US primaries: Sanders challenges Clinton to debate on home turf

[Usernames]

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that governments can't support people but rather people have to support the government?

Why is it so hard to understand that the government has no money unless it first takes it from the people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are inefficient and they spill much of the money they have before it can ever benefit any people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are busy with programs that are expensive, and that the people disapprove of? (Money to Brussels from Europe perhaps or money for military all over the world from the US perhaps?)

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the elite in all governments are looking out for themselves while trying to convince the sheeple that they are looking out for them?

Why is it so hard for people to understand why taxes and prices on consumer items are so much lower in the US than they are in "socially advanced" countries?

Why do our friends in the "advanced" UK not see that their national debt is about the same as that of the US but is growing faster as a percentage of GDP? Why are Europeans not concerned about the rampant printing of money in the Eurozone to pay the bills? (The Eurozone can just print money to pay bills but the US and UK can't - they by their own laws have to borrow it.)

When did we get the stupid idea to turn the control of our lives and our safety over to our governments when it's so obvious that they are stupid and getting worse? Why can we not see that Europe will crash under the burden of its current immigration and economic policies instead of just cheering it on?

Americans are going to sit back and watch Europe crash while listening to Europeans tell them that they are "better than". Europe is crashing and should lecture no one.

Cheers.

The wealthy elite, Corporate America and the establishment media have been flogging this clap trap for nearly 30 years now. The American people simply are no longer buying it. You can huff and puff as much as you like NeverSure but the polls show your days are numbered.

Well, if "the American people are no longer buying it," then they'll soon not be able to buy a house, a car, or just about anything else that takes time, effort and the skill to earn money. Oh, it's the establishment and media elite that are the ones so gung-ho for immigration and job crushing trade deals, which is what you will get with another Democrat or Republican--all but one.

[up2u2]

The wealthy elite, Corporate America and the establishment media have been flogging this clap trap for nearly 30 years now. The American people simply are no longer buying it. You can huff and puff as much as you like NeverSure but the polls show your days are numbered.

Well, if "the American people are no longer buying it," then they'll soon not be able to buy a house, a car, or just about anything else that takes time, effort and the skill to earn money. Oh, it's the establishment and media elite that are the ones so gung-ho for immigration and job crushing trade deals, which is what you will get with another Democrat or Republican--all but one.

Pretty much. The more Bernie gets the opportunity to debate Right Wing propaganda and misinformation the more likely he is to be elected.

Feel the Bern - A Future to Believe In

[keemapoot]

Publicus wrote above:

Strategically and tactically, Bernie cannot afford to get on the emails bandwagon. It's a rightwing whackjob scheme and operation against Hillary Clinton that Bernie cannot afford to get anywhere near. For Bernie to dabble in It would cost Bernie big time in his campaign. It would soil him among his true supporters.

That's probably true and Bernie won't touch it.

Meanwhile, Forrest Gump sputtered out this beauty about Hilary's email situation this week.

Trump on Wednesday revealed more of how little he knows about how government works, saying he would appoint a Supreme Court justice who would investigate Hillary Clinton’s email scandal.

Edited April 2, 2016 by keemapoot

[samran]

20copy.jpg

well then.

A meme has settled this. Must be true....

[samran]

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that governments can't support people but rather people have to support the government?

Why is it so hard to understand that the government has no money unless it first takes it from the people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are inefficient and they spill much of the money they have before it can ever benefit any people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are busy with programs that are expensive, and that the people disapprove of? (Money to Brussels from Europe perhaps or money for military all over the world from the US perhaps?)

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the elite in all governments are looking out for themselves while trying to convince the sheeple that they are looking out for them?

Why is it so hard for people to understand why taxes and prices on consumer items are so much lower in the US than they are in "socially advanced" countries?

Why do our friends in the "advanced" UK not see that their national debt is about the same as that of the US but is growing faster as a percentage of GDP? Why are Europeans not concerned about the rampant printing of money in the Eurozone to pay the bills? (The Eurozone can just print money to pay bills but the US and UK can't - they by their own laws have to borrow it.)

When did we get the stupid idea to turn the control of our lives and our safety over to our governments when it's so obvious that they are stupid and getting worse? Why can we not see that Europe will crash under the burden of its current immigration and economic policies instead of just cheering it on?

Americans are going to sit back and watch Europe crash while listening to Europeans tell them that they are "better than". Europe is crashing and should lecture no one.

Cheers.

The wealthy elite, Corporate America and the establishment media have been flogging this clap trap for nearly 30 years now. The American people simply are no longer buying it. You can huff and puff as much as you like NeverSure but the polls show your days are numbered.

Well, if "the American people are no longer buying it," then they'll soon not be able to buy a house, a car, or just about anything else that takes time, effort and the skill to earn money. Oh, it's the establishment and media elite that are the ones so gung-ho for immigration and job crushing trade deals, which is what you will get with another Democrat or Republican--all but one.

okay, so you rip up the trade deals.

Then what happens next?

[Usernames]

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that governments can't support people but rather people have to support the government?

Why is it so hard to understand that the government has no money unless it first takes it from the people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are inefficient and they spill much of the money they have before it can ever benefit any people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are busy with programs that are expensive, and that the people disapprove of? (Money to Brussels from Europe perhaps or money for military all over the world from the US perhaps?)

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the elite in all governments are looking out for themselves while trying to convince the sheeple that they are looking out for them?

Why is it so hard for people to understand why taxes and prices on consumer items are so much lower in the US than they are in "socially advanced" countries?

Why do our friends in the "advanced" UK not see that their national debt is about the same as that of the US but is growing faster as a percentage of GDP? Why are Europeans not concerned about the rampant printing of money in the Eurozone to pay the bills? (The Eurozone can just print money to pay bills but the US and UK can't - they by their own laws have to borrow it.)

