Bernie Sanders predicts Republican response to 2017 tax bill

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Fri, 12/08/2017 - 8:23pm

While probably none of us here totally agree with everything Bernie says, I think most of us would unhesitatingly agree that there is no finer practitioner of the art of discomforting Republicans than he. The 2017 Tax Deform Bill has passed but the sage Bernie predicted wisely before it did so: see this 6:47 video for a fine double skewering by the Bern

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhvuWGBrlSg]

We have a close-up view of the after-effects of Bernie's flame-throwing:
The one on the right is Rubio

Of course their cinders will still be warm by the time Corporatists have chosen their new puppets:

Bernie's wisdom will be lost on many, especially Hillbots, even though the Repugnants already know this is the truth. As a reputable journalist, I offer sourcing for my Hillbot allegations.

Tags:

bernie sanders

Republicans

tax bill

Vote

Comments

Submitted by snoopydawg on Fri, 12/08/2017 - 9:58pm

I appreciate Bernie speaking out about the tax bill

I would like to see him talk about all the pork and waste that can be cut to or about how much the defense funding went up without anyone saying why it needed to go up more than what Trump was asking for. He did vote against it.
Sherrod Brown has also been riding Hatch on this too. He went after him on not funding CHIP.

Yep. He's not cutting it for now, but they will do for people who aren't on it yet. I wish Bernie had asked about the other social programs.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Fri, 12/08/2017 - 10:34pm

I agree with your comment

@snoopydawg but the wise general chooses his targets. Even though apparently Bernie is riding a national wave of popularity, he is leading morally without significant political support troops. The Jimmy Carter mistake of making too many things a priority at once is a failing strategy. Bernie knows this. First the camel must get its nose under the tent (no, Kamala, I am not talking about you).

Submitted by Unabashed Liberal on Sat, 12/09/2017 - 8:18pm

SD, I have to say, Rubio has been consistent,

@snoopydawg @snoopydawg

in that he would push the so-called 'reform' out a decade, so that beneficiaries near retirement age would be spared. IOW, the reforms would mostly apply to folks under age 55.

This is what so-called progressives did for many years, including during the Reagan Administration when I was in my late twenties. IOW, proposed cuts didn't occur immediately, or affect older seniors, and/or most middle-age folks--they were gradually phased in for younger folks. (For example, my parents and Grandparent didn't have their benefits cut, as a result of the 80's Social Security reform.)

It's normal for entitlement reforms to be phased in over a generation, or more. Most Repubs say that reform should apply to those age 54 and younger. Here's what Rubio said to The National Review in 2015,

First, we must gradually increase the retirement age for individuals under 55, without changing it for current seniors like my mom. It is important that we keep our promises to current beneficiaries and those nearing retirement, but for Americans closer to my age, we need to have an honest conversation about saving Social Security. With the average American working longer than when Social Security was first conceived, it’ll take some changes to keep Social Security solvent and responsive to Americans’ needs. . . .

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422581/saving-social-security-21st...

Of course, during O's Administration, that practice basically fell to the wayside. The Dems' Grand Bargain proposal would have allowed only a short period of time before some of the proposed reforms would have gone into effect--more or less, no more time than the Feds would need to implement the reform, or several years.

If folks recall, the cuts to Social Security benefits for couples and some divorced folks (file-and-suspend, etc.) were passed by majority Dem vote near the end of a Congressional session, and implemented by April of the following year. Here's a blurb about the two benefits that were abruptly ended not long ago. (They completely cut us out of F&S, but we could benefit under the 'restricted application' provision.)

I hope folks will take a few minutes to read the Dems' proposal which I've included in a signature line (below). It's basically the outline for the so-called 'Grand Bargain,' and dismantles Social Security as we know it. The deepest cuts come about as a result of the new regressive 'bendpoints.' Of course, there are several other proposed cuts. The least harmful is probably the Chained CPI, although it got the most press.

'The Moment Of Truth' link provides an easy-to-read PDF copy of the Bowles-Simpson Deficit Reduction Plan.

IMO, it's not a matter of if--it's more a matter of 'how deep' and 'when.'

Mollie

The "Grand Bargain" isn't dead--it's being incrementally implemented via the passage of piecemeal 'reform' legislation. Please read the Catfood Commission's recommendations, known as "The Moment Of Truth."

[Edited: Revised 'Grand Bargain' signature line.]

