home

Belated Post Debate Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2016
Posted on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:46:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Sorry. Should have put up a thread.

Update (TL): Thanks, BTD. I didn't even realize there was a debate tonight until just now. That's how studiously I've been avoiding news about New Hampshire. Here's an AP recap of the first half.

< Wednesday Open Thread | Friday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Belated Post Debate Thread | 221 comments (221 topical)
    Just want to say (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 11:07:44 PM EST
    Bernie looked great!  Hair and makeup were perfect.

    Proud of team Dem (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by magster on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 11:23:48 PM EST
    The contrast between this debate and the GOP buffoons is stark.

    Thought Hillary dominated.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by magster on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 11:33:16 PM EST
    ... foreign policy, and Bernie won Wall Street/$$$ argument. Progressive stuff was weird but entertaining. David Corn tweeted that his 14 year old commented that the debate was like watching her grandparents fight. Some Kumbayah at the end. Nothing game-changing.

    Parent
    "watching her grandparents fight" (none / 0) (#178)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:30:58 PM EST
    Ouch!

    Parent
    Just me, but I would have preferred that (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 06:45:35 AM EST
    more of the debate time been spent on actual issues, especially issues we haven't really seen debated or discussed - immigration, women's reproductive freedom, race relations, public education, our criminal justice system, the militarization of law enforcement, to name a few - than on the minutiae of defining "progressive" and campaign strategy for a general election.  I felt like it was an attempt to get these two to sling mud, generate headlines and create more drama.

    And with regard to the discussion about her contributions from Wall Street, I think if I were Bernie Sanders, I think I might have said, "With all due respect to our fine moderators, I'd like to ask Secretary Clinton a question, and that is this: if you are as interested as you say you are in holding the financial industry accountable, if you believe they need strong oversight and regulation, why are you taking their money?  And not just taking it, but seeking it?  What is it you think they are contributing all that money for?"

    We can all nitpick our way through the debate, scoring rounds like it was a boxing match, but I think Sanders summed it up best when he said that on the Demorcrats' worst days, they are 100 times better than anything on the Republican side.

    As contentious as it was at times, I thought they both did a pretty good job of reminding us that these two people really are colleagues, with respect for each other, with a great deal of agreement between them.  

    I don't expect to see much movement in the polling going in to Tuesday's primary, but I do expect the media to work extra hard to try to make it happen.

    Me too Anne (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 06:56:40 AM EST
    Would have preferred new areas be opened up. And some ideas on how to fix the public campaign finance system so that it can really be used.

     But I guess there is agreement on so many things that they focus on the differences instead.

    I almost didn't watch it - I was afraid that instead of emerging liking them both, it would be so rancorous that I would end up liking neither! But I'm glad I watched it all. Both of their closing statements were great.

    Parent

    You were (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 06:47:23 AM EST
    not the only one complaining about the questions that were asked.

    Parent
    If Bernie (none / 0) (#31)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:19:12 AM EST
    Doesn't have purity test twitter hissy fits trying own the word progressive and demand moderates can't be progressive.... Something he confirmed in the debate....

    It's not an issue that needs to be discussed.  And we can focus on real issues.

    If my prediction is wrong, and Clinton wins, that one tweet -- the tweet saying moderates cant be progressive -- will loom large as the turning point back towards Clinton, the media still loves the insurgency so we will see....

    Parent

    There are supposed to be 6 (none / 0) (#127)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:14:38 PM EST
    more debates:  4 new ones just set up by the DNC, and two pre-existing ones.  

    I think this will help Hillary.  Bernie is a one issue candidate and will run out of things to say.  He certainly got lost in the basement looking for North Korea during the foreign policy segment last night.  

    Parent

    Next week's debate is in Milwaukee (none / 0) (#149)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:51:30 PM EST
    which is a majority-minority city, quite different demographically from the terrain of last night's debate and this week's caucus.  

    Perhaps we will see a different agenda?  Immigration reform?  Education, in Walkerland?

    And next week's debate is on PBS.

    Parent

    small correction (none / 0) (#153)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:53:56 PM EST
    This week isn't a caucus.

    Parent
    Unless of course you were referring (none / 0) (#154)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:55:10 PM EST
    to Iowa rather than NH.

    Parent
    Yes, Iowa (none / 0) (#156)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    and the debate reference was to NH.

    Parent
    Donald it's so strange (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by fishcamp on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 08:51:35 AM EST
    to see the time date that you post, like 3:25 am, but that's the way it is in the jungles of Hilo.  Hope you are enjoying your new place.

    Hillary certainly has a fantastic memory when she gets going.  Does she ever forget anything?  Her stance on accepting large fees for speaking engagements from big corporations, and then stating none of them have influenced her ideals just cannot be true.  Bernie, on the other hand, repeated himself at least three times regarding the 27 dollar donation average.  How can that work in the long run?  They both have to accept bucks from the big guys, so what do they tell those big guys...ok I'll take your money but don't expect anything in return except me and my decisions.  That money has to lurk in the mind of the winner regardless of what they say now.  

    Bernie is good, really good, but he just doesn't seem to have the complete understanding of subjects that Hillary does.  These opinions are from an old fisherman trying to get by with the remaining dollars from stock market investments.  The best line of the evening was when Bernie said the stock market is a fraud.

    Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:06:25 AM EST
    may be the most prepared and knowledgeable candidate for the presidency of anyone that has run for that position in my lifetime.

    Parent
    Have to disagree (none / 0) (#134)
    by ragebot on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:28:09 PM EST
    George Bush I had combat military experience, was in congress, was head of the CIA, and was VP; all without being married to a former prez.  As has been pointed out many times absent Hillary being Bill's wife it is unlikely she would have ever been elected in NY or been appointed SOS.

    Parent
    and (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:34:17 PM EST
    being the son of Prescott Bush had nothing to do with it either I suppose.

    Parent
    If that's your best choice (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:51:36 PM EST
    I will change my opinion and drop the "maybe".

    Hillary "is" the most prepared and knowledgeable candidate for the presidency of anyone that has run for that position in my lifetime.

    Parent

    George H.W. Bush served two terms ... (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:11:27 PM EST
    ... in the U.S. House, then ran for the U.S. Senate in 1970 but lost. He was President Richard Nixon's U.N. ambassador from 1971 to 1973, but that position was then not a cabinet post.

    Bush became Chairman of the Republican National Committee (1973-1974) just in time for the Watergate scandal to blow up on his watch, though that was certainly no fault of his. He served as CIA Director for 51 weeks (Jan. 30, 1976 to Jan. 20, 1977) at the end of President Gerald Ford's term, and became Vice President four years later.

    Hillary Clinton's road has been somewhat different, given that women enjoyed considerably less political opportunities than men throughout most of her early career, but hardly less substantial. She staffed the Senate Select Committee on Watergate, and later as Arkansas' first lady, she served as Gov. Bill Clinton's primary policy advisor, frequently participated in his cabinet meetings and discussions, and spearheaded several policy initiatives on his behalf.

    At the same time, Hillary Rodham -- for professional purposes, she kept her maiden name during the first years of her marriage -- carved out a very successful career for herself in the private sector, as a prominent attorney and partner in Little Rock's prestigious Rose Law Firm. In legal circles, her name and reputation were of considerable renown, and by the couple's own admission she was the family's primary breadwinner. (Like most southern states, Arkansas was notoriously stingy when it came to the salaries of its elected officials, and Gov. Clinton's was about $30,000.)

    Throughout most of the 1980s, even though her husband was an incumbent governor, Hillary Rodham was probably the better known of the two nationally, due to her numerous professional associations throughout the country as partner in the Rose Law Firm. Gov. Bill Clinton first came to the nation's attention at the 1988 Democratic National Convention, when he gave a long-winded but generally well-received nominating speech on behalf of Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis.

    Hillary Clinton's story and trajectory following Bill's 1992 election as president is already well-known and -documented, and need not be further recounted here. Suffice to say, she is a woman of considerable substance.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    The speaking fees argument (3.50 / 2) (#40)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:38:54 AM EST
    Is basically sexism.

    Yeah Clinton cashed in on her political career and created for herself a huge payday. Punish her for that?

    A dude does that like Colin Powell or Rep. John Lewis (who is still in office) and no one complains.

    And yes huge paydays looks bad to us poor folks (but we still watch sports religiously LOL) but how you deal with that is by raising taxes on the rich.  Let successful people get their reward but tax them hard so others can play too!

    Parent

    I would like to agree (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:44:33 AM EST
    But I don't.   Well, not much.  Maybe a little.  But I think anyone running against the Bernie purity test would be getting the spam thing.

    But I don't deny that I think it might be a bit harder to make it stick on a man.

    Parent

    That's the point (none / 0) (#49)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:57:58 AM EST
    It wouldn't stick as much.

    Ok, it's not just sexism.  FWIW Ava Duvernay, director of SELMA, also got a huge pay day speaking fee from Wall St but she's not in politics.

    Let me amend just saying sexism is just one part of it.

    CDS is the other part.

    Parent

    Thanks, fishcamp. (none / 0) (#167)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:11:00 PM EST
    Hawaii is five hours behind the east coast, which becomes six hours when you're on daylight savings time. It's often long past most people's bedtimes when I log onto TL.

    Parent
    I'm in the minority I guess (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:02:12 AM EST
    I have to disagree with all the high marks for Bernie.  I have no particular ax to grind with Bernie.  I have said many times that I appreciate many of the things he has said in this campaign and I'm glad he has been around to say them.  I do not feel the need to say terrible things about him or his supporters because I ne er thought he was an actual threat to Hillary's chances and I still don't.  So welcome to the party.

    That said, I thought he was terrible last night.  Terrible.  He seemed confused and crabby.  He seems completely clueless about how the world and the government actually works and he seemed to think he could make his pie in the sky fantasys real by having people gather outside Mitch McConnells office.  I'm all for citizen involvement but it's not a legislative plan.  

    So, as he said, let's talk about money in politics.   He has certainly been getting support from one SuperPac.  Karl Roves.  He had a chance to denounce that last night.  He was given a golden opportunity to tell Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers to stop soending money to help him beat Hillayr.  To stay out of the democratic primary. And he didn't say a damn word.  And that sucked.  It really really sucked.   At that moment I was done with Bernie and him "movement".
    If he had was serious about all his lofty campaign finance krap he would have said it.  And he didn't.   That tells me Bernie is fine with financing From Karl Rove. And as far as I am cncerned Bernie can confine his "movements" to the tiny private rooms they belong in.

    Hillary was great last night.  I said then I believe her poll numbers will go up because of it.  If there was no press fawning over Bernie and talking about how wonderful he was they would go up more .  But whatever.  NH. doesn't matter that much.  If he wins it will probably be the last place he does.   That's a fact.  Am I'm glad.

    Its only one poll but (none / 0) (#135)
    by ragebot on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:30:30 PM EST
    it is a recent one claiming Bernie is tied, or close to being so, with Hillary.

    Parent
    Hillary, having been our SOS, (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by NYShooter on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:28:11 AM EST
    has a mastery of world events that a Senator from a tiny state couldn't possibly match. But, having said that, she pretty much scared the crap out of this old Jarhead with her very aggressive words & tone towards Russian President Vladimir Putin. I mean, it sounded to me like she's going to scramble our jets to the Ukraine and over Damascus the minute she finishes getting sworn in as President.

    I mean it, she basically proclaimed that Russia should just stay quietly within their own borders while we go marauding all over the world. I know she's been characterized as being pretty militaristic, but, wow, are the American people suddenly feeling safer knowing she wants to go shove a stick into Putin's eye as her first order of business?

    How about we take care of ISIS first, then, let's see about Putin.

    Do you think (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:42:49 AM EST
    Some of that is because, as a woman, she has to look tougher than a male candidate?  I mean, Lord knows, there are still people who are concerned what hormonal woman who has access to the nuclear codes might do...

