Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Krugman: Why I haven't felt the Bern
Topic Started: Apr 17 2016, 11:09 AM (1,152 Views)
Opinionated
Member Avatar

Two a.m.
Apr 17 2016, 10:42 PM
Opinionated
Apr 17 2016, 06:44 PM
Two a.m.
Apr 17 2016, 04:31 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Not part of a conspiracy, no. It's just that he, like you, is unable to see past his personal paradigm to grasp that incrementalism won't get the job done because as soon as you take an incremental step in the desired direction, all the forces that oppose movement in that direction immediately being to work to negate it. And those forces are almost always able to muster more money, which equates to more influence. Which means that they're able to effectively negate incremental steps faster than we can take them.

A perception failure does not equate to participation in a conspiracy.
You said he was "vested in maintaining the status quo as is much of the ruling elites" and implied that radical change would "cost" him something personally.

Your second post paints a very different picture of his motives. You act as though he is just naive and myopic unable to understand that incrementalism doesn't work.

In one formulation he is an active part of the dark, evil forces arrayed against the people. In the other, he's simply and ineffective dupe. Which is it?
So it is your belief that self interest plays no part in how people view the world?

Interesting theory. Complete hog wash, but interesting.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Two a.m.
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Apr 18 2016, 07:18 AM
Two a.m.
Apr 17 2016, 10:42 PM
Opinionated
Apr 17 2016, 06:44 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
You said he was "vested in maintaining the status quo as is much of the ruling elites" and implied that radical change would "cost" him something personally.

Your second post paints a very different picture of his motives. You act as though he is just naive and myopic unable to understand that incrementalism doesn't work.

In one formulation he is an active part of the dark, evil forces arrayed against the people. In the other, he's simply and ineffective dupe. Which is it?
So it is your belief that self interest plays no part in how people view the world?

Interesting theory. Complete hog wash, but interesting.
I didn't say anything like that.

I merely noted how little consistency there was in your flailing around for various explanations.
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Gizmolove
Apr 18 2016, 03:17 AM
estonianman
Apr 17 2016, 11:17 PM
Gizmolove
Apr 17 2016, 11:11 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep170 Economists Endorse Bernie Sanders’ Plan To Reform Wall St. And Rein In Greed

"170 of the nation’s top economists have released a letter endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’s plan to reform Wall Street.

A letter signed by 170 economists including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, University of Texas Professor James K. Galbraith, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC., Brad Miller, former U.S. Congressman from North Carolina, and William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City endorsed the Sanders plan to reform Wall Street.

The economists wrote:

In our view, Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another ‘too-big-to-fail’ financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted.

Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis.

Secretary Hillary Clinton’s more modest proposals do not go far enough. They call for a bit more oversight and a few new charges on shadow banking activity, but they leave intact thetitanic financial conglomerates that practice most shadow banking. As a result, her plan does not adequately reduce the serious risks our financial system poses to the American economy and to individual Americans. Given the size and political power of Wall Street, her proposals would only invite more dilution and finagle.

The only way to contain Wall Street’s excesses is with reforms sufficiently bold and public theycan’t be watered down. That’s why we support Senator Sanders’s plans for busting up the biggestbanks and resurrecting a modernized version of Glass-Steagall...."

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/18/the-economist-who-validated-bernie-sanders-big-liberal-plans-is-voting-for-hillary-clinton/

But Goolsbee isn’t swayed by Friedman’s arguments, which he has said risk pushing Democrats into the fantastical high-growth projections that conservative economists – such as Arthur Laffer, who famously sketched a version of this idea on a xxxxtail napkin – say will follow large cuts in top income tax rates.

Krueger said in an email that Friedman had, among other issues, dramatically overestimated productivity growth in the future, ignored ways in which Sanders' programs would discourage some Americans from working and failed to account for the likelihood that the Federal Reserve would intervene to slow growth in a time of low unemployment in order to head off inflation.

