Bernie's support for Lockheed's F-35

[BainsBane]

Someone posted a thread in GD about the obscene $400 Billion cost of the F-35 fighting jet and excoriated Republicans for supported wasteful corporate welfare for the MIC rather than programs benefiting the American people. I certainly agree.

The announcement by Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford comes almost 14 years after Lockheed Martin Corp. beat out Boeing Co. for the F-35 military contract, with the Pentagon planning to spend almost $400 billion to develop and buy more than 2,400 jets.

. . .

The F-35 is entering the fray more than four years late, and costs have spiraled to twice their original estimate, which has made it the subject of debate and criticism. The Marines’ move is expected to push supporters and critics alike to focus on the jet’s capabilities rather than just its cost.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/marines-say-costly-f-35-jet-fighter-is-finally-ready-1438367615

Three years ago, Foreign Policy called it a "boondoggle, the jet that ate the pentagon."

Republicans, however, are not alone in supporting the corporate welfare for Lockheed. When I pointed out in that thread than Bernie supported the program, I was told the conversation was not appropriate for GD. (Translation: Don't make anyone acknowledge inconvenient facts) Per instructions, I am posting this discussion as an OP in GD-P.

Following an F-35 explosion last year, Bernie Sanders affirmed his continued support of the program.

Bernie Sanders Doubles Down on F-35 Support Days After Runway Explosion
Me: “You mentioned wasteful military spending. The other day ... I’m sure you’ve heard about the F-35 catching fire on the runway. The estimated lifetime expense of the F-35 is $1.2 trillion. When you talk about cutting wasteful military spending, does that include the F-35 program?”

Bernie Sanders: “No, and I’ll tell you why – it is essentially built. It is the airplane of the United States Air Force, Navy, and of NATO. It was a very controversial issue in Vermont. And my view was that given the fact that the F-35, which, by the way, has been incredibly wasteful, that’s a good question. But for better or worse, that is the plane of record right now, and it is not gonna be discarded. That’s the reality.”
hat was the exchange I had with US senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at a town hall in Warner, New Hampshire, this past weekend (skip to the 45:30 mark of this video to hear my question). Sanders came to New Hampshire to gauge the local response to his economic justice-powered platform for a presumed 2016 presidential campaign. While his rabid defense of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and takedown of big money running politics was well-received, he contradicted his position of eliminating wasteful military spending while defending the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

The Lockheed Martin F-35 is the epitome of Pentagon waste. The program has already cost taxpayers roughly half a trillion dollars, with $700 billion or more to come during the program’s lifetime. During an interview, Pierre Sprey, a co-designer of the F-16, went into great detail about how the F-35 was a lemon aircraft. Sprey explained that the fighter is an excessively heavy gas guzzler with small wings, a low bomb-carry capacity, low loiter time, is incapable of slow flight, is detectable to World War II-era low-frequency radar, and costs $200 million apiece. And just a little over a week ago, the F-35 caught fire on a runway at Eglin Air Force Base.

To his credit, Sanders acknowledged that the program was “wasteful” in his defense of it. The contention over the F-35 in his home state of Vermont is that the program is now responsible for jobs in his hometown of Burlington, where he served as mayor before running for Congress. Some front doors of homes in the Burlington area are adorned with green ribbons, signifying support for the F-35. Sanders, like his colleagues in 45 states around the country, doesn’t want to risk the wrath of voters angry about job losses related to F-35 manufacturing, assembly, and training if the program were to be cut. And that’s where Lockheed Martin’s political savvy comes into play.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion

Now, before bracing myself to hear all about how wonderful the F-35 is and how much better Lockheed-Martin is than the corporate crooks on Wall Street, I will point out that Hillary Clinton likewise has some involvement with the program. She tried to unload the junk onto India back in 2011, while she was SoS. India was smart enough not to go for it. Sadly, the same can't be said for its backers in the US House and Senate, including Bernie Sanders.

[arcane1]

1. One of the very few votes of his with which I disagree n/t

[BainsBane]

4. How about immunity for gun corporations?

The Brady bill and the two crime bills? Do you agree with all those?

[arcane1]

8. Yes and no. And I don't agree with any politician 100%. Do you? Name one.

Might I remind you, Hillary Clinton doesn't even agree 100% with her own votes.

[Armstead]

14. How about his vote to kill all the cats?

That was a pretty bad one too.

He's so damn evil.

[Pharaoh]

64. And his vote to kill puppies

The bastard!

Unfortunately in politics you stand up for your hometown.

If they are going to build it anyway you won't turn down those jobs in your state.

[JDPriestly]

29. Compared to voting for the war in Iraq?

[arcane1]

30. Hell, it's prety much insignificant compared to that.

[retrowire]

41. Agreed.

[KoKo]

50. Absolutely...History Proves That! n/t

[Agschmid]

2. It's pork but it would have supported his supporters.

I don't have a problem with this.

What I have a problem with is this plane basically not being able to function and there are no consequences for that to the companies which designed and manufactured the plane. It's an utter failure.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. I don't have a problem with a senator bringing jobs to his state. That's what politicians do.

I don't have a problem with a senator bringing jobs to his state. That's what politicians do. I just hope these fighter jets are an upgrade over the fighter jets they are replacing.

[Agschmid]

5. They aren't, absolutely not.

[BainsBane]

6. They aren't. They are a disaster

They blow up and kill pilots.

[Agschmid]

7. How did they get past quality control...

That's the crazy thing.

Joint strike failure is more like it.

#America

[Thinkingabout]

10. Political pull, somebody did not care, just keep spending.

[okasha]

36. And one of those "somebodies" is Sanders.

According to test pilots, this thing can be decisively out-maneuvered, out-fought and out-flown by the F-16 it's replacing. They complain that the canopy is so low they can't turn their heads to make visual contact with friend or foe. Each one of these turkeys costs $257 mil, or only 4 for a billion on sale!

