09 April 2016

Bernie Sanders' television ads

"America" is a song by American music duo Simon & Garfunkel from their fourth studio album, Bookends (1968)... The song was written by Paul Simon and concerns young lovers hitchhiking their way across the United States, in search of "America," one both literal and figurative... "America" is a protest song that "creates a cinematic vista that tells of the singer's search for a literal and physical America that seems to have disappeared, along with the country’s beauty and ideals."

The campaign sought permission to use from Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel themselves, who both agreed to let them use it. Garfunkel stated that he was a supporter of Sanders and his campaign, and that the usage of "America" did not take away from the song's original premise.


  1. A decade or so ago, we in the rest of the world, so often stunned by America's choice of elected representatives, were happy that Barack Obama was chosen to be president of your country.
    This time we hope that you all, or at least the majority of you, choose the sensible one, not the man who is a buffoon, not the woman that is in the pocket of the bankers, but Bernie Sanders.

  2. Sensible? Because he tells voters they can have free health care, free college education, free child care, etc., but fails to mention that you might have to pay double or triple your current tax rate to pay for all of these free benefits?

    Yep, sensible in a European sense of the term.

    BTW, I am not against Sanders' ideas, just be honest that it will means 60% or more tax rate for ALL working people. I am willing. Not so sure about the rest of America.

  3. "you might have to pay double or triple your current tax rate"
    "just be honest that it will means 60% or more tax rate for ALL working people"

    I don't necessarily want to argue your points, but I'm wondering where your data come from. I've not seen those numbers before.

    1. No, I believe those numbers are incorrect.
      Imagine how great America would become if you had free primary, secondary and tertiary education, free health care, free child care !
      That's gotta be a great way to save a nation.
      I must admit, I had not realised Bernie Sanders was quite so forward thinking.
      Our 'colonial' government started charging for tertiary education some twenty seven years ago, so now, we have the children of rich and well off parents getting tertiary education, whether they are smart or not, while the others, perhaps people like Rutherford (splitting the atom), Hamilton (invented the jet boat), Hillary (first white fella to climb Mt.Everest), Batten (female flier), Campion (film maker), Clarke (first elected Prime Minister of NZ), unable to afford it so don't end up blessing us with their achievements.

    2. I am not sure about the 60%, but serious questions have been raised continuously by economists (from the left, no less) about what Bernie's plans would mean in terms of cost, increase in size of govt, etc. When questioned by Hillary in their last debate about where the money would come from, Bernie answered, "are you saying it can't be done?!" without offering one single specific word on the matter. Pie in the sky

    3. Forgot to add a link: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/left-leaning-economists-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html

    4. I wouldn't try to argue that such proposals would be expensive, but to claim that every working American would pay 60% of his/her income in taxes sounds like fear-mongering rather than intelligent debate.

      Perhaps what was intended to be said was a "60% INCREASE in the marginal tax bracket" - i.e. from say 15% to 24% - would be worthy of consideration, but not the claim as phrased. At least I've never seen such a number from a reliable source.

  4. A note of experience. We live in Canada however we also lived in California for a few years. The cost of our health insurance in California was quite a bit higher than the taxes differential. Not data -- just anecdote.


    1. That may be true, but not a good comparison, in isolation. For example, Canada spends much less on its military. If the US would lower its military spending, the effect of single payer insurance on taxes would start to approach Canada's . (I say start to since there are surely other priorities in each country's spending). While recognizing that nothing would make me happier than spending less for the military in the United States, my point is not that the US cannot afford to provide insurance for all. It is that Bernie is not being forthright about where exactly he will get the money to pay for it.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...