Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Hill"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@888strummer if your really think UBI would have been a winning campaign issue - starting with South Carolina (with super conservative older black voters who I assume watch TV to get the "news" - I have a bridge to sell. Yang has suspended his campaign btw, so what good is stumping for his issue now.
This country cannot even discuss HEALTHCARE rationally .
And THAT is not unchartered territory. Not at all. All other wealthy nations have done it for 70 years (or 50 in the case of Canada and Australia). Highly successful.
also electorally: UBI does not interest people who already get SS (if they have close to 1000, you also have to factor in sales tax. And no if you excempt "staples" you do not raise enough revenue. People do not only buy food, they also need garments, buy cable TV subscriptions, household appliances, shampoo, shaving cream, cosmetics, plants, furniture, phones, they go to the hair salon, etc.
Yang obviously did not want to tax the uber rich. Sales tax on yachts and jewelry will not be enough.
- but you can rely on Corporate media to scare the people shitless who traditionally do turn out to vote. They would get told how UBI would undermine the financing of SS. I do not think the math adds up for financing it - and there would be a new TAX !!!
I am not for VAT (the most regressive tax there is) to finance that, but never mind. If I would agree with all and be totally convinced of the plan and math - UBI still would be a losing issue.
Exhibit A: the Yang campaign. Even if it was an uphill battle, with unfair media treatment, etc - there was no enough spontaneous support among young voters to turn them out. Let's say consistently 5 % and the occasional 10 % of the vote. Just as a life sign.
Also there is no damage done if you want to have UBI and you get it 1 or 2 years later. That does not apply to healthcare or measures against Climate change. it gets MORE EXPENSIVE if that is delayed.
The GND would require LOTS or blue collar jobs. driverless trucks aren't a thing right now and will not for the next 4 years. In that time you can prepare for UBI (as a side issue).
A smart move would be to prepare the necessary database for UBI that DOUBLES as base for EASY voter registration for the whole nation. No more purges "gone wrong". UBI is not the most pressing issue and you cannot do healthcare reform or fighting climate change by half measures. But UBI can be tested in certain regions or for certain amounts.
UBI is a cake walk compared to the most urgent issue: you need the database (O.K. that is a huge undetaking, but a VIRTUAL one) and then you can transfer the money.
delivering medical care, streamlining the insurance system, installing panels happens in the physical world and it includes the need to train people. Much, much more complicated.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
@1massboy Sanders better win with a good margin and high turnout. If they can, they will cheat, especially with voting machines, the DNC CAN refuse a recount (they are a private org only in the general election laws apply). But if the win is decisive they will not dare.
Nevada ?? remember chair throwing and voice calls when they should have counted ??
The caucus states are still safer, they stole the media buzz from winning the first state from Sanders, but they cannot steal the votes - it took them one week but now they are counted. (they can forget about their recount or recanvassing, it is ridiculous anyway 3 % of the National delegates at the convention come from Iowa, in total 41, and Sanders and pete will get 11 each of those 41.
As for cooking the books with a caucus: Too many witnesses, the people that head the meeting have the lists. Photos were made, the Sanders campaign had their own app to report the numbers. (Nevada 2016: hold my beer).
I remember an anectode I read when the outsider unseated the Democratic mayor of Burlington in 1980. (a long time incumbent, and big whig in the VT party, and a Republican Lite).
Votes were counted, it looked surprisingly good for Sanders, the lead shifted back and forth throughout the night - and the civil servants (friends of the mayor) counted the votes behind closed doors. Until some of team Sanders threatened to kick down the door if they would not come out and vote in the open.
Sanders won that race with 18 votes. 10 after the recount.
One of his team from back in the day that was interviewed said: Funky stuff happened that night, no doubt about it.
