The Panama Papers could hand Bernie Sanders the presidency
Matthew Turner
30 minutes ago
The revelation that the rich and wealthy are shovelling money in overseas tax havens is not a particularly surprising one. Nevertheless, the sheer scale of the 11.5 million document leak from Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca has whipped up an overdue storm and forced the issue of tax justice back on the agenda. It is likely that the Panama papers is just the tip of the iceberg, and if even more is revealed about the financial affairs of world leaders, the implication for global politics will be huge.
The Democratic presidential primaries in the US have been characterised by surging anger at the global elite. The Panama papers scandal will only fuel popular indignation at the actions of perceived establishment figures those who have stood idly by and allowed this huge miscarriage of justice to take place.
Although there have been no major American casualties over the leak at this stage, all of the presidential candidates will be questioned about the scandal. And nobody is going to be under more pressure than Hillary Clinton. For some Americans, she is the embodiment of a global elite, while Bernie Sanders is its antithesis.The huge leak exposes governments across the globe wilfully ignoring tax avoidance by the rich. Although Clinton has not been linked to any malfeasance in the leak, there is a sense that she is among the elite rich, some of whose members have benefited from such schemes.
It has been revealed Clinton pushed through the Panama Free Trade Deal at the same time that Sanders vocally opposed it, citing research warning that it would strictly limit the governments ability to clamp down on questionable or even illegal activity. Even if the Clintons remain unmentioned in future tax bombshells, Sanders can continue to exploit the narrative that Clinton is part of the demographic responsible, and has assisted in flagrant abuses of the system through trade deals.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-panama-papers-could-hand-bernie-sanders-the-keys-to-the-white-house-a6969481.html
trumad
(41,692 posts)It will be over soon.
Then I won't have to read this tripe.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)trumad
(41,692 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)supported and pushed for is inconsequential as long as she wins and can do more
of the same?
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)cuff her and stuff her or will they let her surrender peacefully?
Roland99
(53,342 posts)What are we at now? Day 70?
trumad
(41,692 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Just a year-long investigation with pending interviews that isn't going to be wrapped up anytime soon. Not to worry though. The delay is likely because Comey can't secure reservations to whatever fancy restaurant he plans to take Mrs. Clinton out to so he can exonerate her and apologize profusely for the inconvenience.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Isn't that a cute headline, probably as cute as the fashion articles, but it doesn't sound like un-opinionated news to me.
No thanks, I read the news and form my own opinions. I don't let anyone lead me around by my cumberbun.
P.S. You don't want to know what the verb form of cumberbun means. I looked up cumberbun when DU's spell check underlined it... you learn something new every day.
P. P. S. I wonder if Esquire knows about the verb form of cumberbun?
trumad
(41,692 posts)One of the greatest political writers on the planet.
Wow! Can't even believe you wrote that shit.
Jackilope
(819 posts)Ostriches have it right. Stick your head in the sand and the problem goes away.
We can't be bothered with the wealthy and abuses from the ruling class. All that is important is that HRC WIN. The other silly stuff like truly reining in abuse and a few trillion of lost taxes doesn't matter. We know she and The Clinton Foundation could never be involved or have ties to that boring multiple page list of evaders because she is a "real" Democrat or whatever the enabling ostrich perspective of the day is.
Being in the dark, where foresight or even where the big money comes from has to be good, because HRC says so, right?
trumad
(41,692 posts)Jackilope
(819 posts)Thank you for great analogy! Voting for HRC is like hitting the snooze button on real reform.
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)Soon. Very soon
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)Hillary has it in the bag. No need to do anything but sip your cocktail and stretch out on the chaise lounge and...go to sleep...go gently to sleep...so comfortable, so delicious...don't worry about a thing...we Bernie supporters will take care of everything...sleep, now...
Mother Of Four
(1,716 posts)Can I use this when they go all snarky with the ZZzzzzzzz's and the "Yawn!" posts?
