"The Global Consciousness Project, also known as the EGG Project, is an international multidisciplinary collaboration of scientists, engineers, artists and others continuously collecting data from a global network of physical random number generators located in 65 host sites worldwide. The archive contains over 10 years of random data in parallel sequences of synchronized 200-bit trials every second."
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Saturday, May 1, 2021
Donna Brazile, publicity photo
There are probably plenty of reasons to dislike Donna Brazile, the twice-former interim DNC Chair – not the least of which was the discovery that, following a WikiLeaks email dump, she’d been sharing debate questions with Hillary, and subsequent to a second release of the tranche, she resigned in shame from her position at CNN as a political commentator/pundit.
Perhaps she was trying to redeem herself, or, maybe she was trying to hold a light illuminating the damning evidence of HRC’s unethical behavior and corruption (though not illegal), or maybe she was hoping to drive another nail into Hillary’s political coffin, or “throw some others under the bus,” and even if it was a cathartic political “kiss and tell,” her motivation for what she wrote is not the question.
It is ~what~ she wrote in her book “Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House” that tells the story.
She discovered that because of the party’s fiscal indebtedness, a backroom deal had been struck with Hillary and the DNC in August 2015, just Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Monday, April 6, 2020
The Financial Times is no slouch organization – neither are they “left-leaning,” nor “liberal,” per se – at least not in the common, modern political sense.
They’re as “conservative” as they come.
And to read that “an irregular and precarious labour market,” combined with “monetary loosening by central banks [that] will help the asset-rich,” the loss of income by ” the young and active,” multiplied by
In short, nothing but “radical reforms” – defined as “reversing the prevailing policy direction of the last four decades” – will save individual nations’ economies, and the global economy at large.
The “laissez faire” attitude toward business, economy, and finance must be replaced by governments taking “a more active role in the economy,” including making “labour markets less insecure.”
Investing in public economic infrastructure, i.e, considering “public services as investments,” reconsidering the notion of “redistribution” of wealth, in conjunction with eliminating “the privileges of the elderly and wealthy,” and implementing “basic income and wealth taxes” will no longer be “considered eccentric.”
In short, “you must offer a social contract that benefits everyone.”
Suddenly (it seems), Bernie’s ideas aren’t so “radical,” anymore.
Suddenly (it seems), Elizabeth Warren’s ideas aren’t “way out in left field.”
Suddenly (it seems), Andrew Yang’s “Freedom Dividend” isn’t “extremist.”
Suddenly (it seems), everything old is new again.
But, you know the saying,
“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
The post-WWII Bretton Woods agreement, which pegged international currencies to the U.S. Dollar, which was itself based upon the “Gold Standard,” will again be in the fore of discussion, and was unilaterally abolished by then-POTUS Richard Nixon through a series of measures called the “Nixon Shock” which effectively destroyed the Agreement, which was created when the world’s nations assembled in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire to establish a globally stabilizing economic system.
“The international monetary system after World War II was dubbed the Bretton Woods system after the meeting of forty-four countries in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in 1944. The countries agreed to keep their currencies fixed (but adjustable in exceptional situations) to the dollar, and the dollar was fixed to gold. Since 1958, when the Bretton Woods system became operational, countries settled their international balances in dollars, and US dollars were convertible to gold at a fixed exchange rate of $35 an ounce. The United States had the responsibility of keeping the dollar price of gold fixed and had to adjust the supply of dollars to maintain confidence in future gold convertibility.”
Up until the time of the “Nixon Shock,” employees’ wages in the United States had generally kept pace with increases in GDP, or economic output. But after the “Nixon Shock” in 1971, wages have essentially flat-lined, while GDP has risen.
In response to Nixon’s unilateral decision, the ten leading developed nations in the world – Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States – entered into an agreement monikered as the Smithsonian Agreement which was a temporary agreement negotiated in 1971 which adjusted the system of fixed exchange rates established under the Bretton Woods Agreement and created a new standard for the dollar, to which other industrialized nations then pegged their currencies to the U.S. dollar.
As Certified Financial Analyst Michael Lebowitz, wrote in 2016, “unshackling the U.S. monetary system from the discipline of a gold standard, allowed the Fed to play a leading role in replacing the Virtuous Cycle with an Un-Virtuous Cycle. Eliminating the risk of global redemption of U.S. dollars for gold also eliminated the discipline, the checks and balances, on deficit spending by the government and its citizens. As the debt accumulated, the requirement on the Federal Reserve to drive interest rates lower became mandatory to enable the economic system to service that debt. And this effectively changed the course of U.S. economic history.”
These observations, and others, are, and have been, borne out by others, as well, such as in February 14, 2019, by Bloomberg writer Noah Smith, who wrote about wage stagnation in part that, “Workers lost a lot of ground between 1973 and 1994, and didn’t make up enough of it between 1994 and 2009. Stronger worker representation within companies, as well as government health care, would help restore some of those losses.”
But perhaps the simplest explanation I’ve ever heard, or read, about the value of good, strong and effective regulation is one which I’ve said for many years, which is this:
Regulations strengthen markets the same way that regulations create competitive sports, and operate machinery. Remove regulations and games become a pointless free-for-all, while removing or changing regulations on an automobile engine (such as through changing timing), and it will self-destruct fairly quickly.
But again, it seems that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Good, bad, or indifferent, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
Like him, love him, or loathe him… this is the beginning of the end of Biden.
Republicans are preparing to burn their crosses in Biden’s political front yard in retribution for Trump’s impeachment.
It makes no difference if their investigation into Biden, Biden & Burisma is based upon illegitimate and disproven false claims, because they will pillory, draw, and quarter Joe Biden until the only thing remaining of him are his his bloody political entrails which will be strewn from coast-to-coast.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Friday, March 6, 2020
Bernie should announce that he’s choosing Warren for his VP running mate.
U.S. Senators Bernie Sanders (VT-I), and Elizabeth Warren (MA-D).
Ideologically, they’re 2 peas in a pod. Her supporters would (or, at least should) DEFINITELY support Bernie, even since she is no longer running, and would most assuredly pitch in if he named her as his VP choice.
However… the VP is a politically dead-end job, since in the history of our nation, aside from succession, ONLY 5 VPs have ever been elected in their own right.
