View Full Version : wow, Sanders in New Hampshire
Just wow, I am just interested in the message this sends! Of course on the other side Trump is leading. Just such a weird year, but I am sooo excited about Sanders. I vote by picking my top 3 concerns and see how the candidates talk about them, but there are issues on the table I never thought we would get to discussing much less actually have an impact.
Gonna celebrate a little, however not nearly as much as Denver with the Broncos! I heard something like a million people came out for the parade. About 100 kids were out of school today for the parade. The mayor even announced that absences from school were excused. Kinda a state wide holiday,
Williamsmith
2-9-16, 11:26pm
Sanders was much more impressive but we will see how he does in the south. Trump benefits from the division of votes from all the other candidates. He only got a third of the vote. Two thirds didn't like him.
I am celebrating every small victory as a Sanders person. I am just excited that other people care about similar things as I do, and so passionately. That is huge to me regardless.
Williamsmith
2-10-16, 7:08am
Sanders strength comes from a melding of two or three different general groups that have a little overlap but don't necessarily have anything in common. Those with specific agendas, like you.......those who want to change the status quo .........and those that hate Clinton and establishment politics. What happens regarding economic headlines this Spring going into this Summer will influence where Dems head.
Sanders really has no details on how to get people back to work - remember those that have given up - and no answer to the central bank influence on stocks and the economy. He makes lots of promises but the economy can't back it up. The wealth he seeks to mine either isn't there or has been moved to where he can't get to it. His only hope is to get Elizabeth Warren to come out of hibernation, get her talking about nuts and bolts because he needs to attach himself to some star political personality or he's going to fizzle. Clinton is going to be there to assume the lead all the way home.
rodeosweetheart
2-10-16, 8:40am
Anyone wanting to join in the fight for Sanders, check out the national website. There is much work to be done with the phonebanking, and we have fun!
Zoe, not only did he win among NH women, he won 46000 more votes than Donald Trump!
According to Bloomberg News, the delegate count (including superdelegates who have endorsed one candidate or another) stands at 394 for Clinton and 42 for Sanders.
Ultralight
2-10-16, 9:55am
According to Bloomberg News, the delegate count (including superdelegates who have endorsed one candidate or another) stands at 394 for Clinton and 42 for Sanders.
Not surprising.
.... he won 46000 more votes than Donald Trump!You're comparing apples to oranges. If it had been a 2 person race on the GOP side it would be interesting to see the final outcome. I have to believe that Trump hit his peak among all NH voters and suspect a narrowed field would have possibly yielded a much different result.
rodeosweetheart
2-10-16, 10:23am
You're comparing apples to oranges. If it had been a 2 person race on the GOP side it would be interesting to see the final outcome. I have to believe that Trump hit his peak among all NH voters and suspect a narrowed field would have possibly yielded a much different result.
Bernie actually won more votes than Trump and Kasich combined.
This is the first time I've committed to donating money to a campaign on a regular basis. Bernie has my vote, until and unless he's defeated by
the Machine. It's refreshing to be able to vote for another "unbought and unbossed"* candidate, who doesn't change direction like a windsock.
*Courtesy Shirley Chisholm, who I also voted for
I think the only surprise was Kasich's decent showing. I wonder what would happen if Bloomberg throws in his hat as an independent. Sounds like he is still considering it.
I find the level of discourse and discussion distressingly banal and an outrage and an insult to the voters," Bloomberg told the Financial Times, adding that the public deserved "a lot better."
According to Bloomberg News, the delegate count (including superdelegates who have endorsed one candidate or another) stands at 394 for Clinton and 42 for Sanders.
I really don't understand how this works. I know that may be embarrassing to admit since I always vote and check out my candidates but this is the first time I have been super interested in who gets the nomination. So these super-delegates are set, or can they change their mind, or what. I am doing some reading, but not totally getting it
I think the only surprise was Kasich's decent showing. I wonder what would happen if Bloomberg throws in his hat as an independent. Sounds like he is still considering it.
I find the level of discourse and discussion distressingly banal and an outrage and an insult to the voters," Bloomberg told the Financial Times, adding that the public deserved "a lot better."
I wonder if an independent has a chance. There are people who are not necessarily Democrats but are against Trump, I wonder where they will end up if Trump gets the nomination. Or can the GOP just say no, he doesn't have the credentials politically after all.
Much as I think he may have peaked, I would like to see the Sanders people continue fighting to the bitter end. I would like to see the Sanders camp make Mrs. Clinton explain why overturning Citizens United (with whatever collateral damage to the 1st Amendmentis required) is necessary but drawing invidious conclusions about her speaking fees from Goldman Sachs amounts to a smear.
Ultralight
2-10-16, 10:46am
I would like to see the Sanders people continue fighting to the bitter end.
Me too!
Then I would like to see him go independent after Billary gets the nod.
I really don't understand how this works. I know that may be embarrassing to admit since I always vote and check out my candidates but this is the first time I have been super interested in who gets the nomination. So these super-delegates are set, or can they change their mind, or what. I am doing some reading, but not totally getting it
Could the rats desert a sinking ship? I think so.
As I understand it, superdelegates are various party officials who can vote however they wish at the convention regardless of state primary results. I believe they can change their mind at any time if they are willing to renege on any previous endorsement. I imagine most make their decisions based on their assessment of candidates' electability, political quid pro quos or how intimidated they may be by the Clinton machine.