So Sanders started his career experiencing the shenaigans of the "machine" right from the start. He does not talk about it - but I hope they take it into account.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
WHY got Lucy Flores so much backlash when she DID come out early against Biden not long after he announced to run - with lesser charges. WHY was Tara Reade who uncovered THAT kind of trangression and disregard for boundaries (or simple politeness) at that time subject to online abuse and no one got enraged about Biden bots that hounded her. The other women liklely also got abuse, but because there were so many it stopped soon, and the charges were not so terrible that the Biden campaign stonewalled.
They had to admit not-admit it - explaining it with "Joe is a hands on retail politician, but he means well. Most of media (the "liberal" networks) worked overtime to confirm that narrative. Yeah, Biden behaved "weirdly" but it was harmless, really.
The other women had not that much trauma - it hit home closer to hom for Reade, because she had been violated worse.
WHY was Lucy Flores really lucky that 7 other women (Tara Reade being ONE of them) confirmed inappropriate, entitled behavior of Biden (power trippy with erotic connotations, blatantly ignoring boundaries. Also boundaries of polite or normal behavior.
It had been on display what he does that with little girls and female teenagers, and Biden was not shy to display that behavior in front of their parents and the cameras. And even if he visibly creeped out the teenager - and she did her best to evade his touch leaning away - she just was too polite and overwhelmed to run away from the photo op.
Needless to say Biden did not register or more likely CARE that his advances and his touch was not liked (by a girls he did not know). What I find astonishing: that in all these years his wife or his team did not take him aside and tell him to NOT do that - if only for politicial reasons. That it is not a good look.
They must have given up on correcting him, did not dare to upset him, or knew it was useless because he would not take such advice just because someone said to thim: at best that looks inapprobriate and at worst the GOP could use that in negative ads. Stop it !
The parents in most cases did react correctly. (They did not expect THIS, THEY are polite, do not want to cause a stir, certainly not in the territory of a pwoerful man. They gave him a pass - if any neighbour at a BBQ had taken such liberties with their daughters they would have been rumours, no more invitations, or the man would have been directly confronted.
Joe Biden was saved by surprise, politeness and a certain power hierarchy in combination with brazenly doing suprising things in broad daylight.
Thinking of it: narcissists tests boundaries that way. And then they will tell you how it is all harmless and you are making a lot ado about nothing. One grandfather pulled the child away from Biden when he saw the antics. Did not call him out, but Biden could not do his touchy thing with her.
And it was ALWAYS the girls, or teenage girls that stood in front of Biden on such occasions. He arranged it that way. Seemed innocent enough - but if the family had little boys - it was always the girls that were chosen.
Joe Biden is so brazen in his disregard for norms, and they come or came on HIS territory - new sworn in members of Congress or Senate with their families to make a photo with the VP, or the high ranking long time Senator.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
the Hope and Change campaign worked really well. People lost enthusiasm because Democrats sold them out, see midterms 2010. 2006 Blue wave, 2008 excellent - Obama won with a high margin and I am sure that tide raised some other boats in the Senate and The House as well. After all they had control over all 3 branches of government in 2009 and 2010 and were able to pass ACA (watered down by Republicans and Democrats) in a filibuster proof window of 60 days.
. voters were not too stupid in 2010, they just did not know WHY they would vote for a D in congress or Senate.
2012: Obama won on personal popularity, and some voters kind of hoped he would come around and get into gear in his second term and Romney was not better. So he pulled it off again.
2014: weak midterms again. But the D establishment and the liberal media had a D president so they glossed over 1000 seats on all levels of government lost under Obama.
Many of them still think they can pull the same stunt again.
The parallels with Germany 1930s are unnerving. Not exactely the same, but the behavior of the "elites". Being cowards and opportunistics when they should be bold.
Obama lost his 8 years (the ability to get someithing done) in his pathetic first year. If he had dared (or bothered) to kick ass, the Republicans (and big donor serving Democrats) would not have known what had hit them.
