Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Trust Deed Opportunity

Good Morning,

We have a trust deed investor opportunity. The property is a 1999 home with 2850sqft. on nearly a 4600sqft lot. It has 5bd 3ba that will have a very light rehab. Comps are near 1.1m and will command full value when completed. It's located in Aliso Viejo in South Orange County in a highly desirable community. The 3-6 mo short term investment is 750K returning 10% per-annum or 6250/mo If you or anyone you know has an investment interest, please contact me.

Thank You,

Michael Brown
714 587 0486
The Bottom Line

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Sanders Tax Increase!

TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Sanders Tax Increase!: Here's what Bernie Sanders actually said about raising taxes Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., did something politicians rarely do at CNN...

The Bottom Line on Sanders Tax Increase!

Here's what Bernie Sanders actually said about raising taxes


Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., did something politicians rarely do at CNN’s town hall forum for the Democratic presidential candidates on Monday night — he explicitly promised to raise taxes if he reaches the White House, and not just for the wealthy.

“We will raise taxes. Yes we will,” Sanders said.

The soundbite made headlines and immediately had politicos predicting it could be fodder for negative ads. However, what Sanders actually said was more complex and, in fact, he promised his plans would save Americans money.

Sanders made the comment when he was asked about his “Medicare for All” national single-payer health care program. Moderator Chris Cuomo then noted that critics of Sanders’ health plan point out he will raise taxes to fund expanded social programs. Sanders said he does plan to increase taxes but argued his health plan will save people more money than they spend on tax hikes.

“That is an unfair criticism for the following reason. If you are paying, now, $10,000 a year to a private health insurance company, and I say to you, hypothetically, ‘You’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes — or actually less than that — but you’re not going to pay any more private health insurance,’” Sanders said. “Are you going to be complaining about the fact that I’ve saved you $5,000 in your total bills? So, it’s demagogic to say, 'Oh, you’re paying more in taxes.' Let’s all talk about — we are going to eliminate private health insurance premiums and payments not only for individuals, but for businesses.”

“Just to be clear, you are going to raise taxes?” Cuomo asked.

“We will raise taxes. Yes we will. But also, let us be clear, Chris, because there’s a little bit of disingenuity out there,” Sanders said, adding, “We may raise taxes, but we also are going to eliminate private health insurance premiums for individuals and for businesses.”

Calling for tax hikes is not new for Democratic candidates. President Barack Obama campaigned on a tax increase for families making over $250,000 when he was first elected in 2008. Sanders’ top rival, Hillary Clinton, who is leading polls for the Democratic primary, has also called for raising taxes on the wealthy. However, Sanders’ bald admission he would increase taxes across the board rather than just for the rich sets him apart. 

Saturday, January 23, 2016

TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on a Sanders Presidency and your M...

TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on a Sanders Presidency and your M...: 5 ways your money could be affected by a Bernie Sanders presidency It may seem like it's been going on forever, but the 2016 president...

The Bottom Line on a Sanders Presidency and your Money!

5 ways your money could be affected by a Bernie Sanders presidency
5 Ways Your Money Could Be Affected By a Bernie Sanders Presidency
It may seem like it's been going on forever, but the 2016 presidential election is finally getting started, for real. Several months of primary elections begin Feb. 1 with the Iowa caucus, and soon enough, we'll know who will be on the general election ballot come November.

One of those people could be Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.). Whether or not you're feeling the Bern, it's important to know how a Sanders presidency could affect you and your money. Like all presidential candidates, Sanders has identified many things he'd like to change about life in the U.S. There's no way to know how many of his proposals would become reality if he's elected — making such changes is a lot more complicated than proposing them — but several have the potential to significantly impact Americans' personal finances. (We'll be covering other candidates' impact on your money in the next few weeks.)

Here are some of the main issues Sanders would like to address and how it could impact your finances.

1. Single-Payer Healthcare


There's a lot of debate over how a single-payer healthcare system would affect the average American's budget, because overhauling the system would be complicated and therefore costly. Without getting into the details (partially because Sanders hasn't shared all of those yet), here's what he's proposing: Sanders is calling it his "Medicare for All" plan, and it aims to simplify the process of getting and paying for healthcare while detaching insurance from employment.
"As a patient, all you need to do is go to the doctor and show your insurance card," reads Sanders' website. "Bernie's plan means no more co-pays, no more deductibles and no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges."
Sanders plans to pay for the program, which his campaign estimates to cost $1.83 trillion annually, through a tax increase on those making more than $250,000 a year, premiums paid by employers and some households (dependent on income), other tax adjustments and program savings. (You can see the current tax brackets here.)

2. A $15 Minimum Wage

Currently, the national minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. Sanders wants to raise it to $15 per hour over the next several years. For people working minimum wage jobs, that could make a significant difference in their earnings and overall financial health. At the moment, only Emeryville, Calif., comes close with its $14.44 minimum wage, though San Francisco and Seattle have plans in place to implement $15 minimum wages in the next several years.

3. Paid Family Leave & Sick Days

Maternity leave, paternity leave and medical leave are hot topics in politics right now. Many parents don't have the option of taking paid time off to care for new or sick children, and for those that do, it's often an unaffordable one. Sanders proposes 12 weeks of paid family or medical leave for all U.S. workers, as well as 7 days of guaranteed paid sick days.

4. Free College

Sanders has outlined six steps he would take to making college debt-free. One of those ideas is to eliminate tuition at public colleges and universities throughout the country. For the 2015 to 2016 school year, the average in-state tuition at a public institution cost $9,410, according to the College Board, which is a 13% increase from the previous academic year. Even with the other costs of education beyond tuition, eliminating that expense could make a college degree much more affordable.

The entire plan is estimated to cost $75 billion annually, according to Sanders' campaign website. He plans to pay for the plan by imposing what is essentially a sales tax on stocks and other investment products.