“To be clear, our letter wasn't a critique of his study,” Goolsbee wrote. “It was a plea that we not invent a Vermont version of voodoo economics. If he wants to start using real economic data to analyze Sanders' policies, that's great.”
Remember when Bernie confused the risk and collateralization of college loans vs home loans?

Do you think 170 "economists" also agree with that?
No matter what they agreed with, they support Bernie Sanders plan to reinvigorate the economy and deal with Wall Street, and the mess that the big banks have left this economy in. Hillary, and/or no other candidate can top that!
But socialists economies have always run capitalist economies into the ground.

What makes Bernie different?
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

Two a.m.
Apr 18 2016, 09:19 AM
Opinionated
Apr 18 2016, 07:18 AM
Two a.m.
Apr 17 2016, 10:42 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
So it is your belief that self interest plays no part in how people view the world?

Interesting theory. Complete hog wash, but interesting.
I didn't say anything like that.

I merely noted how little consistency there was in your flailing around for various explanations.
Sure, sure. You don't like the message so you attempt to discredit the one delivering the message. A classic ploy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Two a.m.
Member Avatar

Gizmolove
Apr 17 2016, 11:11 PM
No matter what they agreed with, they support Bernie Sanders plan to reinvigorate the economy and deal with Wall Street, and the mess that the big banks have left this economy in. Hillary, and/or no other candidate can top that!


As his embarrassing interview with the NY Daily News showed, even Bernie can't top it as he apparently doesn't understand - or hasn't even bothered to consider - the specific means or possible consequences involved in breaking up the big banks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/05/this-new-york-daily-news-interview-was-pretty-close-to-a-disaster-for-bernie-sanders/

Fortunately for him, his supporters aren't particularly demanding when it comes to minor details like how you actually go about doing something, how much it costs or what it might accomplish.

As long as Bernie shouts a lot and gives everyone's raging id a nice place to vent, that's all that matters.
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gizmolove
Member Avatar
Gizmolove
estonianman
Apr 18 2016, 11:11 AM
Gizmolove
Apr 18 2016, 03:17 AM
estonianman
Apr 17 2016, 11:17 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep170 Economists Endorse Bernie Sanders’ Plan To Reform Wall St. And Rein In Greed

"170 of the nation’s top economists have released a letter endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’s plan to reform Wall Street.

A letter signed by 170 economists including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, University of Texas Professor James K. Galbraith, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC., Brad Miller, former U.S. Congressman from North Carolina, and William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City endorsed the Sanders plan to reform Wall Street.

The economists wrote:

In our view, Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another ‘too-big-to-fail’ financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted.

Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis.

Secretary Hillary Clinton’s more modest proposals do not go far enough. They call for a bit more oversight and a few new charges on shadow banking activity, but they leave intact thetitanic financial conglomerates that practice most shadow banking. As a result, her plan does not adequately reduce the serious risks our financial system poses to the American economy and to individual Americans. Given the size and political power of Wall Street, her proposals would only invite more dilution and finagle.

The only way to contain Wall Street’s excesses is with reforms sufficiently bold and public theycan’t be watered down. That’s why we support Senator Sanders’s plans for busting up the biggestbanks and resurrecting a modernized version of Glass-Steagall...."

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/18/the-economist-who-validated-bernie-sanders-big-liberal-plans-is-voting-for-hillary-clinton/

But Goolsbee isn’t swayed by Friedman’s arguments, which he has said risk pushing Democrats into the fantastical high-growth projections that conservative economists – such as Arthur Laffer, who famously sketched a version of this idea on a xxxxtail napkin – say will follow large cuts in top income tax rates.

Krueger said in an email that Friedman had, among other issues, dramatically overestimated productivity growth in the future, ignored ways in which Sanders' programs would discourage some Americans from working and failed to account for the likelihood that the Federal Reserve would intervene to slow growth in a time of low unemployment in order to head off inflation.

