The Bernie Sanders Save the Children Fund

|

"The Bernie Sanders Save the Children Fund," written by Austin Bragg  and Remy and produced by Meredith Bragg. About 1 minute.

Original release date was May 27, 2015 and original writeup is below. 

Meet Hanna. Hanna wasn't always hungry – but then Old Spice released its Red Zone Aqua Reef Sweat Defense Solid. Now she's starving.

"You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country."—Sen. Bernie Sanders

Performed by Remy. Written by Austin Bragg and Remy. Video by Meredith Bragg.

Approximately 1 minute.

NEXT: The latest on the LaCour paper on same-sex marriage advocacy, which has been retracted by Science

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So a full 18 months away from the 2016 election and I’m already about as disgusted with the whole thing as I can get.

    1. Challenge accepted.

      /staffers

  2. I did not buy deodorant today. If I did, I’d buy the same brand I bought last time. This makes me some kind of orphan-feeding saint, right Bernie?

    1. But is your deodorant made by orphans?

      1. It’s made of orphans. It’s also gluten-free and carbon-neutral.

  3. I normally don’t stop to watch videos, but this one was excellent. Well done.

  4. In Russia, the deodorant has 23 people!

    1. In post Soviet Russia, deodorant wears you.

  5. Why is there nothing on Reason about the economy contracting again for another first quarter?

    Is there another ‘recovery’ in American history where the economy was still retracting this long after? And they just blame the weather, as if the American economy retracting periodically is the new normal.

    1. Dear leader has spoken and he said that maybe you can’t buy another new car this year or go to Vegas, and if you’re ill, maybe you’ll just need to take that pill and shut the fuck up.

      So stop being so selfish, Koch controlled rat bagging tea fucker.

    2. Obviously the problem is too many deodorant choices, duh.

    3. I am sure you-know-who will be along momentarily to refute any suggestion of a non-recovery. Don’t you know this is the most fantastic ongoing recovery in the history of time?

    4. Because the economy is kicking ass the other three quarters, you douche-nozzle.

      I bet you never complained about the Bushpig’s -9% GDP.

        1. 2% GDP growth is predicted next quarter, and that’s passed off as robust by the Palin Buttplug’s of the world. Under that horrible Bushpig, 2% was considered failure.

          Last year the economy grew at 2.4% total. That was the highest figure of Obama’s presidency despite coming out of a recession. All of that economic stimulus and yet abysmal growth and more people on food stamps than who have found jobs.

          1. *more people added to food stamp rolls than who have found jobs.

          2. Longterm GDP growth has been 3.1% per year since the end of WWII.

            Obama’s economy has not matched that growth for any year in the last 6. And the Bush recession saw a total drop of 9% in the year and a half before the recovery began.

            IOW the economy has been substantially below potential GDP (cumulative long term average growth) for more than 7 years. The last time that happened in the US was the great depression of the 1930s. Worse, there is no sign of the gap closing in the foreseeable future.

            1. Remember back when leftists thought that 5% unemployment was unacceptable, and the official numbers vastly understated the problem? That was back when there was a Republican president.

          3. Brochettaward|5.30.15 @ 11:08PM|#
            “2% GDP growth is predicted next quarter, and that’s passed off as robust by the Palin Buttplug’s of the world.”

            Not really.Turd and other Obo ass-lickers know full well it’s bullshit, but when the cherries you have to pick are all sour, well, you pick the best ones you can find.
            Oh, and turd? Fuck off; your act is tired.

  6. Anyway, who cares, that damn Ru Paul in up there is the capital building right now… no wait, it’s Ron Paul and … no wait .. oh hell, it’s one of them damn Pauls! They’re all crazy! He’s trying to make us all unsafe and let the terrorists win!

    1. Who’s the guy with eye chart, again?

        1. Rand, the doctor with an Ayn chart.

      1. Quincy, 12D|5.30.15 @ 8:40PM|#
        “Who’s the guy with eye chart, again?”

        That’s R. Paul. Just to clear up any confusion.

