Bernie Sanders would destroy the economy...

[BurnItDwn]

How has Bernie changed the Status Quo in his time in Congress? Any important "Sanders Act" that I am unaware of?

Look at Sanders voting record.
Look at Clintons voting record from her time in the senate.

Bernie would be able to do better damage control with the veto stick.

 

[theeedude]

Look at Sanders voting record.
Look at Clintons voting record from her time in the senate.

Bernie would be able to do better damage control with the veto stick.

Voting is not same as accomplishing something. What has Bernie accomplished legislatively? Veto stick would preserve the Status Quo. So Sanders is the Status Quo candidate, not Clinton.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Voting is not same as accomplishing something. What has Bernie accomplished legislatively? Veto stick would preserve the Status Quo. So Sanders is the Status Quo candidate, not Clinton.

We've been over this. It depends on your definition of Status Quo. If your definition is literally no change, then yes, Bernie veto stick would be preserving Status Quo. However, a lot of the people feel that Status Quo right now is more and more wars, more and more outsourcing of American labor to the third world countries, more and more NSA surveillance, more and more erosion of our constitutional freedoms, and more and more shifting of the system to serve select few at the top instead of all of the Americans. In this respect, a veto stick as wielded by Bernie would absolutely be a departure from the Status Quo.

 

[theeedude]

We've been over this. It depends on your definition of Status Quo. If your definition is literally no change, then yes, Bernie veto stick would be preserving Status Quo. However, a lot of the people feel that Status Quo right now is more and more wars, more and more outsourcing of American labor to the third world countries, more and more NSA surveillance, more and more erosion of our constitutional freedoms, and more and more shifting of the system to serve select few at the top instead of all of the Americans. In this respect, a veto stick as wielded by Bernie would absolutely be a departure from the Status Quo.

So he may be better than Bush.

 

[bshole]

Your options this cycle are between the guy who would fight for the middle class but fail or the other guys that will fight for the banks and wallstreet and succeed.

Very well said Sonikku. Perhaps your best quote ever. Is that quote your own or did you steal it?

 

[fleshconsumed]

So he may be better than Bush.

This is not what I said at all.

I wonder why I even bother posting in P&N...

 

[theeedude]

This is not what I said at all.

I wonder why I even bother posting in P&N...

Pretty much.

 

[theeedude]

Very well said Sonikku. Perhaps your best quote ever. Is that quote your own or did you steal it?

Middle class and Wall Street did great under Clintons in the 90s. Both will do poorly under Sanders.

 

[thraashman]

By far the worst economic position of any candidate belongs to Ted "No, not Rafael, I swear I'm white" Cruz. Trump's is in some fantasy world with the rest of his policies where people who completely misunderstand how the world works live.

Honestly most of the people in this forum don't make enough to have their taxes or anything increase under Bernie. I actually do. Yet I've looked at his propositions and I realize they're the best for the country and I support them even if it means a little less money in my pocket.

 

[ivwshane]

Look at Sanders voting record.
Look at Clintons voting record from her time in the senate.

Bernie would be able to do better damage control with the veto stick.

Hillary and bernie voted the same 93% of the time, so what was your point exactly?

 

[ivwshane]

By far the worst economic position of any candidate belongs to Ted "No, not Rafael, I swear I'm white" Cruz. Trump's is in some fantasy world with the rest of his policies where people who completely misunderstand how the world works live.

Honestly most of the people in this forum don't make enough to have their taxes or anything increase under Bernie. I actually do. Yet I've looked at his propositions and I realize they're the best for the country and I support them even if it means a little less money in my pocket.

? Under bernie everyone's taxes go up, including the poor so I'm not sure what you are talking about.

 

[bshole]

By far the worst economic position of any candidate belongs to Ted "No, not Rafael, I swear I'm white" Cruz. Trump's is in some fantasy world with the rest of his policies where people who completely misunderstand how the world works live.

Honestly most of the people in this forum don't make enough to have their taxes or anything increase under Bernie. I actually do. Yet I've looked at his propositions and I realize they're the best for the country and I support them even if it means a little less money in my pocket.

Cruz was babbling about a flat tax on the radio. A flat tax for Gods sake. Idiot.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hillary and bernie voted the same 93% of the time, so what was your point exactly?

It's just the standard ignorant raggin' on Hillary. Cuz Rush & the rest of the coterie of right wing talking heads say she can't be trusted.

She def can't be trusted to do things the way they want, I'll grant that. When you're talking about the issues & programs near & dear to Dems in general it's a different story, obviously.

 

[Sonikku]

Very well said Sonikku. Perhaps your best quote ever. Is that quote your own or did you steal it?