When did we get the stupid idea to turn the control of our lives and our safety over to our governments when it's so obvious that they are stupid and getting worse? Why can we not see that Europe will crash under the burden of its current immigration and economic policies instead of just cheering it on?

Americans are going to sit back and watch Europe crash while listening to Europeans tell them that they are "better than". Europe is crashing and should lecture no one.

Cheers.

The wealthy elite, Corporate America and the establishment media have been flogging this clap trap for nearly 30 years now. The American people simply are no longer buying it. You can huff and puff as much as you like NeverSure but the polls show your days are numbered.

Well, if "the American people are no longer buying it," then they'll soon not be able to buy a house, a car, or just about anything else that takes time, effort and the skill to earn money. Oh, it's the establishment and media elite that are the ones so gung-ho for immigration and job crushing trade deals, which is what you will get with another Democrat or Republican--all but one.

okay, so you rip up the trade deals.

Then what happens next?

Rip up, Nafta? Yes, why not? It's lose, lose, lose. As for TPP and TTIP, they're not even in place yet. So, just don't approve them. Surprised you and the other lefties don't get that, as most of the leftwingers on this forum constantly howl about how TPP is an American conspiracy to control Asia. Here's your chance to stop it. Why don't you?

Edited April 2, 2016 by Usernames

[samran]

Rip up, Nafta? Yes, why not? It's lose, lose, lose. As for TPP and TTIP, they're not even in place yet. So, just don't approve them. Surprised you and the other lefties don't get that, as most of the leftwingers on this forum constantly howl about how TPP is an American conspiracy to control Asia. Here's your chance to stop it. Why don't you?

I'm a free trader. I like trade and the benefits it brings. But then I'm a capitalist and I believe in competition. I work for myself and don't rely on government trying to shield me from the big bad world. (which is quite funny you call me a lefty....but anyway).

But you haven't answered my my question. If you rip up these trade deals, then what happens? How does everything become wonderful and magical again?

You tell me.....step by step. Spell out what happens, and how....

[Usernames]

Rip up, Nafta? Yes, why not? It's lose, lose, lose. As for TPP and TTIP, they're not even in place yet. So, just don't approve them. Surprised you and the other lefties don't get that, as most of the leftwingers on this forum constantly howl about how TPP is an American conspiracy to control Asia. Here's your chance to stop it. Why don't you?

I'm a free trader. I like trade and the benefits it brings. But then I'm a capitalist and I believe in competition. I work for myself and don't rely on government trying to shield me from the big bad world. (which is quite funny you call me a lefty....but anyway).

But you haven't answered my my question. If you rip up these trade deals, then what happens? How does everything become wonderful and magical again?

You tell me.....step by step. Spell out what happens, and how....

Let me try once again. TPP and TTIP are not done deals. Don't do them and the world continues to run pretty much like it is today. Tear up Nafta and maybe food safety and health standards return to the higher state they were before Nafta came along and allowed big agribusiness to shift its farms to Mexico (and totally dismantle Mexican peasant farming, btw, sending the farmers north to the US, leaving villages and small towns decimated). Two things in particular made America prosperous in the past. High wages and cheap land. Nafta and immigration, alongside each other, has successfully driven down wages and driven up land/house prices. Yes, things were better before Nafta. Scrap it. America spent over 200 years without merging its economy directly with mexico and canada. It can do well again without them.

[up2u2]

okay, so you rip up the trade deals.

Then what happens next?

Absolutely Bernie will rip up all these trade deals. These trade deals are not negotiated by the people for the people they are negotiated by Multi National Corporations to increase their profits and to protect those profits. They are all done in secret and even the trade deals themselves are not released to the public. The public interest is totally and utterly unrepresented and is a no consideration. Any Nation that have entered these trade deals the people of that Nation have been screwed over.

Treasuries of all countries involved in Trade Deals do not factor in ANY benefit from these trade deals into their forecasts. The reason for this is they have ZERO benefit to increased tax income, more employment or increase in GDP. They are all just sham deals put together to benefit Mult National Corporations.

Bernie would rather poke a stick in his eye than sign one.

[samran]

Rip up, Nafta? Yes, why not? It's lose, lose, lose. As for TPP and TTIP, they're not even in place yet. So, just don't approve them. Surprised you and the other lefties don't get that, as most of the leftwingers on this forum constantly howl about how TPP is an American conspiracy to control Asia. Here's your chance to stop it. Why don't you?

I'm a free trader. I like trade and the benefits it brings. But then I'm a capitalist and I believe in competition. I work for myself and don't rely on government trying to shield me from the big bad world. (which is quite funny you call me a lefty....but anyway).

But you haven't answered my my question. If you rip up these trade deals, then what happens? How does everything become wonderful and magical again?

You tell me.....step by step. Spell out what happens, and how....

Let me try once again. TPP and TTIP are not done deals. Don't do them and the world continues to run pretty much like it is today. Tear up Nafta and maybe food safety and health standards return to the higher state they were before Nafta came along and allowed big agribusiness to shift its farms to Mexico (and totally dismantle Mexican peasant farming, btw, sending the farmers north to the US, leaving villages and small towns decimated). Two things in particular made America prosperous in the past. High wages and cheap land. Nafta and immigration, alongside each other, has successfully driven down wages and driven up land/house prices. Yes, things were better before Nafta. Scrap it. America spent over 200 years without merging its economy directly with mexico and canada. It can do well again without them.

You've got a tonne of trade deals. Not just Nafta. You've got the US-Australia FTA for instance. US Singapore FTA. Ones with South American Countries.

So you rip them all up. Tariff walls go up. Fortress America is back.

Who gets to decide the level of tariff protection? You know tariffs are really just a tax. Which I thought was supposed to be an evil for you fellas.

[samran]

okay, so you rip up the trade deals.

Then what happens next?

