Honest Question for Bernie Supporters

[_honorentheos]

I've voiced this in a couple of threads, and to my knowledge haven't seen a response. So, I'm being direct with a request.

My biggest concern with Bernie has nothing to do with his electability. It has to do with how he'd actually govern, work with congress to pass laws, enact the things he promises.

For those supporting him, which there seem to be many on this board, I'd like to hear how this is going to work out if he gets elected. Let's suppose two scenarios. One where the democrats win a slim majority in the senate and one where the republicans maintain a slim majority, but neither has the numbers to block a filibuster attempt. Both scenarios assume the republicans maintain control of the house.

Bernie wins. Now what?

ETA: I know it's too much to ask, but I'll do it anyways. Those who despise anyone who doesn't stand right of Paul Ryan, please refrain from commenting on how he'll destroy the world with liberal policies that bankrupt the country as he systematically tears off the arms of all teddy bears if they don't naturally fall into the internationally recognized "give me a hand out" position when sat down on their mass produced "socialist grey" shelves. Thanks.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, reality will force him to reduce his goals to aim for more incremental progress within Congress and the Senate. That's President Obama's dilemma and reality. It will be his if elected. The fact of the matter you can't pass this or that without compromise.

For example look at his platform on the national debt:

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-o ... onal-debt/

Does anyone honestly believe he can achieve anything close to his goals unless a Democratic supermajority is elected?

*shrugs*

Anyway. What I'm hoping for is some policy changes and getting the ship pointed in the right direction. There's something called the plan of actions and milestones (POA&M or POAM) in which they have to forecast federal budget expenses, and this is done years in advanced of the actual fiscal year. What this means is Mr. Sanders' plan to reduce the federal deficit wouldn't actually be feasible until, maybe, maaaaaybe, his third year. Congress has oversight, and you're going to have to get through an election cycle before anything can really be done.

And that's the reality of DC... And he knows it. He'll just have to explain reality to the electorate that simply doesn't understand federal fiscal processes. And that's a tough sell because his detractors inside and outside the party will just murder him.

The best case scenario for his presidency is to get a second election where he can actually make some headway that will last a few years beyond his own presidency.

- Doc

[_Some Schmo]

It's not so much about him actually accomplishing the things he's talking about (not immediately, anyway). It's about moving the conversation in that direction. The country has to get past equating socialism and communism. This would be a good start.

[_honorentheos]

Thanks for replying, Cam.

In '08, there were many things that Obama was saying that I agreed with but generally supported Hillary because in a time of crisis I felt it would help to have someone who had a shorter learning curve. Since she'd been in the White House and had a longer record in the Senate, I was voting for experience even if I felt there were ideological gaps between us that didn't exist between myself and Obama. So I wasn't too upset when Obama won the nomination and supported him in the general election.

Then he became essentially Clinton without the experience or ability to win friends in the Legislature.

So, when I glance through the link you provided, I find myself nodding in agreement with many of his platform points while knowing in my gut there they aren't likely to be achieved. Take military spending reductions as one where I really, really think the nation would be better off if we could wean ourselves off of the military economy. But that is exactly the problem. Too many states, with both republican and democrat reps and senators, are dependent on military spending dollars whether to keep the manufacturing plants spitting out stuff or bases that keep dollars coming in and supporting the regions around them. Hill AFB is the largest single employer in Utah, for example, and any base closure will be fought no matter the representation's political affiliations. Could a President lead a national movement to reduce military spending in favor of large infrastructure projects in their place? Maybe. Could the public be educated enough on the matter to see how shifting economic basis could be essential to the long term vision of American greatness so many of the least likely to support Bernie believe is their birth right? I honestly doubt it. The political capital spent to get the Affordable Care Act passed into law, and it's long term fallout, is junior league compared to what it would take to get true economic reform that weans the nation off of defense spending.

And that's just one of the many, many platform items that would require political capital expenditure on a scale I can't fathom being even remotely successful.

When he calls for revolution in his speeches, I think that's exactly what it would take. It would take the equivalent of the end scene from Fight Club, with the whole political apparatus collapsing in on itself, and there being a resetting of game. And I don't want revolution. I want reform.

[_honorentheos]

It's not so much about him actually accomplishing the things he's talking about (not immediately, anyway). It's about moving the conversation in that direction. The country has to get past equating socialism and communism. This would be a good start.

I don't think we can afford government that can't get anything done because it's arguing over definitions. I'm sorry. I really, really dislike this argument for voting for Sanders.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Thanks for replying, Cam.

In '08, there were many things that Obama was saying that I agreed with but generally supported Hillary because in a time of crisis I felt it would help to have someone who had a shorter learning curve.... And I don't want revolution. I want reform.

Well, without a doubt HC would be the better President because she has way more political gravitas and historicity in the White House. She'd be much more effective, but much more maligned because she's a Clinton and a woman. I'm voting Democrat either way, but I have to admit I just fundamentally believe in Bernie Sanders on moral ground more than anything. They're both in the same boat if they get elected, and they'll both face detractors that will hamper their ability to get their agendas enacted.

