Please stop telling me I'm voting for Sanders because I'm a purist who wants a pony.

[mmonk]

The financial deregulation of the financial sector wrecked much of what I worked for and I'm too old to start over. Millions of our lives have been made worse from policies such as this and "free trade" and privatization of government and education. And most of all, don't call us radical and unreasonable because we ask for these things made worse through bad policy to be fixed.

[el_bryanto]

1. Well said!

The deregulation of the finance markets, the unwillingness to do something about CMOs and other derivatives, has created lasting problems for retirees and local governments, which impacts a lot of people. And Hillary Clinton, despite having positives in many areas, has shown an unwillingness to grapple with this issue.

Bryant

[Sancho]

11. No, Hillary understands that "breaking up the banks" won't do any good...

and that the only real solution is an international effort to regulate financial markets combined with closing tax loopholes.

http://correctrecord.org/engagement-abroad-prosperity-at-home/
A Record of Bolstering U.S. Economic Interests. According to Bloomberg BusinessWeek, “Clinton has argued that commercial diplomacy and the promotion of trade, long the neglected stepchildren of the foreign policy establishment, are central to U.S. strategic interests… her work as a spokeswoman for American business is a less visible part of her legacy. Yet it may be the most durable.”

An Elevated Importance of Economic Engagement. As the Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote, Secretary Clinton “has laid out a range of initiatives to promote this change [enhance economic engagement], including updating U.S. foreign policy priorities to put more weight on economic opportunities, beefing up State’s commercial diplomacy capacity, and—perhaps most important—creating better incentives for State officers to excel at economics.” And as Yahoo’s foreign policy blog wrote in 2011, “Clinton has been working hard to beef up the economic bench strength of the State Department, while also mounting a bid for State officials to play a more decisive role in determining U.S. global economics policy.”

Introduced New Organizational Structures. Through the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, Secretary Clinton reorganized the State Department to “better address clusters of related issues that need greater attention.” This included creating an Under Secretary For Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment and appointing the first Chief Economist allowing the Department “to engage effectively with our partners in a world where ‘security is shaped in boardrooms and on trading floors as well as on battlefields.’”

------------------------

Breaking up US banks would do nothing. Closing tax loopholes might help. Most big banks are not in the US, and most influential money is not in the US. The US can't "break up" international banks, and without Congress cannot change the possibility of "influence".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks

1 China Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)
2 China China Construction Bank Corporation
3 United Kingdom HSBC Holdings
4 China Agricultural Bank of China
5 United States JPMorgan Chase & Co.
6 France BNP Paribas
7 China Bank of China
8 Japan Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group
9 France Crédit Agricole Group
10 United Kingdom Barclays PLC
11 United States Bank of America
12 Germany Deutsche Bank
13 United States Citigroup Inc
14 Japan Japan Post Bank
15 United States Wells Fargo
16 Japan Mizuho Financial Group
17 United Kingdom Royal Bank of Scotland Group
18 China China Development Bank
19 France Société Générale
20 Spain Banco Santander

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/wealthy-stashing-offshore_n_3179139.html

Global Super-Rich Stashing Up To $32 Trillion Offshore, Masking True Scale Of Inequality: Study

The global super-rich are stashing trillions of dollars offshore with the help of some of the world's biggest banks, putting billions of dollars out of the taxman’s reach and masking wealth inequality's true heights.

Wealthy people were hiding between $21 and $32 trillion in offshore jurisdictions around the world as of 2012, according to a 2012 study from the Tax Justice Network, an organization which aims to promote tax transparency. The study, highlighted by a recent Bloomberg News report, found that more than $12 trillion of that money was managed by 50 international banks, many of which received bailouts during the financial crisis, according to James Henry, the study’s author.

“There’s a lot more missing wealth in the world than we had known about from previous estimates,” Henry told The Huffington Post. “The real scandal is not all these individual scandals but the fact that world’s policy makers who know about this stuff, have basically done nothing.”

[el_bryanto]

20. Thanks for that non sequitur and wall of text

That really cleared the issue up. What Hillary understands is that Wall Street has been very generous to her and her campaigns, and if she wants to keep the money coming in, she and her followers need to justify supporting anything they do.

And closing bank loopholes, while a good idea, has nothing to do with regulating derivatives; which could be accomplished by putting them on an open market or by government regulation of them (or some combined approach).