Only 13 former Vice Presidents have ever been POTUS, who all arrived in office either through succession, or through election apart from succession.
“To date,
16 Senators have also served as
President of the United States.
Three Senators,
Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama moved directly from the U.S. Senate
to the White House.”
That’s 16/45, or 35.5%, of all POTUSes who were ever a Senator.
And 3/16, or 18.75%, were elected as POTUS directly from the Senate.
Historically, and statistically, it doesn’t look good for Biden.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Monday, March 2, 2020
Following the results of the South Carolina Primary, in a period slightly over 24 hours, no less than THREE Democratic contenders have quit the race.
In a seemingly slow burn of announcements, California businessman Tom Steyer, former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar made their announcements in that order, that they were “suspending” their campaigns to be the Democratic Party’s Presidential nominee.
There are now only three contestants remaining on that island: Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, former Vice President Joe Biden, and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. While Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard technically remains in the race, she has garnered very little popular vote support, and won no delegates.
Tom Steyer, who was unashamedly the solitary candidate of the entire lot of Democratic contenders to support reparations for Blacks, who as a group have categorically continued suffering the effects of racism long after the Civil War ended, was Read the rest of this entry »
“So the next time you hear me attacked as a socialist, remember this:
“I don’t believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal.
“I believe in private companies that thrive and invest and grow in America instead of shipping jobs and profits overseas.
“I believe that most Americans can pay lower taxes – if hedge fund managers who make billions manipulating the marketplace finally pay the taxes they should.
“I don’t believe in special treatment for the top 1%, but I do believe in equal treatment for African-Americans who are right to proclaim the moral principle that Black Lives Matter.
“I despise appeals to nativism and prejudice, and I do believe in immigration reform that gives Hispanics and others a pathway to citizenship and a better life.
“I don’t believe in some foreign “ism”, but I believe deeply in American idealism.
“I’m not running for president because it’s my turn, but because it’s the turn of all of us to live in a nation of hope and opportunity not for some, not for the few, but for all.
“No one understood better than FDR the connection between American strength at home and our ability to defend America at home and across the world. That is why he proposed a second Bill of Rights in 1944, and said in that State of the Union:
““America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.”
“I’m not running to pursue reckless adventures abroad, but to rebuild America’s strength at home. I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will never send our sons and daughters to war under false pretense or pretenses or into dubious battles with no end in sight.”
– Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, Georgetown University, November 19, 2015
The word ‘socialism’ has been used for many years as a fear tactic to persuade people to do, or not do, what the one who is using the word wants them to do, or not do. It’s been around at least as long as since 1931 – and likely, much longer. Perhaps 20 years, or more.
A cursory search of the Congressional Record (part 1 volume 45, p270) showed that in the 1910 Congress, in the Second Session, on December 20, Representative Frank Wheeler Mondell (1860-1939), a Republican, said in part the following:
“Advanced with the extraordinary argument that to take authority from the people locally and lodge it with a federal bureau is “saving” something for “all the people” and from the” interests,” and backed by the demand of a certain section of the press, inspired by socialistic government bureaus, the propaganda has much influence with some legislators.”
Demonizing “the press,” demonizing “socialistic government bureaus,” and claiming it’s all “propaganda.”
Wow.
That stuff reads like it was ripped from today’s headlines in 2020, over 110 years later.
Grand OLD Party, indeed.
Same… tired… old… rhetoric.
But, let’s continue searching in that year’s record.
Senator Porter McCumber (1858-1933), a Republican from Nebraska, addressed that body on February 4, 1910 and as found on page 1481, is recorded to have said in part, Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Saturday, February 29, 2020
Try as they might, pundit and naysayers of most all stripe continue to castigate, demonize, and mischaracterize Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders as a “socialist” in the “classical” sense.
The “classical” sense, or definition of “socialism” is when a government controls the means -and- the method of production. Period. End of conversation.
In the United States, there has NEVER been, nor will there ever be, any “government factory.”
So, there’s that to consider.
But, think about the coins and currency (money) in your pocket.
You might have an argument for calling it “socialist,” because it’s
• made by the government,
• on government-owned machines,
• using government-owned paper, ink, and metals,
• by government employees, and is effectively
• owned by the government (on temporary “loan” to you, though it is in actuality, a promissory note, itself – but monetary theory is a topic for discussion another day).
BUT… the reason it’s NOT socialist is that EVERYTHING – the inks, the metals, the papers, the stamping and printing machines… EVERYTHING – was obtained by Publicly Bid Open Contracts FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
Yeah.
So, there’s also that to consider.
And then, there’s our military… which issues official government-owned uniforms to government employees, who work using government-owned equipment, and their healthcare – which is given at NO COST TO THEM -and- TO THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS – using government-owned equipment, in government-owned healthcare facilities and hospitals, with government-owned-and-provided medicines.
And, in that scenario, the government employees control the means –and– the method of production, per se. It’s a “socialist” system if ever there was one!
But,, once again, ALL of those materials, and all the manpower to perform ALL those functions COMES FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR via Publicly Bid Open Contracts.
Yeah.
So, there’s that to consider, as well.
Guess it must not be “socialism,” eh?
At least since 1931 (and likely at least 20 years or so earlier), the great “demon” of socialism has been a source of name-calling and fear-baiting in government.
The word “socialism” has been tossed around more than a Caesar’s Salad with oil and vinegar dressing. And, it’s only done for political hay-making purposes. In other words, it’s much like “The Boy Who Cried ‘WOLF!'”
Here are two examples from the Congressional Record of 1931:
Congressional Record–Senate, 28Feb1931, p6448
You see, in October 1917, something happened in Russia, and that country changed its name, which included the word “socialist” in it. Thereafter, it was easy to demonize the word, simply because of association with what happened in Russia.
The “something” that happened in Russia was the “October Revolution,” (i.e., the Russian Revolution) in which Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) and his merry band of men (mostly) known as the Bolsheviks, overthrew the Russian government, which at the time had been long ruled by Czars from the Romanov family, the royal family of Russia – which was a 300-year long imperial dynasty (the 2nd in Russian history), and one of ineptitude, nepotism, incompetence, excess, corruption, and hubris – which in all fairness, also included a few successes, but exceedingly few.
