The Bitchy Pundit: ‘Bernie Sanders is Rich’

Source:U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders- Maybe Senator Sanders had himself in mind when he made this statement.

Source:The New Democrat

“I’m going to veer off course for a minute to say that I don’t believe that any society should allow billionaires to happen. Billionaires are toxic to a society because they can’t spend a big enough percentage of their money to actually help an economy. Millionaires on the other hand, are great for societies and I’m all for creating more of them. Millionaires are in that sweet spot of having enough money to spend on significant amounts of consumer goods and investing just the right amount to help seed businesses. But millionaires aren’t rich enough to play fast and loose with their investments, since it can all disappear overnight. They are not (for example) rich enough to create mortgage backed securities or naked credit default swaps. I believe that our tax code should be designed to stop anyone from becoming a billionaire, just like it was for nearly forty years. We need a top tax rate of 90% not only to prevent billionaires from happening, but also to force reinvestment in American companies. There’s no point in looting a company if you’re going to have to pay 90% of what you loot back to the government.”

From The Bitchy Pundit

"Jimmy Fallon's monologue from Wednesday, April 10, plus Hodor from Game of Thrones remixes pop hits, like Lady Gaga's "Shallow."

Source:The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon- Jimmy Fallon: not a fan of Senator Bernie Sanders hypocrisy on wealth. 

From The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon

Just to respond to The Bitchy Pundit: saying that she is OK with millionaires, but thinks billionaires should be outlawed, in other words being rich is OK, it’s superrich that’s the problem: that’s like calling someone a little fat, or saying they have a slight drinking problem: “Tom and Susan, only get drunk twice a week, three times during a holiday. Bob, is only 20 pounds overweight, but that doesn’t make him obese. Jane, is a little pregnant, but it’s not like she’s going to have the baby tomorrow.” I mean do the really have to wait for the extreme to happen before we call a problem a problem and say if we act now, it won’t become a major issue later on?

I mean, if you really think that wealth is a problem and people being independently wealthy is a problem, than why attack billionaires, but leave the millionaires alone? You don’t think people who are worth 20, 50, 100 million dollars aren’t investing their money oversees and doing what they can to avoid high taxation in America? If you do, you’re not that familiar with our tax code and our economic system and economy.

This is not about Bernie Sanders being rich in the sense that being rich and wealthy is a bad thing, simply because  I don’t believe wealth and being rich are bad things. Otherwise I would be a Socialist myself. This is about a Socialist from Vermont who before 2019 was the only self-described Socialist in Congress ( but not the only Socialist ) who is only famous in America because he’s spent his entire Congressional career ( House and Senate ) demonizing what he is which is rich and wealthy. We’re talking about a man who is a multi-millionaire who’ll never have to work again ( thanks to his personal wealth and taxpayer funded Congressional pension ) who attacks the wealthy in America simply because they’re wealthy and use their money and connections to avoid paying high taxes.

Bernie Sanders attacking someone for being wealthy, is like an alcoholic speaking out about the dangers of heroin and cocaine. And perhaps doing that while they’re drunk. Perhaps when they’re sober, they’re not as hypocritical. And if we ever see that person sober, maybe we’ll know for sure how hypocritical they are. A smoker who bashes people for eating junk food. Or the radical hippie vegan, who calls someone an animal killer because they eat cheeseburgers and calls people animal killers for eating meat while wearing a leather jacket. If there’s any one thing that American voters hate the most about politicians other than they are politicians to begin with and just hate their profession, it’s hypocrisy.

Socialists, like to say that America has socialism for the rich and capitalism for everyone else. Meaning that we subsidize wealth in this country and don’t do much as a society at least the government for people who are poor. They have a point there, but the problem that they have is that they might have had one of their icons in mind in Bernie Sanders, when they argue that.

If Bernie Sanders really was as Socialist and believed in socialism as much as he claims he does, he wouldn’t be a millionaire to begin with. He would just live off of his Congressional salary, while donating his wealth to his favorite charities like Uncle Sam. Because Socialists don’t believe in material wealth and believe that people should just have enough money to live a quality life and not have to be poor of course, but not be rich either, while Big Government takes care of the rest of what we need to live well. At our expense, of course.

When it comes to politicians, Bernie Sanders is about honest as they come. Which I know sounds like saying Joe is the best hockey player to ever come out of El Paso, Texas. Or Mary is the best ballet dancer to ever come out of Mobile, Alabama. But generally speaking I get the impression when Senator Sanders says something and proposes something, he actually believes what he’s saying. But when it comes to wealth in America and being rich, Bernie now sounds like Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Jane Fonda, or any other so-called Hollywood Leftists who attacks people simply for being what they are, which is rich and financially successful in America thanks to American capitalism, while they attack our capitalist economic system. It’s more than a little much and more like enough to make people vomit when they hear that hypocrisy.

POLITICO Magazine: Paul Starr: Why Democrats Should Beware Bernie Sanders’ Socialism

Source:Democratic Socialists of America with a look at U.S. Senate Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat

The main point I get from Paul Starr’s column are the differences between socialism and liberalism. And they’re not the same thing whether you’re talking about communism which of course is different from liberalism. Because liberalism is based on individual rights and equality of opportunity. Communism is based on the collective and what is best is for everyone in society generally. Or democratic socialism which again is based on the collective, but through democratic means. Instead of having the state completely in control of society.

Hillary Clinton actually gave a great definition of what economic liberalism is at the South Carolina townhall on Tuesday. Where she said she wants an economy where everyone can succeed and make the most out of their potential and be able to enjoy the rewards of that. I’m paraphrasing here, but that is very close. Socialists again are interested in welfare rights and the collective. An economy where no one has to go without the necessities to live well in life and where no one who works should have to live in poverty. Socialists aren’t so much interested in individual opportunity, as they are economic equality where everyone is the same and no one is rich or poor. Because they believe individual freedom leads to income inequality and people becoming super rich and they see that as bad things.