Bryant

[peacebird]

27. ^^^what he said ^^^

[Sancho]

34. Show me in the record where Hillary supported allowing derivatives to be unregulated...

and the investment market including derivatives is INTERNATIONAL. Only 10% of the trades are NYSE now. There is more money in the Caribbean than in NYC. How do you propose "regulating" that except international agreements?

You cannot "regulate" something that is often outside of US control, unless you get cooperation from 10-20 other governments. What you can do is avoid hurting the retirement and investment plans of employees who are public employees of have union bargained plans. That means reducing the speculation without destroying the trading system.

Here's a short link...and quote:
http://correctrecord.org/hillarys-growth-and-fairness-economy-vs-gops-old-re-warmed-policies/
Hillary vs. the GOP on Reigning in Wall Street:
Hillary says: “I will offer plans to rein in excessive risk on Wall Street and ensure that stock markets work for everyday investors. […] Too Big To Fail is still too big a problem.”

You can complain that Hillary (who represented Wall Street as a Senator) is "bought out" even though there is no evidence, yet you can't see that Bernie's plan is naive and unworkable? Bernie's "Robin Hood" tax hurts retirement plans and makes Wall Street corporations richer in the long run.

Meanwhile, you're staying that less than 5% donations from Wall Street bankers (whom she represented as a Senator) makes her influenced? What % does Bernie get from Locheed-Martin employees? Gun owners? It's an imaginary issue.

[el_bryanto]

47. Money Quote - "Hillary (who represented Wall Street as a Senator)"

Thanks for acknowledging that. So I'll support Senator Sanders in the Primary, while you support someone who has a track record of being pro-Wall Street.

If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination I'll support her in the general, but I see no reason to support her now.

Bryant

[Sancho]

57. Hillary could not attack her constituents as a Senator any more than Bernie...

which may be why he is "sympathetic" to the gun industry.

That doesn't mean that at the national level she would not regulate banks or close tax loopholes.

We don't know if Bernie will change his mind on gun control either. There a lot of interest now.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

62. Bankers are destroying more lives than guns these days.

Sending ever more of the country into poverty and early graves.

[azmom]

115. [phone]

[Sancho]

122. I disagree with your premise...

If there are corporate manipulations that are destroying lives, you may want to look to Wichita, not Wall Street.

International bankers do manipulate markets whenever they can to make money. That's the same way it's been for many, many decades. Congress needs some tighter regulations - and probably higher tax rates without loopholes. In time, Congress will likely act to create and enforce tighter regulations. Even if they do, it won't matter without international cooperation on many banking issues. CEO's were put in jail after the saving & loan crisis and again after Enron; and it didn't make any difference. Another COE steps in and takes their place after the regular people lose their savings and homes.

International bankers are not destroying lives in the numbers or have as much effect as large corporations who have 20-30 million in the US working under the table as undocumented, millions more enslaved all over the world, and creating an environmental crisis. I'd put the gun manufacturers (who also sell all over the world) in the same category.

Bankers are a small part of the problem. Even though Bernie has shouted the socialist meme about banks and inequality for at least 3 decades, it seems to have created a stir this primary. The real problems are more complex than "breaking up the banks". It may sound good, but it won't change a thing. If you "broke up" Chase and Goldman Sachs tomorrow (into various companies), NO ONE on the street would get a penny more, cheaters would continue cheating, and money would keep moving offshore.

[passiveporcupine]

151. He isn't just shouting about banks.

That's just part of it. He's also shouting about taxing the wealthy and closing loopholes on corporations that are taking our jobs offshore.

He's behind every progressive move we can make to try to regain the growth of our middle class. Hillary, not so much. She even backs TPP, even though she is afraid to admit it now, during a campaign that is being fiercely challenged by progressive ideology.

[pocoloco]

88. if you like violence...

go to England!!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

127. I thought it was Scotland.

[pocoloco]

138. Scotland may be bad also, but England is usually quoted as the utopia.

http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/01/englands-crime-rate-nearly-four-times-higher-than-united-states/

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528

http://web.archive.org/web/20080706191657/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2710596.ece

http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6426&context=expresso

[Spitfire of ATJ]

145. You mean by the right-wing.

[pocoloco]

153. LOL

No, silly you!! By the gun grabbers!!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

156. Okay,....ACCORDING to the right-wing....

I don't know of anyone who considers England to be a "utopia" just because of guns.

Sounds more like something the Right would say about Liberals.

[Fawke Em]

182. Way OT, but I have a shirt that says, "Poco Loco."

It's from Puerto Vallarta.

