HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » FourScore » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Thu Mar 16, 2006, 03:07 PM
Number of posts: 9,704

Journal Archives

Bernie Sanders "comes clean" about his paid speaking fees

Bernie Sanders "comes clean" about his paid speaking fees
By Auburn Parks
Wednesday Jan 27, 2016 · 11:53 AM EST

So I put up a diary the other day letting the Kossacks know about the amount of money HRC has personally made from speaking fees to the health care industry in the last couple of years ($2.85 Million). I commented that this amount of corruption and bribery is reason enough not to trust or vote for her in the primary. Well, it turns out that Bernie also made money from speaking fees over the last couple of years. This is from NYT article in May of 2015 by Francis Clines “Bernie Sanders Comes Clean:

Voters should be grateful for the government transparency laws that required Senator Bernie Sanders, a rival to Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, to reveal how much he made last year in speaking engagement fees. The total is $1,867.42 for three appearances, a grand sum that is chump change in presidential politicking but enough for the senator to respectably donate the money to charity.

Thats right, Bernie has been bought too. He is “owned” by Bill Maher to the tune of $850.

Top dollar for Senator Sanders was a not so hefty $850 paid for a combative exchange with Republican sympathizers on “Real Time With Bill Maher,” the HBO show where the comedian regularly invites politicians to march to a different drummer.

So both Clinton and Sanders have used their positions as elected leaders to receive money for speaking publicly. HRC has made millions and Sanders made thousands which he then gave away. I guess the Clintons really are better capitalists then Bernie, maybe thats why they have the support of so many rich and powerful corporations and people (but then I repeat myself cause corporations and people are apparently the same in modern America


The Disturbing Truth Behind Bernie's "Negative Ad" on Wall Street (with Poll)

The Disturbing Truth Behind Bernie's "Negative Ad" on Wall Street
By EuroYankee
Saturday Jan 16, 2016 9:38 AM EST

The Revolving Door of obscene and disgraceful Wall Street-White House Careers

On the Rachel Maddow show on January 14, Hillary Clinton tried to defend her attacking Bernie Sanders for running a so-called “negative ad” about Wall Street, and what Bernie sees as two different attitudes towards Wall Street that exist within the Democratic Party. In her interview with Rachel, Hillary says the following:

So, what I think people reacted to is that it was a very broad assertion that caught up all Democrats. I mean, basically, it`s also a very direct criticism of President Obama, who you may recall took a lot of funding from the financial industry when he ran in 2008. That didn’t stop him for fighting for the hardest regulations on Wall Street since the Great Depression, signing Dodd/Frank, getting everything he could get out of the Congress at the time.

So, there is a difference. I think that, you know, the president and many Democrats who support Dodd/Frank, we are fighting to prevent it from being turned back and eviscerated by the Republicans, you know, are saying, wait a minute, this is hard work. And what the president got done and what the Democrats who stood with him got done is a pretty important accomplishment if we`re going to rein in the excesses on Wall Street.

Firstly, Bernie is not talking about “all Democrats.” He is referring to the Democratic Leadership Council and the New Democrat Coalition, the “corporatist” Democratic Establishment who have been the tools of Wall Street for the past 35 years. And in doing this he is most definitely referring to Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and yes, even Barack Obama.

Secondly, Dodd-Frank does not go nearly far enough in regulating Wall Street. Chris Dodd (my own former Senator) was the very embodiment of a corrupt Wall Street dominated political class. He was in bed with Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide and got sweetheart mortgage loans from Countrywide as part of the “Friends of Angelo” program.

Barney Frank, for his part, has joined the revolving door club and has now taken a lucrative position on the Board of a $29 Billion Wall Street bank.

But forget Dodd-Frank. Let’s look at Obama and what he did and did not do. Obviously, Obama signed the Dodd-Frank bill. Good for him, but Presidents do not make laws. They DO have the SEC, and under Obama the SEC has been toothless and weak, as expressed in a letter of outrage by Sen. Elizabeth Warren to Mary Jo White, Obama’s choice to head up the SEC. According to an article in The New Republic entitled Democrats Are Fed Up with the SEC’s Weak Financial Crimefighting:

Enforcement, where White at least had some background, has been even more unsatisfactory, with White ignoring pervasive misconduct, tallying up few big cases and often siding with Republican commissioners to lighten punishment. Stein, the more blunt of the two Democrats, has repeatedly spoken publicly against the agency waiving automatic penalties for companies convicted of criminal fraud, most recently for Deutsche Bank after they pled guilty to rigging the benchmark LIBORinterest rate. “It was a complete criminal fraud upon the worldwide marketplace,” Stein said, yet Deutsche Bank was allowed to retain business lines they are supposed to lose after criminal convictions.

Presidents also have the power to prosecute through the FBI. But Obama chose Eric Holder as Attorney General, and Holder has built a reputation on being reluctant to prosecute important bank executives. Indeed, the so-called “Holder Doctrine” of protecting banksters who commit crimes dates back to a 1999 memo that he wrote as Deputy Attorney General in which he set out the precepts for the Holder Doctrine. Let’s see … who was President when Holder came up with that idea to not prosecute Wall Street criminals? That’s right — none other than Bill Clinton.