Lockheed Martin also makes drones and other WMD's, all of which Sanders has supported funding. I see no virtue in voting against starting a war, if you then go on to support every single bill financially supporting said war and its weaponry.

[Thinkingabout]

37. He may have voted no on IWR but he voted for AUMF, funding wars helps the defense contractors,

Welfare corporations. He also voted to expand the troops, and the ending result was more work for welfare contractors.

[pocoloco]

76. My god!!

If you knew this was going to happen why didn't you fucking say
something back when it mattered. Why would you let them waste
all this money. It's unconscionable that you knew the design was flawed,
and yet said nothing!

[okasha]

82. Mas que poco.

[tammywammy]

11. They've blown up and killed pilots?? Link?

[bahrbearian]

32. I don't have a link but I have a photo of a F-35

I might be wrong it could be this one

[arcane1]

33. This official Air Force Safety Center link shows zero fatalities up through 2014:

http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-150116-054.pdf

I must be making some mistake though, since this poster never makes up claims out of thin air

[tammywammy]

34. I know there haven't been any fatalities

There was an engine fire, which Pratt & Whitney are correcting the issue. The fleet was grounded for around 25 days after the fire.

[arcane1]

35. Exactly. I'm amazed at posters who throw nonsense out there and don't expect people to look it up

Five seconds on Google

[George II]

49. Could that be because only prototypes have been built and the aircraft wasn't put into service...

...until just weeks ago, and no flights have taken place yet?

[arcane1]

55. They haven't killed any pilots, for whatever reasons.

The claim is bullshit.

[tammywammy]

84. They're not prototypes

The Marines declaring IOC means they have sufficient aircraft to support operations. The different branches have had aircraft for years.

Lockheed Martin is in low rate initial production of the aircraft.

Even including ALL F-35 aircraft, there have been no pilot fatalities. No plans blowing up either.

[George II]

85. Not those that are now in service.

[HappyPlace]

57. Thank you for pointing this out.

I don't see that Sanders' statement here is condemnable.

He's right, the damned thing is built and what matters is that once elected we're far less likely under his leadership to ever use them in a war or order large numbers of them.

There is no "there" there, with this OP's attempt to discredit the good Senator.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. I was pointing out that the senator is a politician advancing the interests of his constituents.

The OP was merely pointing that out as well.

[TRoN33]

83. No. Rand Institute has simulated many combat scenarios and...

They found it to be the very bad news for F-35. Single India Su-30MKI (their own customized advanced Russian-designed Su-35) can easily beat three F-35 in close combat situations. Chinese J-31 found to be more maneuverable, faster, carries more weapons than F-35 can beat the latter by two. The worst part? Single Eurofighter Typhoon can easily wallop four F-35 at same time. Single Typhoon did best two F-15 in impromptu combat training in real life.

F-35 facing Russian Pak-Fa? Forget it. T-50 will eat F-35 for lunch.

F-35 can't even beat F-16, the jet that USAF is replacing with F-35. How pathetic is that? Japan is about to have its first stealth fighter take off within this year and on paper, it's already better than F-35.

[Thinkingabout]

9. K & R

A wasteful program which was throwing good money after bad. Think how much of the student loans could have been paid. A good example of corporate welfare.

[Armstead]

12. Yes, Sanrders designed a really bad plane. He should be ashamed.

Christ on a cracker I get so tired of the double standard that is applied to Sanders.

When he acts totally in accordance to his principles, he is accused of being an ideologue, who doesnt understand the process and is a shitty legislator. Someone who hs no business running for highr office because he's not "electable."

But when he acts like a typical pragmatic politician and represents the people of his state and brings home some bacon, its like "See? He's just another crooked politician."

Damnned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

[dsc]

13. really

what I see is a double standard alright. If Hillary supports something or doesn't support something because of her state she is an unprincipled flip flopping horror story but if Sanders does that he is a principled Senator.

[Armstead]

15. Nah. The only time that is an issue is when she's doing it for that little section of NY called...

Wall Street.

[dsc]

19. so it is perfectly OK to sell out the country for Lockheed Martin

but somehow Golden Sacs is over the line. I will be totally blunt here. If she had done what he did you would be up in arms. The difference is I would find it a problem too.

[Armstead]

23. No I'd have a problem if Sanders had been the main architect....

and if he'd gotten his pockets lined by the builders of the planes.

AND -- more important -- if he had made a habit of such things throughout his career, and let it shape his actions overall, and made him into an apologist and henchman for the Corporate Oligarchs and Military Industrial complex.

And if he stopped speaking his mind so he could become part of The Club, and made plans to feather his nest by becoming a rich paid lobbyist for corporations like Lockheed and getting paid big bucks to sell influence.

I'd have a real problem with THAT.

This? He saw a project that benefited his constituents and did what he could to steer it to his state.

[PatrickforO]

17. No, it's not like that. Neither Sanders nor Clinton should be criticized for acquiescing to the F-35

Please, see my post below for why this is.

[PatrickforO]

16. The F-35 has been a money pit.

However, as Sanders says, it is already built. To throw them away now would be to waste what we've already spent.

Also, as an economist I analyze the industry and workforce mix in many different localities. In Colorado, for instance, we are ranked among the top in the nation in civilian aerospace employment. It's kind of a Catch-22. If we suddenly reduce military spending the way we all know it needs to be, then what will we do with all the people that will lose jobs because of it? It is a real issue, and in human terms, nearly 20,000 people would be affected in metro Denver alone.

