Forum Thread

New York Daily News Interviews Bernie Sanders

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 22 of 22 Prev 1 2
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    New York Times on Bernie, after the Daily News. NYT seems to think he might know something or other:

    nytimes.com/2016/04/07/upshot/yes-berni...

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt, capital requirements can be gamed. And by raising them, the honest banks are in more danger of 'failing' as in a downturn they could end up capital deficient based on the new higher levels of capital required when they otherwise would not have failed based on the old capital requirements. That makes banking more expensive and is a burden on the small banks.

    Dodd-Frank is Wall Street neoliberal spit shine on a deeply problematic crony capitalist system (massive otherworldly levels of socialism for rich people).

    Passing new regulations, when the previous regulations were violated and no one was punished, is not reform.

    There has to be personal responsibility and accountability.

    Meanwhile, our Government still has 2 FBI agents per industry to investigate white-collar financial fraud and they can't walk a beat with that many companies and organizations to cover; they need criminal referrals from the relevant federal agencies to alert them and that process has been willfully dismantled under Bush-Obama. We still lack the proper effective enforcement to police the banking and financial sectors. Those that do not understand this are the ones truly out to lunch.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Obamas' incrementalism like all incrementalism past has a negative net gain. Sufficiently associating with enough issues to claim a resume but totally denying specifically the poor and generally the middle class. You can qualify is socioeconomic policy in one word, Geithner.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt, P.R. Mcsweet, Jared etc. All of you actually say the same thing; things don't work here as it should. The point I've been making continuously is that this country because it never had an war on its soil is stuck into a bureaucratic rut since the civil war. We continue creating more and more laws and paperwork, but forget efficiency or copy things what work in other countries. As long as we stick to our corrupt complicated system then we just muddle along and bow for the one's with the biggest mouths and heaps of money. Look at this election for instance, that is the "picture" people get from us overseas; they call all of us "dumb asses" and laugh at the Trump comic show etc. I guess if the people who wrote the Constitution were still alive they probable would commit suicide looking at on how convoluted their work has become in this lawyer country. The only way to fix this is an revolution or start with a clean slate. A typical example on how things work here is; my wife needed to renew her "green card" 8 month later still no new card; why?, because they just throw it on the huge stack of new applicants, instead of separating already processed one's from the new one's. I asked why the inefficiency?; they just answered "that is the system" I guess the whole government works that way, We need a "huge" broom, as well "brains" to repair this country and its brainwashed gun toting mentality; it stays an "island" in this big world. We love to "fight" everyone in this world, but seldom want to learn from the rest of the world.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    pr Wrote:
    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...

    Sorry, Schmidt P.R. has some good points; Hillary indeed means the same "old", as long as she benefits from it, with Bill in the background coaching her and giving speeches at 3ooK a pop.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Carlitos Wrote:

    Schmidt, capital requirements can be gamed. And by raising them, the honest banks are in more danger of 'failing' as in a downturn they could end up capital deficient based on the new higher levels of capital required when they otherwise would not have failed based on the old capital requirements. That makes banking more expensive and is a burden on the small banks.

    Dodd-Frank is Wall Street neoliberal spit shine on a deeply problematic crony capitalist system (massive otherworldly levels of socialism for rich people).

    Passing new regulations, when the previous regulations were violated and no one was punished, is not reform.

    There has to be personal responsibility and accountability.

    Meanwhile, our Government still has 2 FBI agents per industry to investigate white-collar financial fraud and they can't walk a beat with that many companies and organizations to cover; they need criminal referrals from the relevant federal agencies to alert them and that process has been willfully dismantled under Bush-Obama. We still lack the proper effective enforcement to police the banking and financial sectors. Those that do not understand this are the ones truly out to lunch.

    Okay, I cannot claim that I understand everything about the nuances of Dodd Frank. I listened to Robert Reich and Bernie Franks argue several points on MSNBC the other day. Each was talking across the other...hardly listening, but Frank seemed to have the upper hand to me.

    One thing I respect about Hillary Clinton is that she is intellectually very smart and she does her homework . The Benghazi hearings bear that out. So when she posts on her website the details and thinking behind her proposals, she is being transparent about them, and in effect asking others to vet them. Nothing would be more embarrassing to Hillary than to find major flaws in her thinking. As I have said in another post, she has been under the microscope her entire adult career, and knows that anything that she says or writes will be scrutinized by experts in the field. She doesn't throw out proposals that are not workable.

    So I call your attention to her website again...her proposal entitled: Hillary Clinton: Wall Street Should Work for Main Street

    Unlike some of you guys, I don't claim to be an expert in derivatives and such, but I can read proposals like hers and they seem to make sense to me. However, she is not really putting her proposals there to be scrutinized by me...maybe just the upfront part. She is putting them there to be scrutinized by economists. And economists do in fact ask her questions about areas that seem vague. That's the way the system works.

    Most of the economist articles I have read on Bernie Sanders proposals state they don't have enough information to judge or that he has made some sweeping assumptions that make them cringe. Is that fair? When questioned, however, Bernie seems to get a bit "testy" which also gives the impression he hasn't thought through his proposals as carefully as he would appear to have based on his stump speeches. If Hillary Clinton is going to sit down with the New York Daily News, I would expect more coherent responses to questions than Bernie provided.

    I looked at just about all of Hillary's proposals. Off hand I might have some doubts on some of the issues. But one thing I can say for sure. They are not "bullshit". Hillary doesn't put out bullshit to be scrutinized by experts.

    Take a closer look at the above link from her website and then direct me to a comparable analysis on one of Bernie's websites. When he provides that kind of clarity then maybe I'll be less critical.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Hillary's Wall Street plan is a grab bag of ideas, many of which Bernie has championed (some of which like HFT taxes are not optimal compared with alternatives of outright bans on certain HFT activity).

    A lot sounds good, but does Hillary think felonies were committed that should have been prosecuted by Bush-Obama administration? There's a lot in her plan that is subject to further interpretation to be meaningful.

    And why does she continue to take funds from financial felons?

    Furthermore, Clinton is confused about what constitutes shadow banking. "Banks" are involved in shadow banking.

    Shadow banking is simply when any entity lends the funds they hold on deposit in banks or in cash. They may borrow these funds. In other words, shadow banking is what most people think banks do, i.e. lend deposits.

    But in reality, "banks" don't lend deposits. Banks create deposits. Loans create deposits in the "banking" system. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't have a flexible money supply.

    "Banks" should not be involved in shadow lending, whatsoever, but they are involved by funding loans to shadow institutions or affiliates of the bank. That should not be allowed in any capacity or circumstance whatsoever.

    Lastly, while Hillary talks about restoring prosecutions, there is no mention of the restoration of the criminal referral process, which is absolutely necessary for prosecutions.