    2. Yup, nothing to worry out. Let’s open up or borders and let all the muslims in the world in. They are just cuddly and misunderstood…


      Listen, you American pigs: I’ve been to America three times. I saw how you train soldiers to kill Muslims,” he says in Russian, CNN reported. “You taught your soldiers how to surround and attack, in order to exterminate Islam and Muslims.”

      At one point in the video Mr. Khalimov looks directly into the camera and says “God willing, we will find your towns, we will come to your homes, and we will kill you,” CNN reported.

      http://www.washingtontimes.com…..partment-/

      1. You aren’t here to reprise an old joke, are you?

      2. You are a coward scared of a group of petty, incompetent thugs.

        1. And the whole idea that some nutjob who took five training courses is some great secret weapon for ISIS is absurd. They can beat the drum all they want.

          1. I remember reading, in Salon I think it was, circa 1999, how the threat of terrorism was vastly overstated. Oops. Turns out the threat was overstated… until the day it wasn’t.

            1. The terrorists pulled off one pretty dramatic attack, so I guess we should live in fear of them for the rest of eternity and adopt counterproductive measures to deal with it…got it.

              ISIS could one day pull off a large scale attack, and it will in large part be the result of luck. All of the security theater, and we have already seen how terrorists have slipped through.

              The border is already pretty open, but you think allowing open immigration (which no one says has to be completely unfettered – even plenty of open border advocates tolerate background checks and screenings) is the secret ticket they will exploit?

              I don’t want to live in a country with a large Muslim minority. No problem saying it. But that isn’t going to happen just because immigration policies are relaxed or even open borders were actually adopted.

              1. It’s not something to say in polite company, but why in the world are we importing any Muslims at all? It’s insane that post-9/11, the U.S. (and Canada and other Western countries) have increased the rate of Muslim immigration. And even if every single one of them was not a radical terrorist-supporter (and of course that’s not true), then there’s a good chance some of their kids or grandkids will be. That’s what happened in France, Germany, the UK, etc.

                I’m not in favor of security theater, and don’t recommend living in fear, just taking sensible precautions. I also think immigration should be for our benefit, and frankly, what country has been improved by Muslim immigration, or even an increased percentage of Muslims? I can’t think of one.

                1. PapayaSF|5.30.15 @ 10:54PM|#
                  “It’s not something to say in polite company, but why in the world are we importing any Muslims at all?”

                  I wasn’t aware of anyone ‘importing’ Muslims; did you have a point?

                  1. a point?

                    Collectivist grandstanding?

                  2. Dozens of young Muslims have left the streets of Cedar Riverside, referred to by some Minnesotans as “Little Mogadishu” for its high concentration of Somali refugees, to travel abroad and fight for terrorist groups.

                    “Is it right to kill someone who insults Muhammad?”

                    “Yeah,” said the woman in the pink hijab. “Because she is just, she had her religion, I understand, but she shouldn’t pick on the prophet, you know.”

                  3. We bring them in as immigrants and as refugees. Does that not count as “importing”?

                2. “what country has been improved by Muslim immigration, or even an increased percentage of Muslims? I can’t think of one.”
                  Muslims in the US are actually among our most successful minorities groups, compared to blacks and Hispanics, in terms of economic performance, obedience to the law, etc.

                  If you weren’t retarded and instead based your opinions on facts you might note that the Muslims are generally less likely to commit homicides than the average American. So yeah, terrorists blah blah blah ragheads coming to get us with their scimitars and all that bullshit. In reality though, they’re not first on the list of demographic groups to start sending away if you’re in the mood for retarded collectivist mass deportation schemes. Did I mention you’re retarded?

                  1. Tell me, what immigrant group is most likely to support and join terrorist groups? Commit honor killings? Female genital mutilation? Imposition of religious law? Why bring in some “good apples” if they are always mixed with some bad ones?

                    It’s a common blind spot among libertarians to see human beings as simply economic units with rights. They are more than that. They have culture as well. And when they immigrate, even from a terrible culture they are fleeing, they often bring that culture with them. If it’s just a handful, it’s not a big deal. If it’s millions, it becomes one.