[randys1]

102. Given that you said this: "If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination I'll support her "

You and I are on the same team.

I dont know where you live but where I am (west of the Mississippi) there is not much in the way of organization for Bernie

I am looking forward to that soon

[Marty McGraw]

128. You may want to try and see...

... from a link Scuba provided earlier
https://go.berniesanders.com/page/event/search_simple

Or even when you plug in your zip and look for all that is "Bernie Sanders"
http://www.meetup.com

[hedda_foil]

168. Wow! There are six organizing meetings within 10 miles of me...

And they're all at capacity. I'm sure that there will be venue changes and other meetings scheduled in the next few days. But I'm blown away that this pretty conservative, mostly white suburban cluster has so much h going on already. I looked a few days ago and there was zip.

[Marty McGraw]

181. Very Kewl!

[JDPriestly]

172. We need the tax on Wall Street trades for mamy reasons.

It is a good way to make sure that people who have money, many of whom made money thanks to their college education, help support current college students who are being asked to place themselves in deep debt to get their education.

It will not be a high enough tax that people will feel it that much.

It might help us get a stock market valuation that is more realistically aligned with what is going on in our economy. Stock prices are extremely high. Interest rates extremely low. That is off balance.

[elzenmahn]

37. Sorry, but...

...the bankers (read: those that really own the world economy) will not allow for themselves to be regulated in the way described. Here, there, or anywhere. And if you think Hillary will achieve this, well...if ponies and unicorns are being used to describe "unrealistic" political ambitions, then they belong in the story about Hillary being some kind of "populist". She isn't.

Too Big To Fail = Too Big To Exist. Break up the damned banks and international banking houses.

[-none]

58. Break the 'To Big To Fail' and finish the job by imprisoning the criminals running them.

It worked very well for Iceland.

[Nitram]

106. Clinton is and has always been a populist.

But she is a populist living in the real world.

[zeemike]

38. That is the second time I have seen that meme.

Almost word for word.

We can't do anything until we do it in the whole world first...because they are too big to be stopped...always set the bar higher than anyone can jump.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

59. Yup.

America is always willing to 'lead the world' in terms of attacking other countries, but never in terms of making domestic changes that might benefit the masses at the expense of the ultra wealthy.

[winter is coming]

80. The thing is, even if we had to change the whole world, I'd still want to vote for Bernie.

The guy who's shown up for fight after fight, for decades, whether or not he thought he could win. I want someone who'll go in there and slug it out for ordinary schmoes. We can't afford another "pragmatist".

[imthevicar]

25. The reason behind breaking up the Banks

Is to make sure Banksters Have less power over our Economy and less access to our savings and tax dollars.. IOW, "Hey that's a nice economy you got their And I'm going broke, give me your money or I'll shoot it." HRC sold out years ago, can't blame her But I wont vote for her ether.

[Sancho]

35. How do you plan to break up Chinese, French and German banks?

How do you propose regulating banks in Samoa and Bermuda?

That's where the trillions are...and that is one reason the Greek economy is such a problem (it's the size of the Miami city budget); because US corporations and other big internationals were invested there!

Breaking up US banks would accomplish nothing.

[elzenmahn]

39. Neither is leaving them as-is...

...and what has that gotten us?

Break them up. All of them.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

63. Exactly. We know what our current path has gotten us.

Let's try a new one, and at least see if leads somewhere else, despite the naysayers telling us it won't do any good.

[jwirr]

68. Why do we have to? The reason for breaking up the banks is so that they can no longer gamble

with our money and so that we do not have to bail them out when they choose to gamble with their own money. If these other countries want to gamble then it is their risk to take. If there is no one to bail them out they will soon change their ways - look at Greece.

And yes, the rich are investing in those countries - money they used to keep in the USA, but nothing is going to make them stop as long as they get bailed out.

What we are trying to protect is the small guy here. It may not change the overall world economy but it will make many of us safer. Isn't that worth reinstating Glass-Steagell?

