Sanders budget measure fails, but Senate Democrats had his back

[bigtree]

Daily Kos ?@dailykos 12h12 hours ago
Sanders budget measure fails, but Senate Democrats had his back http://trib.al/mwk5kGv


As Congress votes on the federal budget this week, the Senate nixed a measure on Tuesday by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) to rebuild our crumbling roads & bridges and support millions of good-paying construction jobs—by eliminating absurd tax loopholes for the wealthy.

The tax loopholes targeted by Sanders' amendment let corporations and wealthy Americans shift jobs and profits overseas, often to offshore tax havens like the Cayman Islands. Nearly $100 billion is lost annually to offshore tax dodging, according to the U.S. Treasury.

But here’s the good news: every Senate Democrat present voted in favor, making it a 45-52 party-line vote in the Republican-controlled Senate.

This is important, because way too many Democrats vote with Republicans on awful bills like gutting Wall Street reform—or kill good legislation like restoring food stamp cuts—that it gives cover to Republicans who can claim with a straight-face that they are being “bipartisan.”


read more: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/24/1373112/-Sanders-budget-measure-fails-but-Senate-Democrats-had-his-back?detail=twitter_sf

[PoliticAverse]

1. "This is important" - actually it's not that important who votes in favor of a bill that won't pass.

What is important is who will vote for a bill when their vote will matter.

[bigtree]

2. so no correct vote or initiative Democrats participate in the minority matters?

...what utter bullshit.

[PoliticAverse]

3. What is bs is the game many politicians play where they claim to support something...

that they know won't pass but vote against it when it actually might. Don't
get fooled by political theater.

[bigtree]

4. don't pretend that your cynicism is anything

...more than just cynicism. What's the goal? Apathy?

[PoliticAverse]

6. Reality isn't cynicism and doesn't imply one should be apathetic but rather vigilant. n/t

[bigtree]

8. I'm all for vigilance

...but it's ridiculous to demand our legislators act in our interest, then shrug it off when they do so.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. exactly! A for Effort. I think this was Huge. It has the possibility of actually showing the people

that There Really Is A Difference in the two parties and shows which one is out here for the regular person.

It is things like this that can help sway that undecided Voter.

[F4lconF16]

41. Huh?

exactly! A for Effort.

It has the possibility of actually showing the people that There Really Is A Difference in the two parties and shows which one is out here for the regular person.

Effort means nothing to the voter. Effort is exactly why people are disillusioned in the system.

All there is is effort. There is no real change.

You can try and tell people all you want that Democrats and Republicans are different (and of course they are) but they're not going to give a shit what you say about how much "effort" they put in if there's still no changes in the complete and utter economic (and social) oppression of the working class. They may not know why they're getting screwed, but they know they are. And they know the Democrats haven't done much to change that.

[jwirr]

23. In this case I doubt that your statement is reality. There isn't a state in the country that doesn't

need this bill. The Democratic states are just the ones that acknowledge it.

[staggerleem]

14. Do you think that Senator Sanders wasn't aware ...

... when he made the proposal that it had no chance in this Senate?

This proposal was nothing more, and nothing LESS, than an opportunity for the parties to once again show us WHO THEY ARE! (BTW - a VERY wise woman once said "When someone shows you who they REALLY are - BELIEVE THEM!) The entire idea behind proposing this bill was Bernie's secure knowledge that EVERY Republican would HAVE TO vote against it, so when/if Bernie takes to the campaign trail he can say "Back in March, I proposed a budget amendment that would have financed millions of infrastructure jobs by shutting down the absurd system that rewards companies that export American jobs, and don't you know that EACH AND EVERY Republican voted against it?!" That right there is what you call a POWERFUL campaign talking point!

The fact the every Senate Democrat voted for the measure ain't nothing but gravy!

One more question/observation - why does someone who claims to be averse to politics waste their time and energy posting comments on a political website? Generally, people AVOID what they don't like, rather than jumping into it with both feet.

[Enthusiast]

19. "That right there is what you call a POWERFUL campaign talking point!"

It sure is!

[PoliticAverse]

20. I'm sure Sanders was, but then I think Sanders would have proposed the exact same bill

if he thought it would actually have passed. Your post makes my point as what is important
is who voted on the side that triumphed. Gravy isn't that important compared to the meat(heads).

Your question/observation is reasonable, but just because someone is averse to something doesn't
mean it is a good idea to avoid that thing. It would be bad to leave the current political situation
to those that like it the most.

[staggerleem]

29. Politicians (of a certain type) are the problem ...

... but politics (of another type) can also be the solution.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Dustlawyer]

18. You are correct! Many of the same ones that voted

against Wall Street reform would have voted against this if their Donors wanted them too, don't delude yourself! Just because they have a D after their name doesn't mean they are immune from a lot of campaign cash. That is the rot in out system that is now out of control.
Why have a bad vote on your record if you don't have too? If all these Democrats are so true the cause, why aren't they standing behind Elizabeth Warren when she attacks the Wall Street banks?
Denying this is true is just as delusional as all of the working class Republicans that watch Fox.

[Vincardog]

27. That is why we need to nail this into our Democratic Party Platform NOW and make Democrats Support

it or we don't support them.

[jeff47]

11. It matters when you are trying to get voters to the polls.

Which then gets you a majority where you can pass bills.

Of course, getting those bills passed while in the majority requires more finesse than Democrats displayed of late.

[PoliticAverse]

12. The ACA did take a lot of finesse and passed without a single vote to spare. n/t

[2banon]

30. Bingo!

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. I think it is.

Not one "sensible centrist" voted no with the idea that looking like a loony leftist was a significant problem.