“To be clear, our letter wasn't a critique of his study,” Goolsbee wrote. “It was a plea that we not invent a Vermont version of voodoo economics. If he wants to start using real economic data to analyze Sanders' policies, that's great.”
No matter what they agreed with, they support Bernie Sanders plan to reinvigorate the economy and deal with Wall Street, and the mess that the big banks have left this economy in. Hillary, and/or no other candidate can top that!
But socialists economies have always run capitalist economies into the ground.

What makes Bernie different?
Bernie is not spinning "socialist" economics. (That's how little you know). How else would he get 170 world economic experts to agree and endorse him???

Bernie is a Capitalist. Economic experts agree that Bernie is a Capitalist.

We are not living today in a "Capitalist" society. WE ARE LIVING IN A VULTURE CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY!!!

Capitalism unfettered by regulation is Fascism.

Capitalism properly regulated is an opportunity for both rich and poor to achieve a democratic economy, whereby both prosper.
When it comes to lying, cheating, or stealing, consult your DNC or GOP handbook.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Gizmolove
Apr 18 2016, 10:50 PM
estonianman
Apr 18 2016, 11:11 AM
Gizmolove
Apr 18 2016, 03:17 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep170 Economists Endorse Bernie Sanders’ Plan To Reform Wall St. And Rein In Greed

"170 of the nation’s top economists have released a letter endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’s plan to reform Wall Street.

A letter signed by 170 economists including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, University of Texas Professor James K. Galbraith, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC., Brad Miller, former U.S. Congressman from North Carolina, and William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City endorsed the Sanders plan to reform Wall Street.

The economists wrote:

In our view, Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another ‘too-big-to-fail’ financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted.

Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis.

Secretary Hillary Clinton’s more modest proposals do not go far enough. They call for a bit more oversight and a few new charges on shadow banking activity, but they leave intact thetitanic financial conglomerates that practice most shadow banking. As a result, her plan does not adequately reduce the serious risks our financial system poses to the American economy and to individual Americans. Given the size and political power of Wall Street, her proposals would only invite more dilution and finagle.

The only way to contain Wall Street’s excesses is with reforms sufficiently bold and public theycan’t be watered down. That’s why we support Senator Sanders’s plans for busting up the biggestbanks and resurrecting a modernized version of Glass-Steagall...."

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/18/the-economist-who-validated-bernie-sanders-big-liberal-plans-is-voting-for-hillary-clinton/

But Goolsbee isn’t swayed by Friedman’s arguments, which he has said risk pushing Democrats into the fantastical high-growth projections that conservative economists – such as Arthur Laffer, who famously sketched a version of this idea on a xxxxtail napkin – say will follow large cuts in top income tax rates.

Krueger said in an email that Friedman had, among other issues, dramatically overestimated productivity growth in the future, ignored ways in which Sanders' programs would discourage some Americans from working and failed to account for the likelihood that the Federal Reserve would intervene to slow growth in a time of low unemployment in order to head off inflation.

“To be clear, our letter wasn't a critique of his study,” Goolsbee wrote. “It was a plea that we not invent a Vermont version of voodoo economics. If he wants to start using real economic data to analyze Sanders' policies, that's great.”
But socialists economies have always run capitalist economies into the ground.

What makes Bernie different?
Bernie is not spinning "socialist" economics. (That's how little you know). How else would he get 170 world economic experts to agree and endorse him???

Bernie is a Capitalist. Economic experts agree that Bernie is a Capitalist.

We are not living today in a "Capitalist" society. WE ARE LIVING IN A VULTURE CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY!!!

Capitalism unfettered by regulation is Fascism.

Capitalism properly regulated is an opportunity for both rich and poor to achieve a democratic economy, whereby both prosper.
He doesn't support capitalism in education and healthcare.

He also wants to tax the poor and middle class by an additional 10%.

Do you not even know the platforms of your own candidate?
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gizmolove
Member Avatar
Gizmolove
Two a.m.
Apr 18 2016, 11:43 AM
Gizmolove
Apr 17 2016, 11:11 PM
No matter what they agreed with, they support Bernie Sanders plan to reinvigorate the economy and deal with Wall Street, and the mess that the big banks have left this economy in. Hillary, and/or no other candidate can top that!


