Millionaires feel VERY comfortable with Clinton... I don't want them feeling comfortable at all.

[reformist2]

Whereas Hillary is only slightly ahead of Bernie nationally among Dems in general, Democratic millionaires overwhelmingly prefer Hillary to Bernie, 76% to 13%. (Leave it to CNBC to poll only millionaires!)

Why are millionaires so in favor of Hillary??? Obviously, millionaires don't feel that she will affect their financial situation in any real way. She may ask them for more, but nothing more than a few extra dollars, certainly nothing that would affect their lives. With Hillary, they get to pay lip service toward helping the less fortunate, without any actual sacrifice on their part.

Bernie, on the other hand, has made it clear that he wants to do more to help the middle class and the poor in a substantial way, and that it's going to require a substantial and continual wealth transfer, a fundamental change in the way we've been doing government. This most likely *would* result in tax increases that would affect the lifestyles of millionaires, for the first time in their lives..... with Bernie, they may not be able to afford next year's country club dues... oh noes!!

No wonder they're uniting behind Hillary!

[Betty Karlson]

1. Clinton is the status quo candidate.

And she is a follower, not a leader. Of course the 1% wants her.

[Hepburn]

3. She IS Wall Street and for the wealthy.

[Sancho]

21. If you are a public employee or have a union bargained pension, Bernie will cost you money!!!

That's one reason unions are for Hillary. Bernie's Robin Hood tax will come out of the pockets of working folks.

Hillary's plan to encourage profit sharing will raise wages of the people who do the work.

[merrily]

35. To dream the implausible dream, eh, Sancho.

[Sancho]

37. Check with the accountants...we did...

It was one of Bernie's proposals that put him on the bottom of my union's list. We asked union experts; lawyers, accountants, and retirement counselors to look into the proposed Robin Hood tax and how it would impact state employees whose contributions were managed by the state. It would amount to a fee that made the fund smaller, and over 30+ years of an employee's working life, it would cost each employee plenty.

We work way too hard to bargain contracts as educators. Public employees work hard, and often for lower salaries than the private sector. Retirement is one of the few things we can count on to make up the difference. Our state retirement fund would lose on every transaction that Bernie would tax with his FTT. Over time, it would cost employees millions that they would have to contribute or get less back in benefits.

It's the same in many other states. Bernie is naive and simplistic with his economic solutions. Of course, Forbes magazine has already published strategies for the wealthy to avoid an FTT, so the main street workers would lose out while the upper crust would win again.

To add insult to injury, the money would be used to pay tuition that would mostly be a rebate to the upper class kids...there's another long story there too.

[merrily]

41. And Medicare for All, free tuition and other programs don't make up for it? You can't look

at one piece in isolation

To add insult to injury, the money would be used to pay tuition that would mostly be a rebate to the upper class kids

This is flat out false.

[Sancho]

47. Wanna bet....

Bernie's plan funnels money to the states who are free to just raise tuition and steal the dough, because they are controlled by GOP legislatures. It's no problem for them to also control who is admitted to the privileged universities.

Read the Chronicle of Higher Education articles about Bernie's plan.
It's not false, but fact.

I've posted on this with links and quotes before. It's a waste of time to argue unless people are willing to examine proposals critically.

Hillary correctly holds states responsible to expand educational opportunities to all students (including the undocumented) or they don't get the money. Students would get work experience for the tuition. There's lots more, but it's a much better regulated plan for higher education - and one that would be more difficult to manipulation by repub activists.

Here's a little bit...you can find plenty on your own.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/

Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street. This legislation is offset by
imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge funds, and other speculators of
0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee on bonds, and a 0.005%
fee on derivatives. It has been estimated that this provision could raise hundreds of billions a year
which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges and universities in this country,
it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the middle class of this country.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/31/why-free-college-is-really-expensive.html

Why Free College is Really Expensive
Everyone knew Bernie Sanders would propose a tax on Wall Street. But spending that money on college tuition is a cynical handout to the upper-middle class.

Even Sanders himself, however, lists the Robin Hood tax as an afterthought; after all, if you raise a Robin Hood tax you can do a long list of things with the money you get from it (including cutting other taxes, or spending on other initiatives). The emphasis from Sanders’ statements is where the money will go: paying for tuition for public colleges.

The first problem with Sanders’ proposal is that a national tuition subsidy will be counterproductive even on its own terms. The proposal will cut the economic legs out from underneath innovations such as open online courses, which may be on the cusp of delivering low-cost, high-quality college education for all. Organizations trying to deliver radical new models will now have to compete against a $70 billion subsidy for the old system.
Additionally, directing that much guaranteed money into a system is a sure-fire way to accelerate cost inflation. The state may pick up the tab for tuition, but students will still have to pay for ancillary services (such as room, board, textbooks, etc.), and those services will go up in price. These costs are not trivial; for instance, although Sweden has abolished college tuition, students graduate with more debt than students in the United Kingdom, and only slightly less than students in the US. Through economic incompetence, Sanders’ proposal might hit the jackpot of reducing college quality while also increasing cost.
Economically bad policy design from Sanders is not surprising. After all, the man is a self-declared Socialist. His appeal was not policy wonkery; as a protest candidate, Sanders (we hoped) would at least identify the right issues, even if his solutions were unworkable. In this case, Sanders has pointed out the wrong problem.

------------------------

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/36vmm8/what_are_some_legitimate_arguments_against_bernie/

Apparently (according to a tax lawyer who was running around one of the earlier threads), there was no exception for 401k's, meaning that every time the mutual funds in your retirement fund rebalance, which should be a few times a year, you're paying a tax and losing money from your retirement.
Edit: just used the calculator found here to calculate the costs of 0.5% over 40 years assuming you were investing just $5500/year (the max allowable to an IRA). Using these assumptions, this tax would cost you, the average investor, $157,000 over the 40 years you're investing. This is money that I'm sure you'd prefer going towards your retirement.
Note: this isn't 100% accurate as I'm treating this as an addition to the expense ratio which isn't totally correct, but it's a ballpark figure to give the tax some context

http://www.sbafla.com/fsb/

The State Board of Administration (SBA) was created by the Florida Constitution and is governed by a three-member Board of Trustees (Trustees), comprised of the Governor as Chair, the Chief Financial Officer and the Attorney General.

The Trustees, in concert with legislative directives, have ultimate oversight. They delegate authority to the Executive Director/Chief Investment Officer to carry out the strategic direction in the day-to-day financial investments and operations of the agency. The Executive Director/CIO manages approximately 190 professional investment and administrative support staff.

The SBA is required to invest assets and discharge its duties in accordance with Florida law and in compliance with fiduciary standards of care. Under state law, the SBA and its staff are obliged to:

Make sound investment management decisions that are solely in the interest of investment clients.
Make investment decisions from the perspective of subject-matter experts acting under the highest standards of professionalism and care, not merely as well-intentioned persons acting in good faith.

http://chronicle.com/article/Bernie-Sanderss-Charming/231387?cid=megamenu

July 6, 2015 Bernie Sanders's Charming, Perfectly Awful Plan to Save Higher Education By Kevin Carey
Bernie Sanders, the self-described socialist senator, Internet hero, and apparent front-runner in the race for second place in the 2016 Democratic presidential campaign, has ideas about higher-education reform. Like the man himself, they are bold, charmingly utopian, kind of weird, and most important for how they might eventually move the boundaries of mainstream political culture.
Sanders wants every student in America to be able to attend a public college or university without paying tuition. Legislation he proposed to that effect a few weeks ago includes a reasonably plausible mechanism of multibillion-dollar federal subsidies and new regulation of state spending. The current Congress, it is safe to say, will not soon be passing such a bill.
But in trying to define a new fiscal federalism for American higher education, Sanders has sparked a conversation that is likely to expand. Without something like the Sanders plan, the disgraceful dismantling of public higher education, underway in many states, will certainly continue.
The no-tuition part of the Sanders plan attracted a great deal of attention, aided by canny headline writers who understand that "Bernie Sanders" is catnip for social media. Less discussed was the corollary part of the plan: In exchange for billions of new taxpayer dollars, the federal government would enforce a specific vision of what a high-quality college education means.
States would have to promise that, within five years, "not less than 75 percent of instruction at public institutions of higher education in the State is provided by tenured or tenure-track faculty." In addition, any funds left over after eliminating tuition could be used only for purposes such as "expanding academic course offerings to students," "increasing the number and percentage of full-time instructional faculty," providing faculty members with "supports" such as "professional development opportunities, office space, and shared governance in the institution." States would be prohibited from using the money for merit-based financial aid, "nonacademic facilities, such as student centers or stadiums," or "the salaries or benefits of school administrators."