[Sancho]

77. Most US money is already gambled by big banks outside of the US...

Breaking up "big" US banks would have no effect except to move more money offshore.
Much of Greece's problems were attributed to Goldman Sachs!
Europe is actually bailing out the big banks now, including US banks.
In the end, international regulation is likely the only answer.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/wealthy-stashing-offshore_n_3179139.html

Global Super-Rich Stashing Up To $32 Trillion Offshore, Masking True Scale Of Inequality: Study

The global super-rich are stashing trillions of dollars offshore with the help of some of the world's biggest banks, putting billions of dollars out of the taxman’s reach and masking wealth inequality's true heights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks

1 China Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)
2 China China Construction Bank Corporation
3 United Kingdom HSBC Holdings
4 China Agricultural Bank of China
5 United States JPMorgan Chase & Co.
6 France BNP Paribas
7 China Bank of China
8 Japan Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group
9 France Crédit Agricole Group
10 United Kingdom Barclays PLC
11 United States Bank of America
12 Germany Deutsche Bank
13 United States Citigroup Inc
14 Japan Japan Post Bank
15 United States Wells Fargo
16 Japan Mizuho Financial Group
17 United Kingdom Royal Bank of Scotland Group
18 China China Development Bank
19 France Société Générale
20 Spain Banco Santander

[jwirr]

93. That is my point. Glass-Steagell did not allow that. But Hillary does not want to reinstate it. No

one would be stopped from investing in risky transactions IF they want to with their own money. But Glass-Steagell would not allow the banks to use our money to do that. Investors may still want to invest overseas but it would be the investor that made this decision not the banker who can take everything in his bank and make the gamble.

When we had small local banks under the Glass-Steagell act those banks had to keep depositors money in the community. This did three things - it protected the depositor, stimulated investment in the local community and kept FDIC viable. Also back then if a bank went down it was one small bank not the whole system. Today as we saw in 2008 if the big bank goes down everyone loses, much of the money is invested overseas anyhow and the FDIC could not cover the huge problem with the big banks so we ended up adding money for a bailout.

I do not see how this is a pony. This is common sense.

[BrotherIvan]

111. I can't believe people don't know this!

And since now it is campaign season, they will get nothing but the above propaganda.

[jwirr]

113. Unfortunately. One of my professors in college warned our class that Glass-Steagell was the

most important tool do avoid another Great Depression and he was R.

[BrotherIvan]

118. Why do you think they wanted to get rid of it?

The fact that some Congresspeople are trying to reinstate it now means they hopefully can ride the progressive movement of the campaign. The establishment is in an awful position trying to ignore the problem. Why do you think it took three months to write a speech that had to be approved by Wall Street CEOs?

[jwirr]

120. Exactly.

[hedda_foil]

169. I learned the same thing in high school history class.

I will NEVER forgive Bill Clinton for selling out our economic well being for a mess of pottage, otherwise known as Phil Gram. And I was a huge supporter all the way through.

[jwirr]

178. Yeah I was a his supporter from the beginning.

[Sancho]

126. US "banks" like Goldman Sachs ignored Glass-Steagell...

and used subsidiary banks to buy risky investments in Greece and all over the world. If you reinstated G-S, how would you enforce it in Samoa, Bermuda, Nassau, Hong Kong, and even London?

Unless you close the loopholes, none of the US regulations make a difference. You'd have to get a GOP Congress to pass new regulations on US Banks and control their international affiliations. So far, nothing like that seems to have even been offered.

Look at Europe now, bailing out Greece mostly to save the banks.

I understand the theory of G-S, but it would need fixing even if it was reinstated.

[jwirr]

132. But if commercial banks and investment banks like Goldman were separate they would be doing

that investing without OUR money. The money we had in our commercial bank account.

And Goldman could do what ever they wanted because it would be their own investors who stood to lose and they would know it was risky. The risk would be to investment banks and they would have to insure their own risk. IMO that would stop a lot of the risky investment just because they are no longer covered by the FDIC.

Glass-Steagell only did one thing - it created a two tier banking system. A very secure bank which was usually local and held OUR deposits and pensions etc. They were called commercial banks and invested ONLY in local communities.

Goldman Sachs and other investment banks in the second tier did not have access to the money in the commercial banks. They only had money that some individual took out of their own money and invested with the broker.

You say that they ignored Glass-Steagell but they could not ignore it because they were separate systems without access to each others assets. If they did they would have had to rob the commercial bank and transfer the money to the investment bank without the depositors permission. And in fact that is exactly what they did when Glass-Steagell was repealed. The government gave them permission to take OUR deposits through the merger of the two banking systems.

[Sancho]

143. I think they were using a variety of loopholes to do this before and after G-S

"If they did they would have had to rob the commercial bank and transfer the money to the investment bank without the depositors permission. And in fact that is exactly what they did when Glass-Steagell was repealed."

