I don’t think he has a chance of getting the presidential nomination, but the more I see of his campaign the more I like him. He represents a side of the Democratic party that has been neglected for decades, and it’s about time it started demanding more attention.
This comparison of the donors to the Clinton and Sanders campaigns is enlightening.
That alone tells me who I should support.
And then there’s his overall set of priorities.
(#12 is to urge his supporters to hire editors and proofreaders.)
Shouldn’t that just be the Democratic party platform?
When the Minnesota caucuses roll around, I’ll be there to vote for Sanders. But this next election is also too important to screw up — we have to get rid of the Republican poison — so at the election itself, if Clinton is the official nominee, I’ll vote for her.
But there is no excuse to not vote your conscience in the primaries. If nothing else, let’s put some pressure on the corporate candidate to move to the left.
This is wonderful – a choice between being beholden to big financial and corporate interests or to big labor interests. Cronyism is cronyism and both types are bad for the rest of us.
Adam Acuo
Big Labour Interest? WFT is that even supposed to be? Don’t let the door hit you on the way ou-…..
I’m ready for Bernie.
But I’m Canadian.
LOL, “big labor”
Adam Acuo, bringing us anti-union scaremongering with a BOTH SIDES garnish. Fantastic.
As for Sanders’ economic plan, I love everything he wants to do. I wonder how feasible doing all of that at once is, but I suppose that is a matter that isn’t as easy to explore in such a small amount of space.
disparage tpyos? How dare you??
The only error I saw on that list, was:
simple typo of “s” instead of “t”, their right next to each other on they kaybord, rite?
all hail tpyos
–exit stage left, bumps into Sanders on the LEFT.
I am sorry that I am such an ageist that Sanders appears (to me) to be too old to be Prez.
Not my real attitude. I don’t have an objection, towards Sanders, but towards the electors passing over Sanders as just a Leftist Heathen from Vermont (that communist state in the holy union of states)
Big labor? Adam Acuo, did you live through the nineteen fifties and sixties? If not, you have no idea of big labor.
Replace roads with railways, and I’m totally on board! (despite, you know, not being a US elector and all).
Also, Adam Acuo, did you look at the figures in those tables? There’s big, and then there’s big. I see a 10-fold difference in the amounts listed, and I bet that Clinton’s list is longer. Sure, any sufficiently strong vested interest will likely steer policy towards their own interests, but the US Labor movement is hardly the 800lb gorilla in this match.
My grandfather’s union membership allowed him to earn enough to enter the middle class. Union membership is about the American dream, and unfortunately, not having a strong union movement means that people are suffering more and more, working for longer hours for lower wages, and simple not getting ahead.
Bernie Sanders represents a whole series of proposals that would make America a much more humane and just society, and if you look at polling, majorities of Americans support these policies. They aren’t “Socialist,” but they are sort of left Social Democratic policies. The problem is we have Citizens United and the Kochs and other billionaires who are rigging the system, and they can convince people that the second coming of Stalin is just over the horizon.
But I can tell this: I grew up in a little one-horse town in West Virginia, and if I post Bernie Sanders quotes on Facebook, people, who also call themselves Tea Partiers and who post nonsense about Obama’s birth certificate have liked and shared them.
This sound strange, but when you realize that the two major parties generally don’t talk like Sanders and the only populism people hear is the faux populism of the preachers and the Fox News gasbags, it does make sense. People will respond to genuine populism and this could remake American society for the better.
let’s put some pressure on the corporate candidate to move to the left.
The problem is that movement will only be temporary, and where convenient. Whoever gets elected will cheerfully proceed to do whatever the hell they actually wanted to all along, once they get into office.
Looking closely at that list of contributors. Look closely. Right there. In Sanders list is contribs from
American Postal Workers Union. oh so, he wants to go Postal. Not good. They want to justify the postal behaviors, goin postal. for astronomical sums of 36k$, mind boggling.
While poor Hillary gots only a measly 300k$ from 21st Century FOX. [I spy a Murdoch presence. or am I befuddled by the FOX in the name of a prallel, unassociated corp.?]
‘”#3 Make is easier for workers to join a union.”
simple typo of “s” instead of “t”, their right next to each other on they kaybord, rite?
all hail tpyos’
Surely that was just there to check if you were paying atenttion?
He’s got my vote. This isn’t something to settle for out of fear of the greater evil. People are dying.
I can’t do it anymore. Yes we can, what? I cannot live with myself if I “settle” again. What I’m “settling” for is basically letting people go to prison, become homeless, get blown up, etc because I’m afraid of my rights being taken away. That’s such a privileged thing to do. I could not look someone in the eye and say, “I’m sorry, but you are expendable to me.” So I’m not going to do it in the privacy of the voting booth. If a Republican get’s in the White House what changes? People up the class ladder are going to feel the squeeze. Good. We should. If we don’t stand up for everybody else, we deserve what’s coming.
Did you guys see the last Hunger Games? I did. My youngest daughter was so stoked after the movie that she has worn out several set’s of bow and arrows. My oldest daughter cried. When the capital blew up the hospital, she cried because she knew that is what we do.
At her school recruiters hang out in the lunch room and lie to kids to get them to sign their lives away. When I drop her off the cars in line in front of me are covered in NRA and confederate flag stickers. There’s usually an ichthus or Calvin praying or some shit too. Everyone knows that white kids go to country and black kids go to city schools. It isn’t a rule. It seems to happen for no reason at all. /s
There is so much bigotry and everyone is touched by it. Jesus Christ, what the LGBTQ kids go through here. It’s a nighmare.
Soldiers are coming back home to places like this. They’re killing themselves or drinking themselves to death.
This town and plenty of towns like it are dying. Everyone who isn’t loaded is broke. Fox News plays in every restaurant and doctor’s office. I don’t know what America is like where you live, but from where I sit, this place is fucked. Sanders looks like a chance to break this cycle of “lesser” evils. I’m taking it.
I’m sick of deciding who gets to sit next to me in the life raft. I want a mutiny.
