Dennis Miller Live: Christopher Hitchens (2001)

Posted on October 27, 2015 by Rik Schneider

Dennis Miller Live

Source:The Daily Review

Chris Hitchens, seemed to hate Bill Clinton so much that he almost loved the man. His hatred of Billy Jeff, reminds me of the pastor and activist on the Christian-Right who claims how evil and dangerous homosexuality is, it comes out that he’s gay himself. And has had relationships with adolescent boys. The strongest opponents of homosexuality in several cases have been closeted gays. I guess the thinking that if they act all butch and are strongly against homosexuality in public, no one will ever know they actually speak with a high voice and cheat on their third wives with men. Without Bill Clinton, what would Hitchens have to write about in the 1990s? Wait, Tony Blair and New Labour coming to power in Britain? He might hate Tony Blair more than Bill Clinton actually, if that’s possible.

Keep in mind, Chris Hitchens was a Democratic Socialist. Bill Clinton, New Democrat, who moved the Democratic Party from this malaise of Utopians who were never happy about anything except when new news got worst and more people were suffering and they could make a case for more big government. So that I think is the main beef that Hitchens had with Billy Jeff. To the point that he calls the man a rapist without much if any evidence to back up that charge. Billy Jeff, if he wasn’t a busy and important man and had better things to do other than concern himself with Chris Hitchens, could have sued him for libel and probably have a hell of a case. Hitchens reminds me a little of the Republican political strategist/JFK assassination conspiracy theorist Roger Stone. Who officially will never support the Warren Report, even though he’s probably smart enough to. (Jury is still out) And has written books arguing that Vice President Lyndon Johnson had President Kennedy killed.

I’m surprised that Oliver Stone hasn’t picked up on one of Chris Hitchens’s conspiracy theories. And made a movie or documentary about one of them. There certainly enough dumb people and escaped mental patients, or people who should be committed, that would see that film for the movie to make money. Maybe Oliver Stone and Bill Clinton are friends, or Stone at least is an admirer of Clinton. Perhaps a contributor to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign or a member of her husband’s Foundation’s board. But that is where Hitchens was at least in the 1990s and early 2000s before he became a Neoconservative who wanted Islam destroyed or something. And jumped into President Bush’s back pocket (no more room in the front pockets) and became a cheerleader for the so-called War on Terror and the Iraq War. When Hitchens was focused on something, he wouldn’t let it ago. Until he found something else to bury himself in.

Posted in Christopher Hitchens, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

NFL Films: The Story of The 1982 St. Louis Cardinals

Posted on October 26, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Source:The Daily Review

I remember the NFL’s St. Louis Cardinals pretty well, because I started watching football in the early and mid 1980s and even though the Cardinals are from St. Louis, they played in the NFC East with the Redskins. So I got to see the Cardinals twice a year for about six seasons. And I always remember them playing the Redskins very tough even though the Redskins were always better. The Redskins won two Super Bowls and won three NFC championships and the Cardinals made one playoff appearance, but they had three winning seasons. They were a very talented group that would win 8-9 games and barely miss the except 1982 under head coach Jim Hanifan. And I guess that is why I’m interested in a team that only made one playoff appearance in the 1980s.

The 1980s Cardinals, probably should have won more. They had an All-Pro quarterback in Neil Lomax. Who if his career wasn’t cut short due to injury is probably in the Hall of Fame today. If you look at their backfield they had OJ Anderson, who perhaps should be in the Hall of Fame today. Definitely one of the best tailbacks of the 1980s. Who had great size and power at 6’2 225 pounds, but was also fast and could run away from you. Very similar to OJ Simpson, Jim Brown, or Eric Dickerson. And they had Stump Mitchell behind OJ. Who was a great runner and receiver, similar to Joe Washington. And Neil Lomax had receivers Roy Green, Mel Gray and later JT Smith and tight end Pat Tilley. And a good offensive line with Hall of Famer Dan Dierdorf, Louis Sharpe and Joe Bostic. This was a team that had a lot of talent on offense and had good players on defense. Like defensive Freddie Joe Nunn and linebacker EJ Junior.

The 1980s St. Louis Cardinals, were very good and contended a lot, but they had a habit of putting scares into good winning teams that won consistently, but not enough to actually win the game. They would upset a very good team and then lose to a bad team. They either gave up on Jim Hanifan too soon, or replaced him with the wrong head coach in Gene Stallings. I think pretender is the best way to describe the Cardinals of this era. Seemed like every season they looked like they were good enough to win and would get back to the NFC Playoffs and maybe even win the NFC East. But they wouldn’t close the door and would lose at the last-minute. Make a key mistake when they couldn’t afford it. But similar to the New Orleans Saints pre-Jim Mora they were a fun team to watch. But only better than the Saints.