5. Student Loan Refinancing

Part of the problem with high tuition costs is the student loan debt it generates. There's more than $1.3 trillion in outstanding student loan debt in this country, and it continues to grow as new borrowers take on loans and current balances accrue interest.

Those interest rates are a huge point of contention in the student loan world. Student loan rates are high by most consumer loan standards, and for the most part, borrowers are stuck with them. Sanders not only wants to cut interest rates in the first place, he also proposes making refinancing available so borrowers with high rates from many years ago can take advantage of today's lower rates.

Friday, January 22, 2016

TheBottomLine: Trust Deed Opportunity

TheBottomLine: Trust Deed Opportunity: Good Afternoon, We have a trust deed investor opportunity. The property is a 1999 home with 2850sqft. on nearly a 4600sqft lot. It has 5b...

Trust Deed Opportunity

Good Afternoon,

We have a trust deed investor opportunity. The property is a 1999 home with 2850sqft. on nearly a 4600sqft lot. It has 5bd 3ba that will have a very light rehab. Comps are near 1.1m and will command full value when completed. It's located in Aliso Viejo in South Orange County in a highly desirable community. The 3-6 mo short term investment is 750K returning 10% per-annum or 6250/mo If you or anyone you know has an investment interest, please contact me.

Thank You,

Michael Brown
714 587 0486
The Bottom Line

Monday, January 18, 2016

TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Dems Debate

TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Dems Debate: This Sanders-Clinton debate clash sums up the entire Democratic race If for some strange reason you didn’t have a chance to watch the De...

The Bottom Line on Dems Debate

This Sanders-Clinton debate clash sums up the entire Democratic race

Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders talk over each other during the Democratic presidential primary debate. (Mic Smith/AP)

If for some strange reason you didn’t have a chance to watch the Democratic debate Sunday night — holiday weekend, anyone? — but if you still want to know how the party’s two major contenders, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, will be trying to close the deal with voters in Iowa and New Hampshire in the coming weeks, one moment in particular summed it up: their heated back-and-forth over health care.

A little background first. 

In recent days, multiple polls — in Iowa, New Hampshire and nationally — have shown that Sanders, once the longest of long shots, is either gaining ground on Clinton or, in the case of the Granite State, pulling farther ahead. 

In response, the formerly restrained Clinton campaign has finally started to go after the Vermont senator — on guns, in part, but also for his longtime support of a single-payer, Medicare-for-all health insurance system. (Sanders released a specific plan hours before the debate.)

Before Sunday, Clinton’s health care attack appeared to be backfiring. “Even though its real-world prospects are pretty close to nil, [single-payer] is still iconic in the eyes of a large proportion of the Democratic left,” John McDonough, a former Senate staffer who helped draft the Affordable Care Act, told Politico. “A lot of people will interpret this attack in a way that may be even more hostile to Clinton.”

But on stage in Charleston, S.C, the former secretary of state pivoted to a more positive vision, and the maneuver served her well. She stopped accusing Sanders of wanting to raise taxes on middle-class Americans to pay for his plan, and she didn’t repeat the debunked claim by her daughter, Chelsea, that Sanders would “empower Republican governors to take away… health insurance for low-income and middle-income working Americans.“

Instead, Clinton laid out why she believes pursuing single-payer health insurance at this point wouldn’t work — while maintaining that she “respect[s] Sen. Sanders’ intentions.” 

“The Democratic Party and the United States worked since Harry Truman to get the Affordable Care Act passed,” Clinton said. “We finally have a path to universal health care. We’ve accomplished so much already. I do not want to see the Republicans repeal it, and I don’t want to see us start over again with a contentious debate. I want us to defend and build on the Affordable Care Act and improve it.”

Sanders, of course, fought back. He name-checked Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman, who “believed that health care should be available to all of our people,” as he put it. He expressed hope that America could follow in the footsteps of Europe and our neighbors to the north, questioning “why we are spending almost three times more than the British” as well as “50 percent more than the French [and] more than the Canadians” on health care. And he promised that while “we’re not going to tear up the Affordable Care Act… we are going to move on top of that to a Medicare-for-all system.”

But Clinton wasn’t swayed. With Republicans “just vot[ing] last week to repeal the Affordable Care Act,” starting “a whole new debate” over government-run health insurance would “set us back,” she insisted — and she delivered a history lesson to prove her point.   

“Even during the Affordable Care Act debate, there was an opportunity to vote for what was called the public option — in other words, people could buy into Medicare,” Clinton said. “And even when the Democrats were in charge of the Congress, we couldn’t get the votes for that.”
“So what I’m saying is really simple,” Clinton concluded. “This has been the fight of the Democratic Party for decades. We have the Affordable Care Act. Let’s make it work.” 
By returning again and again to the theme of what worksand what doesn’t — Clinton positioned herself as the chief pragmatist in the race: the one who’s been there, done that, and isn’t going to waste precious time daydreaming about pie-in-the-sky proposals that don’t stand a chance of passing Congress. It was, and always will be, a much better fit for her than “enemy of single-payer health care” — but it isn’t exactly the most rousing of closing arguments, especially for primary voters looking to be inspired.

Sanders, on the other hand, didn’t retreat from his embrace of a health care model that Democrats couldn’t enact even when they controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress (which isn’t likely to be the case in 2017). In the process, he reaffirmed his unwillingness to compromise on his ideals, which is what his supporters love most about him.

Both candidates played to their strengths Sunday night. The question now is which vision of politics Democratic primary voters will prefer when they finally go to the polls next month: politics as it is, or politics as you want it to be.

Sunday, January 17, 2016

TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Debate Stakes!

TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Debate Stakes!: Tightening Clinton-Sanders battle raises stakes for Democratic debate Tightening polls and rising tensions between White House rivals Hi...

The Bottom Line on Debate Stakes!

Tightening Clinton-Sanders battle raises stakes for Democratic debate
Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton during the Democratic presidential primary debate on Dec. 19. (Jim Cole/AP)


Tightening polls and rising tensions between White House rivals Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders could fuel a fiery Democratic debate on Sunday, their last face-to-face encounter until Iowa kicks off the presidential nominating race in two weeks.

The leading Democratic contenders stepped up their attacks on each other during the past week, battling over guns, healthcare and Wall Street with growing intensity as polls showed Sanders gaining ground on Clinton in key states.

Clinton, Sanders and former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, who lags badly in polls, will participate in the 9 p.m. EST (0200 GMT on Monday) debate, the fourth between the Democratic contenders.

Foreign policy also could play a role in the debate, which follows Saturday's prisoner deal announced by the United States and Iran. Tehran has freed five Americans including a Washington Post reporter and a Christian minister, coinciding with the lifting of most international nuclear sanctions on Iran.
Republican candidates expressed relief at the prisoner release but renewed their criticism of President Barack Obama's willingness to make deals with Tehran, particularly his earlier agreement with Iran to curtail its nuclear ambitions. Sanders and Clinton have both supported the Iran nuclear deal.

Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, has pulled into a statistical tie with Clinton in recent polls in Iowa, which holds the first contest on Feb. 1 in the race to pick a nominee for the November election. He also leads Clinton in the next state to vote, New Hampshire on Feb. 9, according to polls.

As the race has tightened, Clinton has been on the attack. The former secretary of state and U.S. senator from New York has hammered Sanders for past votes to support immunity from lawsuits for gun manufacturers and criticized his call for a national single-payer healthcare system. She demanded details on how he would pay for it.

Sanders fired back with an ad criticizing Democrats who take money from Wall Street, an obvious dig at Clinton, and touted his plan to break up the big banks. An angry Clinton campaign quickly accused Sanders of breaking his pledge not to air negative ads against her.

"We have differences and that's what I'm focusing on now. We're going to have a spirited debate, I expect, tonight in Charleston," Clinton said on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday.

Clinton stepped up her attacks on Sanders as too soft on gun restrictions ahead of the debate, which will be held in Charleston, South Carolina, one block from the historic church where nine black worshipers were killed by a white gunman in June.

She welcomed his decision on Saturday night to back a bill in Congress rescinding portions of a law giving immunity from lawsuits to the gunmakers, but said he had "flip-flopped" and should also back a proposal to extend the three-day waiting period on background checks.

Sanders, who attended Sunday services at the Charleston church where the murders occurred, said he would consider supporting a longer waiting period. He called the Clinton offensive a sign of her growing anxiety.

"I think the reason that the Clinton campaign is getting defensive is they see that we have the momentum," Sanders said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Wins by Sanders in both Iowa and New Hampshire would be a huge blow to Clinton, long seen as a prohibitive favorite. After those two states, the race moves on to Nevada and South Carolina, where Clinton leads in polls, and a March 1 round of 11 state contests.

"Things could change radically here if Bernie wins in Iowa and New Hampshire," said Phil Noble, a veteran South Carolina party strategist and head of the state's New Democrats, who has endorsed O'Malley.

Brad Anderson, an Iowa-based Democratic strategist who was state director for President Barack Obama's 2012 campaign, said the debate could play a part in deciding the outcome in Iowa.

"The debate is going to be enormously important given all the undecideds we are seeing in polls," said Anderson, who supports Clinton. "People are still really, really weighing their decision here."

Saturday, January 16, 2016

TheBottomLine: Trust Deed Opportunity

TheBottomLine: Trust Deed Opportunity: Good Afternoon, We have a trust deed investor opportunity. The property is a 1999 home with 2850sqft. on nearly a 4600sqft lot. It has 5b...

Trust Deed Opportunity

Good Afternoon,

We have a trust deed investor opportunity. The property is a 1999 home with 2850sqft. on nearly a 4600sqft lot. It has 5bd 3ba that will have a very light rehab. Comps are near 1.1m and will command full value when completed. It's located in Aliso Viejo in South Orange County in a highly desirable community. The 3-6 mo short term investment is 750K returning 10% per-annum or 6250/mo If you or anyone you know has an investment interest, please contact me.

Thank You,

Michael Brown
714 587 0486
The Bottom Line

TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Sanders Light Brigade

TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Sanders Light Brigade: Sanders supporters aglow in light brigade Bernie Sanders ’ supporters will be glowing tonight, and not because of their candidate’s surgi...

The Bottom Line on Sanders Light Brigade

Sanders supporters aglow in light brigade


Bernie Sanders’ supporters will be glowing tonight, and not because of their candidate’s surging Iowa poll numbers.

People in 40 cities, organized by Sanders’ grass-roots supporters on the online message board Reddit, have signed up to host a second round of “Bernie Light Brigade” events tonight across the nation.
They will adorn overpasses, public parks and beside busy streets with eye-catching, homemade “Bernie 2016” LED signs, according to Aidan King, 24, of Montpelier, Vt., who launched the "Sanders For President" subreddit.

The idea is the brainchild of Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, who were inspired by work done by the activist group Overpass Light Brigade, King said. Before the inaugural Dec. 18 event, Greenfield built a “Bernie” LED sign and stood on an overpass outside Burlington, Vt., to encourage others to do the same.

“If Ben (my esteemed photographer) and I can do it, then so can you, and it's a lot of fun, too,” Greenfield wrote last month in a Reddit post, including a photo of his sign.

King said feedback from the first event was positive, and some of the volunteers turned their light brigades into voter registration events when passers-by expressed interest.

