Bernie Sanders: Senators Told Me If Obama Sends A ‘Piece Of Crap’ Debt Deal To Us-We’ll Defeat It

[kpete]

Source: Think Progress

Bernie Sanders: Senators Have Told Me If Obama Sends A ‘Piece Of Crap’ Debt Deal To Us, We’ll Defeat It
By Zaid Jilani on Jul 8, 2011 at 12:50 pm

............

ThinkProgress asked Sanders if he thinks including regressive cuts to these programs in a debt ceiling deal would hurt Obama politically and what tactics he would be willing to use to stop such a deal. He said that including such cuts would “obviously” hurt President Obama in the next election and that he would do “everything” that he can to defeat such a package.

At another point in the call, a Washington Post reporter asked Sanders if he’s convinced that a debt deal that includes Social Security would be unable to pass the Senate. Sanders responded by saying that senators have told him that they are not willing to vote for a “piece of crap” deal and that the White House is in for a “serious surprise” if it expects the Senate to approve any package it hands down:


REPORTER: In your view, if this debt limit deal includes any changes in Social Security, are you convinced that that will not be able to pass the Senate?

SANDERS: Again, it’s hard for us to talk about 99 other people. But I think there really is a disconnect, and I think Sheldon made this point when he was speaking, between what the White House is doing and rest of the Senate. What I can say is that I have heard, including from people that you might not expect to hear it from, that if they bring from the Senate a piece of crap which really comes down heavy on working families, and the elderly, and the sick, and the children, and they expect me to matter of factly vote for it, they have another thing coming. So I think the White House is for a serious surpise if they think everybody in the Democratic caucus is going to willy nilly follow the President and vote for anything he brings forth.

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/08/263936/sanders-piece-crap-defeat/

---

audio:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/08/263936/sanders-piece-crap-defeat/

[shireen]

1. Bernie rocks!

I love that guy! He inspired me to label myself as a democratic socialist. I'm totally with him on so many policies.

:yourock:

[DesertFlower]

41. me too. nt

[CarmanK]

44. I too, love this man. He makes me proud to be american!!

He is the kind of Senator who makes me have hope in the future of this country. there are so few people of honor now serving in congress and the state legislatures, it is discouraging. But, Senator Sanders speaks the truth, I trust him and when he calls a spade a spade, it is what it is.

[mittysmom09]

69. Run Bernie

Wow I can hear the outrage now from the rightwing, that an admitted socialist has the interests of this country in higher esteem than they do. YOU GO BERNIE!

[davidwparker]

93. Yes, run Bernie. Run, ANYBODY with a (D). Chances are

ANYBODY with a (D) is to the left of O.

[roguevalley]

86. there are generations of good people behind him and they

raised him right. he's what dems used to be. I remember that. I am that old. We need to send him flowers soon, millions of them.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

55. Me 3

Imagine what this Country would look like if we had more Bernie Sanders on the Hill fighting on behalf of Americans rather than for Corporate Interest and their own re-election efforts.

[Harry Callahan]

2. If Obama and the Repups cut a deal, what Sanders says will be irrelevant.

[sudopod]

3. Shush, you. This is all internet scaremongering.

Senator Sanders is clearly spending too much time in GD. He really should have more faith.

[stockholmer]

6. that is all the more reason to jettison the feckless Obama, democratic socialism is truly needed

With either sham party that is currently in power, you only get one thing, slow, death-ridden, creeping, oligarchic, systemic corporate fascism.

Smash the banksters, smash the war machine, smash the empire............... all else will follow and then bloom again.

[CarmanK]

46. Mikulski and Cardin are my Senators and they are good people!

they have not sold out to the lobbyists. They are good reps and they don't always vote the way I like, I don't doubt that they have all the right motives for why and how they are voting.

[stockholmer]

100. both Cardin & Mikulski voted for the TARP bailouts & Patriot Act &/or its extensions,their support

of these and the consequent further outcomes emanating out are chief drivers of tyranny in the USA.

Regardless if you get superb, healthy meals 95% of the time from a chef, if 5% of his dinners are poison, then the chef is a poisoner.

[EFerrari]

11. That's probably right.

But at least Bernie bothers to speak up for us. WTF is John Kerry, where is Boxer, where is Leahy.

