Bernie supporters lie about Biden

[PyramidHead]

Returning to the OP, It is misleading to claim Biden supported cuts to SS. He did support freezing increases, but that is not a cut.

Not only that, but the add that was supported by some of the Sanders staff, was specifically a lie. It was taken out of context. Biden was making a point about Paul Ryan's desire to cut SS. The members of the Sanders team simply did what Trump staff often do, they lied.

I was hoping that some of the the Sanders crowd could explain how they feel about this, and how they think Sanders would be able to accomplish any of his goals if he were to become president. So far, nobody has done that.

Quoted in full for you

The democratic socialist idea of political change is as follows: (1) stake out a clear and uncompromising progressive ideological agenda; (2) unapologetically advance this agenda while publicly naming its main obstacles, both institutional and cultural; (3) galvanize a popular movement to pressure the system from below, so that those who oppose the agenda can expect consequences for doing so; (4) build labor power that can be leveraged against the political establishment until it grants our demands. This is the Sanders strategy, and the answer to everyone naive enough to think "working with Congress" is how structural changes happen in society. Rather than compromise with the atavistic black blob that is the Republican party, Sanders would probably ignore them and go straight to the people, who have always had the power to directly extract concessions from the political establishment but have never been given a president who would side with them.

We don't just have the ability to withhold our mostly pointless vote. We can withhold our most precious and vital resource that the entire system requires in order to function: our labor. That shakes out very differently depending on whether the chief executive is on the side of the rank-and-file or the scabs, the workers or their bosses.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Trump will eat him for breakfast.

Trump may eat any of these candidates for breakfast, but so far, Biden is the only one who scares him. He wants Sanders to be his opponent. That's very obvious if you follow some of the things that Trump has been saying. Keep up!

I really don't think any of us have a clue as to who, if anyone, can beat Trump. The electoral college as well as the way that the Democrats are attacking each other is just helping Trump. Trump's base isn't going to leave him even if he shoots someone on 5th Ave. The Dems aren't at all united, and that is a huge problem.

100% agree with you! I haven't given up on Buttieg and Amy, but Biden is the best hope.

 

[PyramidHead]

It's worth repeating that for his flaws, Sanders has by far the most realistic plan for how his policies get enacted, and any honest reading of history will attest to that. Every other candidate puts the public as an inconvenient afterthought that can sometimes come in handy for votes, rather than a constant participant in the process of radical change. This is easy to explain: all candidates except Sanders believe that the American system of representative government is basically functional and works for everybody's benefit. They are wrong, and because they are wrong, they will be hamstrung by said system like everyone before them and accomplish nothing. The only antidote to the hopelessly malfunctioning apparatus of our government and its sclerotic right wing is to overwhelm it with millions and millions of people. It is the only thing that has ever shifted the needle more than a few degrees in society; not individual leaders, not parties, not justices. It starts with the people, and Sanders is the only one who seems to realize this, even though he still has the paternalism of a classical liberal when it comes to managing the worst excesses of capitalism rather than smashing it and replacing it with something better.

The irony is that the technocratic centrist crowd has this idea of themselves as practical and grounded in reality, but they are the ones whose theory of change has only ever been repeatedly demolished by history. For fuck's sake, Biden honestly wants people to believe Republicans will magically calm down and start taking things seriously after Trump is beaten. HE WAS THERE during Obama's two terms. She doesn't say it, but Warren believes the same thing: once they get a look at my 600 pages of detailed Plans, all the rational actors in Congress will simply concede that they make the most sense and come to the bargaining table in good faith. Why do the rubes that continually fall for this scam think they are somehow more savvy for it?

 

[marc]

Returning to the OP, It is misleading to claim Biden supported cuts to SS. He did support freezing increases, but that is not a cut.

Not only that, but the add that was supported by some of the Sanders staff, was specifically a lie. It was taken out of context. Biden was making a point about Paul Ryan's desire to cut SS. The members of the Sanders team simply did what Trump staff often do, they lied.

I was hoping that some of the the Sanders crowd could explain how they feel about this, and how they think Sanders would be able to accomplish any of his goals if he were to become president. So far, nobody has done that.

Two things.