The Republicans have something similar, but they are a smaller proportion of the total delegate count.
Me too!
Then I would like to see him go independent after Billary gets the nod.
That would be excellent. Ralph Nader writ large.
Ultralight
2-10-16, 11:01am
That would be excellent. Ralph Nader writ large.
I agree! Though I'd also like Trump to go independent when Rubot or Canadian Cruz get the Republican nod.
I agree! Though I'd also like Trump to go independent when Rubot or Canadian Cruz get the Republican nod.
I have no idea how that will shake out. This race is making politics fun again.
I wonder if an independent has a chance. There are people who are not necessarily Democrats but are against Trump, I wonder where they will end up if Trump gets the nomination. Or can the GOP just say no, he doesn't have the credentials politically after all.
I don't know how representative it is, but among my discussions many are disappointed in all of the offerings. I don't know that Bloomberg could actually win, but he could sure steal some votes from one side or the other. If Trump went independent, that would really be interesting. Especially if Bloomberg goes, too. I can almost see the seeds of a valid third party.
I really don't understand how this works. I know that may be embarrassing to admit since I always vote and check out my candidates but this is the first time I have been super interested in who gets the nomination. So these super-delegates are set, or can they change their mind, or what. I am doing some reading, but not totally getting it
Basically this is how the figurative smoke filled back room deals get made. The party doesn't trust the primary voters to actually choose the candidate the party wants. So they created these "superdelegates" of party insiders who are smarter than the dumb schmuck voters and can therefore overturn the will of the primary voters. If I recall correctly they tried to overturn the will of the primary voters 8 years ago but just couldn't pull it off.
Me too!
Then I would like to see him go independent after Billary gets the nod.
He won't because he doesn't have enough ego to be willing to blow up the Democrat's chance of winning. At the end of the day he's smart enough to know that if not him, better Hillary than any of the folks on the Republican side.
Ultralight
2-10-16, 11:25am
He won't because he doesn't have enough ego to be willing to blow up the Democrat's chance of winning. At the end of the day he's smart enough to know that if not him, better Hillary than any of the folks on the Republican side.
This is a sad, cynical, and tragic path for people to be on politically and ultimately it will lead to ruin.
He just seems too old to me..........like maybe he might drop dead in the near future. If he wins the primary, I sure hope he picks a younger, healthy person to be his V.P. I know others have been just as old, but he seems frail to me. Can you picture him traveling all over the world and a fast paced, wheeling and dealing with other heads of state, etc.? If I voted for him, it might be because of who he chooses for VP. His age really concerns me.
He won't because he doesn't have enough ego to be willing to blow up the Democrat's chance of winning. At the end of the day he's smart enough to know that if not him, better Hillary than any of the folks on the Republican side.
In my fantasy world, neither Trump nor Sanders will make the final cut, but their popularity will make a lasting impact on future candidates and the issues. Especially a move away from traditional establishment politics.
He won't because he doesn't have enough ego to be willing to blow up the Democrat's chance of winning. At the end of the day he's smart enough to know that if not him, better Hillary than any of the folks on the Republican side.
I'm not sure that's true. He's given little indication in his career that he cares much about party loyalty. I think he wants to raze what he believes to be a rotten, rigged system and build something new. He clearly views Mrs. Clinton as part and parcel of the edifice he wishes to tear down.
Ultralight
2-10-16, 11:33am
I'm not sure that's true. He's given little indication in his career that he cares much about party loyalty. I think he wants to raze what he believes to be a rotten, rigged system and build something new. He clearly views Mrs. Clinton as part and parcel of the edifice he wishes to tear down.
Amen!
This is a sad, cynical, and tragic path for people to be on politically and ultimately it will lead to ruin.
To think that there will be no significant differences between a (pick your republican) administration and a hillary administration is a sad, cynical, and tragic path for people to be on politically and ultimately it will lead to ruin. An example from the recent past. If the supreme court hadn't installed Bush as president in 2000 there would never have been an Iraq war.
In my fantasy world, neither Trump nor Sanders will make the final cut, but their popularity will make a lasting impact on future candidates and the issues. Especially a move away from traditional establishment politics.
Until you get someone committed to taking Big Money out of politics any other changes will be superficial at best. And maybe if the Obama justice department had sent EVEN ONE banker to jail after 2008 maybe the public wouldn't be on quite such an angry anti-insider kick right now. Knowing how much many people here hate facebook they may not understand the joke of this video, but the point of the joke is still quite clear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hE_askyq3g
[QUOTE=CathyA;231630 Can you picture him traveling all over the world and a fast paced, wheeling and dealing with other heads of state, etc.? [/QUOTE]
"Hey Russia, get off my lawn!"
rodeosweetheart
2-10-16, 11:48am
Until you get someone committed to taking Big Money out of politics any other changes will be superficial at best. And maybe if the Obama justice department had sent EVEN ONE banker to jail after 2008 maybe the public wouldn't be on quite such an angry anti-insider kick right now. Knowing how much many people here hate facebook they may not understand the joke of this video, but the point of the joke is still quite clear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hE_askyq3g
Very funny, Jp1, thanks for the link!
Until you get someone committed to taking Big Money out of politics any other changes will be superficial at best. And maybe if the Obama justice department had sent EVEN ONE banker to jail after 2008 maybe the public wouldn't be on quite such an angry anti-insider kick right now.
