For starters he ignores the deadweight loss that will be caused by his policies. Why would corporations (that are already fleeing the U.S) choose to stay here with his plans? If he combined closing loopholes with lower corporate tax rates then that would be an alright trade-off. Currently though the U.S has the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Does he honestly think the $100 billion estimate the U.S is losing from off-shore accounts would be in the hands of the U.S in the circumstance that these loophole's are closed? Sure there are many that are currently taking advantage of loopholes, but to claim that they will start paying the taxes is like claiming a pirate will start buying games if they could no longer pirate them. These corporations will just flee to the plethora of European and Asians states that are more friendly and which have lower corporate tax rates.

Bernie has mentioned he wants a payroll tax for single-payer health-care. Currently payroll taxes are some of the most regressive forms of taxation and are the most damaging to the poor, while subsidizing the costs of health-care for the upper classes. Sure medicaid/medicare taxes will be replaced with his new single-payer taxrate, but then for many people in many states that means larger payroll tax rates overall just to make it feasible (you are insuring hundreds of millions of more people than with medicaid/medicare.) This is one example of he promoting higher tax-rates for the poor without explicitly saying so, probably because that will be seen negatively. 

The same can be said for a $15 federal minimum wage. In many regions and states $15/hour full time places you in the 30-40 percentile of this state/region. Why? Because costs of living and business are much lower. A $15 minimum wage would put a large number of people making less than that unemployed in these states. Fifteen dollars might make sense in San Fransisco if you believe increasing the average wage supercedes any loss of jobs in terms of economic welfare, but it doesn't make sense in Mississippi or West Virginia, where people make less but also need less to live off of. Minimum wages also harm small businesses more than larger ones, because of economies of scale and small businesses coping less with increasing variable costs. 

All of these policies have negative effects on the 97% he is trying to represent. 

The argument that ending the federal reserve will come naturally from auditing them requires the assumption that what we will see from these audits is sufficient reason to enact legislative action that will end it. I don't think there is any realistic belief that the FED could be burdened enough by the audits that it can't keep up with its role in fiscal policy. Nevertheless, an audit of the Fed during financial crisis only is worthless, because that gives the Fed plenty of time to cover its tracks before any crisis comes to be. Bernie knew this in the beginning and that is why he wished for a full audit. Then his policy changed. 

I'm just glad Bush is pretty much out of the running now. I could not stomach a Clinton vs Bush election matchup next year (talk about two sides of the same coin), and it would be the first time since I've been eligible to vote that I'd sit out a presidential election.

If Trump somehow wins the Republican nomination, I'd be inclined to hold my nose and vote for him simply because he'd be the one to shake things up the most. Bernie says some things I agree with but his goal to bring even what some on the left would consider just a "mild" form of socialism to the US would fail spectacularly, and he'd be a very ineffective POTUS for the most part because once he fails to use his political capital to push his agenda, he'd quickly become a lame duck president.

Remember... it took Obama over a year of campaigning and promotion to get his health care reform bill, the so-called "Affordable Care Act", to be passed and it had to be done in the dead of night at the 11th hour with ZERO support from the other side.  If Obama, Mr. Hope And Change himself could barely push that bill through, there's no way in hell Sanders could do even 1/10th of what he wants to do.

This statement is simply incorrect and reveals that you do not understand the history of how central banking has been conducted. It is very easy to demonize the actions of a central bank on any given action because the majority of the populace does not understand monetary macroeconomic theory. The very reason we have a public -private hybrid institution is so that we can have a central bank that acts in the interest of the people without being burdened by the scrutiny of laymen whose opinions can be swayed by emotional rhetoric over subjects they do not understand (i.e. politicalization). The average person really does not understand how the economy works. For example, surveys show that consumers typically overstate inflation by 1-2% whereas surveys of professional forecasters usually lineup with public information regarding the rate of inflation. Expertise in this area matters and we want a central bank that is both independent from the public yet beholden to their interests. If you don't like the governing philosophy of those in charge at any given time (like say, Bernanke) then you should put fault on the public actors who empowered them (Bush first, Obama later) and not on the institution they lead. People like Ben Bernanke are largely academics who are simply doing what they believe is best for the economy. Economists come in all stripes, just like Judges, and there is great value in maintaining a separation of powers (independent central banks hold down inflation better, for example).  With that said, I think it's obvious that Sanders wanted to look into the actions surrounding a particular policy undertaken during the crisis. You still haven't really proven that to be hypocritical, in the video you posted he affirms he is not opposed to an independent central bank, he rather wanted to look into how the policies in this one instance were handled. Also the comment about the Fed "covering it's tracks" is ridiculous. An audit is an audit, they would have to comply by law. The Fed is not a gang of criminals.

@ Bolded Then your assumption is wrong. I have taken intermediate level macroeconomics, econometrics, and a financial crisis course as part of my economics minor at a top university. I know very well the arguments for central banks. That doesn't mean they do no wrong, however. Most people who oppose the federal reserve don't oppose central banks anyway.

Macroeconomics is not a unified, consensus driven field like microeconomics. Many economists have macroeconomic beliefs that central banks do just as much harm as they do good, and that there are alternatives to enabling elasticity in the financial market (the main reason for central banks.) I personally don't support replacing the federal reserve with a public central bank. However, I don't think the federal reserve handles anything better than other - even public - central banks in the world. They all practically are doing the same thing.

 My personal beliefs are in competive currencies and replacing fiat currency/fractional reserve banking with market driven solutions. 

@ Underlined  When the audit is forewarned it is much easier to manipulate things so that the audit is in your favor. I think you have too much trust in the people in the federal reserve. They are no more virtuous when it comes to corruption than government officials, and they have a special privelege afforded to them by government officials no less. 

I think you misunderstand what an audit of the Federal reserve would entail. What exactly do you mean by "manipulate things"? You can already go online and see every asset on the Fed’s balance sheet, including its serial tracking number. An audit would require the GAO to factor political questions in determining the validity of every single market transaction the Fed engages in.  You say you don't support a public bank but the audit would politicize the institution to death (it would either have to disappear or become a public entity). Can you imagine Volcker taming the 70s inflation with the GAO breathing down his neck over unemployment? He could never have made the decision to increase interest rates to the heights he did which we known now as very much the right thing to do. I think you are too paranoid and are demonizing a group of people because you've probably never met them in real life and that makes it quite easy to imagine them to have the darkest intentions. I have debated with Federal Reserve economists and have serious disagreements with them but I don't imagine them to be doing anything other than what they honestly believe is the best policy. Also to add to your comment on trust, I don't trust the Federal Reserve, they are audited every year. The bill you are debating about is an audit not of the institution but of monetary policy actions. It is currently already audited by the GAO, the Office of the Inspector General, and an independent outside auditor every year. I'm not asking you to blindly trust people without any sort of oversight, really the Fed is already perhaps the most watched over area of government. 

Edit: also to stay on topic- I did not catch the debate last night but many outlets seem to indicate Hilary "won" and largely thanks to her strength in foreign policy matters. I've long considers this area Sanders' biggest weakness and in the aftermath of major terrorist attacks its likely this weakness was amplified by the debate. Hopefully he can turn it around but he has to strengthen his Foreign Policy credentials.

All of the candidates are dishonest and don't actually want to further improve the US economy. They want power and control for themselves to further their own agenda.

The entire system is a joke.

I think I'm with most of the rest of the world's population when I say please vote Bernie.

the best that could happend to the world is donald as president
or was the other way...

Pick your poison!