Sanders supporters revolt against superdelegates
Outraged by the delegate deficit Sanders faces even after his New Hampshire win, the senator's backers are taking action.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-superdelegates-democrats-219286#ixzz40CNjvTx3
Outraged by the delegate deficit Sanders faces even after his New Hampshire win, the senator's backers are taking action.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-superdelegates-democrats-219286#ixzz40CNjvTx3
How Bernie Sanders would remake the whole U.S. economy
By Rick Newman
February 12, 2016
He may not be realistic, but he’s certainly bold.
Sen. Bernie Sanders launched his presidential campaign nine months ago with big ideas about empowering the little guy and ending “the collapse of the American middle class.” He had few detailed proposals, but as his message caught on and his campaign raised millions of dollars, he began to fill in the blanks. With the primaries underway, Sanders now has a thorough list of specific plans that would remake the whole U.S. economy were they to go into effect. Here are the biggest elements of his plan, along with cost estimates:
"Medicare for all," or single-payer healthcare funded by the government. This would be a gargantuan change that would put health insurers (which employ more than half a million people) out of business, end employer-provider insurance and disrupt many other elements of the healthcare system. It would cost the government somewhere between $1.4 trillion and $2.8 trillion per year, according to the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget. The government spends about $4 trillion today, so Sanders’s plan would add sharply to that.
Sanders would pay for this new spending through a series of tax increases: on companies, workers, investors, heirs and the wealthy, with the idea being that most people would save more on healthcare costs than they’d pay in new taxes. Sanders says his tax hikes would be adequate to cover the costs, but CFRB estimates that the Sanders plan could come up short by as much as $1.4 trillion per year. That’s a ton of money and would be a tough hole to fill.
The “Rebuild America Act.” This would fund the sort of infrastructure development President Obama is a big fan of, even though he’s been unable to get such a bill through Congress. Sanders wants to spend about $100 billion per year constructing or shoring up roads, bridges, ports, runways and other types of facilities. To pay for it, he’d tax corporate money being held in offshore tax havens—which would require a new law forcing that money back home, plus aggressive enforcement.
College for all. This isn’t exactly “free” college, as some reports suggest. But Sanders wants to make tuition free at all public universities, leaving students to pay for room, board and other living expenses. Public schools would have to help students from low-income families meet 100% of their financial needs. (Wealthier kids could still pay exorbitant fees to attend private schools.) The cost to the government would be about $75 billion a year in additional grants and loans. He’d pay for this through a new tax on financial transactions, also known as a “Robin Hood tax” because, in theory, it would snatch money from the wealthy (who buy and sell securities) and divert it to the needy.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that a Robin Hood tax could raise up to $50 billion per year, so it might cover the majority of the cost of such a program. But it could also increase volatility in markets (something investors certainly don’t need right now), while depressing the value of assets and creating an incentive to find ways around the tax. And it would probably affect enough ordinary Americans—through pension and 401(k) plans—to garner significant opposition.
Massive tax hikes. Sanders would significantly raise the personal income-tax rates for households with more than $250,000 in income, with the top federal rate going as high as 58%. He’d cap deductions for the wealthy, raise the estate tax and kill the “carried interest” loophole that mostly benefits private-equity firms. Tax rates for lower earners would stay the same, but their taxes would still go up because of the 2.2% increase in payroll taxes employees would pay to cover the cost of “Medicare for all.” Overall, Sanders’ tax hikes would amount to around $1 trillion a year. “It is hard to grasp the enormity of the tax increases Bernie Sanders is proposing,” Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Institute wrote recently.
Sanders’ fresh-start approach, of course, is a big part of his appeal. But Hillary Clinton—and many others—contend that Sanders’s proposals are so radical they have zero chance of ever going into effect. Given that at least one house of Congress seems sure to be controlled by Republicans for the foreseeable future, a President Sanders would probably meet a brick wall at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave.
