Bernie's Response to the Wash Post "fiction"

[Nanjeanne]

This comes from the Wash Post so I am posting only his comments . . . not anything else . . .

For whole article see here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/28/bernie-sanders-unloads-on-the-washington-post/

That's not a new argument. We've been hearing that months and months, and that's in a sense what this campaign is about. People are telling us, whether it's the Washington Post editorial board or anybody else, our ideas are too ambitious -- can't happen. Too bold, really? Well, here's something which is really bold. In the last 30 years, there has been a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class and working families of this country. The middle class has become poorer and trillions of dollars have been transferred to the top one-tenth of 1 percent.

That's pretty radical, isn't it? Where was the Washington Post to express concern that the middle class was shrinking?

Where was the Washington Post talking about this radical transformation of America?

Getting back to the Washington Post, check out where all the geniuses on the editorial page were with regard to the invasion of Iraq." (They supported it.)

I know the Washington Post may think I'm radical, but I'm not.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. The Washington Post just needs to look over the border to Canada

then it will see how these things work.

[BainsBane]

8. You should read the Post piece

He would be a braver truth-teller if he explained how he would go about rationing health care like European countries do. His program would be more grounded in reality if he addressed the fact of chronic slow growth in Europe and explained how he would update the 20th-century model of social democracy to accomplish its goals more efficiently. Instead, he promises large benefits and few drawbacks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanderss-fiction-filled-campaign/2016/01/27/cd1b2866-c478-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html?postshare=9101453970877610&tid=ss_tw

The point is that any system has drawbacks. There is no utopia. Take his position on so-called "free" education. He cites Northern and Western Europe, and while it's true university is publicly funded, access is made possible to those who score the highest on tests. It is not universally available and a smaller percentage of the population receives university education than in the US. Now, one can argue that is a better system, but it isn't what Bernie is promising voters. He pretends everyone can go to university for "free."

There is no nirvana. They are trade offs, pluses and minuses. Bernie won't level with voters about the minuses.

[retrowire]

11. You don't think, an economy as robust as ours

could learn from the mistakes and shortcomings of their application of the same system?

Somehow, according to you and Washington Post, America isn't capable of making something work better than another nation that has had some trouble with it?

Also, your signature displays a misunderstanding of what the establishment is. Planned Parenthood's services are not establishmentarian or bad. PP's owners are apart of an establishment that ISN'T the PP.

So PP is good, it's owners are bad. I'm happy to have cleared that up and am certain there won't be any confusion.

[mythology]

16. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Sanders is claiming he can cut health care spending in half with some really unrealistic assumptions to make the math work. He gets called on it and attacks rather than justifying his numbers with something substantial.

[DhhD]

42. Top Economist Says Bernie's Plan Will Actually Save the U. S. $5 Trillion

http://usuncut.com/politics/top-economist-says-bernies-plan-will-actually-save-the-us-5-trillion/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/15/no-bernie-sanders-is-not-going-to-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/

[mhatrw]

58. Great Britain spends far less then half of what we spend per capita on healthcare.

Most countries do. Why can't we?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

71. It's good

[Nanjeanne]

14. OMG

He has to go into every single detail of every single detail of every single detail. But Hill hasn't even put out a plan other than a statement paper that she would expand the ACA and make it better.

This is really getting ridiculous. This plan is a great starting point to show the vision we can have for this country. The details will get worked out and of course there will be some compromises. But the bravery of Sanders is that he is actually standing up and saying he has a VISION for what this country can be and how it can affect good for his citizens. Where's Clinton vision? All I hear is Think Small and Aim Low.

[BainsBane]

45. Not true at all

If you go to her website you can find her plans.

Vision is easy. It's the details, passing, and implementing it that's difficult.

[Nanjeanne]

55. I've been there

I've read every plan - clicked on every link - downloaded every PDF. There is nothing about healthcare that isn't an idea. Here it is:

Hillary led the fight to expand access to quality, affordable health care for decades—and she’s not going to stop now. Throughout her career, Hillary led the fight to expand health care access for every American:
In 1979, Hillary chaired the Arkansas Rural Health Advisory Committee, which focused on expanding health care access to isolated rural areas of the state.

As first lady, she refused to give up when Congress defeated health care reform. Instead, she worked with Republicans and Democrats to help create the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which now provides health coverage to more than 8 million children. Senator Ted Kennedy said that if not for Hillary, the Children’s Health Insurance Program wouldn’t be in existence today.
As senator, she introduced legislation to reduce the cost of health insurance expenses.
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Hillary pushed the Bush administration for $20 billion for recovery and to address health care needs of first responders who suffered lasting health effects from their time at Ground Zero.
Going forward, Hillary will build on these efforts and fight to ensure that the savings from these reforms benefits families—not just insurance companies, drug companies, and large corporations.

Defend the Affordable Care Act. Hillary will continue to defend the Affordable Care Act (ACA) against Republican efforts to repeal it. She'll build on it to expand affordable coverage, slow the growth of overall health care costs (including prescription drugs), and make it possible for providers to deliver the very best care to patients.