Absolutely Bernie will rip up all these trade deals. These trade deals are not negotiated by the people for the people they are negotiated by Multi National Corporations to increase their profits and to protect those profits. They are all done in secret and even the trade deals themselves are not released to the public. The public interest is totally and utterly unrepresented and is a no consideration. Any Nation that have entered these trade deals the people of that Nation have been screwed over.

Treasuries of all countries involved in Trade Deals do not factor in ANY benefit from these trade deals into their forecasts. The reason for this is they have ZERO benefit to increased tax income, more employment or increase in GDP. They are all just sham deals put together to benefit Mult National Corporations.

Bernie would rather poke a stick in his eye than sign one.

This is where you and I diverge.

It is also where you and the trumpenista's converge. You are peas in a pod on this one. You want the same thing.

The jobs that disappeared in the past 20 years probably would have disappeared anyway even behind a tariff wall....

[CWMcMurray]

Only if they can support themselves - that's your central premise and that is fine if you want to believe it. Yet many people can't through no fault of their own.

But if you follow the ethos of self dependency, then i have no sympathy for you for whinging about Mexican and chinese workers. Id say, fine, roll your sleeves up and find something to do that doesn't compete with chinese or Mexican inports. Only a small percentage of any economy competes in traded goods, there is a whole non traded sector (service professionals etc). You aren't competing with a chinese worker when you are repairing someone's car or selling them a coffee - go work there.

Id say, you've been too lazy to reskill yourself.

But yet here you are whinging about it - blaming someone else. I've never understood how that happens if you are supposed to be a rugged individualist..

And the real reason wages have been stagnant isn't because of the Chinese and Mexicans. Sure, they are great bogey men for the feeble minded to scream at.

US GDP has grown, profits have grown. Productivity has grown. What hasn't grown is the share of these profits to US workers. I quote a former australian treasurer here : U.S. real wages for the Middle class have grown 4% since 1990. Not 4% per year, but 4% in total. Australian real wages have grown 40% over the same period. Yes you are feeling the pinch while over the same period of time, facing the same challenges, our middle class are 40% richer in real terms than they were 25 years ago.

We've had the same stiff competition from China and SE Asia in manufacturing. This isn't unique to the US, no matter how special and unique you like to think of your selves.

What is the difference?

Profit sharing.

Not some socialist tax redistribution (our percentage tax take of GDP is on par or lower than you). It is allowing workers to share in those profits via a strong insistence such things as a minimum wages and industry conditions which reflects these gains in productivity produced by the workers themselves. And you can do this without raising inflationary expectations, which in Australia have been low since the early 1990s.

It isn't rocket science, but the right in the us continually object to any semblance of allowing the higher productivity of U.S. workers to be reflected in their basic minimum wage.

So yes, it is the rest of the western world, not laughing, but shaking our heads in frustration at the US. We aren't blowing our middle class up. You guys certainly have.

Good post...

Only thing I would add would be to also mention the very large number of Indians into the Australian work force

To cut off any argument about Australia not being the same because don't have Mexicans entering the work force willing to work for less

Although it's off topic, there are instances of employer abuse, but on average 457 visa holders are proven to earn higher wages that Oz nationals by occupation. Indian migrants & other foreigners are in Oz on legally acquired visas, very different to approx 13 million Mexican illegals in the US. However, Oz has around 60k illegal migrants, of which around approx 5k+ are US nationals!

Good know

Australian employers pay higher salaries to Indians than they do to Australians doing the same job? Really?

[Publicus]

FBI Director James Comey got his first government job in 1996 as an investigator of the Clintons by the Republican controlled Senate Whitewater Committee. The committee finally gave it up, ran up the white flag after finding nothing but all the same wrote a political diatribe of a report. Comey wrote a part of the political diatribe report.

In 2002 Comey was a GW Bush appointed prosecutor in Manhattan where he investigated Bill Clinton's pardon of Mark Rich and where the office investigated Clinton's pardon of 172 others, finding nothing. Perhaps Comey had begun to catch on that where there's Clinton smoke there's an anti-Clinton fire. Here's the long and the short of this investigation, quoted from the Time magazine of yesterday.....

Despite evidence that several pardon recipients, including Rich, had connections to donations to Bill Clinton’s presidential library and Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, Comey found no criminal wrongdoing. He was careful not to let the investigation be used for political purposes by either party. When pressed for details in one case, he said, “I can’t really go into it because it was an investigation that didn’t result in charges. That may be a frustrating answer, but that’s the one I’m compelled to give.”

http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/

Comey in 2006 agreed to testify before Congress to publicly provide information that led to the resignation of his arch foe who won out in their competition to become Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, a former GW Bush White House counsel well known for providing numerous legal opinions on anything Bush and his Dick Cheney wanted to justify.

Most of Comey's investigations in government have been of the Clintons. And they've led to nothing. Comey is not the flatfoot cop his father was. Comey is ambitious yes, and he's also a learner with a more cautious approach in his more senior positions. It is he who is now high and mighty and a stationary target of whomever.

Comey has not advised former SecState Hillary Clinton she is under investigation, nor has Comey advised her lawyers of any such thing. The FBI Director James Comey has not advised HRC she is a target, meaning under investigation. She is not and neither and nether.

The Time article yesterday concludes.....

Comey’s recommendation to [Attorney General Loretta] Lynch, when it comes, could include a description of the evidence; what laws, if any, might have been violated; and how confident he is in the results of the probe, the sources familiar with the investigation tell TIME. “If the evidence is there, it’s there. If it leads to something inconclusive, or nothing, he’s not going to recommend filing charges.”

It is indeed appropriate that the FBI Director do the interview of former SecState Hillary Clinton who'd also been a twice elected US senator from New York state, First Lady of the USA and of Arkansas while Bill had been governor (12 years). Which ever decisions Comey may make in the coming months, it is he who would need to take the inevitable heat for it from whichever side gets the huge slam of its impact.

