Postal Union backs Bernie!

Go Bernie, Go!!

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/33458-postal-workers-union-endorses-bernie-sanders-for-president

FREE SHIT..!! Vote for socialism..!!

Salinsky wrote:

PkrBum wrote:FREE SHIT..!! Vote for socialism..!!

What policies that the Republican candidates are promoting do you support, random internet guy?

Don't think too hard!

NO FREE SHIT..!! (except in real disability and voluntarily paid in programs)

I had some clients in my office earlier this week that were over 65 and they were registered republican's, they started talking about Sander's to me and why they thought at this point they were going to vote for him and for me to look into him and that he was not a real socialist, so I have been looking into ole Bernie and what I am seeing I hope he gets the nomination and if he does I just may vote for him.

Is he a real socialist?

Socialist" — the word is a loaded term and often a rhetorical weapon. But Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., seems to proudly claim it.

"Do they think I’m afraid of the word? I’m not afraid of the word," he said in an interview with The Nation published in July. "When I ran for the Senate the first time, I ran against the wealthiest guy in the state of Vermont. He spent a lot on advertising — very ugly stuff. He kept attacking me as a liberal. He didn’t use the word ‘socialist’ at all, because everybody in the state knows that I am that."

When he announced his candidacy in April 2015, the word itself dominated headlines. But a few readers have objected to our use of the term.

"Would you kindly clarify your statements that Bernie Sanders self-identifies as a socialist?" one reader wrote, "He says 'democratic socialist.' There is a whopping difference, and your misstatement plays into the Republican candidates' demeaning statements too perfectly."

We wondered: Were we being inaccurate when we described him as a socialist?

The short answer: It’s akin to calling a honeycrisp an apple — not the most specific description, but not inaccurate. And here’s the kicker: Despite what he calls himself, Sanders isn’t exactly an apple, either.

Sanders’ campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment. But we found many examples of Sanders describing himself as a democratic socialist, a specific type of socialist who wants public ownership of the means of production (which means the tools and money to make things) and a democratic political system.

But he’s also called himself just a socialist.

That’s because, like Sanders, most democratic socialists use the terms interchangeably, said Joseph Schwartz, vice-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America.

"When Bernie is asked, ‘Are you a socialist?’ he doesn't deny it, and he immediately talks about Scandinavia. He uses them interchangeably. But if you look at his history, he knows the distinction," Schwartz said.

To some, that distinction is more crucial politically, given America’s allergy to another type of socialism, the non-democratic kind of the former Soviet Union.

The word "socialism," after all, has been historically associated with the Cold War, gulags, and failed empires, argued Thor Benson, a journalist who wrote the piece "Stop Calling Bernie Sanders a Socialist" in The New Republic.

"We have a history of terrible propaganda against socialism and also communism, so it's likely people will misunderstand what you mean. When you refer to Sanders as a ‘democratic socialist,’ people are more likely to go look that up and try to figure out what he's about," Benson told PolitiFact.

Sanders himself eschewed the term "socialist" early in his career, but both his and the public’s attitudes towards the word have since evolved. A 2011 report by the Pew Center shows that while most Americans still view the word negatively, 49 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds reacted positively to socialism (compared with 46 percent who viewed capitalism positively).

Experts told us that that’s because the word itself has evolved, "untethered from its original meaning," said Samuel Goldman, who studies the history and philosophy of political thought at George Washington University. The millennials and Gen-Xers who are more open to socialism aren’t associating it with a state-controlled economy. Rather than Soviet-style governing, they think of and admire Nordic models of living.

These policies include "strong labor rights, progressive taxation, a robust array of public goods like child care, health care, and higher education," all advocated by Sanders, said Schwartz. With these positions, Sanders is technically a social democrat — he isn’t calling for a red revolution, just "a way of making capitalism humane," according to Peter Dreier, a leftist political theorist at Occidental College. So he’s not really a socialist, at least by the strict definition of the word.