Lower out-of-pocket costs like copays and deductibles. The average deductible for employer-sponsored health plans rose from $1,240 in 2002 to about $2,500 in 2013. American families are being squeezed by rising out-of-pocket health care costs. Hillary believes that workers should share in slower growth of national health care spending through lower costs.
Reduce the cost of prescription drugs. Prescription drug spending accelerated from 2.5 percent in 2013 to 12.6 percent in 2014. It’s no wonder that almost three-quarters of Americans believe prescription drug costs are unreasonable. Hillary believes we need to demand lower drug costs for hardworking families and seniors.

Transform our health care system to reward value and quality. Hillary is committed to building on delivery system reforms in the Affordable Care Act that improve value and quality care for Americans.

Hillary will also work to expand access to rural Americans, who often have difficulty finding quality, affordable health care. She will explore cost-effective ways to broaden the scope of health care providers eligible for telehealth reimbursement under Medicare and other programs, including federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics. She will also call for states to support efforts to streamline licensing for telemedicine and examine ways to expand the types of services that qualify for reimbursement.
Hillary is continuing a lifelong fight to ensure women have access to reproductive health care. As senator, she championed access to emergency contraception and voted in favor of strengthening a woman’s right to make her own health decisions. As president, she will continue defending Planned Parenthood, which provides critical health services including breast exams and cancer screenings to 2.7 million women a year.

There were no links within this healthcare plan. There were no pdfs in this healthcare plan. I would love to see more - if you have it - please share or tell me where I can find it. Thanks!

[Beartracks]

87. That's not a plan. That's a pamphlet. n/t

[mhatrw]

61. LOL. Did you really think nobody her would check that out?

busted

[Unknown Beatle]

73. It used to be, BainsBane, that every progressive, forward

thinking person was for Universal Healthcare. As a matter of fact, up until Hillary decided that UH was a bad idea (she used to be for it, btw), all of a sudden, all Hillary supporters thought it was a bad idea when some of them were for UH to begin with.

Look, it's very obvious to me that because of the fact that Hillary takes big money from Big Pharma, she's beholden to them. Of course she doesn't want Universal Healthcare, it goes against what the drug companies want.

[ish of the hammer]

84. no we can't

[mdbl]

102. Hopefully, we can trust her plans

because after inauguration, it all can change.

[nyabingi]

112. The basis thrust of any proposal Hillary Clinton

can imagine is one in which her rich contributors can profit. The ACA is nothing but a big moneymaking scam to make sure private insurers make a profit, and this is why Hillary wants to expand it and not try something better.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

18. "There is no utopia."

There is for the RICH and we're in it!

[appalachiablue]

26. +1

[ljm2002]

35. "There is for the RICH and we're in it!"

Truer words were never spoken.

[BainsBane]

46. I don't disagree with that

Last edited Thu Jan 28, 2016, 05:33 PM - Edit history (1)

But that doesn't change my point: voters deserve to be leveled with about the reality of his proposals. Bernie isn't doing that.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

62. The reality? Every other country in the world does this stuff and we're richer....

How about we cut the Pentagon budget to build schools?

Ever see the movie "The Hunt For Red October"? We are still paying tax dollars to have nuclear armed submarines play cat and mouse war games through trenches in the Atlantic against computer simulated Soviet subs that haven't existed for over 30 years.

Ending programs like that is called "gutting the military" on the Hill and if we close a Pentagon funded golf course in the South Pacific that means ISIS wins.

[AlbertCat]

92. How about we cut the Pentagon budget to build schools?

Oh man.... I'm with you on this. We still pay to have planes made.... with an extra engine... to fight the Soviet Union. Somewhere is a still expanding warehouse full of engines for planes to fight the Soviet Union.

Can't some of these contractors be shifted to working on infrastructure? Why can't the military go back to doing it's own KP?



If corporations and churches paid their taxes we could all probably go to college for free twice.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

93. I'd like to cut back the Pentagon budget at least enough that they can't conquer the world.

[FairWinds]

74. Gotta wonder if you have done some homework . .

I'm covered by the VA; they ration health care.

So does Medicare and Medicaid.

All health care systems ration.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. That bit about access only for those with high test scores needs citation, I know that is not the

case in Germany:
"Germany’s commitment to higher education is so strong that even Americans can get a free college degree in the country.

Meanwhile in California, the Cal State University system might soon consider annual tuition hikes, a further reversal of the state’s 1960 education master plan that established access to tuition-free college for California students.

In Germany, students do have to pay some registration fees each semester — they vary from campus to campus, but usually average about 250 euros (about $273 according to current conversion rates), said Nina Lemmens, the North America director for the German Academic Exchange Service. That’s less than $600 each year, a paltry fee compared to CSU’s $5,472 annual fees."
http://www.latimes.com/local/education/community/la-me-edu-free-college-education-in-germany-but-not-in-california-20151029-htmlstory.html

Fewer Germans per capita go to University than Americans for a variety of reasons. Lack of access is not among those reasons.