    Parent
    And then (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:48:19 AM EST
    There is Bernie vs Putin

    Parent
    Russia's Putin respects (none / 0) (#209)
    by christinep on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:36:50 PM EST
    muscularity, strength, etc. in a man IMO, he is the kind of Slavic leader who understands let-us-reason-together only when he realizes he has been out-maneuvered or (as the case may be) out-manned (out-womaned.) There are people who deal when other options appear blocked ... they test the mettle first.  

    From years of his exploits, one can easily see that Putin is that kind of individual who would see as weakness an initial encounter based only or primarily on working together or looking-in- his-eyes-and-seeing-his-soul (ha! remember that one from W.) As an astute lawyer, negotiator, and expert at power-conflict, Hillary Clinton understands the need to speak & act the language of power/authority with one gospodeen Putin.
    <And, NYS, something tells me that you understand that essential avenue with him as well.>

    Like it or not, she is clearly conveying her superior comprehension of international dynamics in these troubled times.  (A sidebar: The times filled with fears & realities of ISIS have such an imprint on people now that Pope Francis and Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill will meet in Cuba next week--the first raproachment since 1054. A major impetus for this most significant meeting is the mutuality of concern about ISIS attacks in Syria and throughout the Middle-East on Christians of both Roman Catholic & Russian Orthodox faiths.)

    Hey there, NYS ... sooner or later you might want to cede that Hillary Clinton is growing in her quest ... each day she gets better, stronger.

    Parent

    Worth noting... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:35:35 AM EST
    only one candidate in this whole shebang has the stones to say "the Wall Street business model is fraud"...not some fraud, not some bad actors.  Straight up FRAUD.

    That's the kinda cold hard truth you never get from a politician.  I, for one, appreciate it...and not just because I've been saying the same thing for 20 years;)

    Nah disagree (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by smott on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:06:40 AM EST
    I'm with Armando on that one, that was demagoguery .

    The model has been corrupted by fraud, certainly. With a great deal of help from lax regulations, poorly enforced. Warren was spot on with her criticism there, the weakness/unwillingness of the Obama Admin to go after obvious violators in the finance sector.

    But how much money did O get from Wall St again? Quite a bit.

    Parent

    No one metioned that investment banks control (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:34:27 AM EST
    most of the non-SS retirement funds in this country.  All of it for those of us with 401k. Fraud is a strong word - I hope we are all going to be compensated either for the fraud, or for the market crash someone could cause by calling it fraud.

    Parent
    It is a very strong word... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:52:37 AM EST
    and it fits.

    As Sanders mentioned in the debate...Goldman Sachs just paid 5 billion in fines for fraud in our current deregulated underpoliced markets, where we all well know lots of things the common person would call a fraud are totally legal.  Think about that for a second...  

    Parent

    I know what you are saying (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:04:58 AM EST
    the crime is that what is legal is legal.

    Is the whole financial system actually built on people trying to defraud each other? Take advantage of each other, sure, I buy that. But actually lie and cheat each other?


    Parent

    Capitalism is the worst system on earth (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:06:24 AM EST
    Except for all the others

    Parent
    I don't agree (none / 0) (#147)
    by sj on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:43:35 PM EST
    Capitalism is the worst system on earth (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:06:24 AM MDT

    Except for all the others

    Capitalism can't hold a candle to Socialism.

    Parent
    the common person can throw words around (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:08:05 AM EST
    when they seem to fit the situation, with no legal repercussions. the president better dang well mean legally defined fraud when he/she uses the term.

    Parent
    I like the term rigged better (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:24:12 AM EST
    and I wish he would use examples in the debates, like E. Warren does when she is on talk shows, instead of the sloganeering.

    For example, people know that interest rates have been kept low for the last 8 year or more and they seem to think it is a good thing because it "lets'" them borrow for less. But the real effect is that it makes savings unable to earn anything - to get a any kind of return you have to send your money to Wall Street and hope it is a good day at the casino. Is that fraud? No. But it is a rigged system.

    Parent

    Good discussion! (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:48:24 AM EST
    "Rigged" is certainly more diplomatic...but I learn more towards fraud as far as the big banks and gambling firms go.  Legal fraud and illegal fraud.  And I have no problem with a presidential candidate or president saying it that strongly...sh&t needs to be said!

    Parent
    This question (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    was addressed after the 1929 Crash of Wall Street.  

    FDR could have done any number of things to Wall Street.  The decision was to not prohibit certain investments but to require full public disclosure.  Thus was born the SEC and the requirement of full disclosure, i.e., want to invest in snake oil stocks, then fine, as long as the investors know it is snake oil.  The architect was William O. Douglas before he was promoted.

    Bernie's current rhetoric goes back to that fundamental debate.   He appears to want to focus on prohibition rather than disclosure.

    Armando is right.  Bernie is engaging in demagoguery.   Bernie can't abolish greed or take away the power of money in politics completely.

    Parent

    Ideally you should do both (none / 0) (#108)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:45:56 AM EST
    But if I had to make the choice:

    A) 5 Billion in fines.
    B) putting an exec in jail.

    It's A every time just IMO.  Send 20% of those fines to Flint pls.

    Parent

    I don't desire... (none / 0) (#119)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:56:52 AM EST
    prison either...but I do desire equality under the law.  When a prole gets handcuffs slapped on them for shoplifting a candy bar, the same should apply to the Wall St,. executive who steals 100 million candy bars.

    The equality I would prefer is prison for neither, not both.

    Parent

    But that is NOT the business model (none / 0) (#48)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:53:52 AM EST
    Yes there is corruption on wall street, but corruption is not the business model. It is the corruption of the business model.

    The business model is to, through the private sector, aggregate wealth to businesses both good and bad, so they can pursue their interests creating products and innovation both good and bad.  And all investors have an autonomy to choose what is good and bad, do you invest in companies that hurt the environment or help the environment?

    Listen..... If you do actually think the wall street business model is fraud, then make the argument it should be destroyed outright.  Not just reformed.

    Parent

    Well, perhaps he should have said, (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:20:13 AM EST
    "greed" then; would that be more accurate for you?

    Consider    :

    House lawmakers have released a trove of documents detailing hikes in drug prices by Turing Pharmaceuticals and Valeant Pharmaceuticals that have sparked public outrage over pharmaceutical pricing.

    Excerpts from the 300,000 documents showcase the internal strategy of Turing's former CEO Martin Shkreli, who became the enfant terrible of the pharmaceutical industry last fall after hiking the price of a life-saving drug by more than 5,000 percent.

    Shkreli said in an email to one contact that "We raised the price from $1,700 per bottle to $75,000. Should be a very handsome investment for all of us."

    Separate documents show that Valeant and its CEO J. Michael Pearson decided to buy two life-saving heart drugs, Nitropress and Isuprel, to dramatically hike prices and drive up his company's revenue and profit.

    What was the mortgage mess all about?  It certainly wasn't about "aggregat[ing]e wealth to businesses both good and bad, so they can pursue their interests creating products and innovation both good and bad," it was about making the most money possible, and often doing it on a fraudulent basis.

    What, exactly, did you think all these fines and settlements were about? And at what point does it cease being a corruption of an otherwise aboveboard business model and become a business model unto itself?

    And given that "banks" and "brokerage firms" cannot, in and of themselves, do anything, one wonders why no living, breathing human being been held accountable?

    Parent

    Fine (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:29:18 AM EST
    we understand that Bernie is running against "greed", that's noble, but the insinuation always seems to be that Hillary must somehow be for "greed", because she like virtually every politician received money from certain sectors, even Bernie
    Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $437,452(total) $77,250(Pac)$360,202 (individuals)
    Career totals from opensecrets.org

    BTW: Hillary called out  Turing Pharmaceuticals and Valeant Pharmaceuticals by name and repeatedly
    pointed out the many other fronts on the war on oligarchy that we face. She has spelled out plans/intentions to take them on while Bernie has relied mostly on sloganeering against the most visible targets.

    Parent

    There is corruption (1.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:40:27 AM EST
    And greed.

    But if you think the very business model of wall street is fraud then have the "stones" to argue there should never be private investment, make the argument ALL aggregation of money for services and innovation should be handled by the state.

    Theres an argument to be made for that, btw.  Oh hell yeah!! I know how crappy corporations can be.... Yes yes yes and yes... Only I would point out that while I'm actually very open to that argument, it was, in fact, not a corporate CEO that poisoned the people of Flint.  It was a public servant.  So the assumption is ... if you have socialism youre going to have perfect public servants managing it?

    Parent

    No one's arguing for socialism; (4.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:54:44 AM EST
    you are once again manipulating the discussion so you can have the argument you want.

    If corruption has become one of the business models, the answer isn't to just put all investment into the hands of the state, it is to attack the corruption; we have the means to do that, but apparently - at least among those with the power to do that - not the will.  Perhaps it would be helpful in that effort not to staff the highest levels of the Justice Department and related agencies and offices with people who came out of the investment firms and banks and industries they are expected to oversee and hold accountable.  

    What I think is that it isn't even noon, and you've already made 15 comments, almost none of which have added anything to the discussion.

    Parent

    Gonna call a little BS on you, Anne (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:30:45 PM EST
    Maybe you aren't aware, but it isn't like the DOJ hasn't done anything with regards to holding the banks accountable.  They certainly have hit them in the bottom line.

    From a DOJ press release, dated Thursday, November 20, 2014, titled,"Justice Department Recovers Nearly $6 Billion from False Claims Act Cases in Fiscal Year 2014"

    Here's the relevant section:

    Housing and Mortgage Fraud

    The $3.1 billion in federal funds recovered in the wake of the housing and mortgage crisis this past fiscal year includes $1.85 billion from Bank of America Corporation, $614 million from JPMorgan Chase, $428 million from SunTrust Mortgage Inc. and $200 million from U.S. Bank.  This brings recoveries for civil fraud and false claims against federal housing and mortgage programs from January 2009 through the end of fiscal year 2014 to $4.65 billion - an historic and important amount, especially as it restores scarce funds stolen from vital government programs.  For details about the settlements, see previously issued press releases on Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, SunTrust and U.S. Bank.

    Bank of America paid $1.85 billion to settle allegations of false claims in connection with the bank's practices in underwriting, origination and quality control of residential mortgages the bank sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).  The settlement also covered the bank's alleged submission of inflated insurance claims to the FHA.  Bank of America acknowledged that it had misrepresented the quality of loans to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHA.  The $1.85 billion paid by Bank of America to settle False Claims Act allegations was part of a broader settlement that included a $5 billion penalty under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) and $7 billion in relief to consumers harmed by the financial crisis to redress abuses in residential mortgage backed security practices.  In total, Bank of America agreed to pay $16.65 billion under the global resolution - the largest civil settlement with a single entity in the department's history.

    SunTrust paid $418 million to settle allegations of false claims in connection with mortgages insured by the FHA.  SunTrust admitted that from 2006 to 2012, it originated and underwrote FHA-insured mortgages that did not qualify for federal insurance under the FHA program, failed to institute an effective quality control program to identify noncompliant loans and failed to report the noncompliant loans it did identify to the FHA as required.  In addition to the $418 million restored to the federal treasury, SunTrust agreed to pay $500 million in relief to struggling homeowners by various means, including reducing the principal on mortgages for borrowers who are at risk of default and reducing interest rates for homeowners who are current but underwater on their mortgages.  SunTrust also agreed to pay $10 million to the federal government and an additional $40 million to state governments to remedy the effects of its improper loan servicing practices.  This brings SunTrust's total payment under the settlement to redress its abusive mortgage origination and servicing practices to $968 million.