My own. ()🙂

 

[blankslate]

The OP's statement is patently false idiotic and dangerous...

it is awarded no points...

Friedman economics as implemented by Reagan is what has almost destroyed the economy over the last 30 years or so because the democrats haven't had the spine to end it. To continue following supply side dogma would be moronic.


_________

 

[werepossum]

Nope. It depended on Omnibus Budget Reconciliation act of 1993 which every Republican voted against, so it was the opposite of bipartisan. That restored tax rates to a sustainable level, which created the revenues and balanced the budget without hurting the economy as the Republicans predicted. That is Clintons getting things done. What has Bernie got done? Nothing. He rails on Wall Street, but how come we have Dodd-Frank and not Sanders-Frank? Because Bernie is not a leader, he is a talker. Even with a filibuster proof Democratic majority, he has zero influence. With a Republican or evenly split Congress, he'll get even less done, if that's even possible.

I know you guys worship tax increases, but come on. Clinton's budgets showed deficits forever, and rising after the first few years. Never would the budget have been balanced, which is not at all surprising as leftist dogma says the federal budget should always be in the red, as much or preferably more than last year's. In any case, he got to pass ONE of his own budgets with a Democrat-dominated Congress, and a single retroactive tax increase. After that, every Clinton budget was DOA. Not even the Democrats would touch them; they were radioactive, and Republicans had to sponsor them to even get a vote on record. All the Clinton-era budgets from '95 on were Republican budgets, led in large part by John Kasich. This was due in no small part to outrage over Clinton's retroactive tax increase, which led to the GOP taking control of Congress for the first time in forty years.

Nothing embarrassing about voting for the Clintons. Things were pretty damn good last time they were in the White House, and the best predictor of future performance is past performance. You'd be stupid to vote for someone else this time around.
Bernie on the other hand has gotten nothing done in his whole life except rant on and on, which hasn't really helped anyone.

So given that Congress actually spends the money, what happens if this President Clinton doesn't get a Republican Congress to keep her from damaging the country? What if this President Clinton gets the Bush Republican Congress or worse, a Democrat Congress?

 

[boomerang]

I know you guys worship tax increases, but come on. Clinton's budgets showed deficits forever, and rising after the first few years. Never would the budget have been balanced, which is not at all surprising as leftist dogma says the federal budget should always be in the red, as much or preferably more than last year's. In any case, he got to pass ONE of his own budgets with a Democrat-dominated Congress, and a single retroactive tax increase. After that, every Clinton budget was DOA. Not even the Democrats would touch them; they were radioactive, and Republicans had to sponsor them to even get a vote on record. All the Clinton-era budgets from '95 on were Republican budgets, led in large part by John Kasich. This was due in no small part to outrage over Clinton's retroactive tax increase, which led to the GOP taking control of Congress for the first time in forty years.


So given that Congress actually spends the money, what happens if this President Clinton doesn't get a Republican Congress to keep her from damaging the country? What if this President Clinton gets the Bush Republican Congress or worse, a Democrat Congress?

Why do you keep ruining their fantasies? History, in their minds has been rewritten in a fashion that suits their ideology and there you go dredging up reality and heaping it right on top of a perfectly good, entirely fabricated fantasy.

Just because they act like evil conservatives sometimes from the perspective of making up their own facts doesn't mean that they should be faulted for it like an evil conservative absolutely deserves to be. Have you no heart?

Anyway, I am reminded of a phrase I've read many times before. " Past performance is not a predictor of future results."

 

[fskimospy]

I know you guys worship tax increases, but come on. Clinton's budgets showed deficits forever, and rising after the first few years. Never would the budget have been balanced, which is not at all surprising as leftist dogma says the federal budget should always be in the red, as much or preferably more than last year's. In any case, he got to pass ONE of his own budgets with a Democrat-dominated Congress, and a single retroactive tax increase. After that, every Clinton budget was DOA. Not even the Democrats would touch them; they were radioactive, and Republicans had to sponsor them to even get a vote on record. All the Clinton-era budgets from '95 on were Republican budgets, led in large part by John Kasich. This was due in no small part to outrage over Clinton's retroactive tax increase, which led to the GOP taking control of Congress for the first time in forty years.

So given that Congress actually spends the money, what happens if this President Clinton doesn't get a Republican Congress to keep her from damaging the country? What if this President Clinton gets the Bush Republican Congress or worse, a Democrat Congress?

So to be clear you think the left worships tax increases but wants ever increasing budget deficits. Wouldn't it be easier to have larger budget deficits if you didn't raise taxes? Also it is amusing to watch you selectively assign credit or blame for deficits based on what is convenient.