A HC election would prooooobably result in a Republican majority in in the House and Senate (and most likely Governorship) because of her gender. Sanders not so much. That's just reality.

My prediction is if HC is elected she'll leave the White House looking like Yoda because of the stress. That's about all I got on this issue. ;)

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

If one goes to this website, one can see the number of bills sponsored by both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, what they contained, how many were passed and became law, and get a general idea of what they've been able to accomplish in their time as a Senator.

Bernie Sanders (Link)
(2007 to present)
Bills referred to Committee: 340
Bills Reported by Committee: 13
Bills that Passed the House: 1 (a veteran's related bill)
Bills Agreed to on Simple Resolution: 2 (both had to do with renaming post offices)
Total Bills Sponsored Signed into Law by President: 3 (one related to veterans, two to rename post offices)

Hillary Clinton (Link)
(2001 - 2009)
Bills referred to Committee: 355
Bills Reported by Committee: 24
Bills that Passed the Senate: 20
Bills Agreed to on Simple Resolution: 14 (also a lot of renamings, honorings, etc.)
Total Bills Sponsored Signed into Law by President: 3 (two renamings, one national historic site)

Interesting numbers for both, given the political context of their times. Half of Clinton's years were in Republican controlled Senates and with Bush in the White House while Sanders generally enjoyed a friendlier Senate until this last year and Obama in the White House, but he had fewer bills make it out of committee. But neither was particularly effective in getting laws passed except the inane kinds of laws that one would hope could get through like whether or not to name a post office after some local somebody.

[_honorentheos]

For kicks, here's Ted Cruz's numbers: Link

One billed signed into law of 46 referred to Committee and 3 passing Senate. That bill having the very Ted Cruz name, "A bill to deny admission to the United States to any representative to the United Nations who has been found to have been engaged in espionage activities or a terrorist activity against the United States and poses a threat to United States national security interests."

Because that wasn't already covered by existing laws I guess.

And Rubio's numbers: (Link)

80 bills referred to committee of which a number were passed on resolution without the force of law (like the one congratulating the Miami Heat on winning an NBA championship).

I will say his one bill signed into law seems the most meaningful of any of the candidates I've looked at so far.

Girls Count Act of 2015

But it expires 5 years after being signed into law and doesn't do much either.

[Guest]

Bernie wins. Now what?

1. He fights for what we deserve. He will be a voice for the people
2. I don't believe he will accomplish most of his goals, 1/2 at best. He is going to have to compromise! You need to start in the far left to end up in the middle. However, if you start in the middle (like Hillary Clinton), you will end up in the right.
3. He will fight aggressively to get more people involved in the political system. The GOP as we know it will die the day that most people get out to vote.
4. He won't get us to war. Hillary Clinton will invade Iran if Iran ignores the deal.

[_theldsthinker]

Interesting numbers for both, given the political context of their times. Half of Clinton's years were in Republican controlled Senates and with Bush in the White House while Sanders generally enjoyed a friendlier Senate until this last year and Obama in the White House, but he had fewer bills make it out of committee. But neither was particularly effective in getting laws passed except the inane kinds of laws that one would hope could get through like whether or not to name a post office after some local somebody.

NO! As a Senator, Clinton sponsored three bills that became law: S.3145, S.3613, and S.1241. See
https://www.congress.gov/member/hillary ... C001041?q={%22sponsorship%22%3A%22sponsored%22%2C%22bill-status%22%3A%22law%22} Select "Sponsored Legislation" and "became law" under "Status of Legislation"

and see Sanders
https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard ... S000033?q={%22sponsorship%22%3A%22sponsored%22%2C%22bill-status%22%3A%22law%22}

During Sanders’ time in the Senate, he sponsored two bills that became law: S.885 and S.893. The first of these renamed a post office in Vermont. The second increased compensation for disabled veterans and their families.While Sanders chaired the Senate’s Veteran Affairs committee during the 113th Congress (2013-2014), 13 of the committee’s bills became law. That may not sound like a lot until you realize that the Senate Veterans Affairs (VA) committee only passed 8.5 bills into law on average during each of the past 20 Congresses and that these 13 bills became law during the second least productive Congress in American history.Sanders’ most significant achievement during 113th Congress was passing a $16.3 billion bipartisan VA reform bill that expanded existing and created new health care facilities, allowed veterans to go outside the VA system to private health care providers when wait times are too long or if a veteran lives more than 40 miles away from a VA facility, and made it easier to fire VA officials.Sanders was so effective as a legislator that the (right-wing) Veterans of Foreign Wars awarded him its highest honor in 2015. How many bills did Clinton successfully shepherd into law as the chair of a Senate committee? Zero. Clinton did not chair any Senate committees during the three Congresses she served in because she did not accumulate enough seniority.If you are looking for a presidential candidate with a proven record of beating partisan gridlock to get meaningful legislation passed in Washington, D.C., then Bernie Sanders deserves your support.
https://pplswar.wordpress.com/2015/10/2 ... y-clinton/