Slightly off topic, but as I understand things, the bankers may have been grossly unscrupulous but did not violate any laws of record. The real fault might lie with the coalition that repealed Glass-Steagall, which essentially made it all legitimate. In that case, the blame lies with big money and the deregulation conservatives, and not Obama. But still an example of big money influence on politics.
Slightly off topic, but as I understand things, the bankers may have been grossly unscrupulous but did not violate any laws of record. The real fault might lie with the coalition that repealed Glass-Steagall.
I guess I wonder how no laws were broken when the banks, collectively, have paid well over $200 BILLION in fines and penalties. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/20-global-banks-have-paid-235bn-fines-since-2008-financial-crisis-1502794 Surely there must have been wrongdoing for them to be willing to pay out these amounts. And surely if there was wrongdoing there were individuals doing the wrong.
Slightly off topic, but as I understand things, the bankers may have been grossly unscrupulous but did not violate any laws of record. The real fault might lie with the coalition that repealed Glass-Steagall, which essentially made it all legitimate. In that case, the blame lies with big money and the deregulation conservatives, and not Obama. But still an example of big money influence on politics.
And this is why we're not a pure Democracy. We seem to be living in an era where people want to see criminal penalties for non-criminal offenses. A perfect example of tyranny of the majority.
He just seems too old to me..........like maybe he might drop dead in the near future. If he wins the primary, I sure hope he picks a younger, healthy person to be his V.P. I know others have been just as old, but he seems frail to me. Can you picture him traveling all over the world and a fast paced, wheeling and dealing with other heads of state, etc.? If I voted for him, it might be because of who he chooses for VP. His age really concerns me.
Bernie seems to be weathering a grueling campaign schedule remarkably well, and the SO reports he was unwinding by playing basketball (and sinking a few). His recent checkup was good. I figure he has another twenty years. Time enough.
“Bernie was paleo before paleo was a thing,” according to a USA Today article, and he chops his own wood—which I'm pretty sure few of the other candidates do--so I'm pretty confident his health is more than adequate for the task. According to the same article, he's a follower of simple living principles too--thinks that three sweaters are enough for him. Good guy.
I guess I wonder how no laws were broken when the banks, collectively, have paid well over $200 BILLION in fines and penalties. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/20-global-banks-have-paid-235bn-fines-since-2008-financial-crisis-1502794 Surely there must have been wrongdoing for them to be willing to pay out these amounts. And surely if there was wrongdoing there were individuals doing the wrong.
Civil penalties or settlements aren't the same thing as criminal convictions. I'm sure the Obama Justice Department would have loved to conduct some show trials if they had some solid basis to do so.
The problem is that powerful special interests directly or indirectly write the laws, so of course they're never liable for any wrongdoing. The system is rigged, and that's why we need sweeping changes.
iris lilies
2-10-16, 12:33pm
Bernie seems to be weathering a grueling campaign schedule remarkably well, and the SO reports he was unwinding by playing basketball (and sinking a few). His recent checkup was good. I figure he has another twenty years. Time enough.
“Bernie was paleo before paleo was a thing,” according to a USA Today article, and he chops his own wood—which I'm pretty sure few of the other candidates do--so I'm pretty confident his health is more than adequate for the task. According to the same article, he's a follower of simple living principles too--thinks that three sweaters are enough for him. Good guy.
Rand Paul cuts his own hair. But I guess thats not the same thing.:)
Rand Paul cuts his own hair. But I guess thats not the same thing.:)
LOL!
Civil penalties or settlements aren't the same thing as criminal convictions. I'm sure the Obama Justice Department would have loved to conduct some show trials if they had some solid basis to do so.
Ironic that you have more faith in the Obama justice department than I do. I'd be curious to know how many of those fines were agreed to only if they came with non-prosecution agreements resulting in no investigation into criminality even taking place. I would be willing to bet most, if not all, of them did. After all, what's a couple billion dollars out of shareholder pockets if it keeps bigwigs at HSBC out of jail after the bank massively laundered drug money.
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/20/obama-justice-department-likes-criminally-prosecuting-people-but-not-corporations/
82% of referrals to the justice department resulted in prosecution if the referral was about an individual. Only 12% of referrals of corporations resulted in a prosecution. Clearly the justice department didn't get the memo after Citizens United that corporations are people too...
Another interesting point from the article, of the 5,000 referrals on white-collar crime, only 371 turned into prosecutions.
Ironic that you have more faith in the Obama justice department than I do. I'd be curious to know how many of those fines were agreed to only if they came with non-prosecution agreements resulting in no investigation into criminality even taking place. This administration has a history of shaking down businesses without evidence of wrong doing. Ally Bank just settled on a nearly $100M fine based on nothing at all. http://nypost.com/2016/02/07/obama-bullied-bank-to-pay-racial-settlement-without-proof-report/
Williamsmith
2-10-16, 2:15pm
The republicans will sooner embrace Trump than the Dems will accept Sanders. Just no way Hillary Clinton gives up. The Bern will be done by the end of Super Tuesday. It's a nice story. Trump and Cruz will slug it out further. As a Rand Paul supporter there is only one other Constitutional candidate and I would have to swallow hard to vote for him. If he would have stayed out of the race this time around, Rand would still be in it. Yes, Cruz. Nobody says it but Cruz is an insider who falsely characterizes himself as an outsider. The only true outsider in the whole lot is Sanders.