As his embarrassing interview with the NY Daily News showed, even Bernie can't top it as he apparently doesn't understand - or hasn't even bothered to consider - the specific means or possible consequences involved in breaking up the big banks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/05/this-new-york-daily-news-interview-was-pretty-close-to-a-disaster-for-bernie-sanders/

Fortunately for him, his supporters aren't particularly demanding when it comes to minor details like how you actually go about doing something, how much it costs or what it might accomplish.

As long as Bernie shouts a lot and gives everyone's raging id a nice place to vent, that's all that matters.
Glass-Steagall would have prevented the Big Banks. Since the Clinton's destroyed that, a limp wrist Dodd Frank attempts to "regulate" those big banks into compliance. A giant FAIL !!!

How would Bernie do it???

Quite simply: Reinstate Glass-Steagall, which would make a bank a bank, and a investment bank an investment bank. If that fails to get past Congress, then use the weak watered down Dodd Frank to restrict the big banks and put the pressure on; along with the bully pulpit, and campaigning for both Democrats and Republican support. (Most of those people have to get re-elected, and pressure will be on by Bernie supporters).

Clinton's favoritism with the banks only gives them solace that they won't have to change a thing. They can keep getting bigger and bigger, until they fail again, and the American people have to pay for it. (Again).

Funny that some Democrats that support/or deny Hillary's letting the banks get as big as they wanted to in the first place, by gutting Glass-Steagall; believes that she has a plan to fix it. Truly a scream! :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Edited by Gizmolove, Apr 18 2016, 11:04 PM.
When it comes to lying, cheating, or stealing, consult your DNC or GOP handbook.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Two a.m.
Member Avatar

Gizmolove
Apr 18 2016, 11:01 PM
Two a.m.
Apr 18 2016, 11:43 AM
Gizmolove
Apr 17 2016, 11:11 PM
No matter what they agreed with, they support Bernie Sanders plan to reinvigorate the economy and deal with Wall Street, and the mess that the big banks have left this economy in. Hillary, and/or no other candidate can top that!


As his embarrassing interview with the NY Daily News showed, even Bernie can't top it as he apparently doesn't understand - or hasn't even bothered to consider - the specific means or possible consequences involved in breaking up the big banks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/05/this-new-york-daily-news-interview-was-pretty-close-to-a-disaster-for-bernie-sanders/

Fortunately for him, his supporters aren't particularly demanding when it comes to minor details like how you actually go about doing something, how much it costs or what it might accomplish.

As long as Bernie shouts a lot and gives everyone's raging id a nice place to vent, that's all that matters.
Glass-Steagall would have prevented the Big Banks. Since the Clinton's destroyed that, a limp wrist Dodd Frank attempts to "regulate" those big banks into compliance. A giant FAIL !!!

How would Bernie do it???

Quite simply: Reinstate Glass-Steagall, which would make a bank a bank, and a investment bank an investment bank. If that fails to get past Congress, then use the weak watered down Dodd Frank to restrict the big banks and put the pressure on; along with the bully pulpit, and campaigning for both Democrats and Republican support. (Most of those people have to get re-elected, and pressure will be on by Bernie supporters).

Clinton's favoritism with the banks only gives them solace that they won't have to change a thing. They can keep getting bigger and bigger, until they fail again, and the American people have to pay for it. (Again).

Funny that some Democrats that support/or deny Hillary's letting the banks get as big as they wanted to in the first place, by gutting Glass-Steagall; believes that she has a plan to fix it. Truly a scream! :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
What on earth are you blabbering about? You apparently don't even know what Glass-Steagall is. Your assertion that Hillary gutted Glass-Steagall "letting the banks get as big as they wanted to" is just bizarre. The last effect remnants of Glass-Steagall were gone a year before Hillary Clinton ever took her seat in the Senate. In fact, the bill had been being "gutted" since before Hillary was even out of high school and was done before Bill moved out of the White House. Unless the First Lady of the United States has some sort of secret banking regulatory powers I'm not familiar with, then you've completely left reality. That you think she somehow magically oversaw this process is a testament to the mind-boggling ignorance the Sanders campaign is relying on these days in its backers.