I'll also offer you a Forbes article that makes your 'too costly and terrible' argument from the 'yucky taxes are very bad for everyone' stance to help you bolster your newly found need for conservative arguments about social policy:
http://www.latimes.com/local/education/community/la-me-edu-free-college-education-in-germany-but-not-in-california-20151029-htmlstory.html

[hedda_foil]

25. Only rabid Hillaroids would suggest that unqualified student's would be admitted to 4 year uni's

The a academic admissions standards at each public college and university wouldn't be affected. The only change is in guaranteeing funding for qualified applicants ... with the qualifications determined by each school.

[ljm2002]

32. "rationing health care like European countries do"...

...versus rationing health care like we do here in the US, namely, lots of people get NO health care at all; and many, many people can't use their inadequate health insurance because of high deductibles and co-pays; and the many medical bankruptcies even among the insured. So we spend more than ANY European country, and yet fewer of our people are able to avail themselves of health care and our outcomes overall are worse.

Yay us!

Regarding the university issue: Bernie has proposed free tuition for all state colleges and universities. That includes community colleges (Hillary wants to make those tuition free also). So those who cannot qualify for the university right away will still be able to attend a public institution of higher learning, tuition-free.

I've heard people criticize Bernie's plan because "not everyone can, or should, go to college" -- i.e. they make the assumption that when he proposes tuition-free college, that means everyone can get in. (In fact it is right there in your post: He pretends everyone can go to university for "free".) Bernie has never said that. But then, when the same people find out that universities will still have entrance requirements under his plan, they spin it as a defect in his plan -- as you do when you talk about European admissions requirements.

[hibbing]

44. Or they go to the emergency room

No insurance, you break your leg, what are you going to do? Go to the emergency room and those costs are absorbed by everyone else. I'm getting rather frustrated by oh golly we can't do that, we can't do this. The major thrust of Bernie's response is the massive redistribution of wealth that has taken place.

Peace

[BainsBane]

49. Your first paragraph, I agree with

I think the European situation is better. I myself would prefer it. But I don't like to be fed a bill of goods. Voters need to know the reality of what is involved and the costs of transitioning to such a system.

The European model of higher ed does not work as Bernie proposes for the US. Competition is far greater; there are fewer universities, and smaller percentage of students attend them than in the US. So it's not simply a question of filtering out by not being qualified.

However, your point about qualifications gets at one of my own personal problems with Bernie's proposal. He promises "free" tuition for university but proposes nothing about addressing the rampant inequality in k-12 that ensures inequality in the US. That is something that Clinton does address. Even if Bernie's system were to magically come to fruition, it would not benefit the poor, many of whom attend k-12 institutions that leave them unequipped for higher ed. That and a whole lot of other factors that affect the lives of kids in poor communities mean that by age 18, very few are in a position to be able to take advantage of publicly funded higher education.

[ljm2002]

54. Well we'll have to disagree about the "bill of goods"...

...that you think Bernie is selling w.r.t. his health care plan.

Sure, we should have better K-12 education. It would help if private charter schools were not allowed to siphon off funds from public schools. I don't know where either Hillary or Bernie stands on that issue. I do know that Bernie has said time and again that we should be spending less on prisons and more on education. Bernie wants to abolish private prisons, and I agree wholeheartedly. When we discuss policies, we must always be mindful of the incentives; the existence of private prisons gives an incentive to imprison more people so as to make more profits.

Anyway I am glad that Hillary stresses better education. Absolutely a good thing.

[Uponthegears]

51. Cool, A Hillary supporter

who has something to say than whine about unicorns. Excellent (NO sarcasm)

First, let me say that I agree with other posters who have expressed dismay over the fact that Hillary's proposals, which espouse principles far less in keeping with the liberal traditions of our party (presumably as a nod to "being realistic) will also get nowhere in a TeaOP-controlled HOR, yet NO ONE has accused her of peddling pipe dreams. That was the strategy our President Obama (a far more transformational figure than Ms. Clinton) followed and the only major legislation he was able to pass by starting the debate in the center were the ACA and the LLA and he was able to do that ONLY because we controlled both chambers of Congress. If we're going to demand honesty about what the candidates can accomplish, let's be honest about BOTH candidates.

This brings us to what I really did like about your post (and the excerpt you included).

One, you are willing to actually debate whether the health care systems of the EU are superior to the ACA. Let me say that the statement that "rationing" has had a significant impact on any but a tiny segment of the recipients of universal health under the socialist democracies of Western Europe care is far from "established fact." Indeed, given the general satisfaction with health care reflected in studies of such care, the stories of "rationing" leading to significantly poor outcomes, while possibly accurate, are relative isolated and do not in any way reflect the overall performance of these systems. I would suggest that a far greater number of similar stories could be found regarding people who have fallen between the cracks of, and/or were just flat out left uncovered by, the ACA.

