Someone should
ANSWER this drivel, point by point...
1) He states flawed projections as facts. Then he repeats them as facts.
2) He is a science denier. The science is economics. People respond to incentives and disincentives. They deny it.
3) He is a denier of economic history. What he states as fact just isn't so. Not accurate anywhere at anytime across the globe or throughout history.
4) His policies aren't new; they lead to disaster every time they are tried. The further you go Sanders / Warrenomics, then worse the disaster. See VenezChavezuela.
--------------------------
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-june-18-2017-transcript-rubio-sanders-sekulow-odonnell/DICKERSON: Joining us now is Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. He is in Burlington.
Senator Sanders, I want to start with this week's shooting. In talking to Senator Rubio, he said obviously this was -- the man who did the shooting is responsible for his own actions. But in the wake of that, in this conversation about what leads to the heated political atmosphere, Senator Sanders -- Senator Rubio pointed out, he said that when people try to stop free speech, stop people from talking, it creates pressure in the system that might cause people to act out. What do you think of that theory?
[Not even a mention that the shooter was a follower of Bernie.]
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: I think he is right.
Look, freedom of speech, the right to dissent, the right to protest, that is what America is about. And, politically, every leader in this country, every American has got to stand up against any form of violence. That is unacceptable.
And I certainly hope and pray that Representative Scalise has a full recovery from the tragedy that took place this week.
[Tragedy? Like a natural catastrophe? Or was it a criminal act?]
DICKERSON: There's been a lot of protests on campuses when people come to speak. They have been -- people have protested and said they shouldn't be allowed to speak.
Where do you come down on that in the context of this pressure on free speech?
SANDERS: I think people have a right to speak. And you have a right, if you are on a college campus not to attend. You have a right to ask hard questions about the speaker if you disagree with him or her. But what -- why should we be afraid of somebody coming on a campus or anyplace else and speaking? You have a right to protest. But I don't quite understand why anybody thinks it is a good idea to deny somebody else the right to express his or her point of view.
[First two points true and valid, makes you think he is a reasonable guy- even though his angry articulation of false analysis inspired the hate thoughts if not the violence of the assassin who shot up a field full of Sanders' political opponents.]I think, John, what is very clear is, we are in a contentious and difficult political moment in our country's history. I have very grave concerns about the Trump agenda right now. We will -- we are looking -- we are not looking.
There is a health care proposal in the Senate
[NO THERE ISN'T] which nobody has seen yet. But
the proposal that passed the House, as you know, would throw 23 million Americans off of health insurance. I mean that, to me, is just incredible.
[Not even an opinion but repetition of a false claim, without giving credit to its source or including the time frame. He adds "AS YOU KNOW" to a statement that is patently false. Obamacare is losing enrollees at a faster rate than that without repeal/replace.]
It would raise premiums very significantly for older workers. [The removal of the requirement for young people to pay for the care of old people is "raising premiums for older workers'. With that logic you can reform NOTHING.]
It would defend (de-fund) Planned Parenthood and deny two-and-a-half million women the right to get the health care that they want, cut Medicaid by over $800 billion.[Planned Parenthood is a human slaughterhouse with an abortion to adoption ratio of 149 to 1. Medicaid has never been cut since its inception. The bill gives people freer choices, not denial of rights. The man has no shame.]
You know, we -- I and I would say the vast majority of the American people have strong disagreements with that approach. But you don't have to be violent about it. Let's disagree openly and honestly
[deceptively and vehemently], but violence is
[the result] not acceptable.
[The violence was incited by his own hate speech if you apply logic of the left to the left. Class WARFARE is still his operative theme while his political opponent is still in surgery.]DICKERSON: I want to get to the details of the health care plan in a moment, or the details you don't know at the moment. But let me just -- staying on this question here, is anything going to change in the wake of this in Washington, at least in the way lawmakers deal with each other? And is there something that should change?
