Let's start with saying that there are a large number of "economists" that agree with Bernie's views of the American economy; why it remains severely damaged and is rigged to protect only the "millionaires and billionaires" that broke it.
Financial experts, academics, and economists from across the nation are officially endorsing Bernie Sanders’ proposal to break up big banks and bring justice to Wall Street.
In a speech earlier this month in the heart of New York City’s financial district, Sanders outlined his plan to reform Wall Street that included, among other things, passing a new law similar to the Glass-Steagall bill of the 1930s that would separate commercial banking from investment banking — effectively breaking up the biggest Wall Street banks into smaller institutions. Sanders also pledged to take action to cap ATM fees at $2 per use, make usurious interest fees illegal, levy a sales tax on all financial transactions on Wall Street to discourage speculative trading, and bring criminal charges against the banking executives responsible for the 2008 financial crisis. Here’s video of the full speech:
Among the 170 economists and professors backing Sanders’ plan are former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, professor James K. Galbraith of the University of Texas, and John Miller of Wheaton College. Other experts listed on the sign-on letter teach at top universities like Harvard, Cornell, and Cambridge (UK). Also included is a former member of U.S. Congress, a former researcher for the Federal Reserve Board, and even a former associate at Goldman Sachs, as well as numerous financial advisors and wealth management experts.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Monday, February 8, 2016
GUESS WHO THE WINNER IS ON ELECTION DAY?
IT'S YOU AND YOUR ONE VOTE!
That's right. It's not a dream. What you hold in your hands when you step into a voting booth is so valuable a small group of people have invested billions of dollars either trying to buy it from you or distract you in to not using it. The Iowa caucuses is an example of the value of one vote. Bernie Sanders, the self professed "progressive democrat" who the Establishment wrote off as a socialist that no one would vote for came up from being behind double digits in the polls to being just a fraction of a percent and almost defeating Hillary the Establishment shoe-in who was able to grab it with the toss of a few coins not votes. Bernie did not come so far up from behind by taking away votes from Hillary but because he was "given" votes of "first time voters" who decided to wake up that day and trek on down to their caucuses and make their vote(s) count.
Probably some were the 42% of the "losers" Romney so easily wrote off (see video).
Probably some of the votes came from the almost 6 million people who lost their homes in the "housing crash of 2008 (read this).
Maybe some of those votes came from those who lost over 2 Trillion dollars of their nest eggs (read this) in the 2008 crash..
No matter how you break it down 99% of Americans lost no less than 10 trillion dollars in 2008 (read this) and there's a good chance one of them showed up to vote for Bernie on that day.
It's almost unimaginable to believe that 1% of our population could inflict so much financial damage on the other 99% of Americans in such a short period of time and get away with it it!
Here's what Bernie has to say to you (see video)
If you're thinking your vote doesn't count, think again. That's how until now only 1% of our population have successfully been able to grab and hold on to almost 50% of America's wealth leaving what's left to be divide up among the 99% of those that are left. If you complain they try to shame you by labeling it "class warfare" when what it's really "income inequality." That word inequality is what get's em.
So, when you wake up on election day either in your parent's basement or in your own bed after a sleepless night of wondering if; now that your nest egg is gone, if the day will come when you can finally sleep in, or just thinking, maybe this could happen to me one day, you might make it worth your while to get up, get dressed, and head on down to your polling station and put that vote of yours to good use.
That's right. It's not a dream. What you hold in your hands when you step into a voting booth is so valuable a small group of people have invested billions of dollars either trying to buy it from you or distract you in to not using it. The Iowa caucuses is an example of the value of one vote. Bernie Sanders, the self professed "progressive democrat" who the Establishment wrote off as a socialist that no one would vote for came up from being behind double digits in the polls to being just a fraction of a percent and almost defeating Hillary the Establishment shoe-in who was able to grab it with the toss of a few coins not votes. Bernie did not come so far up from behind by taking away votes from Hillary but because he was "given" votes of "first time voters" who decided to wake up that day and trek on down to their caucuses and make their vote(s) count.
Probably some were the 42% of the "losers" Romney so easily wrote off (see video).
Probably some of the votes came from the almost 6 million people who lost their homes in the "housing crash of 2008 (read this).
Maybe some of those votes came from those who lost over 2 Trillion dollars of their nest eggs (read this) in the 2008 crash..
No matter how you break it down 99% of Americans lost no less than 10 trillion dollars in 2008 (read this) and there's a good chance one of them showed up to vote for Bernie on that day.
It's almost unimaginable to believe that 1% of our population could inflict so much financial damage on the other 99% of Americans in such a short period of time and get away with it it!