Clinton’s proposals, in contrast to Sanders’, are mostly incremental. She’d improve upon the Affordable Care Act, instead of scrapping it and starting over. Her tax plan includes targeted tax cuts for some ordinary families, along with modest tax increases on the wealthy, while leaving most of the current tax code in place. She’d make college more affordable by lowering the interest rate on student loans and limiting the maximum payback to 10% of income, a plan that would cost less than half of Sanders’ $75 billion-per-year proposal. Clinton’s Wall Street reforms mostly involve stronger enforcement of rules already on the books.
Clinton is undoubtedly right when she says she’s the more pragmatic candidate, with policy proposals designed to improve the system instead of blowing it up. The question is whether voters want that. Sanders’ surprising strength suggests a lot of people wouldn’t mind seeing the next president govern with dynamite, whether it’s practical or not.
By Rick Newman
February 12, 2016
He may not be realistic, but he’s certainly bold.
Sen. Bernie Sanders launched his presidential campaign nine months ago with big ideas about empowering the little guy and ending “the collapse of the American middle class.” He had few detailed proposals, but as his message caught on and his campaign raised millions of dollars, he began to fill in the blanks. With the primaries underway, Sanders now has a thorough list of specific plans that would remake the whole U.S. economy were they to go into effect. Here are the biggest elements of his plan, along with cost estimates:
"Medicare for all," or single-payer healthcare funded by the government. This would be a gargantuan change that would put health insurers (which employ more than half a million people) out of business, end employer-provider insurance and disrupt many other elements of the healthcare system. It would cost the government somewhere between $1.4 trillion and $2.8 trillion per year, according to the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget. The government spends about $4 trillion today, so Sanders’s plan would add sharply to that.
Sanders would pay for this new spending through a series of tax increases: on companies, workers, investors, heirs and the wealthy, with the idea being that most people would save more on healthcare costs than they’d pay in new taxes. Sanders says his tax hikes would be adequate to cover the costs, but CFRB estimates that the Sanders plan could come up short by as much as $1.4 trillion per year. That’s a ton of money and would be a tough hole to fill.
The “Rebuild America Act.” This would fund the sort of infrastructure development President Obama is a big fan of, even though he’s been unable to get such a bill through Congress. Sanders wants to spend about $100 billion per year constructing or shoring up roads, bridges, ports, runways and other types of facilities. To pay for it, he’d tax corporate money being held in offshore tax havens—which would require a new law forcing that money back home, plus aggressive enforcement.
College for all. This isn’t exactly “free” college, as some reports suggest. But Sanders wants to make tuition free at all public universities, leaving students to pay for room, board and other living expenses. Public schools would have to help students from low-income families meet 100% of their financial needs. (Wealthier kids could still pay exorbitant fees to attend private schools.) The cost to the government would be about $75 billion a year in additional grants and loans. He’d pay for this through a new tax on financial transactions, also known as a “Robin Hood tax” because, in theory, it would snatch money from the wealthy (who buy and sell securities) and divert it to the needy.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that a Robin Hood tax could raise up to $50 billion per year, so it might cover the majority of the cost of such a program. But it could also increase volatility in markets (something investors certainly don’t need right now), while depressing the value of assets and creating an incentive to find ways around the tax. And it would probably affect enough ordinary Americans—through pension and 401(k) plans—to garner significant opposition.
Massive tax hikes. Sanders would significantly raise the personal income-tax rates for households with more than $250,000 in income, with the top federal rate going as high as 58%. He’d cap deductions for the wealthy, raise the estate tax and kill the “carried interest” loophole that mostly benefits private-equity firms. Tax rates for lower earners would stay the same, but their taxes would still go up because of the 2.2% increase in payroll taxes employees would pay to cover the cost of “Medicare for all.” Overall, Sanders’ tax hikes would amount to around $1 trillion a year. “It is hard to grasp the enormity of the tax increases Bernie Sanders is proposing,” Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Institute wrote recently.
Sanders’ fresh-start approach, of course, is a big part of his appeal. But Hillary Clinton—and many others—contend that Sanders’s proposals are so radical they have zero chance of ever going into effect. Given that at least one house of Congress seems sure to be controlled by Republicans for the foreseeable future, a President Sanders would probably meet a brick wall at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave.
