2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumLiberals Roar As Bernie Sanders Joins Elizabeth Warren On Bill To Reinstate Glass Steagall
Liberals Roar As Bernie Sanders Joins Elizabeth Warren On Bill To Reinstate Glass Steagall
?1437172378
Especially, the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999, which had been protecting American's savings since it was installed in response to the abuses of the Wall St. elite in 1933, left the country's pensions and livelihoods at great risk.
So our Liberal Lions in the Senate are taking matters into their own hands.
From Jason Easly at Politicususa:
Two of the most prominent liberals in the Senate have joined forces to take on the big banks as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has announced that he is teaming up with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) to co-sponsor her bill that would reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act.
In a statement, Sanders said:
I strongly support Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s bill to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act.
On July 1, 1999, while Congress was voting on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to permit commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies to merge, then-Rep. Sanders said: “I believe this legislation, in its current form, will do more harm than good. It will lead to fewer banks and financial service providers; increased charges and fees for individual consumers and small businesses; diminished credit for rural America; and taxpayer exposure to potential losses should a financial conglomerate fail. It will lead to more mega-mergers; a small number of corporations dominating the financial service industry; and further concentration of economic power in our country.”
Bernie was RIGHT then and he and Warren are right now. Let's hope all Dems will join Warren and Bernie to get this done.
He has been right on almost every important issue over the past decades and didn't need to look at polls to decide how to vote on this issues. He voted as he did, no matter how unpopular it may have been at the time, because it was the RIGHT thing to do.
Leaders need to have that kind of good judgement and the courage to act on it.
Bernie will be a great president! Someone who will always do what is best for the PEOPLE.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
snot
(10,515 posts)This is the single most important financial reform we could and should make. Glass-Steagall is the reason there were no big bank crises/bailouts during the decades between its enactment and its repeal.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)major issues. THAT is why his opponents are working so hard to try to smear him, but it's hard to do to someone with a record as good as his.
THIS needs to be done, good for both Warren and Bernie for doing it.
PatrickforO
(14,566 posts)While Bernie has been right all along, nearly everyone else in this campaign has...
not.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)important issues, while he has been there consistently fighting for what is right, casting votes that at the time were not too popular, not sticking his finger in the wind or polling to find out if it will be politically expedient for him to vote one way or the other.
We won't get a chance like this again, maybe in our lifetime. Which is why I intend to fight to keep the vultures with their corporate money on the run each time they launch their deceptive attacks.
Buck Turgidson
(488 posts)I believe that the GAO spent $160 billion to bail out Lincoln Savings and others while Glass-Steagall was the law.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)national economies that the 2008 crisis had.
During the financial crisis of 2008, the Federal Government pumped trillions into the economy to keep the banking system from collapsing.
This included the $700 billion bailout package approved by Congress in 2008, the nearly $200 billion the Federal Reserve used to bail out Bear Stearns and AIG, and the $150 billion that the Treasury Department spent to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
. . . .
In the Savings and Loan Crisis five U.S. Senators, known as the Keating Five, were investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee for improper conduct. They had accepted $1.5 million in campaign contributions from Charles Keating, head of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. They had also put pressure on the Federal Home Loan Banking Board, who was investigating possible criminal activities at Lincoln.
In the late 1980s, more than 1,000 banks failed as a result of the Savings and Loan Crisis. The total cost to resolve the crisis was $153 billion, a mere drop in the bucket compared to the 2008 crisis. Of this, the taxpayer was only on the hook for $124 billion. Rather than taking ownership in banks, the funds were used to close them, pay the FDIC insurance and pay other debts. Of this, the taxpayer cost was $124 billion.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/f/S_L_liquidity.htm
Glass-Steagall doesn't protect us completely from bank fraud and irresponsible speculation on the part of the financial sector, but it discourages excessive risk-taking and the kind of fraud that led to the 2008 crash. The article is quite interesting.
snot
(10,515 posts)Royal Bank of Scotland, et al.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)I'm more in favor of taking banking away from private control entirely. That would go a LONG way toward stabilizing our current system. I'm still more in favor of a new system though- climate change is the direct result of the current system. We can't afford it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Banks should banks, not free to gamble with other people's money on Wall St. You would think by now the entire government would have stepped in to make sure the corrupt gamblers on Wall St don't get to do it again.
They were rewarded rather than punished for what they did. As Warrent says, the whole system is rigged and it badly needs fixing.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)enough wrt to this. They've been allowed to get away with playing in their casino with this country's wealth, destroying lives, moving money further up the scale and into the hoarders' bank accts, while not much has improved for the working class.
And if we know this, anyone in elected office who doesn't, doesn't belong there.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)This is one good test to see who is on our side and who isn't. Warren and Sanders are doing a fantastic job of exposing the phonies, merely by telling the truth.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)You conflated "Warren" into "Warrent" (aka "warrant"
.
She really IS the bankster's policeman. 
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Maybe I'll leave it. I think one day those warrants will be forthcoming, when we get a government in place that actually works for the people.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts) merrily
(45,251 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)Is she going to jump in and join Bernie?
If she did...then it's over. For O'Malley, Trump and the rest of the contenders.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)The rest of Congress will endorse the status quo candidate, fearful of consequences if they do not. Until Bernie becomes the obvious winner.
