If Bernie can answer these two questions, I'll probably support him.

[Chichiri]

1) How do you intend to whip the votes for your agenda without at least a 70-seat filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a wide margin in the House? Where will the votes come from given the existence of moderate, red-state Democrats who will never vote for single-payer, not to mention your other democratic-socialist agenda items, as evidenced by the fact that Blue Dogs nearly killed the Affordable Care Act due to the public option?

2) How do you intend to deal with the economic repercussions of breaking up the big banks while undermining the corporate healthcare sector? Have you considered the possibility that it'd precipitate another deep recession?


Taken from Bob Cesca at the Daily Banter: http://thedailybanter.com/2016/02/an-open-letter-to-bernie-sanders/:


EDIT: So the consensus answers seem to be, 1) HRC will face the same problem with Congress if she gets elected, which tells me nothing about what Bernie's plan is, and 2) We're going to have another recession anyway if HRC is elected and doesn't break up the banks, which tells me nothing about how Bernie plans to deal with the possibility of recession. If other people could weigh in here, that would be great...

[villager]

1. *Not* breaking up the big banks will precipitate another deep recession

And then who will be blamed for that, when it happens?

[NorthCarolina]

2. The taxpayers, home buyers, welfare recipients, the usual scape goats.

NEVER Wall St. though...that's a given.

[villager]

19. True enough -- it's always the poor, and never the rich, that crash the economy owned by the rich!

Differing realities aren't allowed...

[artislife]

20. ^^^Truth!

[SheenaR]

3. If I could be Bernie for a moment

Last edited Thu Mar 3, 2016, 02:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Re: Question 1

That could be asked of Clinton as well. So it sounds as though she would not get much done too.

But if Bernie is the nominee, there are hundreds of new and exciting Democrats running for the Senate and the House. Running with the same agenda. If the DNC does its job those people will win. Thus giving us a like-minded voice in Congress, making said policies more feasible and erasing the majorities in the Senate and House.

That would be my answer. Since he won't probably post his answer here I gave it a shot

[Jitter65]

5. Since that is not Hillary's position she would tell you that. And then proceed to tell you what and

how she would carry out her position.

[SheenaR]

6. Oh...

She apparently doesn't need the votes for her agenda? Because that's what I was referring to. So my point stands

[Chichiri]

8. So Bernie's agenda depends on...

Massive numbers of Democrats being elected into federal office this year? Including 14-24 Senators?

[SheenaR]

14. Any Democratic agenda would require a massive overhaul in Congress

We both know that to be true

[thesquanderer]

15. Who said anything about "this year"?

He may make only minimal progress with his first congress. But if he continues to speak out and continues to keep his base motivated, there is further opportunity to move the makeup of congress in 2018. And, if re-elected, more again in 2020, and 2022.

It may take time, but one thing is certain... if you don't start the journey, you never get to the destination.

[Chichiri]

21. Okay, but do you think 70 Senators by 2022 is realistic? nt

[thesquanderer]

28. You only need 60 to prevent a filibuster.

60 by 2022 is definitely plausible. We effectively had 60 as recently as 2009.

[w4rma]

9. Hillary will get lots done for the Republicans. Her planned Treasury Secretary wants to privatize SS

She'll work with the Republicans to further undermine democracy through the TPP. And she'll nominate a pro-corporate judge to the Supreme Court that will keep Citizen's United entrenched, using the Republican majority as an excuse for all of these things.

[Chichiri]

12. Who's her planned SecTreas, and when did she announce this? nt

[w4rma]

13. Scary: Larry Fink would Be Hillary's Treasury Secy: Advocates Privatizing Soc Security

Fink has also promoted the privatization of Social Security, while mocking the idea of retiring at 65, which is easy for a business executive who sits at a desk all day to say, rather than working on an assembly line or as a waiter.