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)One can only denounce video proof, not to mention public record and the continual spin for so long.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)This is what is referred to as a Teachable Moment.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)Come to think of it, Hillary supporters might actually like it when Hillary lies, perhaps responding with:
"Lie to me, again, Hillary, it excites me so very much!! Aw, yes, YES!!!!"
frylock
(34,825 posts)amirite? Just GO TEAM!!!
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)WASHINGTON Congress passed three long-awaited free trade agreements on Wednesday, ending a political standoff that has stretched across two presidencies. The move offered a rare moment of bipartisan accord at a time when Republicans and Democrats are bitterly divided over the role that government ought to play in reviving the sputtering economy.
The approval of the deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama is a victory for President Obama and proponents of the view that foreign trade can drive Americas economic growth in the face of rising protectionist sentiment in both political parties. They are the first trade agreements to pass Congress since Democrats broke a decade of Republican control in 2007.
All three agreements cleared both chambers with overwhelming Republican support just one day after Senate Republicans prevented action on Mr. Obamas jobs bill.
The passage of the trade deals is important primarily as a political achievement, and for its foreign policy value in solidifying relationships with strategic allies. The economic benefits are projected to be small. A federal agency estimated in 2007 that the impact on employment would be negligible and that the deals would increase gross domestic product by about $14.4 billion, or roughly 0.1 percent.
The House voted to pass the Colombia measure, the most controversial of the three deals because of concerns about the treatment of unions in that country, 262 to 167; the Panama measure passed 300 to 129, and the agreement concerning South Korea passed 278 to 151. The votes reflected a clear partisan divide, with many Democrats voting against the president. In the Senate, the Colombia measure passed 66 to 33, the Panama bill succeeded 77 to 22 and the South Korea measure passed 83 to 15. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, voted against all three measures.
The House also passed a measure to expand a benefits program for workers who lose jobs to foreign competition by a vote of 307 to 122. The benefits program, a must-have for labor unions, passed with strong Democratic support. The Senate previously approved the measure.
Proponents of the trade deals, including Mr. Obama, Republican leaders and centrist Democrats, predict that they will reduce prices for American consumers and increase foreign sales of American goods and services, providing a much-needed jolt to the sluggish economy.
At long last, we are going to do something important for the country on a bipartisan basis, said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader.
However, Mr. Obamas support for the measures has angered important parts of his political base, including trade unions, which fear job losses to foreign competition. Many Democrats took to the House floor Wednesday to speak in opposition to the deals.
What I am seeing firsthand is devastation that these free trade agreements can do to our communities, said Representative Mike Michaud, a Maine Democrat who once worked in a paper mill.
Both chambers raced to approve the deals before a joint Congressional session Thursday with the South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak.
The revival of support for the deals, originally negotiated by the Bush administration five years ago, comes at a paradoxical political moment, when both conservative Republicans and the Occupy Wall Street protesters have taken antitrade positions, albeit for different reasons. In a debate among Republican presidential candidates Tuesday night, Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, accused China of manipulating the value of its currency to flood the United states with cheap goods, while populist sentiment on the left opposes the trade agreements because of the potential for American job losses.
Mr. Obama cited similar concerns in criticizing the agreements during the 2008 presidential campaign, but he later embraced the deals as a key part of his agenda to revive the economy. To win Democratic support, the White House reopened negotiations with the three countries to make changes demanded by industry groups and unions, and insisted that the expansion of benefits for displaced workers be tied to passage of the trade agreements.
The benefits program was expanded in 2009 to include workers in service industries as well as manufacturing. The compromise negotiated this summer between the White House, House Republicans and Senate Democrats preserves most of the funding for the program.
Increased protections for American automakers in the South Korea deal won the support of traditional opponents of trade deals, including some Midwestern Democrats and the United Automobile Workers union. But scores of Democrats opposed the deal with Colombia, because they said it did not do enough to address the murders of dozens of union organizers in that country.
Trade agreements should not be measured solely on how many tons of goods move across the border, said Representative Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat.
