Senator Bernie Sanders' ...A Thousand Cuts
The full list of tonight's citations listed after the jump:
Making the Thousand Cuts video
Gun control poll: Nearly everyone in NJ's GOP districts supports universal background checks
New polls support background checks for gun buyers, Mayor Against Illegal Guns says
Poll: overwhelming local support for background checks
As talks on gun background checks falter, Sen. Schumer says he'll move ahead
Oral Argument - Audio - Shelby County v. Holder
Insight on Scalia's 'racial entitlement' remark
Jeb Bush Open To 2016 White House Bid
Jeb Bush Quietly Lays Campaign Groundwork Through Foundation
Jeb Bush sounding more like a presidential candidate
Jeb Bush is back in the spotlight – and thinking about 2016
In Jeb Bush's Immigration Mishmash, One Thing's Clear: 2016 Race Is On
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE KENNETH B. MEHLMAN ET AL. SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS (pdf)
Jeb Bush Sees Romney Needing 'Broader' Immigration Ideas
Jeb Bush Book: Undocumented Immigrants Should Be Ineligible For Citizenship
Jeb Bush immigration reversal? No citizenship-pathway for the undocumented. Pulling a Romney?
Leave a Comment:
I have never before agreed with Rand Paul but I think his reference to Hitler is valid in that it is probably the most striking example of an evil person being democratically elected in stressful times.
You should check your history.
From Wikipedia:
Later, after much urging from influences within Germany, Preseident von Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor, and it was a steady rise into power from that.
The comparison of Hitler to the President is ridiculous.
Voter suppression is more of a "Hitler" type strategy, and no one will argue how the Republicans are attempting to rig the vote in their favor, like many other dictatorships have before them.
The inumerable Voter ID laws, restrictions, and curbing the vote. Rigging the states' Electoral votes..it SMACKS of treachery and living under a dictatorship, and that's something we will not stand for.
While I may not entirely agree with the use of drones due to collateral damage, I support thier use against terrorists and terrorism, and I do believe that they will not ever be used on our soil.
Rand Paul is a kook, and he's got his 15 minutes of fame, now.
Right. People (like KJB126) should not make historical arguments based on supposed 'common knowledge'. Hitler emphatically never won public office by standing himself for election. And the Nazis partly by sabotaging the democratic process, by gumming up the works in the Reichstag and by staging 'unrest' in the streets.
More to the point, who the hell is KJB126 talking about? It can't possibly be to Obama's CIA chief nominee. That's not an elective position. So he must be referring to Obama himself. He's comparing Obama to Hitler.
Drones - I think bombers and fignter jets dropping bombs on cities is more destructive than picking out the one person that is a terriorist and taking them out. The problem with drones is simple. Drones are cheap and the defense contractors don't make much money from them. Our government is croocked and controlled by big business.
Plan an simple. Kill a village or a person. Republicans would perfer to kill a village to get the bad guy.
Your comments about secret drone laws is obviously false. '
The only body that can pass laws "of war" or write treaties is the Senate. The only body calling for public disclosure of these laws is the Senate. I know the Senate is all confused, but this is ridiculous even for them. Come on, Shuttlecock, you can do better that that.
Another hero of mine- Bernie Sanders. That was a great day and a great video, too. I will have to look for the book.
Sandy, #4
It's even worse now: Watch this video.
http://ecolocalizer.com/2013/03/03/video-shows-us-wealth-gap-is-now-so-huge-that-it-soars-off-charts/
This is war. Bernie is right. We are being defeated. In fact, that may already be, "We have been defeated".
Hi India,
I have seen it. I am very glad to see it popping up in many locations. Including the sites dedicated to money.
All that our parents did before us to get there, including those with extra roadblocks is being undermined. Wealth Redistribution is being used as a RW argument, but the wealth is being redistributed from the bottom and middle to the top. And they want MORE of that.
They use a trap of hope. You too can achieve wealth if we stop having a government education and common desire to prosper. They turn that hope into fear of the "takers".
We visualize more people getting from the bottom to the middle. That has not come from lowering taxes on the haves. The evidence shows it has not.
