The Escalating Class War Against Bernie Sanders

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

Flagrant media biases against Sanders are routine in a wide range of mainstream outlets. (The media watch group FAIR has long documented the problem, illuminated by one piece after another after another after another just this month.) In sharp contrast, positivity toward Sanders in mass media spheres is scarce.

The pattern is enmeshed with the corporatism that the Sanders campaign seeks to replace with genuine democracy—disempowering great wealth and corporate heft while empowering everyday people to participate in a truly democratic process.

(snip)

An important media headquarters for hostility toward the Sanders campaign is MSNBC, owned by Comcast—a notoriously anti-labor and anti-consumer corporation. “People need to remember,” I pointed out on Democracy Now! last week, “that if you, for instance, don’t trust Comcast, why would you trust a network that is owned by Comcast? These are class interests being worked out where the top strata of ownership and investors hires the CEO, hires the managing editors, hires the reporters. And so, what we’re seeing, and not to be rhetorical about it, but we really are seeing a class war underway.”

(snip)

It’s a reality with media implications that are hidden in plain sight. The often-vitriolic and sometimes preposterous attacks on Sanders via powerful national media outlets are almost always coming from affluent or outright wealthy people. Meanwhile, low-income Americans have virtually zero access to the TV studios (other than providing after-hours janitorial services).

(snip)

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/02/17/escalating-class-war-against-bernie-sanders

[RandySF]

1. The millionaire?

[wyldwolf]

3. beat me to it.

[totodeinhere]

18. Bernie's weath is only a drop in the bucket compared to how much it takes to run a national

campaign. So he is financing his campaign from small donations from people like you and me, unlike the billionaires in this race.

[RandySF]

20. I don't care how candidates finance their campaigns as long as they campaign for the right causes.

[brutus smith]

31. Then why say "The millionaire"?

A little snarky to me.

[totodeinhere]

34. Well I certainly do. One of Bernie's first priorities will be to find a way to overturn

Citizens United. Or do you not care about that either? The only way we can take this country back from the Wall Street money barons is to overturn Citizens United and enact public campaign financing. That will take this country back from the likes of Trump and Bloomberg.

[Buzz cook]

43. Pass a bill that says

Only citizens can contribute to campaigns. While for the moment corporations are "people" they certainly aren't citizens.

[ehrnst]

65. POTUS doesn't "pass bills." Congress and the Senate do.

So why wasn't Obama able to do it, if it was so simple?

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2010/07/26/president-obama-citizens-united-imagine-power-will-give-special-interests-over-polit

[Buzz cook]

68. The president can propose bills

And the house and senate can consider and pass those bills.

But your meta argument is similar to someone saying, "we're not a democracy, we're a republic". It carries no information and is intended to divert or stop conversation.

So are you taking the position that corporations are citizens?

[ehrnst]

69. Please stop flogging that poor straw man...

What did he ever do to you?



But seriously, why do you think that it didn't happen already under Obama?

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2010/07/26/president-obama-citizens-united-imagine-power-will-give-special-interests-over-polit

[ehrnst]

64. So if a POTUS can overturn Citizen's United, why wasn't Obama able to do it?

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2010/07/26/president-obama-citizens-united-imagine-power-will-give-special-interests-over-polit

What secret power does Sanders have not privy to Obama?

[totodeinhere]

74. President Obama ran out of time.

President Sanders could have eight years.

[ehrnst]

75. Did you read the link? It went to the Senate in in July 2010...

With a Senate vote tomorrow on legislation to undo some of the damage from the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, the President laid out the stakes in no uncertain terms.

Of course Sanders was promising Medicare for All in 8 years back in 2016, then when someone else was running on it this time around, it suddenly became possible in just two years!!!

What time frame do you think he will promise to end Citizens United?

Why do you think that no other Democratic nominee would be able to do the same?

And Bernie has to actually win a primary before he can try to win one GE, let alone two... and he's got heart disease, bout, has had basal cel carcinoma, and he'll be the oldest POTUS ever.

