Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
21. Well,
Sun Feb 9, 2014, 09:45 AM
Feb 2014

"Okay, I'm sounding like a fanboy. My question touches on something larger than him."

...one man can't do it alone. The reality is that there will always be a need for compromise, from the farm bill to minimum wage. I mean, if it were up to Sanders alone, I'm sure he would be proposing a minimum wage higher than $10.10.

Welfare for Walmart?

Wal-mart pays its employees so little that many of the low-wage workers must rely on food stamps to feed their families and Medicaid to pay doctors when their children get sick. “Do you think the wealthiest family in this country should have large numbers of employees that depend on Medicaid,” Sen. Bernie Sanders asked a panel of experts at a Joint Economic Committee hearing Thursday. “That is corporate welfare of the worst kind,” said Robert Reich, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley and a former U.S. Secretary of Labor. The hearing was called to look at the economic impact of raising the federal minimum wage. Sanders is cosponsor of a bill that would boost the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour from the current level of $7.25.

Watch Sanders at the Joint Economic Committee hearing

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/welfare-for-walmart

If it were up to Sanders alone, Guantanamo would be closed.

Senate Delegation Heads to Cuba

Sen. Bernie Sanders departed today on a congressional delegation trip to Cuba. The senators will discuss human rights, trade and health care issues in Havana and also travel to Guantánamo Bay Naval Base where the United States since 2002 has detained prisoners with suspected links to al Qaeda.

Sanders has supported President Barack Obama’s effort to close the military prison. “We should aggressively defend ourselves against terrorism, but we must do so in a way that is consistent with our nation’s core values,” he said. The prison at Guantánamo Bay has “significantly damaged the United States’ moral standing, undermined our foreign policy, and encouraged terrorism rather than effectively combated it.”

During the Havana leg of the trip, the delegation plans to meet with Alan Gross, an American arrested in 2009 while working as a subcontractor for the U.S. Agency for International Development to set up Internet access for Cubans. Gross is serving a 15-year sentence. His case has become an obstacle to improving ties between the United States and Cuba, which have not had formal diplomatic relations since 1961.

Sanders supports normalized relations between the two nations. “American businesses are losing billions of dollars because of the economic embargo. Meanwhile, Canadians and Europeans are creating jobs through their investments in Cuba,” he said. “My hope is that Cuba moves toward a more democratic society while, at the same time, the United States will respect the independence of the Cuban people.”

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/senate-delegation-heads-to-cuba

On the efforts to close Guantanmo.

Senate Eases Transfer Restrictions for Guantánamo Detainees

WASHINGTON – The Senate late last night passed the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014, which will ease transfer restrictions for detainees currently held at the military detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, most of whom have been held without charge or trial for over a decade. The bill, which passed the House of Representatives last week, cleared the Senate by a vote of 84-15. The improved transfer provisions were sponsored by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin and were strongly supported by the White House and the Defense Department.

"This is a big step forward for meeting the goal of closing Guantánamo and ending indefinite detention. For the first time ever, Congress is making it easier, rather than harder, for the Defense Department to close Guantánamo – and this win only happened because the White House and Defense Secretary worked hand in hand with the leadership of the congressional committees," said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel at the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office. "After years of a blame-game between Congress and the White House, both worked together to clear away obstacles to transferring out of Guantánamo the vast majority of detainees who have never been charged with a crime."

The current population at Guantánamo stands at 158 detainees, approximately half of whom were cleared for transfer to their home or third-party countries by U.S. national security officials four years ago. Also, periodic review boards have recently started reviews of detainees who have not been charged with a crime and had not been cleared in the earlier reviews. While the legislation eases the transfer restrictions for sending detainees to countries abroad, it continues to prohibit the transfer of detainees to the United States for any reason, including for trial or medical emergencies.

"There has been a sea change on the Guantánamo issue, both in Congress and at the White House. With the president’s renewed commitment to closing it, and the support of Congress, there now is reason to hope that the job of closing Guantánamo and ending indefinite detention can get done before the president leaves office," said Anders. "As big as this win is, there is more work left to be done. The Defense Department has to use the new transfer provisions to step up transfers out of Guantánamo, and Congress needs to remove the remaining ban on using federal criminal courts to try detainees."

President Obama is expected to sign the defense bill into law before the end of the year.

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/senate-eases-transfer-restrictions-guantanamo-detainees


Statement by the President on H.R. 3304

Today I have signed into law H.R. 3304, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014." I have signed this annual defense authorization legislation because it will provide pay and bonuses for our service members, enhance counterterrorism initiatives abroad, build the security capacity of key partners, and expand efforts to prevent sexual assault and strengthen protections for victims.

Since taking office, I have repeatedly called upon the Congress to work with my Administration to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The continued operation of the facility weakens our national security by draining resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and partners, and emboldening violent extremists.