Sanders had the same issue with the jobs in Burlington. If we are going to make cuts in 'defense' spending, which we must, then we are going to have to be planful about those cuts.

1. The bottom can't fall out too suddenly, because releasing that many newly unemployed people into the economy would be disastrous and irresponsible. For instance, in metro Denver, if we laid off the 5,500 people working in guided missile and space vehicle manufacturing, a simple input/output analysis shows that the ripple effect on the economy would be the net loss of over 18,000 jobs. The loss of over 18,000 jobs would reduce demand for goods and services by an estimated $1.6 billion. Then, of course, Republicans would call the unemployed lazy and try and reduce benefits, which would reduce demand for goods and services even more, causing more layoffs, and so on, and so on, and scooby dooby doo.

2. A planful reduction would space layoffs over a few years, and would provide re-training for those affected so they could be marketable in other industries; this will require a concurrent effort by economic developers to attract the types of businesses that employ people with the skills of those being laid off.

So, it's complicated. Yes, the F-35 sucks. Yes, the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) is an economic parasite on the nation. Yes, war is stupid and should be banned. BUT, like Sanders, we face some hard human questions as we try and get rid of the MIC parasite. Clinton will end up taking the same position, because both must try and make sane choices in an insane system.

Thus it would be wrong of us to criticize Sanders OR Clinton for their positions on the F-35. Instead, let's look at what each has done over the space of their careers in taking on the MIC, while still being cognizant of jobs that are lost as a result of reductions.

[Armstead]

20. Objectivity? What a concept.

Congratulations on a thoughtful and even handed post

[dsc]

21. funny we have no problems doing this with any other government spending

They can be put to work doing more productive things. Maybe they can build rockets to explore Mars.

[PatrickforO]

26. Yeah, the deeper issue here is that Republicans simply don't understand how an economy works.

This is why I fault Clinton for her 'yea' vote for the Iraq war. When he voted against the war, Sanders knew that if we go to war, then war spending increases. When war spending increases, more civilians in communities that have MIC companies get jobs in the war industry, and they are jobs that pay really well and offer good benefits.

Alas, it is easy to expand war spending, but when the time comes to reduce it, then you have chambers of commerce and local leaders fighting tooth and nail to keep the money coming in so those jobs aren't lost.

This is also why I fault Clinton on her instrumental support of TPP under the guise of 'economic statecraft.' So-called free trade agreements cost good jobs that pay well and have good benefits, which are then replaced by lower paying service jobs that don't have nearly as good benefits.

An economy is a fragile thing. To your point, when we make other cuts in nonmilitary discretionary spending, simultaneously with massive tax cuts for corporations and billionaires, then we are faced with two problems. When there are forest fires, there aren't enough fire fighters because of Republican cuts. When we have ebola scares here, there aren't enough disease control people because of Republican cuts.

Another structural problem with our economy is the Fed. It is quasi-governmental, but it is owned by big banks, not the national government. Thus, when Republicans cut taxes and spend lots of money anyway, we end up 'owing' our own money to Wall Street. If on the other hand, the central banking system was nationalized, the national debt would be rendered meaningless because we operate in a system of fiat currency - a dollar is only a dollar because we AGREE it is, not because it is backed by anything. And everyone in the world uses the dollar - it is the preferred currency of trade. The United States is the sole supplier of dollars. So if the central bank was nationalized, we wouldn't have the problems we do.

If this were the case, then in times of recession, the government could print money, create jobs and be the spender of last resort as is necessary. Then when times get better, the government spending could be cut. You know, the last time we had a surplus was when Clinton raised taxes? Because it costs money to run our government, and if there are too many tax cuts, then needed services that the American people depend on are cut and the Republicans blame the Democrats for the cuts even though they themselves are responsible.

So, DSC, next time you hear someone say Dems 'Tax and Spend' say that's good, because the Republicans cut taxes and spend in the red.

[Thinkingabout]

65. Bernie voted for AUMF which did the spending. Seems like he voted to get more

Business for Defense contractors, it does not matter if the company address is Wall Street or any other place the results are the same.

[YOHABLO]

28. A President is not an authority on defense weapons and fighter jets .. they listen to the Pentagon.

If the Pentagon tells them they need these jets, then so be it. They really should scrap it and start over.

[calimary]

38. A very instructive post, PatrickforO!

Thank you for this! When I see how it's laid out such that the net result would be thousands of jobs lost, I immediately start wondering - well, what ELSE could that business do? What ELSE could that factory build? How could they adjust to changing times? As for the Denver industry of guided missile and space vehicle manufacturing that's cited here, we've got a serious climate change crisis developing. What kind of responses to those problems could this industry develop? Couldn't that absorb a lot of the job losses? Does that mean we just trash the whole works - when there's space vehicle manufacturing going on? Why can't THAT be geared up? After all, it's starting to make sense, as we insist on poisoning our own nest and overpopulating and ruining this planet, to start considering colonies OFF the planet - in orbiting space stations, the transport to and from same, the moon, and maybe down the proverbial road, Mars, perhaps with terra-forming of some sort? Seems to me that's the stuff of planet-loads of jobs!

And if it's already established that the damn thing doesn't work, but we supposedly still need a "fighter jet of record", well, where are the designers, developers, programmers, and test-departments, who are working on a better response WHILE the rest of us are wringing our hands on the horns of this presumably unsolvable dilemma? We could be solving it RIGHT THIS MINUTE. Where is the retooling? Where is the repurposing? From what I've read about America's shifting gears from a peacetime economy to a wartime economy - almost literally overnight? Detroit was able to make the switch, building tanks and airplanes instead of cars. Why isn't this some sort of Manhattan Project of the 21st Century?

Because frankly, it just doesn't make sense to continue to prop up something that's widely regarded as wasteful and doesn't even work. Sooner or later you're gonna have to stop doing that. Sooner or later, that boil is just gonna have to be lanced. It's like - how long does one keep digging? A ridiculously expensive, high-maintenance, almost-useless white elephant is UNSUSTAINABLE.

I'm not trying to sound simplistic, either. I think these are questions that are going to (and that need to) come up and demand answers - as we, as a nation AND as a planet, expand further into the 21st Century and face increasing kinds of 21st Century problems. It's how, in the same way, if we're smart as a species, we'll start looking at solutions like water desalinization and transport, infrastructure modernization, minimization of fossil fuel dependence, alternatives to destroying the rain forests, and other economic pursuits that, seems to me, would create tons of jobs all over everywhere. How many jobs could be created by that kid who devised a way to corral and clean up the mess in the Pacific Trash Gyre? Okay - that's over ten years, and there's already more than one Trash Gyre, and it's a colossal, global clean-up project. Did someone say JOBS?

I just don't understand why there's an implied stop sign that inevitably comes with a moment of facing reality about an unsustainable make-work project. Why aren't we already busy developing alternatives?

[PatrickforO]

99. Exactly! You've got it!

When faced with this type of reality, we must aggressively seek alternatives. Absolutely these war businesses need to be pared down - sometimes with a hatchet, as with the F-35, or with a scalpel.

Adams County Colorado is currently in negotiations to make Front Range Airport near DIA into 'Colorado Spaceport.' This will open up the eastern part of greater metro Denver to private sector aerospace initiatives. Right now, communication satellites and drones are two technologies that can readily be privatized to serve the community, creating jobs that could be filled by recently released DoD workers.

I don't have all the answers, though, and you'll notice that communication satellites and drones can also be used to our detriment.

As you say, we are going to have to expand our thinking to include our species and the earth itself. We need a regenerative model that eschews the primacy of shareholders and the false business concept of 'externalities.' Our economy, our society must be reorganized to recognize the value of all stakeholders and the environment. We have to start thinking of wealth as a 'commons' instead of a 'yours or mine.'

It's going to be damned hard. Do you think humanity is up to it? Or do you think we're fucked? I know people who are on either side. I tend to be an optimist - some think of me as a real Don Quixote, always ready to tilt at windmills, but our 'better angels' really ARE there. We just have to connect with the concept of valuing the welfare of the group instead of elevating the few predatory oligarchs.

[calimary]

105. Man, I don't know, PatrickforO.

You ask a very important question in that last paragraph. One for all of us to think on for a long and serious time.

It could be that the job ahead is just too big, because it does indeed require an entire change of mindset, a pulling away from the worship of capitalism which always seems to turn predatory at the drop of a hat and with the most meager of excuses. It requires an entire change of mindset AWAY from anti-intellectualism. That would also probably imply an entire change of mindset away from the tendency to cling to religion. Those who claim the most strident religiosity also tend to cling to the thinking and mindset that you find in the collected works of the recognized Bible - especially the Old Testament, which, to too many self-proclaimed followers of Christ, actually overrides and trumps the New Testament (which comprised the earthly "Chronicles of the Christ" as we know it). It's as though you can't believe in science and facts and discover if you believe in Christianity. It's either/or. There's no room for both.

And in the future we face, seems to me, there HAS TO BE room for both. Personally, I believe that we HAVE to revere and encourage and emphasize the sciences if we're to survive as a species. I further believe, personally, that the only real future the human race has, long-term, will HAVE TO involve leaving the planet. If we don't believe in population control (and we sure don't seem to!), the only answer to the epidemic of runaway overpopulation of this planet is to colonize elsewhere. We already have more people on this planet than the planet can handle, what with the hunger, the poverty, the waste, the over-exploitation and tragic squandering of our natural resources, the soil, the water, the air, the other lifeforms that we wantonly kill off - ALL OF THAT HAS TO CHANGE.

I fear we have fouled our own nest, already, past the breaking point. And okay, that's another reason why there MUST be a Democratic victory in 2016, and a Democrat in the Oval Office for the next two terms at least, because the other side offers us nothing but ignorant ostriches with their heads in the sand, denying climate change, denying any need for conservation or wiser custodianship of our Earth. All they offer in that other tribe is recklessness and short-sightedness, and the selfishness and pigheadedness of armies of adult-size three-year-olds. And they see no reason to change. They revere the Pope and cling to his every word until he starts talking about this and then all of a sudden he's the enemy. They laughed and scoffed at Al Gore (whose "Inconvenient Truths" turned out to be more right - in the truer sense of that word - than they can ever wrap their little afflicted truncated brains around).

It's overcoming THAT. It's overcoming ALL of THAT. And seriously, I don't know if we're up to the challenge. We need to be. We need to get to that point - pronto! And I don't know if we can, or we have the will, or the objectivity, or the realistic view of our world. OR the courage.

I happen to believe that the survival and salvation of humankind rests primarily in space. Leaving this planet and seeding colonies elsewhere, whether it's Earth's moon, perhaps a grand space station or orbital space city in the asteroid belt, or the colonization of Mars, or Titan, or some such other moon. Takes money and science and all the objective brainpower we've got. And as America dumbs down, I find myself losing hope. Maybe I've been watching too much "Star Trek," but I find myself hoping and praying that humankind reaches THAT point someday. Where money's not the thing. Where it doesn't matter what color of humanoid or type of alien species is sitting next to you in the interplanetary shuttle or on the transport pad. I dream of getting there. Don't know if it's possible, but it's certainly a dream I have.