Rallying his Rainbow coalition - he like FDR would have needed to twist some arms behind closed doors. The thing is: as soon as the voters realize the president FIGHTS FOR THEM, he gets a lot of leverage. Over his OWN party. Then the likes of Manchin do not dare to openly resist the president.
The more sane people that disregarded the ugly side of Trump liked / loved him because they perceived him as fighting for them. His erratic behavior (to put it mildly) was not detracting from that, on the contrary it confirmed their view, that he was different and not one of "them". Well that is true, as far as manners and sleek appearances and smooth talking goes - he was not one of "them". Many of "them" are intelligent and educated (if ideological) and w/o integrity - apart from lack of integrity Trump is not like them.
"I voted for Trump in 2016, I knew that he was not great on etiquette. I wanted a bull in the Chinashop. I plan to vote for him again in Nov. 2020".
A black voter in Georgia in January 2020. A Bloomberg feature (black voters in GA in the primaries).
2
-
ONLY on March 12, 2020 the Fed created ! 1,5 TRILLION USD for the speculators on Wallstreet. - an INVESTOR in stocks would be aware of the inevitable economic ups and downs. The downturns in the REAL ECONOMY are cyclic: on average every 8 years - some are mild, some are more severe, and then there is the odd black swan event: Corona virus, 9/11, earthquakes, Fukushima, unexpected war
That's the economy or at least economic expectations that are reflected in share prices.
Plus of course the price drops and corrections when the speculators and crooks overdid it:
Like 2008 - it was a real estate bubble and on top of that a derivate bubble. MANY BETS on the default risk of bundled subprime mortgages. So 100 million in loans defaulting could trigger the financial claims of those that had won their bets big time.
The volume of payments due when the risk manifested (= the loans have defaulted) could be MUCH MORE than only the amount of the loans. That loss was restricted to 100 million - but with the claims of the bets (derivates) it could be 20, 80, 100, 200 millions due for the won bets - additionally to the losses of the loans.
The risk in the SYSTEM multiplied because of derivates (thanks Bill Clinton, and Alan Greenspan, they very actively undermined the last stop and regulatory oversight to insane speculation. See the story of Brooksley Bourne and the agency she chaired).
you should also know that the big actors do not need to HAVE the money to buy shares or place their bets (it is worse with the bets = derivates. With shares there is at least SOME tie to the real economy). At most they need a deposit of 10 %, but large actors (buying derivates !) need ZERO downpayment. So when something unexpected happens (a major earthquake in Japan) they are completely leveraged and of course do not have the money to "honor" their obligations of the unexepected HIGH loss.
2
-
There is NO GOOD REASON for the ONGOING BAILOUTS - to the tune of TRILLIONS. With money CREATED by the Fed - thanks to Frank Dodd they can do that w/o even asking Congress for approval (the discussion could draw attention of the voters or one politician blows the whistle.
Note: Fed = chair appointed by presdient (usually financed by the big donors incl. big finance) and the board is staffed by the too big to fail banks.
They sure work for the common citizen ....
No one explains the public what is going on, the media personalites that have not fallen for neoliberal gibberish and are even among the few that understand - belong to the 20 % of U.S. citizens that do have stocks. along with their collegues that mindlessly regurgitate the talking points.
Their employers (the owners of the big networks) are the big fish in the market (the network is traded, and the owners are heavily invested in stocks). So they will not call a spade a spade even if they do not fall for the gibberish. Typical jargon: How the Fed used "QE" = Quantitative easing to provide "liquidity" for the "markets". They magicked up money with a few keystrokes to save the speculators would be the accurate description, but that might not go unnoticed by the citizens. Who at least formally have the vote in this "democracy".
How are we gonna pay for it ? - is the question that is never asked when it comes to war, military contracts. That kind of spending is typically funded by bonds = government debt. So at least it shows up, is TALKED about and is a budget Congress must approve.
Bonds are another way to finance governments (or companies, there are company bonds as well). It works for the U.S. government bonds as long as China and Saudi Arabia are willing to buy these bonds (and do not throw the large volumes they already have on the market).
