On Sanders, Frank and dog metaphors in place of thought.

[JackRiddler]

Last edited Sat Jun 4, 2016, 04:28 PM - Edit history (2)

A recent post used a metaphor to substitute for thinking on the matter of the Sanders-Frank "feud." (That word by the way is already typical coporate media spin. It takes matters of politics and principle that affect everyone and turns them into personalized, specatacular bullshit, as though the two are in some kind of hair-pulling catfight.)

Metaphors are often used to substitute for thinking, and in this case Sanders was said to "bite the hand that feeds him," evoking the image of a dog ungrateful to its master. This was because Frank, after all, helped design the Dodd-Frank reform bill, which includes the provision that a President Sanders would invoke in initiating a break-up of the Wall Street Godzillas who still roam, burning and pillaging the planet. (See what I did? Metaphors. Always notice them and ask yourself: do they apply?)

So, apparently, Sanders owes Frank, see? But what was Frank's role in the actual history of the U.S. government's shameful accommodation of the Wall Street Godzillas, during the Bush and early Obama tenures?

In the decisive moment of October 2008, Frank played a leading congressional mouthpiece on the Democratic side in gaining passage for the Hank Paulson plan to rescue the Wall Street godzillas.

The next year, he went to work on the "banking reform." Frank (and Dodd and Co., surrounded by lobbyists and sponsors) prevented a true reform by sinking the hope of it into 1500 pages of loopholes and trivialities that almost never address the central issues of the 2007-9 crash brought about by Wall Street fraud.

Now don't get me wrong! Dodd-Frank is a great employment program for hard-working but ultimately powerless compliance officers at the big banks (I've met a couple), well-meaning bureaucrats who still won't get to see the same books as the Dimons and Blankfeins.

Without rebuilding the firewall between deposit banking and speculative activity, the fundamental issues of too-big-to-fail and unlimited casino plays by institutions holding depositors' money are unaddressed, except through evadable provisions.

The individual incentive system that sanctions fraud is untouched. The hullabaloo around Dodd-Frank served to distract how the banksters who should have been rounded up and prosecuted instead were given carte-blanche to rescue their fortunes and continue plundering the nation and the world. Instead of criminal prosecution and seizure of the plunder, their institutions were "forced" into various largely tax-deductible "settlements" that assigned no individual responsibility, and thus amount to a business expense for the corporation and a reward for the actual human perpetrators of high crimes.

The next crash, inevitably, will come. It can start tomorrow.

As befits the loyal factotum, Frank later got to rotate out of the politician's chair he had warmed for decades (often doing wonderful things as long as these did not affect the interests of his financial sector sponsors) into plum "consultancy" work, at many times the salary, on behalf of the very same banksters he helped to rescue as a leader in the campaign for the Wall Street bailouts and preemptive exonerations.

And it is as a consultant to the Wall Street Godzillas that the man speaks today, against Bernie Sanders. Any statement he makes should come with a conflict-of-interest label.

So, since metaphors are such welcome substitutes for thought, how would I tl;dr the above (so sorry for using words!) into a handy metaphor? Afraid I'll have to reverse the dogs.

Today I see a Frank-poodle nipping at the heels of a man who stands upright and tall for his principles - a man pragmatic enough to say he will use one of those Dodd-Frank loopholes to do the right thing that Frank worked so hard to prevent.

[Faux pas]

1. Kickin'

[CrowCityDem]

2. I never said Sanders OWES anyone.

What I said was that Barney Frank passed legislation that could do one of Bernie's key talking points, while Bernie never has. That alone should make Bernie think a little more carefully about how he wants to criticize Frank.

[JackRiddler]

3. You used the "hand that feeds" metaphor.

Which says exactly what you claim you did not say.

IN any case, your "argument" is nonsensical. Sanders would have liked a lot more than Dodd-Frank. That is, in actual reforms, not pages. Dodd-Frank is 1500 pages and of course had to include provisions for breaking up banks in the eventuality of some future disaster or it would have looked like a total mockery. Those provisions served to distract from the fact that there was intentional avoidance of the urgency to break up the Godzillas IMMEDIATELY and create real firewalls against gambling with depositors' money.

I've already made this point to you and you intentionally misunderstand and repeat the same shit as if you didn't read a thing I said, which perhaps you didn't. Of course, you're probably not stupid - just serving your lame talking points over and over and over and over. And living in the Camp Clintonista bubble, wherein you delude yourself that this shit is going to work with anyone outside that bubble, and that the bubble is somehow the real world. Starting on June 16, you'll have a total bubble for self-delusion right here on this web site - while the real world hammers home the reality.

Bye!

[CrowCityDem]

4. My talking point...

... is that without Dodd/Frank, Bernie would have no legal authority to enact a major part of his platform. Whether you like the law or not, the fact that Bernie NEEDS it for his stump speech to make any sense should lead Bernie to have a little more tact in how he talks about its author.

That's all the metaphor was saying. Frank gives him the power to do what he wants, and Bernie responds by throwing personal insults around.

[JackRiddler]

6. Yes, that is your talking point, and it is remarkably trivial.

Meanwhile, the author is a lapdog for the Wall Street banks who pay him as a "consultant" in reward for his loyal service to them over decades. And of course he is the one who attacked Sanders for not being a lapdog to the Wall Street masters. Sanders responds, and you start your own witless timeline there. Thanks!

[mmonk]

5. Thanks. Recommended.

[JackRiddler]

7. avec plaisir.

[Arazi]

8. Great OP and loved the metaphors

[Juicy_Bellows]

9. Excellent post!

"The individual incentive system that sanctions fraud is untouched. The hullabaloo around Dodd-Frank served to distract how the banksters who should have been rounded up and prosecuted instead were given carte-blanche to rescue their fortunes and continue plundering the nation and the world. Instead of criminal prosecution and seizure of the plunder, their institutions were "forced" into various largely tax-deductible "settlements" that assigned no individual responsibility, and thus amount to a business expense for the corporation and a reward for the actual human perpetrators of high crimes. "



Same as it ever was....

[JackRiddler]

10. aber danke schoen.

[Wilms]

11. ^