Election 2016

Bernie Sanders & Hillary Clinton Are Running For President of Geritol Nation

Liberal Dems won't talk about obvious fixes to our politics, such as ending restrictive land-use rules, stopping drug war, and GMO foods as "progress." Why?

|

Over at Literature R Us, Alan Vanneman lays out simple, mostly unobjectionable fixes to various woes that should be no-brainers for liberal politicians and voters. These range from ending "restrictive land-use policies" that jack up housing costs in places such bluer-than-blue environms as San Francisco and D.C. to "reduc[ing] the burdens of occupational licensing" (because really, why do barbers need to shell out thousands of dollars and spend hundreds of hours when apprenticeships would get the job done).

More controversially, Vanneman says that liberals of all people shoud support GMO foods (they represent "progress," he says, "something liberals used to believe in") and they should support fracking (especially since in California and New York). "This is another case where liberal concern for the middle class is eclipsed by their concern for 'pristine' views from the decks of their vacation homes."

The starting point of Vanneman's common-sense list is this observation:

It's no secret that a large chunk of the American people are very upset these days, mad as hell and not going to take it any more, and also no secret that family incomes that have flat-lined for the past 15 years are a large part of the problem and also no secret that neither Donald Trump nor Bernie Sanders have any good ideas of what to do about it.

That last point is most important. While Trump and Sanders benefit from a sense of pent-up frustration and social and political lassitude, it's also clear they have no way forward. They are the last gasp of what might be called the long 20th century. They're not harbingers of a new way of looking at the world and reshaping our policies to engage how technology and other forces have changed our economy, our culture, and our politics. They—and their true-believing, ardent fans—are the equivalent of old men yelling at clouds. The anger is real and meaningful and needs to be appreciated, but it hardly provides a path to a future where power has been disrupted, decentralized, and disintermediated.

Read the whole thing.

It's worth puzzling over the inability of liberals and Democrats in particular to figure out a forward-looking set of policies. It should be a source of shame that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are explicitly anti-Uber and other elements of the sharing economy (being hypocritical about it makes it even worse). Conservatives at least have the excuse of wanting to maintain the status quo or, better yet, return to the status quo of five or 10 or 15 years ago. That's their whole point as an ideological group and it explains their consistent resistance to virtually all forms of social change that give more power to individuals.

Liberals are at least supposed to be less hung up on the past and captivated by efficiency that makes life better for all of us, especially the poor. And yet, as Vanneman points out, their politics seem much more focused on keeping things exactly as they are for a middle- to upper-middle class group.

Earlier this year, Gallup reported that party identification for Democrats is a 27-year low, at just 29 percent (as awful as that is, it's still better than the GOP's 26 percent). When you look at the two presidential candidates on the Democratic side, it's easy to understand why folks are vacating the brand. Sanders and Clinton are not simply chronologically old but, more important, ideologically ancient, proper representatives only for a Geritol Nation that has nothing but tired blood to offer.

NEXT: Stealing Music Was the Late '90s Version of Drug Experimentation in the '60s (New at Reason)

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. Yes, let’s all watch how quickly liberals rush to give up control over people’s lives.

    1. Yeah, that’s going to happen about as quickly as them admitting that the sun is the primary driver of climate on earth, or that GMOs are ok.

    2. As opposed to conservatives who want the rich to control your life. Remember, money is free speech and corporations are people.

      1. and corporations are people

        That misrepresentation of what the court held in Citizens United never gets old (oh, wait….yeah, it does).

      2. And the big Super Pacs are the Unions. Yea team!

  2. Tell Bernie to get off my fucking lawn.

    1. Excuse me, our lawn.

      1. This lawn is your lawn and this lawn is my lawn
        From California to the New York island
        From the redwood forest to the Gulf Stream waters
        This lawn was mowed for you and me

        As I went walking that ribbon of highway
        And I saw above me that endless skyway
        I saw below me that golden valley
        This lawn was mowed for you and me

        I roamed and rambled and I’ve followed my footsteps
        To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
        All around me a voice was a-sounding
        This lawn was mowed for you and me

        There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me
        Sign was painted, said “private property”
        But on the back side it didn’t say nothing
        This lawn was mowed for you and me…

  3. You know Geritol is about 25 proof?

    1. Maybe….

      *hides old case of bottles*

    2. It sure as hell has SOMETHING in it — that lady is touching a hot iron and smiling.

  4. “…The anger is real and meaningful and needs to be appreciated, but it hardly provides a path to a future where power has been disrupted, decentralized, and disintermediated.”