    These recoveries are part of the broader enforcement efforts by President Barack Obama's Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force.  President Obama established the interagency task force in 2009, to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes.  The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources.  The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.  In September, Attorney General Eric Holder informed an audience at a financial fraud conference that the department had brought more than 60 cases against financial institutions since 2009, resulting in recoveries totaling more than $85 billion, including civil remedies, criminal fines and consumer relief.  For more information about the task force, visit www.StopFraud.gov.

    Parent

    These fines, especially those that (4.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    come with no requirement to admit any guilt, have become part of the cost of doing business - and that's why there's no incentive for the corruption/fraud to stop.

    What is clear is that fines, even the biggest ones, do little to deter criminal activity. Big banks appear to be simply calculating fines into their business models: fines, after all, don't exceed profits, and in this scenario, what do you think the incentive is for banks to cease their fraudulent and criminal activity? If you answered, "none whatsoever," you are likely correct.

    Bank fines are simply baked into financial business. Until fines are much, much bigger and perpetrators at the top face the possibility of prosecution, the crime spree will go on.



    Parent
    Ah, the French Revolution (none / 0) (#168)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:11:30 PM EST
    Off with their heads.

    And there are fines and then again there are fines.....Billions of dollars in fines will get noticed.

    Parent

    Calling more BS (none / 0) (#173)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:26:21 PM EST
    Your link is out of date. There have been admissions as part of the settlements.

    From various DOJ press releases (I've noted the dates):

    As part of  at $614 million settlement, JP Morgan admitted that, for more than a decade, it approved thousands of FHA loans and hundreds of VA loans that were not eligible for FHA or VA insurance because they did not meet applicable agency underwriting requirements.  JPMC further admitted that it failed to inform the FHA and the VA when its own internal reviews discovered more than 500 defective loans that never should have been submitted for FHA and VA insurance. (February 3. 2014)

    The Justice Department and the bank settled several of the department's ongoing civil investigations related to the packaging, marketing, sale, arrangement, structuring and issuance of RMBS, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), and the bank's practices concerning the underwriting and origination of mortgage loans. The settlement includes a statement of facts, in which the bank has acknowledged that it sold billions of dollars of RMBS without disclosing to investors key facts about the quality of the securitized loans. When the RMBS collapsed, investors, including federally insured financial institutions, suffered billions of dollars in losses. The bank has also conceded that it originated risky mortgage loans and made misrepresentations about the quality of those  loans to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).

    SNIP

    Bank of America will provide the remaining $7 billion in the form of relief to aid hundreds of thousands of consumers harmed by the financial crisis precipitated by the unlawful conduct of Bank of America, Merrill Lynch and Countrywide. That relief will take various forms, including principal reduction loan modifications that result in numerous homeowners no longer being underwater on their mortgages and finally having substantial equity in their homes. It will also include new loans to credit worthy borrowers struggling to get a loan, donations to assist communities in recovering from the financial crisis, and financing for affordable rental housing. Finally, Bank of America has agreed to place over $490 million in a tax relief fund to be used to help defray some of the tax liability that will be incurred by consumers receiving certain types of relief if Congress fails to extend the tax relief coverage of the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007.

    An independent monitor will be appointed to determine whether Bank of America is satisfying its obligations. If Bank of America fails to live up to its agreement by Aug. 31, 2018, it must pay liquidated damages in the amount of the shortfall to organizations that will use the funds for state-based Interest on Lawyers' Trust Account (IOLTA) organizations and NeighborWorks America, a non-profit organization and leader in providing affordable housing and facilitating community development. The organizations will use the funds for foreclosure prevention and community redevelopment, legal assistance, housing counselling and neighborhood stabilization.(August 14, 2014)

    And from your own link:

    A jury found former Goldman Sachs vice-president Fabrice Tourre liable for fraud.


    Parent

    Yours are from 2014, you know. (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:58:21 PM EST
    And they are from the Department of Justice which is naturally going to frame these fines as just super examples of how it has held the industry's feet to the fire.

    Banks and investment firms didn't perpetrate fraud, people who worked for them did.  There were people who created these vehicles, designed these protocols, masterminded schemes to essentially defraud investors in order to reap oceans of profits for themselves, and their stockholders.  

    Frontline did a program, The Untouchables, that addressed the failure to criminally prosecute the people behind the mortgage crisis; you should watch it, if you haven't already.  That was the program where Lanny Breuer talked about "too big to jail," if you remember that.

    The Justice Department, he [Eric Holder] added, has brought thousands of financially based cases over the course of the last four-and-a-half years. To date, however, no Wall Street executive has been prosecuted for fraud in connection with the financial crisis. Instead, the government has largely focused on a strategy of securing multi-billion settlements from financial firms, but rarely requiring an admission of wrongdoing.

    Here's another Frontline series, "Money, Power and Wall Street," for more info.

    Here's Bill Moyers interviewing William Black - more food for thought.

    Fabrice Tourre was fined $650,000 in civil fines, and gave up an additional $175,463 bonus plus interest linked to the transaction.

    Just please stop peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#196)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:15:19 PM EST
    They are from FY 2014.

    Your link was from 2011. Old data.  And you went from saying that no one had to admit guilt, to now your quote says "rarely requiring an admission of guilt" - which is it?  Did no one admit guilt or did it rarely happen or was it something else?  Hint:  it HAS happened, and I provided you proof.  If you don't want to believe something that you can easily Google, then that's your problem.

    But please, stop spouting crap that nothing is getting done.

    Parent

    Banks understand moolah (none / 0) (#165)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:09:29 PM EST
    Billion dollar fines would get anyone's attention.  The management team responsible for that would generally be in trouble with its Board.  What's the saying, "Money talks, and b.s. walks?"

    Why people ignore this is beyond me.  Putting someone (a scapegoat or two) in jail for 24 months is supposed be a better punishment?  

    Parent

    You would think corporate Boards (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by caseyOR on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:21:29 PM EST
    would look askance at these huge fines, but it appears they do not. If they objected to these high cost penalties then Jamie Dimon, for one, would be out on the street instead of still in his fancy executive office. Lloyd Blankfein would also have gotten the boot.

    An interesting, and infuriating little bit of information is that as a rule these fines are tax deductible. These fines and financial penalties are simply thought of as another business expense.

    So, yes, I think that putting Dimon and Blankfein snd others in prison for 2 or 3 or 5 years, coupled with huge fines that are not tax deductible, would have a major effect on the behavior of people at these financial institutions. I would also support making board members and executives personally liable for at least some of these fines with no option for insurance to pay them.

    Parent

    I am not so sure (none / 0) (#181)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:37:22 PM EST
    insurance will cove the fines.   I do know that insurance cannot cover punitive damages....Fines I don't know.

    Parent
    I'm not the one who said (none / 0) (#81)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:03:50 AM EST
    "the business model is fraud."

    I'm the one who said its a slogan that doesnt address the issues and yes I can understand why you think that adds nothing to the conversation.

    Yes the business model is an opportunity for fraud.  So is the public variation of similar business model.

    Parent

    The problem with (none / 0) (#145)
    by ragebot on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:40:27 PM EST
    Wall Street is the rules.  Basically those investing in Wall Street are gamblers.  Nothing wrong with that as long as you are gambling with your own money.  Problem is you can put down a $US100 bet with only $US20 or so on the table and if you lose tax payers are stuck with paying the $US80 you don't have.

    To some extent this is also a problem with federal expenditures.  Depending on which accounting method you believe about 40 cents of every dollar the US government spends is borrowed.  The borrowing is done by adjusting faked account in central banks and putting that money in the accounts of folks who get government payments.

    Simple solution, don't spend money you don't have.  Otherwise your kids and/or their kids will have to pay for you spending money you don't have.

    Parent

    Indeed (none / 0) (#164)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:09:25 PM EST
    That makes sense that should not be allowed.

    I think it works like this.... I don't know if I'd invest in disney cause not every movie they make does well, it's a risk.

    But if it was possible to invest in one particular movie.  Let's go back two years, and if it was possible to do so, what if I went to JJ Abrams and said let me give you $100,000 to make star wars the force awakens and then you give me .0002 percent of profits.  But heres the thing in order to come up with $100,000 in order to do that I have to max out three credit cards.

    LOL.  I'd do it.  If you could.  But what you're saying is that should be illegal and I agree.

    Parent

    The debate once again (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by CST on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:32:10 AM EST
    Reminded me that we have one party that actually acts like adults.  Thank goodness for that.

    Also it was nice to see both of them embrace the progressive label, and point out the strengths of the party.  One of Bernie's (IMO) stronger moments was when he talked about how he helped write Obamacare.  IOW - we're all in this together, and I thought the debate did a good job of highlighting their differences while pointing out that they are both trying to achieve the same progressive goals.  At least on the economy - I missed the second half.

    Hillary dominated (none / 0) (#129)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:16:32 PM EST
    in foreign policy.  Not only was Hillary very good, but Bernie also sounded like Ben Carson at times.

    Parent
    She has a hell of a lot of dominating (4.00 / 4) (#184)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:50:23 PM EST
    making up for, and catching up to do after enabling war crimes and the destabilization of the Middle East.

     

    Parent

    To be fair... (none / 0) (#198)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:21:50 PM EST
    Bernie isn't thrilling me there either. Talking about "crushing ISIS" and shipping arms to do it. Him and Hillary appear to be on the same page pretty much.  

    The best candidate on foreign policy might be the guy that just threw in the towel...Rand Paul.

    Parent

    This is what is the most (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:39:07 AM EST
    important takeaway for me, as expressed by Charlie Pierce:

    But this previous interchange--over who is a progressive and why, and about what is discreet influence peddling and what is not--would have been impossible had Sanders not jumped into the race and if he had not caught fire the way he has. It is simply not credible to believe that the debate would have been this sharply joined if it were HRC and, say, vice-president Biden were running against each other. Without Bernie Sanders, it is hard to imagine HRC fighting as hard as she has to defend her progressive bona fides. Gone is the DLC spouse who talked about "super-predators" and jailing incorrigible juveniles--mainly, African-American ones--before trying to help them.

    This one small slice of the debate demonstrates that, at least for a moment, Hillary Rodham Clinton is being forced to campaign in a way that would have been unthinkable for her a year ago. Without the Sanders campaign, the Clinton campaign likely would have been an endless chorus of banality about "families" and "helping the middle class." It certainly wouldn't have been about defending her as a woman of the progressive left. This is quite the damnedest thing.

    This is exactly why so many of us wanted her to face a challenge from the left.  Not only is it forcing her to harden her position as a progressive, but I think having to debate Sanders, and likely surviving and prevailing in the end, makes her - in my opinion - a much stronger general election candidate.

    Bottom line is that what we saw last night are two good candidates who aren't going to take any crap from anyone either of them might face after the convention.

    For cripes sake (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by smott on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:31:27 PM EST
    A new thread please? This over-200 thing is a pain....

    JB... (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 03:33:46 PM EST
    6.25% of my gross is 32 hundo...less than my health insurance costs. Getting it might not be a slam dunk, but it's there.

    And losing the employees contribution alone is a nice little raise. Every copay and deductible saved...raise.  

    And other hidden profit boosts to the company...time spent dealing with the insurance co., COBRA, all that jazz. A level playing field with other employers for new hires, no more losing talent to the company with a better plan.

    Another possible factor...a newly politically empowered middle and working class. I know, I know...political revolution pipedreams.  My old man had a saying..."Can't means ya won't".

    re #218 (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 04:29:12 PM EST
    I made a rather flip comment a few weeks back about how pointless it was to argue about the numbers in  anyone's single payer plan. I really don't think anyone knows what it would cost, all things considered - too many moving parts for anyone to model accurately. Everyone's quote gets refuted by someone else.

    It's one of those things that we are all going to have to take a leap of faith that it is the right thing to do, even though we don't really know exactly how it is going to shake out. It is going to require a heck of a sales job.