Ultralight
2-10-16, 2:53pm
The republicans will sooner embrace Trump than the Dems will accept Sanders.
True!
Ironic that you have more faith in the Obama justice department than I do. I'd be curious to know how many of those fines were agreed to only if they came with non-prosecution agreements resulting in no investigation into criminality even taking place. I would be willing to bet most, if not all, of them did. After all, what's a couple billion dollars out of shareholder pockets if it keeps bigwigs at HSBC out of jail after the bank massively laundered drug money.
Not to beat a dead horse, but why is it "Obama's" justice system? Certainly an issue for the Justice Department and there could also be congressional investigations, but any more it rains and someone blames Obama.
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/20/obama-justice-department-likes-criminally-prosecuting-people-but-not-corporations/
82% of referrals to the justice department resulted in prosecution if the referral was about an individual. Only 12% of referrals of corporations resulted in a prosecution. Clearly the justice department didn't get the memo after Citizens United that corporations are people too...
Another interesting point from the article, of the 5,000 referrals on white-collar crime, only 371 turned into prosecutions.
If individuals had the benefit of Risk Managers, Compliance Officers, Internal Audit staff, House Counsel, errors and omissions insurance and public accounting firms, they would probably fall foul of federal prosecutors less often.
Not to beat a dead horse, but why is it "Obama's" justice system? Certainly an issue for the Justice Department and there could also be congressional investigations, but any more it rains and someone blames Obama.
Because the attorney general, as a cabinet member, serves at the pleasure of the president. If Obama had been unhappy with him, I doubt that Eric Holder would've held his position for over 6 years.
Not to beat a dead horse, but why is it "Obama's" justice system? Certainly an issue for the Justice Department and there could also be congressional investigations, but any more it rains and someone blames Obama.
Rain isn't obama's fault. Everyone knows that that's gay people's fault. At least when it comes in large quantities, accompanied by a high speed, circular wind pattern.
Teacher Terry
2-10-16, 3:27pm
Hillary is not much younger then Bernie. She just looks younger:))
Rain isn't obama's fault. Everyone knows that that's gay people's fault. At least when it comes in large quantities, accompanied by a high speed, circular wind pattern.
No. It's that El Nino guy. Trump wants to keep him out of the country.
Hillary is not much younger then Bernie. She just looks younger:))
Oh wow.......Bernie must have had a hard life! :~)
No. It's that El Nino guy. Trump wants to keep him out of the country.
Perhaps he will be Sean Penn's next big interview.
Oh wow.......Bernie must have had a hard life! :~)
Sticking to one's principles can be difficult...
Rand Paul cuts his own hair. But I guess thats not the same thing.:)
I'm probably the only person in the world that doesn't mind Rand Paul's hair. Or hairpiece. It might be my eyesight, but I think it looks fine.
Oh wow.......Bernie must have had a hard life! :~)
It's the simple living. It will get you every time...
Chicken lady
2-10-16, 4:50pm
My dad is 71. He has never voted for a democrat in his life. My mom told me today that if he gets the chance in the general election, he plans to vote for sanders because "at least the man is sane and he has integrity. And hopefully he won't be able to do anything."
Ultralight
2-10-16, 4:54pm
Oh wow.......Bernie must have had a hard life! :~)
He is actually in pretty good shape. There was a video on the internet of him wrestling a bear.
Ultralight
2-10-16, 4:55pm
My dad is 71. He has never voted for a democrat in his life. My mom told me today that if he gets the chance in the general election, he plans to vote for sanders because "at least the man is sane and he has integrity. And hopefully he won't be able to do anything."
My dad is 70. We're the same age?
The Storyteller
2-10-16, 5:10pm
Sanders was much more impressive but we will see how he does in the south.
I'm in the south and every Dem I know except one (my wife) is voting for him.
Chicken lady
2-10-16, 5:11pm
Nope, I'm a (not going to) Vietnam baby.
Ultralight
2-10-16, 5:13pm
Nope, I'm a (not going to) Vietnam baby.
Makes sense now!
Williamsmith
2-10-16, 5:21pm
I'm in the south and every Dem I know except one (my wife) is voting for him.
With all due respect to the southerners of rural Oklahoma.......African Americans and Latinos will go for Clinton because she will pander to them way more than Bernie will. All Bernie says is he will keep them from being incarcerated as frequently. Bernie is still white, male, and privileged right UA?
Ultralight
2-10-16, 5:23pm
Bernie is still white, male, and privileged right UA?
Absolutely! He has white privilege, male privilege, and straight privilege.
I don't think he has Christian privilege; I suppose this is debatable though.
Williamsmith
2-10-16, 5:28pm
I got to give him credit though, he is reaching out to African Americans by practicing his hoops Cred.
Because the attorney general, as a cabinet member, serves at the pleasure of the president. If Obama had been unhappy with him, I doubt that Eric Holder would've held his position for over 6 years.
I had to look up some older articles to refresh my memory. You have many experts from what I think of as conservative publications like the Economist that agree with you. And other big publications with their experts that are in my camp. (One reason I like being in these discussions is that I often learn something). It's probably a fact that, "if" there were crimes associated with jail sentences, it would have been a huge use of resources to convict, including the FBI and regulatory bankers, at a time after 9/11 when resources were thin and faith in the banks was already fragile.