                    It’s not “collectivist” to note average differences between cultures.

                3. Cue to the day PapayaSF is in a car accident, and a Muslim doctor saves his life.

                4. Papaya, you are an unbelievable pussy.

                  The terrorists have killed what, 3500 Americans in 15 years? 3000 of which were in one dramatic attack and you are clutching pearls? Another 4500 military deaths.

                  American revolution- 25000 dead Americans
                  Civil War- 750,000 dead Americans
                  WW I- 116,000 dead Americans
                  WW II- 405,000 dead Americans
                  Vietnam- 58,000 dead Americans

                  I’m really, really ascared of teh terrorists. They could take over the country at any moment!

                  A little perspective, man.

                  1. There are approximately 16,500 murders in the US every year.

                    There are approximately 35,000 deaths due to car crashes a year.

                    1. Accidents and even murders are not much of an excuse for increasing the state security apparatus, the way terrorism is. So why bring in a group whose members are more likely than any other to support terrorism?

                      It’s idiotic. Libertarians don’t like government surveillance and security spending, and yet here some of them are, arguing for more immigration of the exact sort that results in more government surveillance and security spending.

                  2. Hey, fewer than 3,000 people were killed at Pearl Harbor, so what was the big deal about that?

              2. “Pretty dramatic”? It was a “the greatest work of art imaginable for the whole cosmos.”

                I just found the link. Nice to see some Stockhausen 9/11 comment- revisionism. I thought at the time, and still do, that is was the most profound and truthful thing anyone said in the immediate aftermath of the attack.At the time some the proggy arts crowd crowed for the forcible civil commitment of Karlheinz Stockhausen to a mental institution.

                RIP

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjKVJ2z66fk

                Pure fucking genius.

            2. PapayaSF|5.30.15 @ 9:03PM|#
              “I remember reading, in Salon I think it was, circa 1999, how the threat of terrorism was vastly overstated. Oops. Turns out the threat was overstated… until the day it wasn’t.”

              Well, I remember reading in H&R in 2015 how the threat of terrorism wasn’t overstated. And it’s still bullshit.

            3. “PapayaSF|2015/05/30 21:03:41|#5333867

              ~new~

              I remember reading, in Salon I think it was, circa 1999, how the threat of terrorism was vastly overstated.”

              Was it this piece by Reason’s very own Tim Cavanaugh?

              (to be fair – he’s reviewing a book which analyses terror threats, not editorializing himself, though he does sneak in a few quips about prior public-hysteria about ‘extremism’ flourishing)

              …or this one, from 2000 –

              Why a new report on the threat of international terrorist attacks on U.S. soil is a con job“”

              “By attempting to set off a panic over external enemies, the National Commission on Terrorism is serving ….inside-the-Beltway policy goals. But if it resonates with the press and public, it is because exaggerated fear of terrorism serves as a useful distraction from sweeping national anxiety over globalization and the growing power of transnational corporations. “

              INSIDE JOB!! KKORPORASHUNS?

              1. Yes, I think it was the second one. I do love the funny bit on “sweeping national anxiety over globalization and the growing power of transnational corporations.” I remember those being big lefty talking points at the time. “No Logo” and the WTO riots and all that.

      3. “At one point in the video Mr. Khalimov looks directly into the camera and says “God willing, we will find your towns, we will come to your homes, and we will kill you,” CNN reported.”

        Good luck. Come on over to Long Beach, CA and start some shit. Hell, come on down to my apartment complex. I’m sure you’ll be quite surprised at what happens.

        Hey dickhead Khalimov; this is America. We’re armed.

        Your fuckin jihad will last about 15 seconds in America.

        1. As if bringing America under the yoke of the caliphate was ever their plan. Their goals, now and forever, are massacring Muslims. Christians and Jews, sure, when they can get them. But mostly Muslims.

          1. ohhhh… Muslin vs muslim violence? Whatever. Violent psychopaths killing each other in the desert. Just stay away from me.

            1. Well, psychopaths killing dirt farmers and raping schoolchildren, sure.

              1. Dweebston|5.30.15 @ 10:44PM|#
                “Well, psychopaths killing dirt farmers and raping schoolchildren, sure.”