    What is the Arguement... (5.00 / 5) (#221)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 04:53:58 PM EST
    ... Sander's isn't doing enough to keep rightwing PACs from going after Clinton ?

    Now I have heard it all.

    Like that money is going to disappear, the only thing would possible change is the name of the PAC.

    I could have swore I spent two days of: everyone does it, how you going to win a campaign, it doesn't influence anyone; the only argument this non-sense is making is that Sanders is right, outside money corrupts the system.

    The notion that we are now going to tag rightwing funds to Sanders when the guy doesn't want any of it in election is truly unbelievable, and just goes to show what I have been saying, people are losing their GD sense here.

    I'll drop this again here (4.50 / 2) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:59:53 PM EST
    because it should stir some reaction

    I read a story (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:25:53 AM EST
    by David Dayen on 3 candidates in Bernie's mold. Which is great. But you're going to need more than 3 to do anything. Which is why when Sanders lumps Hillary's congressional endorsers and leftie advocacy group support into the establishment, I am truly at a loss as to how he envisions aligning people to achieve change.

    What would a DNC under a Sanders presidency look like? How are these congressional candidates going to be supported? Are these all just "details"? How is Sanders going to mobilize people to do more than support him? Granted, a lot of Sanders support is lifelong Democrats, but given that much of his message's strength is consistency I'm not sure how we then regroup under a Democratic banner. And when the corporate money inevitably comes pouring in to support Dems and Sanders, how does he defend that? Are we going to wave away $1 million checks?

    Sanders is calling for a level of grassroots prowess that we haven't seen, and the last time we saw something like it, it was better-organized than Sanders' version (turnout in Iowa in 2008 was much stronger). Groups like Planned Parenthood are good at organizing to the point that standing up and making loud demands is not a figure of speech (I was there the night of Wendy Davis' filibuster, but even that was only temporarily successful). But now I hear that Planned Parenthood is "the establishment."

    Call me cynical or whatever, I just find it all baffling.

    Parent

    I wanted that question about the Dem money to be (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 06:47:24 AM EST
    asked - what are his plans regarding accepting Dem Party help for the general election? Is he asking a party to nominate him, only to turn down their help in the general?  Maybe they will get to that in further debates.

    What is stopping the grassroots from marching on Congress now? Presidential leadership? Is that really how it works? Obama must be sorry he never thought of that regarding gun control.

    Parent

    That ties in (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 07:16:43 AM EST
    With the point I was making yesterday - does he think "small donors" are going to be all he needs to take on the Republican nominee? For all the hoopla about Obama's fundraising from "small donors" in 2008, the fact of the matter is, about a quarter of his donations came from people who contributed (in total) $200 or less.  This is on par with what GWB got in 2004. If Obama couldn't (and didn't) rely on this, why does Sanders think he can?

    (My numbers come from the Campaign Finance Institute report of 11/24/2008, since for some weird reason, all of a sudden, when I comment using my phone, the "link" button is not converting the URL).

    Does Sanders think he is going to get millions of people to donate to him (under $200 to be considered a "small donor") and that will be enough to run a national campaign?  That may work in Vermont,  but it won't work nationally.  He will have to woo big donors, and yes, corporate donors, and then how does he explain his 360?

    Parent

    I think if he thought that would be enough (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 07:32:31 AM EST
    to run a national campaign, he would have run as an Independent.
     

    Parent
    While I think you raise good questions, (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 08:08:53 AM EST
    I also think those questions serve to highlight just how badly in need of reform our campaign finance system is.

    But maybe your bigger, unspoken question is, if he is the nominee, will the decisions he makes about contributions ultimately end up sacrificing the chance to win on the altar of his principles?  And don't we, as the people with a great deal at stake in this election, have some kind of right to know that we wouldn't be chasing a dream that would turn into a nightmare of epic proportions if it results in a GOP victory?

    I don't know Sanders; I'm not privy to what's going on in his head, but I have to believe that he and the people he's trusting to run his campaign are wrestling with this question - in fact, I would think it had to have been a question raised before he even declared himself as a candidate.  Someone - maybe even Sanders - had to have said, "Look - we cannot win the WH on a shoestring: how are we going to do it?"

    Independent expenditures?

    An independent expenditure is an expenditure for a communication "expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate that is not made in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or their agents, or a political party or its agents." 11 CFR 100.16(a).

    As you might expect, there are a ton of rules and regs on this, and I've only looked at just this little bit, so I have no idea how feasible or possible this independent expenditure route would be - and more importantly, whether it ends up being deemed a wink-wink at something Sanders has been pretty adamant about not benefiting from.

    Given what we know will be the gazillions spent by PACs and outside money on the GOP side, it would be good to know how Sanders intends to finance a general election campaign.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 08:39:32 AM EST
    He is receiving millions of dollars from at least one Super PAC already, so he obviously doesn't have a problem with it when it's for his benefit.  He tries to make the distinction that since he isn't raising money for it, then his position isn't hypocritical.  Will that continue to be the case?  I don't know.  I guess it's a gamble because it's not like a Republican nominee will hit him over the head for it, but it may turn off some moderates landing his way .  His die hard supporters (as with every candidate) will make excuses as to why he is different, and out people won't care.

    Another question is, what kind of help is he going to expect from other Democrats, when he is not helping them raise money now?  And I think that is a huge piece missing from his campaign - he talks about a revolution, but is not encouraging his supporters to build the party.  (Which is not surprising, given that he is only a Democrat to run for office - that's not a criticism, it's just reality).  He is basically saying "throw the bums out!", which is fine, but I don't think many people who support him are seeing the larger picture - if you throw out all of those who suckle at the teats of corporations, but who may align with you, then who will be left to help you fight your revolution?

    And I completely agree that we need meaningful campaign finance reform.  I drive by the FEC every morning on my way to work, and I can't help but think, "What's the point of your existence?"

    Parent

    Mt Take on the Same Subject... (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:09:16 AM EST
    ...which was highlighted in Coral's link, that a lot of democrats, certainly a very strong majority, ideologically agree with Sanders.

    No one is arguing that his ideas are bad ones, that money in the campaigns is good, the Medicare for everyone is stupid, the argument basically boils down to this, the presumption that he cannot get it done.

    There are lot of democrats stating this is why they are voting for HRC, and that is a fair argument, but if we don't at least try when the opportunity is here, and a chance like this doesn't come around often, then when ?

    We spent days, maybe weeks, discussing the Citizens decision and we arrived at the same place, that special interest money is bad, and allowing corporations to contribute is even worse.

    Where does everyone think this going ?
    Total cost of elections, Presidential and Congressional:

    Presidential   
    2012     2,621,415,792
    2008     2,799,728,146
    2004     1,910,230,862
    2000     1,413,116,384

    Congressional   
    2012     3,664,141,430
    2010     3,631,712,836
    2008     2,485,952,737
    2006     2,852,658,140
    2004     2,237,073,141
    2002     2,181,682,066
    2000     1,669,224,553
    1998     1,618,936,265

    Combined   
    2012     6,285,557,223
    2010     3,631,712,836
    2008     5,285,680,883
    2006     2,852,658,140
    2004     4,147,304,003
    2002     2,181,682,066
    2000     3,082,340,937
    1998     1,618,936,265

    Six Billion dollars, that is lot of influence, and maybe its true, that HRC isn't influenced by her donations, but that most certainly is not true in general, six billion buys a lot of influence, whether you want to believe it does with ant particular candidate, doesn't matter, it is influencing our government.

    I would, and will, argue that the longer we wait, the more dollars will be influencing our government.  The notion that it cannot be done is not a bad one, but to not try, is basically saying the money wins.  We give up.  And where is this influence going to be in 10 or 20 years, with double, quadruple, the influence ?  

    The same is true with health care, think your rates suck today, where are they going to be in 10 or 20 years.  We have had people kicking this can down the street for a long time and while Obamacare was better than nothing, it's not what we want or deserve.

    While both of these ideas are labeled as liberal, I don't believe that, I would argue that at the very least, getting dollars out of the government is pretty universal.  Certainly that is one of the tea party credos, and I think on this issue there could be broad support, certainly enough to make it close.

    Medicare for all, maybe not today, but in four years, when costs have gone up four straight times, maybe Sanders doesn't get it done, maybe he doesn't get re-elected,  but he sure as hell going to let every American know this has to be done if the middle class wants to exist, there is no two ways about it, when incomes and major costs don't accelerate at the same pace, and we know that is an impossibility, something has got to give.  Medicare for all, will happen IMO, it's just a matter of when.  

    What happens if Sanders can't get it done, the Earth isn't going to stop, no one is going to die, we end up at the same place as if we didn't elect him, but at least the effort was made to rein in the dollars that influence government.  Certainly he is going to be able pass legislation more moderate, more or less, as well as HRC.

    I just will never understand how a candidate who represents what we have spent years hoping for, is deemed as a dreamer or someone who doesn't have a chance.  What is the point, you know, if you aren't going to use your vote to get what you want, then, to me it's all just a giant farce, democrats rambling on the evils of government while not casting a vote that will at the very least take-on these failings of government.

    Sanders can win, polls suggest he is actually a better bet against Trump.  Maybe, but right now IMO is a chance to vote for change, real change.  No one can predict the future, and quite frankly, it very disappointing to see so many insist that change of this magnitude is a fantasy.  Probably is, but I would rather chance the slightest of chances then none at all.

    FWIW... that is my two cents.

    Note, I do not have Bernie mania, I am not following his campaign, just taking note and started to see that as much as Clinton is qualified, definitely would be a good president, that she is a vote for more of the same.  And as I have stated, I like Obama, he has been a really good president, but he is establishment as they get, and his ties to WS, especially with placing WS folks into our government, is a problem.  I don't want 4/8 more years of the same.

    Parent

    We already know (1.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:11:11 AM EST
    He will renounce his primary promises.  Purity is easier now.

    Again he's following the Obama insurgency plan (which means general election donations from wall st) but what ive learned lately is its different cause underneath it all, contrary to Obama, Sanders hates Dems.

    Dude votes with Dems 90% of time but has to have an "I" next to his name, what is that?   A question no one has ever asked?

    Parent

    WE do not know that at all (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:40:52 AM EST
    What we do know is that you like to make unfounded accusations based on nothing more the scrambled mass between your ears.

    Parent
    He already said just last night (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:43:44 AM EST
    He knows he couldn't win a primary using the publically funded option.

    So it only stands to reason he will use same logic in general election and embrace the wall street money just as Obama did.

    It's a good game plan.  Obama executed it perfectly.

    Parent

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:47:46 AM EST
    Your ad hominem was noted thanks for that.

    At least it wasnt pure unrefined scatology I see on twitter.  So I am hopeful.

    Parent

    I would like to be hopeful (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:07:39 AM EST
    That you would actually deal with facts rather than comment on what you imagine. Unfortunately, to date, you have not shown any indication that you have a desire to do so.

    Parent
    It's not a fact... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:12:38 AM EST
    Obama used same argument in 08 and then, post primary, needed Wall St money to win general election?

    It's not a fact Bernie exists in same reality.

    Again your ad hominem was noted.

    Parent

    That article (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 05:30:15 AM EST
    makes good points. Both have the mindset that there's some great number of people that agree with them who have yet to show up in a presidential election year. Frankly you could argue that the tea party actually has a better case for thinking this way even though it is from a gerrymandered perspective.

    Parent
    Attacking Sanders from the Tea Party right? (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by pitachips on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 06:09:52 AM EST
    Didn't expect that this early.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 06:45:10 AM EST
    but you have to remember Sanders campaign has said that they are aiming for the tea party vote.

    Parent
    Both Cruz and Sanders have the same plan - (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 07:28:12 AM EST
    that there are millions of people fed up with the way government works, and they are going to rise en masse to storm the system to get what they want.