Posted in NFC Classic, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Christopher Kemmett: Real Retards Vote- Why you Don’t Want to Stop Them

Posted on October 25, 2015 by kireschneider

Uncle Sam

Source:The Daily Review

When I saw this post on The Real Strategy a blog I’ll admit I’m not that familiar with, it got me thinking about the title of a book from the great political humorist P.J. O’Rourke. Where he says, “don’t vote. It just encourages the bastards.” Which came out in 2009-10. What O’Rourke is implying there if not just flat-out saying is that when you vote for politicians, or their opponents, you’re endorsing them and what they do. When the fact is the problem is what American politicians do for us and in too many cases do for us. By making our lives more difficult by doing too much, or not what they’re constitutionally required to by law, which is to pass the budget that funds the government.

As a Democrat, I’m a big fan of democracy short of empowering the majority to rule over the minority. Big reason why I’m a Liberal Democrat and not a Social Democrat, which is more common in Europe. But the main problem with American politics is not our politicians and I mean our crooked and bought hyper-partisan politicians. The main problem with American politics are the voters who vote for those politicians. People say especially with the Left where I’m proud to be (Center-Left that is) that if we just have higher turnout we would get better politicians and people more representative of who they’re supposed to represent. The problem with that is again if you have more people voting, you’re going to have at least with the current state of the American voter, you’ll have more dumb people voting for people who they don’t know. Getting sucked in by an oil-slick politician or candidate. Who has no intention of doing what they campaigned on.

You can pass all the great campaign reform laws that you want, but if you still have the same dumb voters who are either too dumb to vote for the people who’ll best represent them and vote for the worst alternative possible instead, or don’t bother to research candidates and politicians they’re considering voting for and just go off of soundbites, or the person whose most up to date with pop culture references, or technology, or campaign commercials, or they think one candidate is not as bad as the other person, so for that very and only reason the lesser evil deserves their vote over the really evil person, we’re always going to have an American public complaining about how bad our political system and government is. Even though they are responsible for creating that very government and system themselves.

We don’t need more voters. We need better voters. We need people who actually take voting seriously and take it as seriously as they would when their buying a home, a car, deciding where to send their kid to college and everything else they value, their i-pad, or i-pod, what so-called reality TV show to watch, etc. And with a more educated public when it comes to voting, you’ll see better politicians and better government and with that you’ll not just to see more voters, but more educated voters. With politicians having fewer dopes they can rely on who’ll buy beach out in Cincinnati if you tell them that you have one there for sale simply because you told them that. And since they failed geography and social studies in high school, aren’t even aware that Cincinnati is nowhere near and ocean. And probably couldn’t even find it on a map if they were standing there.

Posted in American Politics, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Rubin Report: Sam Harris and Dave Rubin Talk Religion, Politics, Free Speech

Posted on October 24, 2015 by Derik Schneider
Dave Rubin & Sam Harris

Dave Rubin & Sam Harris

Source:The Daily Review

The only thing that I disagree with Sam Harris and his critique about Islam that I’ve seen from him and I’ve only been following his blog for about a year now, “is that the problem with the free speech debate about Islam, are Liberals.” Who invented free speech? Liberals! You want to give me the classic vs modern liberal argument all you want. But the fact is Liberals gave us our free speech. Not God, not Conservatives, or anyone else, but Liberals. You can’t be a Liberal if you don’t believe in free speech. It would be like being a pro-drug war, pro-preemptive war, anti-capitalist Libertarian. Liberals, are not the problem in the free speech debate about Islam and religion in general. The problem is leftist political correctness warriors, whether you want to call them Progressives, Socialists, New Marxists. But people who believe minorities should be excluded from criticism.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, especially in the First Amendment does it give any class or group of Americans the right not to criticized. Actually, the opposite is true since we all have the right to say whatever we want to about everyone else, short of libeling and threatening people, or inciting violence. This comes from our liberal Freedom of Speech. The constitutional right for Americans to freely express themselves. If you believe in political correctness, you believe in free speech for yourself and your faction. Just not for the opposition. So when a member from your team expresses them self in a way that offends the other side. That is free speech from your point of view. But if the other side says something offensive about a group you care about, well that’s hate speech that must be shut down. According to a political correctness fascist. Which is what we’re talking about here. Free speech, where Liberals, Libertarians and Conservatives are. Versus fascists on the Far-Left and Far-Right.