Here's what Bernie has to say to you (see video)
If you're thinking your vote doesn't count, think again. That's how until now only 1% of our population have successfully been able to grab and hold on to almost 50% of America's wealth leaving what's left to be divide up among the 99% of those that are left. If you complain they try to shame you by labeling it "class warfare" when what it's really "income inequality." That word inequality is what get's em.
So, when you wake up on election day either in your parent's basement or in your own bed after a sleepless night of wondering if; now that your nest egg is gone, if the day will come when you can finally sleep in, or just thinking, maybe this could happen to me one day, you might make it worth your while to get up, get dressed, and head on down to your polling station and put that vote of yours to good use.
Sunday, February 7, 2016
CAN A 74 YEAR OLD WHITE GUY BECOME PRESIDENT OF THESE UNITED STATES?
YES! If his name is Bernie Sanders. WHY?
He represents the "SILENT MAJORITY" which is a HUGE number of disenfranchised from the "establishment" that offered up no one for them to vote for and which have left them to fend for themselves while pandering to a select group of wealthy donors (1%)
So, who makes up the Silent Majority which makes up 40% plus of the voting population?
White guys and WOMEN like Bernie
Blacks believe in and like Bernie
Latinos know and understand Bernie
Millennials LOVE Bernie
AMERICANS like Bernie
Wall Street Hates Bernie
Billionaires and Millionaires dislike (not all of them) Bernie
Hedge Funders detest Bernie
Establishment politicians are afraid of; but respect Bernie
Republicans are just plain confused about why America Loves Bernie
Hillary Clinton has a love-hate for Bernie; loves who he his, hates that he's in the race
Let's not forget that Bernie is spearheading a political "revolution" here. The rules don't apply here. He has no problem with declaring himself a "social democrat" which in essence is why he identified as an "Independent" for most of his political career. He has rejected the Democrat "donor" base ie; Millionaires and Billionaires who he refuses to take money from and or asked to be endorsed by. He is obviously a formidable contender and is scaring the "establishment" because he is speaking to a large number of what we once called the "silent majority" who haven't voted in a long time because they had no one who would represent them to vote for.
So what do we now about Bernie? click here; BERNIE SANDERS VOTING RECORD
He represents the "SILENT MAJORITY" which is a HUGE number of disenfranchised from the "establishment" that offered up no one for them to vote for and which have left them to fend for themselves while pandering to a select group of wealthy donors (1%)
So, who makes up the Silent Majority which makes up 40% plus of the voting population?
White guys and WOMEN like Bernie
Blacks believe in and like Bernie
Latinos know and understand Bernie
Millennials LOVE Bernie
AMERICANS like Bernie
Wall Street Hates Bernie
Billionaires and Millionaires dislike (not all of them) Bernie
Hedge Funders detest Bernie
Establishment politicians are afraid of; but respect Bernie
Republicans are just plain confused about why America Loves Bernie
Hillary Clinton has a love-hate for Bernie; loves who he his, hates that he's in the race
Let's not forget that Bernie is spearheading a political "revolution" here. The rules don't apply here. He has no problem with declaring himself a "social democrat" which in essence is why he identified as an "Independent" for most of his political career. He has rejected the Democrat "donor" base ie; Millionaires and Billionaires who he refuses to take money from and or asked to be endorsed by. He is obviously a formidable contender and is scaring the "establishment" because he is speaking to a large number of what we once called the "silent majority" who haven't voted in a long time because they had no one who would represent them to vote for.
So what do we now about Bernie? click here; BERNIE SANDERS VOTING RECORD
WHY AMERICANS DON'T VOTE
SIMPLE: There's no one running for office to represent them.
ESTABLISHMENT politics is a broken system populated by fearful and dysfunctional politicians who spend the majority of their time in office begging for money from the wealthy 1% who they then pander to in return for them throwing money their way. Much like a brothel. It's all about money for favors.
Another problem with politics in America is that it is a "two" party system which unfortunately represents "two" sides of the same coin; one, wealthy conservatives which make and the flip side, wealthy liberals which is basically a "selective" democracy, not the intended "representative the" democracy the Founding Father's had in mind.
The only difference between the 2 parties is that they speak out of the opposite sides of their mouths but act and behave the same way when it comes to governing which produces the results we have seen and why the approval rating for Congress is in the pits.
Just 14 percent of Americans approve of the way Congress is doing its job, according to a new Gallup survey released Wednesday, and they do not seem all that enamored with Republican leaders in the House and Senate, either.Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/poll-congress-approval-rating-gop-leadership-121285#ixzz3zWbs0o7v
ESTABLISHMENT politics is a broken system populated by fearful and dysfunctional politicians who spend the majority of their time in office begging for money from the wealthy 1% who they then pander to in return for them throwing money their way. Much like a brothel. It's all about money for favors.