They sure are working hard to try to discredit one of the best candidates we've had in the living memories of many voters. So clearly they fear that the people will respond to both his message and his long record that shows it is not just campaign rhetoric.
artislife
(9,497 posts)as of right now...still no mention on Huffington Post about the crowd for Bernie last night. Yeah, the mainline Dems are afraid of Bernie.
Scott Walker is the headline and Trump and Biden's state of mind on running...which is speculation and not anything his office put out into the public.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)their talking points around the internet hoping people are still too unaware of these tactics, to actually believe them.
And it has had no effect on Bernie so far. That must be frustrating for them when they spend so much money on their negative campaigning.
AikidoSoul
(2,150 posts)The face looks like Dick Cheney. And he looks mean!
Wish it would go away.
I love Bernie, but would prefer the hair logo.
Is there anyway to make the face in the sandstorm smile?
artislife
(9,497 posts)I got it from the Bernie group. I didn't make it.
Lots of people love it---it is about 3-1 but I realize not everyone comments.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)PatrickforO
(14,566 posts)Bernie has this huge rising and then falls into nothingness.
But then I saw you have him eating Clinton's logo.
Kind of a Mummy thing goin' on.
840high
(17,196 posts)chknltl
(10,558 posts)I am an avid Sanders supporter. For the record, I have never liked Hillary Clinton. Should she win this primary, I will need to give a good deal of thought about voting for her. That said, I feel that your Sandstorm is OK but the depiction of it eating the Hillary logo to be incredibly rude and especially rude to our fellow DUers who love and support Hillary Clinton.
Yes, I get it that there has been a lot of rudeness going on both ways between us. I am not alone in wishing that it would stop. I am only speaking for myself but in my opinion your Sandstorm is doing the opposite of decreasing the animosity between us. I have come to know many of our fellow DUers who support Hillary. My respect and admiration for them has not wavered due to our differences in whom we support. It pains me to see my fellow DUers disrespected this way. For this reason I would urge you to modify or remove this Sandstorm.
artislife
(9,497 posts)chknltl
(10,558 posts)
SamKnause
(13,091 posts)It looks like Dick Cheney.
I think the picture in the meme should be changed.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)She's the one out in the cold.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I could see a Sanders/O'Malley ticket, but those things usually shake out differently than we imagine.
artislife
(9,497 posts)I was just poking fun at another meme.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The disingenuous "not sayin', just sayin'" slurs from posters that "support Bernie, BUT" have been thick, as well as the efforts to minimize his achievements.
Wouldn't this be a much more interesting and productive primary if it was Sanders v. O'Malley as the main match up? Maybe we'll get to that eventually.
delrem
(9,688 posts)I know HRC by her history - by who she is - and I don't like it at all.
Of the five candidates, I put in her in fifth, by a long shot, in a race to the bottom with Webb.
Chafee... he seems OK, for the kind of guy who ran as a Republican up to '07, so swam in that school. I put him a bit ahead of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Go Bernie!
Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the documentary 'The Warning' which is about Brooksley Born who was part of his admin at the time, who WARNED them about the coming crash if they did not regulate the system re derivatives ten years before it happened, and what was done to her for trying to warn them, I have to wonder about the motives for eliminating those protections. Summers and Greenspan ran Born out of DC. Clinton cannot say they were not warned.
Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #14)
Name removed Message auto-removed
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)he was doing regarding the issues. I was, like many others, a loyal Dem and horrified by the far right's nastiness to the point where I believe I was willfully blind to many things.
That taught me a lesson, never allow that to happen again, regardless of how much you may have liked a politician. We helped to do these things also, by not doing our job of putting issues before everything else.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Response to L0oniX (Reply #18)
Name removed Message auto-removed
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)we do have people like Warren and Bernie who keep these issues alive otherwise they would all just get too comfortable in their corporate funded jobs and nothing would ever be initiated by those who are beholden to those interests.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Duval
(4,280 posts)She should!
Response to L0oniX (Reply #17)
Name removed Message auto-removed
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Just because it's impossible you see, no evidence at all but clearly impossible. I'm sure it had nothing to do with a lobbyist with a fist full of money.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=444666
Duval
(4,280 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)Ted Kennedy is beaming on high, at the efforts of this dynamic duo!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)despite all the attempts to stop them.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)And what's key is that while telling these truths is as easy as vocalizing them. The difficult facet is doing so from a prominent enough podium to get attention.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)did when we tried to stop the TPA. Call your senator, write President Obama, use social media to spread the word, talk to your union. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation in Congress right now.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Hit my family hard and we have not recovered yet. The banks are bigger then ever, and I cannot afford to go through another recession. It would be devastating for my family and many others I know. This is one reason I support Bernie Sanders for president.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)predictions are that if they are not reigned in, there will be another recession.
I support him for his consistent work for the people, for his knowledge of the needs of all of the people and for his votes on the issues even when they were not popular, throughout his career. That record makes me feel we can trust him.
Thank you too for supporting Bernie, I know he has spoken passionately about minorities and the economic injustices they face.
SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)I knew about his pro gun votes, but was floored to read here tonight about him voting for that vile GOP amendment to the Homeland Security Bill that banned informing Mexico about America civilian border vigilantes (the racist Minuteman groups).
In 2006, the then-Republican majority in Congress wrote into law protections for anti-immigrant, racist vigilante groups. Even though the militia groups are involved in unsanctioned, armed activity along the Mexican-American border, the Republicans barred the US government from notifying the Mexican authorities about potential dangers to their citizens living or traveling near the US-Mexico border.
The amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill reads:
(I bolded for emphasis) The Congressional Record shows the Dems were livid. Dem rep. Loretta Sanchez from California demanded a recorded vote, not a mere anonymous voice vote. Here's the Congressional Record link to Sanchez' comments and that Amendment language
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/109th-congress/house-amendment/971
The language prohibited notifications of activity only in the states of California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona - all states on the Mexican border. No such prohibition applied, of course, to groups operating in the border states of Alaska, Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, New York, New Hampshire, Maine or Sen. Sanders' home state, Vermont. But then again, these militias are not trying to keep out white Canadians. They are only concerned with our brown southern neighbor, Mexico.
Republicans in Congress were protecting their base: the anti-immigrant racists and gun nuts, both of which were personified in the "Minuteman" groups, the members of which arm themselves and play illegitimate border patrol. But why did Bernie vote YES?
Thanks to Loretta Sanchez, here's the link to the recorded vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll224.xml
The amendment passed with 293 votes, including those of 69 Democrats. Some of those Democrats were too afraid to vote otherwise given Bush's victory in 2004, and others were too conservative. But none of them claims to be progressive. Except Bernie Sanders.
Thanks to this amendment that Sanders voted for, leaders of the vigilante border militia groups are going around openly talking about putting bullets between the eyes of Mexicans and Latin Americans along the border, and gunning down American citizens in their homes and murdering them. These are no idle threats. One Minuteman militia group murdered two latino American citizens, a father and his 9 year old daughter, in 2009. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Raul_and_Brisenia_Flores
merrily
(45,251 posts)But, as long as we're going way off topic to take pot shots because simply someone mentioned Sanders' name, I'll throw in that Hillary's advocacy for the Iraq War resulted, and continues to result, in a lot more damage than any position Sanders ever took in 24 years of votes in D.C.
And, the Second Amendment does very specifically protect militias but nothing in the Constitution required the Iraq War.
SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)These racist Minuteman vigilante groups specifically target latinos. The amendment Sanders voted for was anti-latino, anti-immigrant and enables racist violence.
No, the Second Amendment of our Constitution does not "specifically provide" for these Minuteman groups. The Second Amendment provides for a "well regulated" militia. These Minuteman groups are anything but.
merrily
(45,251 posts)From your posts, it appears Sanders that voted that funds from a particular bill could not be used to notify foreign governments of activities of certain groups of US citizens. (I have not yet found the official definition of those groups.)
Do you know if other funds are available for that purpose? How much funding does it take anyway? Seems like a fax to the right person in another nation would do it.
Do you know what, if anything, foreign governments have done, when and if notified?
Would foreign governments be better able to deal with wrongdoings than our own state and federal governments?
You can't think of a legitimate reason why a person of conscience would, in good faith vote against funding to notify foreign governments about the activities of US civilians?
Do you know that this was not part of a compromise?
But why did Bernie vote YES?
Good question. But, although you don't know the answer, your post goes to some trouble to make Bernie's motives sound horrible, throwing around terms ike racist, anti-immigrant, promotes murder, etc.
And, I see that Sanchez endorsed Hillary in 2008 and now wants to run for Boxer's Senate seat. Staying on the right side of the Clintons and the DNC may be especially important to Sanchez at this time. Gutierrez, who wants to succeed Rahm as Mayor of Chicago, also tried to make it sound as though Bernie is a racist who hates immigrants, even though Bernie's father is an immigrant with Holocaust victims in his family and Bernie, as Mayor, made Burlington safe for immigrants. He's also been a supporter of Dreamers, a pathway to citizenship, etc.
Rated 8% by USBC (a "border security" group)* indicating an open-border stance.
Rated 0% by FAIR (another "border security" group) ** indicating a stance in favor of loosening immigrant.
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Bernie_Sanders_Immigration.htm
But sure, let's rip totally out of context this one vote on one amendment about funding notifications to foreign governments about the activities of US citizens within the borders of the US and make it sound almost as as though Bernie is an accessory to murder based on animus against people of color.
*About USBC (from their website, www.usbc.org): U.S. Border Control, founded in 1988, is a non-profit, tax-exempt, citizen's lobby. USBC is dedicated to ending illegal immigration by securing our nation's borders and reforming our immigration policies. USBC [works with] Congressmen to stop amnesty; seal our borders against terrorism and illegal immigration; and, preserve our nation's language, culture and American way of life for future generations. id.
Our organization accepts no financial support from any branch of government. All our support comes from concerned citizens who appreciate the work we are doing to seal our borders against drugs, disease, illegal migration and terrorism and wish to preserve our nation's language, culture and heritage for the next generations.
** The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is a national, non-profit, public interest membership organization of concerned citizens united by their belief in the need for immigration reform. Founded in 1979, FAIR believes that the U.S. can and must have an immigration policy that is non-discriminatory and designed to serve the environmental, economic, and social needs of our country.
FAIR seeks to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration, and to promote immigration levels consistent with the national interest—more traditional rates of about 300,000 a year.
With more than 70,000 members nationwide, FAIR is a non-partisan group whose membership runs the gamut from liberal to conservative. id.
No sale.
SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)So my question has everything to do with this thread.
This was 2006. Loretta Sanchez was not part of the Hillary campaign when this vote went down, nor was Sanders even hinting of running. This was genuine, and justified, outrage on her part.