"In what sense is (Sanders) a socialist? Basically he’s for more entitlements for the middle class. …That’s not the classical 19th century Marxist understanding or even the 20th century one. But maybe this is what socialism means today," said David Azerrad, who studies American political traditions at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "It’s a pale counterfeit, a considerably diluted form than the original."

Even among conservatives, "socialist" carries a different meaning today, albeit for a similar purpose.

"Virtually every fundraising letter I get from a conservative outfit accuses someone of being a socialist," Azerrad said, adding that the insult now connotes rampant entitlements and big government.

Given the contemporary right’s continued usage of the word, Sanders championing the label has an aspirational quality, experts said.

"If you allow the right to control the term, that limits what type of reform you can achieve. If you allow the right to define it as totally un-American, it takes it off of any agenda for reform," said Schwartz.

While Sanders’ actual views "would have been pretty typical of Democrats in the 1950s, particularly those with connections to organized labor," he makes socialism more appealing by associating it with popular policies, according to Goldman.

"In a way, Sanders is reclaiming a term that was used discredit his political ancestors," Goldman said. "Conservatives argued that minimum wage laws and Medicare were socialist measures. In effect, Sanders is saying: ‘So what if they were?’ "

Sanders may also have a more shrewd reason for labeling himself a socialist: It tidily sums up his priorities and helps distinguish him from other Democrats, according to Goldman.

Here at PolitiFact, we will continue to identify Sanders as either an independent, a socialist or a democratic socialist when we want to briefly describe his political affiliation and outlook, because Sanders refers to himself that way. But we will also refer readers who ask about it to this longer explanation.

Not surprised more young people favor him.

Wordslinger wrote:

PkrBum wrote:FREE SHIT..!! Vote for socialism..!!

Your viewpoint's hilarious. Take one single issue -- raising the minimum wage. I know this will come as a shock to you, but there are a very large number of conservatives who are FOR raising the minimum wage because that development will positively affect their own incomes and family security. Add those folks to all the liberals, and your dysfunctional party hasn't a ghost of a chance to send someone to the White House. And that fact stands on its own. Mr. Trump's disparaging dialogue about getting rid of 12 million "illegals," adds even more numbers to the progressive, liberal democrat totals. Do you really believe assholes like Trump or Carson or Cruz or Rubio can beat the democratic candidate in a national election? An election where all the minorities are on one side, and only white dudes are on the other?

Reality.

What exactly do you think that will fix? By fix I mean literally fix... as in fixed... done... checked off the list.

There have already been articles about how much free stuff Bernie wants to give away and it will already double the debt that Obama has doubled in six years and 10 months.

I think our whole political dialogue can be summed up by dividing it into two sides.

1.  Those who want to give out the free shit.

2.  Those who don't.

I'm divided on it.  I want to give out the free shit when it's medicare.  But not when it's anything else.  lol

Bob wrote:I think our whole political dialogue can be summed up by dividing it into two sides.

1.  Those who want to give out the free shit.

2.  Those who don't.

I'm divided on it.  I want to give out the free shit when it's medicare.  But not when it's anything else.  lol

Not voluntarily... but you paid for that insurance... and it's unlikely that you will recoup what you paid. That's govt.

PkrBum wrote:
Not voluntarily... but you paid for that insurance... and it's unlikely that you will recoup what you paid. That's govt.

With two kinds of cancer,  I feel pretty sure I'll end up recouping more than I paid.  lol

But you raise a good point.  I've been trying for some time to get the actual honest factual true figure of how much our medicare benefits are being "subsidized" by the federal government.  And so far obtaining that figure is like getting a needle from a haystack.  Can anyone supply that information?

Bob wrote:

PkrBum wrote:
Not voluntarily... but you paid for that insurance... and it's unlikely that you will recoup what you paid. That's govt.

With two kinds of cancer,  I feel pretty sure I'll end up recouping more than I paid.  lol

But you raise a good point.  I've been trying for some time to get the actual honest factual true figure of how much our medicare benefits are being "subsidized" by the federal government.  And so far obtaining that figure is like getting a needle from a haystack.  Can anyone supply that information?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/

Your Medicare Advantage plan is getting subsidized somewhere in the range of $9000 to $12,000 per year to the insurance company and that is it. Most MAPD plan sponsor's also receive a bonus according to their star ratings, the higher the rating the more they get. Your's is a 3.5 star rating not much bonus I would imagine.