I mean, for Pete's sake, try reading some stuff on this before you comment. At least browse the Wikipedia entry.
Edited by Two a.m., Apr 18 2016, 11:23 PM.
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gizmolove
Member Avatar
Gizmolove
estonianman
Apr 18 2016, 10:58 PM
Gizmolove
Apr 18 2016, 10:50 PM
estonianman
Apr 18 2016, 11:11 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep170 Economists Endorse Bernie Sanders’ Plan To Reform Wall St. And Rein In Greed

"170 of the nation’s top economists have released a letter endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’s plan to reform Wall Street.

A letter signed by 170 economists including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, University of Texas Professor James K. Galbraith, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC., Brad Miller, former U.S. Congressman from North Carolina, and William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City endorsed the Sanders plan to reform Wall Street.

The economists wrote:

In our view, Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another ‘too-big-to-fail’ financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted.

Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis.

Secretary Hillary Clinton’s more modest proposals do not go far enough. They call for a bit more oversight and a few new charges on shadow banking activity, but they leave intact thetitanic financial conglomerates that practice most shadow banking. As a result, her plan does not adequately reduce the serious risks our financial system poses to the American economy and to individual Americans. Given the size and political power of Wall Street, her proposals would only invite more dilution and finagle.

The only way to contain Wall Street’s excesses is with reforms sufficiently bold and public theycan’t be watered down. That’s why we support Senator Sanders’s plans for busting up the biggestbanks and resurrecting a modernized version of Glass-Steagall...."

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/18/the-economist-who-validated-bernie-sanders-big-liberal-plans-is-voting-for-hillary-clinton/

But Goolsbee isn’t swayed by Friedman’s arguments, which he has said risk pushing Democrats into the fantastical high-growth projections that conservative economists – such as Arthur Laffer, who famously sketched a version of this idea on a xxxxtail napkin – say will follow large cuts in top income tax rates.

Krueger said in an email that Friedman had, among other issues, dramatically overestimated productivity growth in the future, ignored ways in which Sanders' programs would discourage some Americans from working and failed to account for the likelihood that the Federal Reserve would intervene to slow growth in a time of low unemployment in order to head off inflation.

“To be clear, our letter wasn't a critique of his study,” Goolsbee wrote. “It was a plea that we not invent a Vermont version of voodoo economics. If he wants to start using real economic data to analyze Sanders' policies, that's great.”
Bernie is not spinning "socialist" economics. (That's how little you know). How else would he get 170 world economic experts to agree and endorse him???

Bernie is a Capitalist. Economic experts agree that Bernie is a Capitalist.

We are not living today in a "Capitalist" society. WE ARE LIVING IN A VULTURE CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY!!!

Capitalism unfettered by regulation is Fascism.

Capitalism properly regulated is an opportunity for both rich and poor to achieve a democratic economy, whereby both prosper.
He doesn't support capitalism in education and healthcare.

He also wants to tax the poor and middle class by an additional 10%.

Do you not even know the platforms of your own candidate?
He doesn't support capitalism in education and healthcare.
Who the frick does??? Private companies should not make a profit from educating kids; and, private businesses should not make obscene profits from treating sick people (or not treating sick people, where most of their profits lye). You want business to prosper? FINE. I don't have a problem with that. Just don't gut the social safety net !!!!!

He also wants to tax the poor and middle class by an additional 10%.
No, that's not true. You are talking about healthcare. The figures are 2.5-3% for employees; and 6% for employers. This is much less for single payer, than the premiums now charged by private companies. The National average is around 18% for Healthcare and this is an old figure. So, the tax actually saves money, and private companies will still be able to sell extended healthcare packages to those that can afford it. So your 10% is bull.

