Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Ferd Berfel
Ferd Berfel's Journal
Ferd Berfel's Journal
January 8, 2016
Hillary Clinton Is Not Telling The Truth About Wall Street
And it's damaging her campaign.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-wall-street_568ed8d6e4b0cad15e6415cd
Hillary Clinton's campaign spent much of this week waging a dishonest attack on Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and his campaign's Wall Street reform platform. The risky attempt to make inroads with progressives on one of her weakest issues is damaging the credibility of some of her top lieutenants.
Listen to HuffPost's analysis of the Democratic Party's Wall Street flap in this week's "So, That Happened" podcast.
Clinton's attack on Sanders is as simple as it is untrue: Unlike Sanders, Clinton has argued, she is willing to take on "shadow banking" -- a broad term for various financial activities that aren't regulated as strictly as conventional lending.
Sanders has in fact proposed attacking shadow banking in two principal ways: by breaking up big financial firms that engage in shadow banking, and by severing federal financial support for shadow banking activities by reinstating Glass-Steagall.
These would be substantive changes
snip
Yet the Clinton campaign has repeatedly said Sanders is wholly ignoring shadow banking, accusing Sanders of taking a "hands-off" approach
-----------------------
Hill, you're not going to get Progressives to jump ship based on BS, Lies omissions and distortions
Wake up.
January 6, 2016
Why have the media not maintained a focus on Sanders? I think it’s partly because he’s been consistent in his beliefs for four decades in political life.
Have the media stopped feeling “the Bern”? Or has the Democratic Party, which should probably be renamed the Clintoncratic National Committee, extinguished the fire?
It’s both.
Sen. Bernie Sanders deserves far more attention than he’s getting. The 74-year-old frowzy-haired Democratic Socialist from Brooklyn by way of Vermont raised $33 million in the fourth quarter of 2015. That’s just $4 million less than Hillary Clinton.
People vote with dollars, as any tearful hater of money in politics will tell you. When it comes to Sanders, lots of folks throw in small amounts of cash. So when he raises $33 million in three months, it means a lot of people care.
Beyond the fundraising, poll numbers in early primary states justify a much brighter spotlight on Sanders than the media shine.
According to the Real Clear Politics poll average, Clinton is beating Sanders by 50 percent to 37 percent in Iowa. But he’s investing huge resources there, and in caucuses, it’s passion that brings people out. Clinton inspires passion among more Republicans than supporters.
(snip)
Clinton’s attempt to control the process is understandable. But the party’s willingness to go along is foolish. And the media’s complicity is shameful.
Why Bernie Sanders Deserves More Attention Than Hillary Clinton
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/01/06/why-bernie-sanders-deserves-more-attention-hillary-clintonWhy have the media not maintained a focus on Sanders? I think it’s partly because he’s been consistent in his beliefs for four decades in political life.
Have the media stopped feeling “the Bern”? Or has the Democratic Party, which should probably be renamed the Clintoncratic National Committee, extinguished the fire?
It’s both.
Sen. Bernie Sanders deserves far more attention than he’s getting. The 74-year-old frowzy-haired Democratic Socialist from Brooklyn by way of Vermont raised $33 million in the fourth quarter of 2015. That’s just $4 million less than Hillary Clinton.
People vote with dollars, as any tearful hater of money in politics will tell you. When it comes to Sanders, lots of folks throw in small amounts of cash. So when he raises $33 million in three months, it means a lot of people care.
Beyond the fundraising, poll numbers in early primary states justify a much brighter spotlight on Sanders than the media shine.
According to the Real Clear Politics poll average, Clinton is beating Sanders by 50 percent to 37 percent in Iowa. But he’s investing huge resources there, and in caucuses, it’s passion that brings people out. Clinton inspires passion among more Republicans than supporters.
(snip)
Clinton’s attempt to control the process is understandable. But the party’s willingness to go along is foolish. And the media’s complicity is shameful.
January 6, 2016
Some of Sanders' suggestions: Break up banks. Tax speculators. Cap interest rates.
Bernie Sanders has declared war on the biggest players in Wall Street’s financial sector, saying they are overrun with “greed, fraud, dishonesty and arrogance,” and criticizing his top rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, as being naïve about what needs to happen to create a financial system that “works for all Americans
Here are the 10 major components to Sanders’ Wall Street reforms.