“The volunteers in each city or town, they get honked at — the good kind of honking — they get cheers, they get thumbs-up,” King said. “It’s really this double whammy of raising awareness and having a memorable impact on people, but also getting people registered to vote, or getting people to donate or getting people to sign up for a phone banking event.”

The events are being held where there are large communities of Reddit users. Only one is planned in Iowa.

The “Sanders For President” subreddit, which has more than 150,000 members, has been particularly active in promoting Sanders’ candidacy at the grass-roots level. Members have raised more than $800,000 for the campaign, King said.

Sanders has interacted with the Reddit community for years, doing periodic posts and fielding questions during "Ask Me Anything" sessions. Reddit's generally young users have supported Sanders' calls for free college tuition, universal health care and campaign finance reform, according to King.

Thursday, January 14, 2016

TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Sanders Ad Burst

TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Sanders Ad Burst: Sanders Ad Burst Coincides With Upward Movement in Polls Bernie Sanders has been putting up major advertising cash to seize momentum hea...

The Bottom Line on Sanders Ad Burst

Sanders Ad Burst Coincides With Upward Movement in Polls



Bernie Sanders has been putting up major advertising cash to seize momentum heading into the Democratic presidential primaries — outspending his rival Hillary Clinton just as voters are beginning to pay attention to the race.

In the past three weeks, Sanders' campaign has spent about $4.7 million on ads to Clinton's $3.7 million, an investment that so far has meant 1,000 more Sanders commercials than Clinton ads on broadcast TV, according to advertising tracker Kantar Media's CMAG.

The Sanders ad burst is coinciding with his rise in preference polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two states where voters will weigh in on the 2016 election. The Democratic contest appears to be tightening.

Two recent surveys suggest Sanders has gained on Clinton in Iowa. In New Hampshire, one poll showed the Vermont senator ahead of the former first lady and secretary of state by double digits, while another pointed to a tighter race. Iowa votes Feb. 1; New Hampshire, Feb. 9.

Clinton began advertising in August, three months ahead of Sanders, and over the entire contest has outspent him by about $3 million, the CMAG data show. The ad buy data includes all broadcast, cable and satellite television, as well as some radio. It does not include digital ads.

The turnabout in ad spending — with Sanders topping Clinton in each of the past three weeks — prompted the Clinton campaign last week to send an email to supporters with the subject line "nervous."

"I'm not trying to be dramatic about this (I swear! I'm really not!), but there's a situation developing in Iowa and New Hampshire that could change the course of this election," Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook wrote in the fundraising appeal. Later in the same email: "I just found out that he's outspending us on TV advertising in Iowa and New Hampshire."

In reality, both candidates have ample financial resources; each campaign said it had raised upward of $30 million in the final three months of the year.
This month, Sanders has aired nine different commercials. Two stand out for their heavy rotation.
His top-played ad of these past few weeks, "Working Families," has been on some 1,200 times on broadcast stations, according to CMAG data covering Dec. 30 to Tuesday.

There's nothing splashy or slickly produced about this 30-second commercial. The entire time, it's footage of Sanders talking at a New Hampshire town hall meeting, delivering his typical remarks with his trademark exaggerated arm gestures.

"The bottom line of this economy is that it is rigged," he says as people in the rapt audience nod their heads. "What this campaign is about is the demand that we create an economy that works for all of us rather than a handful of billionaires."

Just behind that ad in frequency is one featuring a registered nurse in Vermont, Mari Cordes.
"Bernie Sanders understands how pharmaceutical companies and major medical companies are ripping us off," Cordes says. "Bernie tells the truth, and he's been consistent. He understands that the system is rigged, and he's the only one that can bring real change."

The ad includes an image of Sanders accepting the National Nurses United endorsement. That group has a super PAC that has been sending a "Bernie bus" around to early states to back him — despite his stated resistance to outside money.

One Clinton ad has aired as frequently in the past two weeks as either of those spots, CMAG shows.
Titled, "Wage Gap," it posits that Republicans would "make it worse by lowering taxes for those at the top and letting corporations write their own rules."

Clinton, the narrator says, would close the wage gap, push equal pay for women, a higher minimum wage and lower taxes for the middle class.

No Democratic candidate has called out a rival by name in TV ads. But with the race intensifying, the candidates are becoming more direct.

In an ad that began airing Tuesday night, Clinton says she supports the president's call for universal gun background checks. "It's time to pick a side," she says, implying that she and Sanders are on different ones.

Sanders, in a CNN interview Tuesday night, said he agrees with the president. He said he, too, has an ad that implies he and Clinton differ — but on Social Security. In a forthcoming commercial, he said, he reminds voters he wants to raise Social Security benefits by lifting the cap on taxable income.
"We look forward to Secretary Clinton coming on board with that issue," he said. Like Clinton, he does not mention his opponent in the ad, leaving it to voters to make the connection.

In total, Clinton has spent $16.6 million on ads and Sanders $13.4 million, according to CMAG. Sanders delayed starting his advertising to preserve funding for this critical period, his senior adviser Tad Devine said. "We intend to go toe-to-toe, or even exceed them, until the end," Devine said of Sanders' ad buys.

CMAG's ad buy information shows Clinton with a larger spending plan over the next few weeks, although commercial space can be purchased with little lead time. She has reserved about $3.3 million in TV spots, and Sanders $1.7 million.

As the Republican side vividly illustrates, the size of an advertising buy doesn't necessarily translate to voter support: Jeb Bush remains mired in preference polls despite having more money spent to promote his candidacy than anyone else in the 2016 field. The super PAC supporting him has plowed $52 million into ads.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Hillary's Trouble

TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Hillary's Trouble: Bernie Sanders Is Right: Hillary Clinton Is in “Serious Trouble” Leading in New Hampshire and gaining in Iowa, the socialist candidate pos...