http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-debt-free-college-costly-tuition-plans-might-hurt-us-schools-2046844

Clinton's initiative would cost an estimated $350 billion over the next 10 years, paid for by closing tax loopholes on wealthy Americans. Sanders' legislation would ask federal and state governments to give schools $70 billion a year to make up for tuition, mostly originating from a tax he'd impose on Wall Street transactions.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/07/08/Pros-and-Cons-Bernie-Sanders-50-Billion-Tax-Ide
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000287-Financial-Transaction-Taxes-in-Theory-and-Practice.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/07/22/bernie-sanders-doesnt-have-a-case-for-a-financial-transactions-tax-it-would-lose-money/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/opinion/the-case-for-a-tax-on-financial-transactions.html?_r=0administrators."

[merrily]

50. I cannot take posts as sources seriously, esp. not a post that says falsely

"Economically bad policy design from Sanders is not surprising. After all, the man is a self-declared Socialist."

It's hard for me to believe that someone like Reich, for example, has been so far off the mark about Bernie. Also hard for me to believe that many rich people are going to send their kids to Arkansas State Community College. For me, the fact that Baron Trump might be eligible for free college, much as he is now eligible for free K-12 is not a problem. And certainly nowhere near as big a problem as no one's kid being eligible for free tuition anywhere. Also, you've still said nothing about things like Medicare for All.

However, I will bookmark your post and look at the links at the bottom of your post before trying to discuss this with you again. Thanks for those.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

76. You (we) won't be paying for rich kids' college educations.

Rich people don't send their kids to public universities, to which the free tuition program would apply. Rich people send their kids to Harvard and Yale and other prestigious private schools, even if those kids are as dumb as stumps (because they'd get in as "legatee" admissions, like GWB). And they'd have to pay the usual enormous tuition for that privilege, which would be fine with them because at least Buffy and Chad wouldn't have to rub shoulders with hoi polloi at some low-rent public university.

[JonLeibowitz]

55. I don't doubt your findings, but hear me out, I don't think it is quite that bad

Most of the academic research shows that long-term investors (i.e. pension funds) should be invested in broadly-diversified index mutual funds (exempted from the FTT) with U.S. treasuries for safety. Why exactly would a pension be hurt by such a transaction tax?

[Sancho]

57. Because big state funds are run like investors...

In Fl, millions are "managed" (traded) daily; and that includes commodities, funds, derivatives, etc. Florida is typical. If that fund is short, the employees contribute more or benefits are reduced.

Thousands of trades daily multiplied by 20-30 years makes a large difference - equivalent to some unknown fee, but estimated as much as 5% compounded.

That would be a big hit to public employees. I'm sure that most states have similar funds. An FTT would be a penalty to those funds. Meanwhile, the "millionaires" would put their money in various investments avoided the FTTs. The losers would be regular workers.

https://www.sbafla.com/fsb/FundsWeManage/FRSPensionPlan/tabid/1450/Default.aspx

The Florida Retirement System (FRS) Pension Plan, also known as the Defined Benefit Plan, is one of the largest public retirement plans in the U.S. and comprises roughly three-quarters of total assets under State Board of Administration (SBA) management. The SBA’s commitment to maximizing returns over the long term, subject to risk considerations, is vital to ensuring the FRS Pension Plan continues to help participating retirees meet their financial goals and assure all plan participants that their retirement funds are invested prudently.

The legislature determines plan structure, benefit levels and funding, the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement administers the program and the SBA manages the assets consistent with statutory authority. In investing the FRS Pension Plan assets, the SBA follows statutory guidelines. History has shown this to be a productive partnership, with approximately $2 out of every $3 paid to a retiree today coming from investment gains, not from taxpayers.

The SBA’s investment policy objective for the FRS Pension Plan portfolio is to provide investment returns sufficient for the plan to be maintained in a manner that ensures the timely payment of promised benefits to current and future participants and keeps the plan cost at a reasonable level. Benefits are determined using a formula based on years of service and salary while working for an FRS employer.

[JonLeibowitz]

58. Unfortunately the U.S. Senate's website is down again so I can't find specific language of the plan

I'll look later, but I think these matters are addressed in the proposal.

[Sancho]

60. Here's the short form....we looked at the whole thing.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/
Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street. This legislation is offset by
imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge funds, and other speculators of
0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee on bonds, and a 0.005%
fee on derivatives. It has been estimated that this provision could raise hundreds of billions a year
which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges and universities in this country,
it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the middle class of this country.


If you are an individual with an IRA, you might be exempt. If your union bargained fund or state retirement fund is managed like a millionaire investor - you look the same and pay the same as the millionaires.

The difference is that millionaires can play games to avoid the FTTs - there a Forbes article explaining how already out there.

[lasttrip]

38. What if you are not

A public employee or in a union? And don't qualify for hca subsidy. I don't have Corp lawyers or accountants to help me but I pay 15k for health insurance so I can't save for retirement, any extra money goes for college fund for kids. I would gladly pay a few hundred dollars in payroll tax to save 15k. Then I may able to enjoy the benefits like Union or public employees. I am all for unions and public employee benefits but don't forget about the rest of us who aren't as fortunate to have a large group representing us.

[Sancho]

48. Most private jobs get higher pay and conditions because of union activity.

We don't have "corporate lawyers". We have lawyers and accountants who are union members who donate their time!!

Democrats support the right of workers to organize. It's the reason we have 40 hour work weeks, safe working conditions, and got rid of child labor.

If you don't want to join a union or form one, that's fine. My experience and the history of the US are clear. Unions are a great benefit to the middle class of America, and labor universally.

https://www.unionplus.org/about/labor-unions/history-origin

Union members - workers like you -- benefit from the union's collective bargaining power to negotiate with employers on their behalf. This basic right gives you as a union member more power than if you tried to negotiate as an individual. There is strength in numbers.
More benefits of union membership
Union employees make an average of 30% more than non-union workers.
92% of union workers have job-related health coverage versus 68% of non-union workers.
Union workers are more likely to have guaranteed pensions than non-union employees.
Unions help protect employees from unjust dismissal through collective bargaining agreements (CBA). Because of this, most union employees cannot be fired without "just cause." This is unlike many nonunion workers who are considered "at-will" employees and can be fired at any time for almost any reason.
Union members also benefit from having the collective power to go on strike. A strike is when a group of workers stops working either in protest of labor conditions or as a bargaining tool during labor/management negotiations.

[lasttrip]

51. I said I was for unions

I am not fortunate enough to be in one. I am glad you have people helping you. Please don't forget about the rest of us

[ViseGrip]

53. Private jobs get more pay? not so much anymore.

[FreakinDJ]

8. If you make over $250K you would prefer Hillary

[Betty Karlson]

9. I don't make that.

Maybe in a decade, but not in a single year.

[FreakinDJ]

31. I make that and I prefer Bernie

[merrily]

32. Good for you!

[JaneyVee]

11. And if you make under $250k Bernie will raise your taxes.

[ejbr]

14. To pay for

War? Wall Street bailouts? Tax cuts for the wealthy? No, so that health insurance costs would be reduced, making ones total outlay to survive less than it is now. To increase opportunities for others to be able to work and feed their families with infrastructure projects. The horror!!!

[artislife]

40. Exactly.

As it is now, we get nothing for what we have paid.

I would rather get something for my money.

[daleanime]

15. And it would save you a lot more then the tax raise.....

you always leave out the important parts. And don't worry I remember that you're allergic to smilies (wave-hug).

[MannyGoldstein]

28. LOL! By how much, and for what? Make my day!

Bd specific now about it. Also about how he camemto support what your yammering about.

[lasttrip]

39. See my personal situation

In post 38. My taxes may be raised but I will save money. Guess I don't understand either.

[Agschmid]

2. Uniting behind Hillary = The Majority of millionaires polled support Republicans.

[Dragonfli]

36. More specifically Republican economic policies

Many of which Hillary will help to enact much as her husband did, quite frankly, I believe she is her own person and would go further right than her husband regarding "reforms" of entitlements and assisting multinationals and banks in reducing the "red tape" that holds them ever so slightly in check.

It is important to remember that the wealthy do not care about the social issues which are the only parts about keeping Democratic principles that the DLC style New Democrats care to keep, the rest they adopted from Reagan to become "more electable"

After the landslide electoral losses to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, a group of prominent Democrats began to believe their party was in need of a radical shift in economic policy and ideas of governance. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was founded in 1985 by Al From and a group of like-minded politicians and strategists. They advocated a political "Third Way" as a method to achieve the electoral successes of Reaganism by adopting similar economic policies (Reagan Democrats and Moderate Republicans would provide burgeoning new constituencies after adding these new economic policies and politicians to our tent they contended) While hoping to retain, woman, minorities and other social issues allies with long ties to the party. Such would be their new Democratic coalition forged between fiscal right and social left under the "New" Democratic banner.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12774832

[treestar]

4. DEMOCRATIC millionaires.

and you are projecting about why they might support her.

[restorefreedom]

5. i would love it if both nominees from both parties

had millionaires and billionaires worried, but i would settle for just the dem nom making them nervous.

[Rebkeh]

24. Three nominees

It's way too early to settle, if at all.

But I agree, what if all three made billionaires and millionaires nervous? I'd have more faith that democracy is intact.

[restorefreedom]

30. definitely. ideally, all three of them would make them squirm. nt

[merrily]

33. I don't think the DNC will even take on a candidate for Congress for under a million bucks.

[merrily]

42. I think you mean three candidates, not three nominees.

[Rebkeh]

63. I stand corrected

In my defense, I wrote that pre-coffee this morning.

[merrily]

65. Oh, do I ever "hear" that! Except anything before my second up is dicey.

[Snotcicles]

6. Their Comfort Comes, At A Cost To Thee.

Turns To Gluttony, They're The Last To See.

Snotcicles

[mountain grammy]

7. I'm sure they feel more comfortable with Republicans..

But Hillary will do in a pinch. she is one of them, after all.

[JaneyVee]

10. Because Clinton's know how to rev up an economy.

We shouldn't be demonizing people with a broadbrush, that's a rightwing tactic. I mean, is Bernie really going to run a campaign based on demonizing success? We should be encouraging success.

[brush]

20. Good point. When Bill was pres everybody was working.

[libdem4life]

54. Speaking of Bill, read he can no longer draw a crowd. Speaking engagements cancelled, etc.

Pretty sure it was here...DU is about all I read. But Bill should not even be going out with his health issues.

[ejbr]

25. Demonize success

Where have I heard that before? Are you watching Faux News? It's not about demonizing success, but allowing more success by all. He is demonizing greed where those that have made it impede the success of others with policies that generate only wealth increase to the top earners. Or allow the wealthy to socialize risk while privitizing gains.

[reformist2]

29. Exactly. More will be required of the rich, it's just a fact. They can scream "demonization" all the

all they want, but it's time to share the wealth, for the good of the country.

[merrily]

34. By ending welfare "as we know it" and setting up the economy to crash on someone else's watch.

And not only the US economy, either.

[artislife]

43. No need for apostrophe.

I thought we were supposed to look at h as an individual, by the way.

[DonCoquixote]

49. if you get your success

by outsourcing, which Hillary supports
by leaving our economy open to plunder and gambling, which Hillary supports
and by warfare which Hillary supports
then we can question whether or not this is really a success.