Fink owes his initial backing at BlackRock to Pete Peterson, the former commerce secretary who has been at the forefront of the campaign to cut or privatize Social Security. He sat on the steering committee of the Campaign to Fix the Debt, a stalking horse for Peterson’s ideas.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511403976

[Chichiri]

24. That's speculation, not an announcement. nt

[w4rma]

33. I knew your opening post wasn't honestly looking for solutions.

[artislife]

22. I am crazy scared at what they WILL get through

She is right of center as is. Her going further right seems to be a possible scenario.

Bernie is firmly entrenched in FDR left politics.

I think h would increase the big bank power.

[kacekwl]

34. This is the whole point of the revolution.

We the people need to pressure the elected dumb asses who plan on obstructing progress. We need to stay involved and help new president Bernie get things done. Protests, e-mail, media of all type, voting is all elections in mass , etc.

[Gregorian]

4. Part of the answer comes from asking Hillary the same questions.

Every time I do that I come back to Sanders' solutions.

Don't break up the banks, and we have a bigger crash soon, thanks to the instability of capitalism.

Bernie has already demonstrated his ability to garner votes. He has passed at least one bill with 60 votes.

[GreatGazoo]

17. exactly. What is Hillary's answer to question #1 ?

I don't follow this meme that Hillary is going to get cooperation from the same Congress that tried 41 times to repeal ACA and wasted millions on 7 Benghazi hearings.

[Svafa]

31. Congressional republicans hate her at least as much

as they hate Obama and would obstruct her as much as anyone. This is an issue that ALL democrats, not just Sanders and his supporters, need to be concerned about.

[Gwhittey]

36. Ahh but

If she does stuff like cut SS and cuts taxes on wealthy she will get those past. She never said what policies she was actually going to ge done.

[marions ghost]

7. Ask Robert Reich

Reasonable questions. Others can answer them better than I.

Look ahead. Everything does not operate by the old paradigms.

[Chichiri]

10. Robert Reich has said nothing about these issues.

I suppose I can ask him directly - do you have his email address?

[Gregorian]

30. Found his email.

I'd love to hear his answers to your questions.

[e-mail]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. 1a) Filibusters are 60-seat, not 70. Why the sudden raising of the bar?

1b) The House only requires a simple majority. Again, why the raising of the bar?

1c) The same replies to Hillary (whom the House and Senate). Why does the bar suddenly not apply to Hillary (whom the House and Senate are investigation).

2) Big banks are an economic liability. This would not be the first time the nation has enforced anti-trust laws. It broke up the rail barons and still lead the world during the industrial revolution. AT&T was broken up and we still had the telecommunications revolution. Monopolies stifle innovation and competition which ultimately hurts consumers and workers.

[Chichiri]

26. Because of the Blue Dogs.

[thesquanderer]

29. You only need 50+ VP to pass legislation. You need 60 to stop a filibuster.

Even blue dogs who may not want to support some of the programs will likely still support their president in at least foiling a filibuster. It would be very unusual for anyone to cross party lines to support that kind of obstructionism toward your party's president.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. Well, thank goodness we have Hillary to go along with the conservatively minded!

All those Progressive values are only creating problems. I don't even know why we bother keeping them around.

[magical thyme]

16. 1. Hillary or Bernie -- either will be required to get filibuster-proof majorities.

I suspect Bernie will do far better at it than Hillary, who face it, has been hated on by the right wingers since before 92. I expect due to their blind hatred they will continue the obstructionism of the Obama era. However, I don't think Hillary has either the temperament or intellect to deal with it that Obama brought to the table.

Bernie, otoh, has a track record of working with Senators and House Reps to get progressive legislation and amendments passed.

Senator Richard Burr — Republican, North Carolina
“[Sanders is] one who’s willing to sit down and compromise and negotiate to get to a final product.”

Senator Roger Wicker — Republican, Mississippi
“I learned early on not to be automatically dismissive of a Bernie Sanders initiative or amendment… He’s tenacious and dogged and he has determination, and he’s not to be underestimated.”

Senator Sherrod Brown — Democrat, Ohio
“[Sanders] would call them ‘tripartite amendments’ because we’d have him and he’d get a Republican, he’d get a Democrat and he’d pass things. He’s good at building coalitions.”