1. End too-big-to-fail.
2. Break up the biggest banks.
3. Pass a 21st-century Glass-Steagall Act
4. End too-big-to-jail
5. Criminalize Wall Street’s business mode
6. Tax the casino culture
7. Reform the financial rating agencies
8. Cap credit card interest and ATM fees
9. Let the USPS offer banking
10. Reform the Federal Reserve
Just the Beginning
As striking as Sanders’ reforms sound, he said they were unlikely to be sufficient to ensure that American capitalist excesses do not harm the country again.
“No president, not Bernie Sanders or anyone else, can effectively address the economic crises facing the working families of this country alone,” he said. “The truth is that Wall Street, corporate America, the corporate media and wealthy campaign donors are just too powerful.”
But Sanders said that new rules of the financial game could be written and that government could force Wall Street to follow them.
“Yes, we can make our economy work for all Americans,” he said. “And so my message to you today is straightforward: If elected president, I will rein in Wall Street so they can’t crash our economy again. Will they like me? No. Will they begin to play by the rules if I’m president? You better believe it.”
-----------------------
I WANT someone who scares the hell out of Wall Street. Not someone who doesn't even acknowledge the problems, or pretends they can't be fixed
10 Powerful Reasons Why Bernie Scares Wall Street
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/10-powerful-reasons-why-bernie-scares-wall-streetSome of Sanders' suggestions: Break up banks. Tax speculators. Cap interest rates.
Bernie Sanders has declared war on the biggest players in Wall Street’s financial sector, saying they are overrun with “greed, fraud, dishonesty and arrogance,” and criticizing his top rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, as being naïve about what needs to happen to create a financial system that “works for all Americans
Here are the 10 major components to Sanders’ Wall Street reforms.
1. End too-big-to-fail.
2. Break up the biggest banks.
3. Pass a 21st-century Glass-Steagall Act
4. End too-big-to-jail
5. Criminalize Wall Street’s business mode
6. Tax the casino culture
7. Reform the financial rating agencies
8. Cap credit card interest and ATM fees
9. Let the USPS offer banking
10. Reform the Federal Reserve
Just the Beginning
As striking as Sanders’ reforms sound, he said they were unlikely to be sufficient to ensure that American capitalist excesses do not harm the country again.
“No president, not Bernie Sanders or anyone else, can effectively address the economic crises facing the working families of this country alone,” he said. “The truth is that Wall Street, corporate America, the corporate media and wealthy campaign donors are just too powerful.”
But Sanders said that new rules of the financial game could be written and that government could force Wall Street to follow them.
“Yes, we can make our economy work for all Americans,” he said. “And so my message to you today is straightforward: If elected president, I will rein in Wall Street so they can’t crash our economy again. Will they like me? No. Will they begin to play by the rules if I’m president? You better believe it.”
-----------------------
I WANT someone who scares the hell out of Wall Street. Not someone who doesn't even acknowledge the problems, or pretends they can't be fixed
January 5, 2016
Roger Hickey Co-Director, Campaign for America's Future
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-hickey/sanders-economic-plan-bes_b_8906166.html
Here's the bottom line: The middle class is in crisis, and Secretary Clinton's proposals merely tinker at the margins of that crisis. They would not shift the fundamental direction of an economy that is growing more unequal every day.
The Democratic presidential campaign -- unlike the Republican circus -- has actually produced a debate in which each candidate's economic agenda has gotten better and more populist. But as you can see at candidatescorecard.net/, there are also big differences.
Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders agree that America's long period of declining wages and growing inequality has been due to chronic slow growth and high unemployment. In Hillary's words "getting closer to full employment is crucial to raising wages." Both are committed to some amount of increased public spending on infrastructure and investments in "green industries." But the difference between the two candidates on public investment is a matter of scale.
Hillary Clinton wants $275 billion more in infrastructure investment in the next five years.
Bernie Sanders would increase by $1 trillion our public investments in jobs-creating infrastructure over the same five year period - creating one million new jobs, while helping to retool the US economy to reduce carbon emissions.
Hillary will simply be Wall street leaning status quo. We need the change the Obama Couldn't bring.
Sanders' Economic Plan Best for the 99 Percent
Roger Hickey Co-Director, Campaign for America's Future
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-hickey/sanders-economic-plan-bes_b_8906166.html
Here's the bottom line: The middle class is in crisis, and Secretary Clinton's proposals merely tinker at the margins of that crisis. They would not shift the fundamental direction of an economy that is growing more unequal every day.