This was not about foreign governments. This was the GOP pandering to their racist base. Bernie's vote helped legitimize and encourage these racist vigilante militias. His vote helped endanger latino immigrants and latino US citizens along our southern border. Ask the family of Raul and Brisenia Flores. Nine-year-old Brisenia begged for her life as a Minuteman militia member shot her dead in 2009. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/25/nation/la-na-minutemen-murder-20110126
Again, why did Bernie vote YES?
merrily
(45,251 posts)This thread is about Sanders and Warren seeking reinstatement of Glass Steagall, not about an amendment about funding to notify foreign governments about the activities of Americans.
On any day, there are scores of threads that mention Bernie or Hillary. That does not mention that all of those threads are actually about anything and everything about the candidate you happen to feel like bringing up to discourage someone from supporting Sanders. Your post had absolutely nothing to do with the OP.
This was not about foreign governments.
HUH? From this link in your post:
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/109th-congress/house-amendment/971
Description: H.Amdt. 971 — 109th Congress (2005-2006)
Page 62, after line 17, insert the following: ? SEC. 537. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, as defined by DHS OIG-06- 4, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, unless required by international treaty.
Purpose:
An amendment regarding funding limitation on volunteer surveillance on the border.
House Amendment Code:
The amendment is exactly as my prior post described it.
The above is the entire amendment about which you've been smearing Bernie as racist, anti-immigrant, pro gun and practically a murderer. That's disgraceful. You went to all that trouble to associate Sanders with all those things, yet you didn't actually know what the amendment consisted of? Even more disgraceful. And rather than check my statement against your own link, you simply contradicted me and posted again about murder, as though it were Bernie's fault?
SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)I never said Bernie is a racist, but no one can explain to me why he would vote for this amendment legitimizing these racist militias. All I can figure is he was just thinking of his gun nut base in Vermont at the time, which is what motivated the GOP as well.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Funding to notifying foreign governments of activities of Americans is ALL the amendment has to do with and your sole fact in many paragraphs is that Bernie voted for that amendment. So, how is it that "this" has nothing to do with notifying foreign governments? Let's ignore your sole fact and just go with the web of insinuations and alleged associations that somehow lead us to murder? Are you kidding me?
No, of course you didn't. You "only" associated him twice with murder by racist militias for the sake of guns, even though the NRA rates him D- to F on his voting record and we have no evidence the man would even swat a fly. Please. DUers can recognize that game.
I never said Bernie is a racist
no one can explain to me why he would vote for this amendment legitimizing these racist militias.
The amendment does NOT legitimize militias. How the eff does not providing funding to notify foreign governments---something that does not seem to require any funding anyway-- legitimize anything?
No one can explain most votes. I can't explain why Hillary advocated for a war everyone I know KNEW was trumped up. NOr why, she remained silent, even after, by her own words, long after she realized her vote had been a mistake.
However, I did explain that Sander's has an excellent voting record on immigration issues, something you chose to ignore, in favor of citing murder he had nothing to do with a second time. So, if you want to make a case for murder out of one vote on one amendment about not funding notifications to foreign governments about activities of American citizens inside America, be my guest.
Disgraceful.
SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)You can offer no explanation for Bernie's vote, let alone dispute any of what I said.
merrily
(45,251 posts)anything but refusing funding for the purpose of notifying foreign governments of the activities of American citizens while inside the US.
You can offer no explanation for Bernie's vote, let alone dispute any of what I said.
Oh, but you misperceive. The only thing you saId that I agreed with was that Bernie did vote for the amendment.
What you have failed to do, other than by piling one fact free statement and insinuation on another, is prove that something was terribly wrong the amendment
And I alreadyy replied to your notion that, unless someone explains a vote to you, it's heinous. Nor have you explained Hillary's war advocacy. Or, while we're at her vote for a Patriot Act with provisions that even a Republican court found unconstitutional.
While we at it, your explaining that 69 other Democrats voted for this because they were afraid is amusing. Sure, if we're just going to make up motivations for ovtes explanations are easy. Also meaningless.
Speaking of making up stuff, how much funding for notifications to foreign governments was there before that amendment? Is there any evidence there would have been funding for those notifications from that bill without the amendment? After all, the amendment did not strike any funding language from the bill. It said only that no money from the bill would be used to fund gthe notifications. And how much money does a notification require anyway? There isn't enough in the general budget for a phone call or fax?
You don't know that this amendment had any lpractical effect on anything, yet your raising pandering, anti immigrant, racism and even murder. Based on "no funding from this bill for notifications?" Ye gods.
SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)That's like arguing those hospital privilege requirements the GOP passes are not about stopping women from having access to abortion services.
George II
(67,782 posts)pocoloco
(3,180 posts)over the dept of homeland security!!
LOL
SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)Loretta Sanchez did not LOL over it. Neither did the latino father and his 9 year old daughter.
merrily
(45,251 posts)US.
No matter how many times you claim it's about guns, racists, murder and the like, your claims do not change the simple wording of a very limited amendment.
Disgraceful.
SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)It's limited all right. It is not any "Ameticans" or any "activites." It is just "organized volunteer civilian action groups operating" in the states bordering Mexico.
It's laser focused to enable and legitimize racist vigilante anti-latino Minuteman groups. And yes, the amendment is disgraceful.
merrily
(45,251 posts)more obvious it becomes how wrong, baseless and utterly disgraceful the insinuations and attempted smears have been. You've yet to show this amendment did anything at all, let alone cause two deaths.
SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)The amendment is indefensible.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Yes I did answer. Sorry you don't seem to get it. We don't have an explanation for most votes, including Hillary's vote to authorize a war every Democrat I know knew was based on a lie. Now that was a significant vote.
The fact that I cannot explain Sanders vote is a duh. In the world of reality, it indicates absolutely nothing, other than that Sanders has not been explaining his every vote to me for the past nine years. In this this case, it means even less that because you have not even shown that the amendment did a single thing. You have not even shown that it took away a dime from notifications--and the wording of the amendment strongly suggests it didn't take away a dime--which, btw, is about what each notification would cost. You also have not shown that the government's budget was inadequate for such notifications. But, I've raised these points before.
Your tactic has been to ignore what I post and keep repeating the nonsense that this amendment about no funds from "this bill" being used to notify foreign governments was heinous. You don't explain that or cite authority for it. You just keep repeating it, which is not persuasive in the least.
FYI, you are in very embarrassing company with this. http://www.democraticunderground.com/128027269 Not to mention that one has to wonder how a vote on a one line amendment from 2006 comes to anyone's attention, let alone that blogger.
Anyway, I don't enjoy posting with someone who ignores every point raised and just keeps repeating unsupported statements with nothing to back them up. So we're done here.
SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)How is that not heinous? Our border patrol are funded by the underlying bill. If they come across some militiamen asshats shooting at immigrants at the border, they should be able to readily warn people on the other side of the border. The amendment says no money can go to such notifications. No money. Even the cost of a toll call to Mexico. Otherwise, you're violating federal law, namely this despicable amendment. There is a reason Loretta Sanchez was outraged by this amendment. You keep trying to deflect and change the subject. Because this amendment is indefensible.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Page 62, after line 17, insert the following: ? SEC. 537. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, as defined by DHS OIG-06- 4, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, unless required by international treaty.
The amendment does not prohibit use of any other funds, only the funds being made available by the one act that is being amended.
Hard to believe no one can find a spare dime in the federal budget. You also have not shown that any foreign government would or should do a thing to people on our soil if notified.
Again, I've posted all this before. It really is your turn to do something besides mischaracterize the amendment and repeat unsupported insinuations about racism and responsiblity for murder. That's shameful. If anyone has a burden to explain it's the accuser and that would be you and the fool blogger.
SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)I'm entitled to my opinion, as are you.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Before, you said it had nothing to do with foreign nations, when money from one bill to notify foreign nations is all the one sentence amendment is about.
Moreover, you did not state opinions. You made very dark insinuations and accusations, and have argued them over and over. Yet, they are based on nothing other than voting 9 years ago for a one line amendment whose content and consequences you've misstated more than once. I have not stated opinions either, except that that kind of conduct is not admirable.
A vote for a one line amendment, out of 25 years of votes suddenly shows up at DU and on the blog of a poster banned from DU and Kos multiple times, with the same dark, unsupported accusations. How odd.
SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)And since ANY action, whether it is to pick up a phone or write an email, involves expense (if nothing else, the cost of the federal employee's time), the amendment prohibits notification. The GOP love this defunding shit. That is their way of ordering that things not be done.
Again, here is the full text:
"None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, unless required by international treaty.”
It was a horrible insult to latinos. Ask Loretta Sanchez. And for what? To pander to right wing racist wackos in these vigilante militias along the Texas boarder. Again, the amendment only applies to the "civilian" groups "operating" in the listed states bordering Mexico. Disgusting.
merrily
(45,251 posts)it's past time you back up your accusations with something more than mischaracterizations and insinuations. Obviously, you can't. This has been so lame.
Ask Loretta Sanchez, who wants support from Clintons and the DNC while she goes after Boxer's seat? That's your new bottom line for repeated attempt to associate Sanders with murders based on nothing? Fine, ask her to pm me so I can ask her.
SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)Ask latinos who live along the border how it changed anything. Even if the amendment can't be tied to the Flores murders, it sent a message that immigrant lives don't matter, that they are not worth a simple notice to Mexico to protect those lives.
merrily
(45,251 posts)for your repeated attempts on this thread to associate Sanders' vote with those murders?
Again--fifth or sixth time maybe?-- all the amendment prohibited was use of money from that one bill to send notifications. You still also have not shown that money from a source other than that one bill can't be used to send a foreign nation a fax.
Stop digging.
SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)You keep ignoring the words of the amendment. That won't make them go away. The fact is, this amendment was explicitly worded to keep the activities of these murderous anti-immigrant militias (and only those militias--not "all Americans" secret from Mexico, endangering immigrant lives.
merrily
(45,251 posts)The amendment clearly says that. It does NOT say no money from anywhere. It also does NOT prohibit notifications.
It doesn't matter if it's the homeland security bill. The President has ample Constitutional authority to communicate with foreign nations. Nothing in that amendment prevents the Executive Branch from sending Mexico or any other country a fax or giving them a call.
SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)It prohibits use of any money "related to" notification of foreign governments regarding these militias. The President (at that time George W. Bush) would first have had to be notified by the border patrol agents to tell Mexico about militia shootings. But these border patrol agents are funded by that Department of Homeland Security Bill, so they can't use any money to tell the President or anyone else to notify Mexico, since it "relates to" notifying Mexico.
