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
May 12, 2016
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/12/corporate-cabals-control-food-supply-continues-chemical-giants-eye-monsanto-takeover
German chemical giants Bayer AG and BASF SE are both considering takeovers of U.S. seed behemoth Monsanto, according to news reports on Thursday.
Of the potential Bayer takeover of Monsanto, valued at roughly $40 billion, Bloomberg noted that it "would create the world’s largest supplier of seeds and farm chemicals."
As USA Today reported, "A bid for Monsanto would be just the most recent in a wave of chemical and agribusiness consolidation."
Indeed, in February China National Chemical Corp. (ChemChina) announced it would acquire Swiss pesticide company Syngenta for $43 billion, while DuPont and Dow Chemical merged last year, a move some decried as bad news for people and the planet.
Of the ChemChina-Syngenta merger, Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of the advocacy group Food & Water Watch, said it "has far reaching impacts on the food supply, the environment and consumers. There is a growing demand by consumers to know what they are eating, how it is grown and how it impacts their communities. Global agribusiness mega-mergers like the proposed ChemChina-Syngenta deal give a corporate cabal a stranglehold on the world’s farmers and the world’s eaters."
"Corporate Cabal's" Control of Food Supply Continues as Chemical Giants Eye Monsanto Takeover
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/12/corporate-cabals-control-food-supply-continues-chemical-giants-eye-monsanto-takeover
German chemical giants Bayer AG and BASF SE are both considering takeovers of U.S. seed behemoth Monsanto, according to news reports on Thursday.
Of the potential Bayer takeover of Monsanto, valued at roughly $40 billion, Bloomberg noted that it "would create the world’s largest supplier of seeds and farm chemicals."
As USA Today reported, "A bid for Monsanto would be just the most recent in a wave of chemical and agribusiness consolidation."
Indeed, in February China National Chemical Corp. (ChemChina) announced it would acquire Swiss pesticide company Syngenta for $43 billion, while DuPont and Dow Chemical merged last year, a move some decried as bad news for people and the planet.
Of the ChemChina-Syngenta merger, Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of the advocacy group Food & Water Watch, said it "has far reaching impacts on the food supply, the environment and consumers. There is a growing demand by consumers to know what they are eating, how it is grown and how it impacts their communities. Global agribusiness mega-mergers like the proposed ChemChina-Syngenta deal give a corporate cabal a stranglehold on the world’s farmers and the world’s eaters."
May 10, 2016
'It is no surprise that the pharmaceutical industry has already dedicated $50 million to defeat this ballot initiative. Their greed has no end.'
Clinton?
Targeting Big Pharma Price Gouging, Sanders Backs California Ballot Fight
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/10/targeting-big-pharma-price-gouging-sanders-backs-california-ballot-fight'It is no surprise that the pharmaceutical industry has already dedicated $50 million to defeat this ballot initiative. Their greed has no end.'
Clinton?
May 10, 2016
The Urban Institute’s Attack On Single Payer: Ridiculous Assumptions Yield Ridiculous Estimates
The Urban Institute and the Tax Policy Center today released analyses of the costs of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ domestic policy proposals, including single-payer national health insurance. They claim that Sanders’ proposals would raise the federal deficit by $18 trillion over the next decade.
We won’t address all of the issues covered in these analyses, just single-payer Medicare for all. To put it bluntly, the estimates (which were prepared by John Holahan and colleagues) are ridiculous. They project outlandish increases in the utilization of medical care, ignore vast savings under single-payer reform, and ignore the extensive and well-documented experience with single-payer systems in other nations - which all spend far less per person on health care than we do.
The authors’ anti-single-payer bias is also evident from their incredible claims that physicians’ incomes would be squeezed (which contradicts their own estimates positing a sharp rise in spending on physician services), and that patients would suffer huge disruptions, despite the fact that the implementation of single-payer systems elsewhere, as well as the start-up of Medicare, were disruption-free.
