Dear Bernie: I Like You, But These Red Flags Are Too Frequent to Ignore

[Recursion]

http://www.huffpost.com/us/entry/dear-bernie-red-flags-frequent_b_9289954.html

You recently claimed that under your leadership, "the Treasury Department will create a too-big-to fail list of banks and insurance companies."

Of course it will. The Treasury Department has been legally required to do that since the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. The institutions are, on top of that, already subjected to stress tests, and when they fail, there are fairly serious consequences. The Department's annual report is available right here. You can find a list of these institutions on Wikipedia, for crying out loud. The Financial Stability Board also maintains a global list, which you can find right here, should you find that helpful.

Similarly, you have made a fair amount of noise calling for an independent audit of the Federal Reserve. That's already done, every single year. You can find last year's report right here.

What the plan that you and Sen. Paul have put forth does is, a) pander to low-information voters, and b) make the Federal Reserve's every decision subject to congressional pressure. What you are proposing, Senator Sanders, would set the Fed's independence back four decades and allow Paul Ryan to pressure it at every turn.

[RiverLover]

1. I'll take Bernie's "red flags" over Clinton's any day

and twice on Sunday.

[Recursion]

2. Fair enough. Keep in mind I'll be voting for him too

But I don't like him or trust him. He's a marginally lesser evil.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. I don't trust her because of IWR and her years of hateful opposition to civil rights for LGBT.

What do you have? I have endless quotes of her holding us up as the other, pushing a supremacist view. I have her promoting war for GW Bush. Her support of cluster bombs and landmines.

The folks who are so happy to overlook her anti gay history are showing lots of their hand.

And the anti gay cohort, when they do the 'red flags' imagery.....it is what it is.

[RiverLover]

16. I feel the same. Though for me this insidious purchase of govts by Big$ with Clinton Foundation's

help is most disturbing. They want to turn us all equally into serfs who can make a good life if we work hard for them.

.......big snip.....

Echoing promises of lowered trade barriers, improved labor conditions and environmental protections made by NAFTA advocates two decades earlier, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Hanoi, Viet Nam in 2012 promoted the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the most far-reaching trade agreement ever, encompassing 12 Pacific Rim countries. Secretary Clinton stated support for free expression online, and pronounced, "Democracy and prosperity go hand-in-hand," even as the backroom dealings of hundreds of corporate lobbyists have engaged in writing the TPP to challenge everything from Net Neutrality to democratic process and state sovereignty.

An amplification of NAFTA provisions, leaked segments of the secretive treaty reveal that wholesale powers granted by the TPP to corporations would permit them to sue governments for alleged lost profits in special international tribunals that bypass the U.S. court system, and to advocate overturn of regulatory laws intended to protect people and the environment.

As the Clinton Global Initiative convenes in Denver June 23-25 [2014], it brings together some of the same financial hard-hitters who cheerleaded NAFTA into being, and seek to do the same for the TPP. Among them, Robert Rubin, chief economic advisor to the Clinton White House, is listed as a participant in a panel discussion "Exploring what it will take for the U.S. to retain a position of global economic leadership in an increasingly complex world."

Note the last paragraph, and especially final sentence. Here's its original form, with the name of the panel discussion:

Among them, Robert Rubin ... is listed as a participant in a panel discussion "Exploring what it will take for the U.S. to retain a position of global economic leadership in an increasingly complex world."

Just as "more jobs" always means "more profit" for people like Rubin, a comment about "U.S." global "leadership" is really just about them and their ruling position in the world. Here's the translation:

Among them, Robert Rubin ... is listed as a participant in a panel discussion "Exploring what it will take for people like me to retain a position of global wealth and power in an increasingly complex world."

Just make the substitution and the sentence is perfectly accurate.

The Clinton Global Initiative Is a Neoliberal Activist Organization

The do-gooder aspect of the Clinton family's CGI — yes, family; the official name of the umbrella organization is "Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation" — obscures its definition of "good." The organization promotes these "good" things — more carbon emissions in the form of fracked methane ("America's natural gas&quot , privately-owned schools, privately-owned public infrastructure like bridges and roads — and it does so by hosting forums presented people like Robert Rubin, fracked methane CEOs, and other billionaire beneficiaries of these policies.