Economists generally predict that free trade agreements, which eliminate tariffs and other policies aimed at protecting domestic manufacturers, benefit all participating nations by creating a larger common market, increasing sales and reducing prices. But such deals also create clear losers, as workers lose well-paid jobs to foreign competition.
The White House and Republican leaders said that the three agreements would provide a big boost to the lagging American economy and put people back to work.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton hailed the deals Wednesday as an important victory for American foreign policy. And she said she expected that the South Korea pact alone would create 70,000 American jobs. By opening new markets to American exports and attracting new investments to American communities, our economic statecraft is creating jobs and spurring growth here at home, Ms. Clinton said at a Washington event.
But the United States International Trade Commission, a federal agency that analyzed the deals in 2007, reported that that economic impact would be minimal because the three countries combined represent a relatively small market for American goods and services.
The modest projected increase in demand will come mostly from South Korea, the worlds 14th-largest economy, which will join a short list of developed nations that have free trade pacts with the United States, alongside Australia, Canada, Israel and Singapore.
The commission predicted that American farmers would benefit most, because of increased demand for dairy products and beef, pork and poultry. Conversely, it predicted that the pacts would eliminate some manufacturing jobs, particularly in the textile industry.
Opponents, including textile companies, said that the deals would harm the economy by undermining the nations industrial base. They argued that South Korean companies would benefit much more than American companies because they were gaining access to a much larger market.
These are the first deals to pass Congress since the approval of an agreement with Peru in 2007. The Bush administration had won approval for trade agreements with 14 countries before the Democrats regained Congress in 2008, but it was then unable to gain traction.
Its been five years in the making, but we are finally here, said Representative Lynn Jenkins, a Kansas Republican, in a speech urging passage of the agreements.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: October 15, 2011
An article on Thursday about congressional approval of free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama misstated the number of trade agreements that Congress had passed since 2007, when Democrats took control of the Senate and the House. It is one, a trade agreement with Peru, in 2007; it is not the case that no agreements were passed during that period.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/business/trade-bills-near-final-chapter.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Just to be clear.
Panama is is YUUUUUGE tax haven now.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)drokhole
(1,230 posts)gordyfl
(598 posts)http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/senate/1/162
And in the House of Representatives:
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/782
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 7, 2016, 09:53 AM - Edit history (1)
Hillary has been eluding to regarding Bernie? Oh my!
Isn't history a grand thing on a Friday morning news dump day? lol
On edit: Ahead of myself there...Thursday!
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Now get down on your knees and pray to Saint Hillary of Walmart, our blessed lady of inevitability, and the affluent fruits of her labour. The power of Debbie commands you!
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)I wish I could remember which fellow DU-er to credit for the joke.
(If you are the inventor, and reading this, please jog my memory by posting in the thread!)
DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)... I think this trade deal is a litmus test for who is pro-corporate.
The only real reason for a free-trade deal with Panama is to allow Americans to buy products and services from shell corporations there...
... where rich Americans can obscure the fact that they own a part of those companies.
So now I can partner with a factory in China...
... make a hundred tons of rubber dog poop ...
and sell it to the US from my shell corporation in Panama without paying taxes on my profits.
It's so convenient too that half of my product had to go through this big canal in Panama anyway.
Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)It won't make waves here. It's getting very little traction and even as it does play out elsewhere around the world, it becomes "too complex" for our media to report it so they won't. it won't enter the body consciousness of the American electorate.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)Which is what I'm saying. His use of it will be just another shingle in the roof of his narrative about the economic side of things.
It won't stand out for your casual observer as anything. Sanders narrative doesn't get a lot of media attention as is since it's all overshadowed by Trump or polling numbers/delegates.
Policy always gets the tiny end of the stick in these things.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)accustom to it.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)I'll bet every editor in the U.S. sent out the marching orders:
Find a way to tie all of this to Americans.
And of course they can't, easily, because most Americans never had to go any further than Nevada or Delaware to pull these shenanigans.