SANDERS: I think, you know, what -- and, again, where this is such a strange moment is, we are looking at a lot of dishonest news that comes across, where people are lying outrageously about other people.
[Like Sanders just did.]And I hope that folks on all sides could say, look, I disagree with him or her, but that is an outrageous lie. But let us, on the other hand, be frank, is, there are real differences of opinions that exist in Congress.
It is not like -- you know, you mentioned Marco Rubio. I like Marco Rubio. But we disagree on issues. And people should understand, it is not that there is all kinds of hatred.
[He spews hatred right in this interview. What is class warfare without hatred?] There's a -- in the Congress, there is a fundamental disagreement.
President Trump made a -- brought forth a budget which will go nowhere, but
this is a budget that over a 10-year period would give $3 trillion in tax breaks [static analysis] to the top 1 percent, the very wealthiest families in America [hate and blame that group!], while making massive cuts in education [false], into health care [false], in nutrition programs[false], really devastate working class of this country[false]. [His policies are what devastate the working "class". See any place that implemented them.]I disagree with that. But, obviously, that debate has got to be played out based on the facts, and let's debate it.
[He disagrees with his own false assessment - or did that come out wrong?]DICKERSON: Let me move here now to health care.
You mentioned some of the policy differences, but there is a procedural debate going on about how this is being handled in the Senate. Some Democrats are suggesting, because the -- because you don't know what is in the bill and the bill is being worked on in secret, to just stop all Senate business, to just shut the place down as a way to kind of force play.
Are you on board with that?
[See if he answers the question...]SANDERS: John, here is the situation.
We know the legislation that passed the House. It was the worst piece of legislation, frankly, against working-class people that I can remember in my political life in the Congress.
Throwing 23 million people off of health insurance is beyond belief.[REPEAT A FALSEHOOD]Now, in the Senate, what you have is you have, I believe it is 10 Republicans working behind closed doors
[NO DEMOCRATS AGREED TO WORK ON THIS BILL!] to address one-sixth of the American economy. That is what health care is.
[Trying to reverse a failed government takeover of 1/6th of the economy as the voters asked them to do.]Republicans, the average Republican doesn't even know what is in that legislation. My understanding is that it will be brought forth just immediately before we have to vote on it.
[His colleague just assured him it wouldn't be. Is Sen. Rubio a liar?]This is completely unacceptable
[The way Obamacare was passed, "you have to pass it to see what's in it".] I mean, nobody can defend a process which will impact tens of millions of Americans, and
nobody even knows what is in the legislation.
[False. There is no Senate proposal at this time.] And, John, the important point here is the reason they don't want to bring it public is because it is a disastrous bill, I suspect similar to what passed in the House.
[Crafting legislation behind closed doors is far from new, see Hillarycare, Obamacare. Just raw, political mudslinging. Inciting violence against his colleagues?]Who is going to defend cutting Medicaid by $800 billion at the same time as you give massive tax breaks to the wealthiest 2 percent?
[Two false points then make a false comparison.] So, they want to keep it secret.
[No, they want to bring it out in the open and pass it.] They don't want the media involved.
["Think of them as Democratic operatives with bylines."] They don't want members of Congress involved. And at the last minute, they present it, they push it through, and that is one-sixth of the American economy and millions of people thrown off the health insurance.
[False, false, false and false.]That is unacceptable. I believe Democrats should do everything they can to oppose that legislation in any way that we can.
[Ends justify means, while his colleague is in critical condition??!!]To the left of Bernie (or more open and honest than him) are people who want to tax the upper income at 99%. Seriously! Why do we not take all of their income? Why is $100/hr minimum wage not better than $15? Why don't they admit what they know would go wrong with their own proposals? Which type of tax code brings in the most revenue to the Treasury, one that stomps out economic activity or one that fosters growth? But the agenda of socialist is not to grow the economy or to alleviate poverty. Their goal is transformation. Or just perpetual class warfare. If we enacted all of their taxes and programs (as we have), they would then want - more taxes and more programs.