    They don't want the same things, but the theory is the same. Which group has more people? Not sure - the conventional wisdom is that disaffected Republicans are a much larger group, but I haven't seen any numbers. Could be it just seems that way because they have made the most noise so far and have gotten all the press.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 07:44:02 AM EST
    you said it better than I did.

    Parent
    I would tend to think... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:19:51 AM EST
    that most people that lean right and are fed up with the way government works are already engaged in the political system and voting...hence the rise of the Tea Party Caucus the last 8 years and the Republican Party's shift further right.

    While among those who lean left, most of those are fed up have disengaged and/or are just getting reengaged because of Sanders joining the national spotlight.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:23:33 AM EST
    Sorry.  One of Teds major talking points is he could bring back the 20+% of conservatives that have been sitting out the last few elections.  He talks about it constantly.

    Parent
    Maybe so... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:43:31 AM EST
    but I think more liberals have been sitting it out than conservatives...especially congressional elections.  

    They've lost the culture war but they keep coming out to vote abortion or guns or immigration...while we're fairly content the culture war is won, and feel the economy is hopelessly rigged, so what's the point?  

    Parent

    I think it's possible (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by CST on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:35:43 AM EST
    that our "left flank" is bigger than the "right flank".  The difference is that ours comes from a group of people that traditionally don't vote much.  And IMO, Bernie hasn't changed that math.  At least he didn't in Iowa.

    Parent
    I would say Ted (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:46:59 AM EST
    Made his point with the turnout in Iowa.  Bernie didn't win in Iowa.  And it's probably the most favorable place in the country except possibly NH.

    Parent
    Bernie lost by a pubic hair... (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:33:19 AM EST
    in Iowa...climbing 40 points from the earliest poll numbers.

    Sh*t on it if you want, I think that's mighty impressive.  Good enough to win the nomination...most likely not.  But I appreciate the effort.

    Parent

    I'm not sh!tting on anything (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:00:15 AM EST
    The fact is Hillary and Bernie were tied in the polls and they were tied in the results.
    Cruz was behind in every poll.  And the trend lines were bad for him.  And he won comfortably.  Those are facts.

    Ted did exactly what he said he would do.  He brought out the right wingers in mass.  And he won.

    Parent

    FWIW (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:26:57 AM EST
    There is a tea party analog on the left just last night a Bernie supporter was telling me how great the tea party is cause "they move goal posts."

    Maybe a little less organized but it doesn't really need to be organized with the Internet providing crowd sourcing alternatives.

    Basically the analog is dailykos.com.  There's a guy there called "one pissed off liberal" I saw one of his diaries and I thought "hmmm I bet he supported Obama in 08" but boy was I wrong.  That dude even crapped all over Obama and the dem party in 08. And ok, but here's the thing: his diary was beloved by every one who visits that site.

    There is a tea party analog on the left.

    Parent

    As of 11:15 CT (3.67 / 3) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:23:05 AM EST
    Kmkmiller has 18 or 90 posts(20%) and I am struggling to find one that contains anything of value.

    Got riled up (none / 0) (#103)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:38:36 AM EST
    I expressed an opinion about ending sectarian violence in Ireland and got called a troll for that, of all things.

    I'm also really inspired by Clinton who delivered a very forceful rejection of Bernie's attack on her integrity so things are still sort of escalating I guess.

    I do understand if you support Bernie you are obligated to have a certain reaction to arguments for Clinton, it works both ways actually. Sorry.

    Parent

    So Your Blog Clogging... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:44:10 AM EST
    ... is Clinton's or Sanders's fault ?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#111)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:49:23 AM EST
    Its now your fault for asking me a question that I now have to answer.

    But mostly it is the fault of sanders negative/no not negative attack on the democratic party's integrity.  Many emotions. I'm very loyal.  Maybe to a fault.

    Parent

    Caution (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:51:13 AM EST
    There ARE rules.  Keep your powder dry.  That's my advise.  We have a long way to go.

    Parent
    Asked me a question (none / 0) (#117)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:53:52 AM EST
    Help me out here.  Don't respond?

    Parent
    Pick your battles dude (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:01:07 PM EST
    Speaking from experience here.  And a veteran of 08 which was way fu@king worse than this.

    And appreciate how many 5s I'm sacrificing by saying this.

    Parent

    Criticism... (none / 0) (#115)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:53:08 AM EST
    can only be viewed as an attack if it is accurate.

    I would think the thing, maybe the only thing, a vast majority of the country can agree on is both the Democrats and the Republicans have an integrity problem.

    Parent

    Criticizing the issue is fine (2.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:06:58 PM EST
    For instance.... TPP is bad because..... Pls continue make your argument.

    Bernie's argument that anyone expressing an argument for TPP is corrupt isn't working for me.  Getting me annoyed.  Got Clinton annoyed last night glad she spoke up...  I think his argument creates this kind of acrimony.  We want to talk about trolling I think Bernie is trolling the dem party.

    Yeah I'm new here on this blog and blog clogging? wait.  Guess who is new to the dem party?  Guy has DNC database access to fund raise and donates zilch to DNC.

    Lastly... While loyal I know the dem party isn't perfect.

    Parent

    If Bernie is nominated... (none / 0) (#132)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:21:37 PM EST
    I'll be new to the Democratic Party too...being new, you might not know I'm one of the long-time resident independents...some might say resident goofball.

    Parent
    Unfortunately (1.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:32:54 PM EST
    Independents never impressed me that much ....I mean I get it from a self identity stand point it's iconoclastic.... And maybe you are or are not.... But if you are really looking down your nose on people trying to create real progress in a very imperfect world, I don't know what to say.  It's very likely Bernie will let you down too.  In a way, I hope he does let you down cause that will mean he created real progress in a very imperfect world.  LOL.

    Anyway.  Hey!

    We have gay marriage now.  Join the team!  It's not all bad.

    Parent

    And it's comment like this that are (3.67 / 6) (#116)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:53:33 AM EST
    why you are deemed to be trolling.

    You were not called a troll, nor was your comment deemed trolling because you expressed an opinion about sectarian violence - it was because you characterized corporate inversions as "investments in low-income countries," when we all know it's being done to avoid paying taxes on their profits.

    And if you bothered to read any of Scott's comments, you wouldn't think you could get away with saying "you understand" that Bernie supporters are "obligated" to react a certain way to any criticism of Clinton - that's just more utter BS from you.

    We can all read; we all have good comprehension skills.  And we all know what you're doing, and that's why you're getting called.  Given the number of dishonest comments you make, you're just unnecessarily running up the comment count - and adding nothing to the conversation.

    Parent

    Not entirely (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by vicndabx on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:52:36 PM EST
    Link

    Walter Kemmsies, chief economist at Moffatt Nichol, an international infrastructure consultancy, notes that close to 40% of what the U.S. imports from Mexico is derived from U.S. sources. "This is the symbol of the success of NAFTA." Twenty years ago, he estimates, that percentage was less than 5%.

    While it's clear some companies shirk the tax obligations (and why wouldn't they if the LAW allows it) there are some benefits to be gained.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#118)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:56:37 AM EST
    There's lower taxes but the end result was less sectarian violence and making that observation was called trolling.  Got riled up.

    Parent
    There are rules about (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:43:40 AM EST
    The number of comments for new commenters.  But they are usually more like guidelines as long as you are not name calling or breaking other rules.

    I've had my comments counted plenty of times.  Surprised?  IMO it's the last refuge of a lost argument.

    This comment is not to be seen as condoning or condemning anything or anyone.  Just an observation.

    Parent

    Good Thing You Aren't Condemming Anything... (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:47:31 AM EST
    IMO it's the last refuge of a lost argument.

    Or paying attention.

    Parent

    So just refute what he is saying (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:49:41 AM EST
    Instead of counting his comments.  It's lame.

    IMO of course.

    Parent

    Well Considering... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:01:15 PM EST
    ... he has said he trolls other sites and suggested blog clogging here, it not out of line to believe he is doing both.

    You post plenty of lame stuff, if you would like me to point it out, I can, otherwise keep it to yourself.

    Parent

    Funny (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:03:53 PM EST
    I agree with a lot of what he is saying.   And I have a sneaking suspicion that if others did his "blog clogging" would not be a problem.

    Parent
    I never took you for someone who (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:12:36 PM EST
    accepted gross mischaracterization of others' words as being acceptable, but that is the reason kmk is being called out; there are plenty of people here making the case for Clinton, making the case for Bernie, discussing last night's debate, and responding to what people are actually saying, not trying to twist words to have a different argument.

    When people do that, it's my sense that they are looking to stir sh!t up, and in my opinion, that is the last thing that needs to be injected into what is going to be a long and hot election season.

    Parent

    If Bernie says (none / 0) (#174)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:27:19 PM EST
    "the business model of wall street is fraud."

    Or if he says you can't be both moderate and progressive ...

    I will take those statements at face value and I assume it's ok to argue otherwise.

    Parent

    I Would Call That Sad... (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:15:45 PM EST
    ... more than anything if you agree with most of his posts in this thread.

    Parent
    Anne and Scott (none / 0) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:31:33 PM EST
    Oh my!  Where's my shotgun?

    Parent
    Btw (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:33:20 PM EST
    SUICIDE not homicide,  how could I go on?

    Parent
    And just one more thing (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:45:43 PM EST
    I would be remiss if I did not point out that BOTH of you got 1s upthread for your opinions on the subject.  Know what that means?  It means SOMEONE thing you are both TROLLS

    My goodness!  Think about that.

    Parent

    Think of this as a private club. (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:31:45 PM EST
    Applicants for membership subject to black ball. No reasons must be given.  

    Parent
    Wow (3.50 / 2) (#8)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:57:26 AM EST
    just something that jumped out at me, Sanders said he's against corporations investing in low income countries.

    corporations investing in Ireland ended sectarian violence there (for a decade)....

    i'm sorry senator sanders, and in some ways i'm sorry to many americans who lost their jobs to the world getting smaller, but if corporations don't invest in low income countries..... war.  terrorism.  all the time.  evermore.

    Well, there was certainly a lot of ... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 03:25:12 AM EST
    Kmkmiller: "i'm sorry senator sanders, and in some ways i'm sorry to many americans who lost their jobs to the world getting smaller, but if corporations don't invest in low income countries..... war.  terrorism.  all the time.  evermore."

    ... corporate investment in Mexico after NAFTA took effect in January 1994. I often wonder what's happening in that country now.

    Please don't troll like that. Sen. Sanders was obviously talking about corporations relocating operations overseas to exploit cheap labor markets and natural resources. On this particular issue, there's really very little if any difference between him and Mrs. Clinton.

    (And FYI, the sectarian violence you noted was occurring in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, and not in the independent Republic of Ireland. Corporations have been investing the Republic of Ireland because of its reputation as a tax haven. In fact, U.S. companies have more capital invested in Ireland than they do in Brazil, Russia, India and China put together, but much of it is nothing more than parked cash.)

    Aloha.

    Parent

    In case you haven't noticed, Donald, (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 06:30:02 AM EST
    our newest commenter is a master (mistress) of this kind of disingenuous, dishonest posting, that, much like when jim posts, leads to pointless clogging of the thread.

    I suspect this is someone we've seen before, under a new name.

    Parent

    Hi there (1.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:03:18 AM EST
    Look at your tone first, too.

    And don't whine later.  If...

    Parent

    Well I thought (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:47:54 AM EST
    anne and I had grown up and decided to not use the gratuitous name insult.

    I see that I was wrong.

    In case you've missed it I haven't been commenting much because I consider Hillary and Bernie equal in hypocrisy,although not unique. All politicians suffer from the same disease.