What Bernie Sanders wants to do is apply the Scandinavian economic model to the United States. The whole region of Scandinavia is roughly twenty-five-million people. With a lot of land and a lot of natural resources, including resources that Social Democrats tend not to be in favor of like oil and gas. And they invest heavily in those resources and use them to finance their welfare states. Along with high income and consumption taxes, but as Paul Starr said low taxes on capital and business, trade. Senator Sanders wants to bring the Scandinavian model of taxation and welfare, to a country of three-hundred-twenty-million people that still imports oil and gas to power this huge country. But have taxes in general much higher than Nordic Socialists would ever even dream of.

Socialists are interested in Utopia and creating some perfect world where there’s no such things as sickness, poverty, war, bigotry, crime, etc. Liberals want the real world to work for as many people as humanly possible. And for everyone to be able to live their own dream in life and be productive and live in freedom. Quality education and infrastructure for all. a tax system that encourages economic success, a safety net that empower people to get on their feet and not to live off of taxpayers indefinitely, a regulatory state that protects workers and consumers, as well as business’s from predators. But doesn’t try to protect people from themselves. Which is why Liberals are still Center-Left in America, but Center-Right in Europe and other places. While Socialists are still considered Far-Left in America. Because of their heavy reliance on central planning and central government.

Plato Shrugs: The Suspension of Disbelief: Bernie Sanders as President

Source:Plato Shrugs-

Source:The Daily Review

I disagree with the blogger who wrote this piece over at Plato Shrugs on two key points. And I think we probably agree on the rest. But Bernie Sanders, is not the ‘liberal Ron Paul’. Bernie, is the Democratic version of Rick Santorum. Rick, being the Far-Right Big Government Neoconservative Republican, who even flirted with the idea of outlawing gambling from the Federal level. To go along with outlawing pornography and same-sex marriage in 2012. Bernie, might be liberal compared with Rick, but who isn’t. That would be like saying a politician is consistent compared with Mitt Romney. Or someone is short compared Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, or Yao Ming. You know, who isn’t. You might have to send out a search party to find anyone who isn’t consistent, or short compared with these people.

Rick Santorum, represents the Far-Right fringe of the Republican Party. The Christian-Right and Neoconservative wing of that party. Bernie Sanders, represents the Far-Left Socialist wing of the Democratic Party. That wants to transform this Center-Left party that I’m proud to be a member of, into the Democratic Socialist Party. Where what’s mine and what’s yours, is no longer mine and yours, but now subjected to our nightmare of an Uncle Sam. To decide for everyone what we should have and be forced to give up. And I’m talking about money here and not physical property. Because Bernie is not a Communist but a Democratic Socialist who wants a big centralized national government. To go along with a highly taxed and regulated private sector.

I also disagree with Plato about Bernie Sanders having no shot and even being a long shot to win the Democratic nomination. Bernie, has been an underdog his whole life starting with being the son of poor Jewish-European immigrants in 1940s New York. And then making it all the way through college in the 1960s and being part of the civil rights movement. To becoming Mayor of Burlington, Vermont in the 1980s as an Independent Socialist. To being elected to the U.S. House in 1990 and being reelected there seven times. To being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006, again as an Independent Socialist. To being reelected there in 2012. The longest-serving Independent in Congress in his 26th year in Congress. To underestimate Bernie and root for his defeat. Is like sticking your hand in a full shark tank with your eyes close. Not worth the risk.

The Democratic Party has had a socialist wing in it and mostly democratic socialist, since the late 1960s with the emergence of the New-Left. And you could go back to the 1940s with Henry Wallace and others and people who worked for the Roosevelt Administration. The Democrats have always had a wing that believes American capitalism is immoral, that wealth and success are selfish. That the only such thing as the people’s money is money that belongs to Uncle Sam to give out to his nieces and nephews in allowances. That believes masculinity is somehow bad and that men are inferior to women. That there’s no such thing as racism towards Caucasians and perhaps even the wrong country won the Cold War. And now this movement is big enough starting with Occupy Wall Street in 2011 to have a major presidential candidate who represents them.

And I’m not putting Bernie down, because I actually personally like the man and respect him for his honesty and actually believing in what he says and his politics. And fighting all of those losing battles in Congress for over twenty-years as a result. There’s something to respect about a person whose willing to fight the lost causes, because he believes they’re right and everyone else is stupid. Sort of like the Chicago Cubs fan who refuses to root another club, because they can’t move on from the Cubs even after 50-100 years of praying for another World Series championship. Or watching games at some place other than Wrigley Field. But not only that, Bernie is a moderate compared with most of his supporters. He’s the liberal in the movement who believes in free speech and even Freedom of Choice when it comes to social issues. And not down with fascist political correctness movement on the New-Left.

So when you think of Bernie Sanders for president think of Uncle Sam, but change the name to Bernie. Our new Uncle Bernie who our parents sent us to, because they were tired of dealing with us and all of our demands that they simply couldn’t afford and we didn’t deserve anyway. So they send us to our father’s brother lets say to take care of us and we think that is going to be horrible until we get there. But then we’re there and Uncle Bernie has all of these goodies for us that he says are free. Until we find out that we’re doing all sorts of chores around the house (meaning taxes) to pay for all of these supposed goodies. That is Bernie Sanders for president. A Democratic Socialist who’ll promise you everything that you’ll pay for. As well as more stuff that you don’t want or need. And leave you with a tax bill for that as well.

Eldridge Edison: U.S. Representative Bernie Sanders on The Earned Income Tax Credit in 1993

Source:Eldridge Eddison- U.S. Representative Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat

Anyone who actually interested in helping to move people out of poverty in America would be in favor of the Earned Income Tax Credit. Unless you're an Ayn Randian who says that government has no role in dealing with poverty in America. Why? Because the EITC encourages low-income and low-skilled adults to actually work and not just get, or stay on Welfare, or Unemployment Insurance. Because it takes roughly twenty-million people off of the Federal income tax rolls and tell those workers that if they work, they won't have to pay Federal income taxes and instead get about two-thousand-dollars back in the paychecks every year. Which of course they'll spend, because they can't afford not to, because they have bills that have to be paid and struggling just to survive to begin with.