[FreakinDJ]

52. The DOT.GONE economy

Nothing they won't let their wealthy donors export to China

[nxylas]

12. Depends on the millionaires

Some millionaires want to pay more taxes, and don't support "torrent up" economics. But the Kochs, Adelsons and the like should definitely be made to feel uncomfortable at the prospect of paying their fair share.

[tecelote]

13. "Millionaires feel VERY comfortable with Clinton... I don't want them feeling comfortable at all."

Perfect!

[Bleacher Creature]

16. "Whereas Hillary is only slightly ahead of Bernie nationally among Dems in general"

Hard to take much stock in any argument that begins with such a clear misstatement.

[Darb]

17. It's this kind of hogwash that turns people off, IMHO.

I believe it would be better for our electoral prospects to avoid demonizing "millionaires". There are "millionaires" and then there are "millionaires". Not all should be considered in the same light. Many, many people aspire to one day be a millionaire, whether they are dreaming or not, and don't subscribe to the idea that "millionaires" are some sort of problem.

Just from the electoral standpoint, to me, it would be wise to steer clear of the class warfare stuff. It's too easy to label as envy or jealousy. Like the "fair share" argument, it is a bad one and will not change minds. It will only bolster their meme of the Dems as "takers"

There are much better ways to skin a cat. I will expound if necessary.

[reformist2]

18. We're not demonizing the rich, we're telling them it's time they sat in the back seat for once.

[Darb]

26. Well, lots of them didn't start life as millionaires.

The best strategy is to merely say that we need to unstack the deck to make opportunity more likely for far more people than now.

[whereisjustice]

27. Why is it called demonizing when you hold people accountable to the truth of their politics?

Hillary consistently and enthusiastically represents the rich and their interests over the best interests of the nation.

She's made a career of this fact.

She is the front-woman for a trickle-down, neo-conservative political ideology that has destroyed the middle class.

Her support of jobs to low wage hell holes in Asia, Mexico and anywhere workers are oppressed? She'll defend it.

Her support of idiootic wars in Iraq, Libya, Yeman, Syria - she'll defend it.

Her support for "tough on crime" policies targeting the poor? She'll defend it.

The cash to her foundation from big banks and foreign nations seeking favors? She'll defend it.

There is nothing demonizing about the exposing the inconvenient truth about Hillary Clinton and her relationship with wealth and power.

[artislife]

45. Pretty nice summary. nt

[Darb]

73. What a long list of bullshit.

You cannot back up one iota of that bullshit. It's innuendo at best, is pathetically embellished, and downright strawmen at worst. Just because you want to infer something doesn't make it real. But reality isn't the strong suit of the average Berner is it now?

You Berners need a reality check. There will be no Bernie nomination. There will be no socialism.

It takes a public/private combination to get to a successful future. People have to have jobs. Smartly regulated capitalism is the best way. Whatever you guys want doesn't work and will not win.

[whereisjustice]

79. "Smartly regulated capitalism is the best way" The right-wingers are so desparate to shove Hillary

into office they have re-defined what it means to be a Democrat. To the conservatives destroying the party, being a democrat now means being a REPUBLICAN.

[whereisjustice]

80. yes it is - exactly why she must not win the primary, it's her long list of bullshit

[merrily]

44. Not Joe the not plumber, is that you?

[Darb]

70. Joe the Not Plumber was a fake. I am right on the money

and you need to clue in. Quit demonizing people for making money (legitimately) if you want to win elections. Fucking duh.

[merrily]

71. Kindly explain how I demonize people for making money. I'll wait.

I long for the year I owe the IRS a million bucks in income taxes.

What you have in common with Joe the Plumber was that he didn't want millionaires to be taxed because he thought he'd become a millionaire some day.

[merrily]

77. This is what you posted to me, Sparky.

"Quit demonizing people for making money (legitimately) if you want to win elections." If you don't know whether or not I demonize people for making money, don't tell me to quit demonizing them for making money. News flash: I am an individual, not the poster child for all Bernie supporters. You don't get to dump all your beefs, real or imagined, against Bernie supporters on me.

You might also try find yourself at least a semi-civil tongue.