Clinton’s proposals, in contrast to Sanders’, are mostly incremental. She’d improve upon the Affordable Care Act, instead of scrapping it and starting over. Her tax plan includes targeted tax cuts for some ordinary families, along with modest tax increases on the wealthy, while leaving most of the current tax code in place. She’d make college more affordable by lowering the interest rate on student loans and limiting the maximum payback to 10% of income, a plan that would cost less than half of Sanders’ $75 billion-per-year proposal. Clinton’s Wall Street reforms mostly involve stronger enforcement of rules already on the books.
Clinton is undoubtedly right when she says she’s the more pragmatic candidate, with policy proposals designed to improve the system instead of blowing it up. The question is whether voters want that. Sanders’ surprising strength suggests a lot of people wouldn’t mind seeing the next president govern with dynamite, whether it’s practical or not.
Bernie Sanders a Bum Who Didn’t Earn His First Steady Paycheck Until Age 40 Then Wormed His Way Into Politics
Jim Hoft Feb 15th, 2016 6:39 pm 438 Comments
What a shock.
Bernie Sanders was a bum who didn’t earn a steady paycheck until he was 40 years old. He was a slob who lived in a shack with a dirt floor. He later wrote about masturbation and rape for left-wing rags for $50 a story. The Socialist then wormed his way into politics.
Bernie had his electricity cut off a lot so he’d run an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn’t pay his bills.
And today he’s running for president so he can take your money and redistribute it.
Investor’s Business Daily reported:
Sanders spent most of his life as an angry radical and agitator who never accomplished much of anything. And yet now he thinks he deserves the power to run your life and your finances — “We will raise taxes;” he confirmed Monday, “yes, we will.”
One of his first jobs was registering people for food stamps, and it was all downhill from there.
Sanders took his first bride to live in a maple sugar shack with a dirt floor, and she soon left him. Penniless, he went on unemployment. Then he had a child out of wedlock.
Desperate, he tried carpentry but could barely sink a nail. “He was a shi**y carpenter,” a friend told Politico Magazine. “His carpentry was not going to support him, and didn’t.”
Then he tried his hand freelancing for leftist rags, writing about “masturbation and rape” and other crudities for $50 a story. He drove around in a rusted-out, Bondo-covered VW bug with no working windshield wipers. Friends said he was “always poor” and his “electricity was turned off a lot.” They described him as a slob who kept a messy apartment — and this is what his friends had to say about him.
The only thing he was good at was talking … non-stop … about socialism and how the rich were ripping everybody off. “The whole quality of life in America is based on greed,” the bitter layabout said. “I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.”
So he tried politics, starting his own socialist party. Four times he ran for Vermont public office, and four times he lost — badly. He never attracted more than single-digit support — even in the People’s Republic of Vermont. In his 1971 bid for U.S. Senate, the local press said the 30-year-old “Sanders describes himself as a carpenter who has worked with ‘disturbed children.’ ” In other words, a real winner.
He finally wormed his way into the Senate in 2006, where he still ranks as one of the poorest members of Congress. Save for a municipal pension, Sanders lists no assets in his name. All the assets provided in his financial disclosure form are his second wife’s. He does, however, have as much as $65,000 in credit-card debt.
Sure, Sanders may not be a hypocrite, but this is nothing to brag about. His worthless background contrasts sharply with the successful careers of other “outsiders” in the race for the White House, including a billionaire developer, a world-renowned neurosurgeon and a Fortune 500 CEO.
The choice in this election is shaping up to be a very clear one. It will likely boil down to a battle between those who create and produce wealth, and those who take it and redistribute it.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/bernie-sanders-a-bum-who-didnt-earn-his-first-paycheck-until-age-40/
Jim Hoft Feb 15th, 2016 6:39 pm 438 Comments
What a shock.
Bernie Sanders was a bum who didn’t earn a steady paycheck until he was 40 years old. He was a slob who lived in a shack with a dirt floor. He later wrote about masturbation and rape for left-wing rags for $50 a story. The Socialist then wormed his way into politics.