Oddly enough, it takes me to the ONE point in which I wholeheartedly agree with ronald reagan. He once mused, aloud, about how the one way to get everybody on Earth together in total unity would be if there was some alien invasion from outer space. We'd ALL have a common enemy, and man-oh-man would that bond us together into one shoulder-to-shoulder human monolith. We have to start thinking of ourselves as One, Big, Giant, All-Encompassing COLLECTIVE. And that doesn't flow well with the "every man for himself," "sovereign citizen," "IGMFU" priorities that dominate the basic mentality of this country.

We don't think in terms of "WE." We think only in terms of "I, Me, and Mine." THAT is what has to change more than anything else about us as humans. And it's an awfully tall order to have to fill.

[okasha]

48. What about the human cost

when these things go operational in the field? Crews will die because the stealth function can be penetrated by low-frequency radar. What about the "collateral damage" on the ground when ISIS' "top commander in Northern Syria" turns out to be a wedding party--again?

The damn thing's a tar pit. Put even one foot in and you're a goner. Development should have stopped years ago. The people the project employed could have been redirected to an upgrade of the F-16 if the Joint Chiefs just had to have a new toy.

[Ed Suspicious]

101. +1 Great post.

[Comrade Grumpy]

18. So both Clinton and Sanders supported this boondoggle. Okay. Not good for either of them.

[SunSeeker]

27. Clinton tried to unload it on India. Sanders supported it's unloading on us.

Not exactly the same kind of "support."

[NCTraveler]

22. He didn't vote for the war, he just wants his state to profit off it.

Look the other way. I actually don't fault him for this. He is a politician. Doesn't matter how bad it is for the world or country, making money off war machines is good as long as it comes back to your state. Something Sanders supporters fight vehemently against, oops, until now. You can see them talking about bringing home the bacon all over the place. Very flawed bacon designed to kill people half way across the world.

[Armstead]

31. It's the Catch 22 that bugs me (as a Sanders supporter)

On one hand, Sanders (and supporters) are told that he and we afre purist unrealistic ideologues, we need to "grow up" and "accept reality" and be more "pragmatic." And that Sanders is unelectable because he is not familiar with how politics or Congress works, and he just makes speeches, and is just a crappy legislator...etc. etc. etc.

But when Sanders does do something pragmatic to bring some jobs to his state, and behaves like a Senator and plays the system, he's a "hypocrite" and a fake, and corrupt, etc.

In other words, damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. And if we defend him on these grounds, we're likewise "hypocrites" even though we are doing exactly what we are told we should be -- be pragmatic, open to compromise and accepting of "reality."

What's important to me is that in the larger sense, Sanders does have much more consistency and integrity than 90 percent of his political colleagues.

He could have become just another hack Senator and kept his mouth shut and glossed over the fundamental problems in our nation, and ultimately cashed in with a cushy lobbyist job. But he didn't follow that path. So I'm willing to accept -- and overlook -- those times when he does what elected representatives do and bring home that ole bacon on occasion.

[NCTraveler]

46. As I said, I don't begrudge him for this.

I agree with everything you wrote, including the 90% paragraph. I think many of his supporters here have gone scorched earth yet stand up for Sanders in areas like this when they would trash anyone else who did it. I put together an op showing Sanders has done good work, often being pragmatic, all while working inside the Democratic Party. I made that op as many Hillary supporters were trashing him as not being a democrat and saying he shouldn't receive any favors from the DNC. A Democratic Party not willing to gleefully accept someone like Sanders is a Democratic Party I don't want to be part of. He has been working for progress, often from within the party. Damned if he does damned if he doesn't is kind of a du thing. I haven't hidden my feelings for some of his supporters here. Opposition research on Gutierrez, one of my favorite democrats. Does Hillary really support PP. It's getting absurd. That also includes the insinuation, or in at least one case outright claim, that Sanders is racist. The purity part and the trashing of people who fight for me every day is overwhelmingly coming from one direction.

[okasha]

63. The real hypocrisy

is that Sanders condemns the war machine at the same time he's pumping fuel for it. And yes, he profits from that, in votes if not money.

[Armstead]

66. With him it's hypocricy -- with anyone else it's pragmatism and constituent service

You can't accuse someone of being an unrealistic rigid purist one day, and then accuse him of hypocrisy if he acts pragmatically the next.

THAT's hypocrisy.

[okasha]

70. You're missing the point.

Most of the legislators who are pragmatists and purveyors of jobs are NOT claiming to oppose the mechanism (in this case the Iraq war and the production of WMD's) that produces those jobs. Now, I don't think that "I voted for
the war, and I'm pouring trillions of dollars down its maw" is good, but at least it's consistent. But neither do I think "I didn't vote for the war, and I'm pouring trillions of dollars down its maw" is any better.

[Armstead]

72. I'm not missing the point...I just think it's hypocritical at best and....

deceitful at worst.

Overall Sanders is incredibly consistent. But 1)He does not fall 100 percent into lockstep with every rigid "liberal" position for specific reasons (gun control) and 2) He is a politician who plays the game to deliver service to his constituents or to compromise to get something out of out shitty government (giving his support to Obamacare in exchange for funding for free community clinics).

I have much less problem with those who honestly disagree with Sanders on one or more policy than I do with people who attack him from both sides of their mouth.

[okasha]

80. But you give him a pass when he talks out of both sides of his mouth.

Look, I understand. You want a Messiah, someone who's so perfect he's never changed his mind in 50 years.

Hillary supporters just want a competent President.

[Armstead]

104. You obviously DON'T understand what I am sayking becuse...

...you stated the opposite of what I said.

"You want a Messiah, someone who's so perfect he's never changed his mind in 50 years."

I was stating the opposite of what you claim.

..But I suspect you know that.

[dangerous dan]

107. Now we're in the Messiah mode?

Who remembers "Obama Messiah" slurs?