(snip)
In summary, Holahan grossly underestimates the administrative savings under single payer; projects increases in the number of doctor visits and hospitalizations that far exceed the capacity of doctors and hospitals to provide this added care; and posits that our country would continue to pay much more for drugs and medical equipment than people in every other nation with national health insurance.
Rather than increasing national health spending, as Holahan claims, Sanders’ plan (and the plan proposed by Physicians for a National Health Program) would almost certainly decrease total health spending over the next 10 years.
PNHP: Recent attack on Bernie's Single Payer "Ridiculous"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-himmelstein/the-urban-institutes-attack-on-single-payer-ridiculous-assumptions-yield-ridiculous-estimates_b_9876640.htmlThe Urban Institute’s Attack On Single Payer: Ridiculous Assumptions Yield Ridiculous Estimates
The Urban Institute and the Tax Policy Center today released analyses of the costs of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ domestic policy proposals, including single-payer national health insurance. They claim that Sanders’ proposals would raise the federal deficit by $18 trillion over the next decade.
We won’t address all of the issues covered in these analyses, just single-payer Medicare for all. To put it bluntly, the estimates (which were prepared by John Holahan and colleagues) are ridiculous. They project outlandish increases in the utilization of medical care, ignore vast savings under single-payer reform, and ignore the extensive and well-documented experience with single-payer systems in other nations - which all spend far less per person on health care than we do.
The authors’ anti-single-payer bias is also evident from their incredible claims that physicians’ incomes would be squeezed (which contradicts their own estimates positing a sharp rise in spending on physician services), and that patients would suffer huge disruptions, despite the fact that the implementation of single-payer systems elsewhere, as well as the start-up of Medicare, were disruption-free.
(snip)
In summary, Holahan grossly underestimates the administrative savings under single payer; projects increases in the number of doctor visits and hospitalizations that far exceed the capacity of doctors and hospitals to provide this added care; and posits that our country would continue to pay much more for drugs and medical equipment than people in every other nation with national health insurance.
Rather than increasing national health spending, as Holahan claims, Sanders’ plan (and the plan proposed by Physicians for a National Health Program) would almost certainly decrease total health spending over the next 10 years.
May 10, 2016
The best hope for what’s left of a serious conservative movement in America is the election in November of a Democratic president, held in check by a Republican Congress. Conservatives can survive liberal administrations, especially those whose predictable failures lead to healthy restorations—think Carter, then Reagan. What isn’t survivable is a Republican president who is part Know Nothing, part Smoot-Hawley and part John Birch. The stain of a Trump administration would cripple the conservative cause for a generation.
This is the reality that wavering Republicans need to understand before casting their lot with a presumptive nominee they abhor only slightly less than his likely opponent. If the next presidency is going to be a disaster, why should the GOP want to own it?
WSJ: Hillary: The Conservative Hope
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/hillary-the-conservative-hope-1462833870-lMyQjAxMTI2NjE0MDYxNzA5WjThe best hope for what’s left of a serious conservative movement in America is the election in November of a Democratic president, held in check by a Republican Congress. Conservatives can survive liberal administrations, especially those whose predictable failures lead to healthy restorations—think Carter, then Reagan. What isn’t survivable is a Republican president who is part Know Nothing, part Smoot-Hawley and part John Birch. The stain of a Trump administration would cripple the conservative cause for a generation.
This is the reality that wavering Republicans need to understand before casting their lot with a presumptive nominee they abhor only slightly less than his likely opponent. If the next presidency is going to be a disaster, why should the GOP want to own it?
May 10, 2016
Surveys have repeatedly found Bernie Sanders beating the presumptive GOP nominee by a larger margin than Hillary Clinton.
As forces in both major parties have begun to mobilize against a Trump presidency, a new national poll out Tuesday reveals the most surefire way to derail the GOP frontrunner: Nominate Bernie Sanders.
The NBC News/SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking Poll found that if the 2016 presidential election were held today, 53 to 40 percent of voters would elect Sanders over Donald Trump—which is more than double the margin that Hillary Clinton holds over the presumptive Republican nominee.