—

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

Submitted by orlbucfan on Sat, 12/09/2017 - 9:25am

Didn't the SS cap get instituted during Raygun? That was

the beginning of the snip-snip-chip-away policy of the GOPukes. The Pukes know we old duffers vote and are aware of their stealing our (money)benefits from us. All Rubio who is a complete crooked barfhead did was articulate what these FRightwing scumbags have been doing for decades! Rec'd!! @Unabashed Liberal

#1 #1 in that he would push the so-called 'reform' out a decade, so that beneficiaries near retirement age would be spared. IOW, the reforms would mostly apply to folks under age 55. This is what so-called progressives did for many years, including during the Reagan Administration when I was in my late twenties. IOW, proposed cuts didn't occur immediately, or affect older seniors, and/or most middle-age folks--they were gradually phased in for younger folks. (For example, my parents and Grandparent didn't have their benefits cut, as a result of the 80's Social Security reform.) It's normal for entitlement reforms to be phased in over a generation, or more. Most Repubs say that reform should apply to those age 54 and younger. Here's what Rubio said to The National Review in 2015, First, we must gradually increase the retirement age for individuals under 55, without changing it for current seniors like my mom. It is important that we keep our promises to current beneficiaries and those nearing retirement, but for Americans closer to my age, we need to have an honest conversation about saving Social Security. With the average American working longer than when Social Security was first conceived, it’ll take some changes to keep Social Security solvent and responsive to Americans’ needs. . . . Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422581/saving-social-security-21st... Of course, during O's Administration, that practice basically fell to the wayside. The Dems' Grand Bargain proposal would have allowed only a short period of time before some of the proposed reforms would have gone into effect--more or less, no more time than the Feds would need to implement the reform, or several years. If folks recall, the cuts to Social Security benefits for couples and some divorced folks (file-and-suspend, etc.) were passed by majority Dem vote near the end of a Congressional session, and implemented by April of the following year. Here's a blurb about the two benefits that were abruptly ended not long ago. (They completely cut us out of F&S, but we could benefit under the 'restricted application' provision.) I hope folks will take a few minutes to read the Dems' proposal which I've included in a signature line (below). It's basically the outline for the so-called 'Grand Bargain,' and dismantles Social Security as we know it. The deepest cuts come about as a result of the new regressive 'bendpoints.' Of course, there are several other proposed cuts. The least harmful is probably the Chained CPI, although it got the most press. 'The Moment Of Truth' link provides an easy-to-read PDF copy of the Bowles-Simpson Deficit Reduction Plan. IMO, it's not a matter of if--it's more a matter of 'how deep' and 'when.' Mollie The "Grand Bargain" isn't dead--it's being incrementally implemented via the passage of piecemeal 'reform' legislation. Please read the Catfood Commission's recommendations, known as "The Moment Of Truth." [Edited: Revised 'Grand Bargain' signature line.]

—

Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

Submitted by edg on Sat, 12/09/2017 - 1:21pm

During Raygun...

@orlbucfan

Dems owned the House of Representatives by a significant margin. None of the SS changes would have passed if Dems hadn't supported them.

Submitted by divineorder on Sat, 12/09/2017 - 10:26am

Never give up imo.

@Unabashed Liberal

#TaxScamBill showed us who they are. And not only Republicans, but Democrats who blocked amendments to the bill to stop any cuts to Medicare or Social Security. https://t.co/ZSZYYEcjpt

— Justice Democrats (@justicedems) December 2, 2017

#1 #1 in that he would push the so-called 'reform' out a decade, so that beneficiaries near retirement age would be spared. IOW, the reforms would mostly apply to folks under age 55. This is what so-called progressives did for many years, including during the Reagan Administration when I was in my late twenties. IOW, proposed cuts didn't occur immediately, or affect older seniors, and/or most middle-age folks--they were gradually phased in for younger folks. (For example, my parents and Grandparent didn't have their benefits cut, as a result of the 80's Social Security reform.) It's normal for entitlement reforms to be phased in over a generation, or more. Most Repubs say that reform should apply to those age 54 and younger. Here's what Rubio said to The National Review in 2015, First, we must gradually increase the retirement age for individuals under 55, without changing it for current seniors like my mom. It is important that we keep our promises to current beneficiaries and those nearing retirement, but for Americans closer to my age, we need to have an honest conversation about saving Social Security. With the average American working longer than when Social Security was first conceived, it’ll take some changes to keep Social Security solvent and responsive to Americans’ needs. . . . Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422581/saving-social-security-21st... Of course, during O's Administration, that practice basically fell to the wayside. The Dems' Grand Bargain proposal would have allowed only a short period of time before some of the proposed reforms would have gone into effect--more or less, no more time than the Feds would need to implement the reform, or several years. If folks recall, the cuts to Social Security benefits for couples and some divorced folks (file-and-suspend, etc.) were passed by majority Dem vote near the end of a Congressional session, and implemented by April of the following year. Here's a blurb about the two benefits that were abruptly ended not long ago. (They completely cut us out of F&S, but we could benefit under the 'restricted application' provision.) I hope folks will take a few minutes to read the Dems' proposal which I've included in a signature line (below). It's basically the outline for the so-called 'Grand Bargain,' and dismantles Social Security as we know it. The deepest cuts come about as a result of the new regressive 'bendpoints.' Of course, there are several other proposed cuts. The least harmful is probably the Chained CPI, although it got the most press. 'The Moment Of Truth' link provides an easy-to-read PDF copy of the Bowles-Simpson Deficit Reduction Plan. IMO, it's not a matter of if--it's more a matter of 'how deep' and 'when.' Mollie The "Grand Bargain" isn't dead--it's being incrementally implemented via the passage of piecemeal 'reform' legislation. Please read the Catfood Commission's recommendations, known as "The Moment Of Truth." [Edited: Revised 'Grand Bargain' signature line.]