[AllTooEasy]

15. I don't think so.

I think there are enough Dem Senators to atleast filibuster it.

[chill_wind]

34. Maybe.

But not forgotten.

[dsc]

65. No it won't

remember the filibuster, we can use it too.

[Liberalynn]

4. [b]"that if they bring from the Senate a piece of crap"[/b]

Crap is the exact proper terminology for any such deal.

Go Bernie!

[Dont call me Shirley]

5. Thank you Bernie Sanders.

[JTFrog]

7. I still can't believe folks don't know the difference between legislative and executive.

If I recall correctly it would be the Republican controlled House that will send a "piece of crap" to the Senate.

The only way it would get to Obama is if the Senate passed it.

:wtf:

[w4rma]

8. Who are you referring to? (nt)

[No Elephants]

48. Seems to think Bernie Sanders is confused about how things work in Washington D.C.

LOL

[Lucinda]

10. I think Bernie is talking about whatever deal Obama brokers. n/t

[spooked911]

85. yes-- he didn't say legislation, he said deal

[Liberalynn]

13. Um I do know the difference between the legislative and executive branches.

The point Sanders is trying to make, IMHO, is that Obama is excluding the legislative Democrats from participating in the deal making sessions, and just expecting the Dems to rubber stamp whatever he and the Republicans come up with. The President is the one negotiating it with Boner(spelling deliberate) not the Senate or the House Dems.

It will very much have his stamp of ownership on it, in actuality, even though "technically" it will be the "House" sending it to the "Senate."

Perhaps with all due respect it is the President who should be reminded about the balance of power. By not allowing all duly elected representatives at the bargaining table he is effectively disenfranchising not only those representatives but the citizens who voted for them as well.

All we can hope is that the Senate actually holds their ground for once and buries this CRAP like a cat does its excrement.

[SugarShack]

38. If Obama is running this, he is out of order.Executive is not allowed to meddle in work of congress

Read here: FROM THE SENATE FLOOR IN 1903

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F60B14F93B5412738DDDAB0A94D9405B838CF1D3

Then there is this oped today in the NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/opinion/08tribe.html?ref=opinion

[No Elephants]

47. In fairness, Presidents send bills to Congress all the time.

My guess is that most or all have gotten key Reps and Senators involved along the way, as LBJ surely did, while Obama looks to himself and his staff. That was one of the reasons a Democratic Congress reacted so badly to Hillarycare--no one had been consulted. They just got presented with the finished product.

[JDPriestly]

76. Sending bills to Congress is quite different from negotiating

privately with one clique within Congress. What Obama is doing is political suicide. He is offending a large percentage of his Party, not just the base, but the liberals in Congress. I don't think he is trying to get a second term.

[davidwparker]

94. then O needs to pull out of 2012 and let us nominate

someone who has a chance. Or, the party had better step up and find a primary challenger. O couldn't win the primary, so how is expected to win the generals having compromised his audacity away.

[democrat2thecore]

21. Have you missed the news?

Obama is now dealing with Boehner and the Republicans on a so-called, "Grand Bargain."

[me b zola]

40. They should call it the "gilded bargain" n/t

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JDPriestly]

74. JTFrog, Obama took upon himself the task of "negotiating"

with the Republicans in the House, a task for which he is ill-suited.

Hopefully, he (and the Republicans in the House) will get his come-uppance if he sends a bad deal to the Senate. It is utterly foolish of Obama not to have included the House Democratic leadership in the negotiations from day one.

Of course, maybe he isn't stupid. Maybe he really feels more at ease with the Republicans than with the progressives who remained in the House after voters chose to ship the half-Democrats out.

[The Big Vetolski]

77. Technically, you are correct. But the "piece of crap" from the House

may well be a piece of crap agreed to by Obama, who will lobby for it in the Senate. That very strong possibility is what Sanders is talking about.

[stuckinarut]

9. Bernie knows that people...

will not stand for ANY cuts to their already beliguered social safety nets. If Mr. Obama makes cuts to these programs, especially the SS structure, all bets are off. Im not talking about him losing an election, Im talking people taking to the streets. Once you start taking from those who have nothing, to give to the minority who OWN it all, you will have problems.

Thank you Bernie. Vermont is lucky to have you.