1 - When costs go up, but income does not, while that is not technically a cut, it is effectively a cut. It may be playing with semantics, but it is not a lie.

2 - Look up The Grand Bargain. Under Obama, around 2011-12 a bargain was proposed in which there would be cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Biden was a part of the negotiations, and by some reports was all for the cuts. In return the Republicans would allow tax increases to help reduce the deficit. Republicans didn't go along with it, so that bargain fell through.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's worth repeating that for his flaws, Sanders has by far the most realistic plan for how his policies get enacted, and any honest reading of history will attest to that.

Through Congress? Does Sanders have a plan for getting 60 seats in the Senate?

Every other candidate puts the public as an inconvenient afterthought that can sometimes come in handy for votes, rather than a constant participant in the process of radical change. This is easy to explain: all candidates except Sanders believe that the American system of representative government is basically functional and works for everybody's benefit. They are wrong, and because they are wrong, they will be hamstrung by said system like everyone before them and accomplish nothing. The only antidote to the hopelessly malfunctioning apparatus of our government and its sclerotic right wing is to overwhelm it with millions and millions of people. It is the only thing that has ever shifted the needle more than a few degrees in society; not individual leaders, not parties, not justices. It starts with the people, and Sanders is the only one who seems to realize this, even though he still has the paternalism of a classical liberal when it comes to managing the worst excesses of capitalism rather than smashing it and replacing it with something better.

So that is a no, Sanders doesn't have a plan to get 60 seats in the Senate.

 

[laughing dog]

Returning to the OP, It is misleading to claim Biden supported cuts to SS. He did support freezing increases, but that is not a cut.

It is in real terms, due to inflation.

That is not the claim they are making.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Biden in the video talks about trying to freeze spending some 4 times historically. Is the below the kind of thing he is talking about? To be honest, I am not sure of the implications.

29 Oct 1978, The Morning News (Wilmington, Delaware), Page F-3, from an interview with Senatorial candidate Joe Biden.

Q: On the domestic side, the public is coming to realize that the tax cut efforts in Congress largely failed. That the cut will not even balance the increase in Social Security taxes for most taxpayers. What needs to be done?
A: The first thing is to rectify the mistake we made in the first instance by passing the Social Security tax increases. You know I was one of five or six people on my side of the aisle that voted against that legislation for the very reason that is now becoming apparent; that it thrust the burden upon middle-income taxpayers. Someone, for example, making $47-$48,000 by 1987 will be paying $3000 off the top for Social Security. We are asking for a serious social dilemma: the problems of the elderly to be paid for essentially by the middle class which is dwindling in its economic base and also dwindling in its number relative to the elderly. My response to this is we should take the welfare portions out of the Social Security system, fund them through general revenues and have them compete with all other general revenues so that we have a handle on what we're doing.
In addition to repealing the Social Security tax increase, we should move with the coalition amendment which passed the House and Senate and was dropped by Long in the Senate. That ties tax cuts to decreases in spending initiatives by the United States Congress and I think that is noninflationary, will lead to a balanced budget by 1983 .. will also reduce government spending. Lastly, we have to deal with tax reform, I just mentioned tax cuts. Social Security change is somewhat of a tax reform in that it lessens the burden on one segment of the population, but we have not been able to get anything through the Congress since 1977 with the omnibus tax reform bill. Sunset legislation is a critical element in the tax reform picture. The Sunset Bill that I wrote comes down to saying that there will be sunsetting of tax expenditures which amount to about $175 billion this year. That's the only way I find we're going to be able to beat the vested interest groups.

 

[Toni]

It's worth repeating that for his flaws, Sanders has by far the most realistic plan for how his policies get enacted, and any honest reading of history will attest to that.

Through Congress? Does Sanders have a plan for getting 60 seats in the Senate?

Every other candidate puts the public as an inconvenient afterthought that can sometimes come in handy for votes, rather than a constant participant in the process of radical change. This is easy to explain: all candidates except Sanders believe that the American system of representative government is basically functional and works for everybody's benefit. They are wrong, and because they are wrong, they will be hamstrung by said system like everyone before them and accomplish nothing. The only antidote to the hopelessly malfunctioning apparatus of our government and its sclerotic right wing is to overwhelm it with millions and millions of people. It is the only thing that has ever shifted the needle more than a few degrees in society; not individual leaders, not parties, not justices. It starts with the people, and Sanders is the only one who seems to realize this, even though he still has the paternalism of a classical liberal when it comes to managing the worst excesses of capitalism rather than smashing it and replacing it with something better.

