JUST LIKE A SOCIALIST … PROPOSES IGNORANT SOCIALIST JOBS PROGRAM WHEN 14 STATES HAVE RECORDED RECORD ALL-TIME LOW UNEMPLOYMENT RATES …
As reported at The Hill, socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of The People’s Republic of Vermont has announced a federal jobs proposal that would guarantee a job with at least a $15-per-hour wage and health benefits to every adult American “who wants or needs one.” UNREAL, just how would we pay for this socialist program? NOW? Jobs under the Trump administration are being created hand over fist. Capitalism seems to be working just fine. Fourteen states have recorded record low unemployment in the past year which begs the question, why would individuals need the government for a job, except to be kept dependent? If Americans want to work, they just need apply. But what else would one expect from a socialist but making individuals dependent upon government.
The senator is still in the early stages of crafting the plan, according to the Post, which would provide a job or required training for any American.
Sanders’s office has yet to release the details of the plan’s funding, but previous large-scale projects proposed by the Vermont progressive have involved ending tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and large corporations.
The Vermont senator joins two other possible 2020 contenders, Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who have also expressed support for similar proposals in recent weeks.
“The goal is to eliminate working poverty and involuntary unemployment altogether,” Darrick Hamilton, an economist at The New School, told the Post.
Maybe Bernie and his socialist friends might want to take a look at the failed Finland experiment … Finland’s basic income trial falls flat. This is what socialism looks like, failure.
The Finnish government has decided not to expand a limited trial in paying people a basic income, which has drawn much international interest.
Currently 2,000 unemployed Finns are receiving a flat monthly payment of €560 (£490; $685) as basic income.
“The eagerness of the government is evaporating. They rejected extra funding [for it],” said Olli Kangas, one of the experiment’s designers.
Some see basic income as a way to get unemployed people into temporary jobs.
The argument is that, if paid universally, basic income would provide a guaranteed safety net. That would help to address insecurities associated with the “gig” economy, where workers do not have staff contracts.
Supporters say basic income would boost mobility in the labour market as people would still have an income between jobs.
Finland’s two-year pilot scheme started in January 2017, making it the first European country to test an unconditional basic income. The 2,000 participants – all unemployed – were chosen randomly.
But it will not be extended after this year, as the government is now examining other schemes for reforming the Finnish social security system.
Franklin Pierce Poll: Socialist Bernie Sanders Surges Ahead of Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, 44% to 37%
HILLARY CLINTON #FEELS THE BERN …
Just how bad of a presidential candidate is Hillary Clinton for the Democrats? It has finally happened, the most recent Franklin Pierce poll shows that self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders now leads Hillary Clinton by 7 percentage points, 44% to 37%. ARE YOU KIDDING? Hillary Clinton is considered by all as the presumptive Democrat nominee to run for president in 2016, but yet she finds herself behind in a poll to a socialist. Is it Hillary’s lack of trustworthiness not much of an issue? However, since when have Democrats cared about their presidents or candidates telling the truth, aka you can keep your doctors, if you like your doctor promise of Obamacare. Or has this email/private server scandal just pushed people from holding their nose when it comes to Clinton, to abandoning her? What would happen if Hillary Clinton actually had a viable competitor in the primaries, rather than a socialist like Sanders? Then again, no one can tell the difference anymore between the Socialist and Democrat parties these days.
Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has rocketed past longtime front-runner Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, a stunning turn in a race once considered a lock for the former secretary of state, a new Franklin Pierce University/Boston Herald poll shows.
Sanders leads Clinton 44-37 percent among likely Democratic primary voters, the first time the heavily favored Clinton has trailed in the 2016 primary campaign, according to the poll of 442 Granite-Staters.
Vice President Joe Biden got 9 percent support in the test primary match-up. The other announced Democrats in the race, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee and former Virginia Gov. Jim Webb, barely register at 1 percent or below.
The live interview phone poll was conducted Aug. 7-10 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.7 percentage points.
Clinton is still viewed overwhelmingly by voters as the likely Democratic nominee, but the results suggest she faces an unexpectedly difficult fight to prevent an embarrassing opening loss in the first-in-the-nation primary.
RUN BERNIE, RUN!!!
Vermont’s self-proclaimed socialist Senator is supposed to announce his candidacy for the 2016 presidential election. I can say that I do not agree with one position or policy of Sanders but I do respect him because as far-LEFT and socialist as he is, he actually believes what he says, as misguided as it is. For that I say, run Bernie, run!!! We speculated a month back when Bernie Sanders hinted that he would run in 2016, that he might just be Hillary Clinton’s worst nightmare. Although Sanders is an Independent in the Senate, he would be running in the Democrat primary. Sanders would force Hillary to the far, far LEFT. The Democrat party has moved much farther to the LEFT from the days of Bill Clinton’s presidency. Does Bernie have a real chance of winning the Democrat nomination, probably not. However, this socialist who is going to run on income inequality has strongly criticized Clinton for having a “soft” attitude towards Wall Street. Sanders could be a major thorn in the side of Hillary Clinton as his socialist views are loved by the liberal base.
The Independent Socialist Senator said he “liked Hilliary” and she is a “very, very intelligent person”. However, Sanders said there needs to be a leader “to wage a political revolution in this country which brings millions of people into the political process to stand up and fighting for their rights in a way that we have not seen right now,” and Hillary Clinton was not the leader of that movement.
VPR News has learned from several sources that Independent U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders will announce his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination on Thursday.
Sanders will release a short statement on that day and then hold a major campaign kickoff in Vermont in several weeks.
Sanders’ entry into the Democratic race ensures that Hillary Clinton will face a challenge to win the support of the liberal wing of the party.
Sanders’ basic message will be that the middle class in America has been decimated in the past two decades while wealthy people and corporations have flourished.
His opposition to a proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal (T.P.P.) shows how he plans to frame this key issue of his campaign.
In the Real Clear Politics Poll for the 2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination has Bernie Sanders in a distant 4th place at 5.6%, some 56.6% behind Hillary Clinton; however, ahead of O’Malley, who the media claims to be a challenger to Hillary.
TIME Magazine’s pick as the 2013 Person of the Year is …
Miley Cyrus Pope Francis.
Forgive me if I am a bit skeptical of Time’s choice for Pope Francis as being their ‘Person of the Year” for 2013, but I am. Not that Pope Francis is not a good man or deserving of this award, but TIME made the choice not because of his religious virtue and certainly not because they believe in Catholicism or the message it spreads. Doesn’t it feel like it was yesterday they were doing stories on the coverups of sexual predator Catholic priests? Let’s face it, the reason why they chose him is because Pope Francis criticized “modern capitalism” ,in an attack on “the idolatry of money.”
Like I said, Pope Francis is an easy and justifiable choice, it is the reasons why he was picked that are suspect. In any other year Edward Snowden, the NSA whistle-blower would have won this hands down. He exposed the spying ways of the NSA and will continue to do so for months and years to come. Snowden’s exposing of the NSA has even made US lawmakers and foreign leaders question what this spy organization is doing.
However, Snowden finished second to Pope Francis for pretty much one reason and that is Time’s media bias to push Obama’s agenda of “income equity” otherwise known as socialism.
Once there was a boy so meek and modest, he was awarded a Most Humble badge. The next day, It was taken away because he wore it. Here endeth the lesson.
How do you practice humility from the most exalted throne on earth? Rarely has a new player on the world stage captured so much attention so quickly—young and old, faithful and cynical—as has Pope Francis. In his nine months in office, he has placed himself at the very center of the central conversations of our time: about wealth and poverty, fairness and justice, transparency, modernity, globalization, the role of women, the nature of marriage, the temptations of power.
And yet in less than a year, he has done something remarkable: he has not changed the words, but he’s changed the music. Tone and temperament matter in a church built on the substance of symbols—bread and wine, body and blood—so it is a mistake to dismiss any Pope’s symbolic choices as gestures empty of the force of law. He released his first exhortation, an attack on “the idolatry of money,” just as Americans were contemplating the day set aside for gratitude and whether to spend it at the mall.
NY Times Reports: The Obama Administration Doesn’t Want You to Call ObamaCare “Redistribution” … Even Though It Is And They Know(Knew) It
What’s in a word, except everything.
The New York Times is reporting that Barack Obama and his administration does not want you to call Obamacare the “R” word. Not racism, but “REDISTRIBUTION”. Just as Barack Obama and Democrats have suddenly distanced themselves from calling Obama’s signature piece of legislation Obamacare as it has become toxic. They also do not want you to call Obamacare a redistribution of wealth, when it obviously is. America, how else do you think that so many millions of uninsured poor people were going to miraculously get insurance, from the healthcare fairy? The fact of the matter is, that they knew it all along and demonized Republicans when they stated the truth. Now suddenly millions of Americans don’t like it when the redistribution of wealth, the money grab is not just from the rich, but from the middle class as well. We said a long time ago, be very careful what Obama and his band of socialist define as rich, it might just be you.
Rebecca M. Blank was a top candidate in 2011 to lead President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, but then the White House turned up something politically dangerous.
“A commitment to economic justice necessarily implies a commitment to the redistribution of economic resources, so that the poor and the dispossessed are more fully included in the economic system,” Ms. Blank, a noted poverty researcher, wrote in 1992. With advisers wary of airing those views in a nomination fight, Mr. Obama passed over Ms. Blank, then a top Commerce Department official and now the chancellor of the University of Wisconsin. Instead he chose Alan Krueger, a Princeton economist.
“Redistribution is a loaded word that conjures up all sorts of unfairness in people’s minds,” said William M. Daley, who was Mr. Obama’s chief of staff at the time. Republicans wield it “as a hammer” against Democrats, he said, adding, “It’s a word that, in the political world, you just don’t use.”
These days the word is particularly toxic at the White House, where it has been hidden away to make the Affordable Care Act more palatable to the public and less a target for Republicans, who have long accused Democrats of seeking “socialized medicine.” But the redistribution of wealth has always been a central feature of the law and lies at the heart of the insurance market disruptions driving political attacks this fall.
“Americans want a fair and fixed insurance market,” said Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who advised Mr. Obama’s team as it designed the law. “You cannot have that without some redistribution away from a small number of people.”
The National Review On-line has 8 takeaways from the NYT article, here are a few:
- The White House intentionally hid Obamacare’s redistributive goals.
- Policy experts knew all along but didn’t tell the public.
- David Axelrod blames American political culture for Obama’s needing to lie in the first place
- Republican charges Obama feels must be deflected by disguising the truth: redistribution, socialized medicine, redistributor-in-chief, spreading the wealth around, closet socialist. (Read the rest of the takeaways HERE)
Make no mistake about it America, Barack Obama and Democrats lied to you and it was most certainly intentional. Their entire model of Obamacare is based on the redistribution of wealth and bringing others up while taking you down. That’s what socialists deem fair.