But that kind of money creation / scheme is at least visible as debt.
If citizens would REALIZE that the Fed already ! creates the trillions for the speculators by another mechanism - and that they could create the TRILLIONS to deal with the corona crisis now (or for a GND, or a federal jobs program) - the arguments for austerity and the need to cut SS etc. would be debunked, once and for all.
The money issued for a national economy should be proportional what that economy PRODUCES. That tie has been severed in the last 40 years anyway. But the money creation does not result in hpyerinflation. Because the money lands on the accounts of a few very rich people that do not spend it. it just gives them undue power, they can easily buy up all interesting companies, patents, real estate.
Throw around 500 millions in a vanity run for president, Bloomberg did no honor his promise to staff that he would keep and pay them till Now. Nor does he NOW engage in charities. Or in an ad campaign to debunk what trump does (or neglects to do).
The goal was always to be the big donor friendly alternative to Biden and to prevent Sanders. Now that the party establishment seems to have resurrected Biden - bloomberg is good, no need to spend any of his millions, let alone billions. He got a good beating by Warren, so his ego may have suffered a little bit, but if Sanders does not become president it is: Mission accomplished, he does not care much if Trump of Biden becomes prez.
In theory there is another mechanism for money creation: printing banknotes and minting coins (but that is a tiny ! part of the money we use, even the part with the highest availabilaity (M1 money volume)
Plus of course FIAT money: commercial banks creating money every time they give out a loan. That's the standard way to finance the economy. But: banks are legally obliged to have a little bit of the volume of loans in form of capital. Either money from the large shareholders or the deposits (that in a weird way become the capital of the bank, meaning if the bank goes bankrupt that deposit is lost as well. As opposed when you use the facilities of the bank to store precious things - these valuables remain you property and if the banks goes under these things still belong to you. Same if you have an account to handle stocks, investment funds or shares. That remains the property of the client.
Only when you hand over money for safekeeping it is different.
2
-
It is not even hard to make the Corona crisis stress free for citizens and small and medium sized businesses. It is a political priority that the peasants do not understand the undeserved advantages (with a lot of moral hazard baked into the scheme) that the top predators in our economic system have.
Creating money for the citizens could also be done (to a degree and prudently) by creating jobs and VALUE IN the U.S.
If used for infrastructure, for a Green New Deal, for the transition costs to get to Medicare for All (the cost savings will not all manifest immediately and there are transition costs other countries with an already well established single payer system do not have. So spending per person will not drop to half right away. There is a backlog, like the Opiode crisis or the ill adjusted diabetes patients (people who ration insuline because of insane prices - which is a medical human and financial catastrophe).
Or underservedd prison population (the largest in the world, in absolute numbers and per capita).
JFK planned to have a solution for mentally ill persons. Never got around to it.
Companies who in the past launched a PART of their shares on the stock exchange got paid for it (back in the day). If NOW those shares go up or down - that does not affect them doing biz.
They may be hindered by circumstances (and that may show up in the share price) - but they are NOT hindred or promoted BY the share price. That is always secondary.
the famous investor André Kostolany: The economy is the man that goes from A to B in a purposeful and determined, and steady way. The stock exchange is the dog that runs around, sometimes ahead, sometimes lagging back, or in the bushes, but in the end man and dog arrive at B - and usually around the same time.
My take: the man is the main act, he does not need the dog to get from A to B. The dog on the other hand wouldn't make the journey from A to B - it would just aimlessly frolick around.
Share prices go even down for good companies during a sharp price correction / drop - and if the economic prospects are worse than in January 2020 of course share prices go down.
So what ? They'll recover.
But even if a company goes bust - and is doing so badly it is not rescued - that should be only a small sliver of a well diversified portfolio (shares, bonds, precious metals, real estate, art, ....) of a PRUDENT INVESTOR.