[totodeinhere]

78. I didn't say that no other Democratic nominee would try to do the same.

But I do know that Bernie would strive to make SCOTUS nominations that could make it happen. If we had two more votes then the Court could overturn it. I don't think that Bloomberg would have any incentive to change it however.

[ehrnst]

79. Any Democratic POTUS will nominate SCOTUS justices that will try to balance the court...

You wrote "Or do you not care about that either?" as though the person you were responding to somehow was against overturning Citizens United because they weren't supporting Sanders That's what I was responding to.

Is that clearer?

Why would Bloomberg not have any incentive to change it?

Do you believe that other Democratic candidates have no interest in any issue that doesn't affect them personally or benefit their own candidacy?

For instance, when a straight white male candidate dismisses social justice issues that don't directly affect straight white men as "identity politics."

Citizens United will need to be codified by legislation, because it will likely not be reversed by SCOTUS - even if a case challenging it makes it that far. Stare Decisis will work against reversal, and besides the chances of replacing any of the conservative justices other than Thomas in the next two decades is next to nil.

[betsuni]

87. +1

[ehrnst]

70. Crickets.....

[ehrnst]

77. Well, there's always Our Revolution....

Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, an entity directly or indirectly established by a federal candidate or officeholder is not allowed to “solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds in connection with an election for Federal office” unless the “funds are subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements” of federal law.

According to Our Revolution’s tax returns showing contribution amounts but not contributor names, data compiled and first reported by the Associated Press, from 2016 to 2018 Our Revolution raised almost $1 million dollars from contributors who gave in excess of the applicable $5,000 contribution limit, including multiple contributions of between $100,000 and $300,000. Our Revolution has not disclosed any of its contributors to the FEC, as required by federal campaign finance law.

https://www.commoncause.org/press-release/common-cause-files-complaint-against-pro-bernie-sanders-group-our-revolution-for-violating-soft-money-ban/

[ehrnst]

82. About that...

Today, Common Cause filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging reason to believe that Our Revolution, a nonprofit political organization established by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in 2016 and now supporting his 2020 presidential campaign, violated the federal ‘soft money’ ban. Sen. Sanders has been a longtime critic of super PACs and so-called “Dark Money” groups. The complaint documents that Our Revolution has solicited contributions explicitly to elect Sanders president, received contributions far in excess of the applicable $5,000 contribution limit and spent funds in connection with federal elections, including current voter mobilization efforts supporting Sanders in Iowa.

Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, an entity directly or indirectly established by a federal candidate or officeholder is not allowed to “solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds in connection with an election for Federal office” unless the “funds are subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements” of federal law.

According to Our Revolution’s tax returns showing contribution amounts but not contributor names, data compiled and first reported by the Associated Press, from 2016 to 2018 Our Revolution raised almost $1 million dollars from contributors who gave in excess of the applicable $5,000 contribution limit, including multiple contributions of between $100,000 and $300,000. Our Revolution has not disclosed any of its contributors to the FEC, as required by federal campaign finance law.

https://www.commoncause.org/press-release/common-cause-files-complaint-against-pro-bernie-sanders-group-our-revolution-for-violating-soft-money-ban/

Sanders lost several founding OR staffers over this....

A principal concern among backers of Mr. Sanders, whose condemnation of the campaign finance system was a pillar of his presidential bid, is that the group can draw from the pool of “dark money” that Mr. Sanders condemned for lacking transparency.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/us/politics/bernie-sanders-our-revolution-group.html

[NurseJackie]

2. Haaaaaa!

[Pachamama]

30. +100000

[HarlanPepper]

4. Bernie's rich

Which side would he be on in the hypothetical class war?

[floppyboo]

19. I'm old. I own a house. That pretty much makes you a millionaire these days.

Which side am I on? 'Floppy' is a nickname I've 'earned' from running a kind of flophouse for people in need. I only net $8K last year. But I have something - a roof and good karma.
I like Bernie. I think he'd be doing the same if he wasn't so damn passionate!

[MineralMan]

21. No. Owning a house doesn't make you a millionaire these days, except

in some places. I own a house in St. Paul, Minnesota. It's worth about $175,000. A good deal of that value is tied up in a mortgage.