Another problem with politics in America is that it is a "two" party system which unfortunately represents "two" sides of the same coin; one, wealthy conservatives which make and the flip side, wealthy liberals which is basically a "selective" democracy, not the intended "representative the" democracy the Founding Father's had in mind.
The only difference between the 2 parties is that they speak out of the opposite sides of their mouths but act and behave the same way when it comes to governing which produces the results we have seen and why the approval rating for Congress is in the pits.
Just 14 percent of Americans approve of the way Congress is doing its job, according to a new Gallup survey released Wednesday, and they do not seem all that enamored with Republican leaders in the House and Senate, either.Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/poll-congress-approval-rating-gop-leadership-121285#ixzz3zWbs0o7v
That's changed in 2016 with entrance of not one, but two "anti-establishment" dark horses on to the political stage.
On the right, and representing an "overheated" faction of the Republican party is Donald Trump a self-professed "outsider" who doesn't need to pander to the millionaires and billionaires because he is one. What better candidate to have than someone who can act as a "sh-t magnet" for all those angry "soon-to-haves" who had their bubbles popped when the "dream" turned into a "nightmare" in the 2008 meltdown.
It was obvious who's still running the show at the last "establishment" sponsored ABC debate when JEB! the poster boy for the "haves" said he wanted to see "more" millionaires and used that worn out teaser that with him in office the "have-nots" would become "soon-to-have" though he didn't say how soon. But it looks like Trump might change all that in 2016.
On the left we have Bernie Sanders, a self-professed "social democrat" who sacrificed his "Independent" status of many years to get a seat at the "establishment" table and have his voice heard.
Bernie's not a liberal or a conservative, but a progressive who wants to represent almost all (99%) of the people, and who walks the talk by literally and figuratively throwing the "millionaires and billionaires" money under his bus. No BIG donors for Bernie. He's happy with $27.00 per person who's support he describes as "HUGE" and rightly so.
That makes the "establishment" nervous; especially Hillary who then has to explain why she has her hand out and takes money from the very people she claims she will take on?
Where does the money come from?
Click here; Donor Demographics
Only a tiny fraction of Americans actually give campaign contributions to political candidates, parties or PACs. The ones who give contributions large enough to be itemized (over $200) is even smaller. The impact of those donations, however, is huge. Read a detailed analysis of federal contributions by the top 1 percent of 1 percent of the population in the 2014 election cycle.
This year Americans have a real choice; the only decision they have to make is to vote!
Saturday, February 6, 2016
HILLARY GET'S SOME ADVICE; FOOL THE VOTERS
Which unfortunately this article refers to as her "strengths"
Perhaps it was the closeness of the result earlier this week in Iowa that prompted Clinton to go on the attack; perhaps it was the polls in New Hampshire showing Sanders leading by a large margin. Perhaps she simply couldn’t hide her irritation after Sanders mentioned that a super PAC supporting her campaign raised fifteen million dollars from Wall Street in the fourth quarter of last year. In any case, the ensuing exchange, which my colleague Amy Davidson covered at length, presented Sanders with a perfect opportunity to restate the central argument of his campaign: big money is corrupting the political process and undermining American democracy.
Clinton needs to address this critique—or, more accurately, to feature a version of it more prominently in her own campaign. What she doesn’t need, surely, is a lengthy debate about what, if anything, her Wall Street donors received in return for their money: that would be fighting on Sanders’s ground. (After the heated exchange, the Sanders campaign e-mailed reporters to point out that Senator Elizabeth Warren has criticized Clinton for changing her position, when she was in the Senate, on a bankruptcy bill, elements of which were vehemently opposed by the financial industry.)
Although it might sound a bit counterintuitive, Clinton needs to return to the strategy that allowed her to eke out a narrow victory in Iowa. It will serve her well as the primary moves on to larger, more-populous states with more nonwhite voters. This strategy, rather than trying to meet Sanders head-on, focusses on acknowledging his good intentions and questioning whether he can deliver on his promises. It involves having Clinton emphasize her own program, which is carefully targeted at middle-class voters, and her experience in foreign policy, as well as her support for civil rights. Above all, it means appealing to Democratic voters—moderates and liberals—who are terrified of the prospect of the Republicans retaking the White House and controlling all three branches of government.
The advice is, let's avoid saying like it is; as Bernie Sanders does, and dance around the issue by creating a smoke screen that only filters what the audience needs to hear to get her elected.
The problem with that is this. Hillary can't control the narrative on "social" media which will bust her every time she dodges the truth. My advice to Hillary is, change your ways and stop pandering to big money donors and walk the talk when it comes to representing all the people you want to vote for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)