From a Bernie supporter to everyone who isn't one:
Last edited Sun May 22, 2016, 02:47 AM - Edit history (8)
Warning, this is more of a rant than I've ever done before. That said . . .
I hope that at least some Hillary supporters will recognize that I've supported the Clintons in the past, and really have no vendetta against or irrevocable allegiance to anyone; but am just trying to figure out what would be helpful to most of us, and how to further that.
That said . . . if you actually care about trying to persuade Bernie supporters to vote for Hillary, fwiw . . .
. . . in response to any DU’er’s actually inclined to believe things like, "Of course there will always be a permanent underclass of minimally compensated workers. But those workers are free to leave at any time for higher paying jobs "
{you seriously believe that????}
. . . I'm going to go ahead and get more personal than usual.
I and my significant other average ca. 60 yrs. old.
We’ve both worked hard and paid taxes since age 16. We’re smart and well-educated – I have an advanced degree; my significant other has an undergrad degree – our degrees being from good schools – plus we both self-educated in tech-related skills before those were taught in schools.
We avoided all debt, other than the mortgage on our home, which we’ve paid off; and bought our home in an area likely to appreciate. We’ve lived modestly, and we didn’t have kids, so we didn’t have the expense of kids.
We and nearly everyone we know have been independent contractors for most of our lives, usually not by choice.
And we and nearly everyone we know saw a dramatic drop in our incomes ca. 2009 - 2010. We’ve done better than many of our friends, but we've had little or no earned income since 2011, and have had to prematurely draw down our retirement savings.
And we and nearly everyone we know have not been eligible for any kind of unemployment benefits or other assistance, other than the Obamacare subsidies (thankful for those. But if you still work at a company that provides health insurance, please know that what's available to you {because you're working for the Man} is probably far better than what's available on the Obamacare Marketplace at any price).
And we and nearly everyone we know have been scrambling for years to get any kind of paid work we could find.
And we live in an area that is supposedly doing well compared to other regions.
Meanwhile, most of the costs that are hardest to forego – food, healthcare, et al. – have climbed steeply.
We were flooded ca. 2006, though we’re not in a flood zone, because the City had neglected the flood control system; and the storm that triggered it was presumably made more severe by global warming. Since we weren’t in a flood zone, we had no flood insurance. We lost a lot during that episode.
We were nonetheless more or less on track to be able to retire at the usual age without having to reduce our standard of living; then, a full quarter of our life’s savings was vaporized in the 2008 crash.
We’re back on my college budget (beans and rice, washing plastic bread bags so we don’t have to buy bags, etc.). Because we did manage to save what we did, I think we’ll be ok, unless the economy crashes again – which it seems very likely to do.
What kills me even more, is seeing other friends I love, who also did most things right, but had a kid or two, so their expenses were much higher; and now they are in total f*cking financial crisis. 50 - 60 -yr.-olds, who worked hard and lived prudently all their lives, and are now on involuntary weight-loss programs.
There are reasons the suicide rate is up.
And, meanwhile, I’m hearing/reading/personally experiencing EVERY DAY new hosts of BASIC things our government USED to provide without any particular strain – well-designed and -maintained roads & bridges, safe drinking water, healthcare for vets, disease control, public education, critical social work such as child protective services, national park maintenance, and on and on and on and on – a daily litany of things that have been underfunded for DECADES, and they’re now all reaching the breaking point . . .
PLUS, global warming, because we’ve allowed the 1% to externalize costs for decades, etc. . . . .
And everyone’s like, w.t.f.? And Congress is all like, the only thing we have to fear is taxes on the 1%, or anything else the 1% doesn’t like. And abortion, and gayness (aimed at the sexually distractible).
Among the political class, nearly NO ONE BUT BERNIE (and Liz Warren {omitting Dennis Kucinich, John Conyers, and other worthies, but they’re not very visible lately) seem to understand the obvious cause:
That we have under-regulated and under-taxed most of the 1% for AT LEAST THREE DECADES.
After the 1929 crash, SERIOUS financial reforms were instituted, which successfully prevented crashes for decades, in one of the longest periods of economic growth and stability seen in human history – until those reforms were dismantled under Bill Clinton and his successors.
