Bernie Sanders on the House Floor, 1995 —
'I personally happen not to be a great believer in the free enterprise system for many reasons.'
I don’t really know what needs to be added to this. He said it on the floor of the House, it is on the record, and to my knowledge he has never retracted it.
So, looking at the universe of General Election voters —
How many Democrats would agree with this?
How many Indies would agree with this?
How many persuadable Republicans would agree with this?
I’ve seen the current head to head polls that are pretty good for Bernie. As many of us have said, very few Americans know enough about him to base much on those. There is a lot of ammunition for the GOP, it’s going to be devastating, and those who ignore it are whistling in the dark.
UPDATES:
Some commenters are asking for a link and saying it is out of context. I got busy at work and did not have the chance to update till now.
I’ve added them now. I don't think this helps the argument for Bernie whasoever.
LINK:
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/1995/1/31/house-section/article/h962-1
DEFINITION OF THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM:
http://www.answers.com/Q/&ad=1
A free enterprise system is when individuals and businesses are free to make their own economic choices; when more than one company can sell the same product/service and still survive in the market. This gives the consumer choice and option. They can shop around for the best price on an item/service they want.
Sounds terrible, doesn’t it?
CONTEXT:
Context is below, I don’t actually see the quote as having anything to do with the general discussion, it seems to read as though it’s a tangential thought that he just threw in there, and I bet a lot of other folks will say so too. Especially considering the very next two sentences:
The other irony, I think, perhaps the interesting irony
in this whole affair is that I personally happen not to be a great
believer in the free enterprise system for many reasons. I do respect
people who take a risk and, having taken that risk, if they do well,
they earn a whole lot of money. I think that is okay.
Seems like he’s saying, “I think Free Enterprise sucks” but then grudgingly says someone taking a risk and building a business — well, quote — “I think that is okay”. A stirring endorsement if ever I’ve heard one!
FULLER CONTEXT HERE:
Mr. DeFAZIO. Did not the gentleman identify an article yesterday that
said that because of the economic straits that our country is in that
we are going to have to lower the loan guarantees made available to
small businesses in this country?
Mr. SANDERS. The small businesses.
Mr. DeFAZIO. In my State the thriving growth of the last 20 years has
come from small businesses. We have had a few big corporations move in,
but generally we can identify most of the growth that is coming in. Now
we will have to cut back on loan guarantees for small businesses in
America while we, for example, extend $40 billion to Mexico.
Mr. SANDERS. The gentleman is quite right. That was in the Washington
Post, I believe, yesterday. It dealt with the Small Business
Administration, that is correct.
Mr. DeFAZIO. That is extraordinary. So somehow, I guess small
businesses in the United States are not a good risk or we just cannot
afford them, even if they are a good risk. And so we are going to have
to cut back on that extension of credit. But a regime in Mexico, which
has had three major financial crises, essentially two previous defaults
in the last 12 years, which is an authoritarian regime which has
lowered the standard of living of its own people by 25 percent in the
last decade, which has, however, created 24 billionaires in a mere 7
years, is somehow a great credit risk. And there is nothing to worry
about. But American businesses, well, I am sorry, we cannot afford to
extend that kind of credit to American businesses. We are just going to
have to cut that program back, and we are also going to cut our loans,
rural electrification loans and other things.
We do have a budget crisis. I agree. It is time to get it under
control. But how is it that suddenly, when we have to bail out the
savings and loans, we can do it off budget; when we have to bail out
Mexico, we can do it off budget. But if it goes to average
American people and their concerns, their small businesses, their
livelihoods, their education, we are broke.
This is a strange parallel to me.
Mr. SANDERS. The other irony, I think, perhaps the interesting irony
in this whole affair is that I personally happen not to be a great
believer in the free enterprise system for many reasons. I do respect
people who take a risk and, having taken that risk, if they do well,
they earn a whole lot of money. I think that is okay. But when you take
a risk by definition, there is a chance that you may lose. I find it
really outrageous that the people who invested in Mexico, especially
after the NAFTA agreement, they invested a whole lot of money, and they
expected a high rate of return. Well, things did not turn out the way
they expected. That is unfortunate.
But in Vermont, small businesses are having very great difficulty,
family farmers, workers, having very great difficulty. And yet they do
not have the U.S. Government guaranteeing their investment. What a
wonderful world it is for Wall Street investors. It is heads, I win;
tails, you lose. Heads, I win and get a large rate of return from my
investment in Mexico or tails, you guarantee my investment. Sorry, the
American taxpayer.
So they make these investments. And then they come crawling into the
Congress and say, gee, Congress, gee, Mr. President, we very, very
wealthy people may have to lose some money. That is unacceptable. We
are very wealthy. We are not supposed to lose any money. So you
ordinary Americans, average taxpayers, workers who may have seen your
jobs go to Mexico, we want you to bail us out.
And the leadership of the Republican party and the President and Mr.
Greenspan say, well, that makes sense to us. Hey, that is a good idea.
We will guarantee your investments.
Oh, that the average American small businessperson had that type of
support behind him or her.