If you're against the EITC from either a Far-Right perspective where you believe that government has no role in dealing with poverty, or that everyone should pay income taxes even if they can't afford it, or come from a Far-Left perspective in opposition that says big government is entitled to tax all income and that government should encourage people to work, because that would just encourage independence from government, then of course you would be against the EITC. But the two most successful as well as bipartisan policies that have passed Congress and were signed by the President in the last forty-years, are the EITC and the 1996 Welfare to Work Law. Because again both policies encourage people to work. And says that being low-skilled and being low-skilled with kids, is not a good enough excuse to go to work and at least try to take care of yourself.

Washington Free Beacon: This Week With George Stephanopoulos: Bernie Sanders On Tax Policy

Source:Washington Free Beacon- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat

"Bernie Sanders Promises To Raise Taxes On All Americans"

From the Washington Free Beacon

ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos, with his questioning here did a very good job at getting Senator Bernie Sanders to admit that everyone’s taxes will have to go up if you want to pay for all the Senator’s new Federal programs without borrowing the money from Russia, Saudi Arabia, or China. Because we’re talking about trillions of new Federal spending to pay for his new programs. 

Medicare For All alone, would be a couple trillion a year because now the U.S. Government would become the sole provider for health insurance in America. We have a population now pushing three-hundred and twenty-million people and we’re only getting bigger.

And Senator Sanders can say he wants to tax the rich all he wants to pay for his programs. But if somehow we did see a hurricane in Minnesota tomorrow, (in November by the way) and Democrats not just win back Congress, but most of those new Democratic Senators and Representatives are at least as far to the left as Senator Sanders, the rich won’t pay most of those new taxes. Why? Because most of them can afford to live in other countries where they wouldn’t have to pay 60, 70, or 80 percent, or whatever the new top tax rate would be under a President Sanders. Plus, on top of that all of their subsidies disappearing as well.

So who gets stuck paying for all of President Sanders free government programs? The people who are supposed to benefit from them. Middle class Americans for the most part who can’t afford a sharp tax attorney to can find them all sorts of tax breaks. And can’t afford any new tax hikes right now even with the payroll tax. 

Bernie, wouldn’t have to raise payroll taxes to guarantee Family and Medical Leave. He could get a bill passed out of Congress (an institution he’s very familiar with serving now almost twenty-five years there) that says all employers, or at least all employers with income’s of a certain amount, have to give all of their employees Paid Family and Medical Leave. Of course middle class taxes would go up under a President Sanders and he’s at least smart enough to understand that

In These Times: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders- 'My Vision For Democratic Socialism in America'

Source:In These Times- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat 

"In order to create a more egalitarian society, we must take back the reins of our government from the billionaire class and provide democratic socialism for working families—not just Wall Street and giant corporations.  

The fol­low­ing is the tran­script of a speech Sen. Bernie Sanders deliv­ered at George­town Uni­ver­si­ty on Novem­ber 19th out­lin­ing what the term demo­c­ra­t­ic social­ism means to him, as well as his plans to deal with the nation­al secu­ri­ty threat posed by ISIS." 

From In These Times 

"Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont spoke at Georgetown about democratic socialism in America."  

Source:Georgetown University- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) speaking at Georgetown University, in Washington.

From Georgetown University

What Senator Bernie Sanders laid out in his socialism speech is what I’ve argued that democratic socialism is (not Marxism and economic state-ownership) he was talking about American private enterprise (or capitalism) that's combined with what's common Europe (at least Britain and Scandinavia) the welfare state. And that the private sector would subsidize the welfare state to provide employees with their employer benefits, that are generally provided to employees by their employers, not government.

Keep in mind, nothing that government does in a free society is free. Especially socialism and that all of these new government social programs like college, childcare (to use as examples) would all come with a cost. A big cost in taxes especially in new payroll taxes, but perhaps a cost in higher income taxes across the board. 

This socialist notion that the bottom ten-percent income tax rate could stay that way in American social democracy, not likely. There’s only so much the wealthy are willing to pay to pay for other people’s lives. What Senator Sanders is arguing for is to bring Sweden and the Nordic social democratic economic model to America.

The difference between democratic socialism and Marxism, is that in a social democracy, the economy is in private hands. Meaning business’s and industries and people own their own property and even business’s. But again with a welfare state to insure that no one has to go without in the private enterprise system. 

In a Marxist system, the state (meaning the central government) owns everything. The means of production in society, as well as all other property. With no guaranteed individual rights other than being taken care of by the state. But as every Marxist state that this world has ever seen, the people generally aren’t taken care, because of badly the state manages the economy. What Senator Sanders wants to create is a large welfare and regulatory state, to go with a welfare state. On top of the private enterprise system.

LA Progressive: Lawrence S. Wittner: Democratic Socialism: More Democratic Socialists Than You Might Think

Source:LA Progressive- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democrat Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat

To add to Lawrence Wittner’s list of American Democratic Socialists. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, that includes Senator Bernie Sanders and sixty or so Representatives in the House. The Congressional Black Caucus, eighty or more members in the House. A lot of the CBC are also part of the CPC. It is not that Democratic Socialists are not common in America and that democratic socialism doesn’t have a real movement. It’s that Democratic Socialists tend not to self-describe their politics that way. They prefer to be called Progressives, or what pisses me off as a Liberal, they go by Liberal. Not that I hate democratic socialism, but as a Liberal, I believe there is a real limit to what government can do for people. And I would like to see more public services for moving people off of public assistance, instead of leaving them dependent on them.

Go to the entire MSNBC talk lineup and tell me who over there if anyone, other than Chris Matthews, disagrees with Bernie Sanders on anything? If anything, MSNBC is to the left of Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. Especially as it relates to issues of free speech, middle class tax hikes. And are to the right of them at least in Ed Schultz’s case when it comes to marijuana legalization. Big Ed, is opposed to marijuana legalization. Who takes more of a progressive big government nanny state position on marijuana. But how about RT America and not just Thom Hartmann. How about Al-Jazeera. Again networks that are pretty Far-Left and tend to take a democratic socialist view on the issues. Who if anything are even further left than Senator Sanders.