                Recommended: “Thieves of State” ( http://www.amazon.com/Thieves-…..s+of+state )
                I’m sure it’s not the final explanation, but why is it that the populations and the supposed protectors of such (cops and military) do so little to oppose ISIS?
                Maybe it’s because the thugs we support aren’t one bit better and while we read bout ISIS doing so, maybe it happens under other ‘authority’ and we don’t hear about it?
                Sorry, installing a ‘democratic government’ in a country suffers at least as much from the knowledge problem as does proposing a 5-year plan to ‘correct’ the economy.
                It is madness to presume otherwise.

                1. I sometimes get the impression that a randomly-selected choice from a pool of somewhat dull kindergarteners has about as much knowlege and understanding of what’s really going on in the ME as the designated experts do.

          2. As if bringing America under the yoke of the caliphate was ever their plan.

            You do know that it’s in the Koran (and thus the perfect and inerrant word of Allah) that Islam is destined to rule the entire world, right? So it’s something that every Muslim is expected to believe.

      4. I think its pretty cool how JermeyR were able to coopt a thread about deodorant for Muslim bashing. Monomania definitely doesnt suggest fanaticism or anything.

        I mean, that whole first amendment thing is suuuuch a drag. Life would be soooo much better if the government could just, I dunno, arrest you for you religion and just get rid of you. Lock you up, kick you out of the country, whatever. I mean, the government cant deliver fucking mail on time but we should deffffinitely set them loose on this, right guys? Right?

    1. Bonus: Linda Blair sinking to new depths.

      1. Her last state is worse than her first – Matt. 12:43-45.

        Which actually predicts the plot – and the quality – of Exorcist II.

        1. These three words when you’re gettin’ busy
          Whoomp there it is, hit me

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffCEr327W44

          yep yep yep

        1. I seem to remember this one from my adolescence. It was on NBC, if I recall, and was quite controversial. Wasn’t there an infamous shower scene involving a mop handle?

    2. The ways to get revenge through mail is only limited by the imagination.

  7. Study of this year finds that cops shoot people fatally at twice the rate of the FBI’s bogus statistics:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    1. Running is such a provocative act that police experts say there is a name for the injury officers inflict on suspects afterward: a “foot tax.”

      Is that just a specific form of the disobedience tax, or is that assessed against offenders as well? Also: gross. “Foot tax?” Sickening. This is why focusing on police shootings singly was a mistake, as if cops behave well generally except when weapons are involved.

      1. The article largely backed up the common refrain seen here on Reason. It’s not safe to call the cops to ‘help’ family or friends:

        About half the shootings occurred after family members, neighbors or strangers sought help from police because someone was suicidal, behaving erratically or threatening violence.

        1. Probably the single most useful thing I’ve learned in the decade or so I’ve been hanging around here.

      2. I love that they’re blatantly admitting to beating people up for contempt of cop.

        1. Why not? What do they have to lose.

    2. I would be happy if killing someone, justified or not, legal or not, was grounds for automatic firing of a LEO. Make em think twice about whether it’s necessary. If it was necessary, legal and justified, they made it home safe which is the number one rule of policing and they can start looking for a new job just like anyone else would who killed someone at work. If it wasn’t necessary, justified or legal, having been fired then they aren’t a copper any more and can navigate the justice system just like the rest of us proles.

  8. Think of all the wasted effort in Jethro Tull cover bands. Does anyone really need Jethro Tull cover bands?!?

    (The beginning of said video is fun, too, but, well…)

    1. Available for hire for bashing in of heads as needed.

    2. Where the hell have you been?

  9. I guess this thread is picking up steam, so I’ll cross-post here.

    Can you imagine a company getting away with a pay-to-play scheme as transparent as having prospective clients pay exorbitant speaking fees to the spouse of one of the executives and making ludicrously generous endowments to the charity run by their family? Why haven’t the Clintons been indicted or at the very least deposed? What other business in the United States would be left alone for even giving the appearance of outrageous impropriety, let alone the ridiculous inconsistencies in tax records and their refusal to disclose donors? I mean, I get it, separate laws for the privileged elect, but why isn’t there even a murmur in Congress of opening an investigation? I’m not trying to be Napolitano here, I’m legitimately baffled

    1. Dweebston|5.30.15 @ 11:15PM|#
      “Can you imagine a company getting away with a pay-to-play scheme as transparent as having prospective clients pay exorbitant speaking fees to the spouse of one of the executives and making ludicrously generous endowments to the charity run by their family?”