    I don’t see that centralized power has been other in increased over my life.
    Yeah, you can get porn now. And craft beers! Big whoop!
    Wanna see how pervasive the centralized power is now? Take an airplane ride. Change something on your automobile.

    1. Take an airplane ride. Change something on your automobile.

      Decide not to buy health insurance.

      1. Try to renounce your citizenship, move overseas and try to out money in a bank, enter a courthouse…\
        CX, I could sit here and run that list forever

        1. I’d like to take a (libertarian) moment to comment, but I am too busy figuring out how to pay 2% of my income because I can’t figure out how to afford health insurance I do not want…

          1. The really insidious thing, to me, about the penaltax and its justification is that we have gone from “the government may take some of your income in order to fund its necessary functions” to “the government may take your income”.

            1. Sorry, kbolino, but the justification is not as you stated. Rather, it is “the government will determine how much of your income you get to keep”. And it is really, really stupid, and arbitrary, and capricious in making its determinations.

              Most people naively think that implies that the tax rate would have a 100% upper limit. However, the perverse nature of the post-ObamaCare tax code is such that there is a huge negative marginal income rate at 1.0x the poverty line (i.e., at the income hurdle where the subsidy kicks in) and a huge marginal income tax rate at 4.0x the poverty line (i.e., where the subsidy disappears.) When I say “huge”, I mean 100,000% or more.

              1. When I say “huge”, I mean 100,000% or more.

                I have definitely seen computations that show the marginal rate is over 100%, which is a very strong disincentive. However, the subsidies are assigned on an income-based sliding-scale and at no point do the marginal rates get into the “100,000% or more” level. That would mean someone making $1,000 more each your would be paying $1,000,000 more in taxes.

                1. each your = each year

                  For further illustration:

                  The Federal poverty line is about $24,200 for a family of four. That would make 4.0x the poverty line about $96,000. Take a family of four presently making $95,900. An increase of $100 would put them out of the subsidy range, but if the marginal tax rate was 100,000% that would mean they had a tax increase of $100,000.

                  Nobody is facing that scenario right now; not even communist countries demand more than 100% of a person’s total income.

                  1. should be $24,000 not $24,200

    2. I think this kind of anger is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to get to that future.

  5. (they represent “progress,” he says, “something liberals used to believe in”)

    Oh, they still believe in progress. As long as it is done by force, not cooperation. Progress in the form of entrepreneurs inventing goods and services for willing customers is abhorrent to liberals. How can the entrepreneurs or customers know that the product is worthy if it didn’t come as a result of asking permission and obeying orders from government? They can’t. Obamacare though, that’s progress. Because it involves force.

    1. For example, no entrepreneur would develop a more efficient automobile that provides more value for the dollar. That’s why the government has to force them to make electric cars. They have to mandate something that already exists. We call that innovation.

      1. Eh. I do think government can spur innovation though.

        Look at light bulbs – now incandescents are coming back on the market because they are now being made more energy efficient, enough to meet the new standards.

        After basically a 100 years of stagnation because the old ones were deemed good enough.

  6. I stopped reading at “Alan Vanneman”.

    1. ^^THIS^^

    2. Never go full retard Vanneman.

    3. Nick misspelled his name.

  7. Google pay 66 $ per hour my last pay check was $45123 w0rking 96 hours a week 0nline. My younger brother friend has been averaging 8 k for months now and he w0rks about 18 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do.. check this link,,,

    == http://www.workprospects.com

  8. Google pay 66 $ per hour my last pay check was $45123 w0rking 96 hours a week 0nline. My younger brother friend has been averaging 8 k for months now and he w0rks about 18 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do.. check this link,,,

    = http://www.workprospects.com

    1. 96 hours a week? Rookie. I spend that much time on Hit and Run.