Two, you appear willing to debate whether the social welfare programs of the socialist democracies of Western Europe have caused "chronic slow growth." In fact, you quoted that very accusation from the WaPO editorial. However, even Milton Friedman devotees acknowledge that EU growth has been stunted by multiple factors, not simply because they maintain a more comprehensive social safety net . . . and that's the REPUBLICANS TALKING. What they, the WaPO, and by adoption YOU, conveniently overlook is that since the advent of the Eurozone the wealthy countries have imposed growth-killing austerity measures that have stripped wealth from the consumer class just as surely as REPUBLICAN tax policies (acceded to by terrified Democrats) have stripped wealth from the working class in this country. While REPUBLICANS would have us believe that EU growth has been stagnated by too much "socialism," the more likely explanation is that, like the US (but to a much greater degree) it has allowed so much capital to be concentrated in so few people that there no longer exists a domestic source of demand to drive their economy. Now it is your choice whether you want to line up with failed supply-side economic theory, but Senator Sanders is not a snake oil salesman simply because he does not join you and the WaPO.

Three, you appear will to discuss whether European higher educational models are superior to our own. Here, you point to what you claim to be the European practice of, shall we say, "rationing" higher education. Although other posters have pointed out that this claim may not be true, let's assume that it is. The same thing is happening here, the only difference is in the criteria being used to ration. While (treating your claim as accurate) who receives the best education in the EU turns upon who has achieved, here it turns upon who is either: (a) wealthy; or, (b) willing to sell their soul to the wealthy. While both have aspects of unfairness (one of which I will discuss) which is better, a meritocracy or a feudal system? As promised, I want to end by talking about a failure in meritocracy. There are segments within American society which will be left behind by a meritocracy because other social structures have obstructed their achievement. The most glaring of these structures is pernicious systemic racism. Even in a meritocracy, the reality of such obstacles must be acknowledged and accounted for in educational decisions until such time as this country is willing to admit that such obstacles exist and take MEANINGFUL (not incremental) actions to correct them.

I thank you again for departing from the standard practice and look forward to your response.

[druidity33]

70. This post of yours is EPIC! Thank you...

Typing and me don't get along too well. You elucidated extraordinarily well the problems i've had with the arguments against Bernie's proposals. Why can't we really TRY to be the best? Bernie is the most likely candidate to push for our most Progressive/Liberal options...

Bookmarking and cheers!

[BainsBane]

82. All of those are legitimate debates

That Bernie is not having. He presents the potential positives with non of the minuses. That was my point. I don't have the knowledge to get into a discussion about causes of slow European economic growth. I mentioned higher ed because it's something I know more about. My overall point was that in comparing possible models, there are pluses and minuses. For Bernie to live up to the reputation of honesty his supporters insists he deserves, he needs to be forthright about what those downsides are.

Another point the WaPo article doesn't mention is the significantly higher tax rate in Europe, not just for the wealthy but for the middle class as well. Many European nations have decided to invest in publicly funded programs like healthcare and education. I have no philosophical or ideological problem with that. My problem comes in with Bernie trumpeting education as "free." It's not free. It's publicly funded. Taxpayers pool resources and fund it up front rather than paying per user, and their taxes are substantially higher. That isn't just tuition costs at universities. The entire university is publicly funded, including research, outreach, everything. Sanders hasn't been clear about how exactly his plan will work, other than he will tax financial transactions. Five debates and he hasn't filled out his plan at all, and when I looked on his website a while back I found no specifics to answer my questions.


I don't know which Clinton policies you think aren't in keeping with liberal values. I don't know whether you've even bother reading about them since you don't reference a single one.

The reason no one has accused Clinton of peddling pipe dreams is because she has specific policy proposals, far more detailed and comprehensive than Sanders. Sanders by and large has a list of goals rather than policy proposals. His recent release of a single payer proposal contained inconsistent numbers, even on the summary page. That hardly instills confidence. I know the policy is irrelevant to his supporters, but to many voters policy does matter.

That is even putting aside the fact that the GOP wouldn't approve any of it, but if we are to suspend concern for that we should at least get comprehensive policy proposals.

As for my usual practice, I don't know how you can presume to know such a thing since we haven't had prior discussions, at least under the name listed on your post.

[Uponthegears]

85. You seem

to have juxtaposed "disagreement regarding downsides" with "refusing to admit downsides." The latter assumes that the former should be resolved in your favor. That was the essence of my post. You, like the WaPo article, cast debatable points as established facts which Bernie dishonestly refuses to concede. When challenged, however, you are forced to concede that you lack the knowledge to even discuss the subject.

The fact that Bernie does not share the WaPo's allegiance to right wing supply side economic theories about the causes of slow European growth, does not meat that he is hiding downsides. It means he disagrees that they exist. To attack his honesty on the basis of a disagreement over a debatable issue is bottom of the sewer sleaze.