Bernie Sanders is right on .... The middle class is under attack.
The meeting that Obama is having tonight scares me. The Republicans are after cuts to Social Security and Medicare. I was so glad Obama didn't accept the Simpson, Bowls plan.... Chained CPI is a cruel tax on Retirees, Seniors. I'm afraid the Ryan voucher plan will raise it's ugly head again. This time they may plan for it to affect all, including all of us who are over 55, and can not change our retirement plans, or go back into the work force. Its very scary. It's obscene they don't or won't ask anything of the very rich, who have prospered so during the housing/credit bubble debacle. Now they want to have the Fed keep feeding the Wall Street Investment bubble with more QE, Quantitative Easing. They get protected, bailed out. We Seniors, young, and middle class pay the price. Shame!
Hi Sheryl, #5
Have you seen the video I just linked for Sandy? It is relevant to what you just said in your comment. Click on her link above.
Obama is still offering CPI. The republican want actual cuts in benefits. They want the reitrement age for SS and Medicare raised. Obama has caved on so many other issues, we should all be concerned.
With the voter right before the SC and all the "redisticting" I'm affaid we are already defeated. Or at least very close.
Yes, I have seen that video. It is very telling. It is shameful... That they will not ask more of those who have prospered so much. it just makes sense that those who have commandeered most the money pay the taxes on that money. As they say... you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. The money is at the top of the economic ladder. Of course that is why they just want cuts.... With the lose of Revenue from: outsourcing jobs; offshoring profits; hiding income outside of the USA; the lose of homeownership with the collapse of the housing/credit bubble debacle; and declining wages; low paying jobs, (service economy), .... They want to carve down the government to match the smaller revenue stream, cutting "Entitlements". They don't want to pay living wages, or bring back jobs. They, the wealthy, make their money globally. They are the takers!
larry74.... Yes it is very scary. I think a lot of people don't get it yet. They maybe comforted at the moment as they see the stock market coming back and they are banking on their 401K's. But I don't see any good reason for the market doing so well. I am thinking it has been proped up by the Fed and QE, Quanitative Easing. Maybe that has created a QE feed stock market bubble. At some point that has to end. Then is there inflation on the horizon? Is that why they want to take away our cost of living increases? When people are get it?
India LeCarre..... Here is a video that applies to this topic also:
http://billmoyers.com/segment/jacob-hacker-paul-pierson-on-engineered-inequality/
Raising the age for SS based on life expectancy may sound reasonable to you, but put yourself in my shoes. I am a carpenter my body is torn broken and basically used up, I can't go climbing around up in the rafters anymore I am slow, who is going to hire a guy who is over 65 to do the work that it takes a young strong body to do?
The answer is, nobody.
Also, those jobs that a younger person CAN do are honorable jobs. If a slow older person continues staying at a job that a younger person COULD have AND they might be injured on the job, then have to collect disability.
When we actually think about these things, we might wonder why would we do THAT to solve something, when we can do SOMETHING more like regulating the drug industry from gouging the government or having medical treatment that help patients rather than just pay for each item, like... hmmmm we can bill for this, this and that for this patient.
Trying to stop the slow motion Obamacare, let's take a look at this.
We do not want to deny patients or doctors anything, but we have to ask... does this work? No, there needs to be legitimate billing for care. There are people dedicated to extracting money from government. One small thing to save billions would be negotiating drug prices for Medicare:
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medicare/283077-liberal-groups-push-for-lower-medicare-drug-prices
You mean the same Bernie Saunders that was one the principal architects of the housing ballon (and inevitable crash)? The same Bernie Saunders who is one of the best friends of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and related bankers? His rhetoric is not entirely false, but he has to share in the responsibility for the downfall of the middle class who ate up his promises of home ownership leading to wealth, whether or not you could've afforded the downpayment without federal interference.
All politicians are crooks, but whatever you have to think of him at least Rand Paul was asking relevant questions today and he has not been in government long enough to have a hand in the programs he questions.