For the past several years, the Congress has enacted unwarranted and burdensome restrictions that have impeded my ability to transfer detainees from Guantanamo. Earlier this year I again called upon the Congress to lift these restrictions and, in this bill, the Congress has taken a positive step in that direction. Section 1035 of this Act gives the Administration additional flexibility to transfer detainees abroad by easing rigid restrictions that have hindered negotiations with foreign countries and interfered with executive branch determinations about how and where to transfer detainees. Section 1035 does not, however, eliminate all of the unwarranted limitations on foreign transfers and, in certain circumstances, would violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility, among other things, to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. Of course, even in the absence of any statutory restrictions, my Administration would transfer a detainee only if the threat the detainee may pose can be sufficiently mitigated and only when consistent with our humane treatment policy. Section 1035 nevertheless represents an improvement over current law and is a welcome step toward closing the facility.

In contrast, sections 1033 and 1034 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1033 renews the bar against using appropriated funds to construct or modify any facility in the United States, its territories, or possessions to house any Guantanamo detainee in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defense unless authorized by the Congress. Section 1034 renews the bar against using appropriated funds to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I oppose these provisions, as I have in years past, and will continue to work with the Congress to remove these restrictions. The executive branch must have the authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security interests. Moreover, section 1034 would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

The detention facility at Guantanamo continues to impose significant costs on the American people. I am encouraged that this Act provides the Executive greater flexibility to transfer Guantanamo detainees abroad, and look forward to working with the Congress to take the additional steps needed to close the facility. In the event that the restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees in sections 1034 and 1035 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will implement them in a manner that avoids the constitutional conflict.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/12/26/statement-president-hr-3304




Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

It's possible that the politics haven't quite caught up to the reality most people face. Smarmie Doofus Feb 2014 #1
"it is hard to make a man understand... awoke_in_2003 Feb 2014 #80
Excellent post! Enthusiast Feb 2014 #83
Great post! YoungDemCA Feb 2014 #91
I agree with your assessment. glinda Feb 2014 #2
I think the thing about speaking straight is important Armstead Feb 2014 #14
I think you already answered it. It's the money. All the money that's spent to pave the Dark n Stormy Knight Feb 2014 #3
I agree, it's the money. nm rhett o rick Feb 2014 #6
Yep. Because those with loads of dough continually buy power and influence, Dark n Stormy Knight Feb 2014 #8
Yes but... Armstead Feb 2014 #16
So give me a guess how much percentage of liberal dollars compared to conservative dollars are spent rhett o rick Feb 2014 #62
Not enough, I' ll grant you, but... Armstead Feb 2014 #65
I will never stop fighting but I think that being pragmatic, we are badly losing the war. rhett o rick Feb 2014 #70
Enh, In all honesty I guess it depends on focusing on the donut or the hole Armstead Feb 2014 #73
Yes we win a skirmish or two but what do you see coming down the road? nm rhett o rick Feb 2014 #78
A lot of them do. And hell, look who the Finance Chair of the DNC is cali Feb 2014 #67
There may be some wealthy liberals and they may give their money to Democrats but rhett o rick Feb 2014 #79
I know the money has a lot to do with it, but it's not everything Armstead Feb 2014 #15
And Obama got a lot of support in some traditionally Republican-friendly parts of the country... YoungDemCA Feb 2014 #99
DC is the bubble. blkmusclmachine Feb 2014 #4
Here ya go: DeSwiss Feb 2014 #5
Abso-effing-lutely. Sooooooooo very true and important! Dark n Stormy Knight Feb 2014 #9
k&r nt bananas Feb 2014 #20
Ding Ding Ding! nt. adirondacker Feb 2014 #49
I and many other DUers are asking the same questions. JDPriestly Feb 2014 #7
"I saved a thousand slaves. I could have saved a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves. jtuck004 Feb 2014 #10
Yes, I agree denial is a factor. It's been a drip,drip,drip over the years Armstead Feb 2014 #17
I'm 59, and agree completely. Except I think we are toast. At least jtuck004 Feb 2014 #26
I'm getting to tyhe point of being like my mother used to say... Armstead Feb 2014 #42
I am also beginning to see what she meant. And that is not good. Enthusiast Feb 2014 #85
Forty years ago, the capitalists had a competing system........ socialist_n_TN Feb 2014 #51
You are exactly correct. Enthusiast Feb 2014 #86
Call me crazy, but social democracy seems like a pretty good alternative... Hippo_Tron Feb 2014 #104
Agree 100%. Enthusiast Feb 2014 #84
I've never read that quote from Harriet Tubman. Le Taz Hot Feb 2014 #47
Answer: Money. blackspade Feb 2014 #11
This may sound naive -- But i believe a lot of peope with money agree with Sanders principles Armstead Feb 2014 #19
The limits of economic determinism... Eleanors38 Feb 2014 #31
I agree -- It makes it harder but not impossible Armstead Feb 2014 #35
Your assessment is not off base, but polynomial Feb 2014 #12
Bernie Sanders always gets my vote. democrank Feb 2014 #13
I think I agree. Yes back to basics is important Armstead Feb 2014 #18
Well, ProSense Feb 2014 #21
Yes, we must appease - oops! I mean compromise with - extreme ultra-right wing crackpots! bananas Feb 2014 #24
No, ProSense Feb 2014 #27
A few token democrats to show how much they care abelenkpe Feb 2014 #56
Sanders isn't alone Armstead Feb 2014 #28
I meant ProSense Feb 2014 #29
Yes, things are starting to move in the right direction.... YoungDemCA Feb 2014 #92
Same reason Phil Donohue was kicked off NBC. nt bananas Feb 2014 #22
Most Dem leaders are bought and most Dem followers are, well, followers. Baaaaa polichick Feb 2014 #23
But are they "baaaaaa" or just feeling fatalistic and defeated? Armstead Feb 2014 #38
imo some people in Obama's coalition are still clinging to hope... polichick Feb 2014 #63
True but my point was that the enthusiasm was there and... Armstead Feb 2014 #64
Well, once burned and all that - or in a lot of cases, many times burned... polichick Feb 2014 #69
I see a lot of "somethings" real -- but you're correct in that it's fragile Armstead Feb 2014 #72
I mean they'd rally for a movement that's real... polichick Feb 2014 #75
I agree with you 100 percent on that...(or 90 percent to leave a margin for error) Armstead Feb 2014 #76
Yeah. I've about had it with populist cons by corporate Dems. Enthusiast Feb 2014 #87
"Why" is an oft-repeated theme, here.... Eleanors38 Feb 2014 #25
Yes, I've seen it happen over the last 40 years Armstead Feb 2014 #30
Anyone know if TV viewing rates are significantly different in Vermont compared with the US overall? muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #32
I think the smaller population does make politics more personal Armstead Feb 2014 #33
The Party is controlled by corporate money. They get to vet our candidates. That simple. nt Romulox Feb 2014 #34
Not so simple -- We LET them vet our candidates Armstead Feb 2014 #37
Oh nonsense. "We" don't have millions to spend. Hillary 2016! nt Romulox Feb 2014 #40
Hillary 2008! Armstead Feb 2014 #44
They get to vet them because almost nobody participates in MineralMan Feb 2014 #41
And the millions of dollars spent by corporate donors? Merely incidental to the process, I guess. Romulox Feb 2014 #50
A lot of people don't have the free time or resources to do that YoungDemCA Feb 2014 #94
Everyone decides his or her own priorities, of course. nt MineralMan Feb 2014 #106
Maybe because fredamae Feb 2014 #36
That's part of what I'm talking about Armstead Feb 2014 #39
Serious, in depth fredamae Feb 2014 #43
I think the rank-and-file Democrats Le Taz Hot Feb 2014 #45
I agree with that Armstead Feb 2014 #46
Yeah, but I can't change it. Le Taz Hot Feb 2014 #48
How about Dr. Who? he's British and kind of zany Armstead Feb 2014 #52
To be honest, Le Taz Hot Feb 2014 #53
"Das Party"....very funny. lol! glinda Feb 2014 #58
I thought so too. Enthusiast Feb 2014 #88
I agree with this post. YoungDemCA Feb 2014 #97
First we must understand that Democrats are not the Democratic Party. The party is a Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #54
Actually, Pat Leahy is worth even less than Bernie- and Leahy has been in the Senate cali Feb 2014 #71
No - it's becausw MOST people aren't as liberal as he is. brooklynite Feb 2014 #55
And why not? Armstead Feb 2014 #57
On the issues Bernie is dead center. Enthusiast Feb 2014 #89
Gallup Poll might suggest you re-think what you are saying. truedelphi Feb 2014 #90
Most people are more liberal on specific issues YoungDemCA Feb 2014 #93
According to Fox news and the like, liberal means.... Armstead Feb 2014 #103
I love Bernie Sanders but why did he vote for the FARM BILL? dotymed Feb 2014 #59
From his website Armstead Feb 2014 #60
I thought that must be some dotymed Feb 2014 #105
Don't worry about sounding like a fanboy. Most of us are huge fans of his! nt tblue37 Feb 2014 #61
You touch on something important- Bernie relates to the "rednecks" cali Feb 2014 #66
I agree the working class aspect is important, and often overlooked Armstead Feb 2014 #68
"A re-emphasis on economic progressive populism would do wonders in this day and age" YoungDemCA Feb 2014 #95
He's elected by a state treestar Feb 2014 #74
You're not adressing the point Armstead Feb 2014 #77
Why do we give up before we even try? YoungDemCA Feb 2014 #98
dunno. but Bern is awesome. nt dionysus Feb 2014 #81
On the issues I think Bernie is dead center with the American people. Enthusiast Feb 2014 #82
Glad to see this thread still rolling. Great job Armstead! nt adirondacker Feb 2014 #96
Have you seen Bernie's "South Forward" website? YoungDemCA Feb 2014 #100
I'll check it out Armstead Feb 2014 #102
The generation in charge of the party came of age between 1968 and 1984 Recursion Feb 2014 #101
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A serious question about ...»Reply #21