Bernie Sanders' Accomplishments in the Private Sector

[Bernie Sanders]

China's goal is to keep American Robber Barons happy, with cheap labor, laughable regulations and environmental standards.

That's going to be hard. They can get cheaper labor from Mexico.

Labor costs Mexico vs. China

http://tacna.net/mexico-vs-china/

[tzor]

Bernie, did you notice that the China avg wage data stopped at 2011 and was rising? The Mexico avg wage data was flat and stopped at 2012? It looks like the projections imply that the line would be crossed in 2013 and that is two years ago.

[PLAYER57832]

Government is fundamentally different from the private sector in many ways, why would you assume that private success equals public success?

Being in the private sector immerses you in something called "reality." You can't succeed in unless you can deal with it. Government always succeeds no matter what happens.

Nope, biologist here. Business is not reality. The woods, the ocean, farms that produce our food, the air we breath. THOSE are the reality we need to worry about.. and business is quite adept at pretending they don't exist or that they can just be ignored because some great technological fix will come around. It might.. but real business is actually more about paying attention to the world around than to tomorrow's profit.

P.S. I hate the "religious right."

I don't think its religious at all. its just the far right, pretending to cater to some religious beliefs for expediency.

People hate Citizens United because the Unions lost their monopoly.

Oh please. This is not a 2 player field or issue. Unions were never a singularity, never had a monopoly. The issue with citizen's united is that it subverts democracy by allowing a few people with lots of money to use it to buy votes without limit and in secret.

I mean, sure you can only people like the Bushes, the Clintons and Donald Trump be presidents because only the fucking rich can afford to run.

Point. However, its good to remember that there was no "the Clintons" until AFTER Bill Clinton reached the presidency. Both Clintons came from decidedly blue color backgrounds, attained education and then worked their way into politics. It is only since, when Bill Clinton was able to pull down large speaker fees, etc, etc, that they really gained wealth.

Wealth disparity, and environmental destruction are both products of the Obama administration.

LOL.. nice try. These things have not been fixed, true, but claiming they are the product of Obama is a stretch indeed.

[tzor]

People hate Citizens United because the Unions lost their monopoly.

Oh please. This is not a 2 player field or issue. Unions were never a singularity, never had a monopoly. The issue with citizen's united is that it subverts democracy by allowing a few people with lots of money to use it to buy votes without limit and in secret.

I'm going to stand corrected here, but ironically, you are still wrong. Citizens United had a very positive impact on unions as well. From "Union Facts"

Prior to Citizens United, the funds that unions collected from union dues could not go to political spending that expressly advocated for the election or defeat of a candidate. That funding could, however, still go to other “political activities.” These include informational and educational materials that are distributed to members.

Under Citizens United, unions can take member dues and spend the money on materials in support or in opposition to a candidate for office. This is problematic because union members are not asked for permission before this money is spent, and it is often difficult to ask for a refund.

[mrswdk]

rofl. Blah blah, 'money buys votes'. How does that myth still persist when it has been so thoroughly debunked?

[PLAYER57832]

People hate Citizens United because the Unions lost their monopoly.

Oh please. This is not a 2 player field or issue. Unions were never a singularity, never had a monopoly. The issue with citizen's united is that it subverts democracy by allowing a few people with lots of money to use it to buy votes without limit and in secret.

I'm going to stand corrected here, but ironically, you are still wrong. Citizens United had a very positive impact on unions as well. From "Union Facts"

Prior to Citizens United, the funds that unions collected from union dues could not go to political spending that expressly advocated for the election or defeat of a candidate. That funding could, however, still go to other “political activities.” These include informational and educational materials that are distributed to members.

Under Citizens United, unions can take member dues and spend the money on materials in support or in opposition to a candidate for office. This is problematic because union members are not asked for permission before this money is spent, and it is often difficult to ask for a refund.

I am not going to say this is a "positive" benefit in any way. I have seen plenty of union endorsement prior to this ruling. It might not have officially been endorsement, but the difference was purely technical, not substantive.

Beyond that, this idea that union money and corporate/individual donor money is somehow equal is pure rhetoric, just an attempt to justify a few individuals being able to give huge sums of money for their pet causes, as if they were equal to large pools (still far less than many individual and corporate donors) of many small donors.

The worst part of the United declaration is the secrecy. I am not saying its impossible for unions to be secretive. They can be, but its harder than in corporations. The very structure is different and unions pretty much have to vote on most things widely. Voting does not mean uniform agreement, but it is democracy. Corporations are almost always held by a small group of individuals. Even if all stockholders get to vote, its known that their votes don't matter unless in a majority. Corporations are closer to monarchies/nobility than democracies in most cases. Further, the whole purpose of unions is to protect its members/increase wages/get benefits/increase safety and training. Corporations are solely about allowing people to make money while shielded from most financial and litigious liabilities (can also say "responsibilities" -- things that would be considered responsibilities in an individual). In fact, the rules that apply are mostly about ensuring that decisions benefit stockholder's pocket books.