But now, while's probably ancient legal history, a LOT of people were burned. It shouldn't have been allowed to happen in the first place and I'll leave open the possibility that not enough punishment was delved out. In either case, it was the connection between big bank or big money that had a significant influence. I think people remember and that fact has been at least one big driver in the popularity of both Bernie and Donnie, who both try to propose they are independent of the system.
NH really shows how superdelegates take the sting out of the will of the people. By voter count, Clinton got slammed - but she could still walk away with more delegates than Sanders does.
There seem to be 579 total superdelegates, assuming that the info in my quick google search was correct. Roughly 12% of the total Democratic party delegates. It's not surprising that many have come out in support of Hillary, asince she is the establishment candidate. It'll be interesting to see if that aupport holds if Bernie wins more non-super delegates than her over the course of the primaries to enable them to swing the nomination to her.
On the Obama Administration prosecuting:
Former AG Eric Holder to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy,"
Yes he tried to walk this back after it caused a mini-uproar, but I think it is safe to say that this is how he felt.
Sidenote: Hundreds of executives went to jail as a result of prosecutions following the Savings and Loan crisis.
On the Obama Administration prosecuting:
Former AG Eric Holder to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy,"
Yes he tried to walk this back after it caused a mini-uproar, but I think it is safe to say that this is how he felt.
Sidenote: Hundreds of executives went to jail as a result of prosecutions following the Savings and Loan crisis.
yep, the corollary of 2 Big to Fail is 2 Big to Jail. The AG was very aware that any attempt to criminally prosecute would be met with ferocious resistance and years-long expensive and time-consuming litigation. On the other hand, by allowing settlements of civil charges, even with very large fines, life goes on for everyone.
And I recall the S&L crisis of the 1980s where bankers did go to prison. An S&L executive from Phoenix, Charles Keating, went to prison. A local journalist later attended a social function at the time it happened where this was discussed, and was surprised by the number of people defending him "because he provided good jobs." Ah, yeah, he was lying to small investors and telling them his bonds were backed by the FDIC! Once again if you wear a nice suit and steal by the stroke of pen or a digital click, then those people really shouldn't be compared to actual thieves. Amazing.
On the Obama Administration prosecuting:
Former AG Eric Holder to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy,"
Yes he tried to walk this back after it caused a mini-uproar, but I think it is safe to say that this is how he felt.
Sidenote: Hundreds of executives went to jail as a result of prosecutions following the Savings and Loan crisis.
I find it difficult to believe that the Federal government would be cowed by the resources of any private institution, or that they believed that the world economy would "suffer" if a few vice presidents went to jail. As the S&L crisis prosecutions indicate, they aren't shy to go on the attack if they think they have a case.
The problem is, it's not yet illegal to be unpopular.
The problem is, it's not yet illegal to be unpopular.I watched Bernie rail on and on about this last night. Even if he doesn't become President, his high profile rhetoric will leave a lasting impression on the Democratic party and their future nominees. So, it's just a matter of time.
I find it difficult to believe that the Federal government would be cowed by the resources of any private institution, or that they believed that the world economy would "suffer" if a few vice presidents went to jail. As the S&L crisis prosecutions indicate, they aren't shy to go on the attack if they think they have a case.
The problem is, it's not yet illegal to be unpopular.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/business/dealbook/morgan-stanley-to-pay-3-2-billion-over-flawed-mortgage-bonds.html?_r=0
Morgan Stanley admits that they lied to investors. Sounds like fraud to me, but no criminal investigation is going to be forthcoming. Maybe we need to rehire the attorney general who served during the S&L crisis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/business/dealbook/morgan-stanley-to-pay-3-2-billion-over-flawed-mortgage-bonds.html?_r=0
Morgan Stanley admits that they lied to investors. Sounds like fraud to me, but no criminal investigation is going to be forthcoming. Maybe we need to rehire the attorney general who served during the S&L crisis.
I would suspect here could be a long court discussion over whether lying would constitute illegal intention to defraud investors and if there would unique individuals responsible. The way I get it, the statue of limitations has expired for criminal charges, so yes, there will be none forthcoming.
The too big to jail was one of Bernie's three or four repeated themes in last night's debate. I don't share his thoughts on that, but he did mention the fact that many of the too big to fail banks are now bigger than they were before the crisis. This does not seem right. He seemed to imply that they would be further "punished" with new taxes to help his social reform programs.
Agree or not with the too big to jail, it makes more sense to look forward and have whatever is needed in place to prevent a replay.
rosarugosa
2-12-16, 10:24pm
I watched Bernie rail on and on about this last night. Even if he doesn't become President, his high profile rhetoric will leave a lasting impression on the Democratic party and their future nominees. So, it's just a matter of time.
Hey Alan, I can tell you that Bernie's rhetoric is resonating with some who formerly identified as Libertarians. Go figure! I seem to have done a seismic shift from Ayn Rand to Bernie Sanders.
I watched Bernie rail on and on about this last night. Even if he doesn't become President, his high profile rhetoric will leave a lasting impression on the Democratic party and their future nominees. So, it's just a matter of time.
