yawn.

From the video: "Sanders says the soda tax penalizes poor people".

Sorry, Bernie. That's shit logic on both ends of the issue.

Guess who are the primary consumers of cigarettes? That's right, poor people.

And guess which population segment is disproportionately affected by junk food due to a lack of proper healthcare to treat the resulting issues? That's right, poor people.

Bernie is as wrong on protecting the junk food industry as he is protecting gun manufacturers.

I've often felt that" food stamp" Access cards (and, in my retirement, I have gratefully qualified and made use of them) should not really cover "junk food," and should cover non-food necessities, such as soap and bathroom tissue. Most junk food isn't taxed, so still can be cheaper to pay for than cigarettes and sugary soft drinks.

It's funny how it's pretty acceptable to tell poor people how to run their lives, but not acceptable to pay more taxes to make sure that they live, work and play in a safe environment. At least with soda and cigarettes they get some enjoyment out of life, but fuck, let's take that away from them too, they are only the lesser people.

Z

Who does she (Clinton) want to tax, the businesses that put the sugar in the container, does she want to tax the consumer that buys the product, who does she want to tax, who does she want to punish. By the clip its apparent that she wants to punish the consumer, and that Sanders has no clue.

And as for Sanders not understanding this issue, I think he is pretty clear on this------------------someone that is making a profit on feeding "kids" and "adults" to drink a product that is in a lot of ways bad, then the profits should be taxed based on that ingredient by that producer at the beginning of the "process" and not at the end.

If someone wants to go out and buy it, the product, then they get hit with the price and the tax which is included, think cigarettes, cost over 6 dollars a pack, to force and make people to quit supporting a buying habit that is killing them and costing all of us money in health care--------------------duh.

And has for the mayor of Philly, who does he really support, when you read this article the corporations should not to be taxed, but the families that buy the product-----------------it reminds me of , Clockwork Orange the movie.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20160422_Kenney_s_soda_tax_gets_national_attention__Clinton_likes_it__Sanders_hates_it.html

Like education, she (Clinton) is all for giving relief to help people with education (great) , but she is just like those that support Charter Schools

Some think that Charter Schools is the item to incorporate into the public education system, a for profit system, why do you think Arne Duncan is at the Department of Education--------------think about that, he is a big proponent of Charter Schools, they are taking money, public money, out of public schools.

Look at Detroit, which is the whipping boy and girl when it comes to what has happened to public education and now Kansas, and Wisconsin are doing what to public education-----------they are stripping the public tax funds to support for-profit entities, like charter schools, then laying the blame on the public education system as being the problem a failure------------------I mean really, lets see and use more slight of hand tricks, use the smoke and mirrors, blame the govermental institutions of public funds as the problem--------I mean really.


She said in her town hall just last week, that the government needs to get out of education loans and to quit making a profit off student loans.

OK, Ms. Clinton, who should be running the education and the loan programs, (really, nobody complains about cheap Pell Grants if they get one), what does the charter schools, Universities, the for-profit banks, and there loans making entities do with loans.

They, all of them, are in the business to make money, that's who, and what they do................she said this at the around the 23 minute mark, in this below video.

Who does she want to punish if they have to go to a for-profit entity to get a loan, the student the parents, think about what she said in that clip.

She is, from this exchange in the (again at the 23 minute section of the clip) conversation and in all appearances blaming the government and there loan program-----------------really.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=hillary+clintons+town+hall+on+you+tube+in+Philedelphia&view=detail&mid=F41444A78FAC43C16ABAF41444A78FAC43C16ABA&FORM=VIRE

Germany, Sweden, and other industrialized countries subsidize the education through the government and for a specific reason, to get the for-profit oligarchies out of the education system, to NOT make a profit, let me repeat this, NOT to make a profit, (unless they are private and if the parents want to send there kids to a private system), but to get the students an education that they "want" and to help relieve the parents of the costs, which are, surprise, paid by everyone in the country into a education fund (a single fund for one purpose) and its not for a profit, its to build an education base for the needs of the society and the student into whatever field they (student) want to go into..............I know, I went to school in Germany.
Lowerring loan rates means that you still have carried interest loan..............think about that.

Here let me inject this into the conversation, it has a bearing in this and other conversations, so may not think so, but it does, its called donors and some of these donors give out loans to education and send products to make soda pop beverages and to make a profit and get tax breaks.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/abby-martin-exposes-hillary-clinton-really-represents/215921/


Honk--------------------for a political revoution Bernie 2106