You are seriously just a ranting uncle at thanksgiving, haha. I don't know what is funnier, your insane ideas about what liberals think or your idea that you're a moderate for thinking so. There's so much self delusion here.

 

[thraashman]

Cruz was babbling about a flat tax on the radio. A flat tax for Gods sake. Idiot.

People who want a flat tax are people who are completely ignorant of how economic systems work. From my point of view the best system is our current progressive taxation with some tweeks. First, lower the business tax rate but eliminate business tax loopholes. Make the tax rate lower but effectively it increases as companies that currently make billions but pay no taxes no longer have loopholes. Second, tax capital gains at same rate as any income. Third, eliminate the income limit to the payroll tax. That's where I'd start. I got a few other ideas.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Hillary and bernie voted the same 93% of the time, so what was your point exactly?

7%

 

[BurnItDwn]

It's just the standard ignorant raggin' on Hillary. Cuz Rush & the rest of the coterie of right wing talking heads say she can't be trusted.

She def can't be trusted to do things the way they want, I'll grant that. When you're talking about the issues & programs near & dear to Dems in general it's a different story, obviously.

Two of the biggest votes, where Clinton voted Status Quo and Sanders voted against the Status Quo are:
Iraq War Authorization
Patriot Act & Patriot Act Reauthorization

If Sanders had been president and had the veto stick. it's possible that he could have prevented the Iraq war, preserving many lives. It's possible he could have prevented the Patriot Act, preserving civil rights..

That said, I do agree that Sanders is a mixed bag, he has made some mistakes, like voting for the Clinton Crime bill.

While I certainly am ignorant, and am aware of my ignorance, I do not follow any right wing propaganda.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I can see you're the type of person that judges what people accomplish by the intent of their actions, not the results. Good for you. There is something to be said for a simpler way of thinking. Less stress, more happiness.

I hope you know that the only way Bernie can even get the nomination is if Hillary is both indicted and drops out. But hey, I get it, hitching yourself to the hope and change train gives you a warm feeling inside.

I wish that were the case, however, I am pretty much constantly stressed to the maximum every moment of every day.

When it comes to politicians, my concerns are about their decision making abilities and their judgement.

When people follow the formula and stay between the lines, and they keep their heads down and do what they are told, that is bad.

When people use their brains, and think about things, and generally figure things out and understand them, and then act according to what they think is the best thing to do, that is good.

I do not think Sanders follows the path of opportunistic political expediency. He more or less seems to instead be focused on policy.

 

[fskimospy]

I wish that were the case, however, I am pretty much constantly stressed to the maximum every moment of every day.

When it comes to politicians, my concerns are about their decision making abilities and their judgement.

When people follow the formula and stay between the lines, and they keep their heads down and do what they are told, that is bad.

When people use their brains, and think about things, and generally figure things out and understand them, and then act according to what they think is the best thing to do, that is good.

I do not think Sanders follows the path of opportunistic political expediency. He more or less seems to instead be focused on policy.

I think I would say the opposite. He seems focused on a broad theme, but when it comes to turning that theme into policies he doesn't seem to know what he's doing. His health care plan is a trillion dollars in the hole even after you accept its pretty unrealistic projections for savings, for example.

I think he's been able to spend most of his career not having to worry about actually writing legislation or crafting policy that works. Now that he's prominent enough that people are paying attention this really shows.

He's still light years better than any Republican candidate running, however. If you look at their plans they are even more comically inept.

 

[Jhhnn]

I know you guys worship tax increases, but come on. Clinton's budgets showed deficits forever, and rising after the first few years. Never would the budget have been balanced, which is not at all surprising as leftist dogma says the federal budget should always be in the red, as much or preferably more than last year's. In any case, he got to pass ONE of his own budgets with a Democrat-dominated Congress, and a single retroactive tax increase. After that, every Clinton budget was DOA. Not even the Democrats would touch them; they were radioactive, and Republicans had to sponsor them to even get a vote on record. All the Clinton-era budgets from '95 on were Republican budgets, led in large part by John Kasich. This was due in no small part to outrage over Clinton's retroactive tax increase, which led to the GOP taking control of Congress for the first time in forty years.


So given that Congress actually spends the money, what happens if this President Clinton doesn't get a Republican Congress to keep her from damaging the country? What if this President Clinton gets the Bush Republican Congress or worse, a Democrat Congress?

And yet RR/GHWB quadrupled the national debt & GWB doubled it again while the Clinton years showed year over year decreases. That's also true of the Obama presidency.

Wasn't it Dick Cheney who remarked that deficits don't matter?

Facts apparently don't matter when you're trying to make a(erroneous) point, huh?

 

[Sonikku]

They do when they're under Dem presidents.