harsh tax have generally added exemptions for agriculture to avoid the kind of food disasters that comes from hammering the food supply with a hoax tax. It’s not clear whether Sanders would do so as well.

Farms have already been suffering from environmental policies. A carbon tax could destroy farming the way that the socialist schemes of Sanders’ Sandinistas destroyed agriculture in Nicaragua.

And then the bread lines would be all too real. But there would be no bread.

While Bernie Sanders blathers about billionaires in every speech, his tax plan shows that the Socialist is coming for everyone’s money. Even those at the very bottom of the income tier would still be losing 1.3 percent of their after-tax income, money that many working families cannot afford to give up to Bernie.


“The basic truth of politics is primarily class struggle,” Bernie Sanders has said. And he’s almost right.

Politics has become the struggle of working Americans against the political class. Bernie Sanders is the prototype of a political class of lazy unemployable shiftless parasites at war with the working class. Like the Sandinistas and every other leftist group, he wants to seize money from people of every economic class who actually work in order to invest it in his big government schemes for the political class.

Bernie Sanders has said that, “Democracy means public ownership of the major means of production”. He has touted support from Marxist economists and proposed redistribution of income as the answer to everything. An admirer of Cuba and the Sandinistas, he has learned nothing from their mistakes and proposes to destroy our economy just as his fellow Socialists destroyed theirs in Latin America.

Sanders supporters who feel the Bern dreaming of all the free stuff they will get might want to look at history and ask themselves whether they will end up standing on one of Bernie’s bread lines instead.

Forget #FeeltheBern, try #FeeltheBreadLine.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37022


« Reply #64 on: March 24, 2016, 04:06:12 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/eric.kestner.9/videos/1134964713211163/
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 327


« Reply #65 on: March 27, 2016, 05:15:32 PM »

As to how someone that has never served, could attempt to usher in Socialism, using the sacrifice of the military, when they've never been shot at, but instead ducked their turn in the barrel.

Disgusting.

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/videos/1085388831554170/
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37022


« Reply #66 on: March 27, 2016, 11:04:36 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/theEagleisRising/photos/a.142656825937834.1073741830.135665053303678/488189551384558/?type=3&theater
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37022


« Reply #67 on: April 06, 2016, 07:53:49 PM »

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/04/06/watch-matthews-presses-sanders-supporter-on-paying-for-free-college-supporter-says-i-dont-need-to-know-at-this-moment/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5612


« Reply #68 on: April 06, 2016, 08:29:08 PM »

Who should pay for "free" college for everyone?  the answer is easy.  The vast majority of liberal college professors should pay for it.  They should all do their "fair share" and work for minimum wage.  Administrators who sit on their fat asses and expect the tax money to keep on flowing should all have the pay cut to minimum.  Why are prices not set for them like it is in the medical sector?

Seems obvious to me.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5612


« Reply #69 on: April 14, 2016, 12:26:49 PM »

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/04/14/sanderss-jewish-outreach-coordinator-caught-f-ck-bibi-online-tirade/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37022


« Reply #70 on: April 17, 2016, 09:51:24 AM »

http://www.youngcons.com/bernie-sanders-releases-tax-returns-only-paid-13-5-in-2014/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13701


« Reply #71 on: April 17, 2016, 10:11:50 AM »


Socialists don't want to pay more taxes, they want YOU to pay more taxes.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5612


« Reply #72 on: April 17, 2016, 11:57:03 AM »

13.5%? Tax rate in '14.

What his secret?

GM:

"Socialists don't want to pay more taxes, they want YOU to pay more taxes."

