Forum Thread

New York Daily News Interviews Bernie Sanders

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 22 1 2 Next
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    New York Daily News, April 4, 2016: TRANSCRIPT: Bernie Sanders meets with News Editorial Board

    This was a rather long and encompassing interview. One should read it in its entirety so I won't cherry pick parts to emphasize. But others can if they like. What stands out after reading it?

  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    After reading it I'm even more convinced we need a Bernie in the presidency and NOT a Hillary!
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Reading it now. Need to read it a second time tomorrow. It certainly isn't scripted that's for sure.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    pr Wrote: After reading it I'm even more convinced we need a Bernie in the presidency and NOT a Hillary!
    I'll second that, however I'm afraid the Washington "clan" and the 1% will do everything to block him. So I'm kind of negative related to the end result.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Okay, I was hoping for something a little more specific and substantive from you guys rather than your "stump speeches". Many in the mainstream media read into his responses that he hadn't thought through some of the issues very carefully. Of course, I've kind of sensed that in the way he has refused to get "nuanced" in explaining many of his proposals....not just to the New York Daily News, but throughout his campaign as reporters have tried to dig deeper.

    Are you guys just all "sound biters"? You can do better than that.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Bernie Sanders is right that trade deals have destroyed jobs, but only because we allowed that destruction to occur and didn't do anything to fiscally adjust the economy to take advantage of the enormous benefit we've been handed by foreigners, like cutting taxes or increasing government spending, most beneficially by way of a federal job guarantee.

    'Banks' are 'designated agents' of the government, as that's what a government charter, federal deposit insurance, and Fed funding means. The President and Executive Branch have way more power to act unilaterally than assumed by most. If a bank fails or is near failure, the 'resolution' authority would allow government to divide assets and break up the banks and bring in new leadership, Dodd-Frank or not. Let us be clear, the banks did 'fail' and their shareholders got wiped out. Government suspended the rules to allow some of these institutions to resolve the mess thru consolidation, instead of taking "Prompt Corrective Action."

    It's not clear that we need smaller banks or better regulators. But we don't need to be terrorizing the small banks that we have. And we probably need more direct government lending to support affordable home loans.

    Either way, I think 'breaking up the big banks' should refer to a new Glass-Steagall like division of commercial banking from investment and shadow lending.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Carlitos, It boils down to either unlimited profits or an ongoing economy. Competition gets the job done but unlimited competition makes the score more important than the game. Standardization of money is a start to transparency. Making a deal and having an eye on manipulating future exchange rates can make any deal bad and bad deals disastrous. e.g. gasoline prices change daily by pennies. US consumes over 384 millions gallons of gasoline a day. I can't see billion dollar petroleum industries responding daily as much as I can see an industry developed like fX causing the fluctuations. (Personal opinion)
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Carlitos Wrote:

    Bernie Sanders is right that trade deals have destroyed jobs, but only because we allowed that destruction to occur and didn't do anything to fiscally adjust the economy to take advantage of the enormous benefit we've been handed by foreigners, like cutting taxes or increasing government spending, most beneficially by way of a federal job guarantee.

    'Banks' are 'designated agents' of the government, as that's what a government charter, federal deposit insurance, and Fed funding means. The President and Executive Branch have way more power to act unilaterally than assumed by most. If a bank fails or is near failure, the 'resolution' authority would allow government to divide assets and break up the banks and bring in new leadership, Dodd-Frank or not. Let us be clear, the banks did 'fail' and their shareholders got wiped out. Government suspended the rules to allow some of these institutions to resolve the mess thru consolidation, instead of taking "Prompt Corrective Action."

    It's not clear that we need smaller banks or better regulators. But we don't need to be terrorizing the small banks that we have. And we probably need more direct government lending to support affordable home loans.

    Either way, I think 'breaking up the big banks' should refer to a new Glass-Steagall like division of commercial banking from investment and shadow lending.

    Carlitos -- I have followed what Hillary Clinton and Barney Frank have said about breaking up the big banks as "too big to fail". It would appear to me that Dodd-Frank does provide the regulatory safeguards to prevent big banks from failing...that is requiring them to have a certain level of capital to cover their indebtedness. And if they don't then the government can indeed step in. The question of size is less important than complying with the criteria in Dodd-Franks.