Do you believe in free speech, or not? If you do, I’ll suggest you are a Liberal. Especially if you believe free speech covers speech that may offend you, or you disagree with. If you believe in political correctness, or what I call at least collective speech, you’re not a Liberal. You’re probably someone who says it’s perfectly okay to critique Christian-Conservatives when they bash gays, women and Muslims. Because the person is probably correct and besides you’re just expressing your freedom of speech. But if you make similar criticisms about Muslims, or people from Eastern religion’s who take the same positions against Muslims, you’re a racist, or some other type of bigot. Even though of course Islam is not race. Which hopefully Ben Affleck has figured out by now, but you might have to ask him that.

Posted in The Daily Review, The Rubin Report | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Canan Dian: ‘Christopher Buckley- Discusses Christopher Hitchens Life and Mortality’

Posted on October 24, 2015 by Rik Schneider

Chris Hitchens & Chris Buckley

Source:Canan Dian– Christopher Buckley discuses Christopher Hitchens life and book and his book Mortality’ 2012.

Source:The Daily Review

“Christopher Buckley reviews “Mortality” by Christopher Hitchens”

From Can Dian

What I like most about Christopher Hitchens is why he never would have made a very successful politician, because he has this big habit of always saying what he thought and what he knew. And he didn’t give a damn what others thought about it. His consistency for the most part and the on exception to that being how his national security and foreign policy views changed after 9/11, I believe are unparalleled.

Chris Hitchens wasn’t just an anti-Christian, or anti-Christian-Right radical on the Far-Left, but he was a true Atheist. He didn’t bash the Christian-Right for their positions on homosexuality, women’s place in the world, censorship, while he defended Muslims for believing that women and gays should be second-class citizens. He critiqued and attacked religious extremism wherever he saw it.

Politically, I’m not sure I have ever had much in common with Chris Hitchens. I’ve never been a Democratic Socialist, or a Neoconservative. I don’t know of many other people who’ve gone from one end to the other politically like that. But I’ve always respected his consistency especially with his Atheism.

If Hitchens was alive today would be treated like a bigot by the New-Left in America, similar to how Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, are now treated. As being anti-Muslim and anti-Middle Eastern and so-forth. He was anti-Muslim, but he was also anti-Christian and anti every other religion. He saw religion as a dangerous force in the world and with his new neoconservative leanings and perhaps would have if he could had religion outlawed in America. Not sure about that, but he was a true militant Atheist.

I believe political and current affairs writers should be judged on their ability to learn, grasp and to be consistent. Do they say and write things that add up and where you could at least make a good case for their beliefs. Or do they just write for their team and over hype all the positive things about their side, while underplaying the low points of their side. And are they consistent, or do they contradict themselves. Do they bash religion, while only concentrating on one type of religion, or are they a true Atheist who doesn’t like religion in general. And will critique negative aspects of religion wherever they see it. Do they bash big government on one side, while praising it on another, but without calling it big government.

Chris Hitchens, meets at least all of my standards as a great current affairs writer. Because he was someone who learned, who understood facts and made his arguments based on them. And adapted when he was wrong and because of these things and many others he’s still missed today and will be for a long time.

Posted in Book TV, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

HBO Sports: Inside the NFL, Featuring the New Orleans Saints (12/10/87)

Posted on October 24, 2015 by Erik Schneider
Nick Buoniconti & Bobby Hebert

Nick Buoniconti & Bobby Hebert

Source:The Daily Review

The New Orleans Saints finally not just make the playoffs in 1987, but had their first winning season as well. But several of those players that played for the 87 Saints were also there before Jim Mora got there. Like their great outside rush end Rickey Jackson, their great inside linebacker Sam Mills, their great halfback Rueben Mays, safety Dave Waymer, tight end Hobey Brenner and many others. The Saints under Bum Phillips and later Jim Finks and Jim Mora, drafted very well for the Saints for about five years in the 1980s. What Jim Mora brought to the Saints was teaching them how to win. He won championships in the USFL with the Baltimore Stars and that is the only reason why he went to the NFL which was to win. But he inherited a talented team and added to that.