He probably won't tell us how he managed that rate.  That way he pays less and we pay more so he can send the entire millennial generation to college on our backs.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37022


« Reply #73 on: April 17, 2016, 12:35:35 PM »

Note the question mark in my subject line.  I'm not ready to vouch for that site and would like to see this confirmed elsewhere.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8009


« Reply #74 on: April 17, 2016, 01:28:32 PM »


http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-15/sanders-paid-27-653-in-2014-taxes-on-income-of-205-271
Sanders Paid $27,653 in 2014 Taxes on Income of $205,271

13.5% was his average tax rate.  Marginal tax rate, much higher for a 200k earner, is what discourages additional work or investment.  A true flat tax would make them one and the same.  It is counter-productive (stupid) to have the disincentive to produce higher than the rate of actual revenue collection.  Even with his own example this is all Greek to Bernie Sanders.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8009


« Reply #75 on: April 18, 2016, 11:38:49 AM »

"the menu on Flight Class Warfare:  There's lobster sliders, crab salad, red lentil soup, herb crusted lamb loin, chocolate ganache, fine cheeses, white wine..."

They flew a Delta 767, 4/5ths empty, burned 33,193 gallons of fuel, and met with the Pope for what, 3 minutes?  Makes an Occupy Wall Streeter want to pledge another $6 out of their next minimum wage paycheck...

First this, Obama's immediate response to what he will miss as President, Air Force One, his own zillion dollar private jet service known for making a special trip to bring the dog to Martha's Vineyard or to commute the Obamas to Hawaii - separately.

Now it's Bernie, the common man, starting to live not like a socialist, but like a socialist leader, in power and in control of other people's money.

1%: BERNIE SANDERS PRIVATE JET SERVES LAMB LOIN, FINE CHEESE, LOBSTER
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/262536/1-bernie-sanders-private-jet-serves-lamb-loin-fine-daniel-greenfield

Remember when Bernie Sanders was scoring PR points for "humbly" flying with the ordinary people? That's all gone. And it's been gone for a while now. His campaign is swimming in money and that comes with all the expected Clintonworld perks.

The New York Times' Yamiche Alcindor, who is no Sanders fan, tweeted the menu on Flight Class Warfare.

There's lobster sliders, crab salad, red lentil soup, herb crusted lamb loin, chocolate ganache, fine cheeses, white wine and those are just the highlights.

And all of this was so Bernie Sanders could fly out to Rome to try and associate himself with Pope Francis and take along a bunch of reporters to watch the show.

The plane was a Delta 767 which can seat 250 or so people, though Sanders only took 50 in his entourage.

Sure. Why not.
 
The whole trip would have used up to 33,193 gallons of fuel, calculated MailOnline, which noted that an average American - who is estimated to fly only 7,500 miles per year - releases fewer carbon emissions via aircraft in 12 months than Mr Sanders did for the trip to Rome.

Hours earlier during the Democratic debate, Mr Sanders claimed some of Mrs Clinton's support came from employees at oil companies and lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry. "'As I understand it, 43 lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry maxed out, gave the maximum amount of money to Secretary Clinton's campaign," he said.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37022


« Reply #76 on: April 19, 2016, 12:14:27 AM »

https://medium.com/@robinalperstein/on-becoming-anti-bernie-ee87943ae699#.yda864jhb
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37022


« Reply #77 on: April 19, 2016, 01:18:37 PM »

http://freebeacon.com/politics/bernie-sanders-asked-leave-hippie-commune/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8009


« Reply #78 on: May 09, 2016, 08:20:52 PM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/09/the-17-trillion-problem-with-bernie-sanderss-health-care-plan-2/

Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed paying for his proposals to transform large sectors of the government and the economy mainly through increased taxes on wealthy Americans. A pair of new studies published Monday suggests Sanders would not come up with enough money using this approach, and that the poor and the middle class would have to pay more than Sanders has projected in order to fund his ideas.

The studies, published jointly by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and the Urban Institute in Washington, concludes that Sanders's plans are short a total of more than $18 trillion over a decade. His programs would cost the federal government about $33 trillion over that period, almost all of which would go toward Sanders's proposed system of national health insurance. Yet the Democratic presidential candidate has put forward just $15 trillion in new taxes, the authors concluded.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37022


« Reply #79 on: May 10, 2016, 10:00:48 AM »

In fairness, Trump's tax plan's deficit numbers are hideous too.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37022


« Reply #80 on: May 16, 2016, 04:38:48 PM »

http://heatst.com/politics/breaking-burlington-college-closes-due-to-crushing-weight-of-debt-acquired-by-jane-sanders/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37022


« Reply #81 on: May 17, 2016, 09:42:11 PM »

http://www.city-journal.org/html/gods-sake-bernie-14448.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8009


« Reply #82 on: May 23, 2016, 02:16:36 PM »

I am dating a Sanders supporter (the rest of the relationship must be pretty good!).  We are starting to risk everything with talks about politics. 