If the spy bureaucracies and their IG's win in their purposes, then they can move right in to rule the country directly by silent coup. If they lose, then they'll have to sell themselves to Moscow, Beijing, Tehran cause they won't have much left to do where they are now.

Looks like all roads lead to the FBI right now on the Clinton case:

State Department Halts Its Clinton Email Investigation, Defers to FBI

The FBI is expected to interview Clinton's closest aides and the presidential candidate may also be part of its investigation. It's not clear when the investigation will be completed. The FBI has not formally named Clinton as a target and she has not been accused of any crimes.

Right now, FBI Director Comey looks to be the most powerful man in America. His determination on this issue could turn the election, both in Bernie's favor and possibly in the favor of the GOP.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-department-halts-clinton-email-investigation-defers-fbi/story?id=38083129

Interesting analysis of the Clinton FBI legal strategy here;

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-fbi-strategy-emails-221435

This is a serious matter in many respects, but it is at its most serious because the surveillance bureaucracy led by its several IG's and its IG Supreme are trying to conduct and to execute a silent and under the radar coup d'etat.

Hillary Clinton is on a slow but certain train to the Oval Office. This has been true since before 2007-08. Short of any act of extreme prejudice, this is the only way try to stop her and the Democratic party train.

Republicans and other right wingers had been desperate about it for many years. Then they became extremely desperate. Now in this quadrennial election year, Republicans and other superpatriot rightwingers are frantic.

James Comey is not the most powerful man or person in America. Yes, he is director of the FBI but he is not J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover had a thick dossier of Lyndon Johnson long before LBJ became vice president and then Potus. Those days are however gone while the Constitution endures.

Comey, who has spend at least half of his career in government investigating the Clintons from Whitewater to up to the present moment -- finding absolutely nothing -- lives in a different America and a changing America. Comey needs to uphold the integrity of the FBI. This is true whether it is against a silent rightwing coup d'etat by superpatriot hightech flatfoots or whether it might be to preserve FBI integrity with the actively emerging multicultural majority America.

I don't know whether it is a course lawyers take or just human bonding in the professional sphere but there's a lot of mutual admiration among 'em. It is a unique profession and a profound one in any society. Anyone who says Comy the lawyer etc has integrity would not be completely off base. Yet, the statement would need to be qualified.

Comy who is a Republican is particularly sensitive against government power. As acting Attorney General Comy refused to support reauthorising a Bush-Cheney wiretap program. Still, his first job in government was in 1996 as a counsel-investigator with the Republican controlled Senate Whitewater Committee. They too found nothing and closed up shop. Then the GW Bush appointed Comy investigated Bill Clinton's year 2000 pardons -- all 174 of 'em -- to again find nothing.

I quote a post you made a couple of dayze ago that I'd been meaning to address but which I'd sidetracked in my line of posting since then.......

keemapoot, on 31 Mar 2016 - 04:52, said:

My guess is that they are setting Hilary up to take a "civil penalty" hit sometime before the general election, admit to oversight and error, but nowhere near rising to criminality, have Hilary be humble and seek public forgiveness, say her penance, and then get on to the business of the general election.

Probably game, set, match to be honest -in spite of all the (conservative) legal experts on this forum convinced of her criminal culpability.

Yep, except I'd figure you're a bit over presenting any "hit." Let's just say a mild penitence Hillary may need to express to the body politic. The general public and electorate will accept this. The usual and utterly predictable fringe will launch into orbit. The campaign will continue. As Scarlett said to close out the epic, "There's always tomorrow."

Edited April 2, 2016 by Publicus

[Usernames]

Rip up, Nafta? Yes, why not? It's lose, lose, lose. As for TPP and TTIP, they're not even in place yet. So, just don't approve them. Surprised you and the other lefties don't get that, as most of the leftwingers on this forum constantly howl about how TPP is an American conspiracy to control Asia. Here's your chance to stop it. Why don't you?

I'm a free trader. I like trade and the benefits it brings. But then I'm a capitalist and I believe in competition. I work for myself and don't rely on government trying to shield me from the big bad world. (which is quite funny you call me a lefty....but anyway).

But you haven't answered my my question. If you rip up these trade deals, then what happens? How does everything become wonderful and magical again?

You tell me.....step by step. Spell out what happens, and how....

Let me try once again. TPP and TTIP are not done deals. Don't do them and the world continues to run pretty much like it is today. Tear up Nafta and maybe food safety and health standards return to the higher state they were before Nafta came along and allowed big agribusiness to shift its farms to Mexico (and totally dismantle Mexican peasant farming, btw, sending the farmers north to the US, leaving villages and small towns decimated). Two things in particular made America prosperous in the past. High wages and cheap land. Nafta and immigration, alongside each other, has successfully driven down wages and driven up land/house prices. Yes, things were better before Nafta. Scrap it. America spent over 200 years without merging its economy directly with mexico and canada. It can do well again without them.

You've got a tonne of trade deals. Not just Nafta. You've got the US-Australia FTA for instance. US Singapore FTA. Ones with South American Countries.

So you rip them all up. Tariff walls go up. Fortress America is back.

Who gets to decide the level of tariff protection? You know tariffs are really just a tax. Which I thought was supposed to be an evil for you fellas.

Tariffs are what made America the greatest nation on earth. Pat Buchanan has already pointed out how the US grew to power under tariffs, while the British declined into irrelevance under Free Trade.

[lifeincnx]

If Clinton wants to end Bernie Sanders' appeal, she should just give his supporters a job. Apparently, their support and approval of socialism drops as soon as they start to work. Socialism has about as much staying power as a frat party's beer keg.

As they reach the threshold of earning $40,000 to $60,000 a year, the majority of millennials come to oppose income redistribution, including raising taxes to increase financial assistance to the poor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/03/24/millennials-like-socialism-until-they-get-jobs/

And then they begin to like it a whole lot again when they get Medicare and social security, on cheques sent to them by the post office.

