Question submitted by stupidicus

The Sanders "Economic Plan" Controversy, or who's lying an why?

This is happening to the story about Sander's proposals, and Friedman's analysis of their effect on the economy. For example, Kevin Drum, who originally wrote, "Bernie Sanders' Campaign Has Crossed Into Neverland" is taking it back. In "On Second Thought, Maybe Bernie Sanders' Growth Claims Aren't As Crazy As I Thought," Drum actually puts Sanders' proposals through some actual analysis – none of the other critics had done this – and writes, "t turns out that...Friedman isn't projecting anything wildly out of the ordinary after all. ... I set out to take another whack at these projections, and I didn't really get what I expected. So I figured I should share."

Unfortunately Drum still says these are Sanders' claims instead of Friedman's. But you take what you can get.

So the turnaround is beginning. In the 90's the "establishment" may have gotten away with this and established a "truthiness" to the claim that Sanders' numbers don't add up (even though they are actually Friedman's numbers). Spending on fixing our infrastructure actually would "create jobs" and raise wages. Shifting health care costs off of people's and business' backs though a Medicare-for-All plan actually would help the economy. Increasing Social Security benefits and the minimum wage actually would enable people to spend more at local stores, boosting the economy.

We don't have to accept slow growth, resulting from austerity policies, as the "new normal." Our economy is currently resisting treacherous global economic conditions and those conditions, if anything, could plausibly argue for the U.S. to accelerate against the global headwinds to prevent us from joining other countries in an economic spiral downward. In fact, it is in the interest of the rest of the world for the U.S. to play this role. And that is exactly what Sanders' proposals do.

”Too many of us have been interested in defending programs as written in 1938″

said http://americablog.com/2012/05/obama-2006-too-many-of-us-have-been-interested-in-defending-programs-as-written-in-1938.html

Could whatever HC told her rightwing admirers and allies in those obscenely high priced speeches be any more damning than that? Oh that's right, it ain't damning if you actually like the 3rdway can't/won't agenda as many of her supporters no doubt do. I think those two words are synonymous in their dictionary.

And after all, it's not like she's doing any conniving behind closed doors like Cheney and his energy task force, no? For those to be comparable she'd have to win the presidency like her functional bro/father-in-law (given BC's son-like status in the Bush crime family) George Bush, and give them an invite to some privacy at the WH.

There's not a voting man in America not voting for HC because she's a woman

we know this to be true because there allegedly aren't any woman that are voting for her in whole or in part because she is one.

Planned Parenthood’s Facebook page filling with outraged supporters

So PP is getting some much deserved bizness eh? I can certainly understand their effort to preserve the org, which might be in some trouble should this country get the much needed single-payer it deserves, which is why the country deserves at least someone who'll advocate for it.

And that ain't the wife of the great "reformer".

Since Planned Parenthood’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton, many of the abortion group’s supporters have been in disbelief. Planned Parenthood’s Facebook page continues to fill with incensed expressions of outrage – not from pro-lifers, but from PP’s own former supporters.

Many are assuring Planned Parenthood that they will no longer send donations, and that they are “unliking” PP’s Facebook page or unsubscribing from PP emails. Women and men are expressing anger over their general sentiment that Hillary Clinton has oppressed vulnerable women. They are telling PP that the endorsement is evidence of cronyism and corruption, and some are even agreeing that it is time for Planned Parenthood to be defunded.

Some are pointing out what they believe is a conflict of interest, as PP President Cecile Richard’s daughter, Lily Adams, works for the Clinton campaign.

"Clinton changed course and insisted that cutting emissions should be put off for 20 years."

reads kinda like HC's pov on single-payer, or will at least be the result of her opposition to it, no? Sadly it appears as if her supporters will fall victim to her efforts, much as many did for her husband and the inaction he sought.

And sadly as well, who do we have to blame for the abysmal state of the "liberal" media these days? Sadly, BC thought some action was needed on media CONsolodation, so our watchdog was turned almost completely into a lapdog.

Clinton 2.0 looks more and more like a huge unnnecessary risk considering we have a viable candidate in Bernie who is actually a lefty as opposed to a ....

Then came the backlash. The Global Climate Coalition (funded by over 40 major corporate groups like Amoco, the US Chamber of Commerce, and General Motors) began spending millions of dollars each year to derail the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to help reduce global warming. They held conferences entitled "The Costs of Kyoto," issued press releases and faxes dismissing the scientific evidence for global warming, and spent more than $3 million on newspaper and television ads claiming Kyoto would mean a "50-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax."

The media, in response to flurries of "blast faxes" (a technique in which a press release is simultaneously faxed to thousands of journalists) and accusations of left-wing bias, began backing off from the scientific evidence. A recent study found only 35% of newspaper stories on global warming accurately described the scientific consensus, with the majority implying that scientists who believed in global warming were just as common as global warming deniers (of which there were only a tiny handful, almost all of whom had re ceived funding from energy companies or associated groups).

It all had an incredible effect on the public. In 1993, 88% of Americans thought global warming was a serious problem. By 1997, that number had fallen to 42%, with only 28% saying immediate action was necessary. And so Clinton changed course and insisted that cutting emissions should be put off for 20 years.
http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/34242-shifting-the-terms-of-the-debate-how-big-business-covered-up-global-warming