Michael Moore was on Chris Hayes, absurdly trying to suggest there is any doubt that Hillary will be the nominee.
No surprise: he thinks Trump can beat Hillary by winning states like his state of Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, etc.
This just shows how much Berners like him hate Hillary Clinton. Hitler also came out against 'bad trade deals' seeing how powerful he believes protectionist arguments are.
Moore simply couldn't respond to Hayes observation that Obama has a solid approval rating now so maybe not everyone is as angry as Trump and Bernie.
What we can further point out is that Hillary has won 2 million more votes than Trump and 3 million more than Bernie so not everyone just wants to wreck everything just to say they did. Again, radical chance can also be of the wrong kind. Many will say any reference to Hitler is overwrought, but you can't deny:
1. He was a huge change
2. He was democratically elected
3. He was against 'bad trade deals'
I've argued that folks like Matt Yglesias couldn't be more wrong in suggesting the Dems should go down the Berner rabbit hole in the future.
The Center Left has been very good for the Democratic party as they've won 4 of the last 6 elections, and have won the popular vote 5 times.
The GOP has been the party of ideological certainly on the Right and look at the mess they are now in where they can't even unify around their own party's nominee.
Bernie is all about ideological purity-the details be damned.
"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has attracted a passionate following because he is selling his followers a fantasy. And not just any fantasy — but one of epic proportions. A group of respected, nonpartisan experts offered the public a sense of the scale on Monday, releasing the most thorough analysis yet on Sanders’s plan and finding that it is profoundly flawed. Before the Democrats agree to adopt his agenda, a price they might pay to get him to end his doomed campaign, they should be clear about what they are signing onto."
"The analysts found that Sanders’s program is very progressive, jacking up taxes massively on the rich and providing a range of new benefits to the poor. Though every working person would face higher payroll taxes, the value of these benefits would leave 95 percent of households better off. They granted Sanders that his single-payer health system, in which the government would pay for everyone’s care and demand no co-payments or other cost-sharing, would expand health-care access and cut the growth of health-care costs, and they made “aggressive” assumptions about how much the new system would reduce drug and other prices."
"But there is a massive catch. Sanders’s assurance that he has “a plan to pay for every spending program he has introduced to date” is wrong. And not just wrong, but extravagantly so. Even with his large tax increases, Sanders would fall $18 trillion short over just 10 years. Factoring in interest costs, his plan would add $21 trillion to the debt over a decade. That is more than the roughly $19 trillion the Treasury already owes. And the picture would probably get much worse as time went on. Expanding Social Security, for example, would become much more expensive as more people retired."
"Sanders’s health-care plan is the big budget-buster. It alone would cost $32 trillion over 10 years — “more than twice the new revenues” that Sanders would raise, Len Burman, the director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said on Monday. When reporters have asked Sanders about the costs of his health-care plan in the past, the senator has typically responded that other countries maintain functioning single-payer systems — as though he has not proposed a specific plan that should be assessed on its own merits. Burman pointed out Monday that other countries do not promise their people as much as Sanders does. Making his system less costly, the analysts found, would require doing very unpopular things. Deeply cutting payments to doctors and hospitals, for example, would induce “supply constraints” — that is, a shortage of providers willing to meet demand for health services, which would make it harder to access care. Think long wait times and other hurdles."
"Fully funding Sanders’s spending plan, meanwhile, would be extremely difficult. He has already proposed raising taxes on the wealthy so dramatically that tapping upper incomes much more would start losing the federal government revenue, Burman explained. Instead, Sanders would have to significantly increase broad-based taxes, such as on consumption, to fill the gap."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/05/09/confirmed-sanders-is-selling-a-fantasy-agenda/
No surprise: he thinks Trump can beat Hillary by winning states like his state of Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, etc.
This just shows how much Berners like him hate Hillary Clinton. Hitler also came out against 'bad trade deals' seeing how powerful he believes protectionist arguments are.
Moore simply couldn't respond to Hayes observation that Obama has a solid approval rating now so maybe not everyone is as angry as Trump and Bernie.
What we can further point out is that Hillary has won 2 million more votes than Trump and 3 million more than Bernie so not everyone just wants to wreck everything just to say they did. Again, radical chance can also be of the wrong kind. Many will say any reference to Hitler is overwrought, but you can't deny:
1. He was a huge change
2. He was democratically elected
3. He was against 'bad trade deals'
I've argued that folks like Matt Yglesias couldn't be more wrong in suggesting the Dems should go down the Berner rabbit hole in the future.
The Center Left has been very good for the Democratic party as they've won 4 of the last 6 elections, and have won the popular vote 5 times.
The GOP has been the party of ideological certainly on the Right and look at the mess they are now in where they can't even unify around their own party's nominee.
Bernie is all about ideological purity-the details be damned.
"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has attracted a passionate following because he is selling his followers a fantasy. And not just any fantasy — but one of epic proportions. A group of respected, nonpartisan experts offered the public a sense of the scale on Monday, releasing the most thorough analysis yet on Sanders’s plan and finding that it is profoundly flawed. Before the Democrats agree to adopt his agenda, a price they might pay to get him to end his doomed campaign, they should be clear about what they are signing onto."
"The analysts found that Sanders’s program is very progressive, jacking up taxes massively on the rich and providing a range of new benefits to the poor. Though every working person would face higher payroll taxes, the value of these benefits would leave 95 percent of households better off. They granted Sanders that his single-payer health system, in which the government would pay for everyone’s care and demand no co-payments or other cost-sharing, would expand health-care access and cut the growth of health-care costs, and they made “aggressive” assumptions about how much the new system would reduce drug and other prices."
"But there is a massive catch. Sanders’s assurance that he has “a plan to pay for every spending program he has introduced to date” is wrong. And not just wrong, but extravagantly so. Even with his large tax increases, Sanders would fall $18 trillion short over just 10 years. Factoring in interest costs, his plan would add $21 trillion to the debt over a decade. That is more than the roughly $19 trillion the Treasury already owes. And the picture would probably get much worse as time went on. Expanding Social Security, for example, would become much more expensive as more people retired."
"Sanders’s health-care plan is the big budget-buster. It alone would cost $32 trillion over 10 years — “more than twice the new revenues” that Sanders would raise, Len Burman, the director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said on Monday. When reporters have asked Sanders about the costs of his health-care plan in the past, the senator has typically responded that other countries maintain functioning single-payer systems — as though he has not proposed a specific plan that should be assessed on its own merits. Burman pointed out Monday that other countries do not promise their people as much as Sanders does. Making his system less costly, the analysts found, would require doing very unpopular things. Deeply cutting payments to doctors and hospitals, for example, would induce “supply constraints” — that is, a shortage of providers willing to meet demand for health services, which would make it harder to access care. Think long wait times and other hurdles."
"Fully funding Sanders’s spending plan, meanwhile, would be extremely difficult. He has already proposed raising taxes on the wealthy so dramatically that tapping upper incomes much more would start losing the federal government revenue, Burman explained. Instead, Sanders would have to significantly increase broad-based taxes, such as on consumption, to fill the gap."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/05/09/confirmed-sanders-is-selling-a-fantasy-agenda/
Nope. Taxes on everyone would have to go up, not just the rich. This is what he didn't want admit early-which is why he had to be pulled kicking and screaming into releasing any details.
As for the Dems, I've stated a number of times that this is Hillary Clinton's party, not Bernie Sanders's.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/democratic-strategist-2016-year-of.html
No comments:
Post a Comment