Friday, August 30, 2019

MSNBC's ConservaDem Approach To Bernie: "But At What Cost? Oh God, At What Cost!!!"


When I say "MSNBC," I don't mean Chris Hayes and Ali Velshi. I mean talking empty heads, like the blond lady, in the video above. They asked Jonathan Swan what the biggest story of the day is and he started answering that it was a story about "Bernie Sanders' sweeping vision to transform nearly every aspect of American life" in a way that hasn't been done since FDR. When Swan started sounding even slightly pro-Bernie ("I don't think he gets nearly enough credit for that"), the talking empty head-- sorry I don't know her name, nor is there any need to-- freaked out with every ounce of emotion she could muster: "But to what cost? How many trillions of dollars..."

Comcast broadcasting isn't as bad as Fox News. But Bernie as president? That is a step too far for Comcast-- and its on-air employees don't even have to be explicitly told what the boss' boss wants. She moved Swan into the "How You Gonna Pay For It?" lane. "The energy plan alone is $16 trillion," without mentioning the cost of not implementing it. And without mentioning what the transformation of life will be like if the Climate Crisis is just allowed to go its merry way like all of our geriatric leaders-- from Trump and McConnell to Biden, Pelosi and Schumer-- are perfectly content to see happen.

Comcast broadcasting wants to emphasize high taxes if Bernie's plans are implemented and Swan obliges, although with a caveat: "certainly on the wealthy," something that is supported overwhelmingly by the American people, particularly the Democratic Party American people. Half a year ago a poll from Morning Consult in Politico showed how prevalent is that support: "Support for raising taxes is widespread, according to a new poll, which found that 76% of registered voters want the wealthiest Americans to pay more. Americans also have a preference as to what a tax increase should look like, according to the Politico/Morning Consult survey. Politico found that 61% of Americans are in favor of a “wealth tax”proposed by Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, which would increase taxes on those with a net worth of $50 million or more... Politico notes that a recent poll from Fox News shows 70% of Americans supporting increased taxes for those earning more than $10 million-- a proposition that gained support among 54% of Republicans as well. While Republicans are generally less in favor of tax increases on the wealthy, some of the wealthiest Americans are warming up to the idea. Just last week JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said, 'I believe that individuals earning the most can afford to pay more. And I have no problem paying higher taxes to address some of the fundamental challenges and inequities in our society.'" From CNBC in early June:

The Politico piece by Jim VandeHei that Swan was discussing on MSNBC referred to the new Quinnipiac poll showing that if he gets the nomination, Bernie would beat Trump by a landslide: 53% to 39% (14 points). When's the last time a president's elected with a 14 point general election margin?
2016- Trump over Hillary with MINUS 2.1 points
2012- Obama over Romney with 3.9 points
2008- Obama over McCain with 7.2 points
2004- Bush over Kerry with 2.4 points
2000- Bush over Gore with MINUS 0.5 points
1996- Clinton over Dole with 8.5 points
1992- Clinton over Bush with 5.6 points
1988- Bush over Dukakis with 7.8 points
1984- Reagan over Mondale with 18.2 points
Three and a half decades ago! And what gives Bernie that kind of lead over Trump (aside from Trump's own toxicity among voters)? Back to VanderHei's Politico piece: "A Sanders government," he writes in a scare tactic manner, "would take control of...
Your energy choices: His Green New Deal would spend $16 trillion to force you to stop using the energy mostly used today-- oil, gas and nuclear. He promises cleaner power and air in return.
Your house and car: The Sanders government would pay to weatherize homes and small businesses, and to upgrade gas-powered cars for electric ones. He would mandate the end of conventional gas car manufacturing in a decade.
Your health insurance: He would eliminate private insurance and put you on a government plan more generous than Medicare. No more copays, deductibles or premiums, too.
Your current student debt: He would eliminate it for everyone.
Your kids' college: Everyone gets free tuition at public universities, community colleges, trade schools and apprenticeship programs, too.
Your teachers: He will hire more teachers, pay them more, and fund better school supplies.
Your job: He promises full employment.
Your wage: He would guarantee you at least $15 per hour.
Your rich friends: They'll be paying for much of this with a fat tax increase.
Your own taxes: Sanders has been vague on this one. But the total cost of just the programs listed above are $20 trillion-plus at the lowest possible end over a decade, excluding Medicare for All, which experts say could at least double the total.
Josh Orton, Bernie's policy director: "Bernie will continue to fight for proposals that save American families money and hold giant corporations accountable... [T]he cost of doing nothing is significantly more expensive for average Americans."

Labels: , , , ,


At 9:18 AM, Blogger TrumanTown said...

Alex (Nit)Witt Is Your Typical All Mouth & No Brains TV Host! Or Could Be As Upton Sinclair Said: "It is difficult to get a person to understand something when their salary depends upon them not understanding it."

At 9:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is the cost of doing nothing? Of allowing corporatism to complete its takeover of the planet and all living on it? Of doing nothing about the changing climate and the deteriorating environment?

The talking heads won't even allude to such expense,
for they get well paid to keep you distracted
while all of the good things are extracted
for the benefit and enjoyment of a select few.

You get the bill
You pay the price
And you will say and do nothing
If they do their jobs right.

At 2:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes, msnbc (msdnc) is corporate media. corporate. hint... hint...

if I need to spell it out further, there is no point in spelling it out further. we're too goddamn stupid for it to make any diff.


Post a Comment

<< Home