      Not only can I imagine it, I read about it daily!

    2. At least one US company was prosecuted for bribery for making a donation to a foreign charity connected with an executive at a foreign firm they were doing business with.

  10. One thing interesting in the YouTube comments is how his supporters have defended what they consider his brand of socialism. You see, he’s not inspired by Venezuelan socialism, but German socialism, as if that somehow makes it better.

    1. Well yeah. It’s not Venezuelan socialism. It’s American socialism. It’s our National Socialism. It’s awesome!!!

    2. but German socialism

      would it be nationalistic?

      For, say… workers?

    3. I have seen innumerable youtube commenters (aka “the dumbest people on earth”) get really uppity when people denounce the failures of “Socialism”, and correct them, pointing out (paraphrasing) =

      “The most successful nations on earth like France, UK, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, etc are all ‘socialist’ countries – what you’re describing is communism blah blah or totalitarianism“…

      I’ve made the mistake once to try and point out that “a welfare state” does not exactly meet the terms of “socialism”, which should require nationalizing all the major industries and at least some degree of State-Imposed direction on the use of resources…

      (eg. directing production towards determined “need levels” rather than arbitrary market-demand – like, reducing the number of deodorants and increasing children’s food)

      …but i’ll never do that again. The derp-levels are beyond my capacity.

      1. One of their errors is to think that socialism is what made those countries successful. That’s like thinking that air conditioning and trailer towing are what gave your car its powerful engine.

        1. The bigger error is think that those countries have a higher standard of living that the US does. Poor people here a materially better off than middle class people in any of those countries.

          1. I also love it how leftists, looking for socialism to emulate, always use tiny Nordic countries filled with white people as examples. Somehow, the socialism practiced by Greeks and Russians and Koreans and Cubans and Venezuelans is not the right sort for the giant U.S. to copy.

  11. James Taranto v. Nick Gillespie…drink!

    (twitter)

    http://ow.ly/NEVsV

  12. “You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country.”

    This statement, in addition to being a display of economic ignorance, is a complete non sequitur. Having one choice of underarm deodorant or 23 or 100 does not in and of itself mean that more resources are being used in aggregate to produce the total amount of deodorant used by consumers.

    The real complaint that he is making here is the choice offered to consumers and not the total amount spent on deodorant.

    1. Economic ignoramus can’t economics? Unpossible!

      1. My cat’s breath smells like dead people.

        1. I like dog breath. Look, I know it’s weird. There, I said it.

          1. You will adjust to the Collapse just fine, D.

    2. The real complaint that he is making here is the choice offered to consumers and not the total amount spent on deodorant.

      Yes, I don’t understand how people are missing that.

      This is the most substantive argument in the presidential campaign so far, and may be the most substantive argument uttered in electoral politics for a long while.

      Whenever someone argues that we should distribute the national income more evenly so as to reduce poverty and inequality (as Sanders does), the very first thing someone says in response is that doing so will reduce growth and innovation. Sanders is mocking this argument, saying he’d gladly cut poverty and inequality even if it meant a reduction in superficial product innovation.

      If the company that determined there was big money to be made by innovatively telling teen boys that using a certain brand of deodorant would cause attractive women to have sex with them decided not to go through with creating Axe because taxes were too high, Bernie is saying he is OK with that. You might have less brands to choose from on the deodorant aisle, but on the plus side kids will get to eat.

      1. “”Whenever someone argues that we should distribute the national income (aka other people’s money) more evenly so as to reduce poverty and inequality (as Sanders does), the very first thing someone says in response is that doing so will reduce growth and innovation. “

        No dipshit, doing so will make “the national income” plummet. Why produce more income when the extra benefit is simply going to be ‘redistributed’?