[sinkingfeeling]

5. Too bad the MSM will make no mention of it.

[PoliticAverse]

7. The story linked to an article on USA today, which is pretty mainstream.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/24/sanders-budget-amendment-fails/70383870/

[Tuesday Afternoon]

9. Thank you for trying, Democrats. It is becoming clearer, the divide in this country and those Rs

who are not rich will soon start seeing and (hopefully) swing over Votes this next election.

GOTV!!

[mountain grammy]

13. Dear America,

The parties are NOT the same! Here's an actual vote for the interests of average people. Please make note of who voted against the interests of the people.

Sincerely,
Grammy

[Enthusiast]

17. +1 a whole bunch.

[BrotherIvan]

43. +1

[Duval]

15. May Democrats win big in

the House and the Senate, and perhaps we'll get things done.

[Enthusiast]

16. That vote is certainly encouraging. Maybe Democrats are getting the message.

[WillyT]

21. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[nevergiveup]

22. I am stunned by this

and also encouraged. Maybe things are a-changin.

[bigwillq]

24. Good job, Dems.

At least you tried.

[Astrad]

25. So why didn't they do it 4

months ago when they had control?

[F4lconF16]

28. Because then it would have passed.

This is why people don't like the Democratic Party. Most of the time it's all talk. There is never any meaningful change.

Then again, I don't expect much from an establishment party.

[2banon]

32. Yes, because then it would have passed. couldn't have that when D's were a majority.

[2banon]

31. good question, crickets in the background.

[bigtree]

33. there's another answer as believable as the cynical one

...the vote is a result of an election which drove the party from control of the Senate. If you can't accept that possibility, you might as well not even try and change the politics in Washington.

[F4lconF16]

35. Possible, and perhaps likely.

But then I look at things like Obama's proposal for free community college, and realize that they (the Democratic Party) do this every time, like they have for the last 50+ years. That community college proposal could have made a big difference in the youth vote in the election. Same for a bunch of other stuff. But it wasn't even mentioned until right after. Why? Because it has no chance of passing.

http://socialistworker.org/2015/01/22/obamas-charade-of-the-union

Sorry, but I won't celebrate Democrats who won't stand up for things when they count. I'll applaud Sanders for proposing it, and I'll applaud the few representatives and senators who would have voted for it normally. But here's the thing: most of them don't vote like that normally.

To me, this vote means nothing. It says nothing. It does nothing. It's an excellent campaign tactic, and I'm sure many of them (and hopefully Sanders) will use it effectively. But I won't pretend that it indicates anything other than Democrats looking out for their own political interests once again.

[bigtree]

37. what these legislator's states need to do is hold them to these votes in th future

...what good does it do to just brush it off? Hold their feet to the fire.

[F4lconF16]

38. I agree completely.

But that means they actually have to listen to their constituents. That doesn't often happen much anymore, sadly. Whoever has the money and the connections get the vote the majority of the time.

http://truth-out.org/speakout/item/15358-how-can-congress-ignore-92-percent-support-for-gun-control

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPPS%2FPPS12_03%2FS1537592714001595a.pdf&code=b0e187a030192d149a5cdd4ecca8b84c

The second link is the well publicized Princeton study. It's a good one if you haven't taken the time to read it completely. Telling voters to hold their feet to their fire doesn't work. The Democratic Party ignores voters unless it's time for campaigning again. Votes like the one in the OP are exactly why people have grown disillusioned with politics in general.

Democrats are an establishment party, and will always protect the interests of the elite and political stability. They will not work to change the current system, because they are the current system.

[bigtree]

40. I'm not seeing other viable 'systems' available to vote for

...but, anyway, here I am thinking that voter apathy and non-participation might have something to do with why these resistant pols persist in office. Last thing I would have suspected is legislators actually voting the way we want them to.

[F4lconF16]

42. You're right; there aren't many options.

Which is why (and I won't advocate it here) the system needs to be replaced entirely. The one we have now is eating itself alive, and it's the people at the bottom that get the worst of it. Revolution will come eventually, because people won't have enough to survive for all that much longer.

As for voter apathy, here's what I posted above:

Effort means nothing to the voter. Effort is exactly why people are disillusioned in the system.

All there is is effort. There is no real change.

You can try and tell people all you want that Democrats and Republicans are different (and of course they are) but they're not going to give a shit what you say about how much "effort" they put in if there's still no changes in the complete and utter economic (and social) oppression of the working class. They may not know why they're getting screwed, but they know they are. And they know the Democrats haven't done much to change that.

[2banon]

45. I'm sorry I'm not following the logic.

Are you saying that this current move by Sanders (backed by the Dems) is a result of losing the Senate last election?

Or are you saying that the reason they waited until they lost the majority to push for this piece forward was because had they done before the elections, they would have lost the majority due to that kind of move?

Either way doesn't make sense to me. what is it that I'm misunderstanding?

[bigtree]

46. well, you have your pov

... saying that this is worthless because it's a safe vote. That's one opinion. That doesn't mean they necessarily were waiting to lose so they could vote for this. That's silly.

The other explanation is that this represents legislators getting the message from the last election. To insist that can't be the case doesn't say much about your opinion of elections.

[2banon]

47. So, you're saying they didn't get the memo from voters before they lost the last election?

oky doky..

[daleanime]

26. A good start.....

now let's continue it...

[Dont call me Shirley]

34. Applause for Senators Udall and Heinrich, NM

[kacekwl]

36. It's about time

democrats stick together on common sense bills . Keep it coming Bernie.

[YOHABLO]

39. Perhaps we need to work on taking over the house and senate. Just think of the possibilities.

[RiverLover]

48. All but Mark Warner, Republicon("D") who always crosses to vote rethug.

He doesn't even try to hide it. But at least he's consistent.