The Democratic presidential campaign -- unlike the Republican circus -- has actually produced a debate in which each candidate's economic agenda has gotten better and more populist. But as you can see at candidatescorecard.net/, there are also big differences.
Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders agree that America's long period of declining wages and growing inequality has been due to chronic slow growth and high unemployment. In Hillary's words "getting closer to full employment is crucial to raising wages." Both are committed to some amount of increased public spending on infrastructure and investments in "green industries." But the difference between the two candidates on public investment is a matter of scale.
Hillary Clinton wants $275 billion more in infrastructure investment in the next five years.
Bernie Sanders would increase by $1 trillion our public investments in jobs-creating infrastructure over the same five year period - creating one million new jobs, while helping to retool the US economy to reduce carbon emissions.
Hillary will simply be Wall street leaning status quo. We need the change the Obama Couldn't bring.
December 31, 2015
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/worst-political-f-ups-2015
2) Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The Republicans have held multiple thousands of debates this primary season, all on weeknights, a move that has helped their candidates get heavy media exposure of the sort that will help quite a bit when the general election comes around. But Schulz, the head of the Democratic National Committee, has arranged to hold two of the debates on a Saturday night–one on the weekend that the new “Star Wars” movie came out–which guaranteed lower ratings and reduced media coverage overall.
The common wisdom is that Schultz is doing this to help out Clinton by reducing voter exposure to her main competition, Bernie Sanders. If so, the move is backfiring. Yes, Sanders has done well in the debates, but overall, the debates have served the Clinton campaign the most. It’s not just that Clinton is a good debater, but that Sanders’ inherent geniality has taken the edge off what could have been a much uglier primary season. By hiding the debates, Schultz took away a major opportunity not just for Clinton to show off her chops, but for Clinton and Sanders (and, occasionally, Martin O’Malley) to remind the public at large how much more competent, cooperative and mature the Democrats are compared to the Republicans.
Her job seems to be making sure that the Dem Party remains Corporatist republican-lite. And screw everything else.
The Worst Political F-Ups of 2015
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/worst-political-f-ups-2015
2) Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The Republicans have held multiple thousands of debates this primary season, all on weeknights, a move that has helped their candidates get heavy media exposure of the sort that will help quite a bit when the general election comes around. But Schulz, the head of the Democratic National Committee, has arranged to hold two of the debates on a Saturday night–one on the weekend that the new “Star Wars” movie came out–which guaranteed lower ratings and reduced media coverage overall.
The common wisdom is that Schultz is doing this to help out Clinton by reducing voter exposure to her main competition, Bernie Sanders. If so, the move is backfiring. Yes, Sanders has done well in the debates, but overall, the debates have served the Clinton campaign the most. It’s not just that Clinton is a good debater, but that Sanders’ inherent geniality has taken the edge off what could have been a much uglier primary season. By hiding the debates, Schultz took away a major opportunity not just for Clinton to show off her chops, but for Clinton and Sanders (and, occasionally, Martin O’Malley) to remind the public at large how much more competent, cooperative and mature the Democrats are compared to the Republicans.
Her job seems to be making sure that the Dem Party remains Corporatist republican-lite. And screw everything else.
December 31, 2015
While the mainstream media focus on ISIS extremists, a threat that has gone virtually unreported is that your life savings could be wiped out in a massive derivatives collapse. Bank bail-ins have begun in Europe, and the infrastructure is in place in the US. Poverty also kills.
(snip)
At the end of November, an Italian pensioner hanged himself after his entire €100,000 savings were confiscated in a bank “rescue” scheme. He left a suicide note blaming the bank, where he had been a customer for 50 years and had invested in bank-issued bonds. But he might better have blamed the EU and the G20’s Financial Stability Board, which have imposed an “Orderly Resolution” regime that keeps insolvent banks afloat by confiscating the savings of investors and depositors. Some 130,000 shareholders and junior bond holders suffered losses in the “rescue.”
The pensioner’s bank was one of four small regional banks that had been put under special administration over the past two years. The €3.6 billion ($3.83 billion) rescue plan launched by the Italian government uses a newly-formed National Resolution Fund, which is fed by the country’s healthy banks. But before the fund can be tapped, losses must be imposed on investors; and in January, EU rules will require that they also be imposed on depositors. According to a December 10th article on BBC.com:
The rescue was a “bail-in” – meaning bondholders suffered losses – unlike the hugely unpopular bank bailouts during the 2008 financial crisis, which cost ordinary EU taxpayers tens of billions of euros.