Bernie had his electricity cut off a lot so he’d run an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn’t pay his bills.
And today he’s running for president so he can take your money and redistribute it.
Investor’s Business Daily reported:
Sanders spent most of his life as an angry radical and agitator who never accomplished much of anything. And yet now he thinks he deserves the power to run your life and your finances — “We will raise taxes;” he confirmed Monday, “yes, we will.”
One of his first jobs was registering people for food stamps, and it was all downhill from there.
Sanders took his first bride to live in a maple sugar shack with a dirt floor, and she soon left him. Penniless, he went on unemployment. Then he had a child out of wedlock.
Desperate, he tried carpentry but could barely sink a nail. “He was a shi**y carpenter,” a friend told Politico Magazine. “His carpentry was not going to support him, and didn’t.”
Then he tried his hand freelancing for leftist rags, writing about “masturbation and rape” and other crudities for $50 a story. He drove around in a rusted-out, Bondo-covered VW bug with no working windshield wipers. Friends said he was “always poor” and his “electricity was turned off a lot.” They described him as a slob who kept a messy apartment — and this is what his friends had to say about him.
The only thing he was good at was talking … non-stop … about socialism and how the rich were ripping everybody off. “The whole quality of life in America is based on greed,” the bitter layabout said. “I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.”
So he tried politics, starting his own socialist party. Four times he ran for Vermont public office, and four times he lost — badly. He never attracted more than single-digit support — even in the People’s Republic of Vermont. In his 1971 bid for U.S. Senate, the local press said the 30-year-old “Sanders describes himself as a carpenter who has worked with ‘disturbed children.’ ” In other words, a real winner.
He finally wormed his way into the Senate in 2006, where he still ranks as one of the poorest members of Congress. Save for a municipal pension, Sanders lists no assets in his name. All the assets provided in his financial disclosure form are his second wife’s. He does, however, have as much as $65,000 in credit-card debt.
Sure, Sanders may not be a hypocrite, but this is nothing to brag about. His worthless background contrasts sharply with the successful careers of other “outsiders” in the race for the White House, including a billionaire developer, a world-renowned neurosurgeon and a Fortune 500 CEO.
The choice in this election is shaping up to be a very clear one. It will likely boil down to a battle between those who create and produce wealth, and those who take it and redistribute it.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/bernie-sanders-a-bum-who-didnt-earn-his-first-paycheck-until-age-40/
[h=1]Bernie's brother: Media can't decide if Clinton is 'terrible rapist' or 'nice rapist'[/h]
Bernie Sanders's elder brother rips Bill Clinton in a new interview, suggesting the media is too focused debating whether the former president is a "terrible rapist" or "nice rapist."
He also suggests that his brother, a self-described democratic socialist running for the Democratic presidential nomination, is "very socialist" in his view of "class warfare."
popcorn-eatinggif
Bernie Sanders's elder brother rips Bill Clinton in a new interview, suggesting the media is too focused debating whether the former president is a "terrible rapist" or "nice rapist."
He also suggests that his brother, a self-described democratic socialist running for the Democratic presidential nomination, is "very socialist" in his view of "class warfare."
popcorn-eatinggif
"Bernie Sanders was a bum who didn’t earn a steady paycheck until he was 40 years old. He was a slob who lived in a shack with a dirt floor. He later wrote about masturbation and rape for left-wing rags for $50 a story. The Socialist then wormed his way into politics."
This loser is the left's new savior.
Un-fucking-real!
This loser is the left's new savior.
Un-fucking-real!
[h=1]Clyburn: Sanders’s plan would kill black colleges[/h]
Old footage of presidential candidate Bernie Sanders shows Sanders being arrested at a Civil Rights protest in 1963.
And now Sanders can boast about abuse at the hands of The Man.
Just the visual image his candidacy needed to chip away at Hillary Clinton’s lead among African-American voters who continue having a hard time figuring out which white person is the devil. For all of Sanders’ speechifying about caring for minorities, it’s all rhetorical bullshit until the protest arrest photos go viral