From the same Huff Post article:

Noble Energy, engaged in worldwide oil and gas exploration and production, is co-funder with Anadarko Petroleum of whitewashed pro-fracking ads under the acronym "CRED" (Coloradans for Responsible Energy Development). At the CGI event, Noble's CEO is scheduled to host a discussion of "the ways in which the North American energy revolution is altering the geopolitical, economic, and energy policy landscapes," seeking reexamination of "the traditional social and regulatory frameworks in which energy is produced, consumed and exported," while touting the "low-carbon profile" of natural gas (no doubt minus consideration of externalities of hydrofracking -- the overall costs to taxpayers and the environment).

CGI sells "energy independence" — meaning continuing profits for "U.S." oil and gas companies:

Another [CGI] forum examines the United States' "changing relationship to its natural resources - "chiefly... vast oil and gas deposits that will enable the U.S. to be near energy independence within the next two decades."

CGI sells privatized education, and road and bridge repair financed with "public-private partnerships":

Still another [CGI forum] -- the use of "public-private partnerships to improve education, modernize infrastructure, and advance environmentally-conscious energy production."

"Public-private partnership" means using corporate money to finance public needs, then giving the bulk of the benefit back to the corporation in the form of profit (most of which lines CEO-class pockets). Think parking meters in Chicago.

CGI also promotes studies in "behavioral psychology" to find better ways to influence ("nudge" ... "gently urge&quot changes in public behavior that benefit the billionaires (my paragraphing below):

....snip.......

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/01/nafta-tpp-clinton-global-initiatives-free

[Bluenorthwest]

19. The OP presents no actual reasons for his emotional repsonses to Bernie, 'I don't like or trust him'

so I thought I'd list a few specific policy positions that cause me to prefer to vote for Bernie. The fact that the cohort that supported DOMA and still support that branch of the Party don't like something or someone is meaningless to me because they also did not like equality nor did they trust LGBT people. They, Hillary and her lot felt they had to 'Defend the Sacrament' against us, that's not trust, that's not affection that is opposition and a desire to defeat us.

The OP offers emotionalism and characterizations. We offer policy positions and objections to those positions. Says it all.

[Armstead]

3. THIS is a red flag too big to ignore

But we haven't done much about it.

[Recursion]

4. What would Sanders do about that? (nt)

[Armstead]

5. He already said...And we've been asleep at the Anti-Trust wheel for a long time

And these people are not going to be satisfied until it is One Biog Bank, so there is at least the possibility of preventive action, if nothing else.

We are not helpless little peons with no power to fight back. We simply have lacked the will.

[Recursion]

6. Tell me what he said.

I honestly don't know. Glass Steagall wouldn't undo this. What would Sanders actually do?

[Armstead]

15. First of all officially identify and list them....

He proposed legislation and has explained -- Tresasury research and crteate a list of Too Big To Fail banks officially.

It calls for denying them certain protections (i.e. bailouts, etc) and breaking them up,


It is not cut and dried, I realize. Has to go through all the obstacles that have been erected to prevent actual real regulation.

But what is important is to formally Identify the situation -- which Clinton and otehr politicians refuse to do -- and set a political framework to aim for bringing them under control cutting them down to size, and actually contesting future mergers.

That's what HAS to be done as a step to move in a direction where we stop being ostriches and/or helpless victims.

The bottom line is to STOP accepting unacceptable things, and START to move in a direction of actually solving problems of entrenches power and concentration of power.

The REagan Revolution did NOT happen overnight. BUT over time that set a tone and political direction that totally dominated our Politics and politics and is still domainant. We neeed to start a counterrevolution.

[Recursion]

17. They are already identified and listed, by law

FFS did you not know that?!?!

[Armstead]

21. You are missing my point

We go through motions and technically follow rules -- But we do not vigorously pursue the intent of anti-trust laws, through a combination of corruption, imposition of public ignorance and apathy and lack of will do do anything to get at the roots of these problems.

We're ta;lking about banking here, but it extends to every industry and sector of the economy. We have allowed huge monopolistic enterprises to be built in steps and stages over time -- and have allowed therm to take over and distort our economyto an obscene level.

And we act like little sheep who have no power to change that or restore a more balanced, diverse or broadly based economy.

The Reagan Revolution enabled that kind of sjit. We need to start acting to reverse that.

It IS POSSIBLE.

[Recursion]

23. Can you name the banks already broken up under Dodd-Frank?

Can you? It's going to be really hard to take your "concern" seriously if you can't.

[jeff47]

27. I can.

Here's the list:


Boy, that was hard.

