Don't Blame the Corporations

They are not people in spite of what the Conservatives try to tell us. They have no morals and exist for one purpose only, to gain wealth and power. Without morals we shouldn't expect them to behave, we must tightly control them. Ayn Rand & Alan Greenspan and those that worship them, including Conservative Democrats, tell us that corporations work best for everyone if left unregulated. That's bullcrap and Alan admitted such to Congress in 2008.

Corporations are a construct allowed by We The People. When they operate in manners that are detriment to the welfare of We The People, we have a right to prosecute them and execute them.

I does us no good to blame the soulless corporations as we are responsible for controlling them. If you turn a bull loose in a china shop, dont blame the bull.

I know I am lecturing to the choir, but just wanted to say that.

We need to end the culture that is dominated by corporations, a culture that has made H. Clinton a very, very wealthy person.

“The Big Short”, the movie the Conservatives don't want you to see.

(I apologize for the length and disjointedness)

So what happened in 2008? (Spoiler alert: If you don't know what happened in 2008 and want to be surprised by the movie, don't read any farther)
When the artificially inflated housing bubble (Ponzi Scheme) burst in 2008,
2.6 million people lost their jobs and
8 million people found themselves under-employed.
The foreclosure process was started on over 2 million homes.
$5,000,000,000 (that's 5 trillion with a T) was stolen and re-distributed from the People (the 99%) to the American
Aristocrats (1%).

People were kicked out of their homes, many to live in their cars or share a house with a relative or friend. Not only did they suffer losing their homes, but thanks to the banks they were saddled with the debt making it almost impossible to get an apartment or buy a car.

When Goldman-Sacs and other financial institutions lost our money, it was replaced with our money and then they said thanks by giving themselves bonuses with our money, and giving us the “bird”.

How did it happen?
Any idiot can see what happened even though the Conservatives want to tell us lies. The Conservatives, in both Parties had been undoing the New Deal controls that were put into place to prevent crashes like this. They were following their god Ayn Rand's disciple Alan Greenspan who preached that Wall Street would be more efficient if left unregulated. Conservative Democratic President Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall which made the Republicons very happy. Now the Conservatives (like H. Clinton) are trying to distract us from this disaster and say that the repeal of Glass-Steagall wasn't “directly” responsible for the crash. That's bull and I don't mean a rising stock market. Watch the movie and see that banks and hedge funds were all gambling against each other and guess whose money they were using? Not their own. Glass-Steagall prohibited this behavior for banks with depositor's cash.
And so in 2008 the Housing Ponzi scheme crashed, and the banksters got bonuses.

So who was responsible?
It would be nice to be able to blame one man, Alan Greenspan who for decades was looked upon as the god of financial markets. Alan Greenspan, the disciple of Ayn Rand believed that if you gave the Golden Goose to Wall Street without restrictions, they would optimize the amount of golden eggs laid to everyone's benefit. Alan expressed his shock at a Congressional hearing in 2008 when he found out that Wall Street tore the Golden Goose from limb to limb, attempting to get more and more gold for themselves. Alan admitted he didn't anticipate that. What he was really saying is that he was wrong and had been wrong all along. But we can't blame Alan as he was just a tool set up as a god by the greedy to justify their looting of our economy.

Congress and our presidents Clinton and Bush hold a lot of responsibility. Supposedly they were working for us the People instead of their close friends in the American Aristocracy.
In 1999 the New York Times reported that the Clinton Administration was pressuring Fanny Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. They were being encouraged to make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. (2) They were boosting the bubble.

Ben Bernanke, Henry Paulson, Larry Summers, and Tim Geitner should be held responsible as they were in charge of the economy. They failed miserably and were run out of town on rails. Oops. In my dreams I guess. You see while they failed us in the 99% they did very well for their friends in the 1%, themselves, and their political puppets. These same characters have been popular with Democratic and Republican administrations alike for decades, including the current Obama Administration. We haven't seen the last of them if H. Clinton is elected.

As the movie shows, as the bundled bonds (or whatever new clever name they have) started to fail, the banks continued to tell (read, “they deceived”) investors, including your pension fund, that the products were still very low risk. This was a lie yet the rating corporations of Moody and S&P went along, essentially selling their souls for profits. And the Securities and Exchange Commission looked the other way because of lack of funding from Congress, poor oversight, and also some of their own greed.
Of course Goldman-Sachs and other banks, insurance companies and the big gambling houses (called investment companies), knew they were doing wrong but like all Ponzi schemes no one wanted out until they got theirs.

An example of the over-leveraging that epitomizes a Ponzi scheme, “For every $1 of equity, the $22bn Carlyle Capital Corporation fund was leveraged with $32 of loans. “ (1)

Fanny Mae was intended to help those in the 99% get into homes but they were corrupted by their Wealthy 1% investors and politicians and worried more about profits than helping the People.

What happened to those responsible?

They got bonuses from our money, they paid off their political puppets nicely and they continue their gambling knowing we will back their loses.

So what should happen now?
Here is where the candidates Clinton and Sanders disagree.
Sanders wants to hold those responsible accountable. He wants strong new regulations enacted and budget provided for enforcement . Like Teddy Roosevelt, he wants to solve the “too big to fail” problem by breaking up the banks that have gained more and more power since the “crash”. He wants Glass-Steagall, a regulation that for decades prevented this type of crash, reinstated.

Clinton however doesn't agree at all. In a speech to Goldman-Sachs (a big participant in the crash), she told them that she thought the banksters were being unfairly criticized. They applauded and handed her a check for $200,000 for her personal fortune. She defends her husband's action of signing away Glass-Steagall and rejects the idea of reinstating it because she says it wouldn't be enough. She did publish her “plan” which contains nothing substantial but mostly rhetoric. In a recent column Robert Reich said, “Most of Clinton's proposals could already have been put into effect by the Fed and Securities Exchange Commission, but they haven't been – presumably because of the Street's muscle.” In other words, her proposal means more of the same.