I am not a millionaire, and neither all the 30 other homeowners who live on my block, or the next block, or any other block on the East Side of St. Paul.

Your statement is simple incorrect.

[floppyboo]

24. It makes me a millionaire. I stand corrected. Shouldn't have generalized.

[MineralMan]

27. That's very nice for you. You are not typical of homeowners, though.

Not even close.

[floppyboo]

37. I should think its even less typical for people who didn't/couldn't get into the mrkt 35 years ago.

And those are the people, my 4 children included, who can't even dream of that.
This is another reason I support Sanders. The wealth gap is unsustainable.
That and the environment. And unions. And new life-sustaining technologies.

[MineralMan]

39. It's still feasible to buy a house today, as long as you are in a real estate market

that offers affordable home prices. The Twin Cities is such a place, although the median home price is now in the upper 200s.

There are many places still where homes are quite affordable. Not on our coasts, of course. Not in places with lovely, lovely weather all year around. But in plenty of places still

It's all a matter of where you are, really.

[floppyboo]

48. I'm going to get really tangental here, but I really interested and you might know

So, the Ford Motor co. finally - just recently, completed its decontamination process of the plant closed at end of 2011, and the land sold to a developer to build 3800 residential units. Where do these people plan to work? And no wonder your property values are realistic compared to the hyper inflation of the coasts. But where do these people work? Why wasn't the Ford plant converted to efficient energy vehicles? Was there any push for that in the community? also, is the hydro-electric damn built with tax payer army corps engineers still privately run?

[MineralMan]

62. The Ford plant was just one of the employers here.

The MSP metro area has a population of about 3 million. The ford plant was just one company here. There are so many more. I think you might not know much about this market.

The closed Ford plant started making Model Ts. It closed making Ford Rangers. I have a 1996 Ranger built here. The Twin Cities has a very low unemployment rate,Canada thriving economy.

[floppyboo]

66. I only know a handful of people from Minnesota, so am grateful for the hands on stories

I am still curious how a major employer and private owner of a publicly necessary energy company could pull out and property values could not be suppressed. Would love to hear from you in message, as this is really getting off topic

[MineralMan]

71. Well, we moved here in 2004.

The Ford plant didn't cause much disruption when it closed. It employed only a tiny fraction of the population. We have many large employers here, like 3M. There are a dozen colleges and universities in St. Paul, alone. It's a major metro area here, and the Ford plant didn't have that many employees, really.

When it closed, there was no noticeable effect on real estate values. The impact was small, because that plant was not a major part of the local economy.

[Cal Carpenter]

35. He's an old guy who has had 6 figure jobs for a long time

He has 2 homes, an excellent pension, and half a million or so in investments.

If he had any less than that he'd be accused of being irresponsible.

He has significantly less estimated net worth than the median in the Senate.

He is maybe 3 or 4 disasters away from being broke, whereas most of us are only 1 or 2.

Dismissing his support of the working class, or acting like he is a hypocrite for being financially stable, is disingenuous at best.

He fights for the working class and we know it.

[sheshe2]

60. Three homes. nt

[totodeinhere]

76. Bernie has shown throughout his entire career whose side he is on.

and in the grand scheme of things he is not that rich. His fortune would I go very far if he had to use it to finance his own campaign.

[Fresh_Start]

5. attack the media just like Donald Trump straight out of Populism 101 nt

nt

[progressoid]

55. Election methodology notwithstanding, Democrats used to win the populist vote.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Oh, please...

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. Thanks a million for posting.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

8. Excellent post Uncle Joe, thx! As Ive been sayin forever & a day they're playin into Bernie's hands!

I FREAKIN' LOVE IT!!! This is why Bernie is easily beatin Biden, showing it's Bernie who's inevitable and, similarly, Bernie will easily defeat Mayor Bloomberg... perhaps, even worse, given the sharp distinction between the two candidates.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[NJCher]

53. Bloomberg was made for Bernie

All his life he's been railing against the billionaires and now he has one that thinks he can buy the election.

You can't make this stuff up.