    But I do enjoy watching/reading their supporters zap each other. Kinda like watching mud wrestling.

    Parent

    In short - note to admins (1.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:13:27 AM EST
    If you didn't call me a troll I don't call you a clown.  Don't be so wounded you shot first,  cheers.

    And thanks.

    Parent

    Per Wikipedia: (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:33:32 PM EST
    "[A] troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement."

    I also accused you of trolling, so please don't just single Anne out. Better still, just stop trolling, and try engaging constructively instead.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#25)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:01:24 AM EST
    Investment happens cause it is advantageous and yes I meant northern Ireland but if you weren't a clown you'd know that acrimony bled into Ireland itself, I know I was there and I did search where I worked for bombs on a weekly basis. Back in the day.

    Was it cheaper than US? A tax haven?  Sure.

    Better than no investment at all?  You be sure to come back at me and make that argument. Argue investment should have never happened at all.

    Lastly you don't like my tone.  Look at your tone first.

    Parent

    Your comment/accusation did tick me off (none / 0) (#57)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:18:44 AM EST
    Bottom line is if you want someone to hear your argument that investing in low income countries sometimes hurts those countries (it does) .... you really had be better prepared to hear the argument that it actually sometimes helps those countries without calling people a troll, which, as I understand it, namecalling is against the rules of this website.

    This is precisely what happened to Bernie last night, he makes his cowardly insinuations, his artful smears, but has no guts to make the actual accusation, and Clinton said enough is enough... Bernie didn't expect such a forceful rejection of his act... And you probably didn't expect my forceful rejection of you calling me a troll.

    Parent

    Well, I can't resist (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:52:53 AM EST
    I mean it just so long between discussions of actual policy...I almost think I'm blogging on TL back in '03 or so..

    But I digress.

    Investment itself in a foreign country is neutral in that country. It all depends on what the government does. And while making shoes for $4.00 a day with no perks that sell for $100 plus in the US grates on the nerves it can be argued that $4.00 is better than no dollars.

    That's the same argument used for moving manufacturing jobs from the unionized north to the non-union south. Of course in the US the unions moved with the jobs, I observed first hand my father and his peers, bring a union to a non union shop and the very hefty pay raise that came with it. Eventually, of course, the jobs kept on moving, in this case out of country, and I doubt that unions will ever fare well in Vietnam, Indonesia, etc.

    A more sinister view brings England and France, and later the US, into the oil picture in the Middle East. Without the west's investment in exploration and drilling the Islamic countries would never have brought the oil on line and had the money to cause the problems their culture and society has spawned. Perhaps a more active influence by the US, say modeled on what we did in Japan but without the force, would have prevented it. Of course it probably couldn't have been done without force and the Repubs would have resisted damaging the corporate investment and the Demos would have resisted because changing an indigenous
    culture, no matter how bad, is wrong.

    Which brings me back to the debate. Sanders says he is against investing in small countries, yet I see no effort by him to state a plan that would improve them beyond what we are now doing.

    And that is giving money to people who hate us and exporting jobs. Hillary would do the same, although she might, depending on what the people who have been giving her money want, try for some modest changes.

    And more jobs and more money into a country does not automatically insure democracy. However, external influences that hurt the country, see Germany pre WWII, can lead to bad things.

    Parent

    Here's what I think (none / 0) (#130)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:18:17 PM EST
    I used the example of Ireland cause well it's a good example.. LOL...  It was good jobs not the slave labor you usually see happening in other countries... And it did end sectarian violence which is yeah... A good thing..

    I use that example cause the middle east is there (sectarian violence) and while there are vast differences, and it is a bad comparison for many reasons... we have a model, a way, a success story (if we can allow ourselves to -- aghast -- even call it that) ...It can work.  We can fix this.  I believe that.

    The point really is Bernie makes a blanket absolutist statement (albeit popular) about an issue we all know is more complex than that.  Hell. If there's no international commerce china's gonna keep pumping crap into the air until we all boil. They're not even interested.  No fooling.

    Parent

    More debates would help (none / 0) (#5)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 11:57:53 PM EST
    Hillary.  I think Bernie has a couple of good points but they represent a limited repertoire.

    Hillary would wear him down.  There are only so many times you can Wall Street Bad.    

    Yes and no... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:30:18 AM EST
    Hillary would wear Bernie down on foreign policy and other economic issues. no doubt she is stronger and more experienced there...but on the flip there is no escape for Hillary on the Wall St/Corporate Influence/Wealth Disparity issues.  She's boxed in with no way out because she cannot answer the question of why she took all that money personally, and to a lesser extent campaign money.

    We all know the answer is "I wanted the money", but to speak the truth is not feasible politically.  No great shame in wanting the money, I like money...but the private sector is where you're supposed to get the money.

    It all boils down to one question for Democratic primary/caucus voters...do you want someone who can play the game well and wants to play the game, or do you want to take a stab at changing the game.  If you're worried about ISIS or getting by the next 4-8 years, Hillary is your horse.  If you're worried about what America will look like in 20 years, I think Bernie is your horse.  

    Parent

    Kdog (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:37:55 AM EST
    That may excite you and other Betnie fans but it doesn't do much beyond that.  AFAIAC she has answered the questions.   Yes she took stealing fees.  Horror of horrors!  Oh wait, so has every former SOS in history.  Yes, she raises lots of money.  Like everyone who actually gets elected.  I got news, if Bernie by some miracle got the nomination he would start raising money from the same people.  If you think his "small donations" would get him through the general election you just don't understand the process.

    I agree with the comment you responded to.  More debates are not going to help Bernie.  It mat not change things in NH, although the I still think it could, but it will in the rest of the country.

    Parent

    No she hasn't Howdy... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:00:35 AM EST
    "everybody else does it" is not an answer to the question, it's an excuse.  

    It doesn't excite me that Clinton has such a close relationship with Wall St...it depresses me. It makes me nervous, it makes it difficult to believe the things Clinton says.  I want what's good for America, not what's good for Bernie Sanders or my feels.

    On the whole, yeah I can see more debates helping Hillary...I can't deny she has the walk and the talk of a president, and people who would more closely align with Bernie might get cold feet...but this Wall St. business just can't be put to bed because Hillary cannot be totally honest, and every debate will highlight it further.

    I mean if you're a Bernie guy/gal, you're basically a one issue voter anyway, right?  She can never win on that issue, though she can win on almost every other one and is probably doing just that.

    As to the question will Bernie take DNC Wall St. money should he win the nomination?  I would hope not...and I'm not sure I buy it is even necessary to in order to beat the Republican.  I understand the process, the process is part of the problem...it would be harder to win without the dirty Do-Re-Mi, but I do not accept that it is impossible.  Dude is up 40% in the polls in a year without taking a dime...who is to say he can't take it even further.  

     

    Parent

    With that argumetnt you could be for Trump (3.50 / 2) (#54)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:10:57 AM EST
    Trump has raised only a quarter of what Sanders has taken in and with zero Superpac money. If you're for the little to no outside money candidate you should be backing Trump or Gilmore or Kasich.

    Parent
    If he was right on the issues... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:43:29 AM EST
    I would be all over Trump...but alas, he's Trump.

    Too bad Sanders didn't have a rich daddy.

    Parent

    You will forgive me for noting (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:06:37 AM EST
    That last paragraph sounds the tiniest bit weasely.

    And he is up in one state.  

    Parent

    Dude, Sanders has a Super-PAC (none / 0) (#55)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:15:37 AM EST
    Already, your hopes are dashed.

    Parent
    National Nurses United for Patient Protection (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:13:20 PM EST
    "The difference is a pretty simple difference," the Vermont independent recently told reporters. "Hillary Clinton goes out raising money for her own super PAC. I don't have a super PAC, and in the best of all possible worlds, which I hope to bring about, we will get rid of super PACs. We will overturn Citizens United."

    In fairness to Sanders, there are differences between a super PAC like that of National Nurses United and one like Priorities USA, a group aligned with Clinton. Most of the money in the nurses super PAC likely comes from the dues that individual workers pay to their union, in small amounts each paycheck.

    In contrast, 98 percent of the money raised by Priorities USA Action in the second half of 2015 came from donors giving $100,000 or more, as The Huffington Post recently reported. And 90 percent of its money came from donors forking over at least $1 million.

    Link

    Parent

    That's (4.00 / 3) (#170)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:18:40 PM EST
    really a distinction without a difference. it's a super PAC supporting Sanders. And then there's the Rove super PAC supporting him too.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:30:18 PM EST
    To be true to his principles he should refuse the money from NNU.

    Just proving that, yes, he really IS a politician  and what's good for me should not be good for thee.

    Parent

    What a crock (none / 0) (#206)
    by sj on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:33:00 PM EST
    That sounds like a very bad attempt at making a nitpicky legal point. Go after a detail that puts your "client" in a more advantageous position, and ignore any distinctions that make a difference.

    Parent
    What Wall Street pack (none / 0) (#160)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:04:25 PM EST
    does Sanders have?

    Parent
    so here's the thing (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by CST on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:07:12 PM EST
    Is the problem Superpacs or not?  Because if that's the problem, then that's the problem.  This, IMO, is kind of a b.s. response.

    Also, he's clearly benefiting from the anti-Hillary stuff being put out by Rove.  Obviously that's not his thing directly but it is influencing the race.  That's part of the problem with Superpacs - they are uncontrollable.

    Parent

    I think there is a very big problem (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:37:09 PM EST
    With Superpacs. I disagree that a Rove backed Pac actually benefits the Sanders campaign. IMO it cleverly slimes both campaigns by attacking HRC and then allowing her supporters to claim that Sanders is being backed by a Rove Superpac.

    IMO a good example of a B.S. response would be to put the Rove Pac into Bernie's column. Which is being done here in this thread by more than one comment stating that Rove's Pac is supporting Sanders.

    Also the comment about Saners' SuperPacs was made in response to kdog' comment regarding Wall St. money.

    As to the question will Bernie take DNC Wall St. money should he win the nomination?


    Parent
    Let's delve a little more in B.S. attacks (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:51:13 PM EST
    and how helpful Rove's Pac is to Sanders.

    "The Sanders argument falls apart when the G.O.P. spokesman is trying to help him and the Republicans run ads trying to stop Hillary Clinton in the primary," said Jennifer Palmieri, the communications director for the Clinton campaign, in a statement. She asserted that Mr. Sanders was "taking his cues" from Mr. Rove, though the senator's Wall Street attacks predated the Rove ad. Link

    IMO that comment by HRC's communications director  that Sanders is taking "his cues" from Mr. Rove would rank real high on my B.S. Detector. YMMV

    Parent

    So (5.00 / 4) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:58:21 PM EST
    Why don't Sanders say something last night.  He had the perfect opportunity to say all the thing you think he believes and he just stood there looking a bit confused.

    Why didn't hec SAY something?  Anything.

    Parent

    the problem with this (4.00 / 3) (#186)
    by CST on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:54:35 PM EST
    is that a lot of Sanders supporters are spreading these right-wing hit pieces, not just from the Superpac but all over the web.  And they are doing it in his name.

    I'm not saying that he supports that, he's called them out and asked them to stop, but the reality is it does give him a bad name, and it has influenced at least a certain portion of the pro-Sanders dialogue to be rabidly anti-Clinton.

    I don't agree with HRC's communications director that Sanders is taking his cues from Rove, I do think that his supporters are though.  And like it or not it has a similar impact.

    Parent

    Hit pieces by HRC's staff members (none / 0) (#197)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:21:43 PM EST
    don't get the same level of concern from you as individual comments by Sanders supporters.

    HRC's staff member's hit piece quoted in a major news venue  is something you disagree with.

    Do you have a link to where Hillary called out her staff member for a quote that was to put it politely dishonest? I have been unable to find one. I would think that Hillary should have more responsibility for the hit pieces of her paid staff members.

    Hit pieces by HRC and her staff are shrugged off but comments by Sanders supporters that Hillary has strong Wall Street connections are to be condemned?

    As we can see the attack by Hillary's staff that Sanders is being supported by Rove are being picked up and spread throughout the web and that has an impact as well.

    Parent

    Seriously (none / 0) (#201)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:28:12 PM EST
    "Picked up and spears through the web".

    Are you saying this is not true?

    Because it is.

    Parent

    NYTimes (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:30:06 PM EST
    Senator Bernie Sanders often boasts that he has no "super PAC" supporting his candidacy and he has vigorously tried to keep any from forming. But he has been getting some unsolicited if mischievous help from Republican groups actively promoting the Vermont senator's surging campaign.

    America Rising, a Republican political action committee, reacted with glee on social media on Tuesday to a CNN/WMUR poll that showed Mr. Sanders with a large lead over Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire, sharing the news with "BREAKING" qualifiers and links to news stories.

    Karl Rove's American Crossroads recently created an ad parroting Senator Bernie Sanders's critiques of Mrs. Clinton's ties to Wall Street, made repeatedly last week in the days before Sunday's debate.



    Parent
    Howdy I think that (none / 0) (#210)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:41:30 PM EST
    you need to read my comment again.

    Are you saying that the hit pieces put out by HRC and her staff members are not "picked up and spears through the web."

    Are you saying that is not true?

    Because it is.

    Also in the same NYT article:

    Senator Bernie Sanders often boasts that he has no "super PAC" supporting his candidacy and he has vigorously tried to keep any from forming. But he has been getting some unsolicited if mischievous help from Republican groups actively promoting the Vermont senator's surging campaign.


    Parent
    Anyone can create a SuperPAC, right? (none / 0) (#179)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:31:44 PM EST
    And it makes sense to me that the Nurses' union created the PAC in order to be able to support candidates their rank-and-file believed would best represent their issues.

    I have to believe, then, that the people who donated to Priorities USA, the PAC formed to support Clinton, did so because they believe she will best represent them.

    Is it that the interests of nurses are somehow better than those of the financial industry?  If so, then he ought to say so.

    I don't think, though, that under the current system he can prevent any SuperPAC from using its funds to support him - he can't stop them from running ads for him, or holding events for him.  At least I don't think he can.  He can refuse contributions that come directly into the campaign, but not donations to PACs.

    Even if there's a distinction that can credibly be made between the Nurses' PAC and Priorities USA, I don't think the average person will necessarily see it that way.

    Parent

    He can't LEGALLY stop them (none / 0) (#182)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:38:19 PM EST
    It if the candidate says, "Please don't raise money for me because I don't believe in the use of Super PAC's", it seems they would do what the candudates wants, no?

    Parent
    He could (none / 0) (#202)
    by smott on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:29:24 PM EST
    Note it and reject it.
    But like guns in Vermont he took the expedient route .
    Pols do what they do.
    But they then dont get to claim Purity.

    Parent
    Ha (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:38:51 AM EST
    "Stealing fees". You will love that.

    SPEAKING FEES

    Parent

    She "stole" (none / 0) (#133)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:25:09 PM EST
    them from Goldman Sachs.....She fleeced them.  Good for her....

    Parent
    Small point of order (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:45:10 AM EST
    She DID make that money "in the private sector".

    Parent
    I think there are two things being (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:27:52 AM EST
    conflated here. One is the campaign donations to PACs and her campaign. I agree I'd dearly love campaign finance reform and the repeal of CU. But I don't believe in unilateral surrender until that happens. All pols are probably influenced by that money, even though they say they are not, and there is no explicit quid pro quo. On that score I don't think she is any worse than other pols in this system.

    The other is the speaking gigs she took after leaving the SoS office. She answered that last night by saying basically, they offered me money to give speeches, and I gave speeches. She does it for the personal money and to keep her name out there and stay relevant when she is not an office holder.  It would be interesting to see the transcripts of those speeches, but I suspect they are embarrassing in their banality, like most speeches given for big groups. A mixture of sucking up to the audience, self serving personal anecdotes and bad jokes.  There is not going to be a 'when I am president I am going to deregulate Wall Street!' moment.

    Parent

    Honestly... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:49:16 AM EST
    I think Clinton is probably less influenced by the money than most...some of her record clearly illustrates that.  She's better than most pols, the problem is that's not saying much.  

    I just don't think it's possible not to be influenced...even if it's subconsciously.

    If she knew she was going to run for office again, why did she do it?  Was a couple hundred grand worth raising all these questions?  That's what I can't figure out.  

    Parent

    Maybe she was also trying to influence them (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:59:27 AM EST
    Reminding them of some shred of decency and social responsibility. In fact I can't imagine her NOT doing that in a speech to those people.

    Parent
    Maybe... (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:13:17 AM EST
    but I don't think Goldman pays 6 figures for a lecture on social responsibility...I believe Clinton that they paid her to talk about world affairs (so they can gamble on it lol), and high pressure work.

    Parent
    Probably, sigh (none / 0) (#95)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:27:05 AM EST
    But I hope she makes them take a little bit of medicine too.

    Parent
    Such an unfounded... (none / 0) (#143)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:35:44 PM EST
    accusation is beneath you ruffian...Hillary Clinton is not supplying Goldman Sachs with their cocaine during her speaking engagements...I demand an immediate retraction!!! ;)

    Parent
    They certainly will pay that (none / 0) (#97)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:31:18 AM EST
    For a lecture on social responsibility is precisely and exactly what they are looking for!!  Oh man... What do you think rep. John Lewis talked about?

    Parent
    I think there is (none / 0) (#77)
    by CST on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:55:07 AM EST
    influence and then there is influence

    Honestly, "some of my best friends work on wall street".  And as such, I don't see them all as demons.  Personally, I think most of them aren't half as smart as they think they are and that can have disastrous results, but I also don't think they are all inherently bad people.  As far as influencing decision making, I think it's the difference between saying "let's regulate more" and "let's throw them all in prison".  So yea, there's influence there.

    And again, to be honest, I'm not sure Bernie's wrong. Maybe the answer is to have more severe criminal prosecutions for the worst abusers of the system. I'm not saying that being lenient is actually the right thing to do.  I'm saying that's probably what "lenient" means in this case.

    Parent

    I also know many people who work in (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:08:53 AM EST
    banks and investment firms, but I think the difference is that the people I know are all essentially working the retail end of things; they are managing and guiding investments for a range of individuals and institutions, not dreaming up new vehicles that push the envelope, capitalize on loopholes and skirt regulations in order to generate huge profits for the firms for which they work - and for themselves.

    Back in the day - and it wasn't so long ago - about the worst thing I would see brokers do is churn accounts for the sales commissions on both ends of the deal.

    But I don't know the movers and shakers, the lions of Wall Street, the BSDs with their multi-million dollar bonuses; the closest I ever was to one of those types was this guy, who graduated the year I entered as a freshman. John had a big heart, but he also had big appetites and he was bipolar - and he had the misfortune to come to the attention of the legal system at a time when we put people in prison for their crimes.

    I'm pretty sure that when Sanders talks about Wall Street, he's not talking about your local Merrill Lynch rep - he's talking about the Jamie Dimons and the Lloyd Blankfeins and the people at the upper levels of the financial industry, the people with the power to ruin people's lives, backed by firms rich enough to pay the price for them and never feel the pain of doing so.

     

    Parent

    I hear ya,,, (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:09:51 AM EST
    my brother in law, who is one of my best friends, works in finance off Wall St.  I'm friends with Wall St. guys too...good people.  But they do bad things without even thinking about it, because it's normalized and expected and if they don't they lose their job or don't get the bonus.

    Sh&t I have do bad things at my sh&tty job...stiffing somebody on a warranty over the legalese in the fine print, different prices for different people that I know is unfair, lying my arse off along the way...just an infinitely smaller scale.  Not trying to claim moral superiority over anybody, I'm a whore too, I just want it to change...if it can change.  

    Parent

    The age old fight: (none / 0) (#6)
    by NYShooter on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:05:07 AM EST
    Idealist VS. Pragmatist.

    Parent
    Yes and no (none / 0) (#41)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 09:42:19 AM EST
    Yeah she's better at debates but it also gives the media more excuses to build up Bernie in pre and post debate analysis.

    Parent
    kdog (none / 0) (#51)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:03:34 AM EST
    As a post debate thread anything since the debate should be fair game...

    The line for Sunday is Carolina -5.5. I hope you didn't rush to your bookie and take Carolina -7. If that line was available to you, you should have taken Denver +7 and then you could play the middle with Carolina -5.5 and hope for a Carolina 6 point win. All you'd be risking is a double vig.

    The sentimental Manning factor.. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:22:47 AM EST
    has skewed the line...same reason you could never get better than 3-1 on a horse with Jerry Bailey as the jock at Belmont.

    Panthers are gonna win by two touchdowns.

    Parent

    It Hit 4 or 4.5 Last Week... (none / 0) (#101)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:35:27 AM EST
    ... but even Carolina -7 is a lock.

    Denver must be betting the hell on Manning who I think is a shoe for tossing a pick 6.

    I am going to predict 34-20, Panthers.

    Parent

    UMass tracking poll (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:17:39 AM EST
    Bernies lead cut in half.  Now up 15 points.  Oh my.

    I didn't watch the whole debate (none / 0) (#59)
    by CST on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:23:48 AM EST
    Just the beginning, although I heard she did well on foreign policy and he did... less than well.

    I think she made a pretty strong case for herself on the issues I have personally been wanting to hear more of from her (economy).  I think she finally challenged him somewhat on the idea that his plans are more beneficial to those who need it most.  I'm not saying that she convinced everyone but the very fact that she challenged him on it  means that she's taking that aspect of the campaign to heart as critical and not just going to go with "yes I'm a moderate on the economy".

    Parent

    Wouldn't it be something (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:29:00 AM EST
    Is she ends up closing the gap to being very close, or even winning, when, between bringing up gun control in a very pro 2A state and leaving on Sunday to go to Flint, she's basically conceding the state to him and looking beyond it?

    Not sure that will happen, but, wow.  He was up by 30+ a few days ago.

    Parent

    People have come from way behind (none / 0) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:03:07 AM EST
    To win there before.  

    Parent
    Link? (none / 0) (#91)
    by smott on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:19:52 AM EST
    ?..

    Parent
    I just did a quick google (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:31:24 AM EST
    And didn't see the new results.  They were just reported on cable as coming out at 7am.  Central I assume.

    I saw it on Morning Joe.  They discussed it pretty extensively.  That might be up by now.  If you can take it.

    Parent

    it's on politico (none / 0) (#99)
    by CST on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:34:16 AM EST
    but it's not on their actual polling website yet.

    Although there's also a national poll there that shows them basically tied.  So... I'm guessing that's an outlier, but we'll see.

    Parent

    UMass (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:35:58 AM EST
    Is a daily tracking poll.  The other is not.

    Parent
    The tied (none / 0) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:07:04 PM EST
    poll is a Q poll which had Bernie winning Iowa by a number of points. Their polls have really been off this year so far.

    Parent
    This would refute (none / 0) (#199)
    by smott on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:24:25 PM EST
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/sanders-leads-suffolk-nh-feb


    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:34:48 AM EST
    Meant EASTERN I assume.

    Parent
    Here (none / 0) (#104)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:41:45 AM EST
    Link

    Parent
    Quinnipiac national poll has (none / 0) (#106)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:43:46 AM EST
    the race in a virtual dead heat, 44/42 (Clinton/Sanders) with 11% undecided.

    In the Democratic race nationwide, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has 44 percent, with Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont at 42 percent, and 11 percent undecided. This compares to a 61 - 30 percent Clinton lead in a December 22 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll.