According to the survey, which was conducted online from May 2 through May 8, the former secretary of state also leads Trump, but with a far smaller margin: 49 to 44 percent, with an error estimate of plus or minus 1.3 percentage points.
Meanwhile, a separate poll found that in key presidential swing states the anointed nominees are running neck and neck.
(snip)
New Polling Shows Sanders, Not Clinton, Most Formidable Against Trump
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/10/new-polling-shows-sanders-not-clinton-most-formidable-against-trumpSurveys have repeatedly found Bernie Sanders beating the presumptive GOP nominee by a larger margin than Hillary Clinton.
As forces in both major parties have begun to mobilize against a Trump presidency, a new national poll out Tuesday reveals the most surefire way to derail the GOP frontrunner: Nominate Bernie Sanders.
The NBC News/SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking Poll found that if the 2016 presidential election were held today, 53 to 40 percent of voters would elect Sanders over Donald Trump—which is more than double the margin that Hillary Clinton holds over the presumptive Republican nominee.
According to the survey, which was conducted online from May 2 through May 8, the former secretary of state also leads Trump, but with a far smaller margin: 49 to 44 percent, with an error estimate of plus or minus 1.3 percentage points.
Meanwhile, a separate poll found that in key presidential swing states the anointed nominees are running neck and neck.
(snip)
"If Democrats want to have the strongest candidate against Donald Trump they should look at those polls," Sanders declared during a rally at New Jersey's Rutgers University on Sunday. National polls have repeatedly shown Sanders beating Trump by a larger margin than Clinton.
May 9, 2016
The Problem: It's True.
Late last week, Politico reported that Clinton operatives have initiated efforts to "peel off establishment Republicans who might otherwise grudgingly support Trump," demonstrating their eagerness to win over big money donors previously wedded to the conservative establishment.
Specifically, Clinton supporters have been targeting the donor base of Jeb Bush, whose main super PAC raised a striking $121 million, much of it before the race for the Republican nomination began to heat up. We know how that ended.
But the Clinton camp sees opportunity lying in the rubble of the former Florida governor's failed campaign.
Indeed, Jeb Bush, along his father and brother, have vowed not to back the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump. Assuming no third party candidate emerges to soak up the fundraising dollars of former Bush backers, Clinton is positioning herself as the deserving recipient.
(snip)
Clinton Campaign to Republican Donors: Hillary Shares Your Values
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/05/09/clinton-campaign-republican-donors-hillary-shares-your-valuesThe Problem: It's True.
Late last week, Politico reported that Clinton operatives have initiated efforts to "peel off establishment Republicans who might otherwise grudgingly support Trump," demonstrating their eagerness to win over big money donors previously wedded to the conservative establishment.
Specifically, Clinton supporters have been targeting the donor base of Jeb Bush, whose main super PAC raised a striking $121 million, much of it before the race for the Republican nomination began to heat up. We know how that ended.
But the Clinton camp sees opportunity lying in the rubble of the former Florida governor's failed campaign.
Indeed, Jeb Bush, along his father and brother, have vowed not to back the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump. Assuming no third party candidate emerges to soak up the fundraising dollars of former Bush backers, Clinton is positioning herself as the deserving recipient.
(snip)
The same can be said of her allies in the Democratic Party, who long ago abandoned any pretense of representing working Americans.
Why else would the patrons of ultra-conservatism, when faced with the prospect of a disruptive Trump presidency, find it so easy to shift their allegiances to the party next door?
Why else would the patrons of ultra-conservatism, when faced with the prospect of a disruptive Trump presidency, find it so easy to shift their allegiances to the party next door?
May 9, 2016
More than 200,000 documents now available to the public as fallout from last month's leak continues
The Panama Papers database went live on Monday, making more than 200,000 offshore account details available to search online at offshoreleaks.icij.org.
