Napoleon's Thoughts on Bernie Sanders

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
310,140
Reputation
-34,205
Daps
620,160
Reppin
The Deep State

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
310,140
Reputation
-34,205
Daps
620,160
Reppin
The Deep State
:whew:



The Stop BEZOS Act - When you care enough to give the very least - Lawyers, Guns & Money

THE STOP BEZOS ACT – WHEN YOU CARE ENOUGH TO GIVE THE VERY LEAST
235 Comments
7c386809a09c450b406c9d268e777fc2












Anyone who is looking for proof that Sen. Sanders (I-Vt.) cares about the issues and people he says he cares about will not find it in S.3410, otherwise known as the Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act, but should be known as the Thrown Together Between Camera Sessions Bill.

In the beginning was the tax/penalty. And not much else.

“CHAPTER 37—EMPLOYERS WITH EMPLOYEES RECEIVING CERTAIN FEDERAL BENEFITS

“SEC. 4501. Employers with employees receiving certain Federal benefits.

“(a) Imposition of Corporate Welfare Tax.—There is hereby imposed on each large employer a tax equal to 100 percent of the qualified employee benefits with respect to such employer for the taxable year.​

Where will this money go? That is a good question that isn’t answered by the text of the bill.

Perhaps the thought was the large employer would think “Argh, a tax!”, recoil like Peter Thiel when he sees a head of garlic and raise everyone’s wages so that the employees, their dependents and household members didn’t need to use the four benefits covered by the bill.

That’s a bigly yuge maybe that ignores large businesses’ cunning when it comes to not paying employees and avoiding taxes. But for some reason, closing the circle by stating that the money will go back to whatever benefit program or programs the employees used was too much trouble.

As a result, Sanders doesn’t come across as Robin Hood, or even Dennis Moore, but instead as someone who has been in congress for decades but is still struggling with the finer points of drafting legislation.

There’s not a lot more to say about the bill itself, because there isn’t much more to the bill, which could also be called the Sort it out on the Cutting Room Floor Bill.

“(e) Regulations.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out this chapter.”​

It is normal to leave the actual driving of nails and tightening of screws to the responsible agencies. But the more guidance they have in the text of the law the less time they have to spend going back and forth with the authors to figure out what they meant. In this case details would mean they can get to the intra-agency meetings needed to hammer out various proposed rules and then on to the rule-making period and the final rule and after all that, enacting the law. With this one the agencies have the definitions of large employer, who is and isn’t an employee and the covered federal benefits and not much else:

“(c) Qualified employee benefits.—For purposes of this section:

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualified employee benefits’ means, with respect to a person for a taxable year, the sum of the qualified Federal benefits received by individuals who are employees of such person for such taxable year.

“(2) QUALIFIED FEDERAL BENEFITS.—The term ‘qualified Federal benefits’ means, with respect to an individual, the following:

“(A) The dollar value of supplemental nutrition assistance for which the household (as defined in section 3(m) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008) that includes such individual is eligible.

“(B) The dollar value of meals that such individual or dependents of such individual are eligible for under the school lunch program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the school breakfast program under section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966.

“(C) The aggregate amount of the monthly assistance payments for rental of a dwelling unit that the household of such individual is a member of is eligible to have made on its behalf pursuant to section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937.

“(D) The amount of payments made under section 1903 of the Social Security Act with respect to expenditures made by a State under a State Medicaid plan under title XIX of such Act (or a waiver of such plan) for medical assistance for such individual or for dependents of such individual.​


That’s a lot of information that has to go from somewhere to somewhere else so that someone knows who to tax and for how much. Will the information be de-identified? Perhaps.

But then — again perhaps — if an employer contests the tax, the government will need some way to prove that the employer does indeed employ one or more people who received X amount of assistance, have children who received X amount of assistance or live in a household where someone receives X amount of assistance. And then — perhaps again — there will be some way to shield the employee from being fired. Section 3 of the bill bars large employers from asking job applicants if they receive the covered benefits.