Congressional Record – House 2March31 p6850
It was actually the 2nd (or 3rd, depending upon what source you read) that year, with the first being in March (or February, again, depending upon what source you read). An earlier revolution in 1905 had also happened, and the situation and circumstances of the that revolution was culminated in the 1917 revolutions. Riots, work stoppages, strikes, food shortages, economic upheaval, lack of industrialization, were almost commonplace, and social upheaval was in the air, and in the hearts and minds of Russian civilians.
In the early 1900’s, Russia was one of the most impoverished nations in the world, and most European countries, and did much of the world, viewed Russia as being a backwards, and undeveloped nation, which was also plagued with high poverty, among other social ills. It was only a relatively few years earlier, in 1861, that serfdom had been made illegal in Russia, though it had been illegal in Europe for much longer.
“Serfdom” is a practice of the landed gentry (wealthy real estate/properly owners) in which indentured servitude of the lowest social class members, called “serfs,” occurred, though which the impoverished serfs were in some way indebted to the land owner, typically in exchange for the privilege of working a plot of land for their own purposes, which in more modern times in America is called share-cropping. After serfdom was outlawed, the former serfs had freedom to organize, and they did.
Industrialization, which occurred much later in Russia than in other nations, was the harbinger of significant social change. Between 1890 and 1910, the populations of the well-known cities St. Petersburg, and Moscow, doubled in size. Such overcrowding brought along other social ills such as destitute living conditions for industrial workers, and with it, disease.
Decisions to grow agricultural products in the harsh northern Russian climes were similarly fraught with difficulty, and production was stymied, which in turn brought about food shortages, and their accompanying ills. In conjunction with the Crimean War (1854-56) arising from Russian pressure on Turkey which directly threatened British commercial and strategic interests in the Middle East and India, combined with Russian involvement in other armed conflicts (notably with Japan), their economy was brought to a practical stand-still.
The “Bloody Sunday Massacre” of unarmed peaceful protestors by government troops in St. Petersburg on January 22, 1905, set the stage for even greater civil unrest shortly thereafter.
THE POINT BEING…
History is full of events of people revolting when food and housing – 2 of the 3 most fundamental human needs of food, clothing, and shelter – cannot be obtained.
The same thing happened in the United States, albeit with less violence, during the Great Depression.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, aka “FDR”, and his administration, sought to do everything humanly possible to PREVENT another occurrence of a “Great Depression” by correcting laws that led to the problem.
In the years since, Republicans (mostly), have done their damndest to tear down, and destroy everything FDR accomplished – including their wet-dream of privatizing Social Security – in order to hand it over to Wall Street speculators, who are salivating like hungry dogs to get their greedy hands on The People’s money.
As evidence of mostly Republican effort (though in all fairness, some Democrats have been involved, as well – aka “establishment Democrats,” or Wall Street Democrats In Name Only, or DINOs) to tear down the laws and rules protecting the people, look at the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (repeal and replaced by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act – 145 pages, and signed into law by President CLINTON in 1999, the Glass-Steagall Act passed in 1933, signed by FDR, was 37 pages in length, and forbade the commingling of money from Insurance companies, Stock Brokerage houses, and Banks, i.e., each industry could not perform the roles which the others did), which led DIRECTLY to the “Great Recession” during the George W. Bush administration, in which numerous “too-big-to-fail” banks collapsed, insurance companies went under, people lost jobs, and automobile manufacturers requested a bail-out… while the people got no bail-out.
Following, are the transcribed remarks made by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders at Georgetown University November 19, 2015 about what he means when he mentions “democratic socialism.”
––––––––––––––••••––––––––––––––
––––––––––––––••••––––––––––––––
––––––––––––––••••––––––––––––––
In his inaugural remarks in January 1937, in the midst of the Great Depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt looked out at the nation and this is what he saw.
He saw tens of millions of its citizens denied the basic necessities of life.
He saw millions of families trying to live on incomes so meager that the pall of family disaster hung over them day by day.
He saw millions denied education, recreation, and the opportunity to better their lot and the lot of their children.
He saw millions lacking the means to buy the products they needed and by their poverty and lack of disposable income denying employment to many other millions.
He saw one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.
And he acted. Against the ferocious opposition of the ruling class of his day, people he called economic royalists, Roosevelt implemented a series of programs that put millions of people back to work, took them out of poverty and restored their faith in government. He redefined the relationship of the federal government to the people of our country. He combatted cynicism, fear and despair. He reinvigorated democracy. He transformed the country.
Bernie Sanders delivers his long-awaited speech on Democratic Socialism at Georgetown University. He also speaks about his vision for bringing American foreign policy into the 21st century.
And that is what we have to do today.
And, by the way, almost everything he proposed was called “socialist.” Social Security, which transformed life for the elderly in this country was “socialist.” The concept of the “minimum wage” was seen as a radical intrusion into the marketplace and was described as “socialist.” Unemployment insurance, abolishing child labor, the 40-hour work week, collective bargaining, strong banking regulations, deposit insurance, and job programs that put millions of people to work were all described, in one way or another, as “socialist.” Yet, these programs have become the fabric of our nation and the foundation of the middle class.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, February 23, 2020
Bernie Sanders is the man to beat. He is gathering a full head of steam, and when he selects Elizabeth Warren as his Vice Presidential running mate, together, they will be UNSTOPPABLE!
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders addresses an ecstatic crowd in El Paso, Texas following his Nevada Caucus win.
The irony of ironies, is that they more his opponents within and without the party castigate him, they make the case for him EVEN STRONGER!
After Sander’s Nevada Caucus win, Bloomberg’s campaign manager claimed that Sanders’ campaign “appeals to a small base,” however, as Senator Sanders – and others – have pointed out, he won the Nevada Caucuses precisely because of the diversity of people to which he appealed: Latino, African-American, White, Native American, Asian American, gay, straight, religious & non-religious, young, old, male, female, those with and without college education, single, married, working class, middle class, and more. And when he makes a good showing in South Carolina – where Joe Biden is the projected winner with a significant African-American population – Bernie could topple Biden, but even if he won 2nd place, it would reinforce his status as Democratic front-runner.