And please, spare me the howls of indignation that these aren't 'socialist'. Funny how things stop being socialist when you become a recipient of them. Just another hypocracy of the Der-cons.

Social Security in fact is not socialistic. It is based on contributions, just like an annuity or IRA. How else do you explain that higher income, higher contributors to Social Secruity get more in benefits than lower earners, lower contributors? BTW, you don't get checks (or even "cheques") from the post office. Everybody must have a direct deposit bank account to receive SS. Maybe you don't know as much about the system as you think you do.

Then somebody should tell the wing-nut right GOP that social security is not socialistic (though it's debatable, and not wrong if it is). After all, they love to use the Frank Luntz-generated term "entitlement' when referring to Social Security to give it a nasty 'you're taking from me' talking point.

[Usernames]

okay, so you rip up the trade deals.

Then what happens next?

Absolutely Bernie will rip up all these trade deals. These trade deals are not negotiated by the people for the people they are negotiated by Multi National Corporations to increase their profits and to protect those profits. They are all done in secret and even the trade deals themselves are not released to the public. The public interest is totally and utterly unrepresented and is a no consideration. Any Nation that have entered these trade deals the people of that Nation have been screwed over.

Treasuries of all countries involved in Trade Deals do not factor in ANY benefit from these trade deals into their forecasts. The reason for this is they have ZERO benefit to increased tax income, more employment or increase in GDP. They are all just sham deals put together to benefit Mult National Corporations.

Bernie would rather poke a stick in his eye than sign one.

The one thing that Sanders is doing well on is this issue. He also used to favor immigration restriction and enforcement but threw the American workers under the bus in order to get the open borders vote in the Democratic primary. They screwed him over, anyway, especially in Nevada, where he had a chance to take the momentum once and for all. Actually, had Sanders remained relatively strong on immigration enforcement, I might have been able to vote for him instead of any other Republican except Trump.

[Usernames]

Then somebody should tell the wing-nut right GOP that social security is not socialistic (though it's debatable, and not wrong if it is). After all, they love to use the Frank Luntz-generated term "entitlement' when referring to Social Security to give it a nasty 'you're taking from me' talking point.

You tell them. I'm not part of the so-called wing-nut right GOP. I'm an economic nationalist, who wants to see the lives of American workers improved, illegals deported, abortion rights protected, and scores of other things the Ted Cruzers don't like. America First sounds fine to me. Can't understand why every other candidate except Trump puts America last.

[up2u2]

okay, so you rip up the trade deals.

Then what happens next?

Absolutely Bernie will rip up all these trade deals. These trade deals are not negotiated by the people for the people they are negotiated by Multi National Corporations to increase their profits and to protect those profits. They are all done in secret and even the trade deals themselves are not released to the public. The public interest is totally and utterly unrepresented and is a no consideration. Any Nation that have entered these trade deals the people of that Nation have been screwed over.

Treasuries of all countries involved in Trade Deals do not factor in ANY benefit from these trade deals into their forecasts. The reason for this is they have ZERO benefit to increased tax income, more employment or increase in GDP. They are all just sham deals put together to benefit Mult National Corporations.

Bernie would rather poke a stick in his eye than sign one.

This is where you and I diverge.

It is also where you and the trumpenista's converge. You are peas in a pod on this one. You want the same thing.

The jobs that disappeared in the past 20 years probably would have disappeared anyway even behind a tariff wall....

samran what are these Trade Deals? Buggered if I or anyone knows they are all negotiated in secret and confidential and market sensitive apparently. The little I hear of them they tend to want to allow Corporations the freedom to import foreign low paid workers and also I have heard that Big Pharma attempts to extend drug patents and push back more affordable generics. Also 'economic zones' with low wages and no tax.

Fact is Treasuries and Finance Departments factor in no economic benefit forecasts attached to these deals. They benefit Corporations not Nations who sign them. They simply are not needed.

Please do not mention myself and Trump in the same sentence. He is an idiot and wouldn't have a clue. He is a small bit player in the Global Business world. Multi National Corporations would buy and sell Trump before morning smoko. These guys buy and sell countries not deli products. Trump wouldn't last a second with these guys.

[samran]

okay, so you rip up the trade deals.

Then what happens next?

Absolutely Bernie will rip up all these trade deals. These trade deals are not negotiated by the people for the people they are negotiated by Multi National Corporations to increase their profits and to protect those profits. They are all done in secret and even the trade deals themselves are not released to the public. The public interest is totally and utterly unrepresented and is a no consideration. Any Nation that have entered these trade deals the people of that Nation have been screwed over.

Treasuries of all countries involved in Trade Deals do not factor in ANY benefit from these trade deals into their forecasts. The reason for this is they have ZERO benefit to increased tax income, more employment or increase in GDP. They are all just sham deals put together to benefit Mult National Corporations.

Bernie would rather poke a stick in his eye than sign one.

This is where you and I diverge.

It is also where you and the trumpenista's converge. You are peas in a pod on this one. You want the same thing.

The jobs that disappeared in the past 20 years probably would have disappeared anyway even behind a tariff wall....

samran what are these Trade Deals? Buggered if I or anyone knows they are all negotiated in secret and confidential and market sensitive apparently. The little I hear of them they tend to want to allow Corporations the freedom to import foreign low paid workers and also I have heard that Big Pharma attempts to extend drug patents and push back more affordable generics. Also 'economic zones' with low wages and no tax.

Fact is Treasuries and Finance Departments factor in no economic benefit forecasts attached to these deals. They benefit Corporations not Nations who sign them. They simply are not needed.

Please do not mention myself and Trump in the same sentence. He is an idiot and wouldn't have a clue. He is a small bit player in the Global Business world. Multi National Corporations would buy and sell Trump before morning smoko. These guys buy and sell countries not deli products. Trump wouldn't last a second with these guys.