(a) In general.—It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any large employer (as defined in section 4501(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) to make inquiries of an applicant for employment, or otherwise seek information about such an applicant (including through the use of any form or application), relating to whether such applicant receives Federal benefits.​



The bill is silent on what a provider can do once someone is hired. And people who are aware of racism will know that if employers don’t ask – another maybe – they’ll guess. And they’ll guess based on stereotypes about people who use food stamps.

But maybe now that he’s gotten this out of his system, someone who really wants to address the need for a living wage can have a go.


*******

A comment from further down:

I think Yglesias gets it right:



This is one of Sanders’s biggest new policy ideas since the 2016 primary campaign. On the trail, he unveiled a number of once-distinctive ideas that the center left rejected, only to later adopt. It’s a mark of success for Sanders, but it also means he’s got to come up with new ideas to make the case for himself as a unique and necessary figure ahead of the next presidential election cycle. Specifically, he needs ideas that other liberals will reject.
For all the discussion Sanders’s self-description as a “socialist” has created, he’s genuinely neither a socialist nor a social democrat in the European sense. He’s a very American kind of populist whose specific policy proposals are best understood as props in a larger moralistic narrative rather than well-designed cures for specific ills. (It’s best to take him seriously, not literally, to coin a phrase.)

:damn:

@GzUp @wire28 @Blessed Is the Man @ezrathegreat @Jello Biafra @humble forever @Darth Nubian @Dameon Farrow @jj23 @General Bravo III @BigMoneyGrip @hashmander @Call Me James @VR Tripper @Iceson Beckford @dongameister @Soymuscle Mike @BaileyPark31 @Lucky_Lefty @johnedwarduado
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
310,140
Reputation
-34,205
Daps
620,160
Reppin
The Deep State








Bernie: Midterms Show Many Whites Made ‘Uncomfortable’ Voting for Black Candidates

Bernie Sanders on Andrew Gillium and Stacey Abrams: Many Whites Made ‘Uncomfortable’ Voting for Black Candidates
The progressive leader says Democratic senators who lost in GOP states should’ve been more like Beto O’Rourke, and that race may be responsible for near-misses in the South.


Gideon Resnick
11.08.18 10:05 AM ET

Joshua Roberts/Reuters
Democratic officials woke Wednesday morning searching for answers as to why the party was unable to win several marquee Senate and gubernatorial races the night before.

But for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) the explanation was simple. The candidates who underperformed weren’t progressive enough; those who didn’t shy away from progressivism were undone, in part, by “racist” attacks.

“I think you know there are a lot of white folks out there who are not necessarily racist who felt uncomfortable for the first time in their lives about whether or not they wanted to vote for an African-American,” Sanders told The Daily Beast, referencing the close contests involving Andrew Gillum in Florida and Stacey Abrams in Georgia and that ads run against the two. “I think next time around, by the way, it will be a lot easier for them to do that.”


Sanders wasn’t speaking as a mere observer but, rather, as someone who had invested time and reputation on many of the midterm contests. The Vermonter, who is potentially considering another bid for the presidency in 2020, mounted an aggressive campaign travel schedule over the past few months and endorsed both Abrams and Gillum. He also has a personal political investment in the notion that unapologetic, authentic progressive populism can be sold throughout the country and not just in states and districts that lean left.

Surveying the victories and the carnage of Tuesday’s results, Sanders framed it as a vindication of that vision. The candidates who performed well even in loss, he said, offered positive progressive views for the future of their states, including Gillum, Abrams, and Texas Democratic Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke. Those who were heavily defeated, Sanders said, didn’t galvanize young voters, people of color, and typically non-active voters.

“I think you got to contrast that to the votes of conservative Democrats who did not generate a great deal of excitement within the Democratic Party,” Sanders said, alluding to a host of Senate Democrats who lost re-election on Tuesday night. “Did not bring the kind of new people, new energy that they needed and ended up doing quite poorly. In admittedly difficult states. Missouri and Indiana are not easy states, but neither is Florida or Georgia or Texas.”