But if cable talk is not enough for you, how about Salon, The Nation, The AlterNet, TruthOut, TruthDig, LA Progressive, Gar Alperovitz, Paul Krugman, who at the very least leans in a democratic socialist direction. As Bill Maher has said several times, it is not that there aren’t Socialists in America, because of course there are, but there’s an unwilling for Socialists to come out of the closet. (So to speak) Because for fear as being labeled as Marxists, or Un-American, losing employment opportunities and so-forth and so on. But of course democratic socialism has had a lot and I would argue proud history in America, going back to at least Eugene Debs and they’ve even had at least one President of the United States in Franklin Roosevelt. But what they’ve lacked is the courage to proud of their political ideology that they self-describe themselves for what they actually are. Democratic Socialists and they should defend who they are, not run way from it.

Bill Ayers: Socialism, Seriously!

Source:Bill Ayers.

Source:The New Democrat

I agree with Bill Ayers (for once perhaps. Check Los Angeles for snow right now.) that Bernie Sanders should run as who is. Which is as a Socialist, a Democratic Socialist which is common in Europe, especially in Scandinavia. For a couple of reasons and not because I’m a Socialist myself, because I’m not. But for one politicians should run as who they are. That should going without saying, but if you’re familiar with American politics you that it doesn’t. But also Senator Sanders has a real audience out there. A democratic socialist base that doesn’t have the balls to call themselves what they really are, which are Democratic Socialists. Who are actually to the left of Bernie on some really key issues.

But two, America has been in decline economically really since 2000-01 and I’m not blaming anyone here, just the facts. Especially with the middle class with falling wages, a falling workforce, cost of living going up and I could go on an on. But that would just depress you and make you feel you’re back in 1979, or something. So Bernie has an audience and a limited amount of time to talk to these struggling Americans and tell them why big government socialism is good for them. Until they find out that all of these free government programs that the Senator is offering are not free at all. That Americans will probably have to pay more in payroll taxes in order to finance them. The, “I’m just going to put the costs of these programs on the backs of business’s idea.” Is going to fly as well as a plane without wings, or an engine. Even with middle class Americans who own, or run a business them self.

So of course Bernie Sanders should run as a Socialist just like a horse should run as a horse. Because that is who he is and Americans are tired of politicians trying to convince them that they are anything other than who they are. And a real person instead of a political robot would be a real fresh change of pace for the average American voter. And again Bernie even has an audience of dedicated voters who are, well dedicated to him. And think he’s, “like totally awesome, or whatever. And not only feel the Bern, but may now have sunburn as a result. But just because a politician runs as himself, which I’ll admit is real fresh in American politics, is no guarantee of getting a personal key to the White House.

Bernie Sanders: Rachel Maddow- Bernie Sanders Consistency

Source:U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat

This video of Bernie Sanders would have been much more enjoyable to watch if Rachel Maddow wasn't in it, or I didn't have to hear her speak. She's just one example of why MSNBC is so unwatchable and why they're going to change their prime-time lineup. According to Rachel, Bernie Sanders has served in both the Congress and the Senate as if they're separate institutions. I guess she's another American who failed social studies in high school, or didn't bother to take it. And could get use out of taking a U.S. Government course. And why we're somewhere around 40 when it comes to education in the world.

What is appealing about Senator Bernie Sanders who is still the only self-described Democratic Socialist in Congress, but not the only one, just the only one with the balls to call them self a Democratic Socialist, is his consistency. Other than consistently attacking, or going after Republicans, he doesn't sound like a politician. Unlike Hillary Clinton he knows who he his and what he believes and always has. He doesn't figure out what office he wants to run for and then decide who has to be and what special interest support he believes he needs to win that office and then figure out what his positions are going to be based on that. Because the man already knows what he believes and why he believes it and was introduced to himself before most of the country was born and knows exactly who he is.

I believe Senator Sanders is running for president because he actually wants the job. Unlike a Ron Paul from 2012 who was running for the most part to gain national attention for his libertarian message. Senator Sanders wants to be President of the United States and believes he at least has a competitive shot at winning the Democratic nomination for president next year and then winning the presidency. But again, because he knows who he is and what he believes and why he believes it and is a man of great character he's not going to say whatever he believes he needs to win. Which is something that if America had a lot more of in our politicians then a lot more Americans would bother to vote, because they believe they would know who they're voting for and why.
Source:Bernie Sanders

Ray Red Spider: 'Why Vote Bernie?'

Source:Ray Red Spider- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat 

"Sen. Bernie Sanders holds a Senate hearing on health care systems around the world." 

Source:Bernie Sanders- U.S. Senator (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

From Senator Bernie Sanders

I saw a blog post with the link to that blog up here, arguing about why people should vote for Bernie Sanders for president. The case being that he wants to give Americans all of these free services. And I’ve made this point before on my blog, but anytime a politician especially someone from the Left, especially Far-Left says: “Vote for me and I’ll give you all of these free services.” your question should be how are you going to pay for all of these free services?

Government’s aren’t business’s, or any other private organization. They get their money by taking money from their people, their taxpayers. And then give that money back in public services. Schools, roads, military, law enforcement, etc. At least that is all developed countries fund their government’s. So when Bernie Sanders, or any other so-called Progressive (Social Democratic candidate in, realty says) they’ll give free public services, they’re either lying, or simply don’t know better.

Anyone in the world who pays taxes knows that government is not free, including Socialists, because they know they’re giving up some of their income to fund the government. Not out of charity, or generosity. 

Generally speaking people expect their taxes to pay for infrastructure, education, even if it is not for their kids, because their kids go to private schools, law enforcement, national security, social insurance for people who fall on hard times, etc. 

For Bernie Sanders and other Socialists  or so-called Progressives who are running for office would serve their own movement’s and people well, if they were simply more frank and accurate with what they say government can do for people and how it would be paid for.

Reverb Press: Akira Watts- 'The Greatest Threat To Bernie Sanders Is His Supporters: Bernie Sanders'

Source:Reverb Press- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) the moderate of the New-Left?

Source:The New Democrat 

"Sanders was supposed to address a crowd of several thousand in Seattle

But Black Lives Matter protesters burst onstage in Westlake Park

They were offered chance to speak after Sanders, but demanded to go first

Held silence for Michael Brown, and spent total of 20 minutes behind mic

Sanders tried to come back on and speak, but couldn't and gave up

Later said event was 'unfortunate' as he is sympathetic to their cause." 