Being an English teacher and all, we like to say Bloomberg is the perfect foil. For those of you who slept through your English classes, here's the definition of a foil:

In literature, a foil is a character that shows qualities that are in contrast with the qualities of another character. The objective is to highlight the traits of the other character.

What I really like about this is Bloomberg's money assures he'll be around, drawing that contrast between billionaires and the rest of us. Every time he opens his mouth, every big buy he makes in a media market, and every embarrassing story that comes out about what he's really like serves to illustrate that Bernie is the real thing.

There's also some nice alliteration involved, too.

[evertonfc]

9. I'm a Democrat and not a Democratic Socialist

[Voltaire2]

10. I'm both!

Pretty cool huh?

[left-of-center2012]

11. Is America ready for a 'Socialist revolution"?

[Uncle Joe]

13. We already had it, "Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor" it's just a matter

for the rest of America to join the party.

(snip)

Andrew Young has been cited for calling the United States system “socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor”, and Martin Luther King, Jr. frequently used this wording in his speeches.[5][6] Since at least 1969, Gore Vidal used the expression “free enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich” to describe the U.S. economic policies,[7][8] and he used it from the 1980s in his critiques of Reaganomics.[9]

In winter 2006/2007, in response to criticism about oil imports from Venezuela, that country being under the leadership of Hugo Chávez, the founder and president of Citizens Energy Corporation Joseph P. Kennedy II countered with a critique of the U.S. system which he characterized as “a kind of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor that leaves the most vulnerable out in the cold”.[10] Also Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has become known for expressing to large audiences that the United States is now a land of “socialism for the rich and brutal capitalism for the poor”.[11]

(snip)

Linguist Noam Chomsky has criticized the way in which free market principles have been applied. He has argued that the wealthy use free-market rhetoric to justify imposing greater economic risk upon the lower classes, while being insulated from the rigours of the market by the political and economic advantages that such wealth affords.[13] He remarked, "the free market is socialism for the rich—[free] markets for the poor and state protection for the rich."[14] He has stated that the rich and powerful "want to be able to run the nanny state" so that "when they are in trouble the taxpayer will bail them out", citing "too big to fail" as an example.[15]

Arguments along a similar line were raised in connection with the financial turmoil in 2008. With regard to the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Ron Blackwell, chief economist of AFL-CIO, used the expression “Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor” to characterize the system.[16] In September 2008, the US Senator Bernie Sanders said regarding the bailout of the U.S. financial system: “This is the most extreme example that I can recall of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor”.[17] The same month, economist Nouriel Roubini stated: “It is pathetic that Congress did not consult any of the many professional economists that have presented […] alternative plans that were more fair and efficient and less costly ways to resolve this crisis. This is again a case of privatizing the gains and socializing the losses; a bailout and socialism for the rich, the well-connected and Wall Street”.[18]

(snip)

Journalist John Pilger included the phrase in his speech accepting Australia's human rights award, the Sydney Peace Prize, on 5th November 2009: "Democracy has become a business plan, with a bottom line for every human activity, every dream, every decency, every hope. The main parliamentary parties are now devoted to the same economic policies - socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor - and the same foreign policy of servility to endless war. This is not democracy. It is to politics what McDonald's is to food."[20]

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders referenced the phrase during his eight-and-a-half-hour speech on the senate floor on December 10, 2010 against the continuation of Bush-era tax cuts, when speaking on the federal bailout of major financial institutions at a time when small-businesses were being denied loans. [21]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_for_the_rich_and_capitalism_for_the_poor

[ehrnst]

80. "Privatizing Profits And Socializing Losses"

The phrase privatizing profits and socializing losses has a number of synonyms, including socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor. Another likens it to lemon socialism. The latter was coined in a 1974 New York Times op-ed about New York State's decision to buy two half-finished power plants from the struggling electric utility ConEd for $500 million.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/privatizing-profits-and-socializing-losses.asp

[floppyboo]

22. More importantly, Is America ready to give up on all the gains made by 'socialism'?

Fire departments, non-Pinkerton police forces, Medicare, Social Security, public monuments, FEMA, public schools etc. etc.
Trump is heading that way. I don't think the Democrats should bend one single inch in that direction.