        1. No dipshit, doing so will make “the national income” plummet. Why produce more income when the extra benefit is simply going to be ‘redistributed’?

          First off, there is no need for name calling ma’am. Just settle down and we can have an informative discussion where you will learn why are wrong.

          You left out the rest of the paragraph:

          Sanders is mocking this argument, saying he’d gladly cut poverty and inequality even if it meant a reduction in superficial product innovation.

          Your precious economic growth is in superfluous product enhancements. The consumer desire for the enhancement is just slick advertising. Advertising such as the “axe” campaigns alluded to in my post:.

          If the company that determined there was big money to be made by innovatively telling teen boys that using a certain brand of deodorant would cause attractive women to have sex with them decided not to go through with creating Axe because taxes were too high, Bernie is saying he is OK with that. You might have less brands to choose from on the deodorant aisle, but on the plus side kids will get to eat.

          Is it becoming any clearer to you? We gain so much by feeding hungry kids and lose so little by not have a “new bold scent” deodorant.

          1. blink|5.31.15 @ 12:55AM|#
            “You left out the rest of the paragraph:
            Sanders is mocking this argument, saying he’d gladly cut poverty and inequality even if it meant a reduction in superficial product innovation.”
            Yes, dipshit, since adding that to your prior stupidity added nothing to the exchange.

            “Your precious economic growth is in superfluous product enhancements. The consumer desire for the enhancement is just slick advertising. Advertising such as the “axe” campaigns alluded to in my post:.”
            An ignoramus would posit this, and of course offer no evidence whatsoever, since it is bullshit.

            “Is it becoming any clearer to you? We gain so much by feeding hungry kids and lose so little by not have a “new bold scent” deodorant.”
            No, dipshit, since you’ve done nothing other than offer more bullshit absent one bit of evidence.
            Is it becoming more clear to you that you’re a fucking lefty dipshit?

          2. Economic growth, the metric on which is based the livelihood of a debt-based economy and, in reality, the capacity for a deficit-based government to fund itself, is *ahem* “superfluous.” You may be the dumbest superficially educated (based on quoting liberally from a single link) partisan we’ve gotten in awhile. So congratulations, I guess. But seriously, yours and the Sanders route leads to economic ruin even within the system of economic management lefties have pushed for decades. That takes class.

            1. But seriously, yours and the Sanders route leads to economic ruin even within the system of economic management lefties have pushed for decades.

              Whatever loses that are encountered by increased taxes are more than made up in having a healthy labor force. If one considers labor as another form of capital, then keeping that “capital” well maintained pays dividends in the long run. Sanders is not advocating government run deodorant companies. He is merely attempting to correct a misallocation of resources. The country will be wealthier due to a more productive work force. Children are our most valuable resource. If we as a society ensure that they are well maintained, our economy will grow at unprecedented rates. Then we will truly be able to afford more than 23 varieties of deodorant

              1. Okay, I was wrong. I’ll admit it. I was suckered. You’re a troll and my responses in good faith were misguided efforts on my part. Christ, even the best of us… or, in this case, even me.

                1. Dweebston|5.31.15 @ 2:06AM|#
                  “Okay, I was wrong. I’ll admit it. I was suckered.”

                  Yeah, prolly a sock, but certainly a troll.

              2. OMFG!

                I wouldn’t know where to start.

                1. OMFG!

                  I wouldn’t know where to start.

                  Is this not why we have public schools? Is this also not why we have drug prohibition? Mandatory seat-belt laws? Trans-fat bans, smoking bans, etc. This is nothing new. I don’t understand your reaction.

          3. Sanders is mocking this argument, saying he’d gladly cut poverty and inequality even if it meant a reduction in superficial product innovation.

            Except that there’s no relation between cutting poverty and inequality and “superficial product innovation.” It’s only in the minds of wannabe central planners like Sanders and Bruenig.