That is one reason I am continuing to strongly support him. These are issues that I had given up hope that we would talk about in my lifetime and it seems they are on the table now. If he does not get the nomination then I think these conversations are not going away, these are issues that people are pushing to deal with. I resonate more with the Millennial generation since I have wanted to address many of these issues but many people in my generation and definitely older were just not concerned about. Younger voters are pushing on these things. Maybe in the push for things like free college we can get a middle ground of student loans with decent interest rates or look at why college costs have skyrocketed.
I still feel really bad for the conservatives. The traditional conservatives I know don't have much to choose from right now.
I would suspect here could be a long court discussion over whether lying would constitute illegal intention to defraud investors and if there would unique individuals responsible. The way I get it, the statue of limitations has expired for criminal charges, so yes, there will be none forthcoming.
.
I guess I figure that maybe a free market has some of this, however we have spent government money bailing out corporations where the top of the company makes 700 times the average/lowest paid employees. Seems reasonable to say that if we are bailing them out then they need to meet some criteria around bonuses, pay, etc. If they can run a company like that and not need government assistance then fine. We can all vote with our dollars and not buy their products. Pretty exciting to me to see McDonalds start to close doors. No need for regulations on that, just people not wanting their crappy food.
Hey Alan, I can tell you that Bernie's rhetoric is resonating with some who formerly identified as Libertarians. Go figure! I seem to have done a seismic shift from Ayn Rand to Bernie Sanders.I can see how he may appeal to a fairly large group of libertarians, what with his desire to reform the criminal justice system, the ongoing drug war, and the government’s surveillance efforts. That's all well and good but in my mind, pales in comparison to his socialistic class/gender/race focused big government is the answer to all problems outlook. That's hardly libertarian.
One of my biggest problems with him, and other politicians who may emulate him, is my memory of Nikita Khrushchev remarking something to the effect that the Soviet Union did not need to defeat the US militarily, the US would be destroyed from within when the proletariat rose up to bury the capitalists. Seems oddly prescient.
I find it difficult to believe that the Federal government would be cowed by the resources of any private institution, or that they believed that the world economy would "suffer" if a few vice presidents went to jail. As the S&L crisis prosecutions indicate, they aren't shy to go on the attack if they think they have a case.
The problem is, it's not yet illegal to be unpopular.
You have more faith in the system than me. If Elizabeth Warren or Eliot Spitzer (or even your boy Russ Feingold) were AG and there were no convictions, then I would feel better about it. Or, if as you suggest, there were no laws broken, then that just illustrates an equally troubling problem.
So the US is going to collapse the same way the USSR did? I always found it funny that we had to fight the USSR because of... communism... Or something. Were we so doubtful of the betterness of capitalism? Surely if capitalism is vetter it would have succeeded while communism failed without us having to go all nuclear against them. Of course, maybe Alan is right. Maybe in the end communism will prove to be the successful ideology.
For a socialism-like system to function well, I think you'd need a lot more social cohesion than the US currently has. We've got a large segment of Republicans who think that the whites are working hard and most of their tax dollars are going to support the non-white, non-working minorities. It isn't just something they casually believe, it is the principal context through which they view politics.
To many of us, it seems obvious that "working class" whites would be better off with universal healthcare and tuition-free college/technical training, but they can't get past their biases to see it that way.
It is a hot mess.
Williamsmith
2-13-16, 5:14am
Perhaps it's just refreshing to see a politician admitting or pointing out the obvious serious problems facing the US. Problems that can no more be glossed over or explained away by other politicians who also obviously have no answer. Problems like national debt, bloated military expenditures, foreign policy based on oil reserves, an unresponsive government agency system, and a failure to acknowledge that we have problems that need immediate attention.
We expect our politicians to continue feeding the delusion of our greatness instead of pointing out the warts. We are surprised someone is saying that our political elite are paralyzed. While not fully aware of the details or technology, we detect that the country is still functioning but is only moving along because things as big as this take awhile to unwind, but unwind it will.
We think to ourselves, how can the politicians keep talking up the economy when what they describe and what we see are so obviously two profoundly different things. How can we keep borrowing and producing so little. Won't someone soon come to collect on the bills? And won't they ask for something of value, not merely invented money?
We are surprised that someone is pointing out that the system we adore is broken. We look at the infrastructure that surrounds us in disrepair and say, "If this is the result of capitalism or some mongrel system....why not consider something else?"
Our law enforcement is not respected, many of our laws disregarded. We are on the verge of despair. Bernie Sanders is calling for a political revolution. He plans to take from the rich and distribute to the poor. The rich will burn their house down before they allow that to happen.
A transition to a new economy will not be easy. The current revolution is being described as a peaceful democratic transition.. But history tells a different story.
Big choices this time around. Status quo, socialism, fascism.........all headed in the same direction just taking different paths to get there.
Bernie Sanders is calling for a political revolution. He plans to take from the rich and distribute to the poor. The rich will burn their house down before they allow that to happen.
If only we could frame that in a different way: "Take from the rich and give to the poor," "Redistribute wealth"--the picture that floods my mind is that scene in Dr. Zhivago where the doctor comes home to find the local bolsheviks lounging around, having seized his property. Unfortunately, I think that's where the minds of the "have's" goes when they think of Democratic Socialism.