So while Bush may have given us “too big to fail” it was Clinton and Obama who gave us “too big to jail.”

When it comes to Wall Street, Bill Clinton embodied the right-leaning Democratic Leadership Council and the New Democrat Coalition — the ones who wanted to play ball with Wall Street rather than manage and regulate them. We all know that Clinton supported and pushed for Wall Street deregulation. He kept on the Ayn Rand loving Reagan appointee Alan Greenspan at the Fed. THAT should have been a red flag. Why on earth would a “progressive” Democrat want the same Fed Chairman as his supply-side ultra conservative predecessor? I will tell you why: because the DLC was pro-corporatist and pro-Big Money interests, and that is what Bernie is talking about in his ad.

But let’s get back to Obama. To say that Obama’s taking money from Wall Street interests did not prevent him from going after those interests is pure HOOEY. The two Obama Administrations have been well-populated with Goldman Sachs executives, who come through the revolving door that has existed between the White House and Wall Street since the Clinton Administration. Indeed, the practice of putting these bankers in charge of the Treasury and other levers of government has become so routine that banks like Citi, Goldman and MorganStanley actually have career paths structured around “government service” — allowing their executives to hop over to government jobs while still making the obscene amounts of money they would have made had they stayed with the bank.

This practice of putting bankster foxes in charge of the country’s financial henhouse has flourished under Obama. Just look at the overlap between various Democratic Administrations and Goldman Sachs ALONE:
Goldman_Sachs.png The Revolving Door of obscene and disgraceful Wall Street-White House Careers

The Revolving Door of obscene and disgraceful Wall Street-White House Careers

You may not like it, but it is a fact: ever since Bill Clinton and the DLC took over, the Establishment faction of the Democratic Party has become the party of Wall Street, not Main Street.

THIS is what Bernie is talking about in his ad, and he is backing it up with a promise.

In his Wall Street Address on January 5, Bernie stated clearly:

“Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks will not be represented in my administration.”

Voters have a choice: go with the Party Establishment, who will undoubtedly continue to place Goldman Sachs executives in positions of power within their Administrations; continue to coddle bankers and bail them out and protect them from prosecution — or you can join Bernie and support his movement to rein in and reform Wall Street and force the banks to go back to what they are supposed to do, which is to finance and support American businesses and not act solely on their own behalf to build up their own enormous wealth at the expense of the American people.



I couldn't take it anymore...

Bernie Sanders Pulls Ahead in Iowa 47-44 (ARG)

Bernie Sanders Pulls Ahead in Iowa 47-44 (ARG)
By MattTX
Monday Jan 11, 2016 3:03 PM EST

There have been a lot of good polls coming out for Bernie Sanders over the past week. Pollsters stopped polling over the holidays, but now that polling has resumed, it seems clear that Bernie Sanders has re-gained the momentum in the Democratic Primary. As people sat down with family and friends over the holidays, and the discussion turned to politics, something seems to have shifted in the Democratic race.

The latest of those good polls, after the IBD/TIPP poll earlier today that showed a 4 point race nationally, is a new ARG poll of Iowa, which has Sanders ahead in the Iowa Caucuses by 47-44 over Clinton.

The race is tied among Democrats, who make the vast majority (88%) of the sample. Among Independents (No Party), Sanders leads by a whopping 54-30. ARG is assuming that very few independents will go to the caucuses and change their registration on caucus night to vote in the Democratic caucuses, but even so, Sanders is ahead. If there is a surge of independent voters, as in 2008, then Sanders might do even better.

Vote by Party:

Overall Democrats (88%) No party (12%)
Sanders 47% 46% 54%
Clinton 44 46% 30%
O'Malley 3% 3% 7%
Undecided/Other 5% 5% 9%

Moreover, Sanders’ 47-44 lead is assuming a tight likely voter screen with a narrow electorate — if only the most likely voters actually vote (people who said they would definitely vote). But if more people vote, then Sanders’ lead goes up by even more, because he leads by 49-42 among people who said they would probably vote. So the larger the electorate, the better Sanders is likely to do:

Likelihood to Vote:
Overall Definite - 10 (81%) Probably - 7-9 (19%)
Sanders 47% 47% 49%
Clinton 44% 44% 42%
O'Malley 3% 3% 3%
Undecided/Other 5% 5% 6%

The race is basically tied (Clinton leads by a single point) among voters contacted by landlines. The poll is mostly counting landline voters (64% of the sample). But Sanders has a big lead among voters contacted by cell phones. Including just a small number of cell phone only voters is enough to knock Sanders into the lead:

Method of Contact:
Overall Landline (64%) Cell phone/other (36%)
Sanders 47% 46% 49%
Clinton 44% 47% 40%
O'Malley 3% 2% 5%
Undecided/Other 5% 5% 6%

Sanders clearly excites young voters, and he has a big lead with voters under 50. However, he is not doing terribly by any stretch of the imagination among older voters in Iowa either. It takes longer for older voters to get to know Sanders, perhaps because they use the internet less, but in Iowa, where Sanders is barnstorming the state, he is picking up ground among older voters the more that they see him.