So what can you do?

Well if you want to continue the current culture of Wall Street corruption that will undoubtedly lead to another major bank wealth heist (crash), then vote for H. Clinton who has amassed a $50 million dollar personal wealth in this culture and whose campaign is financed by those that would profit from a continuation of this corrupt culture.

However, if you've had enough of the corruption of our government by Wall Street and if you want to help the millions out of work, those kicked out of their homes, those struggling under crushing debts, those on Social Security, etc. then support the People's candidate, Senator Sanders.

1. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/dec/28/markets-credit-crunch-banking-2008
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007–08

You disparage the left or progressives as ideologues. What issues do these ideologues

support that you do not?

Here is a partial list of what progressives usually support:
Strengthening Social Security (e.g., raising the cap)
Opposing job killing "Free Trade" agreements
opposed to fracking for oil company profits over people's water
Helping college students afford college (telling them to get a job doesn't cut it)
Making major corps pay their fair share of taxes
Ending the unregulated domestic spying
Ending drone killing of terrorist "suspects" in foreign lands
Reducing the defense budget
Taking a hard stand against torture and indefinite detention.
Ending the militarization of our local police forces.
Ending Prisons for Profits
Legalizing marijuana esp. for medical use.
Funding rebuilding our neglected infrastructure.
Single payer health insurance.
Regulation of Wall Street (e.g. reinstate Glass-Steagall)
Break up the big bank and media monopolies.

you can add others that you like.

Leftist? LOL. What do the Leftist want that you don't agree with???

The crazy-assed Leftist want:

a government free from the control of big money.
and end to the poverty of 50,000,000 Americans including 16,000,000 children.
reestablishment of our Constitutional Rights with a repeal of the Patriot Act and an end to domestic spying.
protection of our water and environment from the oil companies and their fracking.
a return of our manufacturing jobs and an end to the crippling "Free Trade" agreements.
an expansion of SS and Medicare benefits and raising the cap.
a fair break for our college students in lieu of telling them to get a job.
to get rid of Prisons for Profits.
and end to the militarization of our local police.
and end to the war on drugs and the death penalty.

Sen Warren, Sen Sanders and the Progressive Wing of the Party (Lefties) want these things while HRC, Goldman-Sachs, Wall Street and the Republicons don't want these things.

There is a huge split in our party and the Conservative Wing that agrees with Republicons on most issues are willing to jeopardize the chances of our Party winning in 2016.

You said it very well. Our enemy isn't just the Republicons but the oligarch run Democratic

Party elite as well. The Republicons are of course much worse but both want to enslave the 99% for Goldman-Sachs profits.

The Democratic Party is the party of the People and we need to fight to get it out of the hands of the Billionaire Oligarchy.

The progressives here get disparaged for using the word revolution but that's what we need. Not advocating violence, but we need to make it clear that we don't accept the domination of the 1% and their political puppets.

Thank you for this great OP.

The Issues: Private Prisons, The New Slavery?

Very good. Does anyone think that Ted Cruz actually mentions victims in his prayers?

If so would he name them by name or maybe just mention the media name for the tragedy. And how does he choose which tragedies to cover in each prayer? Maybe have staff keep a list. Or maybe just cover all tragedies in the last 24 hours. And if he does say a prayer for the victims, what would the message be? "Dear God, I am sorry you decided to end the lives of those in San Bernardino in such a horrible way. Maybe you can see that they have a good afterlife. But I guess that too is up to you."

Thanks for posting the video.

We've been sliding more and more into poverty and the lose of our Constitutional rights

for the last 40 years do to the fact that the 1% has firm control of our government. This has to change. I don't for a second believe that HRC will tax the 1% to help get 50,000,000 Americans out of poverty. I don't believe she will ask her friends in the 1% to help rebuild our crumbling infrastructure or bolster Social Security and Medicare. And if you are serious about getting progressive SCOTUS justices installed, we have a much better chance with Sen Sanders. Like it or not, if HRC wins the nomination, a lot of people that want to see change will stay home. I don't approve but it's a fact of life. That's really what happened in 2000. The Powers That Be have openly said they will be good with HRC or Bush. They do not want a real Progressive in the WH.

It's very sad when people try to shut Progressives down by calling them idealists. Is it idealism to want feed the 16,000,000 American children living in poverty? or fix our crumbling infrastructure? or help our children get a decent education? or insure that Social Security isn't cut? And on the other hand, how crazy is it to support the 1% and their chosen candidate and believe that they will turn things around. The 1% and their greed is to blame for our current situation. Why trust them?

She and Bill have managed to acquire a fortune that puts them firmly in the 1%.

And in only 15 years. Her friends all are members of the 1% and of course her backers are the 1%.

I don't believe you can't recognize the dangers of powerful corporations taking control of our government. Corp profits have been climbing rapidly for the last 40 years while the 99% classes have be sinking into poverty (50,000,000 Americans).

I also don't believe you don't understand the concept of quid pro quo. Corps don't give their money away w/o expecting a big return.

Not one of HRC's social programs is funded by the 1%, or partially funded by the 1%.

We must fix the corrupt government establishment owned by big corporations.

You make some good points. I doubt the sincerity of those that ignore the importance of

economic justice to racial justice. You can't be free if you are starving. I think some people like to use a cause to be able to bully others that they label as enemies of their cause. Self-righteous bullying. They don't realize or more likely don't care that they are doing more damage than good for their cause.

"Killer Mike "gets it", and that's threatening to the folks who want to control the message. " Exactly.