If we could agree that what is good for each of us is good for all of us and structure our society around that principle as a guiding light, that would mean that we would care that some people die because they can't afford a simple operation. It would mean that you recognize that affordable education for all will lift us all. It means that if there's something we can do to ensure that a person who works 40 hours a week can still afford a place to live and transportation to get to the job. And yes, it does mean that the more we can use capitalism to grow businesses that employ people, pays them fairly and contributes to the general welfare while still making a healthy profit, the more we will all benefit.
Bernie is not trying to drive the 1% into the ghetto with the "untouchables" and I don't expect to see the poor in Camden overtaking homes in Princeton. Bernie is simply asking that we take a look at what we value as citizens, and pay our fair share while putting some reins on the inherent greed and exploitation that takes place by some people who are in a position to abuse capitalism.
Nice post, Williamsmith
I can see how he may appeal to a fairly large group of libertarians, what with his desire to reform the criminal justice system, the ongoing drug war, and the government’s surveillance efforts. That's all well and good but in my mind, pales in comparison to his socialistic class/gender/race focused big government is the answer to all problems outlook. That's hardly libertarian.
One of my biggest problems with him, and other politicians who may emulate him, is my memory of Nikita Khrushchev remarking something to the effect that the Soviet Union did not need to defeat the US militarily, the US would be destroyed from within when the proletariat rose up to bury the capitalists. Seems oddly prescient.
In my view, rampant capitalism is the rot at the heart of the country, where greed is God, companies put the squeeze on workers to eke maximum profit out of them, move manufacturing overseas, offshore their shady business dealings, lie, cheat, steal. avoid taxes, and buy politicians who can do their dirty work for them. Capitalism, when it's managed properly (and not in control of the commons), is acceptable, but it's absolutely out of control now. Eisenhower presided over an economy where 91% was the highest tax rate, and we had a booming economy and a strong, healthy middle class. I think that's what people are thinking of when they talk about making America great again.
This certainly seems to be a time for hysterical rhetoric. If the more excitable souls are to be believed, we have an extensive menu of catastrophes to choose from.
I take a more sanguine view. We are not on the cusp of a revolution. Bernie is not a transformative figure. He’s more of a hipster fad. Nor will the Donald be leading a fascist putsch anytime soon. Ted Cruz is not an Ayatollah in the making; and Hillary Clinton is not Lady Macbeth of Chappaqua. They are just garden variety political hacks. Nothing we haven’t seen before.
America is not a seething cauldron of race and class hatred, even if a lot of people make a good living claiming otherwise. There is no vast conspiracy of bankers, bishops, billionaires and bureaucrats to control and cheapen our lives, just the occasional scam.
The Republic will endure regardless of all the dark and lurid fantasies. It has faced much worse than the challenges of today and survived.
Williamsmith
2-13-16, 9:22pm
This certainly seems to be a time for hysterical rhetoric. If the more excitable souls are to be believed, we have an extensive menu of catastrophes to choose from.
I take a more sanguine view. We are not on the cusp of a revolution. Bernie is not a transformative figure. He’s more of a hipster fad. Nor will the Donald be leading a fascist putsch anytime soon. Ted Cruz is not an Ayatollah in the making; and Hillary Clinton is not Lady Macbeth of Chappaqua. They are just garden variety political hacks. Nothing we haven’t seen before.
America is not a seething cauldron of race and class hatred, even if a lot of people make a good living claiming otherwise. There is no vast conspiracy of bankers, bishops, billionaires and bureaucrats to control and cheapen our lives, just the occasional scam.
The Republic will endure regardless of all the dark and lurid fantasies. It has faced much worse than the challenges of today and survived.
It sounds like what you are implying is that the Republic is indestructible or nearly so. Give me some historic evidence to hang my hat on.
Eisenhower presided over an economy where 91% was the highest tax rate,
People often drag out that 91% figure. But the structure of the tax code was vastly different back then as well, with *lots* of ways to shelter income and produce interesting deductions. The tax code has been greatly "simplified" since then.
The only way to do an honest apples-to-apples comparison is to look at the *effective* tax rate in each era.
That's an easy observation from Mount Olympus, but might be a hard sell to the millions of people struggling with grossly overpriced "health care" that subsidizes the nobs at the top of the insurance and pharma pyramid, or trying to buy a house, or get a decent job.
People often drag out that 91% figure. But the structure of the tax code was vastly different back then as well, with *lots* of ways to shelter income and produce interesting deductions. The tax code has been greatly "simplified" since then.
The only way to do an honest apples-to-apples comparison is to look at the *effective* tax rate in each era.
It's hard to imagine more ways to shelter income than we have now, but you're probably right. I do believe we need much higher effective tax rates than we have--progressive, of course. I would even entertain the idea of a comprehensive progressive flat tax, even though the sudden loss of business for tax preparers, IRS employees, attorneys, and the like might be catastrophic.
It's hard to imagine more ways to shelter income than we have now, but you're probably right.
My father used to be in the finance industry, and gave me the low-down many-a-time, wistfully. The IRS date on actual effective tax rates are pretty conclusive on the matter and are public record - the wealthy are paying about the same effective tax rates now as they did Back Then In The Land Of The Amazing 91% Tax Rate, even though the marginal rates have dropped significantly.
Ah, looks like someone wrote an article on it:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324705104578151601554982808
It sounds like what you are implying is that the Republic is indestructible or nearly so. Give me some historic evidence to hang my hat on.