Do you not even know the platforms of your own candidate?
No, you're wrong. You've never actually researched the platform of Bernie Sanders, and you discount his position because you think he's a "socialist"; and, you believe business is KING, and should race forward (unfettered) without any regard as to the financial collapse that it will cause.
When it comes to lying, cheating, or stealing, consult your DNC or GOP handbook.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gizmolove
Member Avatar
Gizmolove
Two a.m.
Apr 18 2016, 11:22 PM
Gizmolove
Apr 18 2016, 11:01 PM
Two a.m.
Apr 18 2016, 11:43 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deephttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/05/this-new-york-daily-news-interview-was-pretty-close-to-a-disaster-for-bernie-sanders/

Fortunately for him, his supporters aren't particularly demanding when it comes to minor details like how you actually go about doing something, how much it costs or what it might accomplish.

As long as Bernie shouts a lot and gives everyone's raging id a nice place to vent, that's all that matters.
Glass-Steagall would have prevented the Big Banks. Since the Clinton's destroyed that, a limp wrist Dodd Frank attempts to "regulate" those big banks into compliance. A giant FAIL !!!

How would Bernie do it???

Quite simply: Reinstate Glass-Steagall, which would make a bank a bank, and a investment bank an investment bank. If that fails to get past Congress, then use the weak watered down Dodd Frank to restrict the big banks and put the pressure on; along with the bully pulpit, and campaigning for both Democrats and Republican support. (Most of those people have to get re-elected, and pressure will be on by Bernie supporters).

Clinton's favoritism with the banks only gives them solace that they won't have to change a thing. They can keep getting bigger and bigger, until they fail again, and the American people have to pay for it. (Again).

Funny that some Democrats that support/or deny Hillary's letting the banks get as big as they wanted to in the first place, by gutting Glass-Steagall; believes that she has a plan to fix it. Truly a scream! :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
What on earth are you blabbering about? You apparently don't even know what Glass-Steagall is. Your assertion that Hillary gutted Glass-Steagall "letting the banks get as big as they wanted to" is just bizarre. The last effect remnants of Glass-Steagall were gone a year before Hillary Clinton ever took her seat in the Senate. In fact, the bill had been being "gutted" since before Hillary was even out of high school and was done before Bill moved out of the White House. Unless the First Lady of the United States has some sort of secret banking regulatory powers I'm not familiar with, then you've completely left reality. That you think she somehow magically oversaw this process is a testament to the mind-boggling ignorance the Sanders campaign is relying on these days in its backers.

I mean, for Pete's sake, try reading some stuff on this before you comment. At least browse the Wikipedia entry.
Why don't you try looking at history???

The term Glass–Steagall Act usually refers to four provisions of the U.S. Banking Act of 1933 that limited securities, activities, and affiliations within commercial banks and securities firms.[1] Congressional efforts to "repeal the Glass–Steagall Act" referred to those four provisions (and then usually to only the two provisions that restricted affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms[2]). Those efforts culminated in the 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA), which repealed the two provisions restricting affiliations between banks and securities firms.[3]

By the time the affiliation restrictions in the Glass–Steagall Act were repealed through the GLBA, many commentators argued Glass–Steagall was already "dead."[6] Most notably, Citibank's 1998 affiliation with Salomon Smith Barney, one of the largest US securities firms, was permitted under the Federal Reserve Board's then existing interpretation of the Glass–Steagall Act.[7] President Bill Clinton publicly declared "the Glass–Steagall law is no longer appropriate."[8]

Many commentators have stated that the GLBA's repeal of the affiliation restrictions of the Glass–Steagall Act was an important cause of the financial crisis of 2007–08.[9][10][11] Some critics of that repeal argue it permitted Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in affiliated commercial banks.

AND:
Commentators, including former President Clinton in 2008 and the American Bankers Association in January 2010, have also argued that the ability of commercial banking firms to acquire securities firms (and of securities firms to convert into bank holding companies) helped mitigate the financial crisis.......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Legislation


REALLY, I MEAN REALLY, BILL ??? So, banks that were allowed to play Casino Roulette with depositor's money were not REALLY too "big to fail"; they actually didn't fail because they could mitigate the losses to securities firms. VERY INTERESTING !!!!