Correspondents say [Italian Prime Minister] Renzi acted quickly because in January, the EU is tightening the rules on bank rescues – they will force losses on depositors holding more than €100,000, as well as bank shareholders and bondholders.
. . . [L]etting the four banks fail under those new EU rules next year would have meant “sacrificing the money of one million savers and the jobs of nearly 6,000 people”.
That is what is predicted for 2016: massive sacrifice of savings and jobs to prop up a “systemically risky” global banking scheme.
Bail-in Under Dodd-Frank
That is all happening in the EU. Is there reason for concern in the US?
Keep reading..........THen think about using a Credit Union instead of a bank.
Bail-Ins Begin: a Crisis Worse than ISIS? by Ellen Brown
http://ellenbrown.com/2015/12/29/a-crisis-worse-than-isis-bail-ins-begin/While the mainstream media focus on ISIS extremists, a threat that has gone virtually unreported is that your life savings could be wiped out in a massive derivatives collapse. Bank bail-ins have begun in Europe, and the infrastructure is in place in the US. Poverty also kills.
(snip)
At the end of November, an Italian pensioner hanged himself after his entire €100,000 savings were confiscated in a bank “rescue” scheme. He left a suicide note blaming the bank, where he had been a customer for 50 years and had invested in bank-issued bonds. But he might better have blamed the EU and the G20’s Financial Stability Board, which have imposed an “Orderly Resolution” regime that keeps insolvent banks afloat by confiscating the savings of investors and depositors. Some 130,000 shareholders and junior bond holders suffered losses in the “rescue.”
The pensioner’s bank was one of four small regional banks that had been put under special administration over the past two years. The €3.6 billion ($3.83 billion) rescue plan launched by the Italian government uses a newly-formed National Resolution Fund, which is fed by the country’s healthy banks. But before the fund can be tapped, losses must be imposed on investors; and in January, EU rules will require that they also be imposed on depositors. According to a December 10th article on BBC.com:
The rescue was a “bail-in” – meaning bondholders suffered losses – unlike the hugely unpopular bank bailouts during the 2008 financial crisis, which cost ordinary EU taxpayers tens of billions of euros.
Correspondents say [Italian Prime Minister] Renzi acted quickly because in January, the EU is tightening the rules on bank rescues – they will force losses on depositors holding more than €100,000, as well as bank shareholders and bondholders.
. . . [L]etting the four banks fail under those new EU rules next year would have meant “sacrificing the money of one million savers and the jobs of nearly 6,000 people”.
That is what is predicted for 2016: massive sacrifice of savings and jobs to prop up a “systemically risky” global banking scheme.
Bail-in Under Dodd-Frank
That is all happening in the EU. Is there reason for concern in the US?
Keep reading..........THen think about using a Credit Union instead of a bank.
December 31, 2015
http://economyincrisis.org/content/nine-ways-the-tpp-will-affect-your-daily-life
The White House and corporatists in Congress passed fast track trade authority to railroad the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) through Congress. This awoke a sleeping giant of citizens upset about how it passed and what the TPP would do to America, making the TPP and hot topics for the 2016 elections. Why did they need fast track so badly? Because without it, the TPP wouldn’t stand a chance at passing. With history showing how “free trade” agreements have failed us and the devastating effects of the WTO, this comes as no surprise.
(snip)
The danger with the TPP though is deals with so much more than just trade. Some of the other dangerous provisions in the TPP include ones that affect:
>The Internet and internet regulations
>Food safety and labeling policies
>Health care, decreasing access and increasing the cost of medicines
>Our environmental policies, lowering our standards
>Workers’ rights and labor standards
>It would devastate financial regulations we have put in place to protect our economy
>Service-sector regulation
>Investments
>Patents and copyrights making goods more expensive and discouraging innovation
________________________________
Bill Clinton sold us out: NAFTA, WTO, GATT, Telecommunications Act, Glass-Stegal, and more
Obama sold us out: TPP,
Hillary will just be more of the Same corporate, DLC, BLue Dog, Republican lite crap.
The only possibility of progress this time around is Bernie.
9 Disastrous Ways the TPP Will Affect Your Daily Life
http://economyincrisis.org/content/nine-ways-the-tpp-will-affect-your-daily-life
The White House and corporatists in Congress passed fast track trade authority to railroad the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) through Congress. This awoke a sleeping giant of citizens upset about how it passed and what the TPP would do to America, making the TPP and hot topics for the 2016 elections. Why did they need fast track so badly? Because without it, the TPP wouldn’t stand a chance at passing. With history showing how “free trade” agreements have failed us and the devastating effects of the WTO, this comes as no surprise.