  9. Interesting perspective. Before LBJ got cornered into supporting civil rights for blacks, the Dem brand did stand for progress as defined by government expansion, and the Republicans did stand for leaving that to business; neither stood for individuals in any realistic sense. I suppose you could say the Dems got tricked into civil rights because it was progress, although they probably instinctively avoided it as long as possible because it was individual progress, not state-sponsored progress, which is why they screwed it up the way they did. And I suppose the GOP had to resist because it wasn’t their idea.

    That would explain the current situation, where the Dems stand in the way of individual progress because the only state-sponsored progress left is socialism, and Obamacare has shown how popular that is. The state-sponsored War on (Some) Drugs has also shown the limits of state guidance, but the Dems don’t dare admit government has limits, so they are pretty much stalled at a brick wall. Meanwhile the GOP knows what would make them popular — dismantle state power — but they aren’t interested in dismantling the state apparatus if it means empowering individual drug use.

    Eh. They are all statists. It’s like wondering whether a deep fried donut is more unhealthy from the frying or sugar.

    1. And I suppose the GOP had to resist because it wasn’t their idea.

      The GOP didn’t “resist”; they supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to an even greater degree than the Democrats did. Goldwater and the faction he represented opposed those measures, but not because “it wasn’t their idea”.

      1. But revisionist history is way cooler than facts.

      2. A higher percentage of Congressional Democrats voted against civil rights legislation than did Republicans.

        It was Senate Democrats who filibustered civil rights legislation, not Republicans.

        The relatively small faction of Republicans that opposed civil rights legislation did so because they had quaint notions about freedom of association, property rights, and the 10th Amendment. Paleoconservatives and libertarians of all parties do not understand that the bedrock principles of individual liberty are subject to the flux of the zeitgeist, and refuse to accept that the Constitution is a living document.

        1. The few Republicans who opposed Civil Rights were all Southerners. The Southern Democrats who opposed Civil Rights, either changed their views or changed parties in the years after.

          Sometimes things have an easy explanation.

      3. This is interesting stuff. Guess I had bought into the revisionist history!

        I knew the southern Dems resisted, but I hadn’t realized LBJ depended on the GOP to pass the civil rights legislation.

        Well, I spit on both parties, so …. eh 🙂

    2. Support for civil rights, specifically voting rights, came with the built-in reward of decades-long loyalty from black voters.

      The sugar, definitely. Fat is the least-unhealthy thing about the donut.

      1. There was also a fundamental shift from FDR to LBJ. The former talked about “Freedom from Want” but always premised it upon people working. You had to go out and do something to earn your “freedom”. The government could give people jobs and security, but they had to deserve it. By LBJ’s time, it had come to the “Great Society” and “War on Poverty” which basically said that everybody was entitled to a living, regardless of whether they did anything to justify it.

        A sizable chunk of the black political class latched onto that, as a way to empower themselves indefinitely. They talked about historical injustices, and painted the social welfare state as the solution.

        1. Originally, the welfare was only supposed to go to “worthy” (read: white) poor people. Congress made it clear that they’d only pass it if it included blacks. And because it was implemented as aid for single mothers the net effect was to destroy poor families, most notably black ones.

    3. Clearly it’s more unhealthy due to its shape. This time we will invent the donut in a new shape and it will be healthy and delicious. Top Men are working on it now!

      1. Need to put the hole back in the doughnut.

        Evil corporations strip out the nutrition from the doughnut when they punch out the hole.

        A healthy, free-range doughnut has no holes.

  10. “Conservatives at least have the excuse of wanting to maintain the status quo or, better yet, return to the status quo of five or 10 or 15 years ago. That’s their whole point as an ideological group and it explains their consistent resistance to virtually all forms of social change that give more power to individuals.”

    This is true in a number of arenas, (i.e. gay marriage, WODs) but it certainly isn’t true of all their positions. They are for school choice, they are for more individual choice in the health care system. The conservatives problem is that they don’t follow their logic to the areas that are icky to them.

    Liberals haven’t been for efficiency or improvement for the individual for decades. They ONLY care about individual choice in a handful of things, basically abortion and gay marriage. They aren’t even for truly free exchanges of sex (Swedish model of prostitution, positive consent).