WOW, I MEAN JUST WOW! :rollseyes:
When it comes to lying, cheating, or stealing, consult your DNC or GOP handbook.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Gizmolove
Apr 18 2016, 11:37 PM
estonianman
Apr 18 2016, 10:58 PM
Gizmolove
Apr 18 2016, 10:50 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep170 Economists Endorse Bernie Sanders’ Plan To Reform Wall St. And Rein In Greed

"170 of the nation’s top economists have released a letter endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’s plan to reform Wall Street.

A letter signed by 170 economists including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, University of Texas Professor James K. Galbraith, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC., Brad Miller, former U.S. Congressman from North Carolina, and William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City endorsed the Sanders plan to reform Wall Street.

The economists wrote:

In our view, Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another ‘too-big-to-fail’ financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted.

Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis.

Secretary Hillary Clinton’s more modest proposals do not go far enough. They call for a bit more oversight and a few new charges on shadow banking activity, but they leave intact thetitanic financial conglomerates that practice most shadow banking. As a result, her plan does not adequately reduce the serious risks our financial system poses to the American economy and to individual Americans. Given the size and political power of Wall Street, her proposals would only invite more dilution and finagle.

The only way to contain Wall Street’s excesses is with reforms sufficiently bold and public theycan’t be watered down. That’s why we support Senator Sanders’s plans for busting up the biggestbanks and resurrecting a modernized version of Glass-Steagall...."

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/18/the-economist-who-validated-bernie-sanders-big-liberal-plans-is-voting-for-hillary-clinton/

But Goolsbee isn’t swayed by Friedman’s arguments, which he has said risk pushing Democrats into the fantastical high-growth projections that conservative economists – such as Arthur Laffer, who famously sketched a version of this idea on a xxxxtail napkin – say will follow large cuts in top income tax rates.

Krueger said in an email that Friedman had, among other issues, dramatically overestimated productivity growth in the future, ignored ways in which Sanders' programs would discourage some Americans from working and failed to account for the likelihood that the Federal Reserve would intervene to slow growth in a time of low unemployment in order to head off inflation.

“To be clear, our letter wasn't a critique of his study,” Goolsbee wrote. “It was a plea that we not invent a Vermont version of voodoo economics. If he wants to start using real economic data to analyze Sanders' policies, that's great.”
WE ARE LIVING IN A VULTURE CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY!!!

Capitalism unfettered by regulation is Fascism.

Capitalism properly regulated is an opportunity for both rich and poor to achieve a democratic economy, whereby both prosper.
He doesn't support capitalism in education and healthcare.

He also wants to tax the poor and middle class by an additional 10%.

Do you not even know the platforms of your own candidate?
He doesn't support capitalism in education and healthcare.
Who the frick does??? Private companies should not make a profit from educating kids; and, private businesses should not make obscene profits from treating sick people (or not treating sick people, where most of their profits lye). You want business to prosper? FINE. I don't have a problem with that. Just don't gut the social safety net !!!!!

He also wants to tax the poor and middle class by an additional 10%.
No, that's not true. You are talking about healthcare. The figures are 2.5-3% for employees; and 6% for employers. This is much less for single payer, than the premiums now charged by private companies. The National average is around 18% for Healthcare and this is an old figure. So, the tax actually saves money, and private companies will still be able to sell extended healthcare packages to those that can afford it. So your 10% is bull.

Do you not even know the platforms of your own candidate?
No, you're wrong. You've never actually researched the platform of Bernie Sanders, and you discount his position because you think he's a "socialist"; and, you believe business is KING, and should race forward (unfettered) without any regard as to the financial collapse that it will cause.
Well if you don't make a profit - why would anyone have an incentive to supply it?

and yes - Bernie's tax plan adds about 10% to everyone's taxes unless you are very rich. Its a s**t storm unless you do not work.
Edited by estonianman, Apr 19 2016, 01:42 AM.
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Op EDITORIALS: personal & political governance · Next Topic »
Add Reply