    Sanders and Rubio are the strongest candidates in general election matchups. If former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg runs, he hurts Sanders more than he hurts any of the top Republican contenders.

    Among Republicans, 30 percent say they "would definitely not support" Trump, while 15 percent say no to Cruz and 7 percent say no to Rubio.

    Sanders has the highest favorability rating among top candidates, while Trump has the lowest.

    "Democrats nationwide are feeling the Bern as Sen. Bernie Sanders closes a 31-point gap to tie Secretary Hillary Clinton," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

    [...]

    General election matchups among American voters show:

        Clinton tops Trump 46 - 41 percent;
        Clinton ties Cruz 45 - 45 percent;
        Clinton trails Rubio 48 - 41 percent;
        Sanders thumps Trump 49 - 39 percent;
        Sanders edges Cruz 46 - 42 percent;
        Sanders and Rubio are tied 43 - 43 percent.

     If Bloomberg runs as a third party candidate in some contests, results are:
        Sanders at 35 percent, with Trump at 36 percent and Bloomberg at 15 percent;
        Sanders at 37 percent, with Cruz at 36 percent and Bloomberg at 15 percent.

    Sanders has a 44 - 35 percent favorability rating among American voters. Ratings for other candidates are:

        Negative 39 - 56 percent for Clinton;
        Negative 34 - 59 percent for Trump;
        Negative 36 - 42 percent for Cruz;
        Positive 42 - 28 percent for Rubio;
        Negative 20 - 25 percent for Bloomberg with 53 percent who don't know enough about him to form an opinion.



    Parent
    General election matchups (none / 0) (#140)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:33:29 PM EST
    Are pretty much meaningless at this point.

    Too many variables.

    And yes, even if it showed Hillary beating everyone 99-1 I would say that.

    Parent

    Thank goodness (none / 0) (#60)
    by CST on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:26:55 AM EST
    for silver linings

    More of this please:

    "Last month, average hourly earnings rose 0.5 percent, leaving wages up 2.5 percent over the last 12 months. That was the best showing since January 2015, and it suggested some of the benefits from the falling unemployment rate were beginning to flow to ordinary workers."

    Can't happen fast enough.

    I'm imagining the raise.... (none / 0) (#120)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 11:59:54 AM EST
    I could ask for if my employer didn't have to pay the lion's share of my health insurance premiums!  

    I wish Bernie would sell that better as a benefit to employers as well as employees.  He never talks about the burden it would take off of small businesses and even big businesses.

    Parent

    seriously (none / 0) (#124)
    by CST on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:06:12 PM EST
    that's actually one thing that bugged me a bit.  Neither candidate really discussed how they were planning on slowing the cost curve, beyond medicare for all and "going after the pharmaceutical companies" - whatever that means (passing legislation on price controls?  get more specific guys!)

    Also, at least around here, drug prices are only one part of a very bleak picture on healthcare costs that includes high premiums, high deductibles, and extremely high prices for any treatment in a hospital.

    It's becoming enough of a state budget issue that I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't one of those moments where MA is just gonna say "f*ck it" and do something on their own first.  But it would be really nice to see some action on this by the feds.

    Medicare isn't going to fix the problem if they just shift the outrageous prices from the individual to the government.  That will just mean less money for everything else.

    Parent

    True,,, (none / 0) (#131)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:18:34 PM EST
    for single payer to work at lowering the actual cost of care and drugs, that single payer has to be willing to negotiate better prices from health care providers and drug companies. Administrative cost savings does not address that part of the problem.

    And I'm not sure Uncle Sam has any interest in being that negotiator on behalf of the sick and the old....not if the money keeps pouring in from the health care lobby.

    Parent

    For single payer to work (none / 0) (#155)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:58:47 PM EST
    You would have to get doctors, hospitals, and other medical providers to slash their fees.

    Parent
    or you could implement (none / 0) (#157)
    by CST on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:01:26 PM EST
    price controls via legislation.  Which frankly, is what we need to be doing regardless of whether or not single payer is implemented.  Because if we're waiting for them to just offer up lower prices it will never happen.

    Parent
    Sure, but (none / 0) (#161)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:06:05 PM EST
    What are the chances of that occurring?

    Slim to none, is my guess.  The AMA is pretty powerful....

    Parent

    well that's pretty much (none / 0) (#166)
    by CST on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:10:56 PM EST
    What Hillary is proposing.  Hopefully she knows something you don't.

    This is why people hate money in politics.  Because no one should be that powerful.

    Parent

    Hopefully she does (none / 0) (#175)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:28:13 PM EST


    Parent
    I think cost controls could (none / 0) (#176)
    by caseyOR on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:28:43 PM EST
    happen. It won't happen anytime soon, but it can happen. It will require enormous backbone on the part of politicians, always dicy to count on.

    More importantly, it would require a critical mass of people in something like Medicare for All. Enough people that doctors and hospitals would see an appreciable drop in caseload if they did not accept patients in a plan with lower payments.

    It would also mean a drop in personal income for doctors, hospital administrators, etc. That is a big thing to get people to accept.

    Parent

    You assume (none / 0) (#142)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:34:33 PM EST
    And so does Bernie, that you would get a raise out of it.  That is a HUGE assumption.

    Parent
    Come (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:42:24 PM EST
    on. We can all trust the corporations to do the right thing. Can't we ? I am sure that that the trickle down will turn into a deluge(once the overlords decide how much they can siphon off without bring on the tumbrels).

    Parent
    Not really... (none / 0) (#144)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:38:12 PM EST
    it's part of your pay package...employers may not pass all of it along, but even a partial would be a significant raise.  That sh*t is expensive.

    Parent
    Or, more likely (none / 0) (#152)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:52:53 PM EST
    They would use those savings to reinvest in the business, pay down other debt, or hire more people.  None of which are bad moves. Employers would also lose the tax breaks and credits they get for offering insurance, so any savings may offset those tax breaks.

    It'a a huge leap to you getting a raise.  Correlation vs. Causation, and all that.


    Parent

    Hard to sell it to them (none / 0) (#183)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:44:40 PM EST
    without also telling them their taxes are going up to pay for it.

    Maybe the businesses would prefer the devil they know.

    Parent

    My daughter and her family would (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:06:14 PM EST
    gladly pay $1,000 more in taxes if it meant they would get a significant break on the almost-$10,000 year they currently pay in health insurance premiums, on a policy that carries an annual deductible of almost $5,000; to them, that would be like getting a raise.  Especially considering that not even in 2015, when she had a baby, have they ever even had $15,000 in medical expenses.  And in 2015, their share of the cost of the baby's birth was almost $6,000!

    It irks the crap out of me that all people take into account are more taxes - they never take the time to consider how much less they will be paying in premiums, co-pays and deductibles.

    Parent

    I was referring to the corporations (none / 0) (#192)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:10:59 PM EST
    and small businesses. I have no idea how the numbers work out for them.

    Parent
    Your (none / 0) (#194)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:14:22 PM EST
    daughter is somebody that it would be any easy sell for. Other people like my friend that has insurance where she pays 1K a year for with a $350 deductible would be another story.

    Parent
    meanwhile (none / 0) (#171)
    by CST on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:19:46 PM EST
    the flip side

    What this implies about the structure of the American economy is deeply disturbing:

    "Stocks slump as jobs report raises fears of a rate hike"

    Parent

    Hillary tweeted about Trayvon Martin's (none / 0) (#187)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:57:04 PM EST
    birthday today.

    Much like it must have felt watching Caesar become dictator - kind of appalling, but you have to admire the skill.

    Now now (none / 0) (#190)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:02:36 PM EST
    I see a comment like that and it just totally undercuts and invalidates the idea that any decorum should be followed.

    Lots of emotions.

    Parent

    It is complicated (none / 0) (#195)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:14:58 PM EST
    I share the sentiments and can only imagine the pain of his family on this day. I just think tweeting about it is a tad crass. I feel that way about a lot of tweeting.

    Parent
    Possibly political calculation (none / 0) (#200)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:24:52 PM EST
    Sanders primary AA supporter said this about the president-

    "We know anybody who tries to rationalize the killing of innocent people is a criminal. George Zimmerman is a criminal. But President Obama is a global George Zimmerman because he tries to rationalize the killing of innocent children, 221 so far, in the name of self-defense... Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen. So when he comes to talk about the killing of an innocent person, you say, 'Well, wait a minute, what kind of moral authority are you bringing?'"

    That was Cornell West

    Parent

    Heh I kind of agree (none / 0) (#208)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:34:47 PM EST
    The only time I participated in a twitter wake was after David Bowie died that really hit me in a way I didn't expect.

    I mean I get it, twitter is a tool for self promotion so all of it does have a whiff of oportunism about it. Mix that with somebody else's tragedy and now it's just creepy, no?

    And I'm aware I picked up 5 followers after my David Bowie tweets.

    But then again I'm a huge TWIN PEAKS fan and one of the guys who wrote a few of those episodes just tweeted this right now:

    Today would have been Trayvon Martin's 21st birthday. But he was murdered. #Neverforget

    There's a little Holden Caulfield in all of us, I'm sure.

    Maybe his family is also appalled.

    Maybe his family are glad he's being remembered.

    Only they know for sure.


    Parent

    Kdog (none / 0) (#211)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:42:08 PM EST
    I went back and looked at some of the projections that came out after Sanders released his plan, and no, there's a good chance that not only will you NOT get a raise, wages will be depressed.  Part of Sanders plan calls for a 6.2% income-based premium paid by employers on wages (basically, a payroll tax).  Payroll taxes are passed on to remployees on the form of lower wages.

    So, no, you probably won't be getting any big raise because of a single payer plan.

    Once more (none / 0) (#212)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:50:30 PM EST
    [new] Howdy I think that (none / 0) (#210)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:41:30 PM EST
    you need to read my comment again.
    Are you saying that the hit pieces put out by HRC and her staff members are not "picked up and spears through the web."

    Are you saying that is not true?

    Because it is.

    Also in the same NYT article:

    Senator Bernie Sanders often boasts that he has no "super PAC" supporting his candidacy and he has vigorously tried to keep any from forming. But he has been getting some unsolicited if mischievous help from Republican groups actively promoting the Vermont senator's surging campaign.

    If he tries so hard and cares so much why did he not tell them to stop doing it last night when given the chance?   He didn't say one word.

    Why not?

    Howdy, it occurs to me that Sanders (none / 0) (#213)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 03:00:39 PM EST
    telling the right-wing not to form PACS or put on a show of "supporting" him is the fastest way to make sure new ones will spring up all over the place.

    Scr€w this (none / 0) (#214)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 03:01:16 PM EST
    I'm off to see HAIL CAESAR

    Well that's a nice theory Anne (none / 0) (#215)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 03:05:41 PM EST
    But one would think if he was so horrified by PAC support he might have taken the opportunity to express his displeasure.

    Now, you can have your theories and I can have mine but the FACT is he had an opportunity to condemn right wing meddling in the democratic primary and he just stood there.

    Dang... (none / 0) (#216)
    by sj on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 03:10:41 PM EST
    And I thought you were off to see Hail Caesar. But anyway
    [new] Well that's a nice theory Anne (none / 0) (#215)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 02:05:41 PM MDT  

    But one would think if he was so horrified by PAC support he might have taken the opportunity to express his displeasure.

    I disagree. Three would think that, not one: you, jb and Georgia. Oh, maybe four.

    kdog (none / 0) (#218)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 04:09:41 PM EST
    Might want to read this

    Agree ruffian (none / 0) (#220)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 04:41:56 PM EST
    However, I think it's instructive to review since it's from the man who was hired by very liberal Vermont legislators when they wanted to implement (the now doomed) single payer there.

    Belated Post Debate Thread | 221 comments (221 topical)