So that is a no, Sanders doesn't have a plan to get 60 seats in the Senate.

More importantly, what exactly does Sanders think he can do as POTUS that he's been unable to do in all of his decades in the Senate?

I don't think that Buttigieg is the right candidate for now. Maybe in 8-12 years when he's had some time to get some experience. And, as trivial as this actually is, to learn to be much more comfortable with public speaking and speaking on camera. For good or for bad, it is part of the job these days and he's very wooden/high school actor on camera. Or was in the last debate. Mostly, I've read what he has to say rather than listen to him directly speak so that may have been a one-off.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Biden in the video talks about trying to freeze spending some 4 times historically. Is the below the kind of thing he is talking about? To be honest, I am not sure of the implications.

29 Oct 1978, The Morning News (Wilmington, Delaware), Page F-3, from an interview with Senatorial candidate Joe Biden.

Q: On the domestic side, the public is coming to realize that the tax cut efforts in Congress largely failed. That the cut will not even balance the increase in Social Security taxes for most taxpayers. What needs to be done?
A: The first thing is to rectify the mistake we made in the first instance by passing the Social Security tax increases. You know I was one of five or six people on my side of the aisle that voted against that legislation for the very reason that is now becoming apparent; that it thrust the burden upon middle-income taxpayers. Someone, for example, making $47-$48,000 by 1987 will be paying $3000 off the top for Social Security. We are asking for a serious social dilemma: the problems of the elderly to be paid for essentially by the middle class which is dwindling in its economic base and also dwindling in its number relative to the elderly. My response to this is we should take the welfare portions out of the Social Security system, fund them through general revenues and have them compete with all other general revenues so that we have a handle on what we're doing.
In addition to repealing the Social Security tax increase, we should move with the coalition amendment which passed the House and Senate and was dropped by Long in the Senate. That ties tax cuts to decreases in spending initiatives by the United States Congress and I think that is noninflationary, will lead to a balanced budget by 1983 .. will also reduce government spending. Lastly, we have to deal with tax reform, I just mentioned tax cuts. Social Security change is somewhat of a tax reform in that it lessens the burden on one segment of the population, but we have not been able to get anything through the Congress since 1977 with the omnibus tax reform bill. Sunset legislation is a critical element in the tax reform picture. The Sunset Bill that I wrote comes down to saying that there will be sunsetting of tax expenditures which amount to about $175 billion this year. That's the only way I find we're going to be able to beat the vested interest groups.

This was meant to be an open question to anyone who wants to try to explain the technicalities here.

 

[TV and credit cards]

It's worth repeating that for his flaws, Sanders has by far the most realistic plan for how his policies get enacted, and any honest reading of history will attest to that.

Through Congress? Does Sanders have a plan for getting 60 seats in the Senate?

Every other candidate puts the public as an inconvenient afterthought that can sometimes come in handy for votes, rather than a constant participant in the process of radical change. This is easy to explain: all candidates except Sanders believe that the American system of representative government is basically functional and works for everybody's benefit. They are wrong, and because they are wrong, they will be hamstrung by said system like everyone before them and accomplish nothing. The only antidote to the hopelessly malfunctioning apparatus of our government and its sclerotic right wing is to overwhelm it with millions and millions of people. It is the only thing that has ever shifted the needle more than a few degrees in society; not individual leaders, not parties, not justices. It starts with the people, and Sanders is the only one who seems to realize this, even though he still has the paternalism of a classical liberal when it comes to managing the worst excesses of capitalism rather than smashing it and replacing it with something better.

So that is a no, Sanders doesn't have a plan to get 60 seats in the Senate.

I think it mostly hinges on point three of PH’s four point plan. I have some reservation of that actually happening. And if it doesn’t, all we’re left with is a hamstrung socialist in the Oval Office, four years of declining markets on Wall St and so many pissed off Americans watching their retirement investments shrink. Then guess what happens in 2022.