If you look at the Saints of the early 1980s and then later in the late eighties and early nineties they were basically the same team on both sides of the ball as far as their philosophy, they were just better. But run they ran the ball real well and got big pass plays off of their running game and could put together long ball-control drives. And then on defense they could take away your running game and attack your quarterback with their 3-4 blitz pressure defense. Their 3-4 blitz defense was called the Dome Patrol. Where you had Rickey Jackson on one side and Pat Swilling on the other side. Both linebackers the essentially the size of smaller defensive ends with great speed. Where you would need an offensive tackle to block them. And then your three down lineman are there to eat up blocks and space to free up your linebackers to rush the quarterback and attack the runners.

As I mentioned in the piece about the 1983 Saints, Jim Finks and Jim Mora, didn’t inherit a bad 2-14 football team. The were 5-11 in 85 and 6-10 in 86, the first season under Mora. Mora, inherited good players on defense and offense and what he did with that was added to that and bring in more players on defense and offense. Like quarterback Bobby Hebert, who gave them a consistent passing game. And wide receiver Eric Martin, who gave them a very good possession receiver on the outside with good speed. And then they had Dalton Hilliard to go with Rueben Mays in the backfield. It took the Saints 21 seasons to become winners, but it didn’t happen overnight. They were building their good team for several years and finally put it all together in 1987.

Posted in NFC Classic, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Franken Splean: Hunter S. Thompson’s Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1978)

Posted on October 23, 2015 by Derik Schneider

Hunter Thompson

Source:The Daily Review

If I was growing up, or an adult in the 1960s and 1970s, I might consider if I had access to, going through that decade on one big alcohol and illegal narcotics high. The problem with that is I probably wouldn’t have survived it and lived to blog about those experiences today. Which might have only been a problem for myself. But the 1970s especially, was a very depressing decade. As I mentioned last week about 1979, without Hollywood, America would have been a country of Fins. A very depressed country all in search of a tall bridge to jump off hoping we wouldn’t hit water as we jumped off. The problem with that is that there would have been lines of millions of Americans, not waiting for gas, but to all jump off the same bridge. Even escaping reality has its limits to it like taking the trip to escape reality and what it does to your body.

I think making a film, or book, (how about both and devote your whole life to the project) about George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign, (speaking of marijuana highs) would have been entertaining and depressing enough. We didn’t need Dennis Kucinich, a former U.S. Representative and two-time presidential candidate who lost his House seat to another Democrat, because we had George McGovern. Whose 1972 presidential campaign made it appear that he wasn’t running for President of the United States. But Planet Utopia, where there’s no poverty, no discrimination, no hate and no anything else that good people tend to see as bad. And what also made Senator McGovern’s campaign strange, was that I don’t think the man even drank. Let alone smoked marijuana, or any other illegal narcotics. He was just out there, I mean out there as a sober man. Here’s a guy who lost a presidential election to a criminal. You can’t even beat a criminal in a presidential election, you’re pretty pathetic.

I think covering Jimmy Carter would have been interesting enough. Here’s a guy who was also a politician and yet he also seemed like a human being as well. Who didn’t try to convince people he was perfect, or cover up obvious mistakes and took actual responsibility for himself and people who worked for him. Speaking of Planet Utopia, imagine a country where politicians actually seemed like real people and not robots, or puppets. Where you have someone standing behind the politician telling them what to say when a reporter has the balls to ask the politician a real question that puts the politician on the spot. I’m not here blaming politicians, because they get elected and reelected and reelected and reelected, until they die, or people sober up and decide to vote them out, by voters who are us and everyday people. But Jimmy Carter, actually seemed like a real American, just a hell of a lot smarter.

Sometimes I wish I was born 20-25 years later and not born during the middle of one of the recession’s from the 1970s. Because then I would have gotten to grow up, or have been part of the civil rights movement and perhaps even the hippie movement. I think it would have been great to live during 1968, just to see if I could have survived that year. But then someone slaps me in the face and I wake up and think to myself, “what are you fucking crazy!” Coming up during that time period would have been hell I think. Sure! It would have been fun, especially if I didn’t get drafted to Vietnam and didn’t have a way to get to Canada. But a lot of that time period would have been so depressing for me. I mean, I got through 1979, 2001, 2009-10. I think that is enough trauma for one person who hasn’t turned 40 yet. (Knock on wood) But its a great time to write and blog about.

Posted in Life, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

S.E. Cupp: ‘Yes, The Benghazi Hearings Are Political. So What?’