Edward-Isaac Dovere, writer for The Atlantic, authored a brief article titled “The Democratic Establishment Is Broken” which was published February 22, 2020. Its banner read “After the Nevada caucus, Democratic Party leaders have never looked more uncertain about their future.” In it, he makes the point that, like Sanders and others have been saying – including Warren, Buttigieg, and other former candidates – which is that Sanders’ grassroots supporters acknowledge that so-called establishment Democrats -and- Republicans bear significant responsibility for the corrupting influence of money in which American public policy and law have caused, and because in turn, party bosses and others perceive their BIG MONEY funding sources could be jeopardized, has caused consternation among them. Yet ironically, by their very remarks, those same party bosses are making the very case about which the grassroots supporters are complaining.
Multi-billionaire Mike Bloomberg, entrepreneur and former New York City Mayor who left the GOP in 2007, and won a 3rd term as an Independent candidate, is campaigning as a new-comer Democrat, insofar as he decided to cast his hat in the ring very late in the game, long, long after most candidates’ ground game had been in effect. In fact, he affiliated with the Democratic party only recently, in October 2018, and launched his candidacy November 24. Bloomberg, whose net worth is an estimated $62 BILLION, has self-funded his candidacy, and according to records from the Federal Election Commission, has spent well in excess of $350 million, and counting in advertisements. That accounts for 0.564516129032258% (about 1/2 of 1%) of his vast fortune. And then, there’s the costs of his campaign team members, most whom are reportedly paid very handsomely in comparison to standard accepted rates for such work – at least twice, or more – and given iPhones and iPads to keep for themselves after their work for him is done.
That, of course, is not begrudging well-paid people, nor his largess. But it does cast a somber and sobering pall over the very matter, of the system now in effect, when to numerous causal observers it appears, for all practical purposes, as if he’s attempting to buy the nomination. And it certainly raises questions about his motives, or of others who may have encouraged him. Altogether, “the optics” as some say, don’t look good.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Wednesday, February 19, 2020
The Democratic Party’s Establishment cronies, whom are probably more accurately known as Corporate Democrats, or even as “Republicans Lite,” have had their knives out for Bernie Sanders for quite some time.
Not only have they no idea what they’re talking about when they go about Bernie bashing, and falsely claiming that the ideas he promotes are somehow “radical,” but they’re just plain old wrong. Of course, it would be very easy to imagine that anyone who opposes such ideals to benefit the people are in the pockets of their Big Money Corporate Donors, and doing the bidding of their Wall Street Corporate Money masters.
“We need to create a culture,
an entire culture,
which as Pope Francis has reminded us,
can not just be based on the worship of money.
We must not accept
a nation in which
billionaires compete as to the size of their super-yachts,
while
children in America go hungry
and
veterans sleep out on the streets.”
Neither is he a “socialist,” a brush and political nom de guerre which his opponents attempt to paint him with, and thereby demonize him. It would be more accurate to say he’s a social Democrat, insofar as his ideas and policies are designed to benefit the people – not mega-corporations, not billionaires.
President Harry Truman (D), seated LEFT
His opponents’ efforts to make political hay for themselves with the fact that he calls himself a “Democratic socialist” are purely self-seeking, self-serving efforts to ensure continued votes from their constituents… but most importantly, Big Money from Corporate Donors.
Bernie Sanders has NEVER participated in any anti-American activity or organization, and has NEVER promoted any such thing. And, in fact, like every Military Service Member, and countless others in Federal Service whether elected, or not, he has sworn an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, and to the United States.
The principles Bernie Sanders talks about are NOT “radical.”
In fact, the ideas like a:
1.) Right to education;
2.) Right to earn a decent wage;
3.) Right to a job;
4.) Right to housing;
5.) Right to medical care,
and more, are straight out of the FDR playbook from his SOTU January 11, 1944, when he said in part that “necessitous men are not free men.”¹
The Democratic Party has simply chosen to ignore those ideals – wrongfully so, in my estimation – and instead, has proceeded down the merry Republican path, oblivious to the damage and destruction that lies ahead.
“Real freedom must include economic security.
That was Roosevelt’s vision 70 years ago.
It is my vision today.
It is a vision that we have not yet achieved.
It is time that we did.”
Republicans have a long lineage of falsely claiming anything that benefits the people is somehow “socialist.” It could be thought of as their “birthright,” because Republican fear mongering using that term, and others, is nothing new. If they can convince you that someone, some idea, plan, or thing, is going to steal something from you, they’ve already won. That’s their strategy, plain and simple.
President Lyndon B. Johnson signing the Medicare Bill at the Harry S. Truman Library in Independence, Missouri, with President Truman seated next to him. Twenty years earlier, President Truman proposed his idea for nationwide health care. Archive photo from the White House Press Office.
They did it in the three Republican administrations (1921-1933) – Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover – which in turn, gifted America, and the world, with the Great Depression.
They did it with Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy’s unfounded fear-mongering “Red Scare” tactics, who found a Communist behind every shrub, and on every street corner.
They did it to “Give ’em Hell Harry” Truman in 1945 a mere 7 months into his Presidency when he proposed mandatory “universal” health care, and later proposed expanding Social Security, a full-employment program, a permanent Fair Employment Practices Act, and public housing and slum clearance, which in his January 5, 1949 SOTU he called the “Fair Deal.”
• During a 1946 Senate hearing on the National Health Insurance Bill, Republican Senator Robert Taft shouted out: “I consider it socialism. It is to my mind the most socialistic measure this Congress has ever had before it,” then led his party members out of the room. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce accused Truman in 1947 of taking a “backroad to socialism” in the fast lane toward a “police state.”
They did it with LBJ’s Great Society programs.
Reagan did it long before becoming President with a 1961 recording “Reagan speaks out against socialized medicine,” and continued the same rhetoric after winning election in 1980, and re-election in 1984.
They did it to President Obama with the Affordable Care Act.
• Tea Party Caucus founder Michele Bachmann infamously called the ACA “the crown jewel of socialism,” and “socialized medicine.”