Not indestructible, but certainly more resilient than the current crop of viewers-with-alarm seem to give it credit for. We have outlived the truly existential threats presented by the European Empires, the Confederacy and the Soviet Union (Who buried whom, Mr. Krushev?). Our contemporary economic problems hardly seem comparable to say the Panic of 1873 or the Great Depression. The level of "divisiveness" hardly seems to rise to the level of the 1860s or even the 1960s. Cliven Bundy is no Nathan Bedford Forest, although I understand there is now a move to dig up the latter's grave as a sort of posthumous punishment. While the current administration may be abusing federal power to go after the Little Sisters of the Poor, that hardly seems to be in the same league as the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Bloody Shirt, the Red Scare or the House Un-American Activities Committee. The racial tensions of today seem mild compared to the massacres, riots and lynchings of years gone by.
For all her ambition and ethical flexibility, Hillary Clinton is no Aaron Burr. Bernie Sanders' version of class warfare has yet to achieve the traction of a Eugene Debs or William Jennings Bryan, nor are we seeing anything like the labor wars of the past. Donald Trump is no Huey Long; he's not even Patrick Buchanan.
Unless we want to stipulate that contemporary Americans are somehow dumber, less courageous, lazier and altogether more fragile than in the past, it's difficult for me to believe that we've reached some point of penultimate danger.
Williamsmith
2-14-16, 11:48am
Well you broke out the history book on that response. I will point out only some of what I am familiar with and admit defeat by not googling the rest. The European Empires tried to defeat the American Colonies in the same manner the US and Soviets got mired in Afghanistan. The Confederacy had the Union by the throat and General Lee blew it by not listening to General Longstreet advice to get between the a Union forces at Gettysburg and Washington DC. The full frontal assault that ensued called Pickett's charge decided the war. We're it not for this, we would be discussing the proper care of slaves. And the Soviet Union is alive and well and making fools of our politicians. They were much better suited to dealing with collapse than we currently are now. We may not make any return to the stage.
Cliven Bundy has no features to compare with the genius General of the Confederacy who had no respect for Lincoln or the Union.
I will however, ask for a stipulation on contemporary Americans foolish belief in borrowing their way out of all their troubles to the tune of 19 Trillion dollars. When would you be worried about penultimate danger......if not now?
If only we could frame that in a different way: "Take from the rich and give to the poor," "Redistribute wealth"--the picture that floods my mind is that scene in Dr. Zhivago where the doctor comes home to find the local bolsheviks lounging around, having seized his property. Unfortunately, I think that's where the minds of the "have's" goes when they think of Democratic Socialism.
If we could agree that what is good for each of us is good for all of us and structure our society around that principle as a guiding light, that would mean that we would care that some people die because they can't afford a simple operation. It would mean that you recognize that affordable education for all will lift us all. It means that if there's something we can do to ensure that a person who works 40 hours a week can still afford a place to live and transportation to get to the job. And yes, it does mean that the more we can use capitalism to grow businesses that employ people, pays them fairly and contributes to the general welfare while still making a healthy profit, the more we will all benefit.
Bernie is not trying to drive the 1% into the ghetto with the "untouchables" and I don't expect to see the poor in Camden overtaking homes in Princeton. Bernie is simply asking that we take a look at what we value as citizens, and pay our fair share while putting some reins on the inherent greed and exploitation that takes place by some people who are in a position to abuse capitalism.
Nice post, Williamsmith
+1
"There's class warfare, alright, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." Warren Buffet
And the Soviet Union is alive and well and making fools of our politicians.
That will come as disappointing news to the Estonians, among others.
Williamsmith
2-15-16, 10:06am
That will come as disappointing news to the Estonians, among others.
Russia or Soviet Union....doesn't matter when you get handed a 25 year hard labor sentence for spying. Dangerous world we live in.
Russia or Soviet Union....doesn't matter when you get handed a 25 year hard labor sentence for spying. Dangerous world we live in.
Better that than the polonium tea bag, I suppose...rrrrr
Russia or Soviet Union....doesn't matter when you get handed a 25 year hard labor sentence for spying. Dangerous world we live in.
I would say that it matters a great deal to the Estonians. I was glad to see the Obama administration budget more to deter Russian adventurism in the Baltic region.
Williamsmith
2-15-16, 5:23pm
I would say that it matters a great deal to the Estonians. I was glad to see the Obama administration budget more to deter Russian adventurism in the Baltic region.
Oh you mean in the same type of way the Russians budgeted more military money to deter the United States adventurism in Libya, Iraq and most recently in Syria. Yes. I understand. I have more bombs than you and am willing to use them. I can funnel more money to so called moderate freedom fighters / terrorists than you. When it becomes a big mess well just leave.
Oh you mean in the same type of way the Russians budgeted more military money to deter the United States adventurism in Libya, Iraq and most recently in Syria. Yes. I understand. I have more bombs than you and am willing to use them. I can funnel more money to so called moderate freedom fighters / terrorists than you. When it becomes a big mess well just leave.
I mean in the way that the United States helps a free people stay free from intimidation and/or occupation. I would not like to see Russia do to the Baltic States what the Soviet Union did to them before Western resolve, corruption and the usual communist idiocy toppled the old USSR.
Call me unenlightened, but I don't see Putin's Russia and the United States as morally equivalent.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.