[Recursion]

29. Nope. The list is four names long

Funny that you claim to care about this issue, but didn't bother to learn that.

[jeff47]

31. Funny that you can't manage to list those four names.

Almost as if they weren't broken up due to Dodd-Frank, and that can be demonstrated with the most cursory analysis.

Hint: When a company is already planning to spin off or shut down a subsidiary, and then legislation passes, it isn't the legislation that caused the spin off/shut down.

[Recursion]

32. I'm mostly too amused by this to bother

Do you actually not know what banks were broken up under Dodd-Frank? That's kind of precious.

[jeff47]

33. No, I actually know the relevant companies were already talking about spinning off or

shutting down that part of their business before Dodd-Frank passed.

Precious is thinking legislation that passed after the divesture started caused the divesture.

[Armstead]

30. I don't care if you take my concern seriously.

Dodd Frank has made some difference....GE and Metlife I believe have done some restructuiring....Good. We need much more.

My "concern" is the whole system that has been built up brick by brick since the 70's, with the active collaboration of Dems and Republicans.

Any little progress is good,. but we can;t just assume the mechanisms are going to work as necessary without concerted efforts.

Had not the Big Banks and Investors screwed up so bad in 2008, I doubt we would have even token reform.

[JudyM]

26. Powerful image. Thanks for posting. I wish Bernie would show charts like Ross Perot did!

[Skwmom]

7. What a stupid misleading post. Bernie wants the list to break up the banks. Under Dodd-Frank

they just subject them to testing which anyone who is familiar with that industry and has half a brain will tell you WILL NOT work.

[Recursion]

8. Multiple banks have already been broken up under Dodd Frank

What new does he have to offer there?

[Skwmom]

12. Their are banks that are A LOT bigger since the too big to fail bailout. That is like having a dam

that has 12 holes and saying I plugged 5, what else do I need to do.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. Wow ... This will not go over well ...

But, if the OP is addressed, at all ... it will be in the manner described within the piece.

[Recursion]

14. (see my PM, if you don't mind) (nt)

[Armstead]

24. You have finally convinced me.

We....can't.....do.....anything.....to......make......anything.....better.

It's just too hard and complicated. Too many details for the Proles to understand.

So we must continue to allow the insiders do whatever the hell they want, regardless of the social consequences.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. Did you read the article? No where did it talk about not doing anything better ...

or it being too hard and complicated; nor, does it advocate for we must continue to allow the insiders do whatever the hell they want, regardless of the social consequences. ... but it did give details for the "Proles to understand", as to WHY we are being sold a bill of goods ... but that would require the faithful to suspend their worship and belief.

[Armstead]

34. Yes I read the article

And technically there is some reasonable points. However, the larger context is the usual Forests and Trees crap that has been used for 40 years to flummox the public so that a process of consolidation and deregulation can continue without any challenge.

The Big Picture has been deliberately obscured and ignored, in banking and every other industry.

But the underlying the dynamics are really simple. If Institition X has already swallowed up 10 small/mid-sized banks and merges with institution Y, which has swallowed up 15 banks, what were once 25 banks are now One Big Bank. And when Institution XY then merges with Institution Z, which has already swallowed up 20 banks, what was once 45 banks is now 1.....etc.

And when the walls between different types of financial serves are eliminated, its even worse.


That is dangerous and destructive on so many levels. And it DID NOT HAVE TO HAPPEN. It has happened (and continues to hsappen) in part because most politicians have condoned and enabled it.

What politicians of either party have really been acknowledging this? How many have actively suggested doing something about it?

Instead of beating up on those like Bernie who have been trying to stop this process, and the people who support him, it would sure be nice if the so-called "reasonable adults" who represent the party that shold be an alternative to GOP/Corporate Corruption stopped trying to throw cold water on reform.

[Major Hogwash]

10. The author of that article at HuffPo must be a concerned banker.

Because he sure is displaying some concern for some reason.

[Skwmom]

13. The argument is stupid as hell. Although that is further support for "he must be a banker."

[Recursion]

20. So, address his points

Talk is free here. Go for it.

[Armstead]

35. Forests and trees (I also posted this above)

Technically there is some reasonable points in the article. However, the larger context is the usual Forests and Trees crap that has been used for 40 years to flummox the public so that a process of consolidation and deregulation can continue without any challenge.

The Big Picture has been deliberately obscured and ignored, in banking and every other industry.

