eom

eom

And other increasingly maudlin terms
which have lost their impact on these boards.

There You Go.

that's for sure!

Sorry we're boring you.

The really sad thing is the DLC/third way people are so embarrassed by what they are that they consider the label to be an insult.

Sanders was organizing sit-ins for the civil rights movement when Clinton was campaigning for Goldwater.

Sanders was never a republican. Clinton was.

17 to 18 years old at the time, not eligible to vote.

Hillary was only 17 at the time so how could she possibly be president of her college's Young Republicans?

You might want to check out what she was doing during the Watergate hearings.

And no Bernie is not a life long Democrat in fact today he is still not a Democrat. If you are going to use facts, you might want to check first that they jive with what you are saying, otherwise...

And yes when she went to college, she identified as a Democrat (it's also where she met the future President of the United States Bill Clinton).

If that's all the ammunition you have all I can do is.



ETA: yes first year of college, young Republicans. Her life long service to the Democratic party after that well wipes out that one year as a young adult.

Over 50 years ago!! ROFLMAO!!

Tell me. Do you honestly think that party label is a valid replacement for sound policy and positions?

Hillary was a 15-yr-old girl living at home with her parents in Park Ridge, IL. When she was 21, she was giving her commencement speech at Wellesey. (By then she had already canvassed for Democrat Eugene McCarthy in his 1968 Presidential bid.)

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-rodhams-1969-commencement-address/

Have at it.

And I have no chip on my shoulder.

I am a democrat who strongly favors Bernie Sanders in what most likely will be a contentious democratic primary.

I'll vote for Hillary in the general election if she wins the primary. (because I live in a swing state. If I lived in an uncontested state I'd write-in Bernie)

I fucking HATE when someone tries to manipulate me by defining what my positions mean. You can GTFO with that bullshit as far as I'm concerned.

In fact, it's intrinsically Democratic.

Haven't seen it used in a long time but perfectly appropriate here.

Yea, I realize that Bernie is great..I just think he would fail miserably in a G.E. Our dumbed down electorate in this country is not politically educated enough to see through the billion dollar attacks which would inundate the airways attacking Bernie as A Communist ,Marxist anti-Christian old nutty man..

If the White House along with the Senate and House end up in Right Wing hands, this country will be screwed for decades.... Very frightening.. So I’m sticking with Hillary with all the problems she might represent cause a President Jeb Bush ( who is a lot dumber than most of us thought) will complete the transference of our economy to the Koch Brothers and friends..

Really. And your argument for that is...

You think voters are stupid. And yet you think these idiot voters aregoing to rally for Clinton... while her supporters are jeerign abotu how stupid they are.

That sounds like a winning strategy there.

eom

everything above is deflection to forget that she got the TU

BOOM

boom!!!

Nobody sticks up harder for unions than Bernie Sanders. No triangulating, no hedging. Consistent through the decades.

eom

....this is the result of that effort. Very well "guided".

Members are unaware of any poll being taken. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

If you think Hillary has a much better chance of actually winning and you're not worried about paying a price by offending Sanders (since, even in the highly unlikely event he wins, he'll bend over backwards for you anyway), why not position yourself to benefit? Hillary's the one who's more likely keeping score after all.

They will all stand with Hillary come Nov 2016 and beyond.
^H^R^C
MPOTUS 2016

Normally unions support the nominee and not the
earlier candidates.

OP-worthy IMHO.

I saw the same reactions from teachers on FB.

And FUD is all the tea-party/third-wayers have.

I couldn't remember, this is it:

https://www.facebook.com/AFTunion/posts/10153179896154160

ETA: Oops, just saw that it's you who first found the link.

Not that it is already.

That's what her corporate friends want.

Because Clinton would share that with a random poster on a webpage?

Bookmarking, and if she becomes president somehow, I'll say I told you so.

But do bookmark this so you can congratulate me when Hillary takes the Oath of Office.

I'll be waiting.

Though I'm not sure it warrants the "BOOM" as though an achievement. I mean, we kind of already knew that the AFT was going to side with Hillary. Close ties with Randi Weingarten and all. The only issue I have there is it seems a little "business as usual". Randi didn't even consider Bernie Sanders before making the decision. That aside, its still a 1.5 million membership win for Hillary.

Its interesting to note some of the endorsements Bernie Sanders has received as well, such as The Occupy Wall Street crowd. This shows some pretty significant grass-roots-activist support for Bernie. http://www.attn.com/stories/1564/occupy-wall-street-endorses-bernie-sanders-president

There's been some rather interesting individual endorsements too, such as Lewis Black, Larry Cohen and Dudley Dudley.
That's quite a potent trio.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/23/lewis-black-endorses-bernie-sanders-tells-bill-cosby-to-f-himself.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/01/larry-cohen-bernie-sanders_n_7702254.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/04/politics/bernie-sanders-dudley-dudley-endorsement-new-hampshire/

Then there are those who are leaning Bernie's way (Though they can't be counted yet since they've not officially endorsed anyone) such as the AFL-CIO(12.5 million members), and the National Education Association (3.2 million members).