    It would appear to me that Sanders and others advising him are acting more emotionally, that is they want punitive action against the banks now just for being too big. As Frank has pointed out, the implication of breaking up the big banks needs to have a well thought out plan as to how and when that can happen and what that would hold for the future. Right now I see a lot of "hate" against the big banks. Acting irrationally out of hate doesn't solve problems. It sometimes creates new ones that have an adverse effect on other unforeseen parts of the economy.

    Sorry, but in having studied trade deals ad infinitum, I do not see that any of Sanders proposals have been thought out. Rather they are emotional reactions pandering to one segment of our society, doing exactly what Donald Trump is also doing. On this basis, I have a certain distrust of anything else Sanders proposes. His rhetoric is inspiring, but his proposals lack critical thinking....however, they certainly appeal to the masses.

    I go to Hillary Clinton's website and find that I can dig deep into her proposals. I wish Bernie Sanders provided more substantive discussions of his proposals in his multiple websites. That's a big difference between the two candidates. What's the word choice...transparency versus obfuscation? I am struggling to understand.

  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Anything is better that what both the Dems & Repubs have forced on us for decades. This country need change, and I mean real change, not Obama,s's phoney change.

    Even if Bernie was unable to force any real Chang in this country as President he would, at least, be a movement in the right direction. Every other candidate, including Hillary, represents status quo or backwards movement.

    Anyone who believes Bernie can't or wouldn't be a better president than any Bush, Ray-gun, Nixon or Clinton is in deep denial about what this country should be about.

  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Anything is better that what both the Dems & Repubs have forced on us for decades. This country need change, and I mean real change, not Obama,s's phoney change.

    Even if Bernie was unable to force any real Chang in this country as President he would, at least, be a movement in the right direction. Every other candidate, including Hillary, represents status quo or backwards movement.

    Anyone who believes Bernie can't or wouldn't be a better president than any Bush, Ray-gun, Nixon or Clinton is in deep denial about what this country should be about.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    pr -- I would have to respectfully disagree with you...especially your comment about "Obama's phony change". Do you not believe that the country has made incremental change for the better in a whole host of social and economic issues under the Obama presidency? Yes, it could have been better except for the Republicans openly sabotaging his presidency by saying "no" to everything...more out of spite and racial prejudice than having a coherent alternative. Through unprecedented use of the filibuster and the Hastert Rule, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have sought to undermine President Obama on everything, including filibustering his Jobs Act. Their strategy was to make life difficult for ordinary Americans and then blame Obama again and again. Fox News led the way and the rest of the mainstream media followed.

    Judging by your comments, I would say that the Republican strategy has worked very well...perhaps too well as they are now seeing with the Donald Trump candidacy.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    pr Wrote:

    Anything is better that what both the Dems & Repubs have forced on us for decades. This country need change, and I mean real change, not Obama,s's phoney change.

    Even if Bernie was unable to force any real Chang in this country as President he would, at least, be a movement in the right direction. Every other candidate, including Hillary, represents status quo or backwards movement.

    Anyone who believes Bernie can't or wouldn't be a better president than any Bush, Ray-gun, Nixon or Clinton is in deep denial about what this country should be about.

    Sure, I can follow everyone's points. The issue here is at least what I think, that this country has been lucky in the respect of that never since the civil war, we had any revolution or war on our own soil. So that means we keep continuing, based on the existing culture, adapting existing antiquated old things all the time. At least in Europe they were able to start up again with a clean slate after WWII and adapted to the times. Why is this country so stubborn, by refusing to copy health care, gun laws, death penalty, abortion and plenty of other laws from other countries; we just muddle on and continually stir only in own created dirt. Indeed this country needs a huge revolution or get an open mind related the rest of the world and how they solve certain problems.
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    pr -- I would have to respectfully disagree with you...especially your comment about "Obama's phony change". Do you not believe that the country has made incremental change for the better in a whole host of social and economic issues under the Obama presidency? Yes, it could have been better except for the Republicans openly sabotaging his presidency by saying "no" to everything...more out of spite and racial prejudice than having a coherent alternative. Through unprecedented use of the filibuster and the Hastert Rule, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have sought to undermine President Obama on everything, including filibustering his Jobs Act. Their strategy was to make life difficult for ordinary Americans and then blame Obama again and again. Fox News led the way and the rest of the mainstream media followed.

    Judging by your comments, I would say that the Republican strategy has worked very well...perhaps too well as they are now seeing with the Donald Trump candidacy.