Trump, and others, are doing it to Bernie, and to AOC’s Green New Deal.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders – I , official portrait
For Republicans, the dread “socialism” is their great boogeyman – a nondescript, amorphous thing to fear, that’ll not only kill you, but will eat your babies first. It’s their ideological whipping boy. But like the boy who cried ‘WOLF!,’ the problem with their tired old argument, and oft-repeated claim, is that not only is it a disservice to the public, and an utter lie, but by so doing, they take the people for complete fools who they manipulate by using such terms.
They have NEVER defined the term “socialism,” because it is not in their interest to do so. In fact, no Republican, Corporate Democrat, Wall Street trader, billionaire, or any other person who has never had the people’s interest at heart has ever defined, nor attempted to define, “socialism.” NEVER.
Senator Sanders, on the other hand, has.
In his Thursday, November 19, 2015 Georgetown speech, he said in part that,
“So let me define for you,
simply and straightforwardly,
what democratic socialism means to me.
It builds on what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said
when he fought
for
guaranteed economic rights
for all
Americans.
And it builds on what Martin Luther King, Jr. said
in 1968 when he stated that; “This country has socialism for the rich,
and rugged individualism for the poor.”
It builds on
the success
of
many other countries around the world
that have
done a far better job
than we have
in protecting
the needs of
their working families,
the elderly,
the children,
the sick
and
the poor.
“Democratic socialism means that we must create an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy.
“Democratic socialism means that we must reform a political system in America today which is not only grossly unfair but, in many respects, corrupt.”
He continued by saying, “It is a system, for example, which during the 1990s allowed Wall Street to spend $5 billion in lobbying and campaign contributions to get deregulated. Then, ten years later, after the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior of Wall Street led to their collapse, it is a system which provided trillions in government aid to bail them out. Wall Street used their wealth and power to get Congress to do their bidding for deregulation and then, when their greed caused their collapse, they used their wealth and power to get Congress to bail them out. Quite a system!
“And, then, to add insult to injury, we were told that not only were the banks too big to fail, the bankers were too big to jail. Kids who get caught possessing marijuana get police records. Wall Street CEOs who help destroy the economy get raises in their salaries. This is what Martin Luther King, Jr. meant by socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for everyone else.”
(¹ Vernon v. Bethell (1762). 2 Eden 110 alp. 113, 28 E.R. 838 (H.C.)), found in “Abusive or Unconscionable Clauses from a Common Law Perspective” (2010) p381, by Stephen Waddams, Universil.y Professor and holder of the Goodman/Schipper Chair, faculty of Law, University of Toronto, 49 Canadian Business Law Journal 378-399. The complete quotation in context is: “The court, as a court of conscience, is very jealous of persons taking securities for a loan, and converting such securities into purchases. And therefore I take it to be an established rule, that a mortgagee can never provide al the lime of making the loan for any event or condition on which the equity of redemption shall be discharged, and Lhe conveyance absolute. And there is great reason and justice in tills rule, for necessitous men are not, truly speaking, free men, but, to answer a present exigency, will submit to any terms that the crafty may impose upon lhem.”)
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Saturday, February 15, 2020
Bernie Sanders has continually explained and made the case why he calls himself a democratic socialist, and corrects those who decry his self-described identity as a democratic socialist. Opponents from within, and without the party have viciously maligned him for that.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders – I , official portrait
In essence, it’s caring for your fellow citizen just like they’re your family. And that includes being humanitarian, and caring for others, treating them with the dignity, honor, and respect inherently and rightly due every human being.
Listening to him speak of the principles he addresses, for those with a Christian, or religious knowledge, or background, it reminds me of the principles mentioned following Judeo-Christian Scripture verses. Oh, for those who consider Jews as God’s special, or chosen people… Bernie is a Jew. Could his voice be that of a prophet, of one crying in the wilderness?
“Where there is no vision, the people perish.”¹
“The laborer is worthy of their hire.”²
“Do not muzzle the ox that treads the grain.”³
“‘Administer true justice. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.'”⁴
“You must not oppress, or defraud your neighbor nor rob him. The wages due a hired hand must not remain with you until morning.”⁵
“Do not oppress a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether he is a brother or a foreigner residing in one of your towns.”⁶
“Now if your countryman becomes destitute and cannot support himself among you, then you are to help him as you would a foreigner or stranger, so that he can continue to live among you.”⁷
“You must not exploit or oppress a foreign resident, for you yourselves were foreigners in the land of Egypt. You must not mistreat any widow or orphan.”⁸
“He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing.”⁹
“But I will be merciful only if you stop your evil thoughts and deeds and start treating each other with justice; only if you stop exploiting foreigners, orphans, and widows; only if you stop your murdering; and only if you stop harming yourselves by worshiping idols.”¹⁰
Bernie Sanders fires back at Trump over socialism CNN Sanders Town Hall
Feb 25, 2019
During a CNN town hall, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders explains the programs he’d like to implement if he were elected president, which have been criticized by President Trump as akin to socialism. https://youtu.be/tJ9j_JT9Lhg
In response to a question asked by an audience member, Bernie Sanders said in part…
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, February 9, 2020
Just in the case you may not know it, there’s a law in our United States called HIPAA, which is the acronym for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
Signed into law in 1996 by then-POTUS Bill Clinton, the long title is “An Act To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1996 to improve portability and continuity of health insurance coverage in the group and individual markets, to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in health insurance and health care delivery, to promote the use of medical savings accounts, to improve access to long-term care services and coverage, to simplify the administration of health insurance, and for other purposes.”
The biggest takeaway from the bill for most people is the privacy it mandates for patient’s medical records, care, and treatment. With fines/penalties for violation starting at $250,000 per violation, an entire industry has grown up around HIPAA.
“The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) required the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop regulations protecting the privacy and security of certain health information.1 To fulfill this requirement, HHS published what are commonly known as the HIPAA Privacy Rule and the HIPAA Security Rule. The Privacy Rule, or Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information, establishes national standards for the protection of certain health information. The Security Standards for the Protection of Electronic Protected Health Information (the Security Rule) establish a national set of security standards for protecting certain health information that is held or transferred in electronic form. The Security Rule operationalizes the protections contained in the Privacy Rule by addressing the technical and non-technical safeguards that organizations called “covered entities” must put in place to secure individuals’ “electronic protected health information” (e-PHI). Within HHS, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has responsibility for enforcing the Privacy and Security Rules with voluntary compliance activities and civil money penalties.”
