by my reckoning.

to Bezo's value any minute now.

reminds me too much of trump.

depend on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Medicaid and other government programs to cover their families' basic needs.

I believe Bezos to be the wealthiest individual in the world and Amazon the second most valuable corporation at just over a trillion dollars next to Apple, so it makes perfect sense.

calling it BEZOS is over the top.

Whether he likes it or not Bezos has become a PRIME inspiration for this bill.

If the marketing moves the American People to act whether in protest or the voting booth, then even without the Republican Congress taking the bill up in this session, progress will still be made.

Give me a jingle when it comes out of committee.

Thanks!

He was pretty mean to the plutocrats!

He didn't alienate anyone, he was a coalition builder - building coalitions at times with problematic political allies ( like the Dixiecrats) And progressives weren't satisfied with him, The New Republic constantly attacked him.

FDR's economic approach was a balance of attracting business interests and pushing monopolies while expanding the federal government. He liberalized international trade, he saw it as a way to advance American Interests.

You can't judge a man by one speech he gave, FDR was about Balance and Triangulation

He never alienated anyone, well, except for the oligarchs who tried to mount a military coup against him, and the wealthy anti-Semites who called him "Franklin Delano Rosenfeld."

When he said that he welcomed the hatred of those responsible for such evils as "business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking" and "war profiteering," he didn't really mean it. Mere dramatic license.

FDR truly was a Sensible Pragmatic Centrist™ and would probably be on the board of directors at Third Way if he were alive today. Any assertion to the contrary is fake news.

He ran in 1933 as a contrast to hoover, as challengers are wont to do. He promised to clean up corruption and FDR prevailed, not just because of his campaign strategy but also because Hoover was so awful.

As for Hoover, as Assistant Sec. of the Navy under Wilson, FDR once remarked that Hoover ( who was head of the US Food Administration) is a "wonder, and I wish we could make him President". If the net existed then, and FDR emailed that to a buddy, and it got leaked, all hell would break loose and people would say that Hoover and FDR are the same. ( but I digress)

FDR's speech in 1936 was a moment where he dipped in the well of populism, but that one speech is not the singular defining moment of his presidency. He liberalized trade because he saw it as a path to establish U.S dominance - unlike what some try to argue, free trade is not some modern clinton invention.

There's great irony in mentioning "the third way" to contrast FDR, when FDR was very much into triangulation. Historian Leuchtenburg described Roosevelt's "determination to serve as a balance wheel between management and labor … Despite the radical character of the 1934 elections, Roosevelt was still striving to hold together a coalition of all interests, and, despite rebuffs from businessmen and the conservative press, he was still seeking earnestly to hold business support."

And the New Deal itself was a story of compromise and triangulation. Social Security was not enough to cover all originally, and because of racism at the time, it marginalized jobs depended upon by many black people - jobs in agriculture and domestic labor. The reason for this was the Democratic Coalition which was an uneasy alliance between Southern Dixiecrats and Northern Liberals. And Roosevelt didn't want to antagonize the Dixiecrats too much - In the following mid-terms after that '36 speech, Dems suffered blowback to the New Deal, the '37 recession probably had a lot to do with it, and it was the Northern Liberals who got hit, not the Southerners.

See I don't view Presidents through rose colored glasses, neither do I engage in politics of nostalgia. FDR was a monumental leader, and he moved the country forward, but the 30's and 40's were a different era, with different challenges. And he wasn't a flawless President - there isn't a leader or politician on the planet who isn't "flawed" in one way or many ways.

The habit of lionizing FDR to shame modern Democrats or lionize modern politicians who we like is folly.

it's about us. And about how back then we did amazing but imperfect things in the face of enormously imperfect political realities that nevertheless ushered in the greatest period of wellbeing and prosperity America's had to date.

Our turn.

"Imperfect political realities"

Along with facebook and twitter

Based on the simple fact that they deserve it, not the other person.

So I guess the goal here to have the Government force Amazon to sell its stocks to a public entity while giving a Scandinavian country people idealize the middle finger.

Genius.

Why am I not surprised that sanders is wrong on this http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/bernie-sanderss-bezos-bill-would-hurt-the-working-class.html#comments

Thank You!

but raise objections or the possible effects from bad legislation risks you getting called a hater- risks you getting called a "neoliberal" , risks you getting called all the other nonsensical insults.

Since Rose Twitter likes to harass anyone who dares to raise concerns about any of Sander's proposals, I expect some Dems to publicly endorse while quietly rolling their eyes.

It's funny how Bezos has become public enemy no.1 for both Trump and Sanders. Amazon doesn't even employ half as much workers as Walmart, yet Sanders felt it necessary to use a backronym to name his bill targeting Bezos. How is Amazon symbolic of a Welfare subsidies drain?

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive think tank, raised some notable concerns about the bill. https://www.cbpp.org/poverty-and-inequality/sanders-khanna-bill-risks-unintended-side-effects-that-could-hurt-lower

unemployable people.