I agree, traditional banks would be best to stick to secured banking. I realize the intent of G-S. The question is how to enforce it with all the big banks with most assets overseas and necessary banking functions for international commerce - but other countries might allow that same bank to have different regulations.

If someone in Samoa violated a new version of G-S, how would you hold an individual person accountable? How would you insist that a bank in Hong Kong turn over assets or even reveal records? Look at the years it took to find some Swiss tax cheats and only because of a single whistle blower! http://www.cnbc.com/2014/12/16/why-this-swiss-bank-whistleblower-cant-leave-us.html

Likely, the only useful policy would be an international banking agreement. Without that cooperation, a new G-S would be an inconvenience at most for the banksters.

Heck, we have not even been able to get US Attorneys, bank regulators, the FED, or SEC, or State Attorneys to prosecute obvious fraud and outright theft on existing US law.

Actually, one answer might be to have a public national bank (Post Office outlets?) run as a non-profit that would perform most common functions like checking, debit cards, loans, and local mortgages.

At any rate, I realize Warren is big on an new G-S. If she gets enough traction and it passed Congress, I'm sure any of the Democratic candidates would sign it.

[jwirr]

149. I think where you and I are disagreeing is that you are talking about the world investment

system. I am talking about protecting the deposits of the people who do not want to invest except in their own community. There is no protection for them right now because the systems are combined.

As to enforcing the law world wide - the foreign bankers would not have access to the commercial banks so they also would not be able to gamble with our money.

And okay maybe I am not being nice about the investment banks but once our money is no longer in their system I do not care what they do. As long as they are investing their own money and they reveal the risks to their investors and insure for their own lose. They finally can have their free market. Two different problems.

[JDPriestly]

176. We won't have to insure the losses of banks in all those countries if the banks are

using their own money, not the money of American depositors.

The FDIC insures American deposits up to a certain amount. That money should not be used for investing in the stock market. It should be used to invest in companies locally. It should not be used to buy risky instruments like derivatives.

[jwirr]

179. And if we have a healthy America the whole world is better off because our investers will not be

so quick to use the world as a testing ground for risky ideas. They do that because they use our money.

[JDPriestly]

174. I agree with you on this essential point.

In the end, international regulation is likely the only answer.

And Bernie is the candidate most likely to hire a team that will figure out how to do that.

[staggerleem]

121. The way that we can deal with foreign banks ...

... is with tax & trade policies that make them very unattractive for American investment. Where would China be tomorrow if EVERY American company that's invested there pulled all their money out today? They sure wouldn't have 5 of the world's 20 largest banks anymore!

Alexander Hamilton had the right idea, and it worked, BEAUTIFULLY, for over 2 centuries - from The American Revolution until the "Reagan Revolution". We need to bring back tariffs, we need to repatriate the companies that moved their HQ's overseas (yes, "Ireland's" Apple, I'm talking to YOU!), and we need to find a way to close the overseas tax shelters.

If you want to sell your products to the MASSIVE American consumer market, you'll either need to build it in America, or pay 20 - 30% to bring it here from overseas. The strength of any nation's economy is based in it's MANUFACTURING (Hamilton said that long before me!), so we need to be doing that, HERE, again - like we did when this WAS a great nation.

[Sancho]

123. I don't have any problem with leveling the playing field with VAT's or import taxes.

I don't think regulations about trade, currency manipulation, or bank transparency would be bad. I think that Hillary and Warren have discussed exactly those sorts of proposals.

China has purchased a LOT of American bonds. We owe them. The also are using that money to invest all over the world. They manipulate currency.

Part of Obama's TPP is designed to deal with the Chinese issue, even though we don't know what the final TPP will look like. The idea is to have an agreement with everyone EXCEPT China in the Pacific, so China would have to play ball or be left out.

[staggerleem]

180. Stay away from the free-trade Kool-Aid!

The reason that China CAN effectively manipulate it's currency are identical to the reasons we cannot - (1) they have avoided all the Free-Trade agreements thus far, and (B) they still have tariffs.

Putting the "hurt" on Chinese trade is nothing more than a talking point - the TPP will not do that, and wasn't even designed to do that. The REAL purpose of the TPP was wonderfully and presciently stated by Henry Wallace, back when he was FDR's VP - (paraphrasing) "to allow the economic royalists to consolidate the economic power they already have with political power, and keep the working class in subjugation forever!"

[J_J_]

131. exactly right!

Please make this an op- this is so important!