[larwdem]

27. agree

taking to the streets I'm with you! :nuke:

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[rucognizant]

31. Absolutely!

That is the cue to march! Look up the Bonus Army!
Some of us may get hurt...but then with the alternatives, starvation or dying of untreated illness, you have to choose your battles.

[Fool Count]

12. Can someone explain to me, why the hell it even needs

to be a "deal"? What, Obama wants to save the country and Republicans don't care, so they need some "deal" to not let
it go down the crapper? Why can't increasing the debt level be a stand-alone legislation brought to up-or-down vote
in the both houses? Why didn't Obama frame it this way from the get-go? What does he have to gain from any "deal"?
Screw the "deals" just introduce a simple bill and let everyone live with consequences of their votes.

[sendero]

14. I can answer that..

... by capitulating to the Republicans over and over Obama is now seen by them as weak. Normally, these bills are routine, and the raising of the ceiling has been done many times with no "quid pro quo" component.

The Republicans are merely taking advantage of a situation where they are pretty sure they can get something for nothing, because not even the Republicans are stupid enough to let Aug 2 come and go without this debt ceiling issue being addressed.

[dflprincess]

24. Thinking that Obama is capitulating is giving him too much credit

He is willfully complicit with the Republicans in destroying the working and middle classes. He is doing the job he was hired to do knowing that he will be well rewarded. Look how well Clinton has done since he left office.

[sendero]

58. I'm giving him..

... the benefit of the doubt on that, you might well be correct. Either way the net effect is exactly the same.

[JDPriestly]

78. +100 dflprincess

[davidwparker]

95. +1

[harun]

16. That is of course what they should do, but you see these faux emergencies created

by the GOP and Obama aligning.

He needs to call their bluff and make them raise the debt ceiling. If they force a default, oh well.

[cstanleytech]

22. Why does he have to cut a deal? Because the dems dont have the votes to get

much if anything passed if the republicans oppose it.
As for Sanders, I support him if its a bad deal but the whitehouse has not released what exactly they want to cut and why so its a bit early to be breaking out the pitchforks and torches.

[Marnie]

17. SS and Medicare are not Entitlements.

They are savings accounts that people pay into for 45 years or more. They are a trust they are not and Entitlement.

When Obama uses the Republican's talking point calling SS and Medicare entitlements he is telling us he is a Republican.

It's just that plain and simple.

[KoKo]

26. They are entitlements to all of us who paid into them as workers for Insurance and the

Government was entrusted with investing the money for us...so we would have it for our old age.

[No Elephants]

49. +1 Sing it!

[The Wizard]

54. Falling into the Republican frame

is the first step to capitulation. Defense contractors get entitlements in exchange for "campaign contributions."
Veterans benefits, Social Security and Medicare are earned benefits.

[JDPriestly]

79. You got it. That's what Hatch meant when he said the poor

should start making sacrifices. We don't pay the Congressmembers any kick-back from our Social Security. That's a valuable insight.

We don't throw parties for them. Only the rich can do that.

Maybe we need to throw some parties for these guys -- some parties in the streets.

[olegramps]

68. Yeah, that really pisses me off about him.

Social Security has not added on dime to the national debt. In fact, it has been used to finance the hole that the rotten politicians have dug us into. I have grow to despise nearly every damn pol in Washington with only a few exceptions and Obama isn't one of the exceptions. Admit it the working folks are totally screwed and they can only thank themselves when they bought the managements propaganda that unions were their enemy and they would be well taken care of by management. The yokels were well taken care; their jobs out-sourced, their pensions cut and health insurance canceled. The next generation will be lucky if they can afford a pot to piss in, let alone a window to throw it out of.

[lbrtbell]

18. If ONLY he would run for President!

Imagine how great this country would be, with him in the WH....

[No Elephants]

50. I don't know if our country would vote for someone from the Northeast,

let alone someone who looks and sounds like Bernie. We're that shallow and superficial.

Abe Lincoln had a rough time. Got a famous NY photographer to take more flattering photos of him. I know the photographer pulled up Lincoln's collar to hide his too long neck and too prominent Adam's apples because Lincoln commented on it in one of his letters or speeches.