Both nominee contenders seem to be doing well. Most importantly, both our contenders are trouncing the GOP contenders at the polls.
It'll be very interesting to see how it all plays out

"a group started by Occupy Wall Street founders made their first ever endorsement of a presidential candidate by lending their support to Sen. Sanders."

I don't think it would be a stretch to presume the members of Occupy Wall Street would follow its founders in endorsing Bernie Sanders. After all, few will be as networked into the Occupy Wall Street movement as its founders.

"it backed her in her losing primary battle against Barack Obama in 2008."

and corporatism, while we celebrate the AFT's infinitely stale variety.

Teachers by the thousands voted for Rick Scott here in Florida. He repaid their trust by screwing them over royally. The AFT can expect the same for HRC.

More to come. Its early.

Because she will be th nominee.

Not to worry.

Then we take on the dirty corrupt RW untill the election.
Wish it was over & Hillary was in the Oval Office leading America back to a healthy, humane & reasonable place to exist.
Its been veering off the rails for some time with RW dysfunction.
I believe Hillary's election will also bring a change of power balance in DC.
Well needed change that only Hillary Clinton can carry out.

But thanks for playing the RW talking points game.
Emily's list doesn't endorse 1%ers.
Nor do the many other great solid Dem endorsements she has.
She'll be just fine. And so will AmerIca in 2016 when she steps up as MPOTUS 2016.
Human Rights are Equal Rights. And that committment from Hillary is NOT a 1% er policy.
That is a Hillary policy promise.
Bye

no idea how much I LOATHE rightwingers. As for Emily's list, they endorse women. That's their right. But you've probably figured out that many of us Bernie supporters find a bit too much of the rightwing in Hillary. You may adore her, but so far the Democratic Party is big enough for both of us, and if you believed in small-d democracy, you'd understand that.

So please don't give me that condescending little "Bye." It makes you look bad.

Its seems more like since people are unable to address the content of the argument, they choose instead to attack the poster.

Which can be found here:
https://www.opensecrets.org/
Its veracity has been checked here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/07/facebook-posts/meme-says-hillary-clintons-top-donors-are-banks-an/

If Jesus rose from the dead to endorse a candidate, some people would say that made him third way.

Teachers rock, no matter whom they support!

Why are these Bernie people so combative?

The thing is nobody reads DU except people on DU. It's not like this place is a national opinion maker. It's more a place for lots of angry at the world people.

Since you are on DU.

They want Hillary as a role model for young women. I understand that, but we really need to get back to teachers teaching, rather than teaching for test reults. The only ones benefiting from all the testing are the testing companies who are making millions.

The Nominee:

[img][/img]

Do you actually believe women vote for a woman rather than make up their own mind based on issues? The women activists I have associated with for years, loyal democrats, that have expressed an opinion say they are for Bernie.
They say Hillary is blind a to what is coming. I do not know, but the over simplistic analysis you make seems blind to me at best.
It seems to me that Hillary evolves to take on almost all of Bernie's' long held beliefs an d uses phrases like" if necessary" to alert her Wall Street and corporate donors they can count on her. She is very clever, and cleverness often is perceived as dishonesty. I certainly perceive the inability to take a clearly stated position without an opinion poll and preserving your option to support your rich donors as very disingenuous.
I suspect she is another shill for the one percent to deflect attention to social issues without ever really tackling their death grip on our government and continuing to allow unfettered greed of the rich and paid off politicians to further weaken our people. Politics was taught earlier by Economics departments and our party should be defined by how we use economic policies to benefit our people as a whole. This is why Bernie has so much steam behind him that we will feel the Bern.

I'm betting the Bushes profit from that obscenity.
Jeb loves Common Core .

If I were you I would edit my post

when Obama ran. Those were racist, not sexist. Black people are voting for him because he is black, yadda, yadda. Those were the mildest of them.

Hillary has been grooming herself for the position since her college days. She wants to make history. People vote personalities, just because they like her doesn't mean they know where she stands on the issues that are so crucial to keeping what is left of this so called Democracy. If we even have one left. I vote for character and where this candidate wants to take the country. Gender makes no difference to me.

She may have an endorsement,but she does not have all the votes of those cited. Good for a tv ad I guess.

I support Bernie. Just do the opposite of your Union (not all the time) & you can be happy, at least in this instance. I've been talking up Bernie to my brothers, Teamsters, Painters and Postal Union member. My 85 year old mother doesn't need convinced, she just likes his voice & what's coming out of his mouth.

It states that Hillary has planned an economic speech "to neutralize the criticism leveled at her by her leading challenger, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont."

Bernie Sanders has never criticized Hillary Clinton. That's not how he rolls. Too bad we can't say the same of her.

But I'm sure you saw how she conducted herself during the 2008 campaign. When it comes to "speak no ill of another candidate," she's no Bernie Sanders. By a long shot.

As for his "criticism" of her, the article says,

"Asked if Clinton's refusal to take a position offends him, Sanders said:

"Yes, it does."

Offends HIM. A self-referential statement. He didn't call HER "offensive." And I doubt he ever would.

Okay.

I'm not saying that the three observations in your post relative to this discussion are wrong.

I'm just observing that they aren't correct.

and sanction them?
Unions do not endorse candidates until our union heads say so.. And that is always around the prim's or a couple months before. AFL-CIO must be so effected by this B/S. You do not go against the union. I hope HRC. did not ask a favor from a local union member to throw HRC. to the front of the Bus...

















unions do not

to swing their true collectiveness over to the Bern. It is my belief that she is looking for a new position under the charter investors if she delivers the support to a candidate with big corporate support (like Clinton).

Labor unions and privatizers are opposites.

HRC has strong support of LAUSD!

More endorsements to follow! Yippee!!!!!!

will be voting otherwise.

Would have been nice had they waited for the debates and primary to actually start.

But Weingarten is a PAC leaders and ally of Clinton so having the leadership of this union come out for the coronation this soon is really not that surprising.

Clinton is a master game player.

This reeks of quid pro quo and allies positioned in leadership roles giving an endorsement way too early.

We have had zero debates. We still have candidates entering the primary (Biden anyone?!). And yet, the union has already decided that HRC is the best choice?

Sorry we weren't born yesterday.

The union is slitting their own throat.

More like Oops.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251438413

I guess that they are not ready for Hillary.

People told me I was wrong and that it wouldn't happen this early. Well, I hate to tell you this, but I told you so.

to endorse Cuomo instead of the liberal candidate? How did that turn out?

Bernie supporters anger over any support HRC gets from traditional Democratic constituencies. They lie and misrepresent, no matter who supports her.

I am sick of Bernie supporters here, and in a few other places online. I got my copy of "The Nation" yesterday. Bernie was on the cover. I am so tired of his supporters, that I turned the magazine over on the table. I will read it later, but his supporters are creating a backlash against their candidate. I was willing to listen to him with an open mind. Now, I can't even look at his face.

They can’t even admit that the billion dollar campaign by the Kochs, Addelson, and other Oligarchs against a Man who really has little history with our dumbed down electorate will make it almost impossible for him to beat Jeb Bush...I like Bernie as do most Hillary Supporters, but the stakes for 2016 are too critical..

Nothing to do with the real world.

My wife and I are AFT members. Here in Florida, like most states, public employees have large retirement funds that are mostly invested in "Wall Street". Every penny is bargained and collected over many years. If the fund is short, the legislature will inevitably pay employees less or else their hard-earned pensions will be reduced.

Bernie's Robin Hood tax is scary. It would mean that over the decades, every transaction (hundreds of times a year if not every day) of those retirement funds would pay a tax. Effectively, it reduces public employees, teachers, and union members' pay and retirement. An automatic windfall for GOP legislatures!!

That alone is enough to support a candidate other than Bernie. His economic solutions are too simplistic and unworkable.

Links below:

I just looked at NY, AZ, WI, CA, etc..these funds are often public employees represented by unions. This money is hard-fought. It's collected and invested for decades by whatever office each state sets up - in Florida it's almost 200 billion invested by a staff of 200 who are constantly buying, selling, and trading. Also, some funds are in the hands of large private investment companies. They clearly complete transactions everyday, which include stocks, bonds, real estate, derivatives, commodities. Most of the time, no type of investment is out of bounds unless the state or controlling board specifically limit them. Those investments would be TAXED by Bernie's transaction tax. That retirement money is earned by public employees, often union members: teachers, professors, police, firemen, city employees, social workers, park rangers, etc. Every penny that fund doesn't contain, is a penny that labor has to fight over.

For example, you can see in AZ the following allocation:

Equity/Stocks: 58%
U.S. Equity: 26%
Non-US Equity: 24%
Private Equity: 8%
Fixed Income: 25%
U.S. Fixed Income: 15%
Private Debt: 10%
Inflation Linked Assets: 12%
Real Estate: 10%
Commodities: 2%

https://www.azasrs.gov/content/asset-allocation
https://www.osc.state.ny.us/pension/overview.htm
http://www.calstrs.com/investments-overview



http://www.sbafla.com/fsb/

The State Board of Administration (SBA) was created by the Florida Constitution and is governed by a three-member Board of Trustees (Trustees), comprised of the Governor as Chair, the Chief Financial Officer and the Attorney General.

The Trustees, in concert with legislative directives, have ultimate oversight. They delegate authority to the Executive Director/Chief Investment Officer to carry out the strategic direction in the day-to-day financial investments and operations of the agency. The Executive Director/CIO manages approximately 190 professional investment and administrative support staff.

The SBA is required to invest assets and discharge its duties in accordance with Florida law and in compliance with fiduciary standards of care. Under state law, the SBA and its staff are obliged to:

Make sound investment management decisions that are solely in the interest of investment clients.
Make investment decisions from the perspective of subject-matter experts acting under the highest standards of professionalism and care, not merely as well-intentioned persons acting in good faith.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/31/why-free-college-is-really-expensive.html

Why Free College is Really Expensive

Everyone knew Bernie Sanders would propose a tax on Wall Street. But spending that money on college tuition is a cynical handout to the upper-middle class.

Even Sanders himself, however, lists the Robin Hood tax as an afterthought; after all, if you raise a Robin Hood tax you can do a long list of things with the money you get from it (including cutting other taxes, or spending on other initiatives). The emphasis from Sanders’ statements is where the money will go: paying for tuition for public colleges.

The first problem with Sanders’ proposal is that a national tuition subsidy will be counterproductive even on its own terms. The proposal will cut the economic legs out from underneath innovations such as open online courses, which may be on the cusp of delivering low-cost, high-quality college education for all. Organizations trying to deliver radical new models will now have to compete against a $70 billion subsidy for the old system.

Additionally, directing that much guaranteed money into a system is a sure-fire way to accelerate cost inflation. The state may pick up the tab for tuition, but students will still have to pay for ancillary services (such as room, board, textbooks, etc.), and those services will go up in price. These costs are not trivial; for instance, although Sweden has abolished college tuition, students graduate with more debt than students in the United Kingdom, and only slightly less than students in the US. Through economic incompetence, Sanders’ proposal might hit the jackpot of reducing college quality while also increasing cost.

Economically bad policy design from Sanders is not surprising. After all, the man is a self-declared Socialist. His appeal was not policy wonkery; as a protest candidate, Sanders (we hoped) would at least identify the right issues, even if his solutions were unworkable. In this case, Sanders has pointed out the wrong problem.

------------------------

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/36vmm8/what_are_some_legitimate_arguments_against_bernie/

[–]DeadMonkey321 50 points 12 days ago*

Apparently (according to a tax lawyer who was running around one of the earlier threads), there was no exception for 401k's, meaning that every time the mutual funds in your retirement fund rebalance, which should be a few times a year, you're paying a tax and losing money from your retirement.

Edit: just used the calculator found here to calculate the costs of 0.5% over 40 years assuming you were investing just $5500/year (the max allowable to an IRA). Using these assumptions, this tax would cost you, the average investor, $157,000 over the 40 years you're investing. This is money that I'm sure you'd prefer going towards your retirement.

Note: this isn't 100% accurate as I'm treating this as an addition to the expense ratio which isn't totally correct, but it's a ballpark figure to give the tax some context



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/29/1388484/-Bernie-Sanders-big-idea-has-a-math-problem#

--------------------------

Bernie Sanders' big idea has a math problem

The tax Bernie Sanders is talking about is pretty much like a sales tax on certain financial market transactions. I don't know the exact rate Bernie included in his bill, but the Robin Hood Tax group calls for a rate of 0.5%, or one-tenth the average state sales tax. Given that the total value of transactions in the stock, commodity and various other financial markets numbers in the trillions of dollars annually, the idea that this tax could generate enough to pay for sending young Americans to college would seem reasonable.

For example, such a tax on the $550+ billion spent on stock buybacks by the S&P 500 in 2014 would yield $2.75 billion in taxes. That's just shy of 2% of the total needed and stock buybacks are about the least productive use of corporate funds: American companies are substituting these buybacks for investments in their companies that might produce real growth instead of an illusion. Of course, they do increase the value of executive bonuses and stock options...

But wait! That's a huge chunk of change being taxed to yield only a tiny percentage of the amount Bernie Sanders thinks the market would generate.

The truth is that in order for a financial transaction tax to generate $300 billion at a 0.5% rate, the total amount of taxable financial transactions would have to be $60 trillion. Even at the average sales tax rate of 5%, the amount of taxable transactions has to be $6 trillion annually.

Just to generate enough to pay for public college tuition, the taxable amount has to be at least $29.2 trillion. And that's if nobody comes up with schemes to legally (or not) avoid the tax.

-----------------

I think a transaction tax will be a burden on pubic and union pensions.

I'd rather see a change to capital gains taxes, closing loopholes, and a serious tax on money going overseas would make more sense.

No matter what the transaction tax it, it will go back to union pensions, retirees, and public employees.

Can't wait until next November!

nt