Home | About | Donate

Nine Numbers That Cry Out: "Bring On Bernie!"


Nine Numbers That Cry Out: "Bring On Bernie!"

Paul Buchheit

No one individual can solve all our problems, especially with a contrarian and confrontational Congress. But greed, poverty, and inequality are some of the main targets of the Sanders campaign, and the matter of terrorism is likely to be addressed in a much more sensible way.

Here are some of the numbers that should shock us into rejecting every other candidate:

1. Terrorism: You're about as Likely to be Killed by a Toddler as a Terrorist


Bernie talks with the middle and lower classes while the other candidates talk at them. He may be the quintessential "I'd like to have a beer with" candidate.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Sanders understands that "the disastrous invasion of Iraq...has unraveled the region completely and led to the rise of al-Qaeda and to ISIS." And that the United States should be "trying to use diplomacy before war." ...Paul Buchheit.

When asked during the debate if her proposal for a no fly zone over Syria meant shooting down Russian planes, Hillary ducked the question, as she ducked other questions all night, by saying it wouldn't come to that. In other words, this very dangerous NeoCon, would risk WWIII by shooting down a Russian plane. This is the presumptive nonminee of the party according to almost all the leading lights I've read, and they relish this, and so it goes.


The author does not seem to be paying to attention to Bernie's statements on fighting in the Middle East. The central goal of Bernie's strategy is to destroy ISIS, not simply through diplomacy but through bombing, drone strikes, special forces operations, and soldiers on the ground, but Arab soldiers and particularly Sunnis, not US soldiers. The weakness of his military policy is that Sunni Arabs from other countries are not that motivated to fight ISIS who are also Sunnis. He is talking mostly about soldiers from Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. He has not explained how he can do this. Both Bernie and Hillary believe that to deal with the Assad problem diplomacy is needed. There seemed to be a disagreement between them in that Bernie was saying that ISIS must be destroyed first while Hillary said this diplomacy and military combat has to occur at the same time. Whether they actually disagree on this point seemed unclear.


Nine numbers is a good start, but there are others. Add to the list the obscene cost of higher education and the government sell-off of student loan programs to private lenders. Compare Bernie's stance on this issue to Clintons vague, iffy, maybe help a little position. Add to the list the global rise of emissions and see which candidate gives it a priority. Add to the list real unemployment numbers and see which candidate is talking about putting young people to work to rebuild infrastructure. I promise you, it ain't Clinton.


Our real government, the nexus between money and military/police power, has any number of tools to prevent a Bernie Sanders Administration. And they will use every single one, from the media blackout to assassination. But of course that is all the more reason to support him.


Bernie Sanders' economic policy focuses on fair wages, reigning in the banking and financial sectors, building community/worker cooperatives, cutting costs for the lower income (such as medical and education costs), and on high taxes for the wealthy.

Hillary Clinton's economic policy focus's on promoting private sector / market approaches to fixing the economy: a focus on private sector's 'innovations' as a means of solving problems from climate change to income inequality, a non-living minimum wage, maintaining the ability of the banking /financial sectors to grow large with minimal restrictions, raising taxes on the wealth to only about the same as that of the middle class.

Hillary Clinton's economics is reflective of Ronald Reagan's trickle down philosophy. With her hawkish approach to foreign policy and statements such as "We came. We saw. He died. Ha Ha Ha" I wouldn't be surprised to hear her use the old "Go ahead. Make my day."


You can tell from HRC's rhetoric that she thinks all these so-called debates are a mere formality and that HRC has the democratic nomination for POTUS wrapped up, but that might be a good thing because that could make HRC over confident. Metaphorically, like Goliath laughing at David.


Explains a lot about our current administration, doesn't it? I sure as hell don't want anything to happen to Bernie, but I have to wonder if THAT would be what got all us peons out in the street! Then again, maybe if enough of us actually get involved in this election we can get what we need without a guillotine. :persevere: All I know is that I will NOT tolerate another 'hope & change' p.o.s. taking up residence in the WH -- I seriously want to believe what Bernie's saying, but it might take me a few more months to decide I'm ready to vote for him.


Excellent point! All I know is that she is a walking disaster in every sense of the word; I'm too old to leave this country, but if she [or the dump trump] get in, our country is toast. (Endgame hit the nail on the head) :scream:


Yes, if in 2016 the POTUS election ends up with a fascist demagogue like Trump and the Wall Street whore like HRC, then whether you believe in Satan or not, it would go a long way to proving Satan exists!


Thanks for your reply. Yes, if that happens, what we will have in 2016 is not voting for the lesser evil, but trying to figure out who is the most evil!


Why would ISIS even be a high agenda item? Do you have any idea why it should? Can it have anything to do with that areas vast oil resources? Have you ever heard of a president being elected in any of the other 200 (or so) countries in the world whose merits for being elected depend on what to do with some organization on the other side of the world? What does ISIS have anything to do (see this article's first bullet) with the quality of life of the citizens of this country?


True and the proof is the DNC has already tried to cripple Bernie's campaign even though it is in its infancy, and that has not worked. The corporate media has tried to cripple Bernie's exposure, and that has not worked because Bernie's campaign continues to be nascent despite his poor media coverage.

One has to wonder what will come next; especially, if Bernie manages to win Iowa and New Hampshire?


I think Bernie is pulling his punches on Syria and ISIS because he probably really believes, like a lot of us on the left do, that what we should do is GET THE F@#$ OUT OF THERE, AND STAY OUT! And, especially quit giving money and arms to the likes of Saudi Arabia and Israel. But since the corporate media, and the leadership of both major parties is beholden to the defense industry, he can't say that. He would be tarred with the label "isolationist", just like Rand Paul is. It is not isolationist to want to avoid another unwinnable quagmire. We need to quit throwing good soldier lives after wasted ones. Yes, I'm sorry, you son/daughter did die in-vain over there, and we need to make sure no others do.


Even though you know the answers, those are excellent questions. The Amerikan world wide Empire would cease to exist without enemies.

Like I have posted before if the US had no enemies they would have to manufacture them...and that is exactly what they do! And that is nothing new. The very first American enemies were the indigenous people who were demonized as " savages" and in today's vernacular they would be called " terrorists" in order to steal their land.

And to get back to ISIS: think about it! ISIS has no Air force, no Navy, no country, and a very small army compared to NATO. And ISIS may be an evil band of brothers, but ISIS has been created both covertly and overtly by the West.


I think he does believe we should get out of the Middle East. So does Barack Obama who has wanted to pivot to China for years but has been stuck focusing on the Middle East. But all that is besides the point. Right now we can't get out of the Middle East so the question is what do we do about it. I think Bernie Sanders has made his position clear. He basically supports Obama's strategy which is not to put ground forces in Syria or Iraq. Actually, that is basically the same strategy of everyone running for president except Lindsey Graham who wants to introduce a large number of US troops on the ground. Most of the Republicans are criticizing Obama on this but don't offer anything different. Bernie Sanders has never indicated he is anything like an isolationist. I don't think he agrees with the left on foreign policy. I don't think he believes the US is an aggressive empire and I believe his view on foreign polity is very different from people like Noam Chomsky. His view seems to fit in with the Democratic Party. He has always supported a policy of full engagement. He did vote against giving George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq for which he deserves credit although I don't recall him being one of the leaders on that issue. I recall in particular Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy but perhaps that is because they gave the best speeches.


Read the article about Sanders' plan which will raise wage income for all workers. Dollars and Sense carried the article "What Will Sanders Do? --- he will spend a lot to hire under-employed and unemployed.
He will spend $3.8 trillion over ten years on infrastructure, free college tuition, universal pre-K, paid sick leave and family leave, Social Security enhancement, youth jobs, private pensions. I listed the sections in order of most money spent. This compares with Hillary Clinton's plan to spend $250 billion over 5 years; Clinton's plan is 7% the size of Sanders'. The economy needs to employ more people, but private sector employment is still very low, and the employment to population ratio for prime age workers, 25 to 54, is at a 31 year low. Only a big boost of government spending will work to employ those who need work, and this will force employers to raise wages to keep employees from taking higher paid salaries elsewhere. The lower-earning half of U.S. households earns less (16.4%) than the top-earning 1% (16.7%). They earn 50 times more on average than the lower half.


No Cookie, it rests on us.