“You look at Beto O’Rourke. Running in you know, what is generally considered to be a red state,” Sanders added, in some of his first remarks on the Texas Democrat. “Enormous excitement. Enormous citizen participation, young people participation. Broke the bank in terms of small contributions that he got. Came within a hair of winning in Texas.”


Sanders’ explanation for Tuesday’s results is not universally shared among Democratic Party strategists, who have cited state demographics and fears of immigration as more determinative to the outcomes than a candidate’s progressive bona fides.

Senate Republicans built on their narrow majority with a net pickup of three seats on Tuesday, with a possible fourth in Florida, pending an anticipated recount. In the states Sanders referenced specifically, Indiana and Missouri, incumbent Senators Joe Donnelly (D-IN) and Claire McCaskill did close their campaigns by tacking to the middle and emphasizing their agreements with President Trump (all while still running on protecting insurers’ coverage pre-existing conditions). But one top Senate strategist insisted to The Daily Beast that their doing so actually kept the contests closer than they could have been.

Sanders, by contrast, credited Abrams with a “brilliant campaign” for her efforts to bring non-active Democratic voters into the electoral process. He marvelled at O’Rourke’s fundraising prowess, which allowed the Texas Democrat to raise $38 million in the third quarter of this year—the largest of any Senate candidate in history—and earn more than 48 percent of the vote against incumbent Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). And he noted that Gillum helped generate turnout that led to the successful passing of Amendment 4, which will restore voting rights to 1.5 million convicted felons in Florida.

“I think he’s a fantastic politician in the best sense of the word,” Sanders said of Gillum. “He stuck to his guns in terms of a progressive agenda. I think he ran a great campaign. And he had to take on some of the most blatant and ugly racism that we have seen in many, many years. And yet he came within a whisker of winning.”

As for the notion that race may have played a role in Abrams’ and Gillum’s defeats, the two did face racist robocalls in the campaign and Gillum’s opponent, soon-to-be Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, began his campaign by urging voters not to “monkey this up” by voting for his opponent.

The narrow losses did nothing to dissuade Sanders that he, or anyone else competing as a Democratic candidate for president in 2020, should write off perennial tricky states in the South, including Texas, a state that he believes could go blue in two years. “And let me tell you something else,” Sanders added. “I think the day is going to come sooner than later when states like Mississippi are going to become progressive states.”


















***********************************************************


he just released this statement to clean up this bullshyt :mjlol:

 
Last edited:

AnonymityX1000

Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
30,918
Reputation
3,056
Daps
70,390
Reppin
New York
It's strategy, voter shaming doesn't work. Ask Hillary. lol
Let's win instead of always having to be right. Yes, a lot of voters are racist but calling them on it isn't going to make them vote the way you want. The opposite actually, they dig in their heels even more into their current view point.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
310,140
Reputation
-34,205
Daps
620,160
Reppin
The Deep State
Yea

I cant back this sort of nonsense

Whites like bernie are two degrees away from being full blown national socialists :mjpls:

If you cant acknowledge basic,race based factors, i have no business with you.
This is the same thing that the whole class is worse than race folks DO NOT GET.
 

BaggerofTea

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 2014
Messages
50,462
Reputation
-1,928
Daps
244,751
Gillum and abrams were both liberal/progressive as hell in their politicking.

Both were labeled as socialists and communists by their opposition

Bernie has officially lost me.

Wont ever support a bernie backed candidate either.
 

ineedsleep212

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
31,194
Reputation
3,159
Daps
63,304
Reppin
Brooklyn, NY
Gillum and abrams were both liberal/progressive as hell in their politicking.

Both were labeled as socialists and communists.

Bernie has officially lost me.

Wont ever support a bernie backed candidate either.
He never said they weren't progressive enough and gave them props. His main issue is dealing with the soft bigotry that every white person grows up with.



 
Top