The Bottom Line on Hillary's Trouble

Bernie Sanders Is Right: Hillary Clinton Is in “Serious Trouble”

Leading in New Hampshire and gaining in Iowa, the socialist candidate poses a real threat to Clinton’s campaign.

The aura of inevitability surrounding Hillary Clinton is suddenly looking more fragile. As Democrats prepare for the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, opponent Bernie Sanders is giving the front-runner a run for her money in both states, raising the possibility that Clinton could face another 2008-style defeat if she doesn't act fast to solidify her support on the left.

Speaking with reporters on Monday, Sanders touted his competitive poll numbers against the Clinton machine: not only does a new poll place Sanders within three points of Clinton in Iowa, the self-described democratic socialist Vermont senator is actually winning by a slim margin in several New Hampshire polls. A new Monmouth poll released on Tuesday puts Sanders a whopping 14 points ahead in the Granite State. At this point, Clinton’s best New Hampshire strategy might be to simply make it a close race.

“Secretary Clinton and her campaign is in serious trouble,” Sanders said, adding that she was no longer the “anointed” one. “So obviously in that scenario what people do is start attacking. Suddenly Bernie Sanders is not a nice guy. That is not surprising when you have a Clinton campaign that is now in trouble and now understands that they can lose.”

Given Clinton’s recent activity, Sanders might be right: perhaps looking to stave off an embarrassing repeat of 2008, when she surprisingly lost Iowa by a wide margin to a first-term senator with a weird name, Clinton has racked up several prominent gun-control endorsements in the past few days from the Brady Campaign and former Arizona congresswoman Gabby Giffords, highlighting Sanders’s alleged weakness on the issue. Clinton has also stepped up her attacks against Sanders on the campaign trail, pointing out in stump speeches that the Vermont senator has voted several times for pro-gun legislation—notably a 2005 bill that protected gun manufactures from criminal action when their firearms are used in crimes. (In the press release announcing their endorsement, Brady Campaign president Dan Gross called the bill “truly evil.”)

But Sanders still has the advantage on income inequality, a central concern of his campaign and an issue that Clinton has struggled to talk about as fluently. It doesn’t help that Clinton only revealed her plan to tax the mega-rich this week, and from a solely populist standpoint, it certainly won’t help that her tax increases aren’t as drastic as Sanders’s proposal.

Clinton might not be able to count on help from the White House on this one, either. In a recent interview with CNN, Vice President Joe Biden observed that it’s “relatively new” for Clinton to talk about Sanders’s pet issue: “Hillary’s focus has been other things up to now, and that's been Bernie's—no one questions Bernie's authenticity on those issues.”

Still, there are 20 days until Iowa, enough time for any and all scandals to strategically tank a campaign. Major banks have collapsed in less time.

_Update (2:45 P.M.)__: A new Quinnipiac poll released on Tuesday afternoon shows that Sanders is out-polling Clinton by 5 points in Iowa. This is a good time to imagine what Hillary Clinton keeps in her Panic Room.

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Hillary's Melting Lead!

TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Hillary's Melting Lead!: Hillary Clinton's lead over Bernie Sanders melts away in new national poll A striking new poll published on Tuesday found former US ...

The Bottom Line on Hillary's Melting Lead!

Hillary Clinton's lead over Bernie Sanders melts away in new national poll


A striking new poll published on Tuesday found former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's lead dropping nationally in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary.


The New York Times/CBS News survey found Clinton holding 48% of the vote among primary voters, with US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) polling at 41%.

That represented a big gain for Sanders, who had 32% to Clinton's 52% last month, when the same poll last went into the field.

Though Clinton remains the dominant front-runner in the race, the new national poll on Tuesday follows a batch of polling data showing Sanders performing noticeably better in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two states to weigh in on the Democratic primary.

In a Quinnipiac University poll out on Tuesday, Sanders was even ahead of Clinton among likely Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa, where Clinton has long held the advantage. That survey found Sanders with 49% support to Clinton's 44%. Last month, the same pollster found Clinton with 51% and Sanders with 40%.

Meanwhile, Sanders is doing even better in New Hampshire, which borders his home state of Vermont. A Monmouth University poll, also released on Tuesday, gave Sanders a 14-point lead over Clinton among voters likely to participate in that state's Democratic primary.

Exactly where the race stands, however, remains murky. Other polls released this month have found Sanders' New Hampshire lead much more modest. One, from Public Policy Polling, gave Clinton a three-point lead there. Clinton has also led in other Iowa polls.

Even if Clinton were to lose Iowa, which votes February 1, and then falter in New Hampshire's February 9 primary, political prognosticators still widely believe she would have the edge in the following primary states — including South Carolina and Nevada, which have far more diverse electorates.

Monday, January 11, 2016

TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Dem's Most Electable Candidate

TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Dem's Most Electable Candidate: Bernie Sanders Says He's Democrats' Most Electable Presidential Candidate Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders sa...

The Bottom Line on Dem's Most Electable Candidate

Bernie Sanders Says He's Democrats' Most Electable Presidential Candidate



Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said polls show he’s Democrats’ most electable 2016 candidate and that he’s “gaining steam” ahead of the fast-approaching Iowa caucuses.

“If people are concerned about electability -- and Democrats should be very concerned because we certainly don’t want to see some right-wing extremist in the White House -- Bernie Sanders is the candidate,” Sanders told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on “This Week” Sunday.

Sanders cited a Quinnipiac Poll released last month showing he fares better than his main Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton against Republican front-runner Donald Trump. The poll shows Sanders beating Trump by 13 points, compared to Clinton’s smaller margin of 7 points.


Sanders said the poll should reassure voters who have expressed concerns about the 74-year-old senator’s age and the fact that he describes himself as a democratic socialist.