[msongs]

12. oh look the multi millionaire is being persecuted yet again. oh when will it end nt

[JudyM]

14. Some folks here seem to "miss" the obvious distinction between policy priorities and net worth.

Dumbing down discussion of real issues through false conflation.

Wonder why we can’t seem to have real discussion about this problem that’s killing our democracy...?

[Uncle Joe]

16. You nailed it Judy.

[floppyboo]

23. Engels was pretty rich. So was Sidhartha. FDR was doing ok too. False conflation for sure.

[ehrnst]

81. Clearly we can't talk about more than one thing!!

Wonder why we can’t seem to have real discussion about this problem that’s killing our democracy...?

[Zolorp]

15. OFFS!

Perpetual victimhhood.

[JudyM]

32. Please let us know precisely which facts you are challenging, if it's not just a vacuous smear.

Here are just a couple of factual reporting reviews in the past couple of weeks, noted in the OP article, that you could address as a start... if you are interested in discussing actual substance:

Media reaction to NH results:
https://fair.org/home/for-media-in-new-hampshire-losing-is-winning-and-winning-is-losing/

The Feb. debate: https://fair.org/home/abc-asking-for-attacks-was-a-lazy-way-to-run-a-debate/

[Zolorp]

38. Y'all are the ones that wanted front runner status

Now y'all are complaining about the scrutiny that comes with it.

It's nonsense.

[JudyM]

83. Another non-response blanket smear.

[Zolorp]

84. Only because you cannot answer it.

This shit comes with frontrunner status, yet once again you claim victimhood.

Enjoy being a front runner today, it won't last because y'all don't understand how to deal with it.

[JudyM]

85. You haven't responded. Reflecting back the same smear is not a substantive response.

But maybe that’s the best you’ve got. Sad.

[Zolorp]

86. And once aain, you ignore the elephant in the room

Go back to your victiimhood. It's all you understand.

Your frontrunner status is doomed because of that.

[RandySF]

17. So why is my support for a Medicare option is class warfare

[Uncle Joe]

33. It's not class warfare, just flawed politics and policy.

If you go into the battle fighting for half a loaf, you will be lucky to get a quarter.

"Medicare for all who want it" also only serves to weaken Medicare as the healthiest segments of the population are more apt to have private for profit "health" insurance.

It also leaves cancer cells aka; for profit "health" insurance industry alive to come back and fight (lobby) future politicians another day to weaken the overall program at the expense of the people.

Not being universal "Medicare for all who want it" is easier for bought and paid for politicians to attack as well, divide and conquer.

Universality is one of the key enduring strengths of Medicare for All, everyone is in it and has a stake in its' success.

[Scotch-Irish]

25. WTF?? Goin after Comcast instead of fox news?

What in the hell is going on in this crazy world of ours????? Yes there is definitely a monied-interest conspiracy against Bernie, but FOX IS SO MUCH MORE GUILTY THAN ANY NETWORK!!!! They're trying to drive down ratings on comcast???? Really???

[floppyboo]

29. You know what's crazy? Youtube warnings that RT is an arm of Russian govn't and no warning for MSNBC

being run by arms dealers.

[msongs]

46. talking bout arms dealers, doncha love bernies support of the lockheed F35 nt

[floppyboo]

50. Yup. I think his constituents liked that. Working in the system is a bitch.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

41. Comcast sucks and they like fox and Verizon are a monopoly.

[jrthin]

26. Oh, please. nt

[LeftTurn3623]

28. I think the real question is

who does the media go after if Bernie becomes the nominee?

I do think the media, like MSNBC wants Trump out of the WH. I believe they are concerned Bernie cant win. and rather have a moderate candidate. But if they get Bernie I dont think they start favoring Trump

[LonePirate]

45. The media most certainly wants to maintain the current resident of the White House.

They love his tax cuts, his controversy and all of the clicks/ratings/dollars he brings in for them. A no drama Democrat pushing for tax increases is exactly the type of person the media does not want.

[brutus smith]

36. Obama is a millionaire.

Just saying.

[virgogal]

47. Millionaires are all over the place in politics,it's the billionaires taking over.

[ehrnst]

40. Going after MSNBC now as an "enemy" of Bernie?

[Buzz cook]

51. Here's an article about that.

https://fair.org/home/msnbcs-anti-sanders-bias-makes-it-forget-how-to-do-math/

After seeing Sanders not even being mentioned as the winner of the New Hampshire primary By Kornacki for a full segment the pattern was too obvious.


?itok=bKmv-IxC

[ehrnst]

52. Ah yes, Fair and Commondreams....

Only the most unbiased Bernie fan orgs, I see.

[Buzz cook]

58. Either read the article

Or don't. Simply rejecting the article because you don't like the source shows more bias on our part than on FAIR.

[ehrnst]

59. I did. I'll say the same thing I say to RW relatives who share FoxNews articles on Trump.

Use neutral, journalistic sources to support your statement, and you're point will be more credible than if you use sources with a political bias.

[progressoid]

61. FAIR calls out more other biases and errors as well.

Just last week they pointed out how NBC's graphic screwed Warren and Pete.

The story “NBC/WSJ poll: Country Remains Divided Over Trump’s Impeachment Trial” (2/2/20) included a graphic depicting the results when a January 26–28 poll asked how people would vote in series of hypothetical contests with Trump. It showed Trump losing to Biden and Sanders, but defeating Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg:



But the graphic contradicted the text of the article, by NBC‘s Mark Murray, which said that the poll found that all four candidates would defeat Trump:

Looking ahead to the 2020 general election that’s still more than 270 days away, the NBC/WSJ poll shows former Vice President Joe Biden leading Trump nationally by 6 points among registered voters, 50 percent to 44 percent — though that’s down from Biden’s 9-point advantage in October.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is ahead of Trump by 4 points, 49 percent to 45 percent — a drop from Sanders’ 7-point lead in July.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., holds a 3-point advantage over Trump, 48 percent to 45 percent, and former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg leads Trump by 1 point, 46 percent to 45 percent.

The graphic understates both Biden and Sanders’ margins over Trump by 1 percentage point, turns a 3-point advantage for Warren into a 1-point deficit, and reverses Buttigieg’s 1-point lead.

https://fair.org/home/action-alert-nbc-garbles-graph-on-democrats-electability/

[ehrnst]

63. That doesn't make them unbiased. They are clearly in it for Sanders.

[unitedwethrive]

42. This makes no sense. Everyone I know for Bernie is upper middle class,

particularly the college aged kids of most of my co-workers. I know that there are clearly people of all socio-economic groups supporting Sanders, but it is certainly not a quorum of any demographic.

This is a typical article trying to divide...I wonder if it is even a democrat writing it.

[Cal Carpenter]

49. That may say more about who you are talking politics with

than it does about Sanders's supporters.

Upper middle class and wealthier voters are the least likely to support Bernie. Lower income voters are his strongest economic demographic. Likewise, voters who are people of color and/or women are more likely to support him than white males.

Polls show this, as do results so far in the primary: https://jacobinmag.com/2020/02/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-primary-class

[ehrnst]

54. Low income voters....except for older low income voters.

Jacobin is Tiger Beat for Bernie, BTW.

I'd look for more neutral, journalistic sources if you want to support your claims.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/how-bernie-sanders-can-win-democratic-nomination.html

[ehrnst]

57. Yep. Commondreams is known for their fandom of Sanders, and their lack of such for the

Democratic party.

[LonePirate]

44. Rich people do not want to pay for goods, services and health care for anyone but themselves.

[ehrnst]

56. Neither does a large swath of the poor and working class.

They have a vision of charities that they choose taking care of the poor that they choose to support...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/the-conservative-myth-of-a-social-safety-net-built-on-charity/284552/

[guillaumeb]

67. Recommended.

Workers have no real voice in the US corporate controlled media. The rich talking heads are the only ones commenting, and setting the terms of what is allowable debate.

Even on MSNBC, the supposed liberal channel, many of the biggest names are GOP analysts who "explain" to us why actual change cannot even be considered.