—

A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.

Submitted by on the cusp on Fri, 12/08/2017 - 10:39pm

Rubio was drinking water furiously.

I appreciate Bernie pinning the fucker down. That was skillful, passionate debate.
I may no longer love the Bern, but he is one of 4 people in the entire government I like.
Bernie, Sherrod Brown, Keith Ellison, Tulsi Gabbard.
I think they are the only ones who might actually know a postal worker, or mechanic, or school teacher, and might think "there but for the Grace of God go I".

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by Timmethy2.0 on Sat, 12/09/2017 - 1:00am

It would be nice if Minnesota's governor chose Keith Ellison

@on the cusp
To replace Al Franken, but I'm pretty sure the corprocrats won't allow that because it would cause them to win more elections.

—

Beware the bullshit factories.

Submitted by divineorder on Sat, 12/09/2017 - 4:57pm

Read where going to take months

@Timmethy2.0 to replace him.

—

A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.

Submitted by peachcreek on Sun, 12/10/2017 - 12:56am

I'd throw Jeff Merkeley into that mix

@on the cusp of the few left to trust. Otherwise completely agree.

Submitted by Big Al on Fri, 12/08/2017 - 10:47pm

Well Fucking A and Amen to that Bernie,

you old fucking rabble rouser. Whoa. That was intense, the significance of what I just watched is beyond the grasp of most of the sheeple in this country.
Wow.
WE have to do something. But the fucking democratic party is untrustable, I can't do that. Bernie or not. I mean, Bernie is way off base on foreign policy, i.e., imperialism and war. Which makes his argument much less effective, but the message put out plain as day for everyone to see is unmistakable.
I think we can do something which coincides with this next election, I think we have to and it should involve a number of things. Trying to work on that in an essay right now actually.

Submitted by Big Al on Fri, 12/08/2017 - 10:57pm

To add,

@Big Al the problem with Bernie's overall positions is that the deficit and the national debt are primarily because of US imperialism and the costs of wars. Also, the total cost for the defense, intelligence and homeland security operations are approximately 1.1 trillion per year, the vast majority as part of the discretionary budget. That's around 65% of the national discretionary budget. While they cut the other discretionary programs like in the Forest Service which has a primary forest fire fighting responsibility (See CA right now), and the Dept of Education, or the Dept of Transportation responsible for roads and highways where over 33,000 people are killed every year. Or the Bureau of Indian Affairs or a myriad of social programs for the young, old and disabled. You take all the other discretionary programs combined and it doesn't come close to matching what we spend on imperialism and actually paying for the government to control us.

So anyway, leaving that out of the discussion is a game breaker imo. Too bad cuz he coulda been a contender.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Fri, 12/08/2017 - 11:40pm

Some republicans are willing to let the government

@Big Al

shutdown if there isn't more money for defense spending. This on top of the $26 billion more than Trump asked for. Military spending is over half of our budget as it is and yet they are saying that it's not enough. Someone should ask them just how much more money do they need to continue to pulverize countries that are no threat to ours!
This is what Bernie needs to talk about. For what gawd damn reason does it need to be more than what it is?

Lawmaker signals no deal in place to fund defense bill, sounds alarm on government shutdown

It surpasses the budget cap of $549 billion for defense spending and will require new congressional action to be enacted. Otherwise, the proposed budget could trigger automatic, across-the-board spending cuts.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sat, 12/09/2017 - 12:54am

Unless the NDAA requires 60 senate votes,

@snoopydawg it should be dead in the water. But, as it is Demnorats rarely fight for their principles (unless their big donors tell them what they are). So even a 60 vote requirement won't stop the Manchins et. al. from rolling over with their legs in the air, like the submissive dogs they are.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 12/09/2017 - 1:42am

You're right

@Alligator Ed

The Munchkin has already said that if republicans would have gone through regular channels, they could have gotten 70 votes for their tax bill. And in order to pass the budget, they need 8 democrats to vote with them. Republicans keep their members from crossing over, but democrats are always crossing over to vote with them. Greenwald wrote about this. He called it rotating villains. There is always a few democrats who are in safe seats for this game. People need to wake up and realize how their game is played.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by Amanda Matthews on Sat, 12/09/2017 - 12:32pm

I propose we QUIT calling it defense

@snoopydawg
spending and start calling it what it truly is.

Offense spending.

We need to spend more and more money to try and stop the changing world economy. We MUST stop the rise of the BRICS nations or kill everything/everybody else in the attempt. Ask youself “what good is an inhabitable planet if the **right** people aren’t in control of it?” /s

We plebs are expendable. Plebs everywhere. We don't even matter enough to be considered ‘collateral damage’. Just ask the people of Yemen.

—

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sat, 12/09/2017 - 3:03pm

Indeed, population control is an elitist aim, Amanda,

@Amanda Matthews just as you said. Those with money don't care about those without. For them (the rich) it is validation of their Social Darwinistic planned elimination of those deemed below them. Think about their version of Plan 2030, a scrapple program for things deemed unfit for further use.

Originally designed for inanimate objects, elitist depopulation aims to rid the planet of "useless eaters", starting with the bottom rung of society which is biding starved to death by design--before they start on the next lowest tier.

Submitted by Wink on Sat, 12/09/2017 - 1:35am

Not coulda been. Is.

@Big Al
Top dog at that. Sure, he's weak on a number of issues, but Americans only care about two: their pocketbook, and will their college kid find a job. That's it. Period. We don't give a damn about the wars or "foreign policy." Couldn't care less. Syrians are getting bombed? Yawn. That's way over there, not my concern. And, Bernie got pocketbook and jobs covered. Just wish he'd shut up about everything else. Hey, Bernie, if they don't ask don't volunteer. Something said in 2017 could bite you in the ass in 2020. Stay low.

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

Submitted by divineorder on Sat, 12/09/2017 - 10:36am

He has moved

@Big Al somewhat in recent months

His recent Senate defense budget vote & foreign policy speech give me hope Bernie hasn't lost his way, even surrounded by hawks like McCain.

— Yusuf (@yusuf_VI) September 27, 2017

...

Bernie #Sanders's foreign policy speech nails it and links corruption oligarchies and injustice https://t.co/WjrJV53MIH pic.twitter.com/BtQ4wq7xEb

— Diane Francis (@dianefrancis1) October 27, 2017

—

A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.

Submitted by Cassiodorus on Sat, 12/09/2017 - 11:51am

Bernie cut a deal with the party

which lost more than 900 legislative seats to the Republicans under Obama. He cut a deal to run as an "independent" while keeping the true "independent" party (the Green Party) out of the running in Vermont, he cut a deal to run "as a Democrat" last year in the Presidential race, and he refuses to investigate the Democratic Party's election fraud in the 2016 Democratic primaries.

Once again, nothing more than a massive "redo" for the Democratic Party will change this situation. Neither the Democrats nor Bernie Sanders can sit around anymore and pretend that nothing happened. Social Security? Obama tried to cut Social Security. The faux opposition has been exposed, and everyone would know by now that the Democrats handed the Federal government (and state government in 44 states) to the Republicans in order to keep it away from any sort of populist uprising that might have otherwise ensued.

Al Franken? Sorry, crusaders, but what Al Franken did was what privileged white males do when they're bored and have no principles, and the Democrats have no principles.

—

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

Submitted by Amanda Matthews on Sat, 12/09/2017 - 1:49pm

sigh Too bad Sanders is a member if

a team who’s Owner, the Clinton Creature, had her own ideas about ‘entitlements’ and the need to ‘adjust’ them. Turd Wayers still intend to see them cut.

It’s too bad the way things turned out. Sanders is still a sheep dog as far as I’m concerned. He should have asked that if we’re so damn broke, why did they give billions more to the Defense Department than they even asked for?

Senate Passes $700 Billion Pentagon Bill, More Money Than Trump Sought

The bill also reflects Mr. McCain’s expansive vision of the role of the United States in world affairs. It authorizes $500 million to provide security assistance, including weapons, to Ukraine; $100 million to help Baltic nations “deter Russian aggression” and another $705 million for Israeli cooperative missile defense programs — $558.5 million more than the administration’s request.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/senate-pentagon-spendi...

He voted against it. Only one of 8 who did. (Chickenshit Rubio, the big talking gutless water guzzler, abstained).

Roll Call Vote 115th Congress - 1st Session

Vote Counts: YEAs89
NAYs8
Not Voting3

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cf...

He’s still playing on a team of lying cheats. Who also voted FOR this bill.

—

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

Submitted by chuckutzman on Sat, 12/09/2017 - 2:57pm

Bernie has begun to speak out on the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxvP6jDtt4c
Why not take some time off from ranting & educate yourself. There are a number of YouTube clips of Bernie about this.
I'm sorry it has taken Bernie so long to turn to this issue, but he finally has.
I'm also not sanguine about the prospects of immediately reforming the Democratic party, but I don't see any alternative in my lifetime.

—

chuck utzman

TULSI 2020