POTUS Bill Clinton Signing HIPAA
Before the HIPAA existed, there were no security standards nor requirements to protect patients’ health information or patients privacy in the entire health care industry. In reality, physicians, or anyone with access to the record – including the janitor and housekeeping crew – could simply access and divulge a patient’s entire medical record to the press, or to anyone, without any legal recourse for the victim. Now, it’s a violation of the law to even discuss any Personal Health Information, or Personally Identifying Information about the patient outside of a clinical setting, and that includes on elevators in hospitals. The law is so strict, that anyone who is not involved in the patient’s care cannot access the patient’s record without violating the law.
There have been cases where renown individuals, or those with celebrity status, including politicians, have had their records accessed by those within the healthcare system in violation of the law, ostensibly to satisfy their 24karat curiosity, or for other nefarious purposes, such as to gossip about the patient, or to divulge the information they found to the press. Healthcare organizations, especially large ones, are particularly sensitive to such violations of the HIPAA, and many, if not most, have policy in place to censure, or most often, dismiss for cause (fire) any employee who examines a record of a patient whom they’re not treating, or caring for.
In short, the law safeguards and protects patients’ right to privacy of their healthcare information in ways the average patient cannot imagine, including transmission of such information electronically, such as via facsimile or Internet.
The law also provides authorization for a patient to request a healthcare organization voluntarily release select portions of, or their entire medical records, to individuals whom they specify, such as to attorneys who may be representing their interests in a matter of law, including to the patients themselves, personally.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Friday, January 17, 2020
Abby Phillip, CNN
To anyone watching, it was as plain as the nose on your face.
I’m neither a CNN fan, nor a CNN hater.
But this is blatant, and inexcusable.
It demonstrates an utter lack, and wholesale abandonment of professional journalistic integrity.
It wasn’t merely the Democrats or Progressives who noticed, either.
In fact, voices from the Conservative Right Wing were the loudest to decry the moderator Abby Phillip’s action.
I mean to refer to the 7th Democratic Debate held at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa this past Tuesday evening, 14 January 2020.
For some, it was analogously like the 7th Level of Hell in Dante’s Inferno, which was also full of violence toward individuals, and the Earth.
Though there were no fisticuffs, no bomb threats, no armed shooters, and no physical violence of any kind, there was another killing – two, in fact.
One, was CNN, which along with Moderator Abby Phillip, burned her journalism career, and the last shred of respectability or integrity CNN had remaining.
The other was Bernie Sanders.
It was obvious from the get-go.
Corporate interests in America do NOT want to see him win the Democratic Nomination for President.
Brianne Pfannenstiel, Chief Politics Reporter, The Des Moines Register, Iowa
“During the seventh round of Democrat debates Tuesday, CNN moderator Abby Phillip asked a shameful question that accused Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., of saying a woman could not win the 2020 election.”
The Chicago Tribune’s John Kass, another conservative columnist, also laid into CNN and Abby Phillip over her unethical journalistic behavior.
His remarks from his column, in part, are found below.
Even Rolling Stone magazine’s Matt Taibbi found Abby Phillip’s disrespectful treatment of Bernie Sanders to be not merely a cheap shot, but a calculated and active interference to sway viewers’ opinion.
The 24-hour network combines a naked political hit with a cynical ploy for ratings.
“This time, the whole network tossed the mud. Over a 24-hour period before, during, and after the debate, CNN bid farewell to what remained of its reputation as a nonpolitical actor via a remarkable stretch of factually dubious reporting, bent commentary, and heavy-handed messaging.
“The cycle began with a “bombshell” exposé by CNN reporter MJ Lee. Released on the eve of the debate, Lee reported Warren’s claim that Sanders told her a woman couldn’t win in a December 2018 meeting.
[These banal meanderings] “continued during the debate, with the chryon featuring questions like, “How will [Sanders] avoid bankrupting the country?” Or: “Does Sanders owe voters an explanation of how much his health plan will cost them and the country?””
CNN’s Chief Political Correspondent, Dana Bash, carried the ball over the line for the anti-Bernie Corporate Democrats – who were all assembled at CNN, including former DNC chair and commentator Terry McAuliffe, Clinton communications person Jess McIntosh, and former senior adviser to Barack Obama David Axelrod – and immediately after the debate concluded she said, “Do [voters] want a Bernie Sanders anti-interventionist, or do they want somebody who has experience and who has — as I’m sure you will hear behind us — voted for things like the Iraq war and maybe has made other decisions that he doesn’t regret and has been a leader on national security, but also has some that he does?”
Then McIntosh said this: “I think what Bernie forgot was that this isn’t a he said/she said story. This is a reported-out story that CNN was part of breaking. So, to have him just flat-out say no, I think wasn’t — wasn’t nearly enough to address that for the women watching.”
In her story for the Examiner, Breaking News Reporter Madison Dibble wrote in part that, “A moderator from the CNN/Des Moines Register debate sided with Elizabeth Warren in the he-said-she-said dispute over whether Bernie Sanders said a woman couldn’t be president.
“Abby Phillip, a CNN reporter, phrased her questions in defense of Warren, who claimed that Sanders told her he didn’t think a woman could be president during a meeting in 2018. The Vermont senator has denied that he ever said such a thing, but Phillip worded the questions as though there were evidence backing up Warren’s claim.”
Even POTUS Trump sees it.
They are rigging the election again against Bernie Sanders, just like last time, only even more obviously. They are bringing him out of so important Iowa in order that, as a Senator, he sit through the Impeachment Hoax Trial. Crazy Nancy thereby gives the strong edge to Sleepy…
POS45’s follow-up Tweet read, “….Joe Biden, and Bernie is shut out again. Very unfair, but that’s the way the Democrats play the game. Anyway, it’s a lot of fun to watch!”
Democratic political strategist Donna Brazile, who helped Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, was later discovered to have been pilfering debate questions ahead of time, and sharing them with Hillary, with the intent to defeat Bernie. Like Roger Stone, she remains unrepentant for her misdeeds. CNN also fired her for that activity. But CNN wasn’t the only one.