  11. Actually, I think Sanders has a very specific way forward: increase exponentially entitlements and pay for them with increased taxes on the rich and Wall Street. The fact that he and his followers don’t realize this is not a viable path to the future doesn’t make it less of a plan.

    1. A bad, dumb, unworkable plan is still a plan!

      1. And he’ll be ‘doing something’!

    2. But is it a 5 year plan?

      1. The leap forward will be uuuuuuge

  12. “Conservatives at least have the excuse of wanting to maintain the status quo or, better yet, return to the status quo of five or 10 or 15 years ago. That’s their whole point as an ideological group and it explains their consistent resistance to virtually all forms of social change that give more power to individuals.”

    I would like to suggest something to Mr. Gillespie – he should go and schedule an interview with an actual conservative, maybe Robert George. Say, “I heard that you want to preserve the status quo or put it back 10 or 15 years. I also understand that you consistently resist virtually all forms of social change that give more power to individuals. Do you have any comment?”

    Publish the comments, I bet it would be interesting.

    1. Mark Steyn would be another good person to interview.

    2. Isn’t wanting to preserve the status quo, or return to some better time in the not too distant past sort of the definition of conservative? Standing athwart history shouting “stop” and all that?

      1. Depends. Natural conservation, eg, is premised on actively participating in a habitat to retain a desired trait, whereas preservation seeks to freeze and isolate a habitat hoping it does not change in any way.

        Really it’s just a bunch of collectivizing, but that’s what all humans do. 🙂

      2. That’s why in many contexts I have to put quotes around “conservative”. Same w “liberal”.

  13. So even in an article which has a headline of Hillary and Sanders you still have to put in Trump picture?

    Admit it, you need to tell us where on the doll did Trump touch you.

    1. Trump is the Alpha and the Omega of 2016 presidential politics. All things are Trump, and Trump is all things.

      Or something like that…

      1. All within Trump, nothing outside Trump, nothing against Trump: a Sugarfree adventure.

        1. I really hope the reason admins see this comment and delete it before SF sees it and gets inspired. Just imagining the horrors that he would unleash upon us is enough to make me throw up in my mouth a little.

          1. Where Warty merges with Trump and becomes Warty Trumpman?

          2. – If you choose “insert”, turn to page 42.

            1. A Choose Your Own Orifice Adventure (TM) book

    2. I think any rational analysis of Reason’s coverage would lead you to conclude that they would support any candidate at all, even Sanders and Hillary, the two worst of the lot, over Trump.

      1. I don’t see any analysis to suggest that Reason as a whole would consider Sanders or Hillary as the worst of the lot. If Trump bowed out right now, do you really think Hill or Sanders would be the person in their crosshairs?

        1. They create opportunities to slag Trump (such as by including his pic in an article about Sanders and Hillary), with the only mention of Trump being that he is as stupid as Sanders. Which seems pretty gratuitous to me. They don’t seem to do the same with other candidates, and have even posted an article or two, I believe, about Sanders’ anti-war bona fides.

          We’re deep into confirmation bias territory here, all around, so YMMV.

          1. that’s because they are terrible terrible terrible human beings who resent being Trump’s biggest applause line, which is terribly human of them.

      2. I don’t see that at all. I’ve never had the impression that Reason has supported any candidate at all (possibly excepting Gary Johnson). Yeah, there are always the “Is there a libertarian case for X?” articles. But even that falls well short of promoting or supporting any particular candidate. Even when a few of them confessed to voting for Obama they were hardly ringing endorsements of a candidate. Trump gets the coverage because he is the most interesting thing happening in the presidential race. I don’t see anything happening here but that. And it doesn’t seem too unreasonable to pick the person getting the most attention to beat up on.

        If they do end up doing anything that I would call supporting Hillary or Sanders, I really will cancel my subscription.

        1. Trump gets the coverage because he is the most interesting thing happening in the presidential race.

          That’s a lot of it, I’m sure. But why the gratuitous aside in this article, just to name one, making sure you know that, while they think Sanders is an idiot, they think Trump is also an idiot?

