Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, January 13, 2020

Something's happening with Bernie Sanders that looked unlikely to many a few months ago: Progressive leaders and organizations are lining up behind him, not Elizabeth Warren, in the lead-up to voting.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

No wonder Warren is freaking out over Bernie right now.

#1 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2020-01-13 02:41 PM | Reply

Dream Defenders, which advocates for people of color "

Advocates for abolishing the police and prisons. Yeah, you go with that Bernie. See ya in November.

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-13 03:21 PM | Reply

Bernie campaign slams Warren as candidate of the elite
www.politico.com

This is getting good. The socialist with 3 dachas attacking the Harvard professor.

#3 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-13 03:56 PM | Reply

Warren strikes back.

"Elizabeth Warren Accuses Bernie Sanders Of Playing Dirty, Trashing' Her In Iowa

#4 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-13 05:16 PM | Reply

When will the DNC get involved?

#5 | Posted by 6thPersona at 2020-01-13 08:55 PM | Reply

Huh, according to a number of Fauxcohauntus' fan club here on the DR, all the proggies were going to flock to Warren, at which point she would have over 60% support...

#6 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-13 09:19 PM | Reply

Some thing Bernie is the best candidate to beat Trump (like Michael Moore, who predicted Trump winning in 2016). He things the strategy should be to go more left, not middle.

I still believe a Biden/Klobuchar ticket would be a terrific pairing.

#7 | Posted by brass30 at 2020-01-13 10:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#7

Too white/straight for the puritopians, I think Biden/Kamala or Biden/Buttigeig would be more to the base's liking.

#8 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-13 10:23 PM | Reply

The only down side to Bernie is that free college is going to destroy the stripper industry... but I support the idea. America could thrive in the new high tech world with future generations being unlimited in opportunity.

#9 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2020-01-13 10:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

free college is going to destroy the stripper industry

That truly made me laugh out loud.

Well done.

#10 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-01-13 10:32 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Biden/Buttigeig

Middle America voting for a gay man even less likely than them voting for a Jew.

Either identify doesn't matter to me, as long as they soak the rich. Don't think that's what Biden or Buttigeig will do. Sanders will.

#11 | Posted by dibblda at 2020-01-14 02:02 AM | Reply

"Either identify doesn't matter to me, as long as they soak the rich."

Soak the rich?

You mean make them pay your bills?

#12 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-14 03:34 AM | Reply

"You mean make them pay your bills?"

I mean make them pay their bills after decades of legalized thievery and tax evasion.

#13 | Posted by dibblda at 2020-01-14 04:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I mean make them pay their bills after decades of legalized thievery and tax evasion."

The top 1% of taxpayers already pay more than 37% of the total tax burden. That's a larger percentage than the bottom 90% of taxpayers, who only paid only 30.5%.

They also paid a higher tax rate (26.3%) than the bottom 50%, which paid 3.7%.

So it's pretty dishonest to say that high income earners are shirking their duty, when they're not only paying a higher rate, but shouldering a huge amount of the overall burden when compared to your median household taxpayer.

Doesn't it seem to you that those paying 3.7% are shirking their duty to a much larger degree than those paying 26%?

#14 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-14 05:13 AM | Reply

You want the government to pay for things and someone else to pay for the government.

#15 | Posted by visitor_ at 2020-01-14 07:47 AM | Reply

I think we should all pay, though low income earners should get somewhat of a reprieve. But we should have first world services in the richest country in the world, and a first world tax policy to pay for it.

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-14 07:55 AM | Reply

Well that's a source of conflict because I want less government and I'm only willing to pay for a minimal system.

#17 | Posted by visitor_ at 2020-01-14 08:19 AM | Reply

I think we should all pay...

#16 | POSTED BY JOE

I completely agree. Our tax code is a joke. People who profess to want big government should be forced to fully fund it. No way we should be running hundreds of billions in deficits with a roaring economy. There is not remotely enough money in the top bracket to fund all of this. I'm not clowning - we need to increase taxes in all brackets and we need to raise FICA a half point on both sides and increase the cap by $5k. When people are forced to actually pay for our federal government maybe they will begin to take the bloat seriously. I remember when GAO was created. Their study found that $350 Billion annually is wasted through multiple agencies providing the same services, administrative bloat, etc. They found pure waste and, to the best of my knowledge, nothing has changed. Nothing.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-14 08:27 AM | Reply

I've mentioned this before but my last 3 years of school (2 1/2 maybe, I forget) were entirely paid for by federal and state grants. Since then I've made many more times what I would have otherwise and the difference in tax revenue generated by me with a degree vs me without one has more than made up for the cost of the original outlay. Free tuition for state colleges is the smart way to go, and I predict that if we go that route the costs of private education will go down as the private schools lose a small but not insignificant number of applicants who would choose a free state school over decades of debt to pay back loans.

#19 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-01-14 08:33 AM | Reply

#18 I feel like you ignored the second part of the sentence you quoted, but whatever. If conservatives would actually allow things like single-payer healthcare, a first-world paid family leave policy, and functioning infrastructure, and the tradeoff was we had to tax poor people, i'd make the deal. And probably repeal the tax on poor people as soon as conservatives are voted out of power ;)

That said, i agree with the rest of your post. Tax cuts in a booming economy are a joke, and so is our healthcare bureaucracy.

#20 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-14 08:36 AM | Reply

"I think we should all pay, though low income earners should get somewhat of a reprieve."

They get a huge reprieve according to the IRS.

"But we should have first world services in the richest country in the world, and a first world tax policy to pay for it."

So you're looking for a 20%-25% Value added tax then.

#21 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-14 09:29 AM | Reply

"#18 I feel like you ignored the second part of the sentence you quoted, but whatever. If conservatives would actually allow things like single-payer healthcare"

Single payer as Bernie is proposing? One that bans private healthcare? No European country does that.

"a first-world paid family leave policy"

How much of a tax increase are you ready to eat in order to fund that.

#22 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-14 09:31 AM | Reply

They get a huge reprieve according to the IRS.

And i was saying they still should in the event we increase government services to match the wealthiness of our nation and the strength of our economy.

Single payer as Bernie is proposing? One that bans private healthcare? No European country does that.

If you're going to criticize Bernie for not being European enough, then let's settle on a compromise and emulate somewhere like Germany, Norway or the Netherlands down to the letter.

How much of a tax increase are you ready to eat in order to fund that.

As much as it takes to convert our nation into one in line with the first world and one that recognizes both the human and capitalist benefits of paid leave, because i'm not a greedy POS.

#23 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-14 09:40 AM | Reply

"Free tuition for state colleges is the smart way to go, and I predict that if we go that route the costs of private education will go down as the private schools lose a small but not insignificant number of applicants who would choose a free state school over decades of debt to pay back loans."

What do you mean by "free college?"

Like, any 18 year old can take an additional 4-12 years off at taxpayer expense?

Here in Germany, higher education is paid for by the government...after the government selects you to attend college. About 28% of German students are approved to attend college. Why? Because the German government doesn't want to waste tax dollars on providing an education that isn't going to result in a net gain for society. And if you're not selected, you're not going to get to go to college.

I think expanding education opportunities for students interested in under-represented areas such as STEM or medicine is a great idea. Using taxpayer dollars to pay for someone's degree in sociology or interpretive dance might just be a large waste of money, unless the markets are hurting for graduates with those skills.

#24 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-14 09:42 AM | Reply

"If you're going to criticize Bernie for not being European enough, then let's settle on a compromise and emulate somewhere like Germany, Norway or the Netherlands down to the letter."

You could literally choose any of those, although France and Netherlands seems to have done the best. A big part of why they are successful is that they are hybrid systems. And in the case of the Netherlands, it's not provided by the government artificially restricting pay to doctors and healthcare providers.

Bernie's plan is closer to something you would find in Cuba. Very, very authoritarian, as it would result in the government dictating how healthcare was allocated. It doesn't take a whole lot of critical thought to flesh out what that dumpster fire would look like.

#25 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-14 09:45 AM | Reply

"As much as it takes to convert our nation into one in line with the first world and one that recognizes both the human and capitalist benefits of paid leave, because i'm not a greedy POS."

It kinda seems like you are.

You're demanding that an employer or taxpayer spend more for less, with no additional benefit to the employer or taxpayer.

#26 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-14 09:46 AM | Reply

Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll

www.reuters.com

#27 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-14 09:51 AM | Reply

Meanwhile the NY Times is attacking Sanders for his previous, sensible position on illegal immigration. Never mind that Sanders has caved to the open borders crowd.

pjmedia.com

#28 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-14 10:04 AM | Reply

You're demanding that an employer or taxpayer spend more for less, with no additional benefit to the employer or taxpayer.

That's how civilized societies operate, but you're wrong on both counts anyways. It benefits the employer by keeping more talented employees in the labor pool, and it benefits the taxpayer if and when they need to use family leave.

You may want to disregard the human side of labor, but it exists and is to the benefit of everyone to acknowledge that.

#29 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-14 10:05 AM | Reply

"Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll"

It's incredibly easy for one to vote for a tax increase that doesn't affect them. We saw that in the outrage over the SALT deductions, which were basically the elimination of a tax cut for the rich.

#30 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-14 10:33 AM | Reply

"That's how civilized societies operate, but you're wrong on both counts anyways. It benefits the employer by keeping more talented employees in the labor pool, and it benefits the taxpayer if and when they need to use family leave."

I'm not saying that employers should or shouldn't provide family leave any more than they should or shouldn't provide any other benefit. What I am saying is that the government shouldn't be telling an employer that they can or cannot provide a benefit.

"You may want to disregard the human side of labor, but it exists and is to the benefit of everyone to acknowledge that."

I don't feel like I disregard or regard labor any more than I disregard or regard the other factors of production.

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-14 10:36 AM | Reply

What I am saying is that the government shouldn't be telling an employer that they can or cannot provide a benefit.

In that case, we can go back to having no benefits at all, since we've witnessed what corporations do to employees when given their druthers. You may want America to look like that - i don't.

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-14 02:15 PM | Reply

My first choice is Warren. But I would prefer Sanders over Biden. And if it is going to be a so-called 'moderate', I would prefer Klobuchar over Biden. But, in the end, I think it is likely to be Biden. At least it won't be Bloomberg or Gabbard.

#33 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-14 03:22 PM | Reply

It'll be Obama.

#34 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-01-14 05:10 PM | Reply

"In that case, we can go back to having no benefits at all, since we've witnessed what corporations do to employees when given their druthers."

I'll need you to explain to me how, in the absence of the government directing employers provide benefits, they're going to be able to compete for the best employees.

If an employer needs to fill a position in order to conduct operations, they're going to have to provide better compensation than the other firms competing for that individual. And they're going to have to maintain that relationship, keeping said worker happy, especially as new opportunities emerge.

#35 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-15 02:57 AM | Reply

At what point does Warren play the sexist/misogynist card or the native American-phobe card?

The next time Sanders holds an outdoor rally I think Warren should sneak over there and do an Indian rain-dance to evoke a thunderstorm.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-15 07:33 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort