Senator Sanders, how will America pay for your giveaways?

Maher Challenges Sanders: How Will America Pay for Your Radical Agenda?
"Every once in a while, Bill Maher tip toes out of the progressive box and makes statements or asks questions that stun his audience and the media.

"Reacting to Bernie Sanders’ agenda and its estimated $18 trillion price tag, Maher challenged him by asking how America will pay for his radical agenda."

. . . "Considering that even Obama’s comparatively tame agenda can’t be paid for by taxing only the rich (the middle class is taking hit after hit), Sanders’ insistence that the top 1%—and maybe “little bit lower than that, but not much lower”—seems fanciful at best.  Maher is right to call him on it.

"However, it should be noted that Maher begins this interview by telling Sanders:  “I want to help your campaign. I want to see you get the nomination. I want to see you be president.”  So while it may seem that Maher is opposed to Sanders’ proposals, he’s not.  He just has the sense to realize that the idea that taxing the top 1% will pay for Sanders’ socialist wonderland is faulty and suggests that one way to “undemonize” socialism is to acknowledge that fact."

Bernie is the candidate for the occupiers, meaning these people:

Do we want the candidate choice of these people running for President of the United States?

Barack Churchill, 1939

Victor Davis Hanson

"Certainly we do not need a disproportionate response to Herr Hitler that initiates a cycle of violence on both sides. We need to tamp down the rhetoric.”

I have nothing to offer you, except blood, sweat, and arugula.

"Winston Churchill, well before he became Prime Minister in May 1940, was busy all through 1939 prompting the British government to prepare for war — and then, as First Lord of the Admiralty, helping to direct it once it broke out. But what if Churchill had been Barack Obama? What would Britain’s foremost opponent of appeasement have been like?

The Munich Agreement
"Obama-Churchill might have said something like the following in regards to the 1938 Munich Agreement.

“ 'We live in a complex world and at a challenging time. And none of these challenges lend themselves to quick or easy solutions, but all of them require British leadership. If we stay patient and determined, then we will, in fact, meet these challenges. The Munich Accord is a comprehensive government agreement.  It is the first that actually constrains Nazi Germany from further aggression, and one whose provisions are transparent and enforceable. It is a sober and judicious way to preclude war and to bring Germany back into the family of nations and to become a credible regional power, while allowing the German people to express their legitimate aspirations.”

“ 'Obviously, the last twenty years of ostracizing Germany has not worked. So it’s time for some creative reset diplomacy, and a reengagement to get out of the rut of the last two decades.  I don’t believe, as did former British officials, in snubbing supposed enemies, but rather in engaging and talking with them. Lots of you in the American newspaper business keep expecting us, like some American baseball team, to hit home runs. Well, we’re perfectly happy to hit singles and doubles like this agreement.' ”. . .

Read the full article

. . . “I’d also like to remind my fellow British subjects not to climb on their moral high horses. While Britain was forcibly colonizing the poor in Asia and Africa, and conducted genocide abroad, Germany in comparison had left a very small colonial imprint. It had no record of exploitation in the Americas and was not much of an overseas imperial nation. Its factories burn a lot less coal than do ours. So it might be wise for us to look inward a bit and calibrate the wages of our own imperialism. Germany does not rule India. It does not dictate to so-called dominions of subordinate states. It has no record of trafficking in and transporting slaves. There is no longer any such thing as a Germany monarchy.” . . .