After the 1929 crash, SERIOUS economic stimulus was implemented, which employed millions to rebuild infrastructure, which employees spent a considerable portion of what they earned, thus effectively restarting the economy; and the results of their work enhanced all our prosperity and quality of life for decades, in the form of essential infrastructure, great public parks, inspiring public art works, and other stuff that makes actual human progress possible . . . .
But under Obama, most of the stimulus went to the 1%, and surprise! It’s never trickled down. The theory was, the banks will have more money to lend. But few can afford to borrow – or, to the extent they do, their ability to repay is shaky.
We’ve given the bank to the banksters, and instead of spending the money in ways that might create jobs or otherwise help anyone, they’re “investing” in more of the same kinds of unproductive speculation – credit derivatives – that caused the 2008 crash – knowing that when it all comes tumbling down again – and it will come tumbling down again – they’ll walk away unscathed and with big bonuses to boot, just like after 2008.
Meanwhile, during this three decades of under-regulation and under-taxation of the 1%, guess what? The 1% have amassed huge wealth and power – and just about everything for the rest of us has gotten worse and worse. This, despite the fact that, during that same time period, our actual productivity literally DOUBLED!
Greater productivity should mean that we can all make enough to enjoy the same standard of living we had in the 70’s, while working less hours. But instead, all that under-regulation and under-taxation enabled the 1% to scrape off and capture ALL the benefits of our doubled productivity.
So, yeah . . . now the 1% are intensely rich, rich beyond what most of us can comprehend, and seriously, the math has been done and if they could be divested of any substantial part of that wealth, a great many of the world's problems really could be solved . . .
. . . and of course the 1% have used part of their wealth to buy most of the media and our government (what’s the point of achieving world domination, if you don’t have the means to keep it?) . . . along with many of our essential services (if you like monopolies, you’ll LOVE owning services people literally can’t live without); as well as private security services, ranches in Paraguay, etc., to remain safe while the whole, eviscerated system implodes . . . .
And since the 1% own the media, we’re hearing Trump 24/7 while Bernie has to pay dearly for every nanosecond of coverage. The 1% may not have been wild about Trump, but they’re terrified of Bernie.
So yeah, that’s a rough take on how I see all that.
Now, I was never a big fan of Bill Clinton, but I considered the impeachment proceedings a ridiculous and outrageous witch hunt/fishing expedition/wasteful distraction. And that episode actually started me following politics more closely and being more active politically; and for a while, I liked Bill better and felt a lot of sympathy for both the Clintons.
But I happened to write a paper on the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and as time went by I became aware of more and more aspects of Clintonian economic policy that didn’t make sense to me.
And by now . . . I’m not sure whether the Clintons don't understand or just don't care about my little struggles, but their actions through the years have made it clear that I should not trust them to look out for me or my friends; and I don’t. It’s not a matter of their intentions, at this point; they may think they have good intentions and that they know what's best for the rest of us; but I disagree. I.m.h.o., either they don’t understand (or care) how hard it is out here, and/or notwithstanding Bill’s slogan, they don’t get the economy – and ditto Pres. Obama.
I’m no economist, but the views of people like Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Reich, Yves Smith, Sheila Bair, and William Black seem to me to make more sense, and to have been proven right more often, than those peddled by Goldman alums and their ilk. Yet the Clintons and Obama seem totally hooked on Wall Street’s economic kool-aid.
So the 1% are quite comfortable with Hillary, thank you; and they’re working on getting comfortable with Trump, in case Hillary can’t beat him, after all. Like I said, the only one they really, really, don’t want is Bernie.
And sorry to say, I’m really not sure Hillary would be any better than Trump. The results of Hillary and Bill’s actual deeds have been, for me, not good. As for Hillary's words, she and Trump both seem prepared to say whatever it takes to get elected; beyond that, Trump at least seems capable of independent thought. No, I don’t want Trump; but I really don’t want Hillary, either.
Peace out.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Thanks 
Talk him up, send a few dollars, volunteer to get out the vote/phonebank, get the word out, anything and everything.
This is the big push. 