Fox News also showed Brazile the door with the left foot of fellowship.
Vice-President of Fox Ethics, Satya Martin, described Brazile’s firing:
“Donna Brazile is the worst reporter or commentator or whatever she is that I’ve ever known.
Her only goal, it seems, is to be contrary.
She literally claims opposite supposed ‘facts’ to everything that we report in the news. And her opinions are over the top in their opposition.
She’s like a child who just screams in tantrums against us for attention.
“She was fired from CNN for fabricating stories so she was already known as a purveyor of fake news.
The brass had their reasons for taking a chance on her.
I’m sure they wanted to attract a liberal audience just to show that we mean it when we say we’re fair and balanced.
But there’s fair and balanced and then there’s off her rocker crazy train journalism.
That’s Brazile.
Nuts.”
It wasn’t long after she was fired by CNN that Donna Brazile quickly wrote a tell-all which fingered Hillary as the brainchild behind an unethically-appearing fundraising bargain with the Democratic National Committee, in which the DNC was rigged in Clinton’s favor because her campaign was largely financing the party early on in the presidential election. And Donna Brazile, who knew about it from the get-go said the agreement “was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical.”
Of course,
as Bernie has long said,
it’s all about the Benjamins,
and a
Corporate System
legally rigged
AGAINST
the
Average American.
“What CNN did to Bernie Sanders in the Iowa Democratic presidential debate — stabbing him with the gender card on behalf of a weakened Elizabeth Warren — was cheap and unfair.
“And it was shameful.
“I’m probably the last guy to defend Sanders. He is a man of the far left and I most certainly am not.
“But even a conservative like me can see that Sanders was cheated out of the Democratic presidential nomination the last time, with the Democratic National Committee rigging the whole thing for Hillary Clinton. And now it’s happening again.
“No wonder the Sanders supporters are angry.
“What happened on CNN in Iowa was bad for journalism. But it sure was good for Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden.
“Sanders, the authentic candidate on the left in this cycle, as he was in the last, was surging in the Iowa polls. Warren, also on the left, was fading, desperate and in full panic. She began waving her gender card on that dangerous Intersectionality Highway where Democrats, addicted to identity politics, often crack up.
…
“And Joe? With Bernie on Trump jury duty in Washington, Biden is left to wander around Iowa with (former) Mayor Pete — who also was not challenged by CNN — and that radical billionaire environmentalist who made his gold in fossil fuels.
“No wonder Sanders’ supporters are upset. They’ve seen this before. They watched the same game play out three years ago, when the Democratic nomination was almost his, and establishment media handmaidens of the Democratic National Committee protected Hillary Clinton, who lost to Trump.
“A Sanders vs. Trump campaign in 2016 would have been a clash of populist titans. Sanders could have won. We might see this matchup in 2020. Establishment Democrats are panicked, and conventional wisdom suggests Trump would smash him, but I’m not so sure.
“The electorate has been primed by relentless media attacks on Trump, who attacks them back. Americans are unsettled and worried about their future in a world undergoing economic upheaval. Bernie could win.
“The Democratic base is energized for 2020. Sanders, who suffered a heart attack weeks ago, looks positively vital when compared to Biden. Conventional wisdom also once said Republican Jeb Bush couldn’t be beat. How did that turn out?
“Joe is the new Jeb.
“I suppose it would be much easier to focus instead on Trump impeachment theater in Washington. But the script has been written, the Senate won’t convict Trump. It’s all posture and gesture and fundraising.
“I disagree with Sanders’ policies, but at least he’s honest about what he wants to do. Establishment Democrats see Sanders’ base as full of energy and know they must stop him in Iowa and New Hampshire.
“They feed Warren so Sanders doesn’t defeat Biden. And they’ll use friendly media to shape a stiletto and slip it between Bernie’s ribs.
“Sanders’ voters have seen this one before.”
And that is precisely what Bernie has been saying all along.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Saturday, August 31, 2019
In keeping with the “Who will be the Democrats’ 2020 Presidential nominee?” theme, I present the following for your perusal.
According to the trend lines, barring any unforeseen events, Elizabeth Warren will overtake Joe Biden in average public support polling within the next couple months. And by July 13-16 – dates of the Democratic National Convention at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, WI – she will be within “striking distance” of becoming the presumptive nominee by being only 5 points below Biden in average polling popularity.
That is, of course, if “Sleepy” “Uncle Joe” Biden’s continued demonstration of foot-in-mouth disease, and discovery of his other troubling and long-time political faux pas and other problematic voting track records – such as being the father of the “Gun Show Loophole” by being instrumental in, and voting for the 1986 Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) which the National Rifle Association (NRA) called “the law that saved gun rights” because it rolled back numerous regulations.
The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) created the so-called “Gun Show Loophole,” rapidly accelerated popularity of gun shows, allowed firearm sales via the U.S. Mail, and the Internet, allowed “straw purchases” of firearms, over-ruled at least 33% of the hundreds of lower court rulings interpreting the Gun Control Act, and undid at least 6 Supreme Court rulings.
Joe Biden, as Ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committe was not merely a proponent of, and voted for the FOPA, he significantly helped advance it by unanimously voting it out of committee. So realistically and ultimately, he bears significant responsibility for the increase in mass shootings and gun violence in America.
“I give credit to Senator HATCH and the National Rifle Association for their willingness to compromise and develop a revised bill that would strike a fair balance between unnecessary restrictions and regulations on lawful owner-ship of rifles and handguns and the legitimate interests of law enforcement in carrying out their responsibilities. I believe the compromises that are now a part of this bill have resulted in a balanced piece of legislation that protects the rights of private gun owners while not infringing on law enforcement’s ability to deal with those who misuse guns or violate laws. During my 12% years as a Member of this body, I have never believed that additional gun control or Federal registration of guns would reduce crime. I am convinced that a criminal who wants a firearm can get one through illegal, nontraceable, unregistered sources, with or without gun control. In my opinion a national register or ban of handguns would be impossible to carry out and may not result in reductions in crime. … However, on the whole, I am satisfied with the revisions to the bill made in committee, and I believe this bill makes improvements to existing law. ”
– Delaware Senator Joe Biden, July 9, 1985 in Congressional Record – Senate, p18229
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Thursday, May 16, 2019
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (I) official portrait
Joe Biden (D), official VP portrait
Much is being made about the impending Sanders v Biden match-up in the Democratic party for the 2020 General Election.
