Bernie Sanders' 8 and a Half Hour Speech in Senate

SirPwn4lot said:

… He doesn't need 60 votes, he only needs to stop the bill getting 60 votes. …

Click to expand...

As you say, mustering forty-one votes does indeed prevent passage of the president's tax cut/stimulus plan but in doing so Sanders and those forty other Senators would be assuring that the unemployed don't have their benefits extended and that the middle class see there tax withholding go up immediately in January; the lowest income tax bracket would go from 10% to 15%, a fifty percent increase! The impact on the weakened economy would be immediate and profoundly negative.

That's an achievement that I don't think is admirable politically or morally. Indeed it is pure political obstinateness; something I trade in myself from time to time. Let's not have the Democrats so quickly assume the role of “the Party of No.” Let's recognize that indeed this compromise has a lot of good in it and move forward from there.

Chappy said:

As you say, mustering forty-one votes does indeed prevent passage of the president's tax cut/stimulus plan but in doing so Sanders and those forty other Senators would be assuring that the unemployed don't have their benefits extended and that the middle class see there tax withholding go up immediately in January; the lowest income tax bracket would go from 10% to 15%, a fifty percent increase! The impact on the weakened economy would be immediate and profoundly negative.

That's an achievement that I don't think is admirable politically or morally. Indeed it is pure political obstinateness; something I trade in myself from time to time. Let's not have the Democrats so quickly assume the role of “the Party of No.” Let's recognize that indeed this compromise has a lot of good in it and move forward from there.

Click to expand...

There's no point in compromise when it's such a bad compromise.

Rather, let's have both sides come to a good compromise.

I'm not socialist, but do the people who are bashing it realize that principle-wise it isn't how Stalin and other executed it? Socialism has a negative connotation for no reason. If it is executed the way it's meant to be and the results suck then you can bash it.

samsmart said:

There's no point in compromise when it's such a bad compromise.

Rather, let's have both sides come to a good compromise.

Click to expand...

The Democrats had two votes in the Senate; one for renewing the tax cuts for those with incomes less than 250K and another for incomes less than a million. Both failed to garner sufficient support — indeed five members of the Democratic caucus crossed over and voted with the Republicans against the plans. Also failed earlier in the week was a bill extending unemployment insurance for another year; millions would be impacted without passage.

The President and the Republicans have worked out a compromise, one that is quite beneficial to Democratic and Republican priorities. The real losers in this compromise I would say are the deficit hawks. But when the economy is so atrocious, they should lose.

They should take the entire speech by Senator Sanders, digest it to thirty or forty minutes of high spots and find a way to get copies to schools all over America. it should be shown in Social Studies classes and taught to all of our children. Senator Sanders is a truly great and patriotic American who stands tall and proudly against the right wing efforts to destroy this nation by destroying the American middle class.

SirPwn4lot said:

A link to the full 8.5hr speech can be found here

Click to expand...

Bernie Sanders is building quite a reputation in Washington these days.

Excerpted from “Clinton Refuses to Leave White House; Installs Self in Oval Office,” The Borowitz Report, DECEMBER 11, 2010
[SIZE="+2"]I[/SIZE]t seemed like a good idea at the time.

But twenty-four hours after former President Bill Clinton appeared at the White House to endorse President Obama’s tax plan, Mr. Obama is “still looking for the right way to ask him to leave,” an aide confirmed today.

…

The aide said that Mr. Obama decided to play “a waiting game” with Mr. Clinton, explaining, “Even the Salahis left eventually.”

But after spending the night “crashing in the Lincoln Bedroom,” the former President was back in the Oval Office, chatting away on the phone.

“He could be there for awhile,” the aide said. “He’s talking to Bernie Sanders.”

Click to expand...

Chappy said:

The Democrats had two votes in the Senate; one for renewing the tax cuts for those with incomes less than 250K and another for incomes less than a million. Both failed to garner sufficient support — indeed five members of the Democratic caucus crossed over and voted with the Republicans against the plans. Also failed earlier in the week was a bill extending unemployment insurance for another year; millions would be impacted without passage.

The President and the Republicans have worked out a compromise, one that is quite beneficial to Democratic and Republican priorities. The real losers in this compromise I would say are the deficit hawks. But when the economy is so atrocious, they should lose.

Click to expand...

I don't see how keeping tax rates low while providing for more unemployment benefits that will increase the government debt by $900 billion a good thing.

There's a big difference between a good compromise for our nation and a bad compromise for the benefit of politicians' constituencies. This compromise is the latter.

haymarket said:

They should take the entire speech by Senator Sanders, digest it to thirty or forty minutes of high spots and find a way to get copies to schools all over America. it should be shown in Social Studies classes and taught to all of our children. Senator Sanders is a truly great and patriotic American who stands tall and proudly against the right wing efforts to destroy this nation by destroying the American middle class.