          Its subjective, hence prone to confirmation bias, but I really think Reason as published more anti-Trump screeds than anti-Hillary or anti-Bernie screeds. I believe that someone who just read their election coverage would conclude that Reason’s position is “Anybody but Trump”.

  14. The fact that Vanneman seems to believe that a suitable Prsident could “lead us forward technoologically” is pretty absurd. The marketplace leads the world forward with respect to technology. It requires trial and error, etc that no one person could ever reliably replicate. Vanneman is ignorant as to how the world works. Trump is important for the things that e wants to, and can, do. Stop illegal immigration, etc. That is what is important in a President, not a non-existent genius thta no President has ever possessed. Vanneman is an authoritarian. Authoritarians are incredibly simple minded people.

    1. Vanneman suffers from the same delusion as Michael Hihn, Palin’s Buttplug, and no doubt many others. That these are all just “policy questions” which the Top Men can choose to answer in one way or the other, and not fundamentally different ways of viewing the role of government. They share with the progressives and socialists the idea that everything flows through the government. If the President, the department heads, the members of Congress, etc. just say the words “market” and “innovation” often enough, it will come to be. The idea that they’re all just glorified janitors for what should be an unimportant bureaucracy is unfathomable. They are The Leaders and if They speak the Right Words, then the Right Things will happen.

  15. What the hell do you mean Sanders and Trump don’t have a way forward? Bernie Sanders wants all kids to get a free university education and Donald Trump owns fucking Trump University! Do I really have to explain to you how to connect the dots here? We can all get rich on this scam, rich as damn hell ass kings, I tells ya!

  16. Bernie Sanders & Hillary Clinton Are Running For President of Geritol Nation

    HEY !

  17. (because really, why do barbers need to shell out thousands of dollars and spend hundreds of hours when apprenticeships would get the job done)

    One of my better investments, a $20 pair of clippers from Amazon. I asked my wife one day if she wanted to try cutting my hair, she consented (even seems to enjoy doing it, hey-o), and I have saved time and money ever since.

    1. I strarted cutting *my own* hair, and it made me more employable – I got several offers from circus freak shows.

      1. It’s quite easy if you go for a buzz cut; that looks pretty much the same regardless of who does it. But anything other than that and you’re going to look like someone who got a DIY haircut.

        1. [Slowly puts clippers back in drawer, slides it shut.]

      2. I was told the cuts all over my head make me look tough.

        1. +1 Rabbit of Seville

        2. FWIW – for anyone who does their own “buzz cut” I cannot more highly recommend getting the most expensive clippers on the market. I finally splurged on them last year and it was so worth it.

          1. I don’t know about “most expensive” but a good set of Wahl brand clippers, the type that runs off or 120VAC, are workhorses.

            1. Maybe there’s more expensive, I dunno. It’s certainly the most I’ve paid for one. It is a Wahl, around 80 bucks. Cordless too. That sucker puts out way more power than the $40 corded models I used to use and which get stuck and rip my hair out. There is just no comparison.

  18. Free velicipedes for everyone!

  19. Old man yells at lack of alt-text.

    1. Middle aged man joins him.

      *shakes fist*

  20. OT: From what I had originally heard on the radio about this cop was that he had been selling confiscated drugs for the past 10 years. Was probably his best option.

    http://nbc4i.com/2016/02/22/re…..s-suicide/

    1. Better than full retirement, with a disability kicker for all the “stress” of getting caught?

    2. Now he’s a good cop…

    3. Your enforcer class used to be so much smarter. It’s called being on the take. You just confiscate some of the stash, not the entire stash. And you don’t arrest them.

      Or you set up a rotation with your marks such that you schedule them for a little quarterly catch and release. That way they know when to have a small amount on them, when they’ll have to jail, and the enforcer gets to keep his numbers up.

      Fucking Amatuers

  21. Bern-derp of the day:

    B-victim: “But I’m not for free college, I’m for affordable college!!1!”

    Yeah, sorry, but if you’re supporting a candidate who has free college as a major, well-articulated campaign plank, then you are, indeed, supporting free college.

    1. All of these inspiring young people are going to be shocked when they finally arrive in the adult world and they find out that ‘free college’ is not only NOT free, but they have to pay for it even if they don’t ever plan on attending. When they see that new box on their W2 titled ‘College Fund’, that’s going to be a real hoot.