Sorry, but shielding pocket books is not on the same level as protecting workers. I don't agree with all unions do, but the "unions are the same as corporations" comparison is baloney.


Beyond that, I am not sure that the Citizen's United ruling really impacted Unions as you suggest. I saw plenty of union political talk prior. The issue with citizens united is that now many corporations and individuals can donate anonymously as well as on their own. Unions have a much harder time being fully anonymous from the outset, So, even if they have more ability to become involved politically, they still have to vote, and get votes from a large group of folks who individually are not making much money. That type of pool is very much part of democracy.

Corporations to contrast are effectively money-making machines steered by one or a very few individuals who have very little responsibility or limitation except that they make more money.

I have issues with some unions, with many union favored politics, but at least we know where they stand with them. Corporations are just to make money.. bad enough in itself only now they have added political voice.

That most of our retirement accounts are now firmly ensconced in this system just makes it that much worse. It is already leading to justification of defunding and now eradicating EPA, legalized discrimination of homosexuals, defunding and gradual elimination of legal abortions (even for the most serious cases-- in Dakota they almost got away with laws that had no exception for a mother's life being in danger) -- meanwhile, a lot of rhetoric about "sealing the borders" and cracking down on illegal immigration with a noticed absence of talk about coming down in a serious way on employers (lip service, but action is on the fence, not increasing penalties); etc, etc, etc..... More and more these issues are being debated less upon merits or with acknowledgement of real disagreements that need to all be represented and more of "Its my way.. I am right.. I have the MONEY..a nd too bad if you don't"!

[Bernie Sanders]

Here is what the practical impact of Citizens United means. What Citizens United means is that corporations call hundreds of millions of dollars into television ads, radio ads, and other forms of advertising to defeat those candidates who stand up and take them on.

Do the elected officials in Washington stand with ordinary Americans - working families, children, the elderly, the poor - or will the extraordinary power of billionaire campaign contributors and Big Money prevail? The American people, by the millions, must send Congress the answer to that question.

[mrswdk]

The 'fat banker' stereotype is so 1930.

[Metsfanmax]

I never implied that. However, working in the government is a lot like being a Greek "scientist" before the Roman's invaded. You are so buried in theory and so divorced from reality that you have absolutely no clue why shit is happening all around you.

So, tzor rags on government officials for not being forced to deal with reality, and then says that he doesn't need to actually have any data to prove his claims about the current administration, he just knows it:

Blaming Obama for income and wealth disparity? That's quite a stretch of an imagination.

No stretch at all. It is intuitively obvious to the casual observer familiar with Obama's origins and motivations.

You really can't make this stuff up.

[Bernie Sanders]

I never implied that. However, working in the government is a lot like being a Greek "scientist" before the Roman's invaded. You are so buried in theory and so divorced from reality that you have absolutely no clue why shit is happening all around you.

So, tzor rags on government officials for not being forced to deal with reality, and then says that he doesn't need to actually have any data to prove his claims about the current administration, he just knows it:

Blaming Obama for income and wealth disparity? That's quite a stretch of an imagination.

No stretch at all. It is intuitively obvious to the casual observer familiar with Obama's origins and motivations.

You really can't make this stuff up.

tzor needs to either to submit to a drug test or he's just a partisan shrill. Spouts out anything and assumes we will take it as facts, sorry we ain't the regular Fox News viewer.

[tzor]

You really can't make this stuff up.

OK Riddle me this then.

Who votes for Democrats? Poor People
Who pays for the advertising campaigns of Democrats? Rich People
Who benefits financially when Democrats are in power? Those very Rich People who donated.

Crony Capitalism makes government go and thus there is a major incentive to keep the poor people poor and the rich supporters even richer.

Now you could argue that this is also true for Establishment Republicans ... and you may be right.

[Bernie Sanders]

[tzor]

TZOR AGREES WITH BERNIE! (BREAKING NEWS ... PLEASE BE PATIENT WHILE WE REPAIR THE BROKEN NEWS!)

Report Calls Out 15 Fortune 500 Companies for Paying No Taxes

The list includes CBS, General Electric, Interpublic Group, JetBlue Airways, Mattel, Owens Corning, PG&E, Pepco Holdings, Priceline.com, Prudential Financial, Qualcomm, Ryder System, Time Warner, Weyerhaeuser and Xerox.

But wait, there's more. There is always more.

Tale as old as time, song as old as rhyme, Bernie and the beast.

GE Political Contributions

Contributions to candidates: $2,402,370
Contributions to Leadership PACs: $1,144,500
Contributions to parties: $402,804
Contributions to 527 committees: $800
Contributions to outside spending groups: $3,450

This was given to both DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS!

So you are smoking the good stuff if you think either party is going to change this.

[Frito Bandito]

Bernie is fun, but he probably thinks "Supply and Demand" is some sort of rap group.