[imthevicar]

170. Any Bank that does not adhear to American Law,

Does not get to operate in the US.

[JDPriestly]

173. Defeating the TPP would put the world's financial markets on notice that the American

people want them to play fair with Americans. Every trade deal gives bankers who park their money overseas and don't invest it in jobs for Americans more power.

[sabrina 1]

83. The super rich only HAVE that money to stash offshore because they have

been able to take advantage of all the neo liberal policies that allowed them to move money away from the people into their bank accounts. All these policies that allowed this to happen, need to be ended. Bernie is the only candidate in this race that I see who understands this.

Clearly, if Hillary opposes Bank Regulation which worked very well here for most Americans, she doesn't have a clue about this issue.

[Sancho]

90. Bernie is NOT the only politician to see the "problem".

In fact, he doesn't seem to understand the problem.

The money is out now! The international banks are in place now. A US law will have little effect at this time.

No effort to fix it will work unless it has international cooperation and closes loopholes. The US Congress will do neither unless we have a new Congress.

Bernie, as far as I know, has not proposed any international agreement with other countries that might affect banking.

Warren and Hillary and Obama have all mentioned the problem and it's complexities.

[davidpdx]

91. What is fucked up is our own Congress has passed laws that REQUIRE anyone living abroad

with bank accounts to make reports under two different laws FBAR and FAT CA. Clearly someone who is middle class that has a good job can save up that amount of money. Yet, they are coming after those of us who are tiny fish instead of those who are hidings millions or more.

The reporting requirements:

BAR is $10,000
FATCA is $50,000

For this tax year I will be required to file FBAR, but not FATCA. Penalties for making mistakes intensionally or unintentionally are $50,000

[jtuck004]

95. No, no, no, can't break up the banks. Now, let me invite you to partake of some of our

fabulous options on real estate...

Jamie Dimon
Goldman Sach$

Where our company motto is "You came back? What a fucking dweeb."

[billhicks76]

161. Bill Clinton Should Endorse Bernie

Why support Nepotism and excuse Jeb on that point. It's the least old Bill-O could do for the telecom communications act that monopolized our media, the dissolution of glass-steigal which tanked our economy and the omnibus crime bill which turned us into a police state and ruined families with drug war state sponsored atrocities.

[JDPriestly]

171. Breaking up the big US banks and not allowing them to gamble, to trade, with

depositor's money that is guaranteed by the FDIC (the US government) is a very good thing for the US to do.

The problem of tax evasion and avoidance with overseas accounts is a separate problem.

[99Forever]

2. Could agree with you more.

Last edited Fri Jul 17, 2015, 09:01 AM - Edit history (1)

I don't have any do overs left. If they shit the neocons and neoliberals did to OUR nation doesn't get fixed now, I am truly screwed as to having a chance to ever retire with any sort of life at all.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. Yeah, the 'pony' I want

is just to be gainfully employed again, not to have job app after job app passed over. I may not get my pony, but unless we break the stranglehold of capital over government, tens of millions will be stuck where I am in future.

[FlatBaroque]

4. It is f'ing beyond comprehension

that after engineering the worst financial collapse in decades through his deregulation of financial services, the worst media landscape that I have ever seen due to his deregulation of telecommunications, and so many other miserable, neoliberal policies, his wife now wants the job. Why, to fix wat he did or to finish the job?

[J_J_]

130. +100000

This should be it's own OP

[stillwaiting]

5. It's such a ridiculous talking point isn't it? K&R. nt

[mmonk]

19. Yes. Silly, sad, and dismissive of real problems affecting real lives.

[Sancho]

6. Then why tax the retirement of public employees and union members?

Do you support less SS benefits? Bernie's transaction tax is a direct hit on the retirement funds of many thousands of public employees and union negotiated retirement plans.

Either Bernie doesn't care about hard-working Americans or else he's an economic novice who doesn't know what he's doing. You pick. His plan also shows a complete lack of how colleges and universities actually work. Links below.

------------------------

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/
Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street. This legislation is offset by

imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge funds, and other speculators of

0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee on bonds, and a 0.005%

fee on derivatives. It has been estimated that this provision could raise hundreds of billions a year

which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges and universities in this country,

it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the middle class of this country.

------------------------

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/36vmm8/what_are_some_legitimate_arguments_against_bernie/

[–]DeadMonkey321 50 points 12 days ago*

Apparently (according to a tax lawyer who was running around one of the earlier threads), there was no exception for 401k's, meaning that every time the mutual funds in your retirement fund rebalance, which should be a few times a year, you're paying a tax and losing money from your retirement.