(snip)
The danger with the TPP though is deals with so much more than just trade. Some of the other dangerous provisions in the TPP include ones that affect:
>The Internet and internet regulations
>Food safety and labeling policies
>Health care, decreasing access and increasing the cost of medicines
>Our environmental policies, lowering our standards
>Workers’ rights and labor standards
>It would devastate financial regulations we have put in place to protect our economy
>Service-sector regulation
>Investments
>Patents and copyrights making goods more expensive and discouraging innovation
________________________________
Bill Clinton sold us out: NAFTA, WTO, GATT, Telecommunications Act, Glass-Stegal, and more
Obama sold us out: TPP,
Hillary will just be more of the Same corporate, DLC, BLue Dog, Republican lite crap.
The only possibility of progress this time around is Bernie.
December 29, 2015
HE said that he and the other doctors he knows all support SINGLE PAYER!
HE said that they are sick of dealing with Insurance Companies.
My doctor and his buddies support Single Payer. Why Doesn't Hillary?
Single Payer: I had a visit with my Doctor today.
HE said that he and the other doctors he knows all support SINGLE PAYER!
HE said that they are sick of dealing with Insurance Companies.
My doctor and his buddies support Single Payer. Why Doesn't Hillary?
December 27, 2015
The Federal Reserve Board and the Presidential Candidates
Once again Bernie is the only one standing up against the Oligarchy and for the American People.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-federal-reserve-board_b_8858600.html
by Dean Baker
When it comes to the Federal Reserve Board and its importance to the economy, most of the candidates seem to be failing as badly as Donald Trump did on his nuclear triad test.
(snip)
This is important in the context of the presidential campaign because we have a large number of candidates for both parties' nominations, who say they want to increase growth and create more jobs. The Republicans mostly plan to boost growth and create jobs with tax cuts, while the Democrats want to spend more on infrastructure, education, and research and development. But regardless of their route for boosting growth, or the coherence of their strategy, no candidate will be able to accomplish their goal unless the Fed is on board.
This is why the reaction, or lack thereof, to the Fed's rate hike was so striking. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders was the only presidential candidate who went on record with a comment on the Fed's action, criticizing the Fed for slowing the economy and preventing people from getting jobs. This raises the obvious question of whether the other candidates understand the importance of the Fed to the economy.
December 22, 2015
Just something to be aware of. Obama is still intent on selling us out.
-------------------------------
http://economyincrisis.org/content/obama-gop-leaders-may-be-plotting-tpp-sneak
Firestorm brewing over possible vote in 2016 lame duck.
With a vote on a controversial free trade deal looking increasingly unlikely before the 2016 presidential election, critics warn that congressional leaders may try to push it through after the election but before new leaders take office.
A vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership in the so-called lame duck sessionwould free lawmakers who have been defeated or are retiring from having to face angry voters.
“I am sure the president would like nothing more than to hold the vote on his 5,554-page plan during the lame duck,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala, said in a prepared statement Friday. “But our job is not to help the president to bypass voters, or cement his legacy when no one is looking; our job is to uphold the will of voters and protect their jobs, wages and Constitution.
“Congress, under no circumstances, should vote on this sweeping international accord in a lame duck post-election session of Congress
Obama, GOP Leaders May be Plotting TPP Sneak
Just something to be aware of. Obama is still intent on selling us out.
-------------------------------
http://economyincrisis.org/content/obama-gop-leaders-may-be-plotting-tpp-sneak
Firestorm brewing over possible vote in 2016 lame duck.
With a vote on a controversial free trade deal looking increasingly unlikely before the 2016 presidential election, critics warn that congressional leaders may try to push it through after the election but before new leaders take office.
A vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership in the so-called lame duck sessionwould free lawmakers who have been defeated or are retiring from having to face angry voters.
“I am sure the president would like nothing more than to hold the vote on his 5,554-page plan during the lame duck,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala, said in a prepared statement Friday. “But our job is not to help the president to bypass voters, or cement his legacy when no one is looking; our job is to uphold the will of voters and protect their jobs, wages and Constitution.
“Congress, under no circumstances, should vote on this sweeping international accord in a lame duck post-election session of Congress
Profile Information
Member since: Sat Jan 3, 2015, 12:39 PMNumber of posts: 3,687