[Bernie Sanders]

[thegreekdog]

Look, I like Bernie Sanders. Unlike most other Democrats, he's actually liberal. But this quote just drives me nuts. It doesn't drive me nuts just because it's not true; it drives me nuts because he's been in the government for 200 years and still says things like that.

[thegreekdog]

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTa ... id/638367/

What a silly article.

[Bernie Sanders]

[PLAYER57832]

Prior to Citizens United, the funds that unions collected from union dues could not go to political spending that expressly advocated for the election or defeat of a candidate. That funding could, however, still go to other “political activities.” These include informational and educational materials that are distributed to members.

A pretty BIG "loophole". Its such a big loophole that most people never realized that unions were technically not allowed to endorse candidates.

Under Citizens United, unions can take member dues and spend the money on materials in support or in opposition to a candidate for office. This is problematic because union members are not asked for permission before this money is spent, and it is often difficult to ask for a refund.

First, I don't like this part of the law, either, but its hardly equal or a balance to the power given to a few corporations and individuals.
Unlike corporate leadership, union leadership is at least voted on by the members. And, while they do collect dues, there is a serious limit to how much they can collect. The main power of unions is not money, it is people. A union decides to back a candidate and many union members will go along.

The truth is that unions have been seriously attacked, not because they are abusing people, but because they have been so successful. Its a little like vaccines. The worst problems have largely been curtailed because of unions, so people don't want to bother with them. Companies have been more than happy to act as viruses ready and waiting to take advantage when the opportunity arises. Mid to large corporations are constantly taking steps to either disband unions or to keep them from starting, be it fairly positive steps of more or less matching union rates and benefits or the more negative steps ranging from moving people/operations to non union facilities to engaging in rhetoric discrediting unions to outright attacks.

[Phatscotty]

Blaming Obama for income and wealth disparity? That's quite a stretch of an imagination.

Blame him for accelerating the gap between rich and poor, absolutely. Obama ran on the platform and millions voted for Obama for a the major reason they believed Obama would shrink the gap between the rich and the poor. He hasn't done anything to address the issue, and in fact Obama has made the gap worse.

[Phatscotty]

Here is what the practical impact of Citizens United means. What Citizens United means is that corporations call hundreds of millions of dollars into television ads, radio ads, and other forms of advertising to defeat those candidates who stand up and take them on.

Do the elected officials in Washington stand with ordinary Americans - working families, children, the elderly, the poor - or will the extraordinary power of billionaire campaign contributors and Big Money prevail? The American people, by the millions, must send Congress the answer to that question.

Yeah, cuz the Koch brothers obviously were able to buy the presidency and insert Scott Walker into the oval office...

[Phatscotty]

[img]

Look, I like Bernie Sanders. Unlike most other Democrats, he's actually liberal. But this quote just drives me nuts. It doesn't drive me nuts just because it's not true; it drives me nuts because he's been in the government for 200 years and still says things like that.

cuz that's all Bernie Sanders is and that's all he can do. Complain

Ask a question like 'how do you get the richest corporation to pay a nickel in taxes' and let the games begin!

[Bernie Sanders]

Blaming Obama for income and wealth disparity? That's quite a stretch of an imagination.

Blame him for accelerating the gap between rich and poor, absolutely. Obama ran on the platform and millions voted for Obama for a the major reason they believed Obama would shrink the gap between the rich and the poor. He hasn't done anything to address the issue, and in fact Obama has made the gap worse.

That's because, DUH! the Republicans were dragging their feet whenever they felt that President Obama's ideas might help the economy, thus guaranteeing another term for President Obama and the Democrats.

[Bernie Sanders]

Here is what the practical impact of Citizens United means. What Citizens United means is that corporations call hundreds of millions of dollars into television ads, radio ads, and other forms of advertising to defeat those candidates who stand up and take them on.

Do the elected officials in Washington stand with ordinary Americans - working families, children, the elderly, the poor - or will the extraordinary power of billionaire campaign contributors and Big Money prevail? The American people, by the millions, must send Congress the answer to that question.

Yeah, cuz the Koch brothers obviously were able to buy the presidency and insert Scott Walker into the oval office...

This is your response? Your partisan streak is showing.



Good luck with your Republican selection for President. Let the circus begin.

[tzor]

This is your response? Your partisan streak is showing.

I'm sorry but from a technical political standpoint, Soros generally gets more political bang for the buck than the Koch brothers.

Consider how far the Democratic party has moved towards Socialism. (I know you would say not far enough, but compared to the old Democrats of long ago, quite far.)

Consider how far the Republican party has moved towards Libertarianism. (Er, not at all, actually.)

Clearly you should see this Bernie. Compare the pushback you get from the establishment compared to the amount of pushback Rand Paul gets from his establishment. When you consider that the Koch bothers are libertarian and not neo-con, you see the lack of real permanent influence they have on the Republican party.