2
2
0
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/28/bernie-sanders-unloads-on-the-washington-post/?postshare= [login to see] 290462&tid=ss_tw
"At a breakfast with reporters here Thursday that was sponsored by Bloomberg Politics, Sanders fired back -- again and again and again.
"That's not a new argument. We've been hearing that months and months, and that's in a sense what this campaign is about," Sanders said in response to a request for his reaction to the editorial. "People are telling us, whether it's the Washington Post editorial board or anybody else, our ideas are too ambitious -- can't happen. Too bold, really? Well, here's something which is really bold. In the last 30 years, there has been a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class and working families of this country. The middle class has become poorer and trillions of dollars have been transferred to the top one-tenth of 1 percent."
"That's pretty radical, isn't it?" Sanders said. "Where was the Washington Post to express concern that the middle class was shrinking?"
Sanders was just warming up. "Where was the Washington Post talking about this radical transformation of America?" he demanded, and proceeded to go on for nearly four minutes in his rebuttal.
He wasn't finished. Through the remainder of the hour-long breakfast, Sanders found a number of other opportunities to take a swipe about his new foil.
When he was asked about foreign policy, Sanders detoured: "Getting back to the Washington Post, check out where all the geniuses on the editorial page were with regard to the invasion of Iraq." (They supported it.)
At another point: "I know the Washington Post may think I'm radical, but I'm not."
The Post was not his only media target, however. At one point, he was asked a question by New York Times reporter Jason Horowitz, who had written a story saying that Sanders's campaign was holding a strategy session to consider whether to go more negative against Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
"Never happened," Sanders told Horowitz. "Not quite sure who you talked to, but next time, talk to me."
Get some, Bernie!
"At a breakfast with reporters here Thursday that was sponsored by Bloomberg Politics, Sanders fired back -- again and again and again.
"That's not a new argument. We've been hearing that months and months, and that's in a sense what this campaign is about," Sanders said in response to a request for his reaction to the editorial. "People are telling us, whether it's the Washington Post editorial board or anybody else, our ideas are too ambitious -- can't happen. Too bold, really? Well, here's something which is really bold. In the last 30 years, there has been a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class and working families of this country. The middle class has become poorer and trillions of dollars have been transferred to the top one-tenth of 1 percent."
"That's pretty radical, isn't it?" Sanders said. "Where was the Washington Post to express concern that the middle class was shrinking?"
Sanders was just warming up. "Where was the Washington Post talking about this radical transformation of America?" he demanded, and proceeded to go on for nearly four minutes in his rebuttal.
He wasn't finished. Through the remainder of the hour-long breakfast, Sanders found a number of other opportunities to take a swipe about his new foil.
When he was asked about foreign policy, Sanders detoured: "Getting back to the Washington Post, check out where all the geniuses on the editorial page were with regard to the invasion of Iraq." (They supported it.)
At another point: "I know the Washington Post may think I'm radical, but I'm not."
The Post was not his only media target, however. At one point, he was asked a question by New York Times reporter Jason Horowitz, who had written a story saying that Sanders's campaign was holding a strategy session to consider whether to go more negative against Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
"Never happened," Sanders told Horowitz. "Not quite sure who you talked to, but next time, talk to me."
Get some, Bernie!
Bernie Sanders unloads on the Washington Post
Posted from washingtonpost.comPosted in these groups: 
Election 2016
Election 2016
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 7
2
2
0
Bernie Sanders is the face of the Democratic Party and what they really stand for. Hillary can't even say what the difference between the Democratic Party an socialist are.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Too bad the Democrats and Social agenda are the primary economic cause, with a strong assistance from Crony republicans. Sanders's and his complete absence of economic thought won't do this country's income inequality ratio's any more good than it gave his mentor in the Soviet Union.
(1)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
That is complete nonsense.
It is all on the GOP.
1. Reagan cut taxes for the Rich, increased taxes on the Middle Class -
Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it. When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%. As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office. One example was when he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office and the tax increases were felt hardest by the lower and middle class.
https://www.datalounge.com/thread/12199700-8-reasons-why-ronald-reagan-was-the-worst-president-of-our-lifetime
Walt
It is all on the GOP.
1. Reagan cut taxes for the Rich, increased taxes on the Middle Class -
Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it. When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%. As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office. One example was when he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office and the tax increases were felt hardest by the lower and middle class.
https://www.datalounge.com/thread/12199700-8-reasons-why-ronald-reagan-was-the-worst-president-of-our-lifetime
Walt
8 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime
If you ever happen to come across a Republican on television these days, chances are that you will hear the name Ronald Reagan. Recent Republican debates are the perfect example of the love fest that ...