“For a start, I would urge those voters, the voters all over this country, to take a look at recent polls in which Bernie Sanders is matched with Republican candidates Trump on down [and] Hillary Clinton is matched with Republican candidates,” he said.

Now, three weeks from the Iowa caucuses, a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll shows Sanders almost neck-and-neck with Clinton in early voting states. In Iowa, Clinton leads Sanders by three points with 48 percent support from likely caucus-goers, but trails him among likely primary voters in New Hampshire 50-46 percent.

“I think we're gaining steam here in Iowa,” Sanders said. “I think we have an excellent chance to win here.”

After both the Sanders and Clinton campaigns traded barbs over gun control this week, the Vermont senator reiterated he would be willing to revise a 2005 bill he voted for that shields certain gun manufacturers from liability for misuse of their firearms.

“I am absolutely willing -- as I've said for many, many weeks, if not months -- to take another look at that piece of legislation,” Sanders said.

Sunday, January 10, 2016

The Case for a Breakaway Civilization - A conversation with Richard Dola...

TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Narrowing Race

TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Narrowing Race: Poll: Democratic 2016 race narrows in Iowa Bernie Sanders has nearly caught Hillary Clinton in Iowa's Democratic presidential race an...

The Bottom Line on Narrowing Race

Poll: Democratic 2016 race narrows in Iowa
2016 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders has nearly caught Hillary Clinton in Iowa's Democratic presidential race and remains ahead of Clinton in New Hampshire, a new poll shows.

Clinton holds a 48% to 45% lead over Sanders among likely caucus-goers -- a smaller lead than other polls have shown her with for months in the Hawkeye State -- according to a NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll released Sunday morning.
    And Sanders is ahead, 50% to 46%, among likely New Hampshire primary voters -- maintaining his edge in what's long looked like the early-voting state in which the Vermont senator has the best shot of defeating Clinton.

    The polls also show that Sanders performs better in head-to-head matchups with Republicans Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and Marco Rubio than Clinton does, giving his campaign ammunition to rebut Clinton's argument that she is more electable in a general election.

    The numbers raise the possibility that Clinton, despite her national front-runner status, could lose one or both of the first two states to vote in the nominating process.

    Clinton herself has noted the damage such losses can do, telling supporters in a fundraising email Saturday (designed in part to instill a sense of urgency in Clinton's supporters) that losing New Hampshire "could be a sharp blow to all the work we've done."

    On the Republican side, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz remains the front-runner in Iowa -- but it's a narrow lead, at 28% to Donald Trump's 24%. The two are trailed by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 13% and Ben Carson at 11%, with no other candidates topping 5%.

    In New Hampshire, Trump leads with 30% support -- more than double any other candidate's backing.

    In second is Rubio at 14%. He's followed by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at 12%, Cruz at 10%, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 9% each.

    The Case for a Breakaway Civilization - A conversation with Richard Dola...

    Saturday, January 9, 2016

    TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Hillary's Nervousness!

    TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Hillary's Nervousness!: Bernie Sanders' Popularity Making Hillary Clinton Campaign 'Nervous' The Clinton campaign appears to be getting nervous. W...

    The Bottom Line on Hillary's Nervousness!

    Bernie Sanders' Popularity Making Hillary Clinton Campaign 'Nervous'

    PHOTO: Sen. Bernie Sanders, Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Maryland Governor Martin OMalley attend a Democratic presidential debate at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, Nov. 14, 2015
    The Clinton campaign appears to be getting nervous.

    While from the start Hillary Clinton's campaign has said they were not taking anything for granted, the Democratic frontrunner didn't always act that way -– for months carrying on as though her challenger, Bernie Sanders, didn’t exist.

    Over time, however, the 74-year-old Vermont senator has risen in the polls and gained growing support that eventually became too big for Clinton to ignore.

    Now, just a few weeks until the first voting begins in Iowa and New Hampshire, her campaign is showing signs they're more anxious than ever about the outcome of these races.

    The most blatant sign came earlier this week when Clinton's campaign manager Robby Mook sent a fundraising email to supporters with the subject line "nervous."

    "There's a situation developing in Iowa and New Hampshire that could change the course of this election," Mook wrote in the e-mail, noting that Sanders' campaign is outspending Clinton in TV ads in the two early states.

    Two days later, the campaign sent another fundraising email mentioning the "(seriously!) tight" polls in New Hampshire.

    The e-mail came after Fox News released a poll showing Sanders, who is from neighboring Vermont, ahead of Clinton in New Hampshire by 13 points.

    In light of tightening polls, the Clinton campaign has also ramped up its aggressive opposition against Sanders.

    On Monday, the campaign pro-actively went after Sanders ahead of his Wall Street reform speech. On Tuesday and Wednesday, Clinton questioned his electability. On Thursday, the campaign engaged in a back-and-forth with him on their paid leave plans. And on Friday, the campaign went after him on guns after Sanders' campaign said there is "zero daylight" between him and Obama on gun control.

    "You know, maybe it's time for Sen. Sanders to stand up and say I got this one wrong," Clinton said during a rare, last-minute phone interview on "Hardball" with Chris Matthews on Friday night.
    In addition, the Clinton campaign has launched Bill Clinton out on the trail this week. On Wednesday, he's expected to go back to New Hampshire where he'll be holding campaign events exclusively near the Vermont border -– a part of the state where Sanders signs are very prevalent.
    Asked about whether their increased engagement with Sanders is a sign they're concerned about Sanders, Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said: "Republicans are trying to rip away the progress we have made on issue after issue, and we are making clear that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate to take them on and get things done."

    But the Sanders campaign has taken it as a sign of worries.

    "See the new Fox poll that had Bernie up a lot in New Hampshire? No wonder they're in attack mode," Sanders communications director Michael Briggs said in a statement. "Secretary Clinton and her team are getting nervous and nasty because the so-called inevitable nominee anointed by the establishment eight months ago doesn't look so inevitable anymore."

    Friday, January 8, 2016

    TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Hillary's Truth!

    TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Hillary's Truth!: Hillary Clinton Is Not Telling The Truth About Wall Street And it's damaging her campaign. Hillary Clinton's campaign spent muc...

    The Bottom Line on Hillary's Truth!

    Hillary Clinton Is Not Telling The Truth About Wall Street

    And it's damaging her campaign.

    Hillary Clinton's campaign spent much of this week waging a dishonest attack on Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and his campaign's Wall Street reform platform. The risky attempt to make inroads with progressives on one of her weakest issues is damaging the credibility of some of her top lieutenants.

    Clinton's attack on Sanders is as simple as it is untrue: Unlike Sanders, Clinton has argued, she is willing to take on "shadow banking" -- a broad term for various financial activities that aren't regulated as strictly as conventional lending.

    Sanders has in fact proposed attacking shadow banking in two principal ways: by breaking up big financial firms that engage in shadow banking, and by severing federal financial support for shadow banking activities by reinstating Glass-Steagall.
    These would be substantive changes. A lot of shadow banking takes place at firms with traditional banking charters, like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America. Some of it takes place at specialized hedge funds, or at major investment banks like Goldman Sachs. Breaking them up would not eliminate the risk shadow banking poses to the economy, but it would limit it. Risky shadow banking activities cannot bring down institutions that are too-big-to-fail if there are no too-big-to-fail institutions.

    Yet the Clinton campaign has repeatedly said Sanders is wholly ignoring shadow banking, accusing Sanders of taking a "hands-off" approach to it that would not apply to firms like Lehman Brothers and AIG. This barrage has come from Clinton's press aides, campaign CFO Gary Gensler, and Clinton surrogate Barney Frank.
    In a bizarre appearance on Chris Hayes' MSNBC show, Frank claimed that splitting up Morgan Stanley or Bank of America "is not going to do anything, literally not anything to restrain shadow banking." He even said that since Lehman Brothers was "very small" when it failed, Sanders' break-up-the-banks plan would be unworkably broad and apply to too many firms.

    It's hard to see these comments as anything but dishonest. Lehman Brothers was not "very small" when it failed. At $639 billion in assets, it was the single-biggest bankruptcy filing in American history. Only six U.S. banks are now larger than Lehman was, and the next-largest institutions are almost half Lehman's size. AIG -- then the world's largest insurer -- was even bigger.

    Breaking up major institutions and forcing banks that accept insured deposits out of the shadow banking system are not the only conceivable tactics for mitigating risks posed by shadow banking. Clinton's plan includes some vague but sensible proposals to take a harder look at the sector, require more transparency, and impose new leverage limits on some players. Her approach eschews a focus on the threat posed by large institutions in favor of monitoring risks across the financial system (she has repeatedly rejected calls to break up the biggest banks). The Clinton team could easily make a case for her approach without saying strange and false things about Sanders' plan.

    And indeed, the Clinton camp's relentless references to Lehman and AIG undercut her own regulatory approach. If bank size were truly irrelevant to the shadow banking problem, then there would be no need to consistently highlight two too-big-to-fail institutions, one of which wreaked havoc on the economy by failing, and another of which was bailed out to avoid further havoc.

    Jaret Seiberg, a regulatory specialist at Guggenheim Partners -- and one of the most astute finance-friendly observers of American politics -- issued a note to clients this week saying that key elements of Sanders' platform have bipartisan appeal and political viability that will put pressure on other candidates to present more aggressive anti-Wall Street messaging.

    "This is not just about breaking up the biggest banks," Seiberg wrote. "Sanders is calling for a system in which financial firms are smaller, the government controls the interest rates that banks charge, certain fees are capped, the Postal Service becomes a viable competitor to banks and payday lenders [and] CEOs would be criminally liable if employees defraud customers.

    "Sanders appears to argue that he could implement much of this agenda on his own even without the need for legislation," Seiberg continued. "We caution against dismissing this view. There is much that the White House, Treasury, or the financial regulators could do by executive order …. Bashing Wall Street is a populist message that appeals to conservatives and liberals. Sanders has now laid out the most radical option on the table that other candidates will be judged against."

    So it's easy to see why Clinton would want to steal some of Sanders' populist thunder. But focusing on Wall Street could easily backfire on Clinton. Aside from giving opponents more opportunities to highlight speaking fees she accepted from Goldman Sachs and other banks, it risks demoralizing progressive voters. Financial reform is a major issue with the Democratic Party base. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has become one of the most popular figures within the party, built on her almost single-minded focus on Wall Street accountability. Too-big-to-fail and Glass-Steagall are major causes among Warren's supporters, many of whom have flocked to Sanders, but would be perfectly happy to vote for Clinton over a Republican in November.

    Unless Clinton needlessly alienates them. Turning out an enthusiastic base has increasingly become essential for both parties over the past decade. With Clinton up more than 15 percentage points in Iowa polls and ahead by even wider margins nationally, it's hard to see the upside in her campaign's current assault on Sanders.

    Making things up in order to criticize Sanders proposals that Democrats actually like only damages Clinton's credibility with Democratic voters.

    Thursday, January 7, 2016

    Dr. Steven Greer - Nov. 21, 2015 - How the Secret Government Works: The ...

    TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Sanders Authenticity!

    TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Sanders Authenticity!: On guns, Sanders has an authenticity problem President Obama pushed guns to the top of the national agenda this week, announcing a se...

    The Bottom Line on Sanders Authenticity!