But the underlying the dynamics are really simple. If Institition X has already swallowed up 10 small/mid-sized banks and merges with institution Y, which has swallowed up 15 banks, what were once 25 banks are now One Big Bank. And when Institution XY then merges with Institution Z, which has already swallowed up 20 banks, what was once 45 banks is now 1.....etc.

And when the walls between different types of financial serves are eliminated, its even worse. And ehen they have been freed of the restraints of active regulation....Katie bar the Door.


That is dangerous and destructive on so many levels. And it DID NOT HAVE TO HAPPEN. It has happened (and continues to hsappen) in part because most politicians have condoned and enabled it.

What politicians of either party have really been acknowledging this? How many have actively suggested doing something about it?

Instead of beating up on those like Bernie who have been trying to stop this process, and the people who support him, it would sure be nice if the so-called "reasonable adults" who represent the party that shold be an alternative to GOP/Corporate Corruption stopped trying to throw cold water on reform.

[Gothmog]

18. The Huff Post article is well done

[Armstead]

22. Yes a very eloquent way of saying "Surrender. We can do nothing. Ever."

[Recursion]

25. Sure, because those are the options: "surrender" and "demagoguery".

I reject that; you should too.

[Armstead]

36. I reject Corporatist Demagoguery

[Gothmog]

39. Perhaps, but I like living in the real world

Being surrounded by some rather hostile Texas republicans does affect one's viewpoint. Again, it is hard work trying to turn Texas blue and I like picking the battles that make sense.

[Armstead]

40. Well that might explain some of the difference....

I live in the bluest of blue areas. We have our share of Republicans -- including some real wingnuts -- but the prevailing atmosphere is moderate to very liberal -- including blue-collar liberal hardasses. And Republicans here tend to be comparatively moderate conservative.

Perhaps being in that kind of environment gives me a perspective that average, everyday run of the mill moderates CAN be persuaded to support actual liberalism.

Were I in a more hostile environment -- and I have been -- would probably make more more fatalistic.

But ultimately I'd rather aim, for a better environment as a template because people are people.

[Gothmog]

43. It is hard work turning Texas blue but we will succeed

I pick my fights. Right now, I am working hard on voter protection issues. Even though the 5th Circuit ruled that the Texas voter id law had a disparate impact on minority voters in an 3 to 0 ruling with the opinion written by a very conservative GOP judge, we are still subject to the Texas voter suppression law for the March 1 primary. The Texas AG (Ken Paxton who is under indictment) filed some bogus en banc motions that should be rejected where the only way for Texas to win is if the rest of the Voting Rights Act is declared unconstitutional.

The good new is that with the death of Scalia, it is very unlikely that the SCOTUS will block the ruling of the 5th Circuit even if Texas tries to take the case to the SCOTUS. The recent refusal of the SCOTUS to block a North Carolina redistricting order gives me hope.

It may not seem like that the concept that we should help people vote should be an issue but in Texas it is a fight.

[Arazi]

37. Womack is not an economist. Robert Reich and Thomas Picketty approve BS plans

This article is nothing more than another re-hash of economists arguing over his plans.

If you like Krugman, this article resonates

If you like Reich, this article is bullshit

SSDD

[Jefferson23]

38. Dismissing Bernie’s Supporters as “a Mob” and the Great Recession as No Big Deal

William K. Black
February 23, 2016 Bloomington, MN

In an unintentionally hilarious piece evincing exceptional moral blindness, Mr. Womack, a journalist, writes to Bernie.

Senator, you are forming a mob of angry, misinformed people and then turning it on the likely Democratic nominee. That, Senator, is a dangerous and destructive game. Does your campaign honestly wonder why it has become synonymous with nasty online invective?

Gosh, I would have thought that “nasty online invective” might call tens of millions of Americans “a mob of angry, misinformed people” who were “dangerous” because they were backing a candidate for the nomination who is not “the likely Democratic nominee.” The idea that in an electoral nomination contest one is not allowed to criticize the current leader in delegates is, to be gentle, novel. It is certainly not the approach that either then Senator Sanders or then Senator Clinton took when they trailed each other at various points eight years ago.

The journalist’s libel of progressive voters is similar to President Obama’s infamous slander of the American people when he was talking to the Nation’s most powerful banksters. “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.” That was a slander because the American people wanted justice, not a mob lynching. Womack uses the same mob meme to slander people who make up the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

The journalist thinks Wall Street, the Fed, and the systemically dangerous institutions (SDIs) are working great because there are “stress tests.” The implication is that this means the SDIs will not fail. Here is a partial list of SDIs that passed stress tests – often weeks before they collapsed.

Fannie

Freddie

Lehman

Bear Stearns

AIG

The three giant Icelandic banks

The biggest and worst Irish banks

WaMu

IndyMac



As the journalist says, he has no expertise in economics, banking, regulation, or white-collar crime. He also is plainly deliberately selective and deceptive. For example, he makes a big deal of the fact that Bernie’s plan begins by identifying the SDIs, because we are already in the process of creating such a list. Bernie’s plan calls for getting rid of the SDIs because the way you make that list (which is currently euphemistically called “systemically important”) is because when (not “if”) the next one fails the experts believe it is likely it will cause a global financial crisis. Womack simply ignores that substantive point and tries to make it sound bizarre that Bernie’s plan calls for the completion of identifying the SDIs.

The journalist is an unconstructed Wall Street/”New Democrat” even at this juncture – fearful that the Fed will lose its “independence” if subjected to a full audit the way other agencies are typically audited. This is after he saw Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke (reappointed in both cases by Democratic Presidents, Clinton and Obama, respectively) destroy effective financial regulation and refuse to act against the most destructive fraud epidemics in history. The Fed is not “independent.” It is a dependency of the Wall Street. The Fed is anti-democratic and faces few of the normal controls designed to prevent abuse. But the journalist is determined to fight against any reform of the Fed.

But here is the journalist’s prime argument.

But none of this holds a candle to the bizarre narrative you have consistently pushed around Glass-Steagall, your primary point of distinction from Secretary Clinton on finance. You have repeatedly insinuated, implied and said flat-out that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which you tend to call a repeal of Glass-Steagall, caused the financial crisis.

Senator Sanders, that simply isn’t true. That is a lie invented for a slimy attack ad during the 2008 campaign. There is an overwhelming consensus–not from Wall Street, but from watchdogs and academics — that the repeal of Glass-Steagall did not cause the financial crisis. Fact checker after fact checker after fact checker after fact checker has found the claim to be, at best, an enormous stretch. They were doing so, from all parts of the political spectrum, years before you launched a presidential campaign.

The law had little if anything to do with the practices leading up to the crisis. It aimed, as you well know, to separate commercial from investment banking.

First, the premise is wrong. The “primary point[s] of distinction” of Bernie’s plans for finance versus Hillary Clinton’s are the treatment of the SDIs, which I just explained and the promise to restore the rule of law to Wall Street. As I have explained, in a context where she was trying to display her new found toughness versus Wall Street in a debate with Bernie the best she could come up with was that she gave a speech in which she told Wall Street to end its “shenanigans” (childish pranks). That is pathetic, but in fact the speech is available and she didn’t day it.

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/02/dismissing-bernies-supporters-mob-great-recession-no-big-deal.html

[SheenaR]

41. Bernie has tons of red flags

His involvement in an FBI investigation
His low favorability
His Iraq vote
His ties to Wall Street
His flip flopping.
His support of NAFTA and TPP

He's the worst.


Oh wait...

[krawhitham]

42. talk about Red Flags, here is a list

+ Benghazi
+ Private Email Server
+ Goldman Sachs Speaking Fees
+ Whitewater
+ Health-Care Gate
+ Troopergate
+ Travelgate
+ Filegate
+ Pardongate
+ Mishandling of Classified Emails
+ Lied About Sniper Fire in Bosnia
+ Questionable Profits from Selling Cattle Futures
+ Vince Foster
+ Support of DOMA
+ Support of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
+ Questionable Use of Clinton Foundation Donations
+ Clinton Foundation Conflicts of Interest
+ Clinton Foundation Tax Returns
+ Took Furniture from White House
+ Did Not Declare Gifts from King of Morocco
+ Used Influence to have Brother Appointed to Haiti Mining Company
+ Campaigns of Intimidation Against Opponents
+ Sidney Blumenthal Advice
+ Connection to Radical Saul Alinsky
+ Pressured Huma Abedin to Divorce Anthony Weiner
+ Connection to Peter Franklin Paul
+ Missing Law Firm Billing Records
+ Conflicts of Interest in Foggy Bottom
+ Received Campaign Funds from Iranian Government
+ Sale of Uranium to Russia in Exchange for Donations
+ IRS Audits Against Conservative Groups