            1. It all comes down to a hatred of choice, which the socialist blink admits.

              For the sake of argument, let’s accept the pemise of their argument, that the innovation and marketing of all of different types of a product represent some type of ‘inefficiency’. And that in Sander’s wonderful command economy that inefficiency would be eliminated and the proceeds distributed to ‘the poor’. Well guess what, you just through large numbers of working class people out of work that were engaged in that innovation and marketing and have now joined the ranks of the poor.

              And then their are the bureaucrats (planners, tax collectors, regulators, enforcement) that will be needed to actualize the wonderful redistribution. In the end, all you have done is changed the nature of ‘the overhead’ – from one based on voluntary association, innovation and choice to one based on coercion, lack of choice and low innovation.

              Sander’s and Blink’s worldview really comes down to a hatred of consumer choice and a disposition towards coercion.

              1. True. It’s the same assumption that underlies those idiotic “priorities” comparisons: “We spend more on sports-logo clothing than on curing muscular dystrophy!” As if there was not only a connection, but as if there was some sort of mechanism for taking sports-logo spending and channeling it to medical research.

      2. From your link:
        “You can’t just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right?”
        No, not all right. That is an assertion masquerading as an argument. It’s also total bullshit, AFAIK. If it isn’t, let;s see the evidence.

        “You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country.”
        Non sequitur; class-envy irrelevance. You want to be taken seriously? Do better.

        More bullshit:
        “Sanders is mocking this argument, saying he’d gladly cut poverty and inequality even if it meant a reduction in superficial product innovation.’
        Again, there is no evidence that a reduction in innovation would do anything of the sort and that suck-ass claim of ‘superficial’ is nothing other than an appeal to emotion.

        There’s nothing other than bullshit in that link, but I’m not willing to waste more time. blink, if you have one bit of evidence to support that steaming pile of shit, let’s see it.

        1. Okay. Let’s work through this step by step, shall we?

          You’ve got two people ? a worker and an employer ? and they’re negotiating over a job producing, deodorant spray. The worker wants to be paid $50,000 a year, and the employer wants to pay him $40,000. They settle on $45,000.

          But what if there’s a bad recession and high unemployment, or a sudden cut to unemployment benefits, or a new trade deal that exposes deodorant spray makers to more international competition? The worker still needs $50,000 ? he’s got two kids and a mortgage ? but now his situation is more desperate and precarious. So when the employer offers $30,000, the worker takes it.

          Or the reverse: Congress passes a new health care reform that means the worker can get decent coverage even when he’s unemployed, or radically reformed monetary policy drives unemployment below 4 percent, or new international laws on currency manipulation cut the trade deficit. The employer still thinks the job is worth $40,000, but the worker’s situation is better, so he’s asking for $60,000 and the employer agrees.

          In which of these three scenarios was the worker’s labor correctly valued? The right answer, of course, is “all of them.” In all three scenarios, the market, such as it is, functioned correctly. It’s just that the balances of power were different.

          1. You don’t improve on stupid, zero-sum-economic claims by simply citing more of them.

            Are you kidding? I thought your cite of Bruenig was a joke. Am I too charitable? that’s new.

          2. OK, dipshit, let’s do this; I love shredding lefty asshole claims:
            “They settle on $45,000.”
            Irrelevant.

            “The worker still needs $50,000 ? he’s got two kids and a mortgage ”
            Hypothetical bullshit.

            “Or the reverse: Congress passes a new health care reform…”
            Cool story, bro. Did you have a point, or just more bullshit?
            There is nothing in that paragraph or the one that followed that made any sense at all, other than ‘what if this story might have some validity?’
            It doesn’t, and you don’t have a clue as to what ‘correctly valued’ means.
            I’ll make it easy for you, knowing full well that lefty ignoramuses never understand:
            You offer a good (including your labor) to buyers. At whatever price it is freely bought, that is correctly valued.

            1. “The market is whatever government decides it is” is his point, based on hypotheticals. I’m sold. Lead away, expert. I’ll be mixing myself another drink. Hey, maybe we can talk a bit about how brilliantly the feds handled housing under their bevy of GSEs and CRA and tax rebates and whatnot. Yes, they’re positioned perfectly to decide the value of labor for teenagers working side jobs and the value of keeping inner-city blacks unemployed for decades. Geniuses.