[Bluenorthwest]

59. That's what they said about Senator Obama. Exactly.

Except for one confusing part. What do you mean by 'someone who looks and sounds like Bernie'? It is not 'we' but you making that claim, that superficial claim, lacking in specifics. What people 'look and sound like Bernie' which you would not vote for, while most of this thread would vote for? Please share the actual specifics of your theory, if you can without sounding like Gobbles.

[MissDeeds]

56. +1000

I keep hoping.

:P

[OwnedByFerrets]

19. The Senator with a backbone...Thank you Senator Sanders

[democrat2thecore]

20. Gotta love Bernie! (inside: something related about Tom Coburn)

I had already heard Coburn say that he couldn't vote for any deep cuts in Medicare without removing the wealthy from Medicare altogether. This is an interview fro RCP today:

CROWLEY: OK. And let me ask you, because now, as we understand it, the president also wants to put Social Security reform and Medicare reform, something you've been involved in, on the table.

If you were to ask Medicare recipients, for instance, to pay more for their co-pays, is that a tax hike to you?

COBURN: No, it's not. When the law was passed, they were supposed to be paying 50 percent of Part B, and we --

CROWLEY: Prescription drug plan, Part D.

COBURN: No, Part B. Part B, not Part D. Part B, which is your outpatient. You know, they're paying one quarter of it. And so having some implementation, especially like Senator Lieberman and I have sponsored, is bringing them to 35 percent - but for the wealthy in this country, making them pay 100 percent. In other words, mean-testing Medicare, but still protecting those that are on the low end.

I'm wondering if he's counting on Coburn as one we'd be surprised at voting with us. Coburn has made it clear he can't go along with any deductible increases unless the wealthy's medicare money gets diverted to those who really need it. I'm just guessing and also basing that on this interview from today above. He is right that the 50% has (rightfully) been blocked. A compromise at 35% with an elimination of Medicare eligibility for the wealthy might be the worst they could get IF Coburn sticks to his guns about the wealthy.

Man, I have always loved Bernie, but never more so than the last two years.

[No Elephants]

51. Means testing is unfair. People paid into this. It's insurance, not welfare.

Besides, once that door is opened, look out.


And means testing requires a whole new layer of bureaucracy to make sure people meet eligibility requirements. That costs money, too.

[olegramps]

70. I totally agree with you. What should be done is raise the limit.

It is totally unfair that an average worker pays in a considerably higher percentage of their wages than the wealthy yet both receive the same benefit. The wealthy have been gaming the system with the help of their bought and paid for representatives for years. This includes income taxes, loop holes you could throw a elephant through and ridiculous inheritance taxes. The Founding Fathers realized that without inheritance taxes that the aristocracy that they had overthrown would soon be replaced by an aristocracy of the wealthy; an oligarchy even more dangerous than one they overthrew. What is especially sicking to me is that so many of those pompous assholes who have inherited wealth think that their unearned wealth has provided them with superior intelligence and look down on the working class with contempt. I can only dream of the day that the workers rise up and seize the wealth that is being stolen for them by unscrupulous CEOs and upper management.

[JDPriestly]

80. It is unfair to means-test Medicare.

Some guy can give all his money to his kids and pass the means test at the age of 80.

Another guy is not so smart or can't trust his kids and appears to be wealthy at 80.

And what about seniors who paid off their mortgages by scrimping and saving?

Why not simply reimpose the inheritance taxes on inheritances over a certain amount and use that money to fund Medicare?

That would be a fairer way to means-test.

If you means-test the benefits for the elderly, you provide a disincentive for retirement saving. That is counterproductive.

[PoliticAverse]

23. What if the deal is sent at the last minute? And the choice framed "pass or default"? n/t

[woo me with science]

25. That may very well be the plan. nt

[TrollBuster9090]

28. Once in awhile these a**hole Senate rules work for the good.

If two doucheback Democratic Senators (Baucus and Nelson) can turn a good health care bill into a piece of crap, surely two NOBLE Democratic/independent Senators (Sanders and Leahy) can STOP a good program like Medicare from being turned into a piece of crap, too.

[Divine Discontent]

29. what MORE does anyone need to understand PO is discussing cuts, write whitehouse.gov/contact now!