More than 11 million documents were leaked by a whistleblower last month to the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). The data, taken from the Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca, linked shell companies, foundations, and trusts to 72 former and current global heads of state.
The Telegraph is posting live updates on its discoveries here.
The release comes as more than 300 economic experts sent a letter to world leaders urging them to abolish the veil of secrecy that surrounds offshore banking and close loopholes that allow the wealthy to avoid paying taxes
-----------------------------------
This should get interesting
Panama Papers Goes Live with Searchable Database of Tax Evaders
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/09/panama-papers-goes-live-searchable-database-tax-evadersMore than 200,000 documents now available to the public as fallout from last month's leak continues
The Panama Papers database went live on Monday, making more than 200,000 offshore account details available to search online at offshoreleaks.icij.org.
More than 11 million documents were leaked by a whistleblower last month to the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). The data, taken from the Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca, linked shell companies, foundations, and trusts to 72 former and current global heads of state.
The Telegraph is posting live updates on its discoveries here.
The release comes as more than 300 economic experts sent a letter to world leaders urging them to abolish the veil of secrecy that surrounds offshore banking and close loopholes that allow the wealthy to avoid paying taxes
-----------------------------------
This should get interesting
May 9, 2016
Democratic frontrunner has seen a surge in financial sector donations since business-friendly Republican candidates have dropped out of the race.
Now that Donald Trump has secured his position as the presumptive Republican nominee, Wall Street donors are fleeing the party and throwing their support behind Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
A Wall Street Journal analysis published late Sunday found that the former secretary of state "has raised $4.2 million in total from Wall Street, $344,000 of which was contributed in March alone."
In fact, Clinton has seen a surge in financial sector donations since business-friendly Republican candidates—namely former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio—dropped out of the race. According to the newspaper's reporting on fundraising data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, "the former secretary of state received 53 percent of the donations from Wall Street in March, up from 32 percent last year and 33 percent in January through February, as the nominating contests began."
WSJ notes that "Trump, by contrast, hasn’t garnered more than 1 percent of Wall Street contributions in any month through March," although the New York billionaire is expected to be much more active in soliciting donations for the general election.
(snip)
"They know Hillary," Rogers added
-------------
I guess it's official
Wall Street Donors Flocking to Clinton
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/09/wall-street-donors-flocking-clintonDemocratic frontrunner has seen a surge in financial sector donations since business-friendly Republican candidates have dropped out of the race.
Now that Donald Trump has secured his position as the presumptive Republican nominee, Wall Street donors are fleeing the party and throwing their support behind Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
A Wall Street Journal analysis published late Sunday found that the former secretary of state "has raised $4.2 million in total from Wall Street, $344,000 of which was contributed in March alone."
In fact, Clinton has seen a surge in financial sector donations since business-friendly Republican candidates—namely former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio—dropped out of the race. According to the newspaper's reporting on fundraising data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, "the former secretary of state received 53 percent of the donations from Wall Street in March, up from 32 percent last year and 33 percent in January through February, as the nominating contests began."
WSJ notes that "Trump, by contrast, hasn’t garnered more than 1 percent of Wall Street contributions in any month through March," although the New York billionaire is expected to be much more active in soliciting donations for the general election.
(snip)
"They know Hillary," Rogers added
-------------
I guess it's official
May 7, 2016
Bernie Sanders will go to Philadelphia with more pledged delegates than any insurgent in modern history. Here’s what he could do with them.
Joe Biden understands something about the Democratic Party and its future that his fellow partisans would do well to consider. “I don’t think any Democrat’s ever won saying, ‘We can’t think that big—we ought to really downsize here because it’s not realistic,’” the vice president told The New York Times in April. “C’mon man, this is the Democratic Party! I’m not part of the party that says, ‘Well, we can’t do it.’” Mocking Hillary Clinton’s criticism of Bernie Sanders for proposing bold reforms, Biden dismissed the politics of lowered expectations. “I like the idea of saying, ‘We can do much more,’ because we can,” he declared, leading the Times to observe that, while Biden wasn’t making an endorsement, “He’ll take Mr. Sanders’s aspirational approach over Mrs. Clinton’s caution any day.”