FINALLY! I’ve been ready for a Bernie Sanders Presidential run for 20 years now.
I grew up in Seattle, at a time when Boeing ruled all, including every suburb surrounding Puget Sound. Even with unions, they constantly whipsawed people — it was a constant cycle of layoffs and hiring. My family moved to a new place every year, because one year my dad would get laid off, again, and we’d have to move to some decrepit rat-infested shack to make ends meet, and then the next he’d be re-hired and we’d immediately move up to some nice clean ticky-tacky box. When he was employed at Boeing, he’d work long hours at odd shifts, and we kids would get a dental plan; when he wasn’t, he’d work two low end jobs, like janitorial work and pumping gas.
All I saw was someone who worked really hard and was willing to work hard, and an employer with no interest in the well-being of its workers. Guess who I sympathize with, even now?
This was also in Seattle, with a long history of labor unrest and protest, and also a long history of police brutality against workers. Every bit of progress was brought about by labor’s blood. When I see people complaining about unions, I see stooges serving the interests of the obscenely rich.
If you’ve ever had to vote KY Democrat, you know what it’s like to barely be able to keep from gagging while you do it. I think I’d rather have a tooth pulled without anesthetic than do that the rest of my life.
Yeah, right, and soon Mary Harris Jones will raise from the grave alongside her army of zombie unionists and launch a series of genocidal attacks on gated communities and well-off neighbourhoods
The plants and factories here are closing. Migrant workers work the fields and work construction for next to nothing. There are the industrial chicken houses and the paper mill a couple counties over. You can work there. On a windy night, I can smell them here. It’s how you know which way the wind is blowing. I can’t imagine what it’s like up close.
The old union men and remaining family farmers vote Republican because they are scared of the blacks and the gays. This is the home of Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul. You can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a Libertarian or a Baptist. I wouldn’t try it though. They’re frequently armed.
Places like this are crumbling in on themselves. There is so much ignorance and apathy. People are frustrated and they aren’t sure why, but they suspect it has something to do with Obamacare.
Much like the climate change nobody here believes in, it’s probably too late for America. The canaries in the coal mine have been dead. Still, I’d like to do something and what we’ve been doing hasn’t worked. I’d rather just not vote if I have to keep voting for more of the same.
As a Canadian, I don’t get to vote for Bernie Sanders, but I would if I could. The only part of his platform that would worry me is #6, because that could be read as espousing protectionism. Modify the tax code to impose disincentives, if that is possible, but imposing trade barriers helps very few people. For every job ‘saved’, there will be others lost as trading partners reciprocate with retaliatory trade barriers of their own. Protectionism didn’t work well in the 1930s and doesn’t seem likely to work well now.
Other than that, looks pretty good to me.
BTW, up here in Canada, Alberta (which is our equivalent of Texas) just voted in a majority social-democratic NDP party to the Provincial Legislature…..ending 42 straight years of Conservative rule, which in turn had followed decades of rule by an even nuttier right-wing party. Now, the reason was the huge hit the economy has taken from the drop in oil prices….Alberta is home to the oil sands….but it does show that people can change their thinking on occasion.
Stillacrazycanuck @19 – small correction, it was 44 straight years.
This morning still feels as good as last night! To finally have a government in this province that closely reflects my values is amazing! This is like Bernie Sanders becoming governor of Texas, it’s that huge a shift and oooooh, is it ever a lesson to never give up!
stillacrazycanuck (#19) –
That doesn’t mean we can’t weigh in and talk about it. Hey, if the US thinks it can meddle in other countries’ political systems, the same applies in reverse. “Exceptionalism” is the attitude of a five year old child.
Actually, it was 44 years of the Tories. And before that, 36 years of the Social Credit extremists (the Canadian John Bircher party). Eighty consecutive years of corrupt right wing rule. That’s longer than the communists ruling the USSR or China.
And Alberta is not Texas. It’s Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Utah, the Carolinas and everything else in the buybull belt, all rolled into one. Are they still forcibly deporting welfare recipients, cutting them off and giving them bus tickets so they move to other provinces? They were doing that around the time I left Canada….
I will vote for Clinton only if there is no other option. But I will be going all-out to promote Sanders.
I think this is really exciting. Is it exciting enough to get a nomination? I don’t know, but I’m sure glad as hell he is running.
To have my beloved Orange do so well in Alberta has given me a big rise here in Ontario, I’ll admit. I had the fortune to vote twice in a row now for the winner in my riding, and we had a strong showing in a tough three-way fight last year provincially. If Alberta can go NDP, maybe we really can throw Harper out on his useless arse.
I doubt he will get a nomination but people can sure as hell try. It is a long shot but it has a chance of actually improving our situation in this country for a change, instead of just holding back collapse and slowing the rot.
The answer to your question is staring at you right in the mirror, PZ.
When you vote in the primaries, MAKE SURE YOU STAY FOR THE CAUCUS. At the caucus, introduce those (one at a time) as platforms.* If enough people support them, they’ll make it to national.
It is all about the precincts.
* YMMV. Here in Texas, this is how it works. You should be caucusing anyway, as (voting for President) has no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the election; the President is not elected by the popular vote (Article II, § 1, para 2-3).
Usernames! @ 26
I believe PZ wrote on the issue of caucuses and platforms and that he has participated… For all the good that’s done:
Introduce all the platform changes you want, but the fix is in. All those idealistic notions of social change ultimately get watered down or ignored by the party poobas reading from the Clintonian playbook of triangulation and campaign-left-govern-right.
<ding><lightbulb>
The ultimate Democrat Ticket == Clinton (POTUS) & Sanders (Veep).
Take that Rethugs!! /sarc
seriously. that concept blows my mind, but will never happen. nevermind…
In my dreams. Well, not really. Maybe.
Or this. And remembering Steve Earle at another gig saying something like: You can change the world with music, but only if you sing.
Another Canadian here. I do hope people will get out and show there is still a left wing, progressive component to US politics. It seems that there is a constant push to move politics rightward in the US, and I hope they can do something to stop that, to try to draw things back a little bit.