The whole idea of blocking border patrol agents from making notifications of militia activities against immigrants is horribly racist and offensive on so many levels. Amazing how untroubled you are by it. But then again, you did start out this conversation with me by asserting the Constitution "very specifically protects" these racist vigilante militias:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251458877#post108
merrily
(45,251 posts)not what the amendment did. AGAIN, the amendment does not say all federal money. It says only money from this bill. It says nothing about money from sources other than the bill.
This things are written by lawyers who word them very carefully--and for good reasons. The amendment does say no notifications. It also does not say no federal money from any source for notiifications. It says only no money from this bill for notifications.
READ, ffs. And stop mischaracterizing again and again the words and the impact of that one sentence amendment.
SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)Unbelievable.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Speaking of fact-free smears, my posts on DU are responsible for how people react to Bernie? LOL, I only wish my posts were that powerful, but, what a ludicrous claim, Not as ludicrous as your claims on this subthread about the content and ramifications of a one sentence amendment and trying to associate murder with Bernie's vote on it, but still...
SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)There is no point to this conversation.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Loads of totally unsupported claims and mischaracterizations and insinuations. Attempts to connect Bernie's vote on a one sentence amendment with two killings, based on nothing. None of those things pass for facts.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)Every land owner there, has multiple hired workers. An old fashion word for the workers is, "Hand". These workers are literally the Right Hand Men over vast areas of land to keep cattle and farming under control. Illegals do not go through the deserts; which would mean death. I believe that the rancher's workforce is a blend of American born Hands and those Hands with a green card, working through a legal sponsorship, based on federal immigration law.
Clive Bundy has an interior compound with Hands that are there legally, as far as we know. Paying rent is another matter.
In my opinion, Sanders was voting in support of the Laws that were already on the books. Only an international treaty could alter federal law.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)
aspirant
(3,533 posts)it will put back-room dealing Sen Schumer in a tricky spot. When Schumer says no, maybe Zephyr will step up.
Ligyron
(7,622 posts)what would happen if Sen Warren joined the ticket as VP if Bernie wins the primary?
I know she didn't want to run for President, but even as second in line she'd be first up once Bernie's term(s) were over.
I know that she is needed in the Senate' but still...
I think they'd be pretty much unstoppable, and the MSM would have no choice but to let them be heard.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)anyhow, and will most likely continue to do so should Warren remain in the Senate, make here the Majority leader eg, when Bernie is in the WH.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Talking about "Bills" is what Sanders is about: they cannot
pass, they don't have votes, and the majority leader will not
bring them bill up. This posting is nothing but hot air
This is typical of ideologues that waste the time and money of people
really in the fight against the GOP.
Hillary is the only chance the Dem's have to hold the white house. all
this talk and wasting time just helps the GOP.
Sanders and Warren supporter are doing nothing but : Hecklers that bashes,
of people who really have a chance to stop the GOP.
GO Hillary GO for real!
aspirant
(3,533 posts)no more evil trade bills, austerity budgets, Wall Street giveaways, corporate sequesters etc.
Go President Bernie
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Hillary will be fine win or lose, it's the American people that
will live under the horror of the GOP
That is what you are helping with
aspirant
(3,533 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)she lost last time. It is essential for a leader to have good judgement when it comes to critical issues, such as Bush's War in Iraq eg. I knew teenagers who knew they were lying at the time. Yet, Hillary says she trusted him not to abuse the power. How on earth could anyone not have known Bush/Cheney were lying?
NCLB, another awful mistake. '
The Patriot Act, again a terrible decision.
Leaders need to have more than their hearts to protect the interests of this nation. They need to have the foresight and judgement to make RIGHT decisions at the time they are faced with those decisions.
Bernie has shown he has that foresight and good judgement, he voted correctly on the major issues facing him throughout his career. Too bad Dems, like Hillary eg, didn't join him.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 20, 2015, 04:00 PM - Edit history (1)
O
Obama did not get 288 delegates to win: he had the most at the end,
by taking Florida, and Michigan out of Hillary's wining numbers
There's was no way that Dem's could have taken the nomination
from a minority. That would have split the party, ruined
the Dem's chances.
More people voted for Hillary than Obama: Obama racked up
caucus states, that the Dem's had no chance in taking in
the general.
Hillary judgment is sound, and good: She did not take American to
war Bush and the GOP did. When the Clinton's were in office they
the made a different chose, and Josef was one of the most successful
military operation (not a single US solider died) The Clinton's
were competent, the GOP are never are.
Bernie, has sat in the Senate doing nothing, Sanders has never been leader,
and his votes and positions have no consequences: He can vote anyway likes
he only has to answer to 620,000 liberal like minded people.
Bernie is with out any political skills expect talking: T
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)say at this point. Bernie has the judgement to be a leader, sorry but trusting Bush was not good judgement. I'll just leave it at that.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Its not about trusting Bush: Bush was the commander in Chief,
he made the choice to go to war he said so!
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Go piss on someone else's thread.
<flush>
merrily
(45,251 posts)remind Sanders' supporters not to take the bait?
840high
(17,196 posts)has Wall Street friends.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Is "having the votes" if it's not for a bill that you want. I'd rather have a president ineffectively fight for what I want, then one who effectively fights for what I don't want.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)This bill is neither hear nor there it is a waste of time.
The GOP lead Senate will not let it come up for a vote,
even if all Dem's agreed.