Posted on October 23, 2015 by Rik Schneider

Hillary Clinton

Source:New York Daily News– former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, testifying in front of the U.S. House.

Source:The New Democrat 

“Nothing in Washington happens in a vacuum, and so as S.E. Cupp argues today, of course the Benghazi Special Committee is political, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t trying to investigate something important.

In her latest New York Daily News column, Cupp has no problem saying the hearings have “an element of the political” to them because 1) a Clinton is involved, and 2) it’s happening in an election season.

So basically, “as much as former prosecutor and House Benghazi chairman Trey Gowdy wants his hearings to avoid politics, anyone who tells you that’s actually possible is either lying or preternaturally naive.”

Hillary Clinton‘s campaign and the Democrats have pounced on recent statements suggesting that the Benghazi hearings are partly about politics, declaring the committee to be tainted by politics.

But does Clinton have a leg to stand on here? Per Cupp:

Hillary herself is playing the politics. When House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy suggested that Clinton’s poll numbers have suffered because of the investigations — not, incidentally, an admission that this was the sole reason for the investigations — Clinton was quick to turn this into political capital for her presidential campaign, using his comments in her first national television ad entitled “Admit.” (See also stories like Bloomberg’s “Hillary Clinton Looks to Turn Benghazi Hearing into Next Boost.”) Is Hillary allowed to use the hearing for political gain, while scolding Republicans for doing just that? Apparently, yes.

And yes, she concludes, Clinton’s credibility is an issue worth looking into, even if the atmosphere surrounding it is partly political in nature.”

Source:Mediate

“Hillary Clinton delivers her opening statement before the Benghazi Committee.”

Hillary Clinton Opening Statement on Benghazi (C-SPAN) (2015) - Google SearchSource:C-SPAN– former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, testifying in front of the U.S. House.

From C-SPAN

The great CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow on his newscast See it Now, one night devoted his whole show to the Joe McCarthy hearings in the Senate. And he said that and I’m paraphrasing here, “one of the purposes of Congressional hearings (referring to the Senate McCarthy hearings) is to find out the truth and how government operates and to get information and facts about proposed legislation.”

Would someone please tell me what we learned at the House Benghazi hearing yesterday about that Benghazi tragedy? Not all tragedies are criminal. There are times when mistakes are made and people are unprepared that result in a tragedy. And House Republicans can talk about coverup all they want, so we really don’t know what happened at Benghazi. But if that is the case then they’re horrible lawyers and investigators, because it would be almost impossible to cover up a tragedy like that today.

All we got from the Thursday House Benghazi hearing was House Republicans giving Hillary Clinton the Christmas gift of the year. Even though she really had to earn it by devoting ten hours of her life to those Republicans. Most of them not being in Congress when she left to become Secretary of State in 2009.

The gift being 10 hours of free publicity on national TV where she looked like the responsible adult, explaining to little children what can happen when you forget to close the door at night, or leave the door open during a big rain or snowstorm. And in her case when you have a U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya and you don’t have enough security in an area where the host government can’t protect their foreign visitors. The Benghazi tragedy happened, because our embassy over there was undermanned and unprepared, especially as it relates to the security. But we knew all of this two years ago.

Posted in Congress, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Economist’s View: Alan Krueger: The Minimum Wage: How Much is Too Much?

Posted on October 22, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

Good question, because how is a job where the employee bags groceries, rings up groceries, makes cheeseburgers, cleans up after people, takes orders from customers, worth. Not as much as the person who hires those people, or as much as the people who supervise those employees. In a not free, but private market economy, a lot of this is left up to the employer as far as how much their employees are worth over the minimum wage. Whatever the minimum wage should be, it can’t be so high that small employers especially simply can’t afford to pay their entry-level employees that wage. You don’t want a minimum wage that equals the amount of money of a supervisor, or a manager. Because the supervisor and manager simply has more responsibility and value to the company, then someone who is just starting with the business. Perhaps coming off Welfare and might only have a high school diploma.

I hate the term non-essential employee, because it implies that other employees are not essential. Which comes up in the minimum wage debates and opponents will say that entry-level and other lower-level employees aren’t worth much more than the minimum wage, or even worth less, because they’re not essential. Which is a bogus argument, because how would you run a grocery store with cashiers and stockers. You might not need cashiers now because customers can now ring up their own groceries, but you eliminate all cashiers, now you’re spending more money on computers. Which might be more expensive. But someone has to stock the store, work in the bakery, work in seafood, work in the deli, etc. And the store wouldn’t be open without these employees who in many cases are making 8-9 bucks and hour and that is if they have experience working there, or at another store.