I asked why the move toward socialism has led to economic failure in Venezuela.  They  take from the wealthy and from the corporations but life just keeps getting worse for everyone else.  I agree with her answer:

"Maybe they went too far."

(Yes they did!  Too far in the wrong direction.) 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37022


« Reply #83 on: May 26, 2016, 12:37:36 AM »

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/24/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8009


« Reply #84 on: May 26, 2016, 10:48:38 AM »

I am studying Bernie Sanders' views on monetary policy.  We need to learn all we can about Bernie and the Bernie phenomenon before it soon ends and becomes even more irrelevant. 

There is a viral Sanders video going around of Bernie ripping Alan Greenspan in about 2003-2004:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJaW32ZTyKE

This is clipped to make Bernie look good (and angry).  He is taking off on things Greenspan said about the economy being good but it wasn't good then for working people and then-Rep. Bernie let him have it.  We had just come out of the Clinton / 911 recession and they were looking at data prior to the Bush tax cuts fully taking effect.

I take from the context that Greenspan was tempted to raise interest rates as the economy rebounded that were being held artificially low then, like today, and that Bernie wanted them left at near zero.

As stated elsewhere, that means Bernie at least unknowingly favors zero savings, zero new investment, zero productivity growth and zero wage growth.  It also means he favors higher income inequality because the cheap and easy money favors rich who can take advantage of it more than the poor who can't.

Bernie favors the part of the Fed Dual Mission that people here tend to oppose, that the Fed should focus more on employment where it has virtually no effect than on inflation where it has primary control.

That Bernie doesn't get capitalism isn't a shock.

On the other side of it, he is one of the most credible voices against big bank, big corporate, bug government cronyism.  I have always believed there are areas where the far left and the more libertarian, freedom loving, level playing field side can find agreement.

https://berniesanders.com/in-troubled-times-the-federal-reserve-must-work-for-everyone/
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/12/23/Here-s-What-Bernie-Sanders-Would-Do-Fed
http://www.newsweek.com/paul-sanders-join-forces-fed-414926
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/opinion/bernie-sanders-to-rein-in-wall-street-fix-the-fed.html?_r=0
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/29/larry-summers-heres-what-bernie-sanders-gets-wrong-and-right-about-the-fed/
https://votesmart.org/candidate/public-statements/27110/bernie-sanders/85/monetary-policy#.V0XAbPkrLIV
https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1030819/sanders-statement-on-fed-raising-interest-rates#.V0XAdvkrLIU
https://votesmart.org/public-statement/54820/hearing-of-the-house-financial-services-committee-semiannual-monetary-policy-report-to-the-congress#.V0XAivkrLIU

In hindsight, the Fed made a GIANT mistake in the mid-2000s by flooding the economy with money during the bubble years that led to the crash.  Bernie Sanders would have gone further than Greenspan with that catastrophic error.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13701


« Reply #85 on: May 27, 2016, 09:56:23 AM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/05/27/stump-the-socialist-bernie-would-rather-not-talk-about-venezuela/

The non-verbals are awesome.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8009


« Reply #86 on: May 27, 2016, 12:22:02 PM »


Q: "How do you explain the failures of socialism in Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina?"

A: "Of course I am interested and have an opinion but I am focused on my campaign [to implement those same policies here]."

Huh??

Maybe DT with help from advisers can draw this out of Bernie in their debate.  The answer is simple.  Those policies lead to failure.  Anyone who looks can see that.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8009


« Reply #87 on: May 27, 2016, 02:40:35 PM »

Bernie's opinion on Fed policy.  [My responses.]  We need to be able to answer Bernieconomics to his supporters and to young people before these ideas get accepted any further.

This is from Bernie's own website, posted during this campaign, written by his staff member, and still up on his site as his view.