Unwittingly or not, Biden made an even better case than Sanders has for taking his insurgent campaign all the way to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia. If the party is going to run in 2016 on a “do much more” agenda—as opposed to triangulating around the center—the Vermont senator’s supporters and like-minded Democrats, including Clinton’s progressive backers, will have to force the issue. Taking the Sanders insurgency to the convention is the paramount vehicle for placing demands that are ideological and, as Biden’s comments suggest, also strategic. That’s one reason why Sanders promised in a statement on April 26 to go to the convention with “as many delegates as possible to fight for a progressive party platform”—despite the fact that Clinton’s delegate advantage now all but guarantees that she will win the nomination.
A Contested Convention Is Exactly What the Democratic Party Needs
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/contested-convention-exactly-what-democratic-party-needsBernie Sanders will go to Philadelphia with more pledged delegates than any insurgent in modern history. Here’s what he could do with them.
Joe Biden understands something about the Democratic Party and its future that his fellow partisans would do well to consider. “I don’t think any Democrat’s ever won saying, ‘We can’t think that big—we ought to really downsize here because it’s not realistic,’” the vice president told The New York Times in April. “C’mon man, this is the Democratic Party! I’m not part of the party that says, ‘Well, we can’t do it.’” Mocking Hillary Clinton’s criticism of Bernie Sanders for proposing bold reforms, Biden dismissed the politics of lowered expectations. “I like the idea of saying, ‘We can do much more,’ because we can,” he declared, leading the Times to observe that, while Biden wasn’t making an endorsement, “He’ll take Mr. Sanders’s aspirational approach over Mrs. Clinton’s caution any day.”
Unwittingly or not, Biden made an even better case than Sanders has for taking his insurgent campaign all the way to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia. If the party is going to run in 2016 on a “do much more” agenda—as opposed to triangulating around the center—the Vermont senator’s supporters and like-minded Democrats, including Clinton’s progressive backers, will have to force the issue. Taking the Sanders insurgency to the convention is the paramount vehicle for placing demands that are ideological and, as Biden’s comments suggest, also strategic. That’s one reason why Sanders promised in a statement on April 26 to go to the convention with “as many delegates as possible to fight for a progressive party platform”—despite the fact that Clinton’s delegate advantage now all but guarantees that she will win the nomination.
What Sanders is proposing is a necessary quest—and a realistic one.
May 7, 2016
In recent polls conducted by CBS News, Fox News, and USA Today the results show Bernie Sanders beating Trump.
With Ted Cruz “suspending” his campaign tonight, Trump will be receiving the Republican Nomination.
The Democratic Nomination is still up for grabs. Bernie Sanders numbers are increasing and we need to keep up this momentum and get Bernie the Nomination.
In a Presidential Race of Bernie VS. Trump, Bernie Sanders will be elected our next president.
If you don’t want Trump(the least qualified candidate) to be elected the clear path is to Vote for Bernie Sanders.
Trump Vs Sanders – Sanders Wins In Every Poll
http://sourceplanet.net/politics/trump-vs-sanders-sanders-wins-in-every-poll/In recent polls conducted by CBS News, Fox News, and USA Today the results show Bernie Sanders beating Trump.
With Ted Cruz “suspending” his campaign tonight, Trump will be receiving the Republican Nomination.
The Democratic Nomination is still up for grabs. Bernie Sanders numbers are increasing and we need to keep up this momentum and get Bernie the Nomination.
In a Presidential Race of Bernie VS. Trump, Bernie Sanders will be elected our next president.
If you don’t want Trump(the least qualified candidate) to be elected the clear path is to Vote for Bernie Sanders.
Profile Information
Member since: Sat Jan 3, 2015, 12:39 PMNumber of posts: 3,687