Pretty happy about the NDP win though. I expected things to change in Alberta, but was pretty gobsmacked by the scale of it. Cautiously optimistic. I hope they are careful, there are an awful lot of people that want them to fail, even if it ends up hurting the province and Canada as a whole. I fear, if they do poorly, or get mired in scandals, it will have far reaching impacts on the NDP in the rest of Canada.
Oh, and, laurentweppe, something about your comment has just improved my day tremendously. Thank you.
I think that Sanders has an outside shot—but only because of the knee-jerk Hate Hillary Brigade.
What I’d like to see is Sanders in office, while we see how Elizabeth Warren seasons up.
–
slithey tove:
Better yet, flip it; Sanders (POTUS) & Clinton (Veep)
–
I keep thinking of my brother in law, a machinist who has always preferred to live in the country. In may ways what used to be the typical Republican. ( Just so you youngsters know, they weren’t always evil incarnate. Wrong, sure, but not actually evil. That was back when the John Birch Society was the lunatic fringe that embarrassed the hell out of 99% of the Republican base. You know. The old days.) And if my brother in law saw a bunch of people with torches and pitchforks on the way to the capitol he would get in line. He could make up couple of hundred pitchforks in a couple of hours if his wife acted as his helper. She would. But then she was always a socialist.
The trouble is that the unions sat on their hands while right-wing apparatchiks crafted a narrative of unions as being bastions of non-productive, selfish, and even criminal workers. The “real” American worker would stay away from unions because their intelligence and hard work would be diluted by all the lazy bums using the union to get money they didn’t deserve.
I think this is a major reason why Silicon Valley is almost entirely non-union. I know that that was the picture I had of unions when I started my career.
PZ:
Why does Bernie need an 11-point plan?
He can just call his plan “Greece”.
Socialism is so yesterday.
Mike Egnor
Yes, Mr. Egnorance. And Republicans can call their plan The Aristocrats.
Is Dukedog7 actually Egnor? They have had some piss poor trolling on this blog before:
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/01/20/shut-up-bill-keller/
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/01/25/the-government-is-asking-outsiders-to-explain-to-them-what-they-are-doing/
But then again, Egnor’s blog seems to be full of piss poor trolling, so I guess the right-wing idiocy is consistent with Egnor’s:
(Trigger Warning)
http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2015/02/another-secular-paradise-unless-youre.html
Why would I expect better of this crowd. Let there be no optimism in a post here, ever, even in the event of of a highly electable candidate?
Honestly, Sanders has a track record you can vet. He’s on record and has been consistent in his representation of the 99%, far better than anyone else running in the big race. It’s so very easy to check out his “message”, unpolished, as always.
So, I will repeat myself from a year ago: Get involved. If you think Sanders will represent your interests well, get out of the whaaambulance and push for change. Volunteer and/or send him $43 (if you can) because things won’t change unless you put some effort into it in the real world that exists outside blogs, the internet and the MSM.
PZ, the MSM is pushing the meme that Sanders can’t possibly win and serves only to push the rhetoric (presumably Hillary’s) to the left. Are you really going to fall for it?
Maggie Thatcher:
“The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”
Detroit, Chicago, East St. Louis, Baltimore, Washington DC, Newark, New Orleans.
Ever notice that the social catastrophes are always areas governed by Democrats?
Why don’t you Dem morons show that you can successfully govern areas like Baltimore–where you have utter hegemony–before you demand to run the country?
Fix Baltimore first, then we’ll talk about your great ideas.
Nobody thought Obama stood a chance either, back in 2007.
Now if only Bernie will hire his team to run the campaign.
Oh, Dukedog, you’re adorable. Now quit pissing on the carpet and explain why the south is the most poverty-stricken, poorest-health, poorest-educated part of the country despite decades of Republican hegemony.
On second thought, don’t bother explaining. Your comments alone are all the explanation necessary.
Kermit:
If I were you, I’d change the topic from Baltimore too.
The South was Democrat at local level well into the mid-90’s, and had centuries of racist Democrat (but I repeat myself) governance before that.
Fix Detroit and Baltimore and Newark, and all of the other rat holes you Dems have given us via your corruption and incompetence, before you tell the rest of us about all of your great ideas.
Your motto is “Gee here are some problems, so we’ll make the government bigger because it has such a great track record of fixing things”.
You are the problem. The Democrat party is organized crime, nothing more.
Dukedog, ever notice that all of the states that are worse off economically are red states?
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2014/mar/28/occupy-democrats/pro-democrat-group-says-9-10-poorest-states-are-re/
That blue states do better for economic confidence and red states do worse (correlated .37 for Democrat % v. economic confidence, -.37 correlation between percent Republican v. economic confidence)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125066/state-states.aspx
And it has been this way for a while: http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/ushealth.htm
Also this: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/getting-lucky-why-the-economy-has-grown-faster-under-democratic-presidents/
Maybe once your masters can run a state, talk to us about running the country, k?
Yeah, Dukedog7 is continuing their trolling from the threads I linked to from a year and a half ago.
Spoiler alert: They have a very revisionist and myopic version of history. The Dixiecrats are conveniently erased from the mind, as is the Southern Strategy. The Democrats and Republicans of the Civil War era are the same parties that they are today, as far as they are concerned for their disingenuous and nonsensical blather here.
It is idiocy built upon idiocy. You think they just took a shit on the carpet, but really, that is just the top of the shitberg, there is a whole mountain of bullshit just lying underneath. Your living room will never be the same again.
anteprepro@44
As far as I’m concerned, the thread is won.
Yay, another low/no-information voter!
Obviously, the Unions are to blame.
To be a teabagger is to have a rolling memory hole. Dubyah/Dick “Darklord” Cheney and their war criminal ways? Never happened. St. Ronnie Raygun and his illegal interventions in central America + the largest tax hike in history? Nope!