The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA) is United States federal legislation that officially ensured modernized regulation[1] of financial products known as over-the-counter derivatives. It was signed into law on December 21, 2000 by President Bill Clinton. It clarified the law so that most over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions between "sophisticated parties" would not be regulated as "futures" under the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 (CEA) or as "securities" under the federal securities laws. Instead, the major dealers of those products (banks and securities firms) would continue to have their dealings in OTC derivatives supervised by their federal regulators under general "safety and soundness" standards. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) desire to have "Functional regulation" of the market was also rejected. Instead, the CFTC would continue to do "entity-based supervision of OTC derivatives dealers."[2] These derivatives, including the credit default swap, are a few of the many causes of the financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent 2008–2012 global recession.[3]
clip
Before and after the CFMA, federal banking regulators imposed capital and other requirements on banks that entered into OTC derivatives.[4] The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and CFTC had limited "risk assessment" authority over OTC derivatives dealers affiliated with securities or commodities brokers and also jointly administered a voluntary program under which the largest securities and commodities firms reported additional information about derivative activities, management controls, risk and capital management, and counterparty exposure policies that were similar to, but more limited than, the requirements for banks.[5] Banks and securities firms were the dominant dealers in the market, with commercial bank dealers holding by far the largest share.[6] To the extent insurance company affiliates acted as dealers of OTC derivatives rather than as counterparties to transactions with banks or security firm affiliates, they had no such federal "safety and soundness" regulation of those activities and typically conducted the activities through London-based affiliates.[7]
clip
CFTC/SEC dispute and PWG Report as basis for the CFMA
Dispute
In 1997 and 1998 a conflict developed between the CFTC and the SEC over an SEC proposal to ease its broker-dealer regulations for securities firm affiliates that engaged in OTC derivatives activities. The SEC had long been frustrated that those activities were conducted outside the regulated broker-dealer affiliates of securities firms, often outside the United States in London or elsewhere. To bring the activities into broker-dealer supervision, the SEC proposed relaxed net capital and other rules (known as "Broker-Dealer Lite"
for OTC derivatives dealers. The CFTC objected that some activities that would be authorized by this proposal were not permitted under the CEA. The CFTC also issued a "concept release" requesting comments on whether the OTC derivatives market was properly regulated under the existing CEA exemptions and on whether market developments required regulatory changes.[24]
The CFTC's actions were widely viewed as a response to the SEC's Broker-Dealer Lite proposal and, at least by Professor John C. Coffee, as perhaps an attempt to force the SEC to withdraw the proposal. The CFTC expressed dismay over the Broker-Dealer Lite proposal and the manner in which it was issued, but also noted it was 18 months into a "comprehensive regulatory reform effort." The same day the CFTC issued its "concept release" Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Federal Reserve Board Chair Alan Greenspan, and SEC Chair Arthur Levitt (who, along with CFTC Chair Brooksley Born, were the members of the PWG) issued a letter asking Congress to prevent the CFTC from changing its existing treatment of OTC derivatives. They argued that, by calling into question whether swaps and other OTC derivatives were "futures", the CFTC was calling into question the legality of security related OTC derivatives for which the CFTC could not grant exemptions (as described in Section 1.1.2 above) and, more broadly, undermining an "implicit agreement" not to raise the question of the CEA's coverage of swaps and other established OTC derivatives.[25] In the ensuing Congressional hearings, the three members of the PWG dissenting from the CFTC's "unilateral" actions argued the CFTC was not the proper body, and the CEA was not the proper statute, to regulate OTC derivatives activities. Banks and securities firms dominated the OTC derivatives market. Their regulators needed to be involved in any regulation of the market. Bank regulators and the SEC already monitored and regulated bank and broker-dealer OTC Derivatives activities. The dissenting PWG members explained that any effort to regulate those activities through the CEA would only lead to the activities moving outside the United States. In the 1980s banks had used offshore branches to book transactions potentially covered by the CEA. Securities firms were still using London and other foreign offices to book at least securities related derivatives transactions. Any change in regulation of OTC derivatives should only occur after a full study of the issue by the entire PWG.[26]
CFTC Chair Brooksley Born replied that the CFTC had exclusive authority over "futures" under the CEA and could not allow the other PWG members to dictate the CFTC's authority under that statute. She pointed out the "concept release" did not propose, nor presuppose the need for, any change in the regulatory treatment of OTC derivatives. She noted, however, that changes in the OTC derivatives market had made that market more similar to futures markets.[27]
Demonizing, Not Engaging
Recent discussions about the white working class and racism (me, DeBoer, Mystal, et al) have me flashing back to the fascinating world of 2008 LGBT politics. In that year, the majority of Black voters came out and voted in favor of proposition 8, a successful referendum that sought to eliminate same-sex marriages in California. Needless to say, this put LGBT writers and activists in a tough spot: do you take out your frustrations and demonize Black people as anti-gay bigots fighting against equality or do you blame yourself for failing to adequately engage Black people on the issue?