      1. When they see that new box on their W2 titled ‘College Fund’, that’s going to be a real hoot.

        The PPACA is the exception, not the norm. And for “good” reason. They don’t usually itemize what your tax dollars are specifically being used for. If they did that on a regular basis, a lot more people would be complaining about the programs rather than supporting them.

      2. Luckily for them they won’t have to deal with the next part of “free College”, the part where the government decides who actually gets to go to college and what degrees they may pursue

        1. And when they force everyone to go ‘for their own good’ and force them to pay for it ‘for the collective good’, because for the children and we’re all in this together, I mean we all signed that contract at birth.

          Basically what they’re going to do is take K12 and extend it a few more years, only this time with a personal price tag. One can never have too much indoctrination and we can never have enough revenue.

    2. So they want to get rid of student loans, or at least tie the availability of them (and/or the rates) to the borrower’s repayment propensity (e.g. by major, work history, grades, etc.)?

  22. Their supporters may need Geritol, but the geriatric politicians have a different ailment that calls for another patent medicine. They tell more lies and other untruths than Carter had Little Liver Pills, and are so full of BS that a whole bottle wouldn’t be enough to flush it it out.

  23. “”restrictive land-use policies” that jack up housing costs in places such bluer-than-blue environms as San Francisco and D.C.”

    This is not an easy fix, or probably not fixable at all. And it’s one of the many reasons why things in society once created, no matter how bad, are not typically fixed intentionally by people.

    Sure, a lot of potential home buyers would like for prices to come down. But then let’s take an equal look at all the people who have over the past decade paid $750,000 for a 2 bedroom bungalow in places like SanFran that would sell for max $150,000 in most of the country. Do you think those people who, in my opinion foolishly got themselves into debt that far on a mortgage that is so hyper-inflated, are just relishing the idea of being a mile underwater on said mortgage?

    1. Bubbles popping always create winners and losers.

      Which is OK, because bubbles inflating create winners and losers.

  24. I would add nuclear energy to this list, but we are so far behind and the public so beholden to irrational environmentalists that I fear it is too late for any sort of nuclear renaissance, which ironically is the only technology that could drastically cut down CO2 emissions enough to make a difference. Just don’t tell a liberal that, because someone on the internet told them that kids in California were getting cancer from Fukushima radiation.

    1. “kids in California were getting cancer from Fukushima radiation”

      That combined with deadly unlabeled GMOs. And the only cure is higher taxes and less individual freedom.

      1. the only cure is higher taxes and less individual freedom.

        The progtard answer for everything.

        1. At least we have a solution! You rethuglicans have no ideas!

          /the progtards

    2. kids in California were getting cancer from Fukushima radiation.

      Do people just not have any idea how big the Pacific ocean is? You could have put 10 Fukushima reactor cores right in the ocean and there wouldn’t be enough radiation in CA to affect anything.

  25. It’s cute that anyone would think there’s a political party devoted to “making life better”, which is the thesis statement of the linked piece. Even funnier that they might think that’s the Democrats.

    1. “It’s cute that anyone would think there’s a political party devoted to “making life better”, which is the thesis statement of the linked piece. Even funnier that they might think that’s the Democrats.”

      If you would only recognize that “Political Class Live Matter” you would see that they are in fact devoted to making life better. It is only your selfish insistence that your life matters that blinds you to the truth

  26. The problem is not that pols like Trump and Sanders don’t have a plan to help the middle class; the problem is that they don’t give a shit about the middle class. Yeah, I know, they say over and over how much they want to help the middle class. But it’s not what you say, it’s what you do that counts.

    Heck, if I recall correctly socialists dislike the middle class and want to dismantle it.

    1. It is simply not true that Sanders lacks a plan for dealing with stagnant wages. He has been crystal clear about his plans.

      He intends to dramatically increase taxation on “the wealthy” who take more than their fair share. He intends to spend this money on healthcare, the environment, infrastructure, etc. in order to stimulate the economy and more fairly distribute the wealth. He also intends to increase redistribution payments, in the interest of fairness. Simultaneously, he intends to increase wages by mandating a large increase in the minimum wage.