Source:Lovelyti TV- Socialist Bernie Sanders, meets African-American Nationalists.

From Lovelyti TV

Keep in mind, Senator Bernie Sanders, now Democratic presidential candidate, is a self-described Democratic Socialist. Not the only Democratic Socialist in Congress, but the only self-described Democratic Socialist in Congress. So if he’s a moderate in comparison to his supporters, what would his supporters be? Marxists, Communists, welfare statists, nanny statists, political correctness warriors, a combination of all of those things? If any of those labels are your answer, or more than one of those labels are your answers, you would be right.

Bernie Sanders, like capitalism, he likes private enterprise, he supports property rights, he’s a fan of the U.S. Constitution and even Bill of Rights. He likes our military, he’s one of the biggest supports of our military veterans and he’s not a pacifist. I believe he voted for the Afghan War when he was in the U.S. House in 2001. He wants a bigger Federal Government especially as it relates to the economy and more social insurance programs and more investment in those programs. But he’s not looking to replace the states and localities and our federalist system with a unitarian superstate central government. So when he says America should be more like Sweden, not in every area.

Of all of those things that I listed that Bernie supports, a good deal of his followers who in many cases are coming over from the Green Party and Democratic Socialist Party, as well as the Far-Left of the Democratic Party, all have issues with several if not all of those functions of the U.S. Government and those parts of the U.S. Constitution and parts of our capitalist and private enterprise economic system. Bernie, wants to reform our Federal Government and economic system. He’s not looking to destroy it and create a new one. And not only that, the only constitutional amendment that he’s offered is overturning Citizens United. And moving to public financing of all Federal campaigns.

I believe the way to look at Bernie Sanders, is from a Democratic Socialist point of view. But take Sweden’s socialist economic system with the huge welfare state, funded by a private enterprise system. But then also add the Canadian federal form of government. Generous welfare state, but where the provinces and localities have a good deal of responsibility and autonomy over their own domestic affairs. Whereas his supporters, would probably scrap the U.S. Constitution, write a new one, or not bother replacing it. Scrap Congress, or at least the upper chamber the Senate and move to a unitarian parliamentary form of government. Where the House of Representatives picks our head of state.

As a Liberal who believes in, well liberalism and not socialism that is disguised as liberalism, I do not see Bernie Sanders as a threat and certainly not dangerous, even though he’s Democratic Socialist. He’s doing very well now, but the weather is still hot and perhaps even in New England.

One, most of the primaries and caucus’ will be held next year when the weather is cold.

Two, even if somehow he wins the Democratic nomination and becomes president, he’ll be dealing with Congressional Republicans that most likely will still control the House of Representatives. So he won’t get a lot of what he wants to accomplished done.

But three, again he’s not looking to blowup the system and completely change the American form of government. But reform certain areas and reform certain parts of the American private enterprise system. His supporters, are a different story.

Barney Frank: 'Why Progressives Shouldn’t Support Bernie'

Source:Politico Magazine-

Source:The New Democrat

Just to be clear, I’m not writing this because I believe Bernie Sanders will ever be President of the United States, or believe he can even beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. The second part, I’m not sure about, but Bernie’s chances of ever being President of the United States are somewhere between George McGovern and none. And if you don’t know who George McGovern is, you might be to dumb and young to read this. And I’m not writing this because I support Bernie Sanders for president either. Because I don’t and have already declared my support for Martin O’Malley. Who I believe is the only true Liberal Democrat in the race at least as far as what he’s actually accomplished.

I’m writing this, because I don’t want Hillary Clinton to get a cakewalk to the Democratic nomination. Without having to explain to Democrats why she should be President of the United States. Other than who her husband is and do you remember the 1990s and oh by the way she’s a women and would be the first female President of the United States. Every single U.S. President that we’ve had at least since 1976 has had to go through a real primary process and has had to introduce them self and explain to voters why they want to be president and what they would do as president. Barack Obama 2008, George W. Bush 2000, Bill Clinton 1992, Ronald Reagan 2000 and Jimmy Carter 1976. Why should Hillary Clinton be any different? What makes her more special than those future president’s?

This idea that Representative Barney Frank was making that if Hillary gets a real primary challenge in 2016, that will make her weaker in the general election against whoever the Republicans decide to nominate for president, assuming they actually make that decision, is at least borderline ridiculous and I could use stronger language than that. First of all, Hillary was the frontrunner not just for the Democratic nomination in 2008, but also expected to be the next President of the United States. But she ends up losing the Democratic nomination to a junior Senator named Barack Obama. So lets say she wins the nomination in 2008, she probably loses to John McCain in the fall. Because the issues that she would’ve had in the primaries like not knowing why she wanted to be president and not having a vision, would’ve come out.

Being the frontrunner, just means you’re the favorite going in. That you have the most support and best finances than any other candidate in the race. Similar to an NFL team expected to be the favorite to win the Super Bowl in the summer. But Super Bowls aren’t won in the summer. And presidential elections and primaries aren’t decided more than a year from the presidential election. At the end of the day the person with the best campaign, organization, finances and message and vision for where they want to take the country not just wins their party’s nomination for president, but is elected the next president. And then Senator Obama, simply beat then Senator Clinton in all of these areas in 2008.

A year from now assuming that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee for president, I don’t want her to still be in her centrist independent experience matters shell that she was in just a couple of months ago before Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley started to give her some real competition and forced her to give some real speeches and take real policy positions. And not know why she wants to be President of the United States. If Hillary hasn’t figured that out by now and figure out how to communicate that to Democratic voters, well one she might have a problem, but two she’s running out of time to figure that out. The first Democratic presidential debate will be in August, or September.

Political primaries, aren’t about destroying the frontrunner and doing whatever you can to beat that person at all costs and dividing the party. They are a real competition to decide who will not only be the next leader of the party, but the next leader of the country. And in this case the most important job in the world which is President of the United States. This is not something that should be handed out to the person with best name ID, or who happens to be the most popular in the party in the beginning. Democratic primaries at least, make Democratic presidential candidates better. Because it forces candidates to deal with issues and even their own concerns early on. While they still have time to deal with them and fix them. The competition that Hillary is getting right now, will only make her better if she handles it correctly and successfully address’ it. And if not, then maybe she shouldn’t be the next Democratic nominee for president, because she didn’t earn it.