    On guns, Sanders has an authenticity problem



    President Obama pushed guns to the top of the national agenda this week, announcing a series of modest executive actions to be followed by a televised town hall Thursday. And that’s probably not the best news in the world for Bernie Sanders, who’s making a serious push in Iowa just four weeks before the caucuses, and who would rather be talking about almost anything else.
    The problem here for Sanders isn’t just that the renewed conversation on guns takes away from his monastic focus on economic fairness, which he renewed with a combative speech in Manhattan Tuesday. Nor is it simply that gun violence is the one issue where Sanders, who needs to consolidate the populist left of his party, has been decidedly less liberal than either of his rivals.
    The real issue is that, if you pay close attention, the logic Sanders deploys to defend his record on guns just happens to undermine the very core of his case for the presidency — and his case against Hillary Clinton, too.
     
    Let’s start by taking a longer look at the history of gun legislation and Sanders’ voting record on the issue, which has repeatedly been characterized as “mixed” by reporters who, generally speaking, know as much about gun laws and firearms as I do about the migration of barn swallows. (I think they go south.)
     
    There have been only a handful of truly pivotal congressional votes to broadly redefine gun rights in modern America. The first was in 1968, in the aftermath of the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy, when Congress voted to prohibit certain kinds of citizens — convicted felons, fugitives, “mental defectives” — from walking into a store and buying a gun.
    That stood as the defining law of the land until 1993, when Bill Clinton led a successful and divisive push to expand those restrictions through what came to be known as the Brady Law. That law instituted a mandatory waiting period (now a maximum of three days) for all guns bought through licensed gun stores, so that federal background checks could be completed. The following year, Congress added a ban on certain assault-style weapons, which the industry quickly circumvented.
    None of this, however, stopped the flow of illegal guns into American cities. So in the late ’90s, a coalition of cities, inspired by the successful litigation against the tobacco industry, started suing the gun industry and some of the less scrupulous dealers, charging that they were negligent in their business practices and asking to be recouped for the costs of gun violence.
     
    In 2006, after years of trying, the gun lobby finally succeeded in getting Congress to grant special legal immunity to gun makers and dealers, effectively shielding them from any liability having to do with basic negligence. This was an extraordinary intervention on behalf of an entire industry, unparalleled in the modern annals of Congress.
     
    So where was Sanders in all this? As a second-term congressman, he steadfastly opposed the Brady Law (although he did bring himself to vote for the largely symbolic assault-weapons ban). In 2006, when he was running for Senate, he voted with pro-gun, pro-corporate Republicans on the odious immunity bill.
    I guess you could call this a mixed record, in the same way that I could throw a shot of rum into a barrel of Coke and call it a mixed drink. But not all votes carry the same weight, and if you know what you’re talking about, it’s hard to see Sanders’ record as anything but grossly pro-industry.
    On the two most meaningful pieces of gun legislation in American history — one that is the foundation for federal gun restrictions, and the other a clear effort by lobbyists to use their muscle to subvert the legal process — Sanders came out on the side of industry. Whatever other votes he’s taken since becoming a senator (including one to extend Brady to private sellers at gun shows) have to be considered less consequential.
     
    Now, to be clear, my point isn’t to castigate Sanders for the votes he cast on a single issue over a 20-year span. My guess is that Sanders would do it differently now if he could, but on the list of things that make me think he might not be the next president who ends up on Mount Rushmore, the gun record sits pretty far down.
     
    But here’s the thing: When Sanders and his supporters defend his votes, they like to make the point that Sanders has represented Vermont, where an awful lot of pickup trucks sport NRA stickers, and where an awful lot of gun dealers make a decent living and don’t want to get sued out of business.
    “I come from a rural state, and the views on gun control in rural states are different than in urban states,” Sanders explained during the Democratic debate in Las Vegas in October. In an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” last year, he said: “The people of my state understand, I think, pretty clearly, that guns in Vermont are not the same thing as guns in Chicago or guns in Los Angeles. In our state, guns are used for hunting.”
     
    In other words, Sanders was representing the interests of his constituents. And you know what that makes Bernie Sanders?
     
    A politician, that’s what.
     
    And this is the problem the gun issue creates for Sanders. Because a politician is precisely what he purports not to be. His entire rationale as a candidate is that he alone chooses principle over polls, that he votes his convictions and can’t be corrupted by powerful interests or his own ambition.
     
    Conversely, his main indictment of Clinton — which he laid out again this week, as Obama wept publicly over the human wreckage of gun violence — holds that she is a puppet of Wall Street, unwilling to break up the banks or reinstitute 20th century regulations because she’s a creature of political calculation rather than conscience.
     
    It turns out, though, that Sanders understands political reality, too. He voted against the Brady Law because it wasn’t popular or especially relevant in Vermont, and you can bet he was already eyeing higher office back then. He voted for immunity at the very moment when he was also running for an open Senate seat, and that’s not a coincidence.
    All of which is fine. There’s nothing wrong with winning. We elect senators to represent our interests at home, not to go off chasing their own utopian ideals at our expense.
     
    But you can’t very well say that it’s all right for Sanders to look out for rural gun sellers in Vermont (over the welfare of poor kids in Chicago or Los Angeles), and yet somehow Clinton is the embodiment of venality because she took money and advice from Wall Street.
     
    Her job in the Senate, after all, was to represent New York, the banking capital of the world. Like it or not, the financiers were her constituents, too.
     
    The next Democratic debate will be held a week from Sunday in Charleston, S.C., a city shattered by a horrific mass shooting last year. And you can be sure that Sanders will reprise the argument he made this week — that Clinton is a subsidiary of the bankers and their narrow agenda.
    When he does, Clinton might point out that she’s no more a sellout to Wall Street than Sanders is to the gun lobby. Both candidates have shown themselves to be pragmatists when they need to be.
    Only one of them admits it.