Senator John Mccain — Republican, Arizona
“[While working on the Veterans Affairs legislation], I found him to be honorable and good as his word.”

Senator Chuck Schumer — Democrat, New York
“He knew when to hold and knew when to fold and, I think, maximized what we could get for veterans.”

Senator Jack Reed — Democratic, Rhode Island (again)
“Frankly, without him, I don’t think we would have gotten [the Veterans Affairs legislation] done…It was a great testament to his skill as a legislator.”
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/10/1482833/-8-Quotes-From-Congress-About-Bernie-Sanders

2. I'm not privy to any kinds of details, but I would think that the changes to health *insurance* would be incremental, starting by adding a public option would be one approach, another approach would be to start extending Medicare to younger age groups and phase Medicare for all in.

As far as breaking up the big banks, what were the financial repercussions of letting them merge? Aside from enabling them to lay off thousands to "redundancies," bilking pension funds and individuals, funneling the ill-gotten gains to the top, crashing the economy, taking "bail-out money" to pay themselves giant bonuses, etc?

[artislife]

25. Thank you for gathering these quotes from people he has worked with. nt

[magical thyme]

27. you're welcome, but I didn't gather them. the link is at the bottom!

[pdsimdars]

18. Clueless . . . . .

[amborin]

23. Hillary would also face #1. Given her voting record, she'd be

more likely to move right. Is that a wish?

Breaking up the big banks would not trigger a recession; that is actually a right wing talking point; same holds for tackling the corporate healthcare sector.

[Corey_Baker08]

32. I Got A Question: What's Your Strategy To Win The GE...

Without The African American Vote, Without The Minority Or Latino Vote, Against Trump Calling Him A Word That Scares The Hell Out Of Most People, A Socialist & His Support Of The NRA Will Turn Moderate And Liberal Democrats Off...

[Gwhittey]

39. Wait

So are African Americans and Latinos not allowed to vote in the GE? Not sure why you are assuming they would not vote for Sanders at least some of them. You do know that this is a primary right? Not the actually election for POTUS?

[matt819]

35. Sorry folks

At least with respect to your first question, Hillary will absolutely face the same problem regarding fillibuster-proof votes on some issues. Given the reality that Hillary is all about maintaining the status quo, I guess in most cases those votes don't really matter all that much.

And how's that status quo thing working out the you and the other 99%? I don't know about you, but my tax rate is higher than Mitt Romney's, and the thousands that I could pay a tax attorney to get that rate down will also wipe out whatever income I do have.

[djean111]

40. I have no problem believing that Hillary would have no problem whipping votes for the

Third Way PNAC wish list. Which is why I will not support her.

[thesquanderer]

41. Answering your edit

re: " 1) HRC will face the same problem with Congress" -- The difference is, he's trying to establish a movement and a base motivated to flip congress to do what he wants. Hillary is not... she's going to be stuck with what she's got. Which to my mind, gives Bernie a better chance of accomplishing his bigger goals than Hillary has of accomplishing her more modest ones. Even if he has to compromise an "only" get what Hillary says she wants (say, a $12 minimum wage instead of $15, or free 2-year college instead of 4-yr), he's got a better chance of getting even *that* than Hillary does. Heck, Obama has *already* been pushing for free community college, to no avail. So the answer isn't simply "Hillary face the same problem" (which is true), but that Bernie has a better chance of eventually overcoming that problem. At least he has a plan to try. She's got nothing.

re: how to deal with recession which may or may not come is a big open-ended question. You are arguing that his policies may cause recession. It sounds like you have not factored in the other parts of his program that are likely to cause economic growth, like a major investment in infrastructure, which is an economic stimulant. There was a thread here about an economist who said that assumptions of higher than current economic growth rates are a very reasonable takeaway from Sanders plans. I have seen no serious analyses saying it would lead to recession, only armchair quarterbacking like what you describe.

Now that all your questions have been answered, I'll be looking for a change in your icon.