But that doesn't mean that someone won't try to pull information out of those places, and with Chinese and Russian help, it might happen sooner rather than later.
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)...by which our people, worried about their untenable lives and their children's lives amidst the collapsed American Dream, and hungry for information, and wondering what to do, and looking for honest leaders who will help, are finding out enough to vote, enthusiastically, for Bernie Sanders. Wonder of wonders! Blacked out of the Corrupt Media for six months, he is winning primaries and caucuses by gigantic margins and surging in polls, and amassing a campaign war chest that would be the envy of any presidential candidate, from millions of SMALL donors!
The internet back doors are changing the American electorate for the better. This is affecting the young the most, at present, but it is also spreading like wildfire among all demographics--uncensored information! alternative opinions! anti-establishment sentiment! leftist ideas! history at your fingertips! candidates' previous statements at your fingertips! collective consciousness and action!
Don't be so pessimistic! Most of the young just laugh at the Corrupt Media! This started with kids getting all their political information from John Stewart! Now they are informing each other thru social media. And many oldsters are catching on. We DON'T NEED the Corrupt Media any more.
Don't despair! There are a number of fast-moving web sites that will pick this info up and pass it to millions of people, in seconds. Internet political activists for Bernie Sanders. Internet news shows like TYT and Thom Hartmann, and many others--organized shows, and individuals' commentaries. They are the future. The Corporate Media is the past. Their days are numbered. Their grip on American consciousness is dying. We need to stop depending on them for our sense of what is real, for our sense of what we all agree upon, and for our collective identity as Americans, because those things are changing very fast and are no longer in the Corrupt Media's control.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)terrible, I wonder where the priority would rest.
deacon_sephiroth
(731 posts)He's worked for the betterment of his community and this country for about 60 years now, and he's been honest, diligent, dedicated, uncorrupted, and REAL the entire time. Where I come from we call that EARNING.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)deacon_sephiroth
(731 posts)but I know there's a lot of people on here that don't seem to think he's right for the job, so I spoke up a little.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)Nitram
(22,803 posts)But, in the end, the voters decide. Either Sanders is a movement or he is not a movement.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)The republican media monopoly had nothing to do with that?
Nitram
(22,803 posts)I don't know where you've been, but we're nearing the end of 8 years with a Democratic president, and will soon be starting a second 4 year-term with a Democratic president. The GOP is in complete uncontrolled chaos. If you think Republicans have a media monopoly, you must be living in Colorado. Have you ever heard of NPR?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)There are 1200 or so AM radio stations in the US. About 15 of them air progressive talk. The other 1185 are all far right, republican-only propaganda, 24/7/52. that includes true blue areas like Chicago, SF, LA, and Boston.
We have lost so much ground in the congress, governors' mansions, and state houses since 1995 that we are barely alive.
If you think the party is what it once was, you must have been born in this century.
Nitram
(22,803 posts)It might be included under the rubric of "media", but just barely.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)made Howard Dean look like a crazy person, Swiftboated Kerry, and gave Donald Trump all the time in the world to become a threat to the American public by running for office. Even Al Gore blames the media for the craziness in the 2016 elections.
But you're right. Despite the barrage of ads, the talking heads pumping up candidates, and sitcoms invoking politics into their shtick the American public votes for these people in the end.
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)problem. To ignore it is the height of stupidity.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)And not just assume Clinton was the mastermind behind this.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Then, no. I don't think anyone is suggesting Clinton is directly involved with them nor should they..the
deal goes back years and the criticism in part, allowed for abuse....thus Sanders warning.
Many Democrats opposed it at the time as well...there is a post here from 2011, NYT.
Nitram
(22,803 posts)I wish Bernie luck.
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)in non-US papers than in US
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)press too.
mwooldri
(10,303 posts)2 point something terabytes of data.
Panama Papers biggest scandal coming to air right now is how sanctioned countries and individuals have been using offshore shell companies to get around UN sanctions. Companies set up with their principal owners in Pyongyang as an example.
We may get some juicy American related bits soon.