*raises his hands*

[Armstead]

108. I'll raise my hands

I supported Obama in 2008 and remember being pissed off at the messiah insults then too.

All political campaigns have a messiah element. They should, or else why bother?

But the responses above are twisting what I was saying about Sanders supporters.

[PatrickforO]

100. Cheer up Armstead! We're not hypocrites.

That's how Congress has always worked-why we elect people to uphold our interests, including our economic ones. To vote to bring money into one's state can be a good thing.

But, Republicans have peed on that barbecue too. They 'hate' earmarks! Earmarks are HORRIBLE, they tell us. But if we'd raise taxes like we should so we have some budget surplus, eliminate the payroll tax cap on Social Security to ensure that system's health, put a single payer healthcare system in place, then we could really have some earmarks that would address the infrastructure and create jobs.

[calimary]

44. Ouch.

[SunSeeker]

24. K & R

[bvar22]

25. Would a "No" vote from Sanders have ended this project?

The US Military learned NOTHING from WW2.

The Germans built the most incredibly advanced tanks in the early 40s.
They romped around Europe...no other tank was in the same class as the German Panzars.
They were very expensive, very complicated, and very hard to repair in the field
THEN, Hitler went to Russia.

Russia had a different concept.
They built cheap tanks that would get the job done.
They (T-34) were simple, easy to build, inexpensive, easy to fix, interchangeable parts for easy field maintenance, and they were able to build a hundred for every Panzer Germany turned out.
Guess who won on the plains of Kursk.


The moral of this story is that we should be designing cheaper, less complicated, more easily field serviceable
aircraft for the 21st Century.
The F-35 does NOT fill that bill.

[Phlem]

39. +1

[KoKo]

40. I don't think its that so much as that Vermont need the Jobs....!

Textile Mills in Vermont moved to the South and from the South they moved to China, Malasia, Vietnam and other places. Check the labels in the clothes that many of us buy. WHERE are THEY MADE!

I go back to buying from LL Bean and Lands End in the 70's who used to have Made in America, Made in Scotland (Wool Sweaters) and Maine Boots for Hiking and the rest.

Our states were in the process of offshoring everything and VERMONT could no longer survive on just "Making Cheese" and "Wood Household Products."

Like ALL Congresscritters Bernie made hard choices to bring jobs to VT or he would have been thrown out. Remember he's been there when the OUTSOURCING started occurring and he's voiced against it knowing he had to do what every other House Member or Senator is sent to DC to DO. BRING JOBS.

But his record has been to fight against and try to improve what they are up against.

So...he's fighting against the SYSTEM he had to operate under to Improve the Lifestyle of his State as jobs were offshored by both Repug and Dem Presidents...........and....he did what he had to do.

Lets talk about what HILLARY & BILL DID with the resources THEY HAD when they were Elected and what went on Under THEIR WATCH.

(I know you know this "bvar22" but just pushing back on the thread.)

[calimary]

42. GREAT post, bvar22!

Shackled to the F-35 project is the whole bullshit notion we're still clinging to - of 20th Century warfare. Hey, we're in the 21st Century now. Warfare is now being fought guerrilla-style, whether it's ISIS or Anonymous or rogue hackers. If we're clinging to old shit like the F-35 which IS completely unsustainable and nonsensical to spend the time, energy, and money to keep the damned thing (that doesn't even work) propped up, we are NOT equipping ourselves to fight wars in the 21st Century. OR we have to get really serious about waging peace. Disarming as many of us as possible. (Yeah, I know. I know.) Maybe we need to start pushing in earnest on both fronts. Decreased demand. Plus smarter more sustainable supply for the demand you can't quite wipe out yet.

[George II]

45. Would a "No" vote by Clinton have stopped the Iraq war (even though that wasn't what she voted on)?

[KoKo]

51. She will be held accountable by those of us WHO VOTE who lived through that Time..n/t

[George II]

52. Not ALL of those WHO VOTE who lived through that time.

[KoKo]

53. You will be Surprised! n/t

[KoKo]

43. Post Hillary and Bill's Record on the Deregulation they Did...to be Credible in this OP!

[PADemD]

47. F35 $1 trillion vs Iraq War $6 trillion

The F35 costs an estimated $1 trillion over 30 years.


Pricetag For Pentagon's Trillion Dollar F-35 Fighter Drops $60 Billion In One Year

In fact, one respected defense trade publication said the estimated $58 billion decline in operating costs was “a relatively small drop as overall sustainment costs are pegged at about $1 trillion.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/03/25/pricetag-for-pentagons-trillion-dollar-f-35-fighter-drops-60-billion-in-one-year/

The Iraq War estimated cost will be $6 trillion over 40 years.


The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

The war has killed at least 134,000 Iraqi civilians and may have contributed to the deaths of as many as four times that number, according to the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314

[djean111]

54. Isn't it great that we have been relentlessly exhorted to not be purists?

Even then - F-35 vs Iraq war, TPP, H-1B visas, Wall Street - my choice is perfectly clear to me, and my choice is Bernie.

[Cosmic Kitten]

56. LOL Grasping at straws bwahahahaha

Hillary has a list of scandals a mile long
she is untrustworthy in the public's view...
but Bernie voted for a MIC program, once.

[HappyPlace]

58. I think the hair is the real liability here.

I don't think the Achille's heel that is that hair has been nearly exploited enough.

Could be that they're saving that one for closer to the primaries!

[Cosmic Kitten]

61. Hmmm, yeah, the hair?!

Didn't Hillary just get a $600 hair cut?
A SIX HUNDRED DOLLAR HAIR CUT!!!!1!1!111!11!!1

That's our girl... Champion of the "middle class"

Hillary Clinton reportedly went to great lengths to keep a $600 haircut private and away from prying eyes.