 

[PyramidHead]

Through Congress? Does Sanders have a plan for getting 60 seats in the Senate?
So that is a no, Sanders doesn't have a plan to get 60 seats in the Senate.

More importantly, what exactly does Sanders think he can do as POTUS that he's been unable to do in all of his decades in the Senate?

1. End the bombing, invasion, sanctions, and bullying of other nations as commander in chief
2. Immediately instruct all federal agencies to stop enforcing laws against marijuana possession or use
3. Forgive student loan debt via the same mechanism as Trump's forgiveness of such for veterans
4. Declare a state of emergency around climate change to get a Green New Deal implemented

That's just without the help of Congress, and without the bully pulpit to garner public support. Do neither of you honestly get that political change starts with the people living in society, rather than at the top, and that their priorities are susceptible to being swayed by authority figures, and channeled into a mandate? Democrats are so encumbered by proceduralism, and it fails them every single time.

 

[PyramidHead]

Through Congress? Does Sanders have a plan for getting 60 seats in the Senate?
So that is a no, Sanders doesn't have a plan to get 60 seats in the Senate.

I think it mostly hinges on point three of PH’s four point plan.

You guys are aware that senators need to win elections in order to keep their jobs, right? Can you think of any presidential candidate who has spent as much time building a dedicated, disciplined popular following that relentlessly knocks on doors and makes phone calls on behalf of his platform? For God's sake, they had to remove his donations from the national map because they literally obscured every other candidate in the graphic. He's the only one with such engaged and reliable support, and among a segment of the population Democrats love to say is so important: women, people of color, sexual minorities, poor and working class people, non-voters, the younger generation; he's the one tapping into what used to be considered the Dem base and finally getting them involved in organizing a political force.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Back in 2016, The Week magazine ran a short, on-point editorial making a direct connection between Bernie and Donald -- each man promoting a delusion tailored to a rabid fan base. I happen to think Bernie's is more delusional than Trump's. Isn't Sanders now one of only 2 self-identifying Democrat socialists on the hill (if my count is off, it aint far off.) Versus an entire GOP Senate majority willing to do the Orange Emperor's bidding.

I wouldn't say Bernie is more delusional--while he's wrong he's nowhere near as epically wrong as His Flatulence. It's just the Democrats are more sensible aren't following him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I care about my fellow human beings. I would like to see people not go bankrupt due to medical bills there. I would like to see a candidate there win who is actually for single payer universal health care, as I already enjoy. I want this for people in less developed and more backwards countries like the USA.

We don't have very many go bankrupt due to medical bills, we have researchers who want to pretend that is common. The real number is more like 5% of bankruptcies, and half of those are people who were living beyond their means and medical bills were simply the straw that broke the camel's back.

The much more common reason for "medical" bankruptcy is because the medical issues kept them from working--and that's a problem everywhere, not just in the US.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Returning to the OP, It is misleading to claim Biden supported cuts to SS. He did support freezing increases, but that is not a cut.

Their dollars would buy less, it's a cut.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Through Congress? Does Sanders have a plan for getting 60 seats in the Senate?
So that is a no, Sanders doesn't have a plan to get 60 seats in the Senate.

More importantly, what exactly does Sanders think he can do as POTUS that he's been unable to do in all of his decades in the Senate?

1. End the bombing, invasion, sanctions, and bullying of other nations as commander in chief

In other words, accept that we will be in a nuclear war with a caliphate.

2. Immediately instruct all federal agencies to stop enforcing laws against marijuana possession or use

They're not allowed to spend a penny on it dealing with actions that are legal by state law. That's good enough for now, it's not a big issue to me. Something actually useful would be to quit hampering banks from dealing with the marijuana business.

3. Forgive student loan debt via the same mechanism as Trump's forgiveness of such for veterans

Most loans are fine. Forgive all the debt to the ones taken in by the scam schools.