They claim to be the party that “ended slavery” (chortle), because they share the name—and only the name—with the party of Lincoln, however they do everything in their power to crush blacks and other minorities today. Cognitive Dissonance much?
Maybe that’s why they love the US PATRIOT act, because patriotism? Never mind that it treats the constitution like a wad of toilet paper.
penumbra @38:
There is optimism. Peppered with realism.
You optimism is peppered with wishful thinking.
Most of us here won’t listen to the MSM, but will look at polling numbers. Unless Sanders hits a minimum of 30%, he really isn’t viable.
Usernames! @ 47
Well, the Republicans fought to make blacks free, not equal.
@PZ Myers
And to think people don’t understand why the IAM is pretty militant . . .
Sounds about right, unfortunately. Boeing’s an airplane manufacturer, which likely meant (both then and now) that their business is basically “feast or famine”. If they get a ton of aircraft orders, then production soars along with jobs. But when they run out a contract and don’t get a bid for planes, massive lay-offs and cutbacks.
In fact, I bet it was even worse back then when you were growing up, because there weren’t as many big airlines, more airplane manufacturers, and more dependence on politically granted military contracts.
Ah, Hello #48 Tony , I expected better of you. You already know what a united and concerted effort, however delayed, can do. Here in Oregon we try to keep up the work realizing that freedom isn’t just about “me” but “we”. It takes a commitment to change things — that’s realism.
And #49 Nerd, you are always so angry. Must be tough. Anyway, congratulations! You’ve made my point precisely, don’t watch, do. With your wit and energy, you could accomplish much more than post here.
Don’t worry about the polls until after the Primary. Always remember your source of information, most polls are hardly “independent.” A little voting strategy is helpful: In the primary you vote with your heart. In the General, you likely have to hold you nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.
Now that I have again been put in my place, I’m outta here to get some work done in the analog world.
@theDukedog7
FTFY
Hey, if Alberta’s conservative PC dynasty can be replaced by a social-democrat NDP majority, maybe there’s hope.
Given that I am the primary caregiver of a bedridden (at the moment), partially paralyzed Redhead, I don’t think so Tim. Not everybody has time, energy, and inclinations to help political campaigns. To think everybody has is wishful and fallacious thinking.
It seems like every time someone brings up Bernie Sanders I end up seeing fear-mongering that brings up Greece, Cuba, Venezuela, or even a few times, the DPRK. Are these really the only examples they can think of? You would think social democracy did not exist anywhere that was successful listening to these people.
I wonder if it;s really such a long shot for him to win the nomination? All the people I’ve heard from–including a few hardcore conservatives to include my overbearingly Republican in-laws, strangely enough–are excited that he’s a contender. I know he’ll be getting my vote in the primaries. Perhaps it’s just youthful and naive optimism on my part (this being my second presidential election), but my sense is that it’s very possible.
Just for the record, I could easily vote for Sanders in the primary and/or general election. I suspect the Redhead would go with Clinton (when in doubt, vote woman) in the primary. The Illinois primary is one of the later ones, so the nomination might be wrapped up by then.
For a good old Dutch socialist like me it’s heart warming that there is some civilization left in American politics. No, Obama doesn’t count. From my point of view he’s right wing.
The infuriating thing is that such an agenda was fairly typical of both parties 40+ years ago. Then I thought Ray-gun was awful, but things only got worse; that idiot is a visionary and a saint compared to today’s Republicans and many Democrats to boot.
anteprepro (#43) –
He only notices what his masters point to and tell him to bark at. Like any barking dog, he obediently ignores everything else and doesn’t think for himself.
mnb0 (#56) –
He would be a right wing conservative in any functioning democracy. Not that the US is….
The US’s politics are so skewed to one side that it fell over and can’t get up. Lying on the ground and looking at the world sideways is the normal view in the US.
I’m pretty much with stillacrazycanuck@19, but I’m also a little cautious about how he’d institute #7 on his list. I agree that college should be affordable for all, but I don’t want to see it crafted in a way that provides more government assistance to the well-off. I’m coming at this as the father of a high school senior who will be entering a state school next year with minimal aid. We’ll be paying most of her tuition, which will require some sacrifice, but we can afford it, so personally I wouldn’t want to take more government money for her education when it can be going to families with much greater needs.
That said, if Sanders is still on the ballot when primaries roll around here I’ll vote for him then, but in the general I’ll hold my nose for whoever wins the Democratic nomination.
stillacrazycanuck #19
I presume you refer to the alleged effects of trade protectionism in causing/aggravating the Great Depression; the former is simply untrue, and the latter extremely simplified (monetary policy relating to the gold standard, along with ongoing mismanagement of the unregulated financial sector and other factors, played a principal role). Indeed, trade protectionism of various forms was a major part of the path which the modern industrial nations took to get there (See Ha-Joon Chang’s books Bad Samaritans and Kicking Away the Ladder for an excellent and accessible explanation of the details on that). Particularly in the context of the present day, where widespread environmental problems join worker’s rights, and human rights generally, in the calculus of public costs of businesses, and, even as no [hu]man is an island, neither is any nation (and yes, I know that some nations literally are; that’s not the point); if we, as a nation, want to claim to have any respect for human rights, or the environment, we cannot continue to enable the offshore abuses of our own (allegedly) businesses (I’m not sure if you’re resident in the States, but everything here goes equally for Canada), and one of the tools we have is to, for instance, apply tariffs to imports from places with fewer protections for workers and the environement, calculated so as to offset any financial benefits the corporation in question got from its abuses.
TL;DR: Protectionism isn’t a bad word, and had basically fuck-all to do with the Great Depression.
What a Maroon, oblivious
And why should paying for her school take away from someone else’s? There’s no (valid) reason for the government not to pay for everyone’s education, to the limits of individual capacity and/or desire.
I am seconding Penumbra’s sentiment at #38. This kind of defeatist attitude is definitely unhelpful.
Sanders/ Warren 2016 !
Seriously, Hilary is no different from Obama, who is only slightly different from Bush the Lesser. Support candidates who can make a difference and move the country forward.