[Kashka-Kat]

30. what more do we need to hear - got to get on the phone or go to DC - raise holy hell with our

reps& senators - now is the time to defend it....

[russspeakeasy]

32. Thanks Bernie...keep carrying the water.

[LongTomH]

33. God Bless You, Bernie Sanders!

:loveya:

[defendandprotect]

35. kr

[LetTimmySmoke]

36. Someone's gotta step up against the craziness coming out of the GOP right now.

If the boy king's not up the challenge, then the Senate is going to have to take charge.

[Fearless]

37. You tell them!

[lonestarnot]

39. At least somebody is watching the hen house.

[0rganism]

43. IOW, Sen. Sanders and a handful of others will attempt a filibuster, which will fail

It's pretty easy to predict how this one unfolds:

1) the House farts around until they eventually pass a "debt reduction package" that includes a debt ceiling increase and cuts the shit out of every social program that isn't Medicare or SSI, which are dealt with by fucking with CPI and COLA. This might just pass without a single Democratic vote, but it really doesn't matter.

2) The Senate receives this stinking turd on August 1. They have 1 day to figure out what to do with it before all hell breaks loose.

3) Reid realizes this is the best he's going to get from Boehner's Bandits, while the Prez and every banking corp that's ever given him a dollar have been putting the pressure on him to get it passed pronto. He puts it on the floor post-haste, no modifications.

4) Sen. Sanders and almost all the Democratic caucus initially lined up to oppose the bill. However, under pressure from the majority leader, opposition begins to evaporate. Lieberman, Nelson, and Baucus lead the defections.

5) Once it's apparent that the eponymous "Piece Of Crap" has majority support, Sanders instead attempts to filibuster. Defections are gradual, but deals are cut and phone calls are made. Cloture vote and passage occurs late Monday night.

6) Tuesday morning, the bill is rushed to the President for a quick signing ceremony in which Reid, Boehner, and their favorite henchmen look on like stern grandparents. Obama lauds the legislative branch for its careful deliberation, that the bill is in fact the result of months of tough debate and sensible compromises rather than a series of arm-twisting back-room deals, and assures the public that the national trust is once again secured.

7) TV Pundits generally agree that this was the best possible solution for the USA to address its Very Important Debt Crisis without raising taxes on the Very Important Wealthy who will no doubt create lots of jobs for our gradually-recovering economy. The few remaining newspapers editorialize on how the new austerity measures will greatly encourage personal responsibility.

8) ...

9) Profit!

[Bluenorthwest]

60. And how long have you been in Congress?

Longer than Bernie? Uh-huh. I love all of you posters who claim Senator Sanders just does not understand his own job. Real pieces of work y'are. Anything for the Party Line.
A piece of crap passed means not one Democrat who voted for it gets elected again. Not one of them. They know that. If either of my two Senators voted for it, they would have to hide out of state and ever return. If my Rep voted for it, he too would not be welcome to even live here, much less 'represent us'. Have you heard the term 'run out of town on a rail'?

[still_one]

62. If they don't have a bill by next week let alone on August 1, it won't make it in time /nt

[JDPriestly]

82. And when the Social Security checks stop coming or the

COLAs don't kick in when we get inflation, the Republicans won't be returning to Congress.

We have to pull out of our overseas bases. Time to pull out.

[still_one]

98. If Obama has the guts he could exercise the 14th ammendment

[JDPriestly]

81. Your number 9 is wrong.

The results would be an even shorter life expectancy for Americans and a drastic lowering of the American standard of living.

Elderly people would freeze in their homes in a cold winter. Many live from Social Security check to Social Security check. We would have elderly people living on the streets or crowding in with their children.

The Republicans have to buckle under, raise the debt ceiling or simply permit a default on the wealthy bond buyers.

[0rganism]

102. yeah, i just kinda tacked the last two on

Clearly, the results will be somewhere between unkind and brutal for 95% of the population. For the top 1%, though...

[unionworks]

103. you nailed it

...right on it's pointed little head.

[pam4water]

45. Go Bernie!

[No Elephants]

52. One of the last classic Democrats in Washington--and he's not even a Democrat.

I hope to heaven he stays out of small planes.

When Bernie was Mayor of Vermont, both Parties did everything they could to defeat him. Finally, they joined hands and both backed the same candidate running against him. Bernie won anyway.