You want to provide links that show your rants aren't just, well, rants?
double post
LOL....Oops That last sentence... Should have said... When are people going to get it? ( trying to multitask.. Writing this and watching Charlee Rose on TV at same time)
When I saw that chart of the distribution of wealth in the US, I was sickened at the thought that the president may and very lkely will shred Social Security and Medicare and impose poverty, hunger and death on the weakest, poorest, most defensless people in our country. It's so obscene. He should be protecting the weakest among us. And this is just the beginning. It seems there's a hostage situation by the rethuglicans every 6 weeks or so. There won't be anything left to give them if this goes on for too much longer. That's why I think he should call their bluff. Deliver whatever cuts Sequestration calls for to Boehner's state and McConnell's state first. Throw the red states under the bus before starting on the blue ones. After all, they elected these monsters. Let them see the result of their bad judgement.
One more thing-Obama is endangering good Democratic politicians. Do you think anyone who thinks Social Security and Medicare are hills to die on is going to work to elect any Democrat who supports Obama and votes for this? I'm an activist and I'm disgusted. If my Congressional reps vote for this, I won't ever support, work for or donate to them ever again. I will support issues only. And I will seriously support any decent candidate who primaries them. But we won't be taking back the house and will probably lose the senate if this passes. So it's over. This wounded democracy will be gone. It may already be gone.
You know that part of "that wealth" is "earned" by cutting wages, pensions, healthcare, and retirement for workers. There is an element of greed involved that factors in to the distribution of wealth. Like all things in life there are more pieces to the puzzle than a simple black and white conservative view point and there are valid arguments on both sides, people such as yourself who ignore the middle ground of a discussion are not helpful and serve only to defend the fleecing of the middle class.
Okay, one more thing. The "Thousand Cuts" temporary artwork was awesome. Thanks for that. And Bernie Sanders is one the few honest senators in the senate. He's also one of the very few Senators who is not a millionaire.
"According to a Roll Call analysis of Senate financial disclosure forms filed in 2010, more than half of the chamber's membership, 54 lawmakers, reported a minimum net worth of more than $1 million. Another four Senators fell short of that mark by less than $100,000."
Where can I find that chart with list of representatives, their NRA ranking the % of those in their district that support universal background checks?
Sigh. Steve Schmidt got through that whole segment on Jeb Bush without once saying the words "the base." Nor, relatedly, saying one honest thing about what Jeb was doing. This means two things:
1) Steve is angling for a job on someone's (not necessarily Jeb's) 2016 campaign.
2) Steve will shortly be of no use to Rachel whatsoever.
Steve, we hardly knew ye.
He had a use? He's basically a marketing guy. He's job is simply to push the product he's selling, which happens to be the Republican Party. It could easily have been laundry detergent.
Mea culpa. However, I believe the underlying point is still valid in that democratic elections are not reliable shields against unfortunate results. When giving powers to someone you like and trust, be sure you can live with them being available to someone you do not.
It took me a little while to suss out what you were replying to. You should have clicked on the little 'reply' link where it was most appropriate, under the two comments to your original comment. No big deal, though. I've had worse.
I've been thinking about my own comment up above at 1.2 and I realize that I should not have said that you were comparing Obama to Hitler. That was Rand Paul's doing, no matter how he tried to weasel out of his words even as he spoke them, and you were merely paraphrasing him in order to agree with part of what he was saying. At least, that's how I see it now. (You can correct me if I'm wrong on that.) I do still think that even a sliver of agreement with Rand Paul on that is a mistake, but it was wrong to read more into it.
You could have expressed yourself more clearly, but also I could have put more effort into parsing what you wrote.
You are of course correct that the democratic process is not proof against the wrong people getting elected, but Germany in the 1920s isn't really an appropriate example of that. Germany was a monarchy up to the end of WWI, which meant that Germans had little in the way of a democratic tradition in the Weimar period. That was a weakness. In addition, the way in which the war ended meant that the new German republic was widely seen as illegitimate, or at least inadequate, all across the political spectrum. So, more weakness. In contrast, we have have along democratic tradition and most Americans are invested in the political system to one degree or another. (And, of course, post-WWII Germany now has a strong democratic tradition to draw on.)
However, I think there is relevance in the Weimar experience to our own: the greatest threats to the republic come from the right.