Sanders supporters seem to think politics is wishful thinking, it
not, it hard work, teamwork, and compromise.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Much compromise. Sometimes all compromise.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Politics is the Art of the possible , the of Art certainty
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)I don't think he got the memo telling him he had to cave in.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)group somewhere under the heading 'Sanders People'??? Could you point us in that direction.
I eg, support Bernie Sanders for POTUS. So do many of my friends, but we sure don't agree on a whole lot of things. Are we NOT obeying some rules by daring to have differing opinions on things?
I wouldn't want to be inadvertently breaking any rules I'm supposed to be following as a 'Sanders Person'.
But what can we do, this is the first I heard about a monolithic group known as 'Sanders People' all of whom are IDENTICAL!
NealK
(1,862 posts)It's down in the 10th underground level of Area 51. That's where they breed The Sanders People.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)But, I would grant you that we really don't know who these people
actually are , they could GOP using Sanders name to bash her.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Republicans! I'll say this, you are entertaining.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)if Sanders is President, so that you can take yet another gratuitous swipe at Sanders' supporters on DU. I'm pretty sure no one is going to govern based on polling DU. Not tho mention that centrism is practically a religion for some. So, pot. kettle.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)She thinks a $15 min wage is good. She's not in government, so she has no accountability for the failure of the bill itself but gets on record as supporting the concept.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)Say, you wouldn't happen to be on her campaign's PR staff, would you?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)She is running for the Presidency not the Senate: and
most American's know where she stands on issues
It is only people like you and her detractors who are all of
sudden confused
hughee99
(16,113 posts)I'm not confused at all.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)she just doesn't want to commit to supporting $15/hour for everyone.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251454450
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)If given the opportunity Hillary will put more money into the
hands of American's:
Everyone did better when the Clintons were in power, even the
poor.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Hillary said that. It was her idea.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/07/hilllary-clinton-minimum-wage_n_7530914.html
Why do you disagree with her on this?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)I have heard Tom Hartman go on an on about, I was never
impressed with this issue.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)and Clinton flips on the issue, you'll change your mind on it (Thom Hartmann's ramblings not withstanding).
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)That is why Hillary 's loyalty to the party is so valuable,
American know her values. She is a politician that
believes in the politics of share and caring. (That is what a Dem is)
Hilary will put the American people first, that was what Clinton's
did when they took office, that is why America did so well.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Does one change their mind on an issue because they've been convinced that they were wrong, or does one still feel exactly the same about the issue, but publicly take the exact opposite position for political expediency. People generally have a lot of respect for someone who does the former, and virtually none for someone who does the latter.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that Clinton does believe in putting the American people first. Do you believe that Sanders and O'Malley do not?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)What we know of Sanders, is that he sat in the Senate for years;
working only 620,000. : He has not been leader, he could
have entered the national debate long ago: he chose
to play it safe, and let the Obama's and Clinton's and other
Dem's do his fighting.
Sanders is a good Senator for his state, he is not experience
in dealing with many parties at one time.
He has only dealt with mostly liberals in his state.
Even Hillary, will have to have Obama help to get elected, it will
take a team effort.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)you're support for Clinton and opposition to Sanders and O'Malley aren't really based in policy, it's about political pragmatism. You support Clinton over Sanders and O'Malley not because of specific policies and plans, but because you believe she can win.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)American people trust and want Her to be President
Kevin from WI
(184 posts)You must really love the status quo.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts):
They only way system changes is through power,: you
have to have a seat at the table, to get a say in things,
Lincoln's first rule in politics " is survival": Lincoln gave a lot of great speeches
and he was right but that didn't get him elected.
Hillary is loyal Dem that can get elected, she will
sign any Bill the Dem's can get the votes for: She
is not an ideologue
Attacking her is like the Dem shooting themselves in the foot,
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)working class!
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Bashing Dem's is something the GOP do, why if you are fighting
evil, are helping the GOP
I am progressive, using words like evil, it just an over stuffed adjective
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)She is a person with her heart in the right place
This statement that Hillary is captivated comes from Bernie people,
Jeff Santos a talk show host who just got kicked out
of Chicago.
Good Riddance: GO Hillary
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)DLC, was smart for its time, and successful, it
lead to one of the most successful Administrations in
history: The Clinton's Administration
Go Hillary
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Sorry, I loved the Clintons they were great when they were in
office: Not perfect! but good!
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Kevin from WI
(184 posts)I think your definition of progressive is different than mine.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)
Kevin from WI
(184 posts)If you think Hillary is a progressive. Why are you doing the GOP's work to smear Bernie Sanders. Could it be that you are scared of something?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)against Sanders, that I'm sure will come later after he wins the primaries. Right now, the attacks are coming from the Third Way. Two of the founders of the Third Way went after Warren in a stupid personal attack they published in the WSJ. The backlash was intense, however we got to see them out in the open for a change and what we say only confirmed how necessary it is to prevent them from getting any more power in our party.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)One of the most consumer friendly pieces of legislation in the past decade was introduced in the U.S. Senate this week. In a bipartisan move, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and John McCain introduced legislation that would re-institute the Glass-Steagall Act.