After some initial grumbling, the consensus position was to blame themselves for not engaging. In a post at The American Prospect titled “Engaging, Not Demonizing,” Adam Serwer argued:
Dean Spade weighed in similarly:
Jessie Daniels at The Society Pages shared similar sentiments:
Of course, white LGBT advocates never did successfully engage Black people well enough to bring them around on the gay marriage cause. Instead, what happened is gay marriage advocates ran up their support among whites so much that it didn’t really matter what Black people (a 13% minority) wanted. Put bluntly, majoritarian support for LGBT rights was largely won through a GOP-like demographic strategy of maximizing white margins.
Nonetheless, what’s interesting to me about the 2008 moment is the rallying cry of “Engaging, Not Demonizing.” The liberal response to Blacks opposing gay marriage was not to demonize them as anti-gay bigots that can go fuck themselves for all liberals are concerned. They certainly could have responded that way. As history shows, winning the support of most Black people was not remotely necessary to win gay marriage. But instead liberals responded with calls for further engagement, calls for further outreach, and, crucially, calls for finding “broader social justice goals” and “issues that are central to racial and economic justice” that could possibly unify the LGBT and Black causes.
This is contrasted with some recent liberal sentiments about lower class whites, which are more about Demonizing, Not Engaging. Specifically, the fact that many lower class whites are racist is enough grounds it seems for many Discourse Liberals to say to hell with them.
DeBoer argues that this new posture shows that liberals have evolved towards more conservative modes of thinking, modes which emphasize that only the morally good are worthy of concern:
Yet in a deeper sense I think conservatives have won a major victory, one not understood by them or their antagonists: they have written the notion that dignity, respect, and material security must be earned into the progressive imagination. They have made the notion of a moral meritocracy inescapable in American civic life
While I’d agree with DeBoer that this is a particularly conservative approach, the reality is that these Discourse Liberals do not actually adhere to the approach for populations other than lower class whites. As discussed above, they didn’t and don’t say “to hell with Black people’s needs” just because most Black people oppose LGBT marriage rights. And right-wing efforts to talk about how many Muslim communities across the world hold views about women and LGBT people that liberals find abhorrent are shrugged off instantly. For these and other groups, being morally problematic (under the liberal framework) does not make them undeserving of dignity, respect, and material security.
So what’s going on, then? If liberals haven’t evolved generally towards a “moral meritocracy” worldview, then why do they seem to apply that worldview to the case of lower class whites? I don’t pretend to know the answer to this, but Emmett Rensin suggested to me earlier that the main dividing line here is whether liberals think you will vote for Democrats or not. That is, lower class whites are seen as largely outside of the Democratic coalition and therefore their moral failings are seized upon as adequate grounds for dismissing them and their problems. But other groups, such as Blacks and Muslims, are seen as inside the Democratic coalition, meaning that when they hold morally degenerate views (again under the liberal framework), the proper remedy is not to dismiss and demonize them but instead to do more and better outreach. Which is to say, the moral high ground that Discourse Liberals stake out with regard to lower class whites is mostly motivated by a more crude partisan tribalism.
This is obviously just a speculation on Rensin’s part, but it seems plausible enough. At minimum, it accounts for why some groups are subject to moral meritocracy while others aren’t.
"essay" status. thanks for posting. 
when they can borrow at essentially zero interest and earn more with the payday loan racket, 20% credit card interest, 10% used car loans, 6% home loans to sub-prime borrowers, or just make a virtually guaranteed 5% by playing in the stock market? The money is in shipping the good jobs overseas, selling the product here for only slightly less than what they'd have charged if it were made in an American factory, and pocketing the difference.
But don't try to tell Hillary voters that. It's "her turn" after all. 
They don't fucking get it. I don't fear a republican, not anymore since democrats work so well with them. 
thanks. Yes, that is very much my perspective as well. 