Lots of US-bashing here, but it’s not like most Western “democracies” are much better.
Also yeah, it’s weird how Sanders elicits responses of Cuba and Greece rather than Sweden or Netherlands. o_O
(BTW, Greece has seen the same two parties and the same two families in power for the past 40 years, until Golden Dawn and Syriza took power. Yeah, go vote Clinton and complain Sanders will bring Greece….)
I assure you that I’m the best candidate for the job. Why don’t you write me in as your candidate? I’m sure my socially liberal policies are what is best for the country. You would agree.
Meanwhile, my opponent in the election, through virtue of being a career politician, who has networked and made bedfellows with the powerful elite, who would be able to run a slick campaign and have the media do their work for them, doesn’t totally line up with your values. But they appeal to the center.
I won’t go after the center. We’ve already established that the center is no good. Avoid the center because there is no progress to be made there. A vote for the center is a vote for stagnation. Pessimism be damned! Ain’t no time for realists here.
So come the general election, I, with my little clout, my non-charismatic ways, but with my awesome policies that progressives are sure will solve everything, but others have trepidations over (those pesky centers.)
Then I lose horribly and Rick Santorum is your president now.
So much for wishful thinking.
I do like Bernie Sanders, except for this: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html
This contemptible caninephobic slander is unacceptable! Apologize to dogs this instant!
***
Golden Dawn is not in power: Syriza’s coalition partner is the ANEL: Golden Dawn are neo-nazis mobsters, ANEL are the local teabaggers.
I really wonder what an actual campaign would look like and what it would sound like.
It has been all to easy for the mainstream news out lets to brush aside all what ever any progressives have to say with a few second of quote and then just go back to the normal gas bags with the established party lines and talking points.
These ideas just may get a more sympathetic hearing if the electorate actually gets to hear them plainly spelled out.
Who knows a majority may like them!
I do! (that may be the kiss of death though)
uncle frogy
@#66, throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble:
Oh really? A much more likely scenario:
I assure you I’m the best candidate for the job. I’ve been in Democratic politics since the 80s, I was married to a former president, and I almost got the nomination last time! I’m sure that, as usual, giving a vague pretense of being anything to the left of Ronald Reagan will satisfy the rubes while I actually cozy up to the very rich as I’ve been doing for decades!
All through the election, I promise everyone that I’m Good Enough, even though I’ve been in favor of pretty much every policy which has turned out to be a disaster in the last decade or so (Invasion of Iraq? I voted for it. Bank deregulation? My husband signed the bill — with my applause. Bailing out the banks? I was practically their representative for the Senate Democrats! Meddling with Syria? Check!) The leftists who my party supposedly caters to hate me, because I helped create the policy which knocked them out of the party leadership entirely back in the ’80s, but that doesn’t matter — everyone knows leftists are ineffectual and unimportant!
Of course, the Republicans know about me from long ago, and they have a huge arsenal of propaganda to deploy against me — more than ever, because I’ve been caught lying outright several times in the last few years. But who cares? Nobody ever listens to Republican propaganda! And besides, I can accuse anyone who doesn’t support me of being sexist, that will be sure to quiet the right-wingers in the media!
So, come the general election, I, with no allies in my own party, and no chance of ever getting a break from the media, lose in a landslide with the lowest turnout from my own party in history, and we get president Santorum.
To me, this is much more plausible than your claims.
Does this mean I can count on your vote, The Vicar?
(=D)
I think your accurately portraying Hillary, but given the circus on the right this year so far with no viable candidates coming to the fore… Actually, strike that. This is the country that gave us Bush #2. And that numeral is definitely a euphemism.
But yeah, Bernie is unelectable. Moderates won’t like him, preferring the ‘safe’ choice of Hillary. And then in a general I don’t see him winning. That was the point of my scenario. He really cannot win in this political climate. That’s not pessimism or defeatism, it’s analysis and projection based on political reality.
At least Sanders will talk about the issues instead of his opponents. We desperately need a candidate who’s willing to go hammer and tongs at the issues — and at least try to keep people focused on them. Sanders is doing well, getting a machine going, getting money up — he could be in it for real. The right (they really stopped being republicans some years ago) are really a big clown car. I’d laugh at them except some 40% of the voters seem to like clowns.
@laurentweppe #66: yeah sorry, Golden Dawn “took power” as in “surprisingly won a shitload of votes”.
At first glance i thought the tiny, old man in the image was flipping the bird to the world. I liked it.
@#71, throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble:
Look, Hillary Clinton has a lot of money, she has been passed over before so her few supporters argue that it’s “her turn”, she’s in the pockets of the big interests, she’s a member of a group which has never held the presidency before but has (obviously) held just about every other office, and pretty much no matter who you talk to out of her supposed base, they would rather someone else run, possibly anyone else. You know who else fit that description? Mitt Romney in 2011. Look how well his campaign turned out; he lost the popular vote by a million, and that was with every consciously racist white person in America straining to elect him.
If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, it will mean that the Democrats have chosen a candidate who has the absolute maximum handicap possible in every way. The media hates her, her supposed base (the left) hates her, her actual base (the banks and the oil companies) actually prefer the other party, she has all kinds of genuine failures (shall we go dodge some sniper fire this weekend?) plus a bunch of manufactured incidents, and it won’t take long for her enemies to realize that they can leave the manufactured crap to the likes of Rush Limbaugh as red meat for the base while the “serious” media concentrates on the real flaws. As far as identity politics goes, she alienated the youth vote and the black vote in the 2008 primaries (although the youth vote necessarily changes — but what has she done to attract them?), and even the people who wanted a woman at any cost in 2008 would still prefer another woman at this point (preferably Elizabeth Warren). The poor who are paying attention hate her (both for her husband’s policies and for the way she and Bill sold out so hard upon leaving office) and the poor who aren’t paying attention have dismal turnout (and don’t actually like her). Genuine leftists hate her for policy reasons. Right-wingers hate her with a knee-jerk reaction even though she’s on their side 95% of the time. Independents are split into two groups; those who are paying attention — who don’t like her very much because of her very real flaws — and those who have a 4-second attention span and will vote for whoever the media tells them to — who will not vote for her because of 25 years of propaganda.