Finally, I have read Hillary's proposals on her website. They are far from specific, however, they are specific enough to know that not one of them has any chance of passing a TeaOP controlled Congress. Whether that chance is closer to zero than Bernie's makes no difference whatsoever. Almost zero is still less than zero. That means that both of their proposals stand for nothing more than the principles they represent. AND Bernie's principles are the ones that IMHO, this party should represent.

You and other Hillary supporters are free to disagree on what we represent. That is what makes our party great. You are even free to adhere to the Third Way philosophy that we must run from the middle to win in the GE. I may disagree, but at least that is honest.

However, when you post BS attacks on Sander's integrity, or his honesty, or the intelligence of his supporters, as did that POS article in the WaPo, you better come with something more than parroting what you read somewhere because there are Sanders people even more knowledgeable on the issues than me and if you think we're intimidated by cut and paste, you're wrong.

[retrowire]

97. applauds* nt

[Oilwellian]

100. Oh, that was a thing of beauty

and that's all I've got to say about that.

[freebrew]

106. Righteous! thx.

[Fawke Em]

75. You obviously haven't been listening to his stated position.

Bernie ALWAYS says that tuition will be free to THOSE WHO QUALIFY.

He's not saying everyone can go free. You have to be able to get into the college based on their qualifying standards.

[BainsBane]

80. You obviously didn't read my post

[bvar22]

78. No. We. Can't.

We can't have what very developed country in the World takes for granted.
It is just too hard.
Besides, those of us at the top of the Party are doing just fine.

[ChiciB1]

79. And There's A Saying "Can't NEVER Could!"

It's time to be bold and bring this country into the 21st Century! We lag behind so many others in so many ways! It's something we should be ashamed of, but too many still have binders on, or like following a dream that NEVER was.

[BainsBane]

81. That's your reason why the public shouldn't be informed?

Because it feels better not to be? Great.

[Wounded Bear]

107. I like the way my Drill Instructor used to say it...

"Can't means won't"

Pretty succinct, don't you think?

[Mr. Evil]

95. So what you're really saying is that we aren't capable of implementing something better.

Something that's more humane and more beneficial to humans. Actually it would be very easy. There's only a few things in the way: Big Pharma, Wall St., any and all republicans, the health insurance corporations (which are nothing more than legal skim operations) and Hillary.

If Hillary Clinton said swallowing turds was healthy, her followers would instantly become scatologists.

[BainsBane]

96. No, that isn't at all what I said

I said he needs to be straight with the public about what's involved. The public has a right to be leveled with about the cons as well as the pros.

Nothing in my post said anything like what you wrote above. I'm not interested in your free association.

[pinebox]

105. Actually

You cite college and free education along with testing, however what are the SAT's and ACTs please? The truth is, trying to compare say Germany's free college model to our own is going down the wrong path. Both of my kids are in college at TU Dortmund. Do you know what they pay? Basically nothing outside of a few registration fees. The average American college education costs what?

According to the College Board, the average cost of tuition and fees for the 2015–2016 school year was $32,405 at private colleges, $9,410 for state residents at public colleges, and $23,893 for out-of-state residents attending public universities. http://www.collegedata.com/cs/content/content_payarticle_tmpl.jhtml?articleId=10064

Neither of my kids will ever know what student loans are or ever be enslaved to student loan debt. Period. Full stop. The system there is completely different than here and things like trade schools are a massive draw. You do NOT need a college education to make a living and survive in Europe like you do here, that is one huge difference.

I would urge you to read this article for more on how American's are flocking to Germany for free college http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32821678

[creatives4innovation]

113. You've misunderstood

Not true, no one has said everyone can go to college. The point is that anyone that meets admission criteria will be able to attend tuition-free. The difference is being able to attend would be based on merit, not financial means.

[appalachiablue]

27. Canada can do it, so can we. We have in the past, but we've slipped way down to Oligarchy.

[musiclawyer]

2. Bernie drops mic

The more they attack the stronger Benie gets. They don't get it. Never will in their bubble

[olddots]

3. the media has gone Dennis Miller

[Jarqui]

6. A lot of that media is owned by the corporate folks Bernie wants

out of the government and off Americans backs.

[cascadiance]

12. Even those MASQUERADING as liberal like MSNBC are being exposed...

... as the servants to COMCAST's corporate agenda that they truly serve.

Good to see Ed Schultz back on the air on RT now!

[dorkzilla]

22. MSNBC was exposed YEARS ago

To put it bluntly, they’re whores. How many “natural gas” ads are on the air in one commercial break? I haven’t watched them in years and won’t in the future. Liberal my fat, lily white ass.

[frylock]

57. I stopped watching that crap when they fired Donahue..

when was that? 2003?

[dorkzilla]

59. Yes, 2003.

I stop watching about 4-5 years ago, but it should have been waaaaay sooner, but you’ve always been smarter than me!

[frylock]

64. Oh, stop!

[dorkzilla]

67. It’s true!

[frylock]

68. C'mere you!

[dorkzilla]

69. Aww

[Oilwellian]

101. I admit...

I tuned in for Olbermann every night. His rants against the Bush crime family, and Hillary in the 2008 campaign, were epic.

[Champion Jack]

17. Ouch

first time I've heard that...

[Enthusiast]

33. Precisely.

[Kip Humphrey]

36. not just the media... DU Hilarian posts read like RedState these days.

[daleanime]

4. K&R....

[Skwmom]

5. The media on both sides are now exposed. This has been an eye opening election. n/t

[Jarqui]

7. I would add that I hope he gets Secret Service or his own protection soon

I'm getting frightened for his safety. These folks are not going to give up their power easily.

[restorefreedom]

41. i would prefer private security for him

and i would not mind my contributions going towards that

he needs it yesterday.

[elana i am]

9. this whatthefuckery...

The Vermont senator is making "fantastical claims about how he would make the European social model work in the United States," ignoring the fact that Wall Street has largely cleaned up its act since the financial collapse...

nope. no one went to prison, so nope. not even a little bit.

[tk2kewl]

13. they "cleaned up" alright

and we got cleaned out

[Spitfire of ATJ]

38. They rebranded their shit....

There are still CDOs of CDOs, Derivatives and anonymous Puts. Not to mention high speed trading that could crash the economy on command.

[onecaliberal]

39. And those supposed too big banks back then are twice as large now.

[retrowire]

99. they must have edited the wording

in the article. that's nuts.

[liberal N proud]

10. LOL

[thereismore]

15. Ooh, he's angry!

And I like it. Imagine when he will be able to actually hits his general election opponent
without pulling punches. Can't wait.

[SDjack]

83. Bernie to WaPo CEO: "Also, cancel my subscription immediately."

[PWPippin]

19. President Kennedy challenged our country to go to the moon.

He wasn't an astrophysicist or an engineer. He didn't have plans laid out about how to get there. But he had a vision. The country was inspired by his vision and, though he didn't live to see his vision become reality, it did become reality thanks to inspiration, hard work and ingenuity. Bernie and his supporters have visions of a better America. Does Bernie have detailed plans about how to accomplish them all? No. But he has a vision of a better America for our children, grandchildren and beyond and he is challenging us to help him accomplish them. We can do it, again, with inspiration, hard work and ingenuity.

[Eric J in MN]

56. +1 (NT)

NT

[sabrina 1]

21. Bernie has the ability to cut throught their bullshit and point out the obvious. Why did the Post

not think the starting wars all over the ME and Africa, Eastern Europe now, etc, was NOT too bold, impossible etc but thinks that something as popular as a National HC system is?

They make fools themselves daily, they think we are all still as naive as we were before they were all exposed for what they are.


Good, let them keep doing what they do, it's all the better for Bernie because every DAY the provide examples of exactly what his entire campaign is about.

[Hissyspit]

23. The Washington Post was too busy selling Bush's Iraq War.

[SheilaT]

24. This is what I like best about Bernie.

He does not back down from his beliefs and positions. He constantly fights back, elucidating whatever it is he's advocating, and points out the absurdity of most of the attacks on him or his positions.

He's not driven by polls or what he thinks he needs to say to get elected. He's driven by what right. Such a strange thing these days.

[Jack Rabbit]

28. In 1989, when Reagan left the White House, I wrote Newsweek a long letter that was not published

Newsweek at the time was owned by the Washington Post. The letter in response to something they ran praising Reagan, to which I took exception.

In the letter, I blamed the press/media for papering over many of Reagan's failures. For example, homelessness was not a serious problem in 1980, but was widespread by the time Reagan left office. While the press acknowledged homelessness as a problem, it did nothing to point to how Reagan's policies contributed to it's rise.

Another point I mentioned was the shrinking of the middle class. While this began under Nixon and continued under Ford and Carter, it became endemic under Reagan. I asked Newsweek why it was easier to find information about Zsa Zsa Gabor, even by that time a long-faded Hollywood personality, and her driving record in the wake of a dust up with a police officer who gave her a traffic ticket than I could find about increasing income inequality.

Even today, income inequality is treated as a chronic socioeconomic problem, but it's history and causes are largely ignored.

[in_cog_ni_to]

29. On message - ALWAYS! Good questions he asked.

I bet they'll never be answered.

WE THE PEOPLE are awake now and we are taking our country back from the Oligarchs! That's just the way it is. Better get use to it.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

72. Like I have said before.

Now is the time for a real progressive populist movement, but the message needs to be clear and not overly complex and it needs to be repeated over and over to drive it home into the minds of the people.

Then Bernie will win.

[ljm2002]

30. Great response!

"Getting back to the Washington Post, check out where all the geniuses on the editorial page were with regard to the invasion of Iraq." -- yep.

Bravo, Bernie, for pointing out the real radical change that has occurred in this country over the last 30 years.

Go Bernie!

[benny05]

31. Perfect Smackdown

"check out where all the geniuses on the editorial page were with regard to the invasion of Iraq."

Another establishment pawn in the 3D chess game. Taken out. Likewise, in addition to WaPO, I think the NYT had better heed that Sanders is not a fringe candidate anymore.

[NoMoreRepugs]

34. drop the mic - leave the stage - epic smackdown

[Sophiegirl]

37. Esquire magazine responds

Great rebuttal.

What The Washington Post (and Nearly Everyone) Gets Wrong About Bernie Sanders

"Well, that certainly makes "progressives" unique in our politics, unless you count every election ever. I went to a Ted Cruz rally on Wednesday night that had more in common with a tent revival than I was comfortable with. But "progressives" get under Fred's hide. They keep reminding him that his pet war in Iraq went horribly wrong. They keep reminding him that his beloved crusade to rejigger Social Security and Medicare will impoverish the old and kill the sick. They keep reminding him of the blog's First Law Of Economics–Fck the deficit. People Got No Jobs.

People Got No Money. And they keep reminding him that he does the Republic no favors when he gives platforms to the likes of Michael Gerson, a pious fraud, and torture-porn enthusiast Marc Thiessen. What Bernie Sanders proposes may be blue-sky stuff, but at least it's looking at the sky. It's not the shoe-gazing trudge toward oligarchy with which The Washington Post is comfortable."

/snip/

Takes a bit of sharp stick at Bezos too.

Full story at link.
[link:http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a41608/bernie-sanders-washington-post-response/|

[floriduck]

53. Gotta love Charlie Pierce.

He is one of the few honest journalists left.

[Beacool]

40. Sanders presented a version of his healthcare plan to Congress nine times without any success.

The current Congress has the largest Republican majority in the House since 1929. How in hell does he expect to pass anything through them? Oh yeah, how could I forget, the revolution is coming.

I don't know if people are just naïve or disingenuous enough to believe that this will ever come to pass.

[hueymahl]

43. Your right, we should not even try

More of the same I say!!!!

[Duckfan]

48. Well then why don't you ask all of these people in Los Angeles if.....

...they think the revolution is coming? Then multiply that by about 100 or so other campaign stops and ask them the same question. Oh, and BTW, these voters will also be voting for Congress critters and Senators. I believe when these people show up to the polls that there will be new Congress critters and Senators. Then there will be a Congress Bernie can work with.

(Geezzz, why do I always have to explain this stuff to people?)

?w=748&h=391

[dorkzilla]

66. Can you explain then how Hillary is going to get anything passed?

I don’t know if Hillary supporters are just being disingenuous when they claim that somehow Bernie won’t be able to get things passed but magically Hillary will be able to. Especially seeing how in love the Republicans are with the Clintons.

[neverforget]

90. Funny how that is never answered.....

[dorkzilla]

91. Yeah, funny that.

Except it's pathetic.

[ish of the hammer]

89. Clinton did it once

and then ran and hid when the nasty repubs said no!
and that's what Clinton says now - NO WE CAN'T!

[deutsey]

47. Bravo

[Eric J in MN]

50. 'The Washington Post may think I'm radical, but I'm not.'

I hope this clarifies that when Bernie Sanders says, "Want to hear a radical idea? Let's invest in jobs and education," he's using the word "radical" sarcastically.

[JDPriestly]

52. K&R.

[Uncle Joe]

60. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Nanjeanne.

[CharlotteVale]

63. Perfect response to those neocon hypocrites.

[Skwmom]

65. My favorite part:

When he was asked about foreign policy, Sanders detoured: "Getting back to The Washington Post — check out where all the geniuses on the editorial page were with regard to the invasion of Iraq." (They supported it.)

[FairWinds]

76. Hey Chillen, note that the WaPo . .

OK Chillin, just so you understand what is going on, note that the WAPO

Honchos never once, neither at the breakfast nor in print, addressed
Bernie's key point, and indeed the theme of his election.

Which is . .

"In the last 30 years, there has been a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class and working families of this country. The middle class has become poorer and trillions of dollars have been transferred to the top one-tenth of 1 percent…"

The journalists of the ONE PERCENT will deflect, deny and avoid; but they will not address that question.

Why won't they? They won't because it is TRUE, and can be easily proven.

In fact, I noticed and started teaching my students about that in the late 1980's.

I was right and so is Bernie.

I would hammer on that theme at every opportunity, and in fact I would state it more strongly. The student loan fiasco, for instance, is clearly outright theft. Same with the sub-prime home loans - that is not a "transfer," it is "THEFT."

[LWolf]

77. K & R

[Beacool]

86. Meh, that was nothing.

This editorial is brutal.

Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money

Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders said Monday his parents would never have thought their son would end up in the Senate and running for president. No kidding. He was a ne’er-do-well into his late 30s.

“It’s certainly something that I don’t think they ever believed would’ve happened,” the unabashed socialist remarked during CNN’s Democratic town hall forum, as polls show him taking the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire.

He explained his family couldn’t imagine his “success,” because “my brother and I and Mom and Dad grew up in a three-and-a-half-room rent-controlled apartment in Brooklyn, and we never had a whole lot of money.”

It wasn’t as bad as he says. His family managed to send him to the University of Chicago. Despite a prestigious degree, however, Sanders failed to earn a living, even as an adult. It took him 40 years to collect his first steady paycheck — and it was a government check.

“I never had any money my entire life,” Sanders told Vermont public TV in 1985, after settling into his first real job as mayor of Burlington.

Sanders spent most of his life as an angry radical and agitator who never accomplished much of anything. And yet now he thinks he deserves the power to run your life and your finances — “We will raise taxes;” he confirmed Monday, “yes, we will.”

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/bernie-sanders-the-bum-who-wants-your-money/

This is a mere taste of what he can expect in the unlikely event that he becomes the nominee.

[Uponthegears]

88. Typical

[TBF]

103. The repugs don't play nice Bea - you know that

it will be the same if not worse with Hillary. I'm not going to even mention all the crap they throw out about her because we've all heard it.

And yes taxes need to be raised. If this country wants to continue down the path of just giving all the money to the same dozen people or so and letting the rest of the country go to hell then don't raise them. I guarantee there will be no recovery for any middle class of any definition without redistribution, because the 1% has stolen all of the money. There's just no way around that.

[Beacool]

110. No, with Hillary it won't be new.

She's been getting similar vile since Bill was running for president. Sanders won't get even a quarter of what she has gotten over the years. She has been accused of everything from cheating on Bill to murder. Frankly, some of the same crap has seeped to this site, and I don't mean on policy. I mean similar RW attacks about her marriage and character. Disgusting......

As for Sanders, I think that he's a decent man who is calling for a "political revolution" that is not going to happen. I understand why the Left wants to believe in his vision, but the reality on the ground is not going to allow it. Hillary will also encounter resistance, but because she has learned over the years that one wins by increments, she has a better chance of getting something done. The only thing I see with Sanders in office is complete gridlock.

[TBF]

114. Well I certainly respect your view as a long term activist

we'll see how it plays out. Have a good evening.

[Gothmog]

94. The cost savings needed to sustain Sanders plan are not real according to Prof Krugman

As pointed out by the Washington Post, Sanders plan depends on some unrealistic projections of savings that reminds Prof. Krugman of the promises made by republicans as to the benefits of tax cuts. These cost savings are not proven and cannot be relied on. I trust Prof. Krugman on this http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/weakened-at-bernies/?_r=0

On health care: leave on one side the virtual impossibility of achieving single-payer. Beyond the politics, the Sanders “plan” isn’t just lacking in detail; as Ezra Klein notes, it both promises more comprehensive coverage than Medicare or for that matter single-payer systems in other countries, and assumes huge cost savings that are at best unlikely given that kind of generosity. This lets Sanders claim that he could make it work with much lower middle-class taxes than would probably be needed in practice.

To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich — and single-payer really does save money, whereas there’s no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, it’s not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect.

Again, as noted by Prof. Krugman this plan does not add up. Sanders proposed savings are hypothetical and unrealistic

[sabrina 1]

98. Great way to get the Corp media to pay attention to his campaign. I see they fell for it. Lol!

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

104. Bernie Sanders Just Unleashed on Media Pundits

In fact, The Nation reported in 2014 that the Washington Post published more than 140 stories promoting the Iraq War on its front page in the months before the invasion, and the paper received numerous other criticisms for their reporting.

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-response-to-washington-post-editorial-is-perfect/

[Beacool]

111. That doesn't negate the validity of some of their points.

Dreaming is great until you wake up and face reality.

[George II]

108. The Washington Post has decided to respond to Sanders:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-sanderss-ideas-are-not-too-bold-they-are-too-facile/2016/01/28/e7125bca-c60a-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html

[Nanjeanne]

109. Now that's funny

They want the last word but every time they try they just sound more ridiculous. Quoting Thorpe, who's bio on Emory says

In addition to holding a number of faculty positions, Thorpe was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Policy in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from 1993 to 1995. In this capacity, he coordinated all financial estimates and program impacts of President Clinton’s health care reform proposals for the White House.

He is also a Co-Chair of Partnership for the Future of Medicine. I took a quick look around at that site. Seems on the anniversary of Medicare they did a few roundtables on was to make it better because, doncha know, it's unsustainable. But funny I didn't see anything about raising the cap which makes it solvent for many many years. Nope - I saw:

In fact, Wakefield said HHS has set a goal of moving 50 percent of all fee-for-service Medicare payments to alternative payment models by 2018, a focus that will help providers move from a system that is paying for quantity to one that will pay for quality. To achieve this goal, HHS is working with private insurance companies, including Medicare Advantage plans, to find innovative ideas to ensure seniors receive quality health care at a lower cost. Some insurers have begun launching Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. In fact, Medicare Advantage’s focus on prevention and care coordination has influenced coordinated care models like ACOs.

That's right folks. Just give more of your money to private insurance companies for Medicare Advantage programs and they'll make it all better.

I don't think I'll take my analysis from Thorpe or the Washington Post at this point. It's always a good idea to consider the source.