4. Declare a state of emergency around climate change to get a Green New Deal implemented

The green new deal is a collection of pipe dreams, not a viable plan. Without a breakthrough in storage we can't run the country on renewables. What you'll actually do is end up increasing carbon emissions and seriously harming the economy. 1929 will look like boom times.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It's worth repeating that for his flaws, Sanders has by far the most realistic plan for how his policies get enacted

From the horse's ass:

“I don’t have any illusion that I’m going to walk in, and I certainly hope it is not the case but if there is a Republican House and a Republican Senate, that I’m going to walk in there and say, ‘Hey guys, listen. I’d like you to work with me on raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour,’” he said. “It ain’t gonna happen, I have no illusion about that. The only way that I believe that change takes place … is that tens of millions of people are going to have to stand up and be involved in the political process the day after the election.”
...
“What I said is that, if you are good at politics, and you have 70 [percent]-80 percent of the people behind you in issues like raising the minimum wage or rebuilding our infrastructure or family and medical leave. ... You should win those fights

80% of ALL Americans---that would necessarily include Republicans--standing up and being involved in the political process in lock-step together the day after the election is a "realistic plan"?

Pass me what you're smoking.

 

[ZiprHead]

It's worth repeating that for his flaws, Sanders has by far the most realistic plan for how his policies get enacted

From the horse's ass:

“I don’t have any illusion that I’m going to walk in, and I certainly hope it is not the case but if there is a Republican House and a Republican Senate, that I’m going to walk in there and say, ‘Hey guys, listen. I’d like you to work with me on raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour,’” he said. “It ain’t gonna happen, I have no illusion about that. The only way that I believe that change takes place … is that tens of millions of people are going to have to stand up and be involved in the political process the day after the election.”
...
“What I said is that, if you are good at politics, and you have 70 [percent]-80 percent of the people behind you in issues like raising the minimum wage or rebuilding our infrastructure or family and medical leave. ... You should win those fights

80% of ALL Americans---that would necessarily include Republicans--standing up and being involved in the political process in lock-step together the day after the election is a "realistic plan"?

Pass me what you're smoking.

Read it again. "70 [percent]-80 percent of the people behind you" That means the people that support your positions, at least impov.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

From the horse's ass:



80% of ALL Americans---that would necessarily include Republicans--standing up and being involved in the political process in lock-step together the day after the election is a "realistic plan"?

Pass me what you're smoking.

Read it again. "70 [percent]-80 percent of the people behind you" That means the people that support your positions, at least impov.

You read it again:

“I don’t have any illusion that I’m going to walk in, and I certainly hope it is not the case but if there is a Republican House and a Republican Senate, that I’m going to walk in there and say, ‘Hey guys, listen. I’d like you to work with me on raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour,’” he said. “It ain’t gonna happen...
...
“What I said is that, if you are good at politics, and you have 70 [percent]-80 percent of the people behind you in issues like raising the minimum wage or rebuilding our infrastructure or family and medical leave. ... You should win those fights

He's not saying 80% of Democrats behind you will sway Republicans on something like raising the minimum wage to $15, he's saying 80% of "the people" behind you in issues like raising the minimum wage. That would necessarily require Republican voters to be part of that 80% if there is any hope on swaying Republicans in Congress.

Well, no shit. If any President woke up the day after their election and found they had 80% of ALL Americans (aka, "the people") wanting a $15 minimum wage, then yeah, they should win that fight.

 

[TV and credit cards]

You read it again:

“I don’t have any illusion that I’m going to walk in, and I certainly hope it is not the case but if there is a Republican House and a Republican Senate, that I’m going to walk in there and say, ‘Hey guys, listen. I’d like you to work with me on raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour,’” he said. “It ain’t gonna happen...
...
“What I said is that, if you are good at politics, and you have 70 [percent]-80 percent of the people behind you in issues like raising the minimum wage or rebuilding our infrastructure or family and medical leave. ... You should win those fights

He's not saying 80% of Democrats behind you will sway Republicans on something like raising the minimum wage to $15, he's saying 80% of "the people" behind you in issues like raising the minimum wage. That would necessarily require Republican voters to be part of that 80% if there is any hope on swaying Republicans in Congress.

Well, no shit. If any President woke up the day after their election and found they had 80% of ALL Americans (aka, "the people") wanting a $15 minimum wage, then yeah, they should win that fight.

Is it kinda like having over 90% of the American people behind gun background checks that sits on McConnell’s desk?