Click to expand...

Oh come on! The Republicans aren't out to destroy the middle class. That's just nonsense and discredits legitimate critiques of their policy positions.

Chappy said:

Bernie Sanders is building quite a reputation in Washington these days.

Click to expand...

Excerpted from “Clinton Refuses to Leave White House; Installs Self in Oval Office,” The Borowitz Report, DECEMBER 11, 2010
It seemed like a good idea at the time.

But twenty-four hours after former President Bill Clinton appeared at the White House to endorse President Obama’s tax plan, Mr. Obama is “still looking for the right way to ask him to leave,” an aide confirmed today.

…

The aide said that Mr. Obama decided to play “a waiting game” with Mr. Clinton, explaining, “Even the Salahis left eventually.”

But after spending the night “crashing in the Lincoln Bedroom,” the former President was back in the Oval Office, chatting away on the phone.

“He could be there for awhile,” the aide said. “He’s talking to Bernie Sanders.”

Click to expand...

Bill also has fond memories of the Oval Office. Probably the best oral sex he ever had.

:lamo:lamo:lamo

Sorry couldn't resist. :devil:

On a serious note Sanders makes a lot of sense. I enjoyed listening to his filibuster on C-Span2 while I was working late in the shop that day. He exposes well the hogwash about the filthy rich providing jobs, and if they get a tax break they are more likely to provide jobs. Trouble is if you know anything about business as those of us that do run businesses, is if the middle class isn't buying products there is no reason to expand production or inventory. It has nothing to do with tax breaks for the relatively small amount of billionaires that provide less jobs than the middle to upper class small businesses. No demand, no expansion, and no hiring. Business 101, but the repubs want their tax breaks for their wealthy contributors. That's really what it's all about. On top of that we loose an incredible amount of revenue providing tax breaks to those that don't need it. Utterly assinine!


Just for perspective I know of a factory that employed about 100 people. Guess what the annual salary of the owner was? It was actually less than $250,000. So the crock of **** the republicans are spinning regarding trickle down economics and those making over $250,000 annually is just that -- a crock of ****. And as far as corporations they don't pay much tax anyway. If you don't believe me look it up. It's also business 101.

samsmart said:

I don't see how keeping tax rates low while providing for more unemployment benefits that will increase the government debt by $900 billion a good thing. …

Click to expand...

Most of the money is highly economically stimulative: providing a temporary 2% decrease in the highly regressive 6% individual payroll tax; accelerating depreciation for new business investments, extending unemployment benefits for thirteen additional months, maintaining the middle class and lower middle class tax rates and more. The package has been estimated to lower the unemployment rate from 1 to 1.5%, no mean feat in this economy.

Chappy said:

Most of the money is highly economically stimulative: providing a temporary 2% decrease in the highly regressive 6% individual payroll tax; accelerating depreciation for new business investments, extending unemployment benefits for thirteen additional months, maintaining the middle class and lower middle class tax rates and more. The package has been estimated to lower the unemployment rate from 1 to 1.5%, no mean feat in this economy.

Click to expand...

Yes, but it will be at the cost of increasing government debt without increasing taxes in the long term. $900 billion in debt is a ****load of money. How will we pay it back?

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for compromise. However, I would much prefer it if an additional bracket for income taxes were made in which those who earn $1 million or more pay a higher percentage those making $250k-$1mil, an possibly another bracket for those who earn over $10mil.

That way, those who really are small business owners won't be lumped in the same bracket with those involved in megacorporations. That issue still hasn't been resolved. And there's an aspect of diminishing returns for those who earn over $1 million, which is why they should be in a separate bracket than those who earn less than $1 million. So why not take advantage of that fact to pay down the government debt and reduce the government deficit?

SirPwn4lot said:

I realize this is a little late, but as far as a search on the topic can reveal, there's been no actual thread on it. Not sure if I should post it here, but C-SPAN seems to fit the description.

Yesterday, Bernie Sanders, the Senator from Vermont, the only open democratic socialist in the Congress gave an eight and a half hour speech detesting Obama's deal with the Republican leadership to extend the Bush tax cuts for 2 years in exchange for 13 months of unemployment benefits.

He brings up a variety of issues, including many those who agree with him brought up here. I've enjoyed it very much so far, and I'm only 2.5 hours in. I suggest you all give it a watch, no matter your political beliefs.

A link to the full 8.5hr speech can be found here

Click to expand...

Now that man has mad oratory skills!