THE ECONOMY
In Troubled Times, the Federal Reserve Must Work for Everyone
AUGUST 25, 2015| BY RICHARD ESKOW

[In troubled times?  This is 7 1/2 years into the Obama recovery!"]

It’s been a chaotic few days for the world’s markets. Recent events do not paint the picture of a stable economy guided by rational minds. Instead, the world of global finance looks more like a playground in need of adult supervision.  [I would like to come back to this point, "a playground in need of adult supervision".  The description better fits watching Socialists putting zero interests rates on a centrally planned, government controlled and intervened economy.]

Like other nations, we have a central bank. What should the Federal Reserve do in troubled times? For that matter, what is the Fed’s role in preventing them from occurring in the first place?  [What role did the Fed play in CAUSING troubled times?]

It’s true that many of the causes of the recent stock market turmoil are global, rather than domestic. But those distinctions are becoming less important in a world of unfettered capital flow. Regional markets, like regional ecosystems, are interconnected.

Europe is struggling because of a misguided attachment to growth-killing austerity policies. Like Republicans in this country, Europe’s leaders are focused on unwise government cost-cutting measures that hurt the overall economy.
 [Government is too small in all places where it is too big?  That is his diagnosis of the causes of all troubles.]

China’s superheated markets [private sector failure is the main problem in a communist country?] have experienced a sharp downturn, and its devaluing of the yuan [agreeing with Trump] is likely to affect American monetary policy. Many of the so-called “emerging markets” are in grave trouble, their problems exacerbated by an anticipated interest rate hike from the US Fed.  [The anticipated and actual hike was 00.25%!

Plunging crude oil prices are a major factor in the events of the last few days. [Plunging oil prices are great for people - unless you are rich and own an oil company.] But questions remain about the underlying forces affecting those prices. Demand is somewhat weaker [a further indication that Obama's policies similar to Sanders' policies have led to a weakened economy or recovery], and Saudi officials are refusing to cut production. [We have been fighting OPEC for 40 years; now we want them to cut production??] But there is still some debate about whether these and other well-reported factors are enough to explain the fact that the price of a barrel of oil is roughly half what it was just over a year ago, in June 2014. [The only good news in the Obama economy.]

American Turmoil

Talk of recovery here in the US has been significantly dampened by events of the last several days. The now-interrupted stock market boom had been Exhibit A in the case for recovery.  [Since that time, the stock market has been fine.  In income inequality-centric thinking, I thought rich people losses were good and gains were bad...]

Exhibit B was the ongoing drop in the official unemployment rate. There, too, signs of underlying weakness can be found. The labor force participation rate remains very low for people in their peak working years, as economist Elise Gould notes, and has only come back about halfway from pre-2008 levels. Jared Bernstein notes that pressure to raise wages, which one would also expect in a recovering job market, also remains weak.  [Lousy recovery, no recovery as we have been saying here.]

All this argues for a rational and coordinated policy [All problems require bigger government intervention, even those caused by bigger government intervention.], one in which the Federal Reserve and the US government act together to restore a wounded economy. [As they have been doing, making things worse and kicking the can of finding real answers to real problems further down the road.] What would that look like?

It would not include raised interest rates – something that nevertheless continues to be a topic of serious discussion. [This is the central point of Bernie's monetary non-policy.  He favors zero interest rates in all conditions.  If the time value of money is zero, isn't the value of money eventually zero?  He opposes savings, investment and accumulation of wealth.  Come back to this point.  What really do you favor when you oppose lower income people beginning to save, invest and accumulate wealth?] As Dean Baker points out, China’s currency devaluation alone should have been enough to take that idea off the table. What’s more, as Baker rightly notes, such a move would only make sense if the Fed “is worried that the US economy was growing too quickly and creating too many jobs.”  That’s a notion most Americans would probably reject as absurd. Most are not seeing their paychecks grow or their job opportunities multiply.

Anxiety about inflation, while all but omnipresent in some circles, is not a rational fear. [QE while GDP is stagnant IS inflation, it just doesn't show up immediately in price levels.] A slow rise in prices (0.2 percent in the 12 months ending in July, as opposed to the Fed’s recommended 2 percent per year) tells us that inflation is not exactly looming on the horizon.  [Inflation is the expansion of the money supply relative to GDP.  Price levels lag where there is low demand and low velocity of money. A distinction lost by the author.]