The poll is *NOT* assuming that young voters will vote in the large numbers they did in 2008. ARG has 41% of the sample as voters age 18-49. According to 2008 exit polls, in the 2008 Iowa Democratic caucuses, voters age 18-44 made up 41% of the electorate — a number that would be higher if voters up to age 49 were included. The electorate ARG envisions is more like that of 2004, (or maybe somewhere in between 2004 and 2008) in terms of age. In 2004 exit polls, 32% of voters were age 18-44 (again, it would be more if ages 45-49 were included, as in the ARG sample). So if the electorate is like in 2004, Sanders should do fine. But if it is more like in 2008, with more young voters, then Sanders could win Iowa handily, if this poll is right.

Overall 18 to 49 (41%) 50 and older (59%)
Sanders 47% 54% 42%
Clinton 44% 33% 51%
O'Malley 3% 4% 2%
Undecided/Other 5% 9% 5%

There is a significant gender gap. However, Clinton does have the support of a lot of men, and Sanders does have the support of a lot of women. It is not as though all women support Clinton and all men support Sanders:

Overall Male (46%) Female (54%)
Sanders 47% 57% 38%
Clinton 44% 36% 51%
O'Malley 3% 2% 4%
Undecided/Other 5% 5% 7%

More broadly, nationally, Bernie Sanders is clearly gaining ground. The national polling trend shows the rice tightening significantly...

MORE WITH LINKS AT: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/11/1468465/-Bernie-Sanders-Pulls-Ahead-in-Iowa-47-44-ARG

An email I received, filled with good news.

An email I received, filled with good news.
By xxdr zombiexx
Saturday Jan 09, 2016 9:25 AM EST

It’s basically a small story, I guess, but it gets the day off with good news, for a change.

Back in 2006 or so — I cannot remember — I got an email from a lady who was very concerned about a young man she knew. He was described as severely depressed, possibly suicidal, in and out of the hospital. Young, depressed and had gotten busted for pot possession and was not thinking clearly nor in his best interested. She was very concerned.

I have searched for the original emails — I wouldn’t have deleted them, but can’t seem to find them now. I had written up a rather detailed set of “do this and this will happen” scenarios. And I never heard anything else. No big deal: I did what I knew to help and that is that.

Yesterday on disqus a person asked me if I was the “doc zombie from smirkingchim.com’ and I am.

I got the following email, edited to preserve the anonymity of the sender and the subject.

Back in the early 2000s I asked you for some advice to help a friend (a former student of mine) who had just been arrested for the second time for pot possession in Kansas. He had just a couple of weeks left to go on his diversion from the first arrest when he was arrested again. back then he suffered from severe chronic (sometimes suicidal) depression (a major reason why he used pot and couldn't stop using it even long enough to finish that diversion).

He felt so hopeless after being re-arrested that he wasn't even going to get a lawyer or try to get the charges lowered. His parents could afford the lawyer and were willing to help, but he was not even willing to try, nor would he listen to my advice about the matter.

I wrote to you, since you were obviously knowledgeable about marijuana laws and penalties. You might have recognized my name (xxxxxxxx) from posts on smirkingchimp.com discussion threads, but we had not directly interacted and you did not know me at all. Nevertheless, you took the time to offer advice for my friend and to write out detailed explanations of what the different outcomes would be if he had a good lawyer trying to plead down the charges vs. just accepting the second arrest felony conviction and prison time.

For some reason, perhaps because of your obvious expertise in the field, my friend accepted your advice even though he wouldn't listen to me or to his parents. He got a good lawyer and his charges were dropped to a two-misdemeanor conviction.

Thanks to you, he is now, at age 39, a successful lawyer with a very well-regarded firm, as well as a family man with a [young] son and a [new] daughter.

He graduated [near the top] in his law school class, and after submitting character references and proving that he had kept a clean record since his second arrest, he was allowed to take the M — — — bar exam--on which he scored in the top 5%. He had to jump through more hoops for Kansas, including getting his record expunged, before he was allowed to take the K----- bar exam, but he finally did so, and is now licensed to practice in both K and M .

If you had not taken the time to offer such detailed advice, I think he would have spent years in prison--and of course he never would have gone to law school. In fact, I suspect that he would have ended up committing suicide. Like many young people, my friend was able to "outgrow" the worst of his depression by the time he was in his early thirties.

Many depressed young people don't let themselves live long enough to get past the worst effects of their depressive tendencies. Without your help, I think my dear friend would have been one of this unfortunate cases if he had been convicted of a felony, sent to prison, and then trapped in the unforgiving circumstances that our (in)justice system traps ex-felons in, even when their only "crime" is making use of a mild, rather harmless intoxicant.

I don't believe I ever wrote to let you know how his case turned out or to thank you for your help, but that is why I am writing to you now. Thanks.

I am, of course, thrilled to hear this. It could have been a total and needless disaster had he just plead guilty to “get it over with”.

Do try to help others when you can: it’s a really good feeling.

Go to Page: 1