[The Wizard]

53. Obama can get away with selling out party principles

but he can't fuck with the money.

[Hubert Flottz]

57. Bernie Sanders is a patriot.

[SHRED]

61. Why don't I have any faith?

I love Bernie but the 'piece of crap' healthcare bill was passed, which he voted for.


----

[swilton]

63. Totally Agree

Why is it that the actions seem to fall so short of the rhetoric? How did we get to this point anyway....Shouldn't there have been a line drawn in the sand before we got to Social Security and Medicare?

[SHRED]

64. Democrats do draw lines in the sand

Then the Republican wind machine blows the lines away and the Dems run off and wet themselves.

[swilton]

89. PRECISELY!

[iamthebandfanman]

66. gave a donation to bernie last night. n/t

[woo me with science]

67. What a fucking outrage that senators expect this

from this President.

[Fire1]

71. Well, this certainly says it all. Anybody who can't see the

method to this madness is mentally challenged. One can hardly blame President Obama for what sounds like extortion! WHATEVER he does in this situation, he is screwed. I really feel for him. Wow.

[swilton]

91. Feel for him?

What about the seniors he is screwing over? What about the unemployed? What about our children and grandchildren?

Obama made his own bed and I have no/ r. no sympathy for the man. He is either a sociopath or a moron and based upon his academic credentials I suggest it is not the latter.

[Fire1]

92. You certainly sound like a troll of the worst kind. n/t

[swilton]

101. It's much easier to blame the messenger

than to look at the message content.

[placton]

72. sadly tho

they WILL get a piece o' crap, and they WILL vote for it

[JDPriestly]

73. I just hope Sanders is right.

You don't let your wealthy, but utterly crazy uncle run your business into the ground. That's what the Tea-Baggers are.

They believe in a literal interpretation of supply-side economics and the Bible in that order. They can't prove that either of their beliefs is infallible, but they have "faith" in them as if they could.

They are a hopelessly superstitious bunch. We cannot let them run our country any longer.

[Lord_Proprietor]

104. One group of the Tea is saying that:

"A significant faction of the tea party movement is prepared to revolt against any GOP deal to raise the debt ceiling – even if it is “revenue neutral” and cuts trillions from federal spending, grass-roots sources tell Newsmax.

For the most part, tea party leaders have coalesced around the “cut, cap, and balance” approach to raising the debt ceiling: Trillions in real spending cuts, a cap on how much federal spending can consume as a percent of GDP, and, ultimately, a balanced budget amendment that would prevent the federal government from running up future deficits."

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/TeaParty-DebtLimit-JohnBoehner-RepublicanParty/2011/07/09/id/403013

What would that do to the economy?

[JDPriestly]

106. It ignores the real problem which is the unbalanced distribution of wealth.

Demand is too low for the amount of investment money out there.

If the government cuts back, demand will decrease even more, and if they cut Social Security, not only will demand decrease, but investment funds will be reduced because seniors will start spending down their savings.

Now, if we stop the wars and withdraw our troops, the effect on our economy will be significantly less although we will have to refocus our defense industries and workers.

So regardless of the way you feel about war, you might want to support switching the defense industry work to developing alternative energy. Because that would mean that our defense money is spent at home.

Our defense contracts are a way the government keeps ostensibly private employment but actually government employment from ending.

So much of the differentiation between the private sector and the public sector is false. I think it makes more sense to focus on the distribution of wealth.
It is that distribution that determines whether our economy is healthy or not. Private enterprise is ideal, but so much of what we call "private" enterprises depend on government contracts for survival.

[Lord_Proprietor]

107. On these I agree...

with you mostly, you said:

"Now, if we stop the wars and withdraw our troops, the effect on our economy will be significantly less although we will have to refocus our defense industries and workers.

So regardless of the way you feel about war, you might want to support switching the defense industry work to developing alternative energy. Because that would mean that our defense money is spent at home.

Our defense contracts are a way the government keeps ostensibly private employment but actually government employment from ending."