Bernie Sanders? Yeah, he’s a relative unknown and he’s far enough to the left to be out of some people’s comfort zones. But every person I know who is paying attention loves him, and the Republicans can’t attack his track record or his platform without mentioning what they are, and polls strongly suggest that they can’t afford to do that. They can only blindly paint him as “socialist” — but I’m not so sure that that would work for a presidential election right now. The country is in a very unusual mood, lately.
@70 The Vicar:
I’ll admit, when this article crossed my newsfeed, I felt somewhat relieved that my version of that nightmare scenario (“there wasn’t any opposition in the primary, so winning against whatever loon the Rethuglicans find will be just as easy”) was less likely to pass.
It can still happen — after all, that story is just as much about how the debates are limited to six — but the fact there will be debates at all makes me less concerned.
throwaway:
*shudder*
Don’t say that!
He’s a joke, but it ain’t funny.
–
Talking of elections – I’m off to Edinburgh, to get something to eat, then attend the Edinburgh constituencies’ count on behalf of the Scottish Green Party. All the opinion polls have pointed to a “hung parliament”, i.e. no party winning an overall majority, and to a considerably increased Green vote – but probably no more than the current 1 seat. My fears are that most of the large number of reported “undecideds” will go for the ruling Conservatives* for fear of change, as happened in 1992, when they were expected to lose to Labour but were returned to power; and that much of the promised Green vote will evaporate. Our equivalent of the Tea Party (UKIP) are likely to get a lot of votes (10% plus if polls are right) but at most a handful of seats – for once, an advantage of our grossly unfair electoral system. Almost certainly the SNP will win most Scottish seats – and while they are far from being either green or socialist, they are well to the left of Labour. If I get the chance, I’ll post comments on the ongoing events here.
My long-shot prediction, made some months ago, is that we’ll end up with a Conservative-Labour coalition. “Elder statesmen” of both parties have since raised the possibility, as a means of forming a stable pro-austerity government and keeping the SNP from having any influence.
*Yes, formally we currently have a coalition government, but in all respects but one (marriage equality) it’s been further right than Thatcher.
@Nick #78:
A Conservative-Labour coalition? It’d never happen. There isn’t a war on.
The Tory right-wingers would never stand for half of what Labour might put forward, and likewise the Labour left-wingers regarding the Conservative policy preferences. The shits in both parties who sit in the middle are too right-wing for my liking, and you can barely slide a fag paper between them anyway. Even if the two parties were able to settle on a deal for the Queen’s Speech, there’d be no-confidence votes left, right and centre (no pun intended) for everything after that. Ain’t gonna happen.
Since Social Security, labor and unemployment account for roughly 33% of federal spending currently (using President Obama’s proposed fiscal 2015 expenditures per OMB), Medicare and Social Security 27% and Veteran’s benefits 4% (by way of comparison, military spending is 16%), and since discretionary spending totals 29% of the total (again, per OMB), it should be clear that major tax policy changes will be necessary to accomplish what Sen. Sanders wants to accomplish. What tax policy changes do you propose? Please be as specific as you can because unless I’m missing something, “tax corporations and rich people more” doesn’t seem likely to begin to cut it.
Per my quick look at IRS data (using the latest available numbers — see below), a 100% tax on all income above $500,000 wouldn’t begin to cover the current deficit much less fund additional spending. Today, the top 1% earns about 21% of total income and pays about a third of all taxes while roughly half the population pays no federal income tax (but still pay taxes such as SS taxes if they are employed, state and local taxes, sales tax and property tax if they own real estate). With respect to corporate tax rates, the U.S. already has the highest rate among OECD countries, which probably explains why multi-nationals are moving business overseas when they can.
Seriously, what Bernie proposes may sound attractive, but I don’t see how the numbers can be made to work in any major way. But perhaps I’m missing something?
http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-Historical-Table-3
http://stats.oecd.org//Index.aspx?QueryId=58204
Ah, another person who doesn’t understand how and why government should work. No mention of corporate taxation of course. Just another naysayer to be dismissed.
“Ah, another person who doesn’t understand how and why government should work. No mention of corporate taxation of course. Just another naysayer to be dismissed.”
Well, “no mention of corporate taxation” *except for* the following: “With respect to corporate tax rates, the U.S. already has the highest rate among OECD countries, which probably explains why multi-nationals are moving business overseas when they can.” You can raise those already the highest in the developed world corporate tax rates even higher, of course, but it will further push the big companies overseas and make it harder for entrepreneurial upstarts to get up and running (which is particularly problematic if/when you want minority businesses to develop and succeed). Raising corporate taxes further will likely cost a lot of jobs; if you are willing to make that trade-off you should have the honesty to say so.
“Just another naysayer to be dismissed.”
Dismissal often means being unwilling or unable to answer the question posed.
There is nothing necessarily wrong with what Bernie wants, but it’s silly to pretend that there won’t be major costs. For example, climate change is a *huge* problem, but doing what needs to be done in that area, at a minimum, will require enormous sacrifices and changes to our standard of living unless and until a major technological breakthrough occurs. I am seriously interested in what changes people are truly willing to accept in order to get what the Senator is after. Believing that it’s possible to get it with somebody else paying the entire bill looks like an unevidenced delusion to me to this point. But I’d be pleased to look at any evidence I might have missed.
@ 80 Bob
Well, right out of the gate, Social Security does not come out of the Federal Budget. It is self- sustaining and earned by those who “invest” in it each paycheck. As for unemployment, yes, the federal government did extend benefits during our recent depression, but again the employed also pay into that pool each paycheck. You are simply a troll and I won’t waste any more time with the rest of your nonsense.
I think that you’d better stop cooking the books when you post here because someone will fact check you.
“Well, right out of the gate, Social Security does not come out of the Federal Budget.”