The United States poverty level is roughly twenty-thousand-dollars a year, give or take. Which is about four-hundred-dollars a week for a full-time employee. The current Federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour and if you work forty-hours a week fifty-two weeks a year and if that is what you’re making you probably don’t have vacation pay, that comes out $290 a week. Just over fifteen-thousand-dollars a year, which roughly 3-4 of the poverty level in the United States. So minimum wage employees in America don’t even make the official poverty level in America, but about seventy-five-percent of that. And again we’re talking about essential employees that without their employers couldn’t be in business and yet their employers feel they’re paid adequately. Which of course is not accurate.

I don’t know what entry-level and other lower-level workers are worth. But again their employers wouldn’t be in business without them, so that tells me they’re worth a hell of a lot more than they are. I’m not on board for a fifteen-dollar an hour minimum wage at least at the Federal level. What states and localities do is their business. But 10-12 an hour and again not a lot of money even for a full-time employee, they’re certainly worth that, because again their employer wouldn’t be in business without them. And then help small business’s with a tax credit so they don’t get hurt by it. While large employers who are clearly underpaying their employees would have to pay the full amount. And Libertarians and Conservatives will say that, “the market should decide all wages and compensation in America.” But the fact is the market doesn’t do that, but employers only with government setting basic standards for workers compensation.

Posted in New Left, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Real Time With Bill Maher: Interview With Senator Bernie Sanders

Posted on October 21, 2015 by Derik Schneider
Democratic Socialist

Democratic Socialist

Source:The Daily Review

Every time I hear someone interview Senator Bernie Sanders and someone asks him what does he mean by socialist and socialism, I end up feeling like I’m one of his campaign spokesman. Because he never fully answers that question and I end up explaining what he means by socialist and socialism just based on positions he takes in his campaign and his speeches. Democratic Socialists, Bernie Sanders. Marxists, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Mao, Joe Stalin and people like that. A Democratic Socialist, just wants to tax most of your money away from you and use government to take care of you. A Marxist, won’t ever let you see your own money. Because in a Marxist state you don’t own anything and you’ll probably be poor anyway, unless you have a sweet gig with the central government. And then they might use some of the state revenue to see to it that you don’t have to starve, or something.

Any politician who tells you that they have free government programs for you, ask them if they know of any great ski resorts in San Diego and hows the snow there. You might want to ask them if they also have a great deal on a 1978 Ford Pinto, or do they have any New Hampshire palm trees that they want to sell. All these new government programs that Bernie is talking about all come with a cost. What’s the clue there? They’re government programs! Anyone who pays taxes in America knows that government is not free. And you could raise taxes on the wealthy by fifty-percent if you want to. (Some people are screaming why not!) And watch people in Canada and Mexico get rich because of all the new money that is now being invested in those counties in order to avoid 60-70% tax rates in capitalist America.

So of course the middle class are going to have to pay for their free college, free childcare, free health insurance, free health care, free food, free housing, whatever else the Senator wants to give away for free. Because those things won’t be free for anyone whose receiving them. He’ll have to increase payroll taxes and income taxes on perhaps everybody to pay for them. Even when government pays for services through borrowing and asking for a check from the King of Saudi Arabia, or the Prime Minister of Japan, taxpayers have to pay for that as well. In the form of interest on the national debt and higher interest rates. You want government services, you have to pay for them unless you’re too poor to pay taxes. Which most of the country isn’t . If Senator Sanders is going to become President Sanders, he’s going to have to convince millions of Americans, especially Americans who aren’t Democratic Socialists that they should want to pay for these new services.

The weakness of the Sanders Campaign, is that they’re promising a lot of Christmas gifts (even in October) without telling people who they will be charged for their own gifts. Imagine receiving a Christmas gift from your brother and he tells you, “Joe, I’m glad you enjoy your new book, but that’s going to be twenty bucks. I don’t have the money to pay for it myself.” I would probably hit my brother with the book, or throw the book at him. (Pun intended) So what Bernie should be doing is, “saying look at these other countries and the services that they provide for their people. And how they pay for them. That is what I want to do here.” While also explaining to people who those services are paid for through payroll taxes, income taxes and sales taxes. I don’t agree with that approach, but at least he would be straight with the hundreds of millions of American taxpayers that he wants to represent as their president.

Posted in Real Time, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment