Type to search

Sanders Was Wrong: Panama Trade Deal Shut Down Tax Shelters

Editor's Blog Elections Memo Share Politics White House

Sanders Was Wrong: Panama Trade Deal Shut Down Tax Shelters

Share

Ever since the ‪#‎PanamaPapers‬ exploded into public consciousness, many observers have waited with excitement (or trepidation) for the names of Bill and Hillary Clinton to appear somewhere in those millions of pages. So far they haven’t, and frankly I don’t expect they ever will.

Yet Bernie Sanders and his campaign nevertheless labored to tar Hillary Clinton with the offshore shelters anyway, going so far as to call her “unqualified” to be president for supporting the Panama free trade agreement (which she did as President Obama’s Secretary of State, of course).

Today’s Washington Post editorial page argues that if anything, the Panama Papers show the trade agreement improved tax transparency:

Data culled from the documents by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, and presented in several charts on the group’s website, show that the Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca, which specialized in setting up offshore accounts and shell companies for wealthy people, has been steadily reducing its activity in Panama for about a decade. As it happens, the decline began about the time the Bush administration and Panama began discussing a free-trade pact — and accelerated after the deal took effect during Mr. Obama’s first term.

Specifically, the number of offshore incorporations fell from 4,741 in 2005 to 835 in 2015. Most important, as of last year Mossack Fonseca appeared to have nearly completely ceased incorporating the least transparent form of company — known as “bearer shares” — which often don’t need to register an owner’s name.

Incidentally, last year — like every year since the trade agreement was signed — the United States marked a big trade surplus with Panama, about $7.5 billion.

Tags:
Joe Conason

A highly experienced journalist, author and editor, Joe Conason is the editor-in-chief of The National Memo, founded in July 2011. He was formerly the executive editor of the New York Observer, where he wrote a popular political column for many years. His columns are distributed by Creators Syndicate and his reporting and writing have appeared in many publications around the world, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, The New Yorker, The New Republic, The Nation, and Harpers.

Since November 2006, he has served as editor of The Investigative Fund, a nonprofit journalism center, where he has assigned and edited dozens of award-winning articles and broadcasts. He is also the author of two New York Times bestselling books, The Hunting of the President (St. Martins Press, 2000) and Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth (St. Martins Press, 2003).

Currently he is working on a new book about former President Bill Clinton's life and work since leaving the White House in 2001. He is a frequent guest on radio and television, including MSNBC's Morning Joe, and lives in New York City with his wife and two children.

  • 1

125 Comments

  1. Independent1 April 10, 2016

    Bernie Sanders has turned into a quasi Republican, spewing fake scandals in his efforts to win votes.

    Reply
    1. yabbed April 10, 2016

      Well, he’s not a Democrat, that’s for certain. He’s just an opportunist. I want to see his tax returns so we can see just how much of an opportunist the old Socialist has been in the decades of his doing nothing in Congress but, I suspect, enriching himself in “public service”. 🙂

      Reply
      1. Phil Johnson April 10, 2016

        This is probably a futile gesture in reply, but (1) he published the 1040 version of his tax returns (about $200k yearly) and (2), promised that his detailed version would be promulgated later. I am pretty certain, given the sturm und drang of this ongoing food fight, that, if anything was amiss on this battlefront, it would have surfaced by now. Please give us some clue why you suspect him enriching himself in “public service”. Citation to authority would be admirable and a welcome change of pace from the usual oleaginous drivel that emanates from name-callers.

        More to the point: Bernie is a socialist democrat, not the Foggy Bottom “establishment” kind. I am sure you understand the difference, unlike the DNC witch of the east, who could not spell the words, let alone define them. (I refer to Chris Matthews’ interview with DWS last year; she sat there like a stunned ox when he repeatedly asked her).

        FDR was the original socialist democrat, as you know. Take a look at the 1956 Republican platform, for instance. All that progress went out the window when Reagan’s “trickle-down economics” became all the rage in the ’80s. Since that time, both parties endorsed them, and the working/middle class has never been the same.

        No amount of vitriolic, mean-spirited hyperbole will alter this path of history, once it is engraved in the past. We (including myself) have to remember this. I will vote for HRC if it comes to that, but a year of looking at the alternatives has pretty much convinced me that Bernie is the leading edge of a successful grassroots phenomenon. Even if he does not win this year, I feel that the hitherto somnolent middle class and others disenfranchised by the Foggy Bottom System will support another leader — like Elizabeth Warren, perhaps — to pick up where he leaves off.

        Bernie himself has said as much. I am his age, and can understand how much effort it takes to do what he does. He is mortal and, at this point in life, one tends to think in finality: what can I do that will best help my fellow citizens before that long day’s journey into night?

        Peace and grace to all.

        Reply
        1. Independent1 April 10, 2016

          And the excuses for Bernie just keep acoming.

          Reply
          1. Ginger April 10, 2016

            @Independent1, as well as the excuses for Hillary. Hillary has pandered so much to so many different groups and told so many different stories, even if she won, she would never be able to keep even a small percentage of her promises, and would go down in flames. The only people Hillary is concerned about are those big donors. Otherwise, Independent1, you are one of he foolish ones who will find yourself completely ignored if she were to win. Unless you have several hundreds of thousands of dollars to “donate” to her campaign, you’re dirt to her.

            Reply
      2. Ginger April 10, 2016

        @yabbed. Right, Bernie has been “enriching himself in public service”, yet Hillary has not been, with the shell of an organization called the Clinton Foundation, which is also being investigated by the FBI due to the numerous donations from shady foreign sources. Even people who may not want to support Bernie don’t see him as being deceptive in anyway or enriching himself on public funds. Remember, it’s your favorite Hillary who has very low poll numbers when it comes to honesty. Bernie, on the other hand, is viewed as being the most honest person running.

        Reply
        1. Svarun April 11, 2016

          Unlike Sanders’ ones, full tax returns and accounting data for the last 18 years of the Clinton Foundation are available online; point out where any money has gone to the Clintons.

          https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/annual-financial-reports

          Reply
    2. A_Real_Einstein April 11, 2016

      Please elaborate on these fake scandals and fabrications. It is one thing to make an allegation it is another to provide specifics.

      Reply
  2. Böcker April 10, 2016

    Who wrote this load of BS?? Joe Who??

    Reply
  3. The lucky one April 10, 2016

    Research who bankrolls the org that is responsible for dissemination of the Panama papers and you will know why the Clintons or the names of any other prominent American pols are unlikely to surface.

    Reply
    1. Jinmichigan April 10, 2016

      What a load of BS.

      Reply
      1. The lucky one April 10, 2016

        Writing that reply was easier than doing the research wasn’t it? Note, i didn’t say the Clintons names were in the papers but don’t think it a bit strange that so far the only prominent people named are foreigners especially those like Putin (his friends) that our government would like to discredit or embarrass or those lacking any power outside their own country like the Icelandic premier.

        Reply
    2. Svarun April 11, 2016

      Tinfoil hat alert!

      “Do your own research!” is a common phrase used by conspiracy theorists and pseudoscience promoters of various creeds in response to people who are skeptical of their claims. This phrase is a form of the escape hatch used by a charlatan who wants to win the argument but does not want to bear the burden of proof.

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Do_your_own_research

      Reply
      1. The lucky one April 11, 2016

        Yes Groucho and “Tinfoil hat alert” is a common phrase used by those locked into a particular view and unwilling to consider evidence contrary to their view. To be clear, I’m not trying to win any argument. I’ve been posting and reading here long enough to know the futility of that with Hilaryites and/or Trumpsters. Both groups adore their leader and will hear no evil spoke of them. Whenever someone has said to me “Do your own research!” I have attempted to do so and on occaision have discovered that I was wrong or at least had an incomplete view. I’m sure that’s an experience you have never had.

        Reply
        1. Svarun April 11, 2016

          Have you ever heard of the Burden of Proof?

          “…those locked into a particular view and unwilling to consider evidence contrary to their view…”

          I’ll consider any relevant* evidence as soon as you’ll present them.

          FYI: You can even find speculative “evidence” on the flat earth on the internet – but that doesn’t make them true.

          Reply
          1. The lucky one April 11, 2016

            I don’t have to prove anything since I didn’t make any allegations nor do I wish to work for those too lazy or unmotivated to do their own searching.
            Cheers
            BTW Hilary’s war mongering and servitude to the banksters and corporations is enough for me. I don’t need to see her name in the PP to know I won’t be voting for her.

            Reply
          2. Svarun April 11, 2016

            “…I didn’t make any allegations… ”
            “…Hilary’s war mongering and servitude to the banksters…”

            You’re contradicting yourself withing the same comment; schizophrenia is a helluva disease.

            Reply
          3. The lucky one April 11, 2016

            I never had children but after trying to converse with you I have an appreciation for what it must be like. My statement about allegations was in reference to the panama papers as I think was pretty obvious. If after her support for invading Iraq, deposing Quadaffi and saber rattling with Iran I don’t need to provide any further “proof” that she is a war monger. Even the neocons get that which is why many support her over Trump. Her refusal to release transcripts of her extremely well reimbursed speeches to Goldman Sachs and the recent use of a while noise generator to block reporters from her talk with banksters at a fund raiser are ample proof of my comment.

            Reply
          4. The lucky one April 11, 2016

            I just came across this so thought I would share it with you.

            “As Secretary of State, Clinton backed a bold escalation of the Afghanistan war. She pressed Obama to arm the Syrian rebels, and later endorsed airstrikes against the Assad regime. She backed intervention in Libya, and her State Department helped enable Obama’s expansion of lethal drone strikes. In fact, Clinton may have been the administration’s most reliable advocate for military action. On at least three crucial issues—Afghanistan, Libya, and the bin Laden raid—Clinton took a more aggressive line than [Secretary of Defense Robert] Gates, a Bush-appointed Republican.” – Time Magazine

            Reply
          5. The lucky one April 11, 2016

            As Secretary of State, Clinton backed a bold escalation of the Afghanistan war. She pressed Obama to arm the Syrian rebels, and later endorsed airstrikes against the Assad regime. She backed intervention in Libya, and her State Department helped enable Obama’s expansion of lethal drone strikes. In fact, Clinton may have been the administration’s most reliable advocate for military action. On at least three crucial issues—Afghanistan, Libya, and the bin Laden raid—Clinton took a more aggressive line than [Secretary of Defense Robert] Gates, a Bush-appointed Republican. – Time Magazine

            Reply
          6. Svarun April 11, 2016

            There’s no records that “as Secretary of State, Clinton” backed “a bold escalation of the Afghanistan war”… pressed Obama to arm the Syrian rebels, and later endorsed airstrikes against the Assad regime”. OTOH, Sanders voted in favor of all you listed.

            Bernie Sanders’ Troubling History of Supporting US Military Violence Abroad
            http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-troubling-history-supporting-us-military-violence-abroad

            Bernie Sanders Supports Keeping Troops In Afghanistan
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-afghanistan_us_5623b601e4b08589ef47bdaa

            Reply
          7. Svarun April 11, 2016

            FYI:

            “And here is where Sanders greatest equivocation has come. In spite of claims of being antiwar, his “hawkish” support of Clinton’s military actions in the 1999 Kosovo War caused one of his advisers to quit. When antiwar activists occupied Sanders’ office in 1999 because of that support of Clinton’s war policies, he had them arrested.

            In 2001, Sanders did not support the vote in Congress to oppose the war in Afghanistan. … This vote was followed by his support for appropriations to support both the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2003 he supported the resolution that gave support to George W. Bush in both Iraq and in the larger war against terrorism, although Sanders has been a critic of the Iraq War.

            Then Sanders supported only a gradual withdrawal from Iraq. When impeachment was on the so-called table against George W. Bush in 2006, he said that impeachment was “impractical.”

            http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/27/bernie-sanders-savior-or-seducer-of-the-anti-war-left/

            Reply
          8. The lucky one April 11, 2016

            I will do further research into Sanders if he receives the nomination. I know enough about HRC to know I can’t support her. It may be that I can’t in good conscience vote for either Dem in which case I’ll vote for Jill Stein.

            Reply
          9. The lucky one April 11, 2016

            My “allegations” regarding HRC were after our original exchange which is the one to which you wanted me to provide the “proof” you are unwilling to search for yourself. Maybe you can find a ten year old to explain that to you.

            Reply
  4. Ann Waldrum April 10, 2016

    Wow! What a little honest reporting will change the picture entirely. Thanks, Joe.

    Reply
    1. The lucky one April 10, 2016

      Honest and reporting shouldn’t appear in the same sentence with Joe Conason’s name. He is a Hilary propagandist, which is fine if that is who he supports, but a little less dis-ingenuousness as to his true motives would be nice.

      Reply
      1. Ann Waldrum April 10, 2016

        That may well be your opinion, but is certainly NOT mine. I have been reading Joe Conason for almost 20 years and have always found his writings grounded in truth and fact — that to me is the mark of a journalist, a rare and disappearing breed.

        It could also explain why he supports Hillary Clinton and why you failed to take issue with any facts contained is his piece.

        Reply
        1. The lucky one April 10, 2016

          Opinions are what it is all about here. You and I are honest about that while Conason often presents his as fact. He accuses Sanders of “taring” HRC but does the same to Sanders with his misleading headline ” Sanders Was Wrong: Panama Trade Deal Shut Down Tax Shelters”. He fails to make his case except by assumption. Coincidence is not proof of causality.

          I totally agree that “journalist(s), (are) a rare and disappearing breed” and actually respected Conason’s work before he became an apologist for HRC. As I said in my previous post, it’s fine if Conason wants to use his position to promote Clinton but he should be clear that he is offering his interpretation rather than a report of the “facts”. That is what I meant by his being “dishonest.

          Reply
          1. Independent1 April 10, 2016

            And the excuses for Bernie just keep acoming!!

            Reply
          2. The lucky one April 10, 2016

            Too bad there are no excuses for a candidate that:
            1. Voted for the Iraq invasion
            2. Supported the overthrow of Quadaffi
            3. Supports fracking
            4. Supported TPP until it became obvious it would derail her campaign and will support it again if elected
            5. Is extremely cozy with banksters and big oil and eschews any attempt to dispel impropriety there
            6. Lied about being subject to sniper fire while in Bosnia
            7. Has received huge speaking fees from corporations
            8. Used her position to get her totally unqualified for the position daughter a gig at NBC paying $600,000/yr (Qualified people in the same job receive 100,000-200,000/yr)

            I could go on but you get the picture.

            Reply
          3. Ginger April 10, 2016

            @Independent. Nothing Hillary has ever said borders on fact. She even denied that any Americans died in Benghazi. How does that happen?

            Reply
          4. Independent1 April 10, 2016

            Just more Bernie Nut BS!!!

            Reply
          5. Ginger April 10, 2016

            @The lucky one, I agree. This is not a true article with facts, this is a commentary or opinion. That’s the difference. When people like Conason try to pose as though they are writing unbiased articles, when in reality they are just writing a biased piece in favor of their chosen candidate, it works on some of the simple-minded who don’t do their own research and get the facts for themselves. That’s what the slick politician type depend on. People easily manipulated by emotion rather than any real facts.

            Reply
  5. jif6360 April 10, 2016
    Reply
    1. Ginger April 10, 2016

      @jif6360, Yes! I agree. We need a non-establishment type candidate to break up the craziness in Washington.

      Reply
      1. Svarun April 11, 2016

        Yes, vote Trump because the best way to defeat the oligarchy is to vote for the top oligarch! /s

        Reply
  6. ExPAVIC April 10, 2016

    Sanders

    A walking, talking male bovine fecal matter factory. Plus, HE IS NOT ELECTABLE.

    Reply
    1. jif6360 April 10, 2016

      Just showing SUPPORT for Sanders or Trump can bring real change.

      Reply
      1. Independent1 April 10, 2016

        Yeah! In the wrong direction.

        Reply
    2. jif6360 April 10, 2016

      Send a real message, vote out all the incumbents in congress and keep voting them out until they restore our voice and rights.
      http://www.judicialimmunitynecessaryevil.com/washington-s-war.html

      Reply
    3. Joe Hill April 10, 2016

      Now there is an intelligent comment! No wonder you support HRC. What, are you allergic to real thinking?

      Reply
      1. Jinmichigan April 10, 2016

        Right, because your view in the only right one. Got it.

        Reply
        1. Joe Hill April 10, 2016

          If you are swayed by or want to defend “male bovine fecal matter,” be my guest.

          Reply
          1. Jinmichigan April 10, 2016

            I’m not defending anyone or anything, I just think your comments are BS.

            Reply
          2. Joe Hill April 10, 2016

            Too bad. To call someone’s comments BS without offering your own is childish.

            Reply
          3. Jinmichigan April 10, 2016

            Fits you to a “T”.

            Reply
          4. Joe Hill April 10, 2016

            “Told you so but what am I.” Playground stuff. Not surprising.

            Reply
          5. Jinmichigan April 10, 2016

            Just like your previous argument. Did you even read the article?

            Reply
          6. Joe Hill April 10, 2016

            Thoroughly. It’s not an article, it’s an advertisement.

            Reply
          7. Jinmichigan April 10, 2016

            Sure thing Bernie.

            Reply
          8. Joe Hill April 10, 2016

            My friend, you are a joke. See ya.

            Reply
          9. Jinmichigan April 10, 2016

            Right, because your view is the only right one. Got it.

            Reply
          10. Eliot K. Tuxedo April 10, 2016

            It’s a hit piece more than an advertisement, Joe, but you’ve got the right idea.

            Reply
    4. Ginger April 10, 2016

      @ExPAVIC. Bernie’s not electable? If Hillary gets indicted on the e-mail scandal, does that make her electable? I think not. And, I know Hillary tries to minimize the e-mail issue, but anytime you come under an FBI investigation, it should not be taken lightly.

      Reply
      1. ExPAVIC April 10, 2016

        Indicted for what? Name the crime not the situation. Bet you can’t put a name on it. Of course in GW’s case, he actually tried to manufacture facts to justify the deaths of thousands.

        Reply
  7. Joe Hill April 10, 2016

    I’m not sure what a trade surplus has to do with the Panama
    Papers, but to take the WaPo editorial pages as a source of unbiased
    information is to slip into a mode of protection of the status quo – and an
    attack on Sanders.

    Mossack Fonseca may have been “winding down” their business,
    but there are plenty of other firms in Panama who are not, and barring a leak
    from those firms we will never know how big the tax-avoidance schemes worldwide
    really are. Panama is one of the countries that refuses to abide by an
    agreement to automatically transmit information about financial assets. Why
    would they? Business is booming. And because they will suffer no sanctions as a
    result, they will continue to be one of the many tax havens around the world.
    As Thomas Picketty writes, “only repeated application of sanctions of this
    type, at the slightest non-compliance, will enable the credibility of the
    system to be established and an end seen to this climate of lack of
    transparency and widespread practice of impunity for many decades.” Vehicles
    like the Panama Trade Deal are the equivalent of hunting elephants with a BB
    gun. Who in their right mind thinks Hillary will be the one to pick up the
    elephant gun?

    It is nearly impossible to believe that Conason is blind to
    this problem. He is just not concerned with it; he, and the WaPo editorial
    board, refuse to miss an opportunity to attack Bernie on HRC’s behalf. They are
    blind to the problem. They are the problem.

    Reply
    1. Jinmichigan April 10, 2016

      The article also talks about Sanders attacks on Clinton over the Panama Trade agreement.

      “Yet Bernie Sanders and his campaign nevertheless labored to tar Hillary Clinton with the offshore shelters anyway, going
      so far as to call her “unqualified” to be president for supporting the
      Panama free trade agreement (which she did as President Obama’s
      Secretary of State, of course).”

      Reply
      1. A_Real_Einstein April 11, 2016

        Google Panama papers and the Podestas. That should end this debate.

        Reply
        1. alphaa10 April 11, 2016

          The Podesta brothers should be the kiss of death for any candidate trying to shrug off vestiges of corporate control.

          Reply
          1. A_Real_Einstein April 11, 2016

            If Bernie does not get the nomination I will write him in in November. No chance I will be voting for HRC.

            Reply
      2. alphaa10 April 11, 2016

        If Panama never existed, the Hillary Clinton position on so-called “free trade agreements” is a burden of contradiction. Clinton voted against the treaty known as CAFTA, but (of course, as First Lady) supported the evil grandfather of all so-called free trade agreements, NAFTA.

        After her opposition to CAFTA in 2005, Clinton was not finished, but opposed with only faint damnation the Obama-proposed TPP in 2015– this after two days of breathless hesitation, leaving pundits blue. Her principal objection to TPP, as quoted by news media, was a seeming shout for populist values– the proposed treaty failed to provide relief for workers economically injured by the new agreement. Yet, worker relief is the least of TPP problems. Clinton fails to identify and oppose the massive frontal assault the TPP would unleash on behalf of corporate interests against American workers, environmental laws and the very idea of national sovereignty in such matters.
        After implied approval of NAFTA, and her votes for free trade pacts with Australia, Chile, Peru, Morocco and Oman, Clinton’s seeming self-contradiction by voting no to CAFTA and the proposed TPP– is CAFTA and TPP are not really votes on trade at all, according to economist Paul Krugman. Instead, they are votes on intellectual property and dispute resolution. So, when only free trade is at issue, Clinton usually has supported such measures.

        So, Clinton stands astride two positions– the first, against free trade agreements which are embarrassingly anti-populist (ie. anti=labor and anti-environment), and the second, generally in favor of such agreements when the populist issues do not stand in the way of her appeal.

        And this seems to explain why Sanders irritates Clinton so much– when Clinton would favor a policy supportive of her Wall Street backers, Sanders points out, time and again, how her support damages the American worker and betrays hope of economic justice by continuing the monied, corporate status quo..

        Reply
  8. yabbed April 10, 2016

    Bernie made it clear in his disastrous NY Daily News editorial board interview that he simply hasn’t a clue. He doesn’t understand trade agreements. He’s just against them. He doesn’t understand Dodd Frank but he likes to say the words. Bernie is lazy, unfocused, and of absolutely no substance. When you read or watch that interview all Bernie is capable of answering is to pull out the same platitudes and repeat them as the answer to every question. It was a painful sight to see anyone flounder and fail so colossally as did the old do nothing Socialist, a man with a big mouth and a little brainpan.

    Reply
    1. Ginger April 10, 2016

      @yabbed. Bernie is lazy and unfocused? Let’s look at Hillary who was too lazy to follow the proper protocol for handing information pertaining to national security, so had to have her own private e-mail server set up to avoid dealing with any protocol. Who has ever heard of a job allowing one of their employees to put confidential company documents on their own private personal server in their home, let alone being information pertaining to national security. And, you want to talk about Bernie has the problem? No, I think you better check Hillary on that. She does not appear qualified to handle matters of national security. At best, she used poor judgment. At worst, she could be indicted due to breech of national security. Bernie has been in politics long enough to know just as much, if not more than Hillary, and is equally qualified. Hillary should feel embarrassed about how she handled the Bengazi disaster and her e-mails, and please tell me what she actually accomplished for the state of New York as senator.

      Reply
    2. Eliot K. Tuxedo April 10, 2016

      Billionaire publisher Mort Zuckerman, owner of the NY Daily News, has previously vowed to support Hillary 100%.
      That Sanders interview was a hit job, no question. Read Ryan Grim’s analysis http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/bernie-sanders-daily-news_us_5704779ce4b0a506064d8df5

      Reply
  9. Dominick Vila April 10, 2016

    Sen. Sanders should abandon the bogus attacks against Hillary Clinton, especially those focused on claims of wrongdoing without a shred of evidence to support them, criticism because of her willingness to deliver speeches to Wall Street, Corporate, and Government executives, etc.
    There are plenty of issues that deserve attention, such as income and wealth inequality, the dismal state of our infrastructure, preparing for the effects of climate change, and the influence of money in our political processes, among others.
    Sen. Sanders is losing credibility by engaging in faux claims that mimic those spewed daily by desperate Republican charlatans.

    Reply
    1. bikejedi April 10, 2016

      Sounds like you are scared of Sanders being the nominee. We know the DNC is doing everything they can to screw him but he keeps beating Hilliar

      Reply
      1. Dominick Vila April 10, 2016

        Nope. I will not hesitate to vote for Bernie if he is the Democratic party nominee.

        Reply
        1. bikejedi April 10, 2016

          Embrace the crazy huh ? You do realize he is proposing spending 19 Trillion and has come up with plans to kill the middle class with taxes that account for 300 to 400 billion of it and about another 400 billion in economy killing transaction taxes . I’m what bizzarro common core math world would that work and the next question is why a seemingly intelligent person would then vote for a man that would leave all that debt to your grand children ? Powered by Cricket Wireless.
          ——– Original message ——–

          Reply
          1. Ginger April 10, 2016

            bikejedi, you might need to spend sometime reading up on the facts rather than just spewing out talking points from the Hillary camp. We already have $19 trillion in debt. Where did that go? Who knows. You’ll need to ask the Obama Administration, since the Democrats failed to pass the Audit the Feds bill that would have allowed the taxpayers to see how this money is being spent. All Bernie Sanders is talking about is spending the money in a more practical manner, such as having one public national plan, which we already have called Medicare. Most of the 65 year olds and older are already covered by Medicare, and all Bernie is talking about doing is adding on the younger and healthier people who are currently under Medicaid or CHIP, which the taxpayers already pay for, or get Obamacare subsidies, which the taxpayers already pay for. By having one national public plan, it would be portable and usable in each state, and would not need to be connected to employment. We the taxpayers already pay for Medicare. It’s called FICA on your payroll tax. Public education is also already paid for by taxpayers who cover elementary school, high school, and even public colleges and universities. Again, all Bernie is talking about doing is making these schools more affordable, no frills type colleges, like they already do in most countries overseas. Of course, these other countries are not paying $5 million salaries to basketball or football coaches like in our country. Look up an article entitled “Which public official in your state is that highest paid” and in every state it is the football or basketball coach for the public college or university. We don’t need to be paying for that. Instead, students could actually receive an affordable college education, and for those students who want to expensive football or basketball coach, they can pay for that on their own dime. This is why I get upset with people like you who like to spew information out with no factual basis. Expansion of services that we already have is all that Bernie is proposing, not any scary communist regime. If anything, both parties are making us more communist by trying to control the media and our elected officials.

            Reply
          2. bikejedi April 10, 2016

            So many many holes in what you posted I don’t know where to begin . Yes the Dems failed to pass audit the Fed because they don’t want anyone to know where money is going. I’m shocked as well as you no doubt said any informed American ever . And no Bernie isn’t talking about spending current money more wisely to accomplish the free stuff he promises everyone because it would never work . The WSJ estimated the cost of his plans at 18 trillion in NEW spending and the WaPo at 19 trillion . That is new spending and he has Middle Class Taxes that would decimate that class and other taxes that would cover 700 to 800 billion so Bernie is a liar. I am sure you as well as any other informed non mathematically chalenged person is shocked Bernie is a Liar lol. Medicaid is already costing 10x more than ANYONE ever projected with no end to containing costs. That’s logical because when you tell an industry their bills are going to be subsidized by the tax payers there is no reason to contain costs. . This is why every same economist will tell you that subsidizing Universities is a bad idea. Two of the reasons tuitions are out of control are pensions. For instance there is a trustee I believe at the U of I who if he lives a normal lifespan is going to reap about 18 million in pension benefits . The other reason is because administrators on University staffs have increased by a factor of 4 in the last 15 years. If you subsidize Universities there will be more administrators than students because there will be no reason to contain costs. No one contains costs when Tax Payers foot the bill and Democrats never care about that stuff once the votes are counted . By the way those salaries to those coaches are worth every dime to those Universities and those Sports programs more than pay them . Those programs are huge money makers for those Universities and they also can raise the profile of that University. Stop worrying about what other people make just because you are envious they make so much. Obviously those very smart people at that University have crunched the numbers and figured they are worth every penny . This is why I get upset with people like you who have no common sense and No information base to back your posts but blindly believe the talking points and campaign spiel of your candidate without even a smidgen of research on your own . Powered by Cricket Wireless.

            ——– Original message ——–

            Reply
          3. Dominick Vila April 10, 2016

            The main reasons for the increases in our national debt has little to do with current deficit spending, which has been reduced by 2/3 since President Obama’s inauguration. Most of it involves the sum total of past deficit spending, the cost of Federal Government obligations like Social Security and paying interest on Treasury Bills, the cost of unfunded crusades, and the TARP. The only expenditure that could be levied on President Obama is the cost of the stimulus package used to prevent the collapse of the U.S. economy predicted by President Bush in 2008.

            Reply
          4. Independent1 April 10, 2016

            Despite what the GOP would like people to believe Social Security has added nothing to the deficit over the past 7 years, in fact, the SS trust fund balance has gone up since Obama took office. The amount that current payments by people working are not enough to cover the checks SS sends out is far less than the interest being earned on the 2.8T now in the fund so the fund is growing.

            And according to CNN Money, our government made 15B in profit on the 426 Billion paid out for TARP and the 80B of auto bailout monies.

            http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/19/news/companies/government-bailouts-end/index.html

            The two main reasons why are debt has increased under Obama is 1) continued reduced tax revenues which are still 2-300B below pre 2008 levels due to the millions who had lost jobs while many of the replacement jobs that were added over the last 7 years are lower paying resulting in reduced tax revenues – together with the slow recovery of the thousands of companies that had gone belly up together with the trend of many large companies shielding more and more income with shell companies overseas thereby drastically reducing tax revenues even more and 2) all the unfunded legislation Bush signed which continue to run up deficits (e.g., the treasury will continue to amortize the cost of Bush’s wars for another 8-10 decades which adds to our debt every year since the wars were unfunded).

            Reply
          5. Dominick Vila April 10, 2016

            That is why I voted for Hillary. I like some of the things Bernie says, but I doubt most of his proposals will get anywhere, even if Democrats regain control of the Senate. Some of his proposals are expensive, but bear in mind that the additional cost would be offset by savings in areas such as lower or no health insurance premiums.
            What Bernie and The Donald forget is that the Administrative Branch does not have the power to control the purse. The legislative branch does.

            Reply
          6. bikejedi April 10, 2016

            Thst just as crazy. You voted for someone owned by the banks and over 20 Muslim Country’s. You voted for someone who is under 4 separate Govt investigations and someone who mismanaged her last office to the point we have seen the spread of radical Islam everywhere and she can’t account for 6 billion of her budget. You voted for someone who has been a failure and been fired from every job she wasn’t a failure and quit from .

            Powered by Cricket Wireless.

            ——– Original message ——–

            Reply
          7. alphaa10 April 15, 2016

            But when Democrats had the 60 senate votes they needed, they got what they wanted. So the issue is not the presidential race, but the congressional contest.

            Hillary has plenty of opposition, even among independents. So, the same criticism can be applied to any presidential candidate, including Hillary Clinton. Especially Hillary Clinton.

            Reply
    2. A_Real_Einstein April 10, 2016

      Google Podesta Panama Papers and come back to the conversation. Other than saying that Hillary was for the agreement Sanders has said nothing about this. You know Conason is on the Clinton payroll? Right.

      The Democratic Party is a mess. As a result of losing many white working households and our inability to attract new progressive voters has resulted in is losing the Senate, House, Governerships, and State legislatures everywhere. Then here comes Bernie who talks the talk and walks the walk. He has started a political movement talking about changing a rigged economy so that it works for all Americans. He wants to end Citizens United so that the elite no longer pick out representives for us and write our laws. So the DEmocratic leadership in response to this Progressive Movement shuns its savior and riggs the primary in favor of a Plutocrat. The corporate media is complicit and continues its blackout and attempts to misinform the public about Bwrnie and his message. We are being played. Hillary is part of the problem not the solution.

      Reply
      1. Ginger April 10, 2016

        A_Real_Einstein, you are absolutely correct. Bernie focuses on Hillary’s shady Wall Street donations and money funneled into the Clinton Foundation from shady overseas sources, and Hillary and Obama’s support of these awful trade deals for a reason. That is the point, and the Hillary supporters try to ignore the facts and just want the Bernie people to fall in line behind Hillary. With that rationale, it’s like you might as well vote for a Republican if the DNC is not going to respect the voter concerns anyway.

        Reply
        1. alphaa10 April 15, 2016

          And we desperately need to pry DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schulz away from the campaign steering wheel. This wannabe party leader single-handedly lost the interest of most of America’s prospective voters in 2014– the year we lost the senate.

          In 2014, Schulz screwed up the campaign so badly, only one in SIX prospective voters cast a vote for a Democrat. And Schulz wants to do it again in 2016.

          By now, most nominal Democrats realize Schulz is committed like a jihadi to seeing Clinton nominated by “her convention” of superdelegates. And like a maniacal jihadi, she will not be happy until her anti-leadership blows the convention apart.

          As long as Schulz hangs on, grassrooots donors are reluctant to pitch in. They understand there is not even the pretense of a democracy in the Democratic Party.

          Reply
    3. @HawaiianTater April 10, 2016

      You think Bernie should stop attacking Hillary for taking millions from Wall Street? What specific issue do you think he has attacked her on that doesn’t have a shred of evidence?

      Reply
      1. Dominick Vila April 10, 2016

        His claim, involving the allegation that Hillary is beholden to Wall Street and corporate America because she has delivered speeches to them is an assumption. There is no evidence, as far as I know, to prove that she will extend special favors to them in exchange for the fees she collected.

        Reply
        1. @HawaiianTater April 10, 2016

          Of course she extends special favor to Wall Street in exchange for the fees she collected. It’s not even the speaking fees either. They are giving money to her campaign even now. Wall Street doesn’t give money to politicians just for the fun of it. That’s not how this works. We’re not talking about just Hillary here either. Our entire government has been corrupted by big money donors.

          Examples of money influencing Hillary Clinton:

          -Takes money from Wall Street, doesn’t want to break up the big banks
          -Takes money from Wall Street, doesn’t want to reinstate Glass-Steagall
          -Clinton Foundation accepts money from Saudi Arabia, Hillary sells them weapons
          -Pitched the Iraq war as “a business opportunity for US corporations”, voted for war
          -As First Lady, she opposed a pro-corporate bankruptcy bill, convinced Bill not to sign the bill, then supported it later on as a senator after taking money from lobbyists (that one comes from Liz Warren)
          -She used to be in favor of single-payer healthcare but now opposes it after taking millions from the private healthcare industry

          I could go on but you get the point.

          Hillary and Bill have raised over 3 BILLION dollars in fundraising over the course of their careers. Tell me again how donor money doesn’t influence their decisions?

          Reply
          1. Dominick Vila April 11, 2016

            The fact that Hillary, and other politicians, as well as many Americans, don’t believe it is a good idea to break up our banks, and is not in favor of reinstating Glass-Steagall does not mean she is engaged in a quid pro quo with corporate America. We are all free to have opinions about specific issues, and act on them as we seem appropriate. I disagree with her on Glass-Steagall by the way.
            Her decision to support the invasion of Iraq is probably what bothers me the most, but we must remember the political climate that prevailed in the USA in the aftermath of 9/11 before judging her decision.
            The fact that Saudi Arabia, other countries, and philanthropists worldwide, donate large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation does not mean they expect anything in return. They simply approve of the philanthropic endeavors that Foundation is engaged in. We have been selling arms to Saudi Arabia, and many other countries, for many decades, and will probably continue to do so. Russia does the same by the way, and their arms sales have been increasing exponentially since their involvement in Syria.
            The influence of money in our political processes, and decisions, are definitely a major concern, but singling out Hillary for something as widespread and old as that is a bit of a stretch, especially when there is no tangible evidence indicating that she has been or will favor donors to her campaign or charitable foundation.

            Reply
          2. @HawaiianTater April 11, 2016

            Princeton did a study on this a few years back. We are already living in an effective oligarchy. http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4

            I’m not singling out Hillary. Our entire government is corrupt and has been for quite some time now. They do not represent the people. They represent money. What the majority of the people want has a statistically zero effect on what gets passed into law. The studies prove it. You say there is no tangible evidence but I point at the entire system as tangible evidence. Hillary is a part of that corrupt system.

            Hillary claims she has learned her lesson from Iraq but has she really? She hasn’t if you judge her by Libya and Honduras. She hasn’t if you judge her by wanting to make the same mistake all over again in Syria. Citing the political environment at the time does not excuse making the wrong decision and supporting an illegal war. Not everyone made that wrong decision. It’s easy to make the correct decision during the easy times. A true leader makes the correct decision during the difficult times.

            You’re being very naive if you think countries like Saudi Arabia gives tens of millions in charity out of the goodness of their hearts. Let’s just say for the sake of argument that they are not expecting anything in return and their donations have no correlation with Hillary’s state department selling them weapons. Even without the implied quid pro quo, I’d still have a problem with the USA selling weapons to foreign governments; especially when those weapons are then used to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians. This is not like selling weapons to say, England, who only use them for defense. Saudi Arabia killed a lot of people in Yemen with the weapons we sold to them. I have a BIG problem with that. Again, I’m not singling out Hillary because Republicans do it too.

            I’m not even holding up Bernie as an example of perfection either. I’m further to the left of him on many issues. He’s simply a step in the right direction. The right direction, being to the left, as it were. It is absolutely imperative that we get money out of politics. Without that first step, there can be no second step. We’re never going to get money out of politics by continuing to elect politicians who are a part of the corrupt establishment.

            Reply
          3. Dominick Vila April 11, 2016

            I agree with just about everything you said. Especially the pervasive influence of money on our political system, and the sale of lethal weapons to countries that often use them to suppress their own people, but I am not as naive as you think I am.
            Stopping the sale of weapons to countries that we trade with would simply hand them over to countries like Russia and China, who would be delighted to fill the void.
            The influence of money in the USA is not new. It has been an integral part of our political system for many decades. Perhaps since we became a Republic.
            I simply don’t believe that Hillary is beholden to those who donated to the Clinton Foundation, or to those who paid her heft fees to hear her opinion on matters of interest to them.

            Reply
          4. @HawaiianTater April 11, 2016

            Your last paragraph is ludicrous and not backed up with any evidence whatsoever. It’s not like the GOP is putting forth a strong candidate. They’re going to end up being stuck with Trump or Cruz. Bernie’s policies are actually popular with the American public. Theirs, not so much. Also, Bernie does better against them in every single poll taken. Not once. Not twice. In every one of them. The electability argument is not a valid one. All those attacks from the right that you are afraid of might scare those on the right but it’s not going to make the rest of the country actually vote for someone like Trump or Cruz. The idea is laughable.

            Something else you should consider is flipping Congress. Bernie crushes Hillary with the Independent vote. We’re not going to get Congress out of Republican hands without them and Hillary’s unfavorables are second only to Trump. She might be able to win the WH based on demographics and the electoral college but without the Independent vote, she’s not going to be able to flip Congress and then DC will be even more gridlocked than ever.

            You admit the “the pervasive influence of money on our political system” but then turn around and say you don’t believe Hillary is beholden to her donors. You’re contradicting yourself there, buddy. Of course politicians are beholden to their donors. Did you not read the article about the Princeton study that I cited? We’re living in an oligarchy. The rich get what the rich want and the rest of us are left to fight over table scraps. That’s just a given. And it’s not going to change unless we get money out of politics.

            I actually don’t think you’re naive. I was simply making a point. Saudi Arabia is not a nice place. They are worse than Iran in a lot of ways. They used the weapons we sold them to kill thousands in Yemen. They enforce barbaric sharia law. Just look at what they’re doing to Raif Badawi. He was sentenced to a thousand lashes and ten years in prison for blogging. These are not nice people we’re talking about here. Quite frankly, it’s a bit absurd to suggest they would donate 20 million to the Clinton Foundation and expect nothing in return. You say if we stopped selling them weapons that China and Russia would fill the void. Okay, so we go through the UN to fight against that too. We use international pressure and sanctions if we have to. If we stop arming the Middle East and stop the rest of the world too, eventually they’ll be throwing rocks at each other. We have to break the cycle at some point because what we have been doing has been an unmitigated disaster.

            The system is broken, my friend. Our foreign policy is broken internationally. Our economic system is broken at home. And our government is broken by money. Don’t you think it’s about time we tried doing things differently?

            Reply
          5. Dominick Vila April 11, 2016

            Most of the things you said are like music to my ears. You are preaching to the choir my friend.
            The only reason I am leaning for Hillary is because I believe she has a better chance than Bernie to win the WH, regardless of what the polls say, and because I think it is unrealistic to expect major changes in paradigm to take place overnight.
            I couldn’t agree more on Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan as well. Saudi Arabia was the only country with direct ties to 9/11. OBL was born there. The Saudi Wahhabi sect princes that financed the attack were all from that country, and 16 of the 19 terrorists that carried out the attack were Saudis. Not a single one of them was from Iraq.

            Reply
          6. @HawaiianTater April 11, 2016

            “The only reason I am leaning for Hillary is because I believe she has a better chance than Bernie to win the WH”

            Well, all I can tell ya is that your belief here is not backed up by the evidence. But that’s okay. Either one of them would win the WH against either Trump or Cruz. Only one would have a chance at flipping Congress and it’s not the status quo candidate. The status quo is what led us into this situation to begin with.

            Reply
          7. plc97477 April 11, 2016

            The truth of the matter is that Hillary did not vote to go to war with Iraq. Bush went to the senate and asked for permission to take on Iraq if they found proof of weapons of mass destruction and got permission. I don’t think anyone in the senate expected him to not get the proof and to lie through his teeth before starting the quagmire in Iraq.

            Reply
          8. A_Real_Einstein April 11, 2016

            Bernie and Obama did which explains why the voted against it. HRC lacks judgement especially on foreign policy.

            Reply
          9. alphaa10 April 11, 2016

            The Bush resolution for authorization of military force in Iraq was phrased like an appeal for peace, but its fundamental purpose and legislative payload was senate permission for an invasion.

            Voting for the measure– as every senator understood– meant voting to authorize military action. That includes Hillary Clinton,. who with Bill Clinton, had loudly condemned Saddam for years and called for ever-sterner military action.

            As if to make the point, after the senate approved the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, Bush and Cheney pushed past all the remaining diplomatic amenities to launch an invasion, one which had been planned for more than one year, prior. The senate measure was no diplomatic effort, but an authorization for war.

            Invasion was not contingent on finding weapons of mass destruction, but on Saddam’s failure to cooperate with UN arms inspectors. Since Saddam seemed reluctant to allow unimpeded inspection, there would have been no weapons discovery likely, which is why it never would have been a pre-condition for military action.

            Reply
          10. A_Real_Einstein April 11, 2016

            We are not talking about contributions to the Clinton foundation. We are talking about the 100,000,000 + in speaking fees that the Clintons have taken for personal income. We are taliking about the hundreds of millions that she has taken from lobbyists to fund her campaign and Superpacs. These lobbyists represent Wall Street, Health Insurance Companies, big pharma, private prisons, Monsanto. I guess I am not as naive to think this kind of money does not influence her. What did you learn when you googled Panama papers and the Podestas.

            Reply
          11. alphaa10 April 14, 2016

            People do not donate to a campaign without expecting returns.
            Politicians are known best by the donors they keep.

            These are the people who do not need to make an appointment to see a member of a select congressional committee. And whose calls are always taken.

            Reply
          12. yabbed April 11, 2016

            Wall Street is giving money to Sanders as well. The Koch brothers are funding Sanders through his SuperPac. The NRA and AIPAC are funding Sanders through his SuperPac. This nonsensical mindset that only the pure and good are sending money to Sanders is nonsense. He’s a long term professional politician who won’t release his tax returns. Hillary posted the last 8 years of her tax returns but Bernie refuses and we have to wonder why. What exactly is he hiding? That like all grubby politicians he has profited materially from public service beyond his government paycheck?

            Reply
        2. RED April 12, 2016

          So I guess you must believe that Republicans are not influenced by their donors as well unless you can prove specific quid pro quo? For instance all the Cons must just believe in denying climate science because we don’t have a contract showing donors giving money and the Con politicians agreeing to change their votes and position on climate change. The “no evidence” claim is a total scam and I generally expect more from you. It doesn’t take evidence to prove that Hillary is owned by her donors, it only take reason and common sense. Do you and others truly believe and expect us to believe that her donors are funneling her millions upon millions of dollars out of the goodness of their heart? And let’s not forget that the people who are these large donors didn’t get enormously wealthy by being generous and giving away money.

          Reply
          1. Dominick Vila April 12, 2016

            I never denied the pervasive influence of money in American politics, which is not a new phenomena.
            I have a problem with those who suddenly want to set an example by singling out the first female candidate to the presidency with the qualifications needed to do the job on day one, and the fact that the accusations are not based on tangible evidence but on suspicion of wrongdoing.
            What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Hillary has been accused and investigated of wrongdoing since she was the First Lady of Arkansas, and every time none of the charges levied against her could be proven or constituted anything close to a violation of existing laws.
            Will she protect the interests of her donors if elected? I have no idea, but if she did she will probably did it the same way her predecessors did.
            Needless to say, we have to start somewhere, and the fact that others did wrong things is not an excuse, but why did this suddenly become such a lightning rod? For that matter, why is illegal immigration such a hot topic at a time when there are more Mexicans and Central Americans leaving than those migrating to the USA?
            Hillary is being attacked because she is, by far, the most qualified candidate running for POTUS, and her opponents cannot defeat her without tarnishing her credibility and trustworthiness.

            Reply
          2. RED April 12, 2016

            I disagree with much of your comment. First, are we unable to criticize Clinton at all? Or will it always be viewed as “singling out the first female candidate for Presidency?” She is the candidate that is running, should another male candidate be attacked instead, one who is not running for the Democratic nomination? In addition, your rules of evidence seem to not apply when suggesting that criticism might be motivated by sexism. And as far as innocent until proven guilty, that is for a courtroom and those accused of a crime, it is not a defense against simple logic and reason. And as I mentioned earlier, are we to assume that Cons are also innocent until proven guilty until the planet literally becomes uninhabitable? This Sanders supporter and I think many others do not question Secretary Clinton’s intelligence or experience but we do question who’s interest she truly has in mind and we definitely believe that it is not ours, the middle class and poor. And we do not need as trial or an evidentiary hearing to make that analysis. As I said before why do you think these donors give Hillary millions of dollars? Do you really think that we need tapes of their conversations or something to recognize this? Plus, you seem to equate wrongdoing with illegality or that we are suggesting she has done something illegal. We are not suggesting that at all, I have no idea. But she doesn’t have to break the law to be in the pockets of her donors, that’s exactly what is wrong with the entire system. It’s set up so that ignoring the will of the people and putting the donors’s stealing our entire country above the needs of the people is perfectly legal because those are the people who make the rules. And that’s just a fact. We wouldn’t be hearing healthcare for all and free higher education was impossible were it not for this system. Because every other industrialized country in the world manages to do these things but somehow the United States is the dumbest country in the world and can’t manage this. They can’t do it when our politicians are wholly owned by the donor class that has no intention of releasing their death grip on the working people of this country.

            Reply
          3. Dominick Vila April 13, 2016

            We can, and should, criticize every candidate when they do or say something that is either illegal or questionable. In Hillary’s case, she is being criticized because she is an intelligent and successful woman who had the audacity to deliver speeches to people who want to hear her opinion on matters of interest.

            Reply
  10. bikejedi April 10, 2016

    C’mon now . If it has anything to do with Trade Economics or Taxes do you really think Sanders would know. The only thing he understands about Taxes is that he wants to tax everyone at 100% and go full Commie

    Reply
    1. Ginger April 10, 2016

      We are already like a communist country, with our controlled media trying to cover up for the likes of Obama and Hillary, and the rest of the elite establishment in both parties. Bernie Sanders is not communist, and we already have things in our system that all he is talking about doing is expanding. Ever heard of Medicare? It’s only been around for the past 50 years, and the people on Medicare love it. Unlike Obamacare, which is an utter failure and is merely a way for Obama to funnel billions of dollars over to private, for profit insurance companies that are raking in big bucks on the expansion of Medicaid. And, lets look at expansion of public education that Bernie is proposing. Is it communism that we already have public elementary and high schools, and we also already have public colleges and universities, all paid for by the taxpayers. Yet, we still have students having to take out huge student loans to attend these same public colleges and universities. Why? Because many of them are paying up to $5 million per year salary to their football and/or basketball coaches. Most countries around the world offer their citizens low cost or no cost public college education. This is why foreigners can come here with their medical degrees and no student loan debt, so they are free to earn money without having the debt held over their heads. We are really killing the next generation with debt. Why do you think so many millennials favor Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton? And, if we’re saving so much money by not doing these things, why are we approaching $20 trillion in debt, after Obama raised the debt ceiling twice since being in office, and a huge percentage of that debt is just paying the interest rate on the debt. We are not saving money on healthcare with Obamacare, and the Obamacare plans are not portable, and we end up spending huge percentages just on administrative costs each time a person changes jobs, moves out of state, or loses their job and people have to keep changing insurance or going without insurance. And, companies don’t want to pay for full time staff anymore due to fear of having to deal with Obamacare. So, tell me the benefits we are currently getting, and what will Hillary do to improve any of this? Nothing.

      Reply
      1. bikejedi April 10, 2016

        Well I can agree with some of that. The media does cover up for Obama and Hillary . Bernie can call himself what he wants but you have to be able to read behind the lines. He claims he is a Democratic Socialist as if there are so he carying degrees of that ideology. Venezuela is Democratic Socialism for God Sakes and Marx as well as Lenin tell you the only goal of Socialism is Communism . All of Sanders political heroes are failed Communists that should tell you all you need to know . Obamacare is a Trainwreck and while people getting Medicaid might like it they arent liking that their bennies keep getting cut . Also it is costing eco more than anyone ever projected and will become unsustainable Obamacare does screw Medicaid and both are unsustainable so why vote Dem . I would go for a single oayer based on a sales tax . As for Education the Dems would like to make Universities like K through 12 with more Public Union Teachers . Chicago has the highest paid large system Public Union Teachers in America and they produce such horrid results people move out of Chicago. Even though they are the highest paid they call illegal strikes and block traffic for thrir nieghbors who paybtheir wages and make half of what they make . Is that what you want Nationwide ? Powered by Cricket Wireless.

        ——– Original message ——–

        Reply
    2. yabbed April 10, 2016

      The income redistribution plan Sanders ran on when he was trying to get elected on the Socialist Party ticket was only for a 90% tax rate. Of course he was campaigning to confiscate the Rockefeller family fortune so maybe he thought that would make up the difference. 🙂

      Reply
      1. bikejedi April 10, 2016

        Every other Socialist Nation in the World proves their is never enough money . Socialism deincentivizes production or being a producer because it always takes more and more from the working person to subsidize the non working person until you are Venezuela or Greece. . I’m glad you get it Yabbed

        Powered by Cricket Wireless.

        ——– Original message ——–

        Reply
        1. alphaa10 April 14, 2016

          You need to look further into what led the Greek economy into disaster– and it was not failure to observe rigorous self-discipline.

          Monied interests which attended birth of the EU saw a golden opportunity to profit with loans to Greece, Spain and Italy, ostensibly to bring “backward” southern European economies into synchronization with the dominant industrial nations.

          The loans proffered were essentially impossible to pay from the start, since they were based on false, if not intentionally misleading statements from some of the same financial interests which also were busy selling sub-prime mortgages as AAA in the US.

          Your mythology about socialism and “disincentive” ignores the experience of northern Europe where the state works cooperatively with private industry to achieve one of the highest standards of living in the world.

          Reply
          1. bikejedi April 14, 2016

            Like Denmark which has the highest middle class taxes in Europe and where they have a Vat Tax on top of that ? Where you started Socialism with a homogenous population of people with good work ethics who grew up to be producers and it’s already starting to fail under the weight of debt ? That Denmark ? Where you pay 180% tax on a car so everyone is relegated to bicycles ??That Denmark ? Where they can’t afford their Socialism even though the US provides for their National Defense and they have no real defense bud get …That Denmark ?.. Socialism has never succeeded anywhere in history overtime because as Ms. Thatcher pointed out dinner or later you run out of other people’s money .

            Powered by Cricket Wireless.

            ——– Original message ——–

            Reply
          2. alphaa10 April 14, 2016

            Your concern– repeated as often as possible– is government taxes are too high. But there is a problem with that argument, because the people of Europe (and even the recipients of Social Security and Medicare in the USA), believe government in a democracy must work for the people and their economic interests.

            As radical is it may seem, they find it easier to trust and pay for basic government services and programs than a patchwork of private, often corrupt, inefficient, third-party providers– as George Bush and the GOP discovered, after asking them.

            Contrary to Mrs. Thatcher, people in socialist systems are willing to pay for what they get. Put another way, you cannot condemn their system of taxes and yet claim they do not want to pay for their preferred social order.

            But it goes much deeper than that. Those who believe the core of society is the solitary, rugged individual must steadfastly reject all the evidence about them that their own upbringing and all they have achieved depends on the society of others.

            That is, without others, we ourselves are impoverished, and conversely, with others, we are enriched. The corollary is direct and simple– a thriving economy is the fullest exchange of goods and services among all members of a social system, and not when 40 percent of profits are concentrated in One Percent of the few.

            Reply
          3. bikejedi April 15, 2016

            Medicare is operating at a rate 10x higher than ANYONE ever projected and that was before obamacare gutted it. Social Security is insolvent are you sure those are the examples you want to cite ??? The people of Denmark are already balking at the tax rates as they pedal their bikes through the snow.. Have you seen the riots in Venezuela lately ?

            Powered by Cricket Wireless.

            ——– Original message ——–

            Reply
    3. alphaa10 April 11, 2016

      Just curious– are either you or yabbed planning to support the GOP nominee?

      Reply
      1. bikejedi April 12, 2016

        It’s real simple Hillary is a Socialist criminal who can’t be trusted who will not put American interests first. Bernie’s only pitch is vote for me and everyone gets everything for free .He is mathematically and economically challenged. He is either lying to his supporters or will bankrupt all future generations forever . Both GOP candidates will put American interests first .

        Powered by Cricket Wireless.

        ——– Original message ——–

        Reply
        1. jmprint April 12, 2016

          Yes right in their pocket book.

          Reply
  11. A_Real_Einstein April 10, 2016

    Everybody Google Podesta Panama papers. Bernie was right for being against the Panama trade deal. Typical BS from the Clinton political machine and Joe (I am on the Clinton payroll ) Conason. You are reading propaganda not journalism. You are being played. HRC has no interest or desire to fix a corrupt political system or rigged economy that she has totally benefited from. Bernie is clearly our Progressive savior much like the last Jewish socialist that we crucified 2000 years ago.

    Reply
    1. bromeando April 11, 2016

      Boy do you need help.

      Reply
  12. CrankyToo April 10, 2016

    The National Memo’s specious commentary on Senator Sanders campaign and its excessive adulation of Mrs. Clinton are breathtakingly transparent. In my view, the editors have lost all credibility in their coverage of the Democratic primary. They’re obviously and blatantly skewing their reporting so as to discourage Bernie’s supporters. Shame.

    Reply
    1. Ginger April 10, 2016

      CrankyToo, that’s the same thing I was thinking. This is very biased reporting, and ridiculous as well. Right, the Panama trade deal was good for America and all of the trade deals are wonderful for America. Right. This is why I recommend people not depend on these media sources and get your information from various non-biased sources. Our government and media have gotten very scary lately. We seem to be moving towards a very controlled system where it’s very difficult to get the truth from mainstream sources anymore. Are you all being paid for by the Obama Administration and the elite establishment of both the DNC and RNC? Seems like it.

      Reply
      1. @HawaiianTater April 10, 2016

        Propaganda is a powerful tool. Some produce it with intent. Others produce it because they are already brainwashed by the establishment propaganda.

        Reply
        1. Juliadomalley2 April 11, 2016

          “my room mate Maria Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr.”….i!351two days ago new Silver McLaren P2 bought after earning 18,512 Dollars,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k Dollars Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with. extra open doors &. weekly. paychecks… it’s realy the simplest. work. I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. 87 Dollars, p/h.Learn. More right Herei!351➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsProjectGetPaidHourly98$…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::i!351…….

          Reply
          1. yabbed April 11, 2016

            Reported as spam.

            Reply
    2. @HawaiianTater April 10, 2016

      As shown by this article, they’ve gone beyond bias to the point of outright making stuff up.

      Reply
  13. yabbed April 10, 2016

    The Sanders campaign clearly realizes he cannot win. Staying in just shows his immature, irrational temperament and his addiction to fame and fortune. If he were a serious candidate he would release his tax returns. The NY Daily News editorial board calling him seriously ignorant of government and policy was a big time blow to Bernie’s inflated ego. He has nothing to offer but platitudes yelled at the top of his lungs. Bernie needs to go on home now and have a rest. It’s over. Hillary has won.

    Reply
    1. alphaa10 April 11, 2016

      The platitudes are all yours. Anyone who has heard Sanders speak on economic justice has no doubt of his understanding of the problem.

      To quote the New Daily News (editorial board) view that Sanders is “ignorant of government and policy” is to ignore the Sen. Clinton who did nothing to challenge numerous assaults on consumers by the banking and credit card industry, who voted tax relief for fossil fuel industry, and who voted for invasion of Iraq.

      To say nothing of the ignorance, if not also indifference of the Secretary of State who was ready to sign-off on the Keystone XL pipeline, until the public clamor embarrassed even Obama.

      When the TPP was discussed, Clinton’s only objection was the measure did not provide relief to American workers economically injured. Such economic relief consists of jobs retraining, the laughable equivalent of tending the wounded and burying the dead, but not decisive action to halt the frontal assault TPP would unleash on behalf of multinational corporate interests.

      Which interests, for their part, show a deadly cunning in their own understanding of government and policy. Of the two candidates, Wall Street clearly prefers Hillary Clinton. Yes, the same folks who brought us economic scandal and disaster in 2008-2008, from which many have yet to recover.

      Reply
      1. bromeando April 11, 2016

        Show me the money.

        Reply
        1. alphaa10 April 14, 2016

          Don’t look now, but The Money is behind you, not the reformers. That should tell you a great deal..

          Reply
  14. alphaa10 April 11, 2016

    “DELUSIONAL”?
    ———————
    Within the past 48 hours, there has been a concerted media attack on Sanders by outlets which might once have been considered progressive. First, Daily Kos announced a few Sanders insiders had confessed doubt about Sanders (“Delusion Sets In at Camp Sanders”).

    And now, The National memo takes up the attack. essentially recycling the same material, as though it were a “re-write service” for a public relations agency.

    Yet, who is delusional? Sanders began his campaign fully aware of the odds against challenging the entrenched DNC central committee, and its overt bias for Hillary Clinton.

    More to the point, “delusional” was the cry of the same DNC about the upstart campaign in 2008 of Barack Obama, who challenged– and won– against DNC-backed Hillary Clinton. Doubtless, Obama was very unfamiliar to most voters at the beginning of his own campaign.

    Sen. Sanders, by contrast, has wide name recognition and a great deal of well-earned respect for promotion of economic justice in America. The Sanders campaign continues to grow, as voters understand his message goes to the heart of our national malaise about our economic future, and the role of government in securing equity and justice.

    In fact, Sanders’ voting record leaves him head-and-shoulders
    above the competition. Sanders’ indictment of the status quo–
    as in his 2010 speech on the senate floor– was delivered years
    before anybody else addressed the same complex of issues–

    http://www.commondreams.org/video/2012/06/27-0

    Sanders consistently has set the expectations of this campaign,
    and his refusal to be sidetracked into a “horse-race” with
    Clinton shows his deeper commitment to the very issues that
    should drive public debate, and the election, itself.

    Reply
    1. bromeando April 11, 2016

      They’re wising up to Sanders’ crackpot lies.

      Reply
  15. yabbed April 17, 2016

    Sanders displays his ignorance over and over again. The editorial board at the NY Daily News said his ignorance of government and his lack of substance on any issue was astonishing in a man who wants to be President of the most powerful and important country in the world. Bernie is a platitude guy but he has no clue about what comes after the shouting. He’s like any unruly Bolshevik who just wants to chop off heads better than his out of an inherent anger that takes us no where but into utter diminishment. Bernie is a lifelong loser who spreads discord and uproar and has no where to take the unruly mob he creates.

    Reply
  16. alfred e newman April 17, 2016

    charge big business with mass murder they have tired driver laws for truck drivers they should have them for factory workers as well big business is commits mass murder every day and gets away with it by forcing we the political prisoners of the united soviet america to work excessive long hours far more factory workers cause fatal traffic accidents than do truck drivers meth is on the raise in factories blurry eyed political prisoners have to stay awake some how yet the company gets away with murder cold and calculated it cost the exact same with time and a half to have 3 political prisoners work 8 hours a day as it dose to force 2 political prisoners to work 12 or more hours a day to keep the unemployment rate high and wages low they would rather torture 2 than hire 3 and when they die of exhaustion or fall asleep behind the wheel it is not big business fault even tho they forced some poor political prisoner to work massive amounts of over time this is what you should make illegal

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.