SirPwn4lot said:

Watch the speech. He advocates income tax cuts for 98% of the nation, and increasing the estate tax to 55% for 0.33% of the population. He says it was a ridiculous compromise, and I agree...

Click to expand...

Problem is that by the time they get done filibustering this latest bill, draw up a new one, debate on it, pass it through congress, then get it debated on again in the Senate, then maybe get it to the President and he signs it, it will already be next year. Which means it will be too late for people like me. Which means he is screwing the poor and middle class by all this dithering.

So no, I'm not going to sit and listen to him for 8.5 hours while he's screwing us over.

samsmart said:

Yes, but it will be at the cost of increasing government debt without increasing taxes in the long term. $900 billion in debt is a ****load of money. How will we pay it back? …

Click to expand...

Well all the provisions are temporary which limits the long term impact on the debt. But, more important is getting agreement about the all-important stimulus for this anemic economy. The president has lined up the Republican support, he needs just enough Democratic support to get this to his desk.

Thereafter, I think it's clear there will be significant taxation reform upcoming in this new Congress. It may take another cycle before it's done, but, it's clear that a large scale budget reform program needs to be implemented.

Chappy said:

Well all the provisions are temporary which limits the long term impact on the debt. But, more important is getting agreement about the all-important stimulus for this anemic economy. The president has lined up the Republican support, he needs just enough Democratic support to get this to his desk.

Thereafter, I think it's clear there will be significant taxation reform upcoming in this new Congress. It may take another cycle before it's done, but, it's clear that a large scale budget reform program needs to be implemented.

Click to expand...

Wait, let me get this straight...you don't want this tax bill to pass because of the debt, but you want another stimulus bill to pass....am I missing something?

Hatuey said:

You do know that the American military is the perfect example of socialism within a rabidly anti-socialist society right?

Click to expand...

And how the military is run is relevant to what in this discussion? Our military structure only has relevance to the military. Most people would hate to have to live their lives like the military does. It's great we have them and I wouldn't want to be without them but the contrast should serve as an inspiration as to why we don't want the government owning everything and running everything.

Hatuey said:

You do know that the American military is the perfect example of socialism within a rabidly anti-socialist society right?

Click to expand...

You mean the VOLUNTARY military?

Swing and a miss.

SirPwn4lot said:

I realize this is a little late, but as far as a search on the topic can reveal, there's been no actual thread on it. Not sure if I should post it here, but C-SPAN seems to fit the description.

Yesterday, Bernie Sanders, the Senator from Vermont, the only open democratic socialist in the Congress gave an eight and a half hour speech detesting Obama's deal with the Republican leadership to extend the Bush tax cuts for 2 years in exchange for 13 months of unemployment benefits.

He brings up a variety of issues, including many those who agree with him brought up here. I've enjoyed it very much so far, and I'm only 2.5 hours in. I suggest you all give it a watch, no matter your political beliefs.

A link to the full 8.5hr speech can be found here

Click to expand...

filibuster: it's not wrong when WE do it.

EnigmaO01 said:

On a serious note Sanders makes a lot of sense. I enjoyed listening to his filibuster on C-Span2 while I was working late in the shop that day. He exposes well the hogwash about the filthy rich providing jobs, and if they get a tax break they are more likely to provide jobs. Trouble is if you know anything about business as those of us that do run businesses, is if the middle class isn't buying products there is no reason to expand production or inventory. It has nothing to do with tax breaks for the relatively small amount of billionaires that provide less jobs than the middle to upper class small businesses. No demand, no expansion, and no hiring. Business 101, but the repubs want their tax breaks for their wealthy contributors. That's really what it's all about. On top of that we loose an incredible amount of revenue providing tax breaks to those that don't need it. Utterly assinine!


Just for perspective I know of a factory that employed about 100 people. Guess what the annual salary of the owner was? It was actually less than $250,000. So the crock of **** the republicans are spinning regarding trickle down economics and those making over $250,000 annually is just that -- a crock of ****. And as far as corporations they don't pay much tax anyway. If you don't believe me look it up. It's also business 101.

Click to expand...

For the love God, how is keeping the rates the same a tax cut? It's not a tax cut if you fail to raise them. LOL

You know, people aren't as stupid as Dems like to think they are.

Aunt Spiker said:

filibuster: it's not wrong when WE do it.

Click to expand...

Technically it's not a filibuster because it wasn't blocking a vote/debate.

Erod said:

For the love God, how is keeping the rates the same a tax cut? It's not a tax cut if you fail to raise them. LOL

Click to expand...

I agree with you, but I can't help but think that if it were in the opposite position and we'd had a 10 year tax increase that was about to expire, the Republicans would be calling them the "Obama tax increases".