              1. You’ll also notice I asked for “evidence” and the lefty ignoramus offers some ‘story’.
                “Well, gee, what happens if that guy over there needs $100K per year, since he has 35 kids and no income? Hunh? What happens then? I guess you libertarians don’t have an answer for that, right?”
                What a pathetic POS.

          3. BTW, I’m pretty sure I see where blinky blows it, and it’s easy to see: Blinky wants the guns:
            “It’s just that the balances of power were different.”
            blinky doesn’t care if some people agree to trade; blinky wants THE GUNS to make sure THE BALANCES OF POWER go blinky’s way!
            blinky? Fuck you with whatever rusty, corroded piece of ragged iron is in your area.

          4. You’ve got two people ? a worker and an employer

            How about employee and employer? Both people are workers.

  13. Reputed criminals who, technically, hadn’t yet been convicted of any crime, got Social Security payments on the technical grounds that they had worked in the U.S. for decades. Some were deported, ending the benefits, others weren’t deported.

    “[A forthcoming] report [from the Social Security administration Inspector General] found that more than three dozen former Nazis received a total of $5.7 million in Social Security benefits before they were ultimately deported, the officials said.

    “Another 95 suspected former Nazis who received a total of $14.5 million in Social Security benefits were never deported and continued receiving benefits. Some died before they could be deported, others fled the country and still others settled their investigations and were allowed to remain in the country….

    “An investigation by The Associated Press last fall drew renewed concern to the phenomenon, prompting Congress to pass legislation called the No Social Security for Nazis Act.

    “That led to the termination of benefits to four Nazis who had left the United States to return to Europe. The most recent benefit payment came this January, investigators found.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05…..tw-nytimes

    1. Ah, here’s the law:

      (from congress.gov)

      http://ow.ly/NEWxb

      Prior laws cut off the Social Security benefits of Communist and Nazi deportees, this new law says the cut-off begins as soon as the deportation is ordered. Also, it cuts off benefits for two additional categories of suspect: People denationalized for their Nazi past and people who admit Nazi pasts in a plea bargain involving loss of nationality.

      The article just said “suspected,” which I think is misleading.

      1. And apparently nobody voted against this law, though I can’t figure why.

    2. This can’t be true. Cytotoxic has assured us that immigration is never, ever a bad thing. It must be that we got lots of economic and social benefits from those ex-Nazis. It must be.

    1. Don’t wish that on anyone, victim or family, but it happens to others every day, and Biden is due no more of my sympathy than the other, un-acknowledged, ones.

    2. “Beau.”

      Aside from that, well, shit. That sucks.

      1. Wait, no shit, Beau? He ain’t that old.

        1. Is there a past participle for ain’t? “W’ain’t”?

          1. Ugh. Past tense.

            1. The word you’re looking for sounds like “wasn’t” without the letter S in it. That’s the past tense of ain’t as I’ve heard it all my life.

              “Ah caint believe that, he wuh’nt but 46.”

              1. You are inaptly named, sure. Er, sir. Shure.

          2. Wurnt.

            “He went fishin’ yesterday but he wurnt gonna catch nuthin’ cuz he was usin’ the wrong bait.”

            “It was a first date so I knew she wurnt gonna suck my dick.”

            You need to get out more Dweebston.

  14. The Dems have carried over the strategy of using a horrible clown for Vice President as a life insurance policy for the President to campaigning. That is all this is.

    Now the Hildebeast doesn’t look so bad, does she? (Yeah, actually she still does)

  15. My buddy’s step-sister makes $63 hourly on the internet . She has been unemployed for 10 months but last month her payment was $19497 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    read more ?????????? http://www.BuzzReport20.com

  16. We just gave Iran how many billions of dollars to ensure their nuclear missile program can continue and you’re worried about the number of deodorants on the market. At least manufacture and sales of deodorants is putting food on someones table. Socialism is NOT sustainable.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.