Dandelion Salad: Elizabeth Schulte- 'Socialism According to Eugene V. Debbs'

Source:Dandelion Salad- Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene Debbs.

Source:The New Democrat 

"What did the man who Bernie Sanders today claims as his personal hero really stand for? Elizabeth Schulte tells the story of American socialism’s best-known figure.

IT’S NOT your typical presidential candidate who identifies as a socialist, but Bernie Sanders does. A poster of Eugene V. Debs, the popular Socialist Party leader of the early 20th century, hangs on his office wall as a tribute to Sanders’ self-proclaimed hero.

Like Debs, who ran for president five times, Sanders is also running for president. But that, my friends, is where the similarities end.

The socialism of Bernie Sanders—who says he’s running as a Democrat to shift the debate to the left–is fundamentally different from that of Eugene Debs, who committed his life to spreading the ideas of revolutionary socialism. Sanders is promoting something that falls far, far short of the fundamental change that Debs fought for. Sanders relegates socialism to the realm of nice ideas that can be talked about, but never really be implemented—while he accepts what little the Democratic Party is willing to concede.

For Sanders, the working class is a “constituency,” a backdrop to the political campaigns he runs and the legislative work he does. For Debs, the working class was in the foreground of everything he hope to achieve—because he believed, as a convinced Marxist, that workers have to make the fundamental and lasting transformation that he called socialism." 

From Dandelion Salad

So I guess at least according to Elizabeth Schulte, Bernie Sanders would be to the right of Eugene Debs and to the left of Progressive’s Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. And I’ll explain what I mean by that.

Eugene Debbs, Marxist, had he ever became President of the United States and had the support of Congress, would’ve outlawed capitalism, private enterprise and that includes property rights. Perhaps, but not guaranteed, just short of taking people’s personal ownership of their personal property away from. Meaning an individual, could own their own home and car (to use as examples) but those things would’ve been made by state-owned companies.

Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist: Democratic Socialists, believe in at least a certain level of personal autonomy. That includes both personal and economic freedom. That even includes the ability to vote for opposition parties and opposition parties that are on the other side of the political spectrum. 

Bernie, doesn’t have a problem with private enterprise and even capitalism. Just how the resources and income and distributed. So if you’re doing well in America through the private sector, great. According to Bernie, but you’re going to pay enough in taxes to see that those who are struggling are also taken care of.

Bernie Sanders, is not running to completely change the American economic system and destroy the liberal capitalist model, our liberalized economic system, that has liberated so many people out of poverty in America. 

What Senator Sanders wants to do is add a socialist component to our liberal economic system built around a large central government. To see that no one has to go without and live in poverty. As well as invest in our American capitalist private enterprise economy. Things like education, infrastructure, energy, immigration, better trade deals according to Bernie. So that more Americans can succeed in our private sector. And not have to live off of public assistance to take care of them.

Brookings Institution: Fred Dews: An Economic Agenda For America: A Conversation With U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders

Source:The New Democrat

This blog blogs about socialism a lot and for good reasons. One socialism is about as popular in America as it has been since the 1920s or so. Another is that more Americans are now learning about what it actually is and not how hyper-partisans on the Right like to talk about it and call people Socialists like they were calling them bastards or something. Socialist is no longer seen as an insult or a four-letter word by a lot of Americans now. Which is why you now see Americans are further to the Left and even far-left of center-left Liberal Democrats such as myself embrace and own the label. Senator Bernie Sanders being the perfect example of that. Even if there are still come closeted Socialists trapped in the closet at MSNBC and the new The New Republic.

I’m not a Socialist and neither is this blog as we’ve made clear for several years now. But there is a type of socialism that I respect and it is the democratic form of it. As Senator Sanders said at Brookings yesterday he believes in capitalism and private enterprise and that it has done a lot of good for America. With competition and the development and creation of all sorts of products that we all use. But that he also believes that all Americans should have the basic necessities in life. And that is where government comes in to see that no one is left behind . The difference being between a Democratic Socialist like Bernie Sanders and a Marxist like Fidel Castro to use as an example. Where the Marxist believes that the job of government is essentially to take care of everyone in society. And that people can’t be trusted with freedom over their own lives.

If you listened to Senator Sanders at Brookings yesterday his speech and interview with E.J. Dionne who I would label as a FDR classical Progressive and not a Liberal, which is different, not once did you hear Senator Sanders talk about nationalizing this industry or that industry. Other than health insurance and wanting to make Medicare the only health insurer in the country. But you also hear in that speech and interview why he’s both a great ideologue and legislature. He said he would be opened to the public option for Medicare and making everyone eligible for it and not just seniors. And leaving in the private health insurance industry as well. What Senator Sanders talked about had to do with infrastructure investment, college affordability for everyone and tax reform so the rich pay what he views as their fair share.

Anyone who believes the auto, banking and even media and internet should be nationalized in America and we still have a few Marxists and leftist fascists on the Left, doesn’t have much of a political future in America as a candidate or politician. Unless you keep your politics to yourself and try to sound much more moderate. The type of socialism that can sell in America even outside of New England the Northwest and San Francisco is the social democratic form of it. Multi-party, private enterprise, mixed in with big government in the form of a welfare state to provide people with the basic necessities that we need to live well and healthy. Like education, health care, health insurance, retirement, to use as example. While the private enterprise provides everything else, especially in areas where you must have competition in order for those services to be as strong as they are. Transportation, food, media, technology, entertainment to use as examples. Socialism mixed in with private enterprise.

Bernie Sanders: The War On Poverty

Source:The New Democrat

Senator Sanders giving several examples of federal programs that have been created to help people in poverty pay their bills and so forth. But didn’t give any examples of how these programs have moved people from poverty and into the middle class with the skills, tools and freedom to be able to take care of themselves. Or are people struggling back fifty-years ago now seeing their kids and grandkids struggle as they are still struggling themselves today. Or are their lives collectively better today than they were then. 