As opposed to speculators. Who do nothing to help with investments for the real economy and should not be encouraged, bailed out - on the contrary.
2
-
In theory the stock exchange and the possibilty to sell shares in an IPO should be another ! way to finance companies. - think: A lot of fundamentals and only a little hype.
The reality: the stock exchange has always been a casino for the rich to increase their fortunes. That is going on for more than 200 years (see 1815 battle of Waterloo, London which then was the most important stock exchange in the world).
Inevitably prudence (with a hint of speculation to make things more interesting - and lucrative and in the short term !) descended into pure specualtion. In REGULAR cycles followed by a crash.
Before 2008 the crash was in 2000, but the dot com bubble did not affect the public as much, the speculators and wanna be investors took a hit (a lot of harebrained schemes were hyped up, and the anylysts often knew that the start ups were not good but recommended them anyway. it was a frenzy).
So after that they licked their wounds - and jumped on "solid" real estate. Garnished with derivatives to make the real estate bubble (a major U.S. problem but manageable) toxic for a major part of the global financial system.
See the PBS documentary: The Crash from 1999 or so. In hindsight, in the 1990s the speculators did the rehearsals for 2008 / 2009 - and they already got bailouts then.
Since the 1990s there has been increasing government intervention to protect the speculators from the negative effects of their risk taking (and likely a lot of rigging).
That would ONLY play a role if they intended to sell them. They wouldn't do that now - also considering that the interest rates were slashed and they can get VERY cheap loans.
And make no mistake: companies that are large enough to be traded on the stock exchange, do their lobbying THEY get the loans guaranteed by the government, the subsidies, bailouts, extra tax cuts. Especially if a whole industry is in trouble !
The stock exchange was overdue for a course correction, and an economic downturn was expected. Everyone knew it, the stock market had been inflated by stock buybacks (Trump tax cut among other things).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Shotround Jane managing the college (reinventing itself as high end private insitution of learning) wasn't a succes. To be sure: many small colleges tried the same at that time (offering very nice facilites and attracting also foreign students) and failed as well.
That approach works for the colleges that already have a well established reputation, not so much for the smaller colleges that tried to position themselves in the high end niche.
Jane Sanders (and Bernie) are not good fundraisers when it comes to the big bucks. If Sanders had been a standard Democrat he might have been helpful to direct a lot of cash towards the college. For some favors of course. But they depended on real charity and that was not enough.
The Great Financial Crisis did not help either.
But the college went under years after she left. There is no there, there. Jane got cleared in the FBI investigation (in 2016 if I remember correctly). A Republican from Vermont triggered that: accusation that she misrerpesented the donation pledges to get the loan to buy some beautiful real estate that the Catholic Church wanted to sell (Jane, went to a Catholic school, it is possible that they have closer relations and that their wish to sell that property triggered the whole idea to use it as place to set up the Burlington college all shiny and new).
The plan was to establish a first class small private college there.
The Catholic church that sold the property missed out on some money for the deal and the bank (or credit union) did too. (the property was sold after the college closed, and I think at good terms).
But the loss wasn't too bad and they are not complaining. And if Jane exaggerated the donation pledges, they can't prove that, I am not sure if the (prospective) donors are even still alive, and if so they will not testify against Jane Sanders.
She got a salary and a severance that is typical (in my opinion she should not have taken the severance, but whatever). They will not get Jane Sanders on that (let alone Bernie HE runs for office). Jane did not have a no-show job, and it is small change compared to the corruption of the Biden and Trump family.
Biden's family made HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS and over MANY YEARS.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@geerowr.6666 John Lewis did not LIE, he said I can't remember seeing Bernie. Which was a stupid thing to say, but not a lie and he quickly backpaddeled once he was called out. Sanders never claimed that he was a big number, "I did my part in Chicago, the people in the south had the much more dangerous work...."
Of course Lewis did not know him, he WAS in the South doing the dangerous things.
And the March on Washington was a big event, lots of people he can't have seen all of them.
Maybe it was an offhand remark, that was amplified.
My theory John Lewis changed his endorsement to Obama (and so did many of the black caucus), as Civil Rights legend he was "forgiven" for that misstep by the Clinton machine but in 2015 / 2016 he had to deliver.
So a little jab against Sanders.
Or maybe Lewis thought Sanders used the CRM as token and it rubbed him the wrong way. If so he was not considering the context.
Sanders had to make his case.
Because he did surprisingly well in the early white states (and comes from a white state) and did not have much support with minorities (of course not he had no name recognition and
Clinton had a lot) he was presented as racially insensitive, only interested in the white working class.
Luckily for Sandes those old photos and articles existend. They would have painted him as "almost" a racist if they could have.
Never mind that in 2008 Clinton once talked about the White working class, they used dog whistles against the Obama campaign and she was a Goldwater girl - as teenager, but still.
Not to forget the dog whistley against "young predators, no conscience no empathy, ... we can talk about why they have become that way, but before we must get them to heel.
somehow neither the Biden's nor the Clintons used their platform EVER to talk about why they have become that way. Or why the Crime bill produced so devastating effects.
Biden told stories about his alleged fight against segregation when running in 1988, many lies and those too ended his presidential bid then. He kept silent on that for 20 years and only recently on the campaign trail started bringing up those anectodes. As if he had FORGOTTEN he had already admitted that these tales are not true (he did that when he dropped out in 1988 - I was not engaged in the Civil Rights fight. I supported them in spirit. In other words the stories he had told were not true).
If HRC would have had a record like Sanders regarding the good fight, she and media would have trodden it out. So there is a double standard and I think Lewis has arranged himself with the establishment.
Lewis knows these things of course, so there is some double standard and willingness to appease the party.
But he did not outright lie, and the jab was not too bad.
2
-
@havable Thanks, I also heard the "his is a civil rights icon" and took it at face value. So he was smart enough to CREATE THAT IMPRESSION, but never had to take any risks. Yep, sounds about right. - And with black history it is kind of hard to call him out on that. - Dude is old though, so one can hope a progressive is on standby to jump in the moment he has to retire or he passes away.
Frankly - it would be no loss. The job is routine, he made good money as representative, plus no doubt some indirect perks and kick backs (think lucrative real estate deals for instance. if that is handled around a few corners no one can prove that the too low purchase price or the too high sales price is a bribe. As long as they stay plausible. Some "renovations" can also provide cover. Then there are lucrative jobs for family members.
HE and his family get government subsidized healthcare and it is good.
Imagine being that old and still screwing your fellow citizens - same for Joe Biden, Pelosi, Schumer. I get the motive of Biden, he wants to make money - or his wife wants to. But Pelosi and Schumer are fairly old and rich, they might only have a few years and how do they spend them ?
2
-
2
-
@calibre00 Global death stats are going up for OTHER reasons for death ? Othere than CoVid-19 ?? Citation needed. You are making that up. Doctors in Germany, Israel, Peru, Canada, Russia .. are told to cook the statistics, really ?
.... Riiite ...
Rightwingers as so desperate to find "arguments" why the most obvious no-brainer solution during a pandemic (vaccination) is bad that no logical fallacy is inconsistent enough to make them pause.
How exactely does it work to force / nudge the doctors of Denmark, New Zealand, Japan, Russia, China, or Switzerland adopting ALL the same policy.The Russians and Chinese have a non-profit version of the vaccine. it is good to have one, but if a cheap patent free durg does the trick the Chinese government would not mind using that either.
The Cubans have developed their own vaccine, as well. They are desperate to get the raw materials despite the economic sanctions. One would think they would see to import Ivermectin and be done with it - IF that would be a solution.
The recent protests also had to do with Cubans WANTING to get vaccines.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2