I know. That’s why I called it “spending.”
“It is self- sustaining and earned by those who ‘invest’ in it each paycheck.”
It is *supposed* to be self-sustaining but, as of recently, money in does not equal money out (see below). More importantly, current projections show that the program can’t be supported at current levels over the longer term without additional revenue (see below). Obviously, adding to the program will cost more still. SS has never been an “investment” in any meaningful sense as it has always worked such that (generally speaking) withholding tax paid in has gone right out as benefits (which is not to say that it isn’t a vital program).
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/
“As for unemployment, yes, the federal government did extend benefits during our recent depression, but again the employed also pay into that pool each paycheck.”
I don’t know if the unemployment insurance program pays for itself or not. In any event, it’s a part of the expenditures and a relatively small part at that. The general point is that SS and Medicare, as currently structured, account for well over 50% of federal expenditures. Bernie’s goals will cost even more.
“You are simply a troll and I won’t waste any more time with the rest of your nonsense.”
How is it “nonsense” to ask for policy detail? Costs matter. To pretend they don’t is delusional. I’m quite admittedly not an expert in this area (I may well have missed any number of important matters — hence I’m asking questions rather than making an argument), but I’m trying to look at the data rather than trying to coast by on ideology alone. Bernie is asking for support based upon what he wants to do. I simply want to look at the full picture (including what the Senator’s goals will cost and how they will impact everything else) and am thus asking some pretty straightforward (if not simple) questions. If reason means anything, there’s nothing trollish about that.
I really hope he’s paid by the word, not context. Anyone who is going to quote the “OMB” sure as heck should know about Social Security and Unemployment Insurance.
Isn’t it interesting how we are the wealthiest country in the world, but can’t afford to invest the bucks to maintain our nation and it’s citizens? Actually, we can’t afford to do otherwise.
Suppy-siders, like our guest, never seem to understand that their theory has been debunked, even by Mr. Stockman. Simply put, the basic principle behind any successful economic system is: The more expendable income disseminated across a larger portion of the population pretty much ensures a stronger economy as each household has different interest and needs, thus we obtain a more diverse economy as well.
Supply-siders support a more controlled economy, ensuring that there is little competition between corporations for ever-fewer bucks expendable bucks we have, instead channeling cash into the pockets of the wealthy “job creators” and especially the financial segment (because there is little overhead and profits are high). It is an elitist concept and benefits the well-connected and wealthy. The agenda is clear when there is insistence that the major portion of citizens are “takers” and further insist that we do not have a right to earned benefits. Oh, and Social Security income is held in a separate fund from the federal budget. It is self-sustaining and will be for some time. Unemployment benefits are drawn from unemployment insurance payments and, while they have been drawn down, this should soon be ameliorated if we can stop this damaging austerity business. The greatest cash cow in the entire world has been the middle-income American taxpayer and multinationals figured out a way to get in on the action in the last 15 years.
Interestingly enough, a change in narrative has occurred wherein we seem to associate “capitalism” with a method of governance. It is not. It is an economic model. Democracy, in all its forms is. It has features of socialism in which we, as a nation and culture band together in agreement on how we will maintain our citizenry. That is an ideal, but the role of government is not the same as a corporation, it’s role is to represent it citizens. A rather delicate balance of the two are needed. I could drone on about how the balance sheets of the government differ from corporations, but this is not an economics forum. I suggest our esteemed visitor go read a few good books and then visit those forums for further edification.
QFT. But then, our troll doesn’t want their presuppositions challenged by real facts, as they aren’t going to change their mind.
“Suppy-siders [sic], like our guest….”
Now you’re just trolling. I want both Bernie Sanders *and* Ted Cruz (not to mention every other candidate) to justify their claims and proposals with hard data. To this point, I have seen no reason to think either one can make their numbers add up. Given your careful avoidance of substance, I assume you can’t offer any helpful data in support of Bernie either. I would be pleased for you to demonstrate otherwise, however.
“Social Security income is held in a separate fund from the federal budget.”
SS withholdings are held separately but are tabulated with the budget. The President’s budget is linked below so you can see for yourself. SS, Medicare and Medicaid, together, account for roughly 55% of current federal revenue. That might be too much or too little, but it’s a fact.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/budget.pdf
“[Social Security] is self-sustaining and will be for some time.”
That’s both carefully qualified and intentionally vague. According to the most recent SS Trustees’ report (linked below):
“Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run program costs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers.”
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/
SS is in better shape than Medicare, but both are need of fixes even before additional benefits are factored in. That’s true whether you advocate more money paid out in benefits or less.
“I suggest our esteemed visitor go read a few good books and then visit those forums for further edification.”
Preach all you want. I’m more interested in data. Yet your 425 word reply to my request for substantive data in support of the Senator’s claims includes exactly none. It may well exist, but your sermon will only resonate with the already convinced. I’m fully prepared to be convinced, but you’ll need data rather than ideology to do it.
“But then, our troll…”
In what universe is asking a substantive question trolling?
“…doesn’t want their presuppositions challenged by real facts, as they aren’t going to change their mind.”
That’s a major problem and tendency shared by every human. That’s why I have offered data and asked for it. Given the careful avoidance of date by you and penumbra to this point, you might ask yourselves the same question.
Well, looks like my fear that the Tories would do considerably better than the polls suggested has been borne out: the BBC exit poll predicts 316 seats for them – a few short of a n absolute majority – and early results suggest they may even do better than that. Too early to tell what the Green vote will be, although certainly considerably up on the last UK election. In Scotland there could be a clean sweep for the SNP – but even if they’d held all their seats in Scotland and won the rest, it looks as though Labour would still have won fewer seats than the Tories. The latter are getting most of the votes the Liberal Democrats are losing – which is most of them. They are predicted to lose 47 out of their 57 seats.