      Basically, his plan is to take the money that the wealthy unfairly amassed and hand it out to all of the proletariat. Because that is only fair. And then we’ll all be wealthy, amirite?

    2. It is funny how much you hear socialists talking about saving the bourgeoisie these days.

      I find the whole notion that the middle class needs government support idiotic and insulting. The whole point of being middle class is that you can take care of yourself and don’t need handouts or programs to maintain your lifestyle.

  27. Vanneman voted against Reagan, TWICE!

  28. Liberals are at least supposed to be less hung up on the past and captivated by efficiency that makes life better for all of us, especially the poor. And yet, as Vanneman points out, their politics seem much more focused on keeping things exactly as they are for a middle- to upper-middle class group.

    If you stop using the word “liberals” and switch to “progressive” the narrative makes a little more sense. Although the ‘progressives’ are supposed to be for “Progress!”, that “progress” seems to be mostly limited to progressing the power and reach of unions in the public sphere. After that, it’s “stop! stop! Stop! Stop! Halt! Halt!”

  29. Who the fuck is this Vanneman guy anyway? I know he comments here sometimes and writes crappy Sherlock Holmes books or something. But why does he get attention from the Reason writers?

    1. He gets attention mostly from Nick.

      1. (blogger, novelist, and film critic extraordinaire)

        Not a bad analysis of the “shrinking middle class” crap, though.

        1. No, not really. His comments here belie rational thought.

    2. I don’t know much either other than his comments always radiate the smugness I associate with our many prog trolls. So I generally ignore him.

      1. (he said, smugly)

  30. ” . . . no secret that family incomes that have flat-lined for the past 15 years are a large part of the problem and also no secret that neither Donald Trump nor Bernie Sanders have any good ideas of what to do about it.”

    100% BS. Only those who are ignorant of Monetary Sovereignty could make such a statement.

    Sanders’ “Medicare for All” dramatically would increase net income for all but the upper-income groups. It is the biggest idea of this election season.

    1. How would medicare for all increase net income for all? That makes no sense. Especially seeing how his tax estimates are very low.

      Not sure if serious

    2. Riddle me this….if there were all these savings to be had….why did vermont scrap their single payer due to how much it would cost and have to raise taxes? Gov shumlin ran on making it happen and was the one who pulled the plug

    3. Also sanders campaign forecasted 324B in savings on drugs per year. In 2014 the us spent 305B. That isnt a serious policy

  31. Preservationists seem to need to bring about a halt in evolution to worship natural order

  32. Sanders introduced a bill to legalize marijuana & has said non-violent drug offenders should be treated for addiction, not imprisoned. There’s plenty of legitimate gripes you can make about Sanders, but this ain’t one of them.

    As far as GMO goes, I don’t think they’re bad, but can’t see any reason to oppose labeling what we put in our bodies. If idjits want to pay more for their freaking heirloom tomatoes, it’s their business.

  33. Breaking News 1/29/2016

    Whitewater Documents: The Criminal Case Against Hillary Clinton by the Office of Independent Counsel

    o The Castle Grande transactions were crimes’
    o Hillary Clinton ‘destroyed’ her personal records
    o A case of ‘possible obstruction’ of justice
    o Sources say redacted portions of memoranda contain a draft indictment of Mrs. Clinton
    o Never-before-published prosecution memos from April 1998 say Clinton’s ‘sworn statements to the RTC, the FDIC, the Senate and the House of Representatives and to OIC ? reflected and embodied materially inaccurate stories’
    o A 4/10/98 OIC memo uses terms ‘crime(s),’ ‘criminal,’ ‘fraudulent,’ ‘misrepresented,’ ‘inaccurate,’ ‘deceive,’ ‘mislead,’ ‘misstatement,’ and ‘concealed’ 27 times in 20 pages to describe actions by Clinton and Whitewater associates

    (Washington, DC) January 28, 2016 ? Judicial Watch today released 246 pages of previously undisclosed Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) internal memos revealing extensive details about the investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton for possible criminal charges involving her activities in the Whitewater/Castle Grande fraudulent land transaction scandal. The memos are “statements of the case” …….

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/b…..y-clinton/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.