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
What Senator Sanders posits is that somehow that money and property was removed from the poor and the middle class, and confiscated by the government and transferred to the rich. While I know what Bernie is upset about (Wall Street and the like), this does not represent the realities of how wealth is created or earned. I would argue that the real issue isn't that the wealthy have discovered means to be wealthier, it is that the poor have discovered how to subsist without working. As the impetus to work is negated, fewer and fewer work. This is borne out in current events.
Bernie's central message throughout his campaign has been to offer up lots of "free stuff", notably health care and college, and that the "wealthy will pay for it". Of course that line of thought is swallowed by young folks who are discovering the realities of life outside the safe spaces of college campuses is like. Now they are busying themselves with roughing up Trump supporters and fighting police. Real classy.
Get a job. Work hard. Earn what you have.
Bernie has run the good race, and was beaten in the battle of ideas and in the political process that was stacked against him. That a Socialist that wasn't even a member of the Democratic Party until a year ago could take the race this far speaks more ill of the inherent weakness of Hillary as a candidate than Bernie's strengths or good ideas.
It isn't the media's doing that Clinton is the Presumptive DNC Nominee, it is that no one serious ran against her. I can think of a dozen people in the Democratic Party that would have beat her, and NONE of them ran. They were too busy crowning her.
Bernie's central message throughout his campaign has been to offer up lots of "free stuff", notably health care and college, and that the "wealthy will pay for it". Of course that line of thought is swallowed by young folks who are discovering the realities of life outside the safe spaces of college campuses is like. Now they are busying themselves with roughing up Trump supporters and fighting police. Real classy.
Get a job. Work hard. Earn what you have.
Bernie has run the good race, and was beaten in the battle of ideas and in the political process that was stacked against him. That a Socialist that wasn't even a member of the Democratic Party until a year ago could take the race this far speaks more ill of the inherent weakness of Hillary as a candidate than Bernie's strengths or good ideas.
It isn't the media's doing that Clinton is the Presumptive DNC Nominee, it is that no one serious ran against her. I can think of a dozen people in the Democratic Party that would have beat her, and NONE of them ran. They were too busy crowning her.
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Well, would you say things are better or worse since a lot of the tax burden was put on the less wealthy in society when Reagan was president?
https://www.datalounge.com/thread/12199700-8-reasons-why-ronald-reagan-was-the-worst-president-of-our-lifetime
https://www.datalounge.com/thread/12199700-8-reasons-why-ronald-reagan-was-the-worst-president-of-our-lifetime
8 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime
If you ever happen to come across a Republican on television these days, chances are that you will hear the name Ronald Reagan. Recent Republican debates are the perfect example of the love fest that ...
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Capt Walter Miller - Ronald Reagan is not running for President.
For what it is worth, I would note the amazing economic growth under Reagan's watch in comparison to the stagnant growth under Obama's. The intervening presidencies had economic ups and downs, but the comparisons between the Reagan terms and Obama's are very salient.
Both took office in the middle of deep recessions and with Islamic issues ongoing overseas. Both spent a fortune in (borrowed) taxpayer dollars to finance their intiatives. But the difference in outcomes is staggering.
For what it is worth, I would note the amazing economic growth under Reagan's watch in comparison to the stagnant growth under Obama's. The intervening presidencies had economic ups and downs, but the comparisons between the Reagan terms and Obama's are very salient.
Both took office in the middle of deep recessions and with Islamic issues ongoing overseas. Both spent a fortune in (borrowed) taxpayer dollars to finance their intiatives. But the difference in outcomes is staggering.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Capt Walter Miller - OK. Considering where we were at the end of the flailing Carter administration, I would say that we were much, MUCH better after Reagan's term. Remember paying 15% interest or more for mortgages? Gas lines? Labor participation so poor that only 7 1/2 years of current mismanagement could eclipse it?
I do.
Hell, Mr Obama ran up almost as much debt in ONE year on three separate occasions as Reagan did his entire Presidency.
As for the tax-related issues, look at how dramatically revenue increased to the federal government after the big cuts in 1981 and '83 that the left likes to demonize. The Democrat-run Congress at the time had no issue gleefully spending that money.
I do.
Hell, Mr Obama ran up almost as much debt in ONE year on three separate occasions as Reagan did his entire Presidency.
As for the tax-related issues, look at how dramatically revenue increased to the federal government after the big cuts in 1981 and '83 that the left likes to demonize. The Democrat-run Congress at the time had no issue gleefully spending that money.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google