The Democratic presidential candidate went to New York's ultra-exclusive John Barrett Salon on Friday for a snip session of her oft-photographed blonde locks, according to the New York Post.

"An elevator bank was shut down so she could ride up alone, and then she was styled in a private area of the salon. Other customers didn’t get a glimpse," a source told the newspaper. "Hillary was later seen with a new feathered hairdo.”

While the Post notes it's not known whether Clinton doled out any money for the follicle fix, a typical haircut with the salon's owner runs $600.
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/249596-hillarys-haircut-600

[Live and Learn]

59. +1 But I give credit for all the effort put into it.

It must take quite a bit of time and effort for so little return.

[Cosmic Kitten]

62. Hillary is hob nobbing with the elite, she can afford to squander...

a pittance for interweb obfuscation

[Cha]

60. Ah, pointing out facts about bernie is "grasping at straws".. is that what his supporters are doing

when they're posting about Hillary?

[okasha]

67. Yes, mostly.

[punguin54]

68. You can't please everyone all the time.

I disagree with some of what he has to say on this subject but agree with just about everything else.

[Vattel]

69. Sanders' point was that discarding it now that it is built is not a realistic option.

Do you think Clinton would discard it? Not a chance in hell. So Clinton and Sanders agree here.

[okasha]

74. Wrong.

Clinton did her best to unload the damn thing. I suspect she'll continue trying as President. ("Your Majesty, don't you think you should begin to consider Tonga's air defense needs?&quot

[Vattel]

91. I got $100 that says she doesn't unload it.

[okasha]

93. Put it back in your pocket, sweetie.

[Fred Sanders]

73. Bernie is also not "pure". Still the vast majority of Democrats think him a fine man and not worthy of attacking to prop up another.

He seems not to say a whole lot on the bloated military, other than complaining about waste and fraud.
What is Bernie's record on the military budget consuming half of government spending?

[BainsBane]

75. Do the vast number of Democrats support burying his voting record

and not discussing issues to make a few of his supporters better?

And where are your poll results to support your claim?

[Fred Sanders]

78. Glad you asked! Here is an interesting opinion that examines the voting record and comments

of Senator Bernie Sanders on military spending:

https://bhermannview.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/bernie-sanders-and-military-budgets/

“I support a strong defense system for our country and a robust National Guard and Reserve that can meet our domestic and foreign challenges. At a time when the country is struggling with huge unmet needs, however, it is unacceptable that the Defense Department continues to waste massive amounts of money.”

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-no-on-defense-authorization-bill

Kind of weak.


"This is such a weak statement that is utterly laughable. To talk about waste in the Pentagon, which even war criminal Donald Rumsfeld recognized before 9/11, AND support a strong military, supposedly a “defense system” is a stupid position. It is basically hypocritical because supporting a “strong defense system,” which is really a strong war system, will lead to…MORE “waste and financial mismanagement” to use Sanders’s own words. Hence, Sanders is implying in this statement that he is NOT concerned about cutting the military, only about waste in the Pentagon, which is just pathetic. Also, for all instances the word “defense” is used to describe the war system of the United States, it should be put in quotation marks."

[BainsBane]

79. That doesn't support your claim

which was about the public.

Every single Republican will make that same claim. The issue is what constitutes waste, and if someone is willing to vote against it. At least in the case of the F-35 boondoggle, Bernie supports the waste.

[Fred Sanders]

81. I agree with you. A progressive candidate should make slashing the military budget a top priority.

"Slashing fraud and waste" is a sell out argument....slashing the budget...why is Sanders not for that?

Where is income equality going to come from if half the money taken in and spent by government is for war?

[senz]

86. Sen. Sanders has indeed spoken out about the bloated military.

If y'all can keep from getting too excited that this was reported on Ron Paul's website.

Sen. Bernie Sanders Exposes Bloated Military and Intelligence Spending -- December 21, 2013

Sen. Bernie Sanders, in a US Senate floor speech Thursday explaining his “no” vote on the National Defense Authorization Act (HR 3304), exposes “wasteful, inefficient, and often fraudulent” Department of Defense spending. Sanders also addresses the bloated nature of US military spending compared to military spending by other governments as well as the tens of billions of dollars sucked yearly into US intelligence agencies’ “black budget.”

Here's the video of the speech titled "Pentagon Bloat" --

A couple of quotes:

At a time when the United States has a $17.2 trillion national debt and when we spend almost as much on defense as the rest of the world combined, the time is long overdue for us to take a hard look at the waste, at the cost overruns, and at the financial mismanagement that have plagued the Department of Defense for decades.

As a point of comparison, the International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates total global military spending in 2012 at $1.583 trillion. The U.S. portion of that spending is over 40 percent--$645 billion. In other words, the United States is spending almost as much as the rest of the world combined on defense. We are spending about $645 billion. China spends $102 billion. The United Kingdom spends $64 billion. Russia spends $59 billion. Other countries spend less.

Okay, keep looking for stuff ... who knows, maybe after you've looked enough, you'll end up voting for Bernie ...

[Fred Sanders]

87. Seems he concentrates a lot on "waste and fraud". Is there a specific proposal on the military budget?

Not the fire and brimstone and specific policy we see when he speaks about income inequality and Oligarths.

A specific proposal, slash the military by 50% for example, a nuclear-free Middle East, is the kind of proposal progressives are looking for, I would think.

[senz]

90. He spoke out against the National Defense Authorization Act (HR 3304) on which he voted NO.

But there's plenty of fire and brimstone in this speech. Much, much of his argument goes beyond "waste and fraud." But I can't make you read, can't make you listen to the speech, can I? However, I can ask you to stop mischaracterizing it.