As for me - I'm for withdrawing our troops in most all areas where we have them posted around the world but I'm sure there are a few (10-25) of the hundreds we now have out there which our top military and intel minds would designate as "internationally strategic" for our security. I remain a advocate of a very strong and well supplied/trained military. I keep remembering that Japan is about the same in size as California (Japan: 377,873 km2 - California: 423,970 km2) but they chose, under radical leadership, to attack a huge nation, our USA. And Germany, the size of NC and part of SC, was taking over most of Europe. We must be prepared to crush the despots of the world in any case.

I long for the leadership in a President to slash the unnecessary military spending so many powerful individuals in Congress protect to benefit their states. The US Military is for our national security.

Bringing thousands of troops home would benefit our economy in massive $aving$ and offer many jobs for our unemployed citizens in those posting areas. I think defense money could be saved and switched to debt reduction. We could also allow, by free enterprise, the exploration, drilling, mining, building and enlarging refineries, etc.. What stopped the pipeline project from Canada into the US? I have always been a conservationist, not a radical, but, we need to get much of the trivia removed and allow our own natural resources to help remove our dependency on foreign resources and that would bring down the price our people, working and otherwise, are having to pay for energy. So many hard working citizens in my area need to drive 100 miles (+/_) each working day as do the many in FOC, rural areas, of our nation.

I'm not too big on alternative energy except for solar in certain areas with mostly sunny climates. We have learned so much about how to burn coal using clean combustion and then there is our massive amount of clean burning natural gas available. We need to do so much more R/D (which I'm all for doing) on green energy production because many are, as yet IMO, so frivolous it is very unsafe to even think of depending on any of them to furnish much energy. For example:

"Wind farms are an expensive and inefficient way of generating sustainable energy, according to a study from Germany, the world's leading producer of wind energy." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/feb/26/sciencenews.renewableenergy

and: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1536418/Wind-farms-are-failing-to-generate-the-predicted-amount-of-electricity.html

[JDPriestly]

109. Yes. A few of our bases really are necessary.

I'm not suggesting we abandon all of our defenses.

I favor more alternative energy than you appear to. We need to gradually switch and to do that we have to put a lot more money into study and development of better alternatives.

I do not have the impression that clean coal is going to be the answer. I do not know that coal can really be clean. I say that because I grew up in houses with coal-burning furnaces. We kids were sick very often in the winters. It was horrible.

We should be using oil for purposes other than heat and transportation. We cannot afford to waste it as we are.

[crim son]

75. Why is Sanders even talking about a crap deal?

Several knowledgeable DUers have assured us that the idea that Obama would screw us is just evil rumor. :sarcasm:

[woo me with science]

108. It's all a MIRAGE...

perpetrated by people who are mean to the President.

And that wasn't really Bernie Sanders.

It was a hologram.

[smiley33]

83. With election reform

We'd have another 99 Bernies in the Senate. Well, besides the Bible Belt and Alaska.

[NewJeffCT]

84. Bernie can get 40 other senators to filibuster with him?

somehow, I doubt it. I hope he's right, but if Obama works out a deal, I know it will be difficult for Democrats to say "no" to him.

[Hawkowl]

88. Only need one Senator

The way the Senate works right now, all you need is one Senator to put a "hold" on a bill for no reason, and it will NEVER come up for a vote.

[NewJeffCT]

90. the hold is the threat of a filibuster

if there are not 41 senators to back up the hold, it won't happen.

[Hawkowl]

96. I don't think that is true

I agree about the implied threat of a filibuster, but I do believe that it no longer has to be a credible threat. I know it sounds crazy.

[Remember Me]

87. Bernie, those Senators talk big, but how many times

have they caved in the past?

I'd like to see them stand up and fight for once myself. Just don't think I can trust them ahead of time tho.

[harun]

110. They fight, just not for what they are supposed to fight for.

[burning rain]

97. I think the loyalist claim that Congressional Derms must support the WH, is mistaken.

A lot of administration loyalists assert that congressional and grassroots Democrats must accept without demure whatever deals the White House cuts, else they will wound the president going into 2012. What really wounds presidents is making policy decisions that Americans don't like.

[alp227]

99. Good. We and our elected members of Congress need to put the pressure on Obama

not to gut SS/Medicare. They succeeded back in 2005 to prevent Bush from privatizing SS.

[The Wizard]

105. Social Security and Veterans benefits

have been static for the past three years without any adjustment for inflation, in essence they have been cut.