It is said that since Medicare reform act of 2003 that these MAPD plans cost 13% more than if someone had actually stayed on original Medicare. The Medicare fee schedule paid to health care provider's isn't much of anything. I saw an EOB of a 70 year old who only has medicare and no supplement or MAPD. He was having physical therapy at Andrews clinic. His 20% was discounted down to $8.00 so Medicare wasn't paying much.

I don't think anyone can really tell you a true figure on how much is subsidized.

As far as free shit and leaving this to your kids and grandkids, seems like the younger people want Bernie and if they can live with that in 20 years so can I, if I'm alive.

End the end we all know Bernie will not receive the nomination and it will be Cankles with pd's hand prints around her cankles.

PkrBum wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

PkrBum wrote:FREE SHIT..!! Vote for socialism..!!

Your viewpoint's hilarious.  Take one single issue -- raising the minimum wage.  I know this will come as a shock to you, but there are a very large number of conservatives who are FOR raising the minimum wage because that development will positively affect their own incomes and family security.  Add those folks to all the liberals, and your dysfunctional party hasn't a ghost of a chance to send someone to the White House.  And that fact stands on its own.  Mr. Trump's disparaging dialogue about getting rid of 12 million "illegals," adds even more numbers to the progressive, liberal democrat totals.  Do you really believe assholes like Trump or Carson or Cruz or Rubio can beat the democratic candidate in a national election?  An election where all the minorities are on one side, and only white dudes are on the other?

Reality.

What exactly do you think that will fix? By fix I mean literally fix... as in fixed... done... checked off the list.

Nothing is ever really "fixed", "checked off the list", or "done".  Reality is dynamic and therefore our policy must be dynamic as well if it is to be at all effective.    

That you would even think we live in a world where things are ever "done", "fixed", or "checked off the list" basically cements the idea that you are a high school libertarian.

A boost to the minimum wage would create a boost to aggregate demand, as minimum wage workers typically live paycheck to paycheck and spend all or at least nearly all of what they earn.  And it is boosts to aggregate demand - not giveaways to rich people - that ultimately drive hiring and job creation.  But that doesn't mean we can say "done" or "fixed".  Here again, reality is dynamic.  The economy is dynamic.  A boost to the minimum wage would be a sensible reaction to trends we have seen take hold over the last several decades with respect to income distribution.

With all that said, feel free to respond with a link to an article that really has nothing to do with the underlying subject matter of what I just said.  You know, so you can convince yourself that you are participating substantively.

It'll cost jobs... inflate the system... and be particularly hard on small biz and inexperienced labor. But it feeeeeels good.

PkrBum wrote:It'll cost jobs... inflate the system... and be particularly hard on small biz and inexperienced labor. But it feeeeeels good.

Says who? Based upon what?

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:It'll cost jobs... inflate the system... and be particularly hard on small biz and inexperienced labor. But it feeeeeels good.

Says who? Based upon what?

Real world experience and common sense.

I wish I could explain that to you... but I'd have a better chance of explaining the color beige to stevie wonder.

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:It'll cost jobs... inflate the system... and be particularly hard on small biz and inexperienced labor. But it feeeeeels good.

Says who?  Based upon what?

Real world experience and common sense.

I wish I could explain that to you... but I'd have a better chance of explaining the color beige to stevie wonder.

Uh oh...it's happening again.

I guess this will be another one of those times where we will simply have to take your word for it.  Here again, we find ourselves in a situation where PkrBum makes vague assertions and then when asked to explain them or back them, well, words fail him.

PkrBum, you clearly don't have anything substantive to add to the Politics forum.  Allow me to direct you back to the kids table.

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/f2-general-discussion


And to retort, no, it won't cost jobs. No, it won't "inflate the system", whatever that means. Why? Well. Because I say so and you just have to take my word for it.

How convenient!