Edit: just used the calculator found here to calculate the costs of 0.5% over 40 years assuming you were investing just $5500/year (the max allowable to an IRA). Using these assumptions, this tax would cost you, the average investor, $157,000 over the 40 years you're investing. This is money that I'm sure you'd prefer going towards your retirement.

Note: this isn't 100% accurate as I'm treating this as an addition to the expense ratio which isn't totally correct, but it's a ballpark figure to give the tax some context.

---------------------------

I just looked at NY, AZ, WI, CA, etc..these funds are often public employees represented by unions. This money is hard-fought. It's collected and invested for decades by whatever office each state sets up - in Florida it's almost 200 billion invested by a staff of 200 who are constantly buying, selling, and trading. Also, some funds are in the hands of large private investment companies. They clearly complete transactions everyday, which include stocks, bonds, real estate, derivatives, commodities. Most of the time, no type of investment is out of bounds unless the state or controlling board specifically limit them. Those investments would be TAXED by Bernie's transaction tax. That retirement money is earned by public employees, often union members: teachers, professors, police, firemen, city employees, social workers, park rangers, etc. Every penny that fund doesn't contain, is a penny that labor has to fight over.

For example, you can see in AZ the following allocation:

Equity/Stocks: 58%
U.S. Equity: 26%
Non-US Equity: 24%
Private Equity: 8%
Fixed Income: 25%
U.S. Fixed Income: 15%
Private Debt: 10%
Inflation Linked Assets: 12%
Real Estate: 10%
Commodities: 2%

https://www.azasrs.gov/content/asset-allocation
https://www.osc.state.ny.us/pension/overview.htm
http://www.calstrs.com/investments-overview
----------------------------
http://www.sbafla.com/fsb/

The State Board of Administration (SBA) was created by the Florida Constitution and is governed by a three-member Board of Trustees (Trustees), comprised of the Governor as Chair, the Chief Financial Officer and the Attorney General.

The Trustees, in concert with legislative directives, have ultimate oversight. They delegate authority to the Executive Director/Chief Investment Officer to carry out the strategic direction in the day-to-day financial investments and operations of the agency. The Executive Director/CIO manages approximately 190 professional investment and administrative support staff.

The SBA is required to invest assets and discharge its duties in accordance with Florida law and in compliance with fiduciary standards of care. Under state law, the SBA and its staff are obliged to:

Make sound investment management decisions that are solely in the interest of investment clients.
Make investment decisions from the perspective of subject-matter experts acting under the highest standards of professionalism and care, not merely as well-intentioned persons acting in good faith.
---------------------

http://chronicle.com/article/Bernie-Sanderss-Charming/231387?cid=megamenu

July 6, 2015

Bernie Sanders's Charming, Perfectly Awful Plan to Save Higher Education

By Kevin Carey

Bernie Sanders, the self-described socialist senator, Internet hero, and apparent front-runner in the race for second place in the 2016 Democratic presidential campaign, has ideas about higher-education reform. Like the man himself, they are bold, charmingly utopian, kind of weird, and most important for how they might eventually move the boundaries of mainstream political culture.

Sanders wants every student in America to be able to attend a public college or university without paying tuition. Legislation he proposed to that effect a few weeks ago includes a reasonably plausible mechanism of multibillion-dollar federal subsidies and new regulation of state spending. The current Congress, it is safe to say, will not soon be passing such a bill.

But in trying to define a new fiscal federalism for American higher education, Sanders has sparked a conversation that is likely to expand. Without something like the Sanders plan, the disgraceful dismantling of public higher education, underway in many states, will certainly continue.

The no-tuition part of the Sanders plan attracted a great deal of attention, aided by canny headline writers who understand that "Bernie Sanders" is catnip for social media. Less discussed was the corollary part of the plan: In exchange for billions of new taxpayer dollars, the federal government would enforce a specific vision of what a high-quality college education means.

States would have to promise that, within five years, "not less than 75 percent of instruction at public institutions of higher education in the State is provided by tenured or tenure-track faculty." In addition, any funds left over after eliminating tuition could be used only for purposes such as "expanding academic course offerings to students," "increasing the number and percentage of full-time instructional faculty," providing faculty members with "supports" such as "professional development opportunities, office space, and shared governance in the institution." States would be prohibited from using the money for merit-based financial aid, "nonacademic facilities, such as student centers or stadiums," or "the salaries or benefits of school administrators."