Google GATT

Australian US FTA

On the later there is plenty of info.

There are also a plethora of bilateral US deals. None of them secret and the texts are fully downloadable.

Granted international economics are arcane. You can't forecast innovation that comes from lowered barriers to trade.

One great tangible benefit of the australian US FTA? Australian workers now have easy access to the US labour market. A job offer and off you go. You can't model the cross fertilisation that comes from letting things like that happen.

Ed: and on trade, bernie and trump supporters sound like they want the same thing.

Edited April 2, 2016 by samran

[chuckd]

One only has to look at the failed track record of Socialism. Take Venezuela for example - the most recent mega-failure, eh? Runs out of toilet paper? Electricity for only parts of the day?

As Lady Thatcher most aptly stated: Socialism is a fine form of government until you run out of other peoples money.

Sanders will turn America into another Greece - bet on it.

Instead of looking at the failures of socialism, why not look at the successes

It was the new deal that brought the US out of the great depression, and it was capitalism that got as in the Great depression and in the current one.

By the way, it was not socialism that got Greece in trouble, it was the Capitalist plutocrats.and now are trying to socialize the debt by making every pensioner pay it.

"It was the new deal that brought the US out of the great depression, "

Nonsense.

It was WWII.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/30/the-great-depression-was-ended-by-the-end-of-world-war-ii-not-the-start-of-it/#5995a8f961cb

Edit in to add:

It wasn't capitalism that caused the 2007 recession, it was the government insistence that lenders make mortgage loans to unqualified buyers, thereby creating the housing bubble and the ensuing bail out requirements.

All of this chasing the rainbow of government regulation on the lending industry as required by the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.

Carter signed it and it became really active during the Clinton administration. Democrat's all.

Edited April 2, 2016 by chuckd

[helpisgood]

There are two things in this.

1) Ignore the mass of rightwhinge well financed media, starting with Faux where all of it starts but remember to ignore all of 'em.

2) Pay attention to the retractions in a small print of anonymous source reports by the Washington Post and the New York Times. These particular two of the MSM are currently doing a huffing and puffing backtracking from their previous and erroneous reports on the emails.

Bernie Sanders has wisely dismissed the emails thing completely and entirely, from his first day of campaigning.

Bernie keenly knows it goes nowhere, that the emails stuff is a dead end period. It is not and won't ever be a viable argument to nominate him over HRC, cause the whole email thing is bogus. Bernie senses very accurately that if he associates his candidacy with the emails hype he has nothing. There's no there there.

It's not only inside the Democratic party. The big stink originates with the spy agencies and their IG's, working with Republican senators whose staffs do the slanted anonymous leaking to the far right media, and, in the process, did manage to sucker in the WP and the NYT (before Bernie entered the race). HRC has a serious competition now so the WP and NYT are in a full retreat, leaving only the whacko right media to run with the tortured leaks.

NBC News today quoted its own anonymous sources (why not??) saying FBI has perhaps 12 agents on the case, not the 147 (exactly) Faux was the first to claim among the whingenut media.

A former FBI official, also speaking anonymously, says many in the law enforcement community view the large estimates of people assigned to the case as completely improbable.

"147 was such a ridiculous number," said the source, adding that 50 also sounded unrealistic for this kind of inquiry. "You need an act of terrorism to get 50 agents working on something," said the former FBI official.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fed-source-about-12-fbi-agents-working-clinton-email-inquiry-n548026

The two best lawyers in the country are on the case: Bill and Hillary. They beat the Republicans in the Senate on the House Impeachment Resolutions and they did it decisively.

Nothing came of Whitewater or Ben Ghazi.

HRC has a team of crackerjack lawyers advising her. Each of 'em no doubt has his/her own law partners, associates, professional and personal lawyer friends as an additional resource.

With all due respect to Justice Department lawyers who must meet high standards across the board, cause it really is tough for a lawyer to get hired into DoJ, the government lawyers live in their big building in Washington where the walls inside are lined with law books. The HRC lawyers live in the real world.

Hillary Clinton is a former SecState, US Senator twice elected, First Lady (also of Arkansas), and a serious candidate for Potus in this quadrennial election year. Accordingly, it might not be appropriate for an FBI agent(s) or supervising agent to interview her, as she has agreed to do with FBI.

Reports are that Director Jas. Comey is himself directing this inquiry as a part of his each and every day at the office. All of us can wait to see who at the FBI is designated to interview HRC. Director of FBI would do right to appoint himself to pose the questions and to receive the answers from Mrs. Clinton. It would be hard to expect otherwise.

Are you really sure that Bernie thinks the investigation will go nowhere or is that an assumption? That's not a rhetorical question. I am really not sure. During an early debate when pressed about this, I recall that Bernie basically thinks, as I understood it, he should stay out of it and let the process take its course. That's not the same as what you have stated. So, has Bernie stated something stronger than that since that debate?

Also, Hillary may be exonerated, but I don't think this issue comes only from her right-wing critics (I normally roll my eyes when I hear of yet another Clinton "scandal."). It's not just about the emails; it's also about the server. Again, maybe she will be exonerated or the FBI will conclude that there was but a minor transgression; nevertheless, common sense dictates that you have to suspect that she found a possible loophole that allowed her to decide on her own which emails to delete (is she hiding anything?) and also there's a security risk issue. I don't know what the investigation's conclusion may or should be, but there seems to me to be good grounds to at least investigate especially considering the sensitivity of the communications.

I think you have accused the DOJ of living in some kind of ivory tower, unlike the Clintons. Please do correct me if I misunderstood. Yes, there's no doubt that the Clintons are very smart and savvy people. However, I personally cannot make the sweeping conclusion that you have seemed to have made of the many members of the DOJ.