    Schmidt - Obama made a lot of promises but then he just forgot most of them. He has bended over backwards to get along with the Republicans instead of hitting them as hard as possible and that's because he is really one of them when it comes to issues like trade, the economy, etc. He has had limited success with LGBT rights at least but just about forgotten the poor blacks and minorities in the country. I voted for him twice and I would love to vote for him a third time over the rest of these clowns if I could but he hasn't brought about anywhere near the amount of change this country needs or that he promised. campaign promises are just that - BS for the supporters. None of them actually mean to carry out anymore that the bare minimum to keep looking good. Certainly Obamas has had a difficult time getting anything passed during his administration but at the same time you can't be a nice guy when you're dealing with right wing, religious, nut cases such as are in control of Congress now. What was his excuse when the Dems had full control of Congress? He got a half-good, Republican based health care bill passed instead of pushing for a single payer program because it was "easier". Sorry, that's not good enough when your main platform is "Change"! Do you really think Hillary is going to give us any more change than we got from Obama - NO WAY! She will be a step backwards. Bernie most likely wouldn't be able to get anything done with if the Congress stays deadlock by a bunch of ignorant Tea Party assholes but at least (and this is a very big and important "at least") Bernie would cause the public to think about change and how it would benefit them. Perhaps then we would be fortunate enough to have someone like Elizabeth Warren run for the post (and win) and begin to implement the needed change. Hillary is wonderful about keeping us strong and helping the poor and the disadvantaged but she has hardly done much more than feather her own nest while hoping to go down in history as the first female President. I'm all for a female president, I think it's long past time for one but Hillary? No way she is Bill in a pants suit and an unfashionable one at that as Dutch would say. The Right calls her Shillary and for good reason - I have to change the station every time I see her phony, lying lips begin to move.

    She is a major disappointment to me and to most other real Liberals & Progressives and I say that as someone that supported and worked for her eight years ago against Obama.

    To her credit she did do a magnificent job defending herself during the ridiculous Benghazi and e mail witch hunt that Congress put her through. I actually felt good watching and listening to her give it back to the con men (and women) that were trying to hang her. But, that was nothing but meaningless political theater meant to make her look bad. She does a good enough job making herself look bad and doesn't need any help from the Republicans.

    Republicans = go backwards (rapidly)

    Hillary = stay the same 'ol, same 'ol

    Bernie - move forward (slowly)

    I will still reluctantly hold my nose and give her my vote if she is the candidate but go home immediately and wash my hands with disinfectant!

    More good reading on "The Interview"

    alternet.org/comments/election-2016/jua...

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    pr Wrote: Schmidt - Obama made a lot of promises but then he just forgot most of them. He has bended over backwards to get along with the Republicans instead of hitting them as hard as possible and that's because he is really one of them when it comes to issues like trade, the economy, etc.

    We have separation of powers in this country. The President is not a king and the founders of our country made that blatantly clear in the Constitution.

    Article I is the Congress; Article II is the Executive. Article I is thousands of words long and has ten sections; Article II has four.

    President Obama bent over backwards to work with Republicans because he is a former Constitutional Law professor and understands how our country is actually supposed to function.

    The United States is not a monarchy. A President can not just wave a wand and do whatever they want. The Congress has far more power than the President ever will. If you don't like your Senator or Congressperson then vote them out.

    I encourage you and everyone on this site to read the entire Constitution before you continue to blame Obama for everything that's wrong in this country.

    pr Wrote: He has had limited success with LGBT rights at least

    Limited success?!

    Two states (seriously, TWO STATES) allowed same sex marriage the year President Obama was elected. It is now a Constitutional right in all fifty states. I would hardly call that "limited success."


    I think it's important for unhappy liberals to think about where we would be as a country had Senator McCain won in 2008. Does anyone think that gay marriage would be legal in all fifty states or that insurance companies wouldn't be able to deny health insurance to anyone for any reason? What about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Does anyone think President McCain would have finally gotten us out of there or do you think he would have injected steroids into those failed conflicts?

    Is President Obama perfect? No. Are we better off today than we were when he took his first oath of office? You and everyone else in this country would be kidding themselves if you said no.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    I go to Hillary Clinton's website and find that I can dig deep into her proposals. I wish Bernie Sanders provided more substantive discussions of his proposals in his multiple websites. That's a big difference between the two candidates. What's the word choice...transparency versus obfuscation? I am struggling to understand.

    I can read Clinton's website til I'm blue in the face and I will still believe what I am reading is mainly scripted bullshit.