Detractors of the Democratic party say that Biden has a better possibility of being the party’s nominee because – as one Republican pundit wrote – “Biden, and others running for the Oval Office, are terrified that Hispanics and blacks – who reliably vote Democratic – might be swayed by rising wages or better job prospects, to vote for Trump.”
News writers, who are supposed to have (one hopes) some degree of objectivity, seem to have also fallen prey to the Biden 2020 siren song, and have written remarks like “Mr. Biden’s advantage with black voters not only helps him amass delegates ahead of the Democratic convention, but helps counter the widespread perception that he is a candidate running on a bygone appeal to the white working class.”
Recently, a Quinnipiac University Poll published May 15, 2019 found that in Pennsylvania, “former Vice President Joseph Biden is over the 50 percent mark in a matchup with President Donald Trump, leading 53 – 42 percent.” Quinnipiac University is “a private, coeducational university in Southern New England” with campuses “in Hamden and North Haven, Connecticut.”
Overall, the poll found that “Trump leads 90 – 7 percent among Pennsylvania Republicans. Biden leads 93 – 6 percent among Democrats and 51 – 37 percent among independent voters.”
Other top Democratic contenders matched up against Trump as follows:
• Senator Bernie Sanders (I) VT 50% – 43% Trump
• Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren 47 % – 44% Trump
• California Senator Kamala Harris 45% – 45% Trump
• South Bend, IN Mayor Pete Buttigieg 45% – 44% Trump
• Former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke (TX-16) 44% – 46% Trump
In stark contrast to assertions by GOPers and other naysayers of the Democratic party that economic conditions are favoring the GOP and Trump’s re-election, Mary Snow, a Polling Analyst for the Quinnipiac University Poll said that “More than half of Pennsylvania voters say they are better off financially than they were in 2016. But the economy isn’t giving President Donald Trump an edge in an early read of the very key Keystone State.”
Other general detractors to the Democratic party note with some sense of disdain that Vermont’s Independent Senator Bernie Sanders has called himself a “democratic socialist,” and seek to add credence to their argument by noting that some national-level GOP elected officials and others have said that “If we can run a race against a person that’s an out-of-the-closet socialist and promoting socialist ideas, it’s a great contrast for us.”
Donald Trump
Yet the poll also found that among respondents, 53% said “it is more important for a presidential candidate to be a great leader” while 38% said “it is more important for a candidate to have great policy ideas.” And that sets up an immediate turn away from policy to personality – a veritable cult of personality.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Friday, March 1, 2019
This prospective legislation (linked below) is “…an indication of the overall appetite for progressive policies in the 2020 Democratic primary race.”
And, it’s about damn time!
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders -I
I’m sick & tired of hearing folks say that there’s not a nickel’s worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. And face it… if it weren’t for Bernie leading the way last General Election cycle, we very likely wouldn’t be hearing this kind of talk. Seriously.
And, while Sen. Kamala Harris exceeded Bernie’s 2016 fundraising “haul” by raising $1.5M in the first 24 hours following announcement of candidacy, Bernie outdid himself this time by raising $6M in 24 hours. THAT is SIGNIFICANT! And, it says that the number of those who believed in him last time, have increased. Plus, he already has the campaign people and mechanisms in place, whereas others – including Harris – do not.
California Senator Kamala Harris -D
I think it’ll be interesting to see how all this shakes out.
Of course, Joe Biden’s likely to be tossed into the mix, but while polls show he has “favorable” ratings with many, including Republicans, Read the rest of this entry »
Speaking from the floor of the United States Senate Thursday, 29 October 2015, he said in part, “When we talk about criminal justice reform, I believe it is time for the United States of America to join almost every other Western, industrialized country on Earth in saying no to the death penalty.”
Speaking in Manchester, New Hampshire Wednesday, 28 October 2015, she said in part, “I do not favor abolishing it, however, because I do think there are certain egregious cases that still deserve the consideration of the death penalty, but I’d like to see those be very limited and rare, as opposed to what we’ve seen in most states.”
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Friday, July 27, 2012
No… no… no…
Banks don’t need to be regulated.
They’re doing quite fine with all the money they’ve stolen from you already.
No, they don’t need regulation.
And no, we don’t need to re-enact the Glass-Steagall Act – the federal law that kept Wall Street Brokerage Houses, Insurance Companies, and Banks separate and out of each other’s business. Right now, as things stand with them, they’re enjoying an incestuous fiscal orgy. And that’s good. We need more incest. We need more orgies. They’re all good. In fact, the more mammon… er, money you have, the more holy you are, the more the Almighty has blessed you – and not someone else (those lazy slobs who don’t deserve anything). {/sarcasm}
But there’s really no reason to worry… the banks will get what’s comin’ to ’em – and the ‘what’ is NOT your money. They have that already.
Come a-courtin’ time (that’d be in the court room), the Banksters be ruled against in a BIG way.
Just wait.
It’s coming.
Next thing you’ll hear in the news are the BIG BANKSTERS wanting legal protection from Congress for the wrongdoing they’ve done.
We’ve been talking a lot lately about what’s been dubbed the “LIBOR rate fixing scandal,” where some of the biggest banks in the world have been accused of manipulating a key global interest rate.
If those words — “manipulation of a key interest rate” — leave you wondering what the big deal is, and who would be harmed, meet Dan Sullivan. He says the manipulation of LIBOR cost him a million dollars, in just 24 hours.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, October 9, 2011
Having viewed an interview on MSNBC by Martin Bashir with Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, I was taken with a question Mr. Bashir asked Sen. Sanders toward the conclusion of the interview.
Martin Bashir:Mr. Sanders, how is it possible that people like Eric Cantor appear to encourage capitalism for everyone until a bank fails, and then socialism is acceptable because ‘we have to bail out the banks… we have to support them.’ But all of us – individual citizens in this society – well, if capitalism swipes us aside, we have to accept that?
Because it’s always good to be certain, I doubled checked a couple resources to be certain of what I was hearing.
Warm Southern Breeze 