Finally, I was never an investigator or a prosecutor and I am, of course, not privy to how the investigation is being handled. So, I am not about to tell or even suggest to the FBI when and who they should interview. Perhaps they have very good reasons for their actions that they cannot at this time reveal.

And again, I can understand being sensitive about a Clinton "scandal." I don't blame you for that. I think some of those critics had gotten out of hand.

Bernie is nominally a political independent who in his real politics is a Democrat.

Bernie is moreover the antithesis of a Republican.

In the Senate Bernie caucuses with the Democratic party, i.e., conferences and votes with it. So in turn, the Senate Democratic leadership with the consent of the D senators assigns Bernie seats on committees. Until the 2014 midterm election when R's took majority control, Bernie had risen to become chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee, where he'd led the Democratic members in steering the committee in all respects.

If Bernie were elected he'd positively need to load his cabinet with Democrats, throw in a few odd Republicans and another Independent or two from the Great Lakes States or other commie pinko prevert havens.

Strategically and tactically, Bernie cannot afford to get on the emails bandwagon. It's a rightwing whackjob scheme and operation against Hillary Clinton that Bernie cannot afford to get anywhere near. For Bernie to dabble in It would cost Bernie big time in his campaign. It would soil him among his true supporters.

Bernie would lose Democratic voter and Institutional acceptance, tolerance, credibility. He'd create a huge distraction from his one theme campaign message (Bernie doesn't even want to talk about foreign policy or anything foreign except trade treaties or agreements). He says virtually nothing pertaining to national security. A few words against ISIS blurp blurp.

Further, Bernie would attract the disingenuous who laughably claim political neutrality, i.e., rejection of either party while they simultaneously pretend balance by commending Bernie the rational man and Donald Trump the ignoramous. Bernie would become a powerful magnet to the loose nail Clinton haters, mysogonists, racists, anarchists and nihilists that we see each and every day at work in the society and under our own noses.

Bernie stays out of it because he too could be accused of fueling a rightwing superpatriot silent coup d'etat by the flatfoot spook bureaucracies and their IG's operating in cahoots with Republican senators and their staffs.

Bernie's been around the block a few times and then some, so since becoming a big hit one man and one theme show he's continuing to run with it and more power to him. Bernie got his campaign off on the right foot and he hasn't looked back since. In January Bernie will be back in the Senate to welcome a bus full of newly elected Democratic US Senators.

tin

Are you stating that the FBI investigation of the Hillary emails, etc. is "a rightwing superpatriot silent coup d'etat"? They obviously have spent a lot of time, money and resources on the investigation. Your accusation, if that is the case, is thus quite an accusation. Is that what you are stating? If so, what do you base this on? What credible sources do you have that support this?

[SgtRock]

From the left leaning Guardian

The State Department consulted the FBI about this in February, and in March the law enforcement agency asked the State Department to halt its inquiry.

“The FBI communicated to us that we should follow our standard practice, which is to put our internal review on hold while there is an ongoing law enforcement investigation ,” State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau told reporters.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/02/hillary-clinton-us-state-department-halts-review-of-emails-at-fbi-request

Think that nails it.

[up2u2]

okay, so you rip up the trade deals.

Then what happens next?

Absolutely Bernie will rip up all these trade deals. These trade deals are not negotiated by the people for the people they are negotiated by Multi National Corporations to increase their profits and to protect those profits. They are all done in secret and even the trade deals themselves are not released to the public. The public interest is totally and utterly unrepresented and is a no consideration. Any Nation that have entered these trade deals the people of that Nation have been screwed over.

Treasuries of all countries involved in Trade Deals do not factor in ANY benefit from these trade deals into their forecasts. The reason for this is they have ZERO benefit to increased tax income, more employment or increase in GDP. They are all just sham deals put together to benefit Mult National Corporations.

Bernie would rather poke a stick in his eye than sign one.

The one thing that Sanders is doing well on is this issue. He also used to favor immigration restriction and enforcement but threw the American workers under the bus in order to get the open borders vote in the Democratic primary. They screwed him over, anyway, especially in Nevada, where he had a chance to take the momentum once and for all. Actually, had Sanders remained relatively strong on immigration enforcement, I might have been able to vote for him instead of any other Republican except Trump.

I just don't think these Trade Deals are worth a cracker. For Corporations and their governments lackeys that negotiate them sure but for ordinary folks I think they get shafted.

[jmd8800]

American politics:

Edited April 2, 2016 by jmd8800

[boomerangutang]

20copy.jpg

lol where do you get this stuff from NeverSure.

Mommy and Daddy go to work to pay for food stamps for people whose wages are so low they can't afford to eat and fight wars that can't be won, and subsidise Wall Street bail outs, and pay the tax that Corporate America moves offshore to avoid tax, and Corporate subsidies and pay off their trillion dollar student loan debt and pay half their salary to private health insurance companies that are ripping them off, and to pay the super profits of privatised jails to house the more than 3 million prisoners for profit.

All vital issues that Bernie wants to address and the very last thing Hillary and the Republicans want to discuss in an open forum. Best keep silent about all that.

Corporate run prisons is a BIG issue which hasn't been touched upon thus far by reporters or by candidates. Trump is already on record for supporting it. He will try to deny he supports it later (like he is doing on the abortion issue re; criminalizing women) - but it's been recorded for the whole world to see: TRUMP SUPPORTS PRIVATELY RUN PRISONS. There are too many reasons why that's a bad idea - to list here. If you're interested in that topic, google it. Trump will get roasted like a fat pig for that.