The problem? Its chances of passing lie somewhere between slim and none.
http://theweek.com/articles/461982/does-america-need-21st-century-glasssteagall-act
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is gearing up for some "financial rabble-rousing," said Kevin Roose at New York. Last week, she introduced a bill that would force big banks to split apart their commercial and investment banking operations. Dubbed the "21st Century Glass-Steagall Act" because it reinstates key provisions of the repealed 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, the bill aims to "make the entire banking system safer and less crisis-prone" by shrinking big banks and making it harder for those with federally insured deposits to engage in "risky stuff." Even with the co-sponsorship of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the bill has "virtually no chance of passing," but that's not Warren's true aim; she's really playing a "long game" of convincing legislators that "on issues involving Wall Street, the center isn't where you think it is." A shift in the political consensus "will do much more damage to Wall Street in the long term than simply breaking up a few banks."
This legislation would achieve nothing, said Matthew C. Klein at Bloomberg. It's based on the myth that combining commercial and investment banking caused the financial crisis, and that future crises can be warded off by "enforcing a hard separation" between "boring" banking and "dangerous" banking. But wait a minute. "Countrywide, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, and IndyMac were all 'boring' lenders that managed to fail spectacularly." Boring banks can take foolish risks, too. If Warren's "quixotic" campaign is designed only "to expand the debate about banking regulation," fine. But it would be more effective to insist that banks have enough equity to cover all their bets.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)rule in place now, essentially do what G-S would purportedly accomplish.
We always look for some simple explanation for things like the great recession. It's more complex than people like Warren, Sanders, and their supporters try to make it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)I try very hard not to have my own set of facts.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 20, 2015, 09:52 AM - Edit history (1)
of "facts," as opposed to a set of facts that is available to everyone. I try not to do that. As to whether Bernie and Warren have their own personal set of facts, I can't say. However, so far, that has not be proven to be the case about either of them, as far as I know. Your putting "facts" in quotation marks doesn't change that.
As far as citing specific facts, you made the initial blanket statement that everything that was in Glass Steagall has been, in essence, totally replaced by other laws. Why don't you go ahead and cite the facts that prove your own statement, since it was the original one and is suspect on its face?
(FYI: the Volcker Rule is part of Dodd Frank, not in addition to it.)
Also, you should probably work the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 into your analysis of facts, as that was also a huge contributor to the 2008 economic collaspse of several countries.
ETA: FWIW, O'Malley also calls for reinstatement of Glass Steagall, although he doesn't have a vote on the matter.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/21/1372360/-Martin-O-Malley-Reinstate-Glass-Steagall-Break-up-the-Banks
As far as Democratic Presidential candidates go, that leaves only Hillary,, who may have her own reasons. (Correction: I don't actually know where Chafee and Webb stand on this, but neither of them has registered much in polls yet or generated much enthusiasm among voters.)
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Of course Sanders is going to support this bill.
We're going to keep roaring.
Initech
(100,054 posts)
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Sanders votes “no” on a bill to undo decades of financial regulations enacted after the Great Depression. “This legislation,” he predicts at the time, “will lead to fewer banks and financial service providers, increased charges and fees for individual consumers and small businesses, diminished credit for rural America and taxpayer exposure to potential losses should a financial conglomerate fail. It will lead to more mega-mergers, a small number of corporations dominating the financial service industry and further concentration of power in our country.” The House passed the bill 362-57 over Sanders’ objection.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/38fytr/november_1999_bernie_sanders_voted_against_the/
I think the video of his speech is somewhere on DU as well.
Greenspan and Bubba were on a mission to get the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, aka Gramm, Leach, Blilely passed, and as to the Clinton White House, passed with a "veto-proof majority" to which Bubba could--and would, and did--point when the consequences of repeal hit the fan. Ditto the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000, to which many attribute crap mortgage derivatives and credit default swaps. (Sanders voted for the CFMA, but before the Senate compromise that made it dangerous to the economy.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778045
However, Sanders has been on the correct side of history more often than Dorgan.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)No doubt about that. My point was that people tend to get selectively deaf depending on who is delivering the message. Could have been more clear on that.
Edited to add: I'm solidly in Bernie's camp!
merrily
(45,251 posts)extreme RW. More of a mix. For example, he was a proponent of net neutrality.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)about major issues do get ignored. I remember listening to Dorgan's speech warning against deregulation and airc, he predicted what would happen in ten years IF Glass Steagal was rescinded.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)All peas in a pod.
yourout
(7,526 posts)To late now.
blackspade
(10,056 posts) polichick
(37,152 posts)
lark
(23,078 posts)He does the right things for the right reasons and always tells the truth. 
senz
(11,945 posts)Doesn't matter if he self-identifies as an Independent; all this means is he asserts independence from non-Democratic influence.
If we had kept Glass-Steagall in its entirety, the recession might have been aborted or, at the least, much milder. Sanders and Warren have the best interests of the nation (i.e., the American people) at heart. I know I can trust them.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)country this would be if Congress had a majority of actual Democrats like them?
senz
(11,945 posts)Anyone who does not favor that is not, imho, much of an American.
MelungeonWoman
(502 posts)
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Joe Chi Minh
(15,229 posts)the banksters and their employees on Capitol Hill have repudiated it should suffice to commend it
daybranch
(1,309 posts)The words liberals is associated with social reform and equal justice, whereas the term progressive in today's context is associated with instilling Franklin Roosevelt principles of a government run for the benefit of the people. Both Bernie and Elizabeth are progressives who stand with the people. Hillary supporters should ask themselves where Hillary stands on this legislation and why.