Longer term there are possibly explosive implications for the UK. The Tories have promised a referendum on EU membership in 2017, and while my hunch is that this will narrowly favour staying in, that’s by no means certain – while Scotland will almost certainly vote to remain in. If the UK votes to leave but Scotland to stay, that will produce enormous pressure for a second independence referendum in Scotland. If the result is very narrowly for staying in and Scottish votes make the difference, there will be immense resentment in England. Even without either of these results, however, the election shows once again that Scotland will continually be subjected to UK governments it has not voted for – and Cameron based his campaign very largely on demonising the SNP. Probability of an independent Scotland within 10 years is, I reckon, at least 50-50.
What evidence will cause you to admit you are a fuckwitted idjit?
Your evidence isn’t what you think it is, or means what you think it means. Typical of presuppositionalists, like liberturds, and RWAs.
Oh, and what might evidence me wrong. Showing that terminating unemployment benefits helps the economy, instead of harming it. Where as I can show that raising the minimum wage helps the local economy as the money is spent locally. That is third party academic evidence that you so lack.
Same benefit for extending unemployment, the money circulates as it is spent.
“Your evidence isn’t what you think it is.”
Then what is it?
“Typical of presuppositionalists, like liberturds, and RWAs.”
I am none of those things. But even if I were, data should win over ideology…of any sort, don’t you think?
“Oh, and what might evidence me wrong. Showing that terminating unemployment benefits helps the economy, instead of harming it. Where as I can show that raising the minimum wage helps the local economy as the money is spent locally. That is third party academic evidence that you so lack.
Same benefit for extending unemployment, the money circulates as it is spent.”
I can’t read the article you linked for free, but I’m not necessarily opposed to raising the minimum wage (or to many of the other things on Bernie’s list). The recent (early) Seattle evidence I’ve seen suggests that raising the minimum wage there isn’t having any significant negative economic impact, but more data is needed. I simply want to know how much Bernie’s proposals are going to cost, how they will be funded and what the consequences of those expenditures will be. I don’t see how it is anything but responsible to ask those questions. You seem to think otherwise. Why?
PSA
Doing this
<blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
Results in this
It makes comments with quotes easier to read.
well I think that some of out fiscal problems would be alleviated by some sensible tax increases and some major tax reform. Those who get the most benefit out of our economy have not contributed their fair share for a very long time. Of course all in the name of improving our economy and lifting the middle class and all which for the last 30 years has failed to do that. Just look at the cities as see them crumble daily.
All this talk about the corporations moving out of the country is just talk the jobs have been leaving for some time now I do not see what difference it would make if the offices left also. Besides there are foreign corporations that are moving here.
They stay because this is the biggest fucking market but if they (1%?) do not make it so there is a prosperous middle class and a much smaller lower class there wont be a fucking market nor a government of any use.
What are the odds that we will get any meaningful tax reform out of any congress we are likely to actually have in the next ten years?
uncle frogy
What you are doing troll is called JAQing off. Just asking questions.
Ever hear of taxes? Yes, we will need more taxes. The Rethugs idea of decreasing taxes doesn’t work. And the taxes have to stay in place through good times to build a nest egg for when the economy tanks, and the government must spend to keep the money circulating in the economy. Rethug economics has us spending less just when more spending is needed. There are words to describe such idiocy. The boom/bust cycle.
Yes, and we already need substantially more revenue than we’re getting to pay our current obligations without adding more.
That seems obvious. But the devil is in the details. The government is already not meeting expenses. If interest rates go up we’ll have to spend a lot more than 6% of budget on debt service even at current spending levels. And Bernie is talking about spending enormous additional amounts. So how much is it going to cost, how do you propose to pay for it and what will the consequences be?
By way of example, we have huge infrastructure needs. Bernie says we need $3.6 trillion by 2020 just to get things back to good working order. I don’t doubt it. Given current historically low interest rates and the long-term nature these sorts of projects, long-term borrowing seems like an obvious choice, even with the deficits we already have. But the near-term costs will still be substantial and hard choices will have to be made even before getting to climate change, Social Security, Medicare and more. Putting your head in the sand, pretending that major sacrifices won’t have to be made by everybody and refusing even to try to lay-out what those sacrifices and consequences are likely to be is silly and counterproductive. Yet you seem to insist on it.
http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/public/index.cfm/repairing-our-infrastructure
This is nothing Seawright, you should have seen them go to town on that guy who was trying to explain to them that as a libertarian socialist he was not a die hard Ayn Rand drone.
As for your questions, there are something every candidate should make clear. I can’t speak for anyone (and I’m no economist so I doubt anyone would want me to) but I favour progressive taxation, with a range of asset taxes e.g. estate taxes and financial transaction taxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood_tax
Also widespread nationalisation which would give profits to the state instead of the wealthy. Also my god I hate creative accounting and tax evasion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Justice_Network
laurentweppe (#68) –
As a cat person, I unconcernedly ignore your request. Meow.
Greece also has a bloated military, with hundreds of tanks it couldn’t even use on its mountainous territory…
Oh, and, the constitution exempts the shipowners from tax.
Her donor list ought to be referred to as Hill Street.
Vox explains the problem (in the context of talking about Elizabeth Warren):
“Warren’s core purpose was to speak nostalgically of the pre-1975 economy when Wall Street was tamed and public investment in infrastructure, education, and research was high. What she didn’t grapple with is the fact that getting there today would require much higher taxes. In 2015, federal revenue is expected to be 17.7 percent of GDP. In 1975, it was 17.3 percent, and in 1965 it was 16.4 percent.
“America was able to match all that public investment with relatively low taxes because we spent way less money on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other health insurance programs. But Warren doesn’t want to cut those programs — she’s called for expanding Social Security, for instance.
“In practice, in other words, Warren’s agenda for a revived investment state is more of a leap into an uncertain future and less of a common-sense return to the tried and true policies of the past.”
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/14/8606337/elizabeth-warren-opportunity-growth
Bernie offers a wonderful wish list that is all but impossible to achieve without ginormous revenue (tax) increases on everybody. What I’d like to hear (and almost nobody seems willing to explain) is what the priorities ought to be, on his list and otherwise, and the financial consequences of meeting them.