Another issue which has barely been mentioned thus far in the run-up campaigns, is whether it should be legal to grow hemp and/or pot. Not surprisingly, Republicans are on the wrong side of the issue. I assume Cruz is against allowing legalization. I heard Trump say something which hinted that he's open to medical marijuana, but he sounded typically uninformed and vague. In a recent interview, he was asked again about his abortion views, and completely dodged the issue, "I don't want to talk about it." It must be tough for Trump. He's not only uninformed on many issues, but he doesn't always know where most Americans stand on issues. He's trying to garner as many votes as possible. It's easier now, during the primaries, because he has a pretty good idea of what resonates with redneck 'better dead than red' hothead Republicans. However, during the general campaign, it's going to be tougher for Trump to parlay his answers to questions. He has little personal moral code, but he wants to garner as many votes as possible, so his answer to every question has to pass muster with the criteria: "what do most people want to hear?"

[samran]

One only has to look at the failed track record of Socialism. Take Venezuela for example - the most recent mega-failure, eh? Runs out of toilet paper? Electricity for only parts of the day?

As Lady Thatcher most aptly stated: Socialism is a fine form of government until you run out of other peoples money.

Sanders will turn America into another Greece - bet on it.

Instead of looking at the failures of socialism, why not look at the successes

It was the new deal that brought the US out of the great depression, and it was capitalism that got as in the Great depression and in the current one.

By the way, it was not socialism that got Greece in trouble, it was the Capitalist plutocrats.and now are trying to socialize the debt by making every pensioner pay it.

"It was the new deal that brought the US out of the great depression, "

Nonsense.

It was WWII.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/30/the-great-depression-was-ended-by-the-end-of-world-war-ii-not-the-start-of-it/#5995a8f961cb

Edit in to add:

It wasn't capitalism that caused the 2007 recession, it was the government insistence that lenders make mortgage loans to unqualified buyers, thereby creating the housing bubble and the ensuing bail out requirements.

All of this chasing the rainbow of government regulation on the lending industry as required by the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.

Carter signed it and it became really active during the Clinton administration. Democrat's all.

Yes, WW2 - also a time of massive government spending which boosted the economy. All rather socialistic don't you think?

[chuckd]

American politics:

Particularly when argued by a room full of Australians.

[simple1]

Only if they can support themselves - that's your central premise and that is fine if you want to believe it. Yet many people can't through no fault of their own.

But if you follow the ethos of self dependency, then i have no sympathy for you for whinging about Mexican and chinese workers. Id say, fine, roll your sleeves up and find something to do that doesn't compete with chinese or Mexican inports. Only a small percentage of any economy competes in traded goods, there is a whole non traded sector (service professionals etc). You aren't competing with a chinese worker when you are repairing someone's car or selling them a coffee - go work there.

Id say, you've been too lazy to reskill yourself.

But yet here you are whinging about it - blaming someone else. I've never understood how that happens if you are supposed to be a rugged individualist..

And the real reason wages have been stagnant isn't because of the Chinese and Mexicans. Sure, they are great bogey men for the feeble minded to scream at.

US GDP has grown, profits have grown. Productivity has grown. What hasn't grown is the share of these profits to US workers. I quote a former australian treasurer here : U.S. real wages for the Middle class have grown 4% since 1990. Not 4% per year, but 4% in total. Australian real wages have grown 40% over the same period. Yes you are feeling the pinch while over the same period of time, facing the same challenges, our middle class are 40% richer in real terms than they were 25 years ago.

We've had the same stiff competition from China and SE Asia in manufacturing. This isn't unique to the US, no matter how special and unique you like to think of your selves.

What is the difference?

Profit sharing.

Not some socialist tax redistribution (our percentage tax take of GDP is on par or lower than you). It is allowing workers to share in those profits via a strong insistence such things as a minimum wages and industry conditions which reflects these gains in productivity produced by the workers themselves. And you can do this without raising inflationary expectations, which in Australia have been low since the early 1990s.

It isn't rocket science, but the right in the us continually object to any semblance of allowing the higher productivity of U.S. workers to be reflected in their basic minimum wage.

So yes, it is the rest of the western world, not laughing, but shaking our heads in frustration at the US. We aren't blowing our middle class up. You guys certainly have.

Good post...

Only thing I would add would be to also mention the very large number of Indians into the Australian work force

To cut off any argument about Australia not being the same because don't have Mexicans entering the work force willing to work for less

Although it's off topic, there are instances of employer abuse, but on average 457 visa holders are proven to earn higher wages that Oz nationals by occupation. Indian migrants & other foreigners are in Oz on legally acquired visas, very different to approx 13 million Mexican illegals in the US. However, Oz has around 60k illegal migrants, of which around approx 5k+ are US nationals!

Good know

Australian employers pay higher salaries to Indians than they do to Australians doing the same job? Really?

Yep, for 457 visa worker overall wages are higher, although they do have to pay for private medical insurance. the stats have been reported - look it up.

[lifeincnx]

Then somebody should tell the wing-nut right GOP that social security is not socialistic (though it's debatable, and not wrong if it is). After all, they love to use the Frank Luntz-generated term "entitlement' when referring to Social Security to give it a nasty 'you're taking from me' talking point.

You tell them. I'm not part of the so-called wing-nut right GOP. I'm an economic nationalist, who wants to see the lives of American workers improved, illegals deported, abortion rights protected, and scores of other things the Ted Cruzers don't like. America First sounds fine to me. Can't understand why every other candidate except Trump puts America last.

Trump has changed positions more often than is hair color, currently a cigar-stained teeth yellow. He couldn't even discuss abortion on the fly without totally blowing it, as he is simply befuddled when it comes to anything of substance. He puts self-marketing, not America, first.

Economic nationalist? You already had your guy once before - Pat Buchanan, another knee-jerk protectionist who, like Trump, failed to grasp the complexities of the issue. Make slogans great again.

Edited April 2, 2016 by lifeincnx

[samran]

American politics:

Particularly when argued by a room full of Australians.

Not quite. This is how you take conservatives apart in Australia. Much more entertaining and no need to resort to weapons as you yanks are prone...

Edited April 2, 2016 by samran