Now what?

“Everything is going to be dictated by government policy,” the chief investment officer of a well-known investment firm said this week. In that case, isn’t it time for a national conversation about that policy?

Another investment strategist told the Wall Street Journal that today’s challenges come at a time when “global central banks have exhausted almost all their tools … It’s difficult to see how central banks come in to support markets.”

If they’ve exhausted all their commonly-used tools, it may be time to develop new ones – not to support “markets,” but to promote jobs and growth for everyone.

First, do no harm. The Fed needs to hold off on any move to raise interest rates. [But zero or artificially low interest rates ARE doing harm!] But inaction is not enough. It was given a dual mandate by Congress: to stabilize prices and keep employment at reasonable levels.

Activist groups like the “Fed Up” coalition, led by the Center for Popular Democracy, are working to move the Fed toward that second objective. They’ve been pushing to change its governing boards, which are heavily dominated by big banks and other major financial interests, and have called for policies that focus on improving the economic lives of most Americans.

Those policies could take a number of forms. One idea comes from Jeremy Corbyn, the populist politician who’s on track to become the next leader of Great Britain’s Labour Party. Corbyn’s economic plan includes “quantitative easing for people instead of banks.” Corbyn proposes to grow the financial sector in a targeted way, by giving the Bank of England (the UK’s version of the Fed) a mandate to “invest in new large scale housing, energy, transport and digital projects.”  [Invest WHAT? Private savings ended due to same policies.  Governments are at their limit of deficit.  Borrow more, FROM WHOM?  Print money?  That doesn't make what you have or will earn or get paid worth more!]

A headline on the website of the Financial Times says (with apparent surprise) that “Corbyn’s “People’s QE” could actually be a decent idea.”

Corbyn also proposes to “strip out some of the huge tax reliefs and subsidies on offer to the corporate sector.” ['Our side' agrees with the ending of giving preferential treatment to government cronies in exchange for lowering the burden on everyone.] The added revenue would go to “direct public investment,” including the creation of a ‘National Investment Bank’ to “invest in the new infrastructure we need and in the hi-tech and innovative industries of the future.”  [This is based on false theory that taking more from the private sector to give more to the public sector creates an improvement for whatever part of America he is purporting to be helping.]

“Qualitative” Easing

Call it “qualitative,” rather than “quantitative,” easing. It would increase the money supply, but for money that is to be invested in the real-world economy – the one that creates jobs, lifts wages, and creates broad economic growth.  [Changing the words without changing the policies.  In the same sentence he says qualitative expansion is quantitative expansion sold better.  No distinction from why current policy makers are executing current policies.  If you leave interest rates at zero, you are helping the wealthy who happen to own corporate stock in pre-existing companies listed on the Dow, S&P etc.  We already saw that.  We already did TARP, shovel ready projects, cash for clunkers...  Doing more of the same will bring different results?!!]

Could something like Corbyn’s plan ever happen here? There’s no reason why not. [We are already doing it.]  The Federal Reserve wasn’t created by bankers, nor is it there to serve bankers – although a lot of people inside and outside the Fed act as if it were. (The choice of a former Goldman Sachs executive for its latest major appointment won’t help change that.)

The Federal Reserve was created by the American people, through an act of Congress. Its governors and its policies are there to protect and serve the public. The Fed should use its oversight capabilities to ensure that banks don’t behave in a reckless manner or help private funds and other unsupervised institutions to behave recklessly.

We are still paying the price for allowing big-money interests to dominate both lawmaking on Capitol Hill and monetary policy at the Federal Reserve. That must change. Congress and the Fed, acting together, should ensure that our nation’s policies benefit the many who are in need of help, not the few who already have more than they need.

[This is like we did telling commercial banks to make loans based on criteria other than creditworthiness.  Now we will ask our Fed go further in pursuit of policies other than managing the value of our money.  This has worked when?  Where?]
« Last Edit: May 27, 2016, 03:03:50 PM by DougMacG » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13701


« Reply #88 on: May 27, 2016, 03:40:02 PM »

http://nypost.com/2016/02/09/on-health-care-bernie-betrayed-vets-to-protect-unions/

On health care, Bernie betrayed vets to protect unions
By Betsy McCaughey February 9, 2016 | 8:27pm
Modal Trigger On health care, Bernie betrayed vets to protect unions
Bernie Sanders Photo: EPA
The conventional wisdom is that Hillary Clinton is the candidate with the honesty problem. But on at least one important issue, Bernie Sanders isn’t shooting straight.

Sanders falsely claims he’s been leading the fight to save veterans from the corruption and deadly medical care delays at the Veterans Affairs Department — a message intended to resonate with New Hampshire’s large vet population. The truth is, as chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, Sanders sabotaged VA reform.

Sanders’ allegiance is to public-sector unions, and to serve them, he betrayed vets. You wouldn’t know that from his campaign-trail boasts.


The next contests are Nevada, with a quarter-million vets, and South Carolina, home to eight military bases and some 418,000 vets. You can bet Sanders will keep repeating his bogus claims, but he ought to be called out on them.

Sanders brags about the 2014 Veterans Choice and Accountability Act: “We went further than any time in recent history in improving health care for the men and women of the country who put their lives on the line to defend us.”

Yet since the law was passed, wait times are longer, not shorter, and ailing vets still get the runaround.

Last week, the VA inspector general reported that a Colorado facility systematically faked records, and kept sick vets from getting appointments with private doctors. Meanwhile, the feds reversed the demotions of two VA executives for a corrupt scheme that cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The laughable justification was that it would be unfair to punish them when so many others did the same and got away with it.

All along, Sanders’ priority has been protecting VA jobs.

In April 2014, a whistleblower exposed scandalous abuses at the Phoenix VA, where staff concealed wait lists to make themselves eligible for bonuses while sick vets suffered without care. In response, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) proposed empowering the VA secretary to fire managers linked to such deceptions.

But Sanders killed Rubio’s bill. Public-sector unions were among the top contributors to Sanders’ Senate campaigns. No wonder he insisted on protecting “due process” rules that make it almost impossible to fire public employees.

Three months later Congress passed the Veterans Choice and Accountability Act, with Sanders taking his bows. But that law was a sham from Day One.

Sanders made sure of it. He demanded the bill protect VA wrongdoers and blocked vets from accessing civilian care.

The law gives vets a “choice card,” but it’s a joke. First, vets must live 40 miles away from a VA facility or wait 30 days to be eligible for a doctor’s appointment to be eligible. Then they need a letter confirming eligibility from the VA — good luck with that.

Next, their civilian doctor has to call for pre-approval before treatment — fat chance getting that call returned. After all that, outside treatment is capped at 60 days.

Like you can cure cancer in two months.

Why the limit? VA jobs are tied to how many vets use the system. And Sanders protects civil-service jobs like nobody else.

To date, only a handful of senior VA executives have been fired for the falsified wait lists even though a staggering 110 facilities were implicated.

Don’t count on Sanders’ rival, Hillary Clinton, to fix the system, either. Until recently, she brushed off VA corruption as overblown. Now she wants to “modernize” the department, while darkly warning of a Koch brothers’ conspiracy to “privatize” the VA.

In truth, none of the GOP front-runners proposes closing down the VA, but all pledge to put vets in the driver’s seat, allowing them to choose where to get care — without roadblocks.

It’s about time.

The nation needs a president who will battle not only VA corruption, but more broadly, the entrenched civil service that answers to no one and bleeds taxpayers dry.

The big question is which one of the GOP front-runners can actually pull it off? The lives of thousands of vets hinge on it.


Betsy McCaughey is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5612


« Reply #89 on: June 03, 2016, 06:20:25 PM »

http://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/charles-krauthammer-lovable-bernie-whacks-israel/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8009


« Reply #90 on: June 05, 2016, 08:18:52 PM »

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/06/05/welcome-to-oaxacafornia-latinos-for-bernie-sanders-town-hall-in-los-angeles/
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!