[DanTex]

8. I think that Bernie's FTT would exempt retirement plans and mutual funds.

Not sure about the details, but most of the proposals I've seen do that.

[Sancho]

13. Not true...most public retirements trade just like millionaires...

and the transaction tax would cost the typical employee thousands - and the states will pass on any deficits to the workers.

I'm a union officer - and I've talked with several accountants, business professors, and attorneys familiar with this idea. So far they all say it would cost the employee retirement funds a lot of money over 20-30 years of contributions.

[DanTex]

14. Yes, they do. But if the FTT law says "retirement funds don't have to pay this"

then they won't have to pay it. And my guess, based on previous such proposals, is that it does. I could be wrong, like I said, I haven't seen the details, but that's my guess. But if I am wrong, and pension funds are not exempt, then you are correct. This would probably cost a typical fund something like 0.5% every year (based on average trading volumes for large stock funds), which doesn't sound like a lot, but it is a lot because it accumulates over time.

Typically, there are two kinds of FTTs proposed: big ones with exemptions, and small ones without exemptions. The 0.5% that Bernie has proposed is big, which is why I assume there are exemptions -- all the other big FTTs I've seen have them, for good reasons. Small FTTs are something like 0.02%, and so you don't need exemptions because it would have a tiny effect on anyone except for high-frequency traders.

I favor the small FTT with no exemptions, primarily because once you start giving exemptions, Wall Street sharks start playing legal games to pretend they are whatever they need to be to get the exemptions (by creating special purpose companies, or whatever).

[Sancho]

40. I think if you read the proposal, it would affect large public retirement funds.

The funds are usually traded (including speculation) by a combination of private brokers and hired state staff. It is not possible to separate trades of Romney's broker vs. Florida's broker since they are the same person trading the same fund.

Yes, not just sharks looking for exemptions, but state governments would manipulate FTT's. If I charged tuition and it was paid by a fed. tax - why support the state college? Just drop the tuition support and let the fed tax pay!

That a gross example, but you get the idea.

[DanTex]

51. I couldn't find Bernie's latest proposal, but here's a previous similar bill introduced in congress.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr4191/text
It has exemptions like this:

(b)Exception for retirement accounts, etc
No tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any stock contract, futures contract, swaps contract, credit default swap, or options contract which is held in any plan, account, or arrangement described in section 220, 223, 401(a), 403(a), 403(b), 408, 408A, 529, or 530.

I would guess that Bernie's plan would have similar language. It would be hugely surprising if it didn't.

It's true that brokers execute the trades, so the exchange doesn't know whether it's a pension fund or Mitt Romney doing them. But the brokers keep track of which trades are executed for which clients (already, by law), and all that information is passed along to the clients for tax and accounting purposes. The brokers aren't the ones paying the tax, it's the owners of the shares, and so in the case of the FTT, Mitt Romney would be faced with a big transaction tax bill, but a pension fund wouldn't owe any.

Unless, of course, Mitt Romney managed to figure out how to create a special purpose company that fit under section 220, 223, etc.

[kenfrequed]

54. Thank you.

Appreciate your candor here.

[Sancho]

55. link..if state colleges benefited from tuition payment, why exempt them from an FTT?

Bernie Sanders Robin Hood tax

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/
Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street. This legislation is offset by

imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge funds, and other speculators of

0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee on bonds, and a 0.005%

fee on derivatives. It has been estimated that this provision could raise hundreds of billions a year

which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges and universities in this country,

it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the middle class of this country.

[DanTex]

61. It's just the way the accounting works.

There are two purposes for an FTT:
1) To raise money (in this case for tuition)
2) To curb destabilizing high-frequency trading, while not punishing long-term investors
Where the money goes after it's raised doesn't really change the underlying logic behind the whole thing.

That proposal doesn't go into full details, but Bernie says he will impose a "Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge funds, and other speculators" which seems to me a clear indication that pension plans, 401Ks and the like are going to get an exemption, just like they do in pretty much every other large FTT proposal. As I said, if there is no such exemption, then your concerns are totally valid, but I'm pretty sure the exemption will be there once the whole bill is written.

Like I said, the only kinds of FTT proposals I've ever seen without exemptions are tiny, on the order of 0.01% or 0.02%. This is small enough that it is negligible to long term investors like pension funds, but large