[GGJohn]

81. You seem to have anger issues,

please seek help.
Just a friendly tip.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. The downtrodden wealthy need one of their own to bail them out.

[in_cog_ni_to]

22. Kick and rec! n/t

[MyNameGoesHere]

23. New speak

"Whereas Hillary is only slightly ahead of Bernie nationally among Dems in general"

Whereas total darkness is only slightly darker than a supernovae.

[yallerdawg]

46. "Whereas Hillary is only slightly ahead of Bernie nationally among Dems in general..."

Now I have to question your credibility.

And I see you didn't reference an actual poll with a link.

I do see a CNBC poll from Spring 2014 - I know you aren't referencing something so out of date!

[DCBob]

56. I suspect that is true because they know she is a serious capable leader...

ready to take office on day one and wont do anything crazy like a GOPer or socialist might b do.

[in_cog_ni_to]

59. kick! n/t

[Juicy_Bellows]

61. KICK

And to the detractors, we aren't demonizing wealth, we are demonizing greed.

Cheers.

[Walk away]

62. I am guessing that half my middle class town has a million dollars...

in cash and property. Most of us are Democrats and not evil corporatists. If Bernie wants to make us miserable then no wonder he is losing.

[reformist2]

64. Transferring some of your wealth is what needs to be done. Sorry, there's no way to sugarcoat it...

... this is what "hard choices" are all about.

[Walk away]

66. It's people like this that already pay the bulk of Federal Income taxes.

My neighbor is a retired police officer and his wife is still teaching. I know they own their home out right and their kid's college loans are paid off. They are probably making about $170,000 to $200,000 a year combined income. That makes their federal IT about $60,000 to $70,000 a year. That doesn't include state taxes.
This is middle class America in the North East. Even in this market, a three bedroom, 1 bath house in my neighborhood goes for $500,000 and up. Property taxes on a 50' X 80' with that house on it, comes to about $12,000 to $15,000 a year. Then you have to plan for retirement.
These people are Democrats. Do you really think you will get them to vote for Bernie Sanders. I assure you, they never will. I am guessing they will switch parties and there are millions of Democrats just like them. They are the ones who are feeding and keeping a roof over the heads of so many Millennials. They are the hard working people who have supported their communities, voted their conscience and deserve some financial security in retirement. They have no interest in Socialism and they are the "most likely voters".

[AZ Progressive]

67. And how many of those people grew up with privileges like riding the wave of the middle class boom?

The middle class boom largely credited to the Democratic Party's policies (G.I. bill, pro labor policies, and other things that FDR passed.) The postwar boom had a tremendous influence and so many Americans owe a debt of gratitude to being able to ride that wave.

The government gave so much to you guys, and yet you guys only want to give less back.

[Walk away]

69. Are you kidding? My parents paid my and my brother's way through college and...

work hard all of their lives to make the money to do it, pay their taxes and support their community and our schools with volunteer work. No one ever gave them a penny. They were hard working Democrats all of their lives.
You have a lot of nerve claiming that the middle class has been living off of "tax dollars". Where did these fictional funds come from? Not the poor and not the working class. They barely contribute enough to cover the Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare they need during their life times. Certainly not the wealthy and corporations. They have plenty of ways to avoid their share. It's us. We are the ones who have been funding the country for generations now.
We don't begrudge people who have less, the programs they need. That's why we are Democrats. But if you think that the Middle Class isn't contributing plenty (if not all), then you and your candidate must think that the $$$ it takes to run this country comes out of a unicorns ass.

[Darb]

75. Incredibly bad strategy.

You must like to lose elections, because you seem to say exactly the wrong thing.

[brooklynite]

68. Hmm...should I go with the candidate who'll raise my taxes...

or the candidate who won't because he won't get elected?

(reminder, Clinton voted against the Bush Tax cuts in 2001 and then voted to repeal them in 2007).

[EndElectoral]

72. Her ties to Wall Street, her IWR vote, her trade stances, and hawkish approach to foreign policy...

Way too much for me. However, I can understand why millionaires like her.

[Todays_Illusion]

78. Hillary is so conservatavie I am surprised the Republicans didn't run her as their candidate.