Link to tweet

The CBPP has apparently sold out to the Waltons because they dare , they dareeeee to point out the flaws in the bill. How very dare theyy.

As one of the replies said, "Probably no think-tank has done more to explore/expose the impact of policy on the poor & middle class. "

They dare raise concerns, Gunnels' response is to not answer these concerns in any kind of thoughtful way.

Gunnel cannot argue that Sanders' history of sponsoring and co-sponsoring progressive bills are evidence that we should ignore CBPP's concerns and not approach this as if we were in a "policy vacuum" ( lolwut?). In any case, Sanders has no bona fides here, since these bills never passed Warren

Gunnel then misconstrues valid points about the impact of the bill on workers who depend on public assistance as some kind of stigmatization of poor people. Then he taps into populist outrage by declaring how bad all these billionaires are and we really oughta show them when grievance should never be the impetus of legislation. Pointing fingers at the chosen enemies of the Populist should never be the point of legislation. Legislation is implemented to improve conditions, not blame individuals.

The best part though..

"It doesn’t allow corporations to discriminate against low-income workers. If any corporation discriminated against hiring workers who could qualify for public assistance their CEO should face stiff criminal and civil penalties." - Translation: "no way, it don't do that, no matter what you say it don't do that" . Well here's an idea: why wasn't this outcome stipulated or mentioned in the bill? Maybe that's something you should do, come up with a bill which addresses that??

"It’s absurd to think this bill will spur CEOs to lobby for cuts to the social safety net. News flash: CEOs have been lobbying to privatize or cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and virtually every other program benefiting the working class since the 1930s." -

Actually, Corporations have been happy to let the government take up the slack. The Koch Brothers don't represent ALL Corporations Warren.

So in Gunnel's world: on the one hand, it's absurd to think CEO's will lobby cuts to the social safety net, but on the other hand, they've been lobbying for cuts to the safety net since the 1930's. With one sweeping contradictory tweet, he validates CBPP's concerns and he doesn't even realize it.

But let's be real here: The purpose of highlighting this bill is not to actually get it passed. When it doesn't get passed, and when Dems raise the very concerns the CBPP have articulated, it gives Sanders the excuse to once again frame critics of the bill ( who actually know what they're talking about and are acting in good faith) as "establishment" and part of the "elite" who have "lost touch with the common man" . In other words, we're going to see a repeat of 2016. Kind of like when Planned Parenthood didn't endorse him and he decided to call them the establishment.

Look, he needs to come better than this and his supporters should demand better.

entity who did the analysis.

As we saw here on DU when factcheck.org was called "a gullible tool of the Koch bros" when it came to finding that something Sanders claimed was not supported.

instantly disappeared, please?

Factcheck.org, Politifact, CNN and WAPO for having the gall to fact check a statement by Senator Sanders and finding it lacking in accuracy.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016213850#post74

I dont want to take one more OUNCE of it in HERE!


Repeatedly sending up bills that cannot pass, CANNOT, solves nothing. In fact one could argue there is an agenda wrapped around the very fact that the bills cant pass and have a certain flavor to them.

Personally, I want single payer universal HC and believe it is doable and affordable and in the SAME way as the Nordic states even though we are bigger and all that other stuff.

I am also in favor of eliminating guns along the same manner Australia has done.

I could go on.

However, in this current climate neither of these can even be discussed let alone achieved. So, logic LOGIC dictates you proceed with small steps and you massage the egos and ideas over a few years and I could explain further but what you dont do is OVER and over submit bills you know cant pass.

Weird. do we have a head scratcher emoji?

on the left.

2016 shot that theory to hell.

would have nixed ACA.

The you know who's decided right then and there he was no good, that they would NOT show up in 2010 to help him.

Then folks came along and reinforced that LIE about Obama that he was no good, too much like the other side.

That gurgled over into the 2016 campaign, making it near impossible for Hillary to get the full support she deserved.

Almost all businesses that fall into those categories pay minimum, or as close to minimum as they can get away with, and have since before I first started working back in the mid 70s. Plus they hire mostly part time and often don't offer benefits or very few.

If Bernie truly cares for the American working class, poor, seniors, disabled, veterans, etc than he should push harder for a federally mandatory 'Living Wage' not a 'Minimum Wage' and universal health care that covers all types of medical needs including dental, optical, mental health and low cost prescriptions.

different than all those Democrats and progressive NGOs who have been working more effectively for the middle class and the poor.

Certainly he promotes the narrative that he and he alone has the answers, and is being attacked by nefarious forces like factcheck.org and and non-partisan independent think tanks who do the work of checking his statements ad legislation.

This legislation certainly was "different" and the analysis of it being harmful for the middle class was held up as a "corporate attack on Bernie for being so effective!"

That's fundraising gold.

It's an election year, and Tad Devine doesn't work for cheap.