I'm not sure I have the time and energy to do more research today (in order to drag the collective eyeballs of this thread across the truth so that y'all can no longer deny it), but I can assure you that if "progressives are looking for" someone who is opposed to military spending and military adventures, Hillary is NOT the one we want.

Bernie, as shown in his values and voting record, is a far, FAR better bet.

[senz]

89. A couple more quotes. It's a kickass speech.

I would ask all of my colleagues to remember what Eisenhower said and understand that today, when we have this bloated and huge military budget, there are people who are talking about massive cuts in food stamps, massive cuts in education, massive cuts in affordable housing, cuts in Social Security, cuts in Medicare, cuts in Medicaid. I would argue very strongly that before we cut from the elderly and the children and the sick and the poor, maybe we take a hard look at this bloated military budget.

<snip>

Let me conclude by saying in America today our middle class is struggling. We have more people living in poverty than at any time in the history of our country. Real unemployment is over 13 percent; youth unemployment, 20 percent; African-American youth unemployment, close to 40 percent.

We have an infrastructure which is crumbling. We have large numbers of young people graduating from college deeply in debt. We have others who cannot even afford to go to college because of the high cost of college. In other words, this country faces monumental problems. On top of that, we have a $17.2 trillion national debt.

It would seem to me that it is important we get our priorities straight. One of the priorities we should be getting straight is that we cannot give the Department of Defense all they want. It is time to take a very hard look at that budget in a way we have not done up to this point.

Our country needs Bernie Sanders as president.

[Fred Sanders]

96. Not exactly my idea of burning it up rhetoric or policy regarding the need to slash the military. No more "hard looks".

Action. Policy. Passion about it.

[senz]

77. A good senator, Bernie looks out for the state of Vermont. That's what this is about.

This is a tempest in a teapot, guys. It’s true that Bernie Sanders has the longest legislative record by far of any of the candidates, and I see it's keeping you busy looking for something, anything, to use against him.

In 2012, when Vermont’s Air Guard Base in South Burlington was selected by the Air Force as a prime location to house these new jets, Vermonters were divided on the desirability of having the airplanes. Vermont’s two senators, Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy (D) were in favor of the proposition because it would bring jobs and business to the state of Vermont. Opponents claimed the jets would be too noisy. Sen. Sanders agreed that they had a legitimate point and proposed strict noise controls for the jets while still allowing their benefits for Vermont.

This is what a good Senator does: weigh the costs/benefits of a proposal and act in the best interests of his constituents.

From Vermont TV News station WPTZ July 10, 2012:

Sanders, like the rest of the Vermont congressional delegation, is loath to criticize the F-35, given the economic stakes for the Vermont Guard whose commander has warned of hundreds of lost jobs in coming years if the base is passed over for the new plane.
Local business groups also fear the loss of related aviation investments and spending by military personnel across the community should the Air Guard base shrink.

U.S. Sen Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, seems exasperated by any suggestion the F-35 fighter might not be the best fit for the suburbs of Burlington.

"I hate to tell communities - and I won't - what they can and can't do, but I'm disturbed by the tenor of some of the opposition to this," Leahy explained, remembering his college days in the 1950s at St. Michael's College, not far from the Guard base. "They had much older jets and those things sounded like a freight train coming down the dormitory halls... for the 20 seconds, 30 seconds, a minute a day. I don't remember anybody getting too upset about that."

<snip>

Sanders, who lives in nearby Burlington, calls those [noise] concerns "absolutely legitimate" - while making clear he hopes the new jets will come, and utilize "aggressive noise mitigation" measures.

Read the article here:
http://www.wptz.com/news/vermont-new-york/burlington/Air-Force-denies-errors-scoring-Burlington-for-new-F-35/15394598

[sheshe2]

88. K&R

Thanks Bains.

[Plucketeer]

92. All things to everybody

There have been repeated tries at building a one-design-does-all military aircraft since WWI. Really - that's true. There's NEVER been such a plane built that could do it all and be superior at every task - none. In fact, there have been some that were downright ridiculously compromised by the very missions that were designed to execute.
Hell, just building a ONE-mission STOL / VTOL craft that can adequately do it's assigned mission is incredibly difficult and expensive. Now we're hung with this albatross that's to be a do-all, end-all in the incredibly complex and challenging arena of air combat???

Another impossible expectation is a PERFECT person. The last one was executed at age 33 for being so. Bernie's 73. I like that he's survived to this ripe and intelligent age. I'll give him a pass for being imperfect!

[seveneyes]

94. As if readersupportednews.org/opinion2 has a real clue about the technical details

Members of the scientific and engineering community don't give these opinions much weight.

[George II]

95. Don't tell me, Sanders is a corporatist voting for the 1%?

[William769]

97. Kick & highly recommended!

[ismnotwasm]

98. A heartfelt kick and recommended

[burrowowl]

102. The French Rafale is a

better aircraft, be cheaper to buy them.

[neverforget]

103. This Map Shows Why The F-35 Has Turned Into A Trillion-Dollar Fiasco

Spread the jobs to many states and congressional districts and suddenly you have a program that is very difficult to stop.

http://www.businessinsider.com/this-map-explains-the-f-35-fiasco-2014-8

[KeepItReal]

106. Sanders admits the wastefulness of the project and states there is no alternative. Both true.

I think the plane is a POS.

However, there is no other option in the pipeline. The Marines have signed off on this POS for operational use just recently and someday this flying POS will be fully mission capable. Even if it can't perform as well as the F-16, F-18, and AV-8s it is supposed to replace.

I just hope we don't mothball the A-10s we have. The F-35 is no survivable close air support platform.