Has the trillions of taxpayer dollars that have been spent on the so-called War on Poverty fifty-years later, has it created more economic freedom for people so they can take care of themselves and not need public assistance? Which is what the War on Poverty section of this blog focus’s on. How are are these programs working to move people out of poverty and off of public assistance with the freedom to take care of themselves. 

I would argue that at best the so-called War on Poverty has a mixed record. Yes it has prevented things like starvation and further homelessness that would've gone on top of the homelessness that we are dealing with today as a developed country. And yes of course those are good things. But the War on Poverty has failed to lessen poverty to the point that we see real reductions of poverty in this country. Other than in the 1990s which was a boom decade economically for America. 

Senator Bernie Sanders: 'Where is President Obama On Social Security?'

Source:U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) I personally respect any Socialist in America who lives and operates out of the political closet and says: "Damn right, I'm a Socialist and this is why." Which is what you get from Senator Sanders.

"Sen. Bernie Sanders questioned why President Barack Obama has not defended Social Security against Republican calls for deep cuts in the program that benefits some 55 million retired and disabled Americans, widows and orphans. "I do not believe that we should cut Social Security," Sanders said in a Senate floor speech. "I would like to know, and I think the American people would like to know, if President Obama feels the same way. It is past time that the president told the American people in no uncertain terms that he will not cut Social Security on his watch." Read more:Senator Bernie Sanders." 

From Senator Bernie Sanders

"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today questioned why President Barack Obama has not defended Social Security against Republican calls for deep cuts in the program that benefits some 55 million retired and disabled Americans, widows and orphans.

“I do not believe that we should cut Social Security,” Sanders said in a major Senate floor speech. “I would like to know, and I think the American people would like to know, if President Obama feels the same way. It is past time that the president told the American people in no uncertain terms that he will not cut Social Security on his watch.”

Before Obama was elected in 2008, he was a strong defender of Social Security. “I agreed with him,” Sanders said. “I suspect that millions of Americans voted for President Obama because of the strong stands he took in defending Social Security.”  Sanders introduced legislation, modeled on a 2008 Obama proposal, to lift a cap on Social Security payroll taxes so people with earnings of $250,000 and more would pay the same share of that income as all workers.  The payroll tax is now assessed only on incomes up to $110,100 a year. 

During the past four years, President Obama has been largely silent on Social Security. The White House even failed to rebut alarming reports last year that Obama was considering Social Security cuts as part of a “grand bargain” with Republican House Speaker John Boehner.

Unlike Obama, his Republican challenger’s stance on Social Security is much clearer. Mitt Romney wants to begin the process of privatizing Social Security. He wants to gradually increase the retirement age to 68 or 69. Romney also favors slowing the growth of benefits for persons with “higher incomes.” Under a plan floated by Romney’s allies on Capitol Hill, someone making about $45,000 a year today who retires in 2050 would receive 32 percent less in annual Social Security benefits than under the current formula. By that definition, the top 60 percent of all wage earners would be considered “higher income.”

“It should come as no surprise that Republicans in Washington and Gov.  Romney want to slash Social Security.  The truth is Republicans have never liked Social Security and they have been attacking Social Security since its inception,” Sanders said.

“The question, however, that millions of Americans are asking themselves today is where President Obama stands on Social Security.  Unfortunately, he has been largely silent on this issue since he has been in the White House and during this 2012 campaign.”

Social Security has not contributed to the deficit or national debt.  It has a $2.7 trillion surplus and will be able to pay 100 percent of promised benefits to every eligible recipient for the next 21 years.  Even with no changes, there will still be enough funding to pay more than 75 percent of promised benefits after that. 

Sanders is chairman of the Defending Social Security Caucus in the Senate." 

From Senator Bernie Sanders

Apparently someone has been dumping alcohol down my throat while I'm asleep or sticking marijuana into me (perhaps also in my sleep) because I just heard Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders endorse a tax cut. He said so himself on the Senate floor today and said that he supports tax cuts for 98% of Americans. A Socialist endorsing tax cuts, is like a vegan endorsing all you can eat meat lovers buffets, an Arab endorsing the Jewish State of Israel, it almost never happens. 

Socialists are primarily in the business to grow government, especially the national government, so big government can take care of as many people as possible, with the people's own money. They're not in the business to give the people more of their money back to spend as they please. So any Socialist supporting any tax cut, is at least borderline shocking.

As as Senator Sanders on Social Security: this is generally get from the left-wing, generally left-wing Democrats or just Democrats who very partisan but perhaps not left-wing, especially during a presidential election, they accuse Republicans, especially the Republican presidential nominee, of wanting to cut and end Social Security and Medicare, regardless of what Republicans are actually offering. There's nothing new here. And if the Democrat isn't 100% with on Social Security, they'll accuse the Democrat of not being strong enough on Social Security. Which is what Senator Sanders did to President Obama today.

Senator Bernie Sanders: Ed Schultz Show- 'Super Committee: The Winners & Losers'

Source:Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) on The Ed Show on MSNBC.

"Super Committee: The Winners & Losers" 

From Senator Bernie Sanders

I don't see any good news or bad news from the Congressional Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction (or as I call it: The Congressional Joint Committee on Do Nothing) as far as them not reaching an agreement, because I wasn't expecting them to reach any agreement. It's real hard to be disappointed anything to happen. (Not that I've tried that or anything)

I do see Congressional Democrats looking very good coming out of this. They knew going in that Congressional Republicans weren't going to agree to any tax hikes, probably not even tax reform. But they look good to their base which they'll definitely need in 2012 to take back the House and hold the Senate, by not agreeing to any entitlement reform without more defense cuts and tax hikes on the wealthy. 

I don't believe President Obama looks good because it's one more time he tried to bring Democrats and Republicans together and they failed. I don't think that will hurt him in the election, he can easily back up Congressional Democrats on this. 

I believe once again Congressional Republicans look stubborn and unable to work with Democrats, with their way or the highway approach when it comes to tax reform and caving to Grover Norquist again and they may have given democrats an issue to hit them with in 2012. 

Bernie Sanders: 'My Medicaid Matters Rally'

Source:U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) holding a political rally in defense of the low-income Federal insurance program known as Medicaid. 

"Recorded on September 21, 2011" 

From Bernie Sanders

Before one celebrates how great the Medicaid health insurance program is, they should understand that it's a bare-bones operation. Meaning that it only covers certain things and not other things, including health care that people may need to survive. It's very expensive for the states to run and for the most part do run this program with not much help from the Federal Government who make them run it. States don't have a choice. If the Feds don't come up with the money, they are let's say stuck (for lack of a better word) and have to find that missing revenue for themselves. 

Bernie Sanders: The Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer- 'Talks about No Vote on Debt Deal'

Source:U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders- CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer, interviewing Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) about the debt ceiling agreement.

"Senator Sanders explains why he voted "No" on the deficit reduction deal, as well as the deal's consequences, with CNN's Wolf Blitzer." 

From Bernie Sanders 

This will be the fourth time I'll say this in two days, but this is not a good deal that no one likes, that both the Far-Right and Far-Left dislike. But both sides got some things that they like. 

Here's the list, for Democrats and Liberals ( the real Liberals) An eighteen month extension in the debt ceiling, but there's still a possibility of a government shutdown in November and December, because the Federal budget of course is still not done, that can be blamed on both the White House and Congress. Democrats and Liberals also cut about a trillion over ten years in defense cuts, something we've been fighting for, for over four years now or since the start of the Bush Administration. And Democrats and Liberals were able to protect entitlement programs from drastic cuts. 

What did Republicans and conservatives get - 2T$ in budget cuts and cutting more than the Federal Government will be allowed to borrow with the debt ceiling. And they were able to keep tax hikes out of the debt deal including cutting tax loopholes and corporate welfare. 

Both sides get to be able to negotiate tax and entitlement reform in round two of deficit reduction, which both sides want, that includes cutting expensive tax loopholes and cutting corporate welfare, they'll be on the table.

What the Socialist-Left in the Democratic Party America as well as Senator Bernie Sanders, is that they got an inside seat and look at what divided government looks like. You don't want to compromise with Republicans, take the time out to vote in the next election, as well as elect more of your own ideological members. You don't want to compromise even with Center-Left Democrats, then knock them out of office and win those seats with your own people, instead of Republicans winning solid Democratic seats.

This is what happens when you put the Far Right in America in charged of the House Representatives, where the Speaker who's generally a responsible, adult but is now scared as hell of the Far-Right, because he doesn't want to lose his job, which means he's willing to go to the mat for them, even if that means risk sending the United States Government in default. Which is what happened here. 

The President and the Senate Leader had to give the Senate Minority Leader and the House Speaker a lot of what they were asking. Or the House would've never passed anything that would pass the House or get signed by the President. And the Senate Minority Leader with his 47 votes would've blocked anything that Senate Democrats would've tried to pass on their own that the President would've wanted.

If Democratic Socialists in America want more of their policy's in place and get to sit with the adults at dinner time (instead of sitting at the kiddy table) then they are going to have to get more members elected to Congress, including in the Senate where they only have a few out of 100 Senators. And get more members elected statewide. This is something the Far-Right has already done with people in the Tea Party (now Theocratic Tea Party) with Representative Michele Bachmann and others. 

Otherwise the Democratic Leadership is going to continue to take the attitude: "What can we pass without the Progressive Caucus if we need to." Thats how real Liberals (the adults on the room) treat the so-called Progressive Caucus (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) today and for a long time.

Senator Bernie Sanders: 'Congratulations Tom Coburn'

Source:Senator Bernie Sanders- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) talking about Senator Tom Coburn and the Gang of Six's deficit reduction plan.

"Senator Sanders speaking about the disaster that would ensue if the American economy were to default, how to address the crisis that we now face with long-term deficit reduction, and the "Gang of Six's" proposal which include major cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and  Education." 

From Senator Bernie Sanders 

Senator Tom Coburn is not as far to the right as people can get or he would be a member of Congress who no one in Congress would be able to work with other then the Far Right (Senate or House) but he's as fiscally conservative as they come in the sense that he believes that the Federal Government should pay its bills and only pay for things that it should be doing and cut back on things that he believes we shouldn't be doing. Which I believe would qualify as common sense to most sane people. 

Senator Bernie Sanders isn't as far to the left as people can get but there isn't much room on the left to be to the left of him. (Communists and that's about it) He is an admitted Democratic Socialist (for crying out loud) and proud of it and believes in the welfare state and collectivism and that government, especially the Federal Government should play a big role in looking after the welfare of the people. 

Senator Sanders also believes that private enterprise, even though I don't believe Senator Sanders believes in nationalizing most industry's, can't be trusted to look after people and that the Federal Government should step in and provide a lot of these services. Everything from education, Health Care, Health Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, transportation, energy, and there's probably a lot more. (But in the interest of time...)

So when you are comparing a fiscally Conservative Senator like Tom Coburn who believes in limited government and there's a limit to what government especially the Federal Government should be doing and a big believer in private enterprise and private markets and is actually against corporate welfare and those tax loopholes, with a Democratic Socialist Senator like Bernie Sanders, two men who I don't tend to agree with a lot on but two men who I have a lot of respect for, you're talking about the opposites of political spectrum. A Socialist (in Bernie Sanders) versus a Christian-Conservative, who is also a fiscal Conservative. (In Tom Coburn)

Both Senators have admitted that deficit reduction has to be done for the good of the economy, you're going to see much different approaches in how to accomplish this. With Senator Coburn who actually believes in fiscal responsibility and there's a limit to what the Federal Government should be doing including on defense. 

If you look at the Coburn Back in Black deficit reduction plan, you'll find major defense cuts in it. As well as closing tax loopholes and entitlement reform, a means testing approach. With an approach from Senator Sanders thats more centered around defense cuts, closing tax loopholes,  and tax hikes probably on everyone, not just the wealthy.

Senator Tom Coburn and Senator Bernie Sanders both represent one thing thats right about the Federal Government, Congress, and Washington, because they represent their viewpoints and constituents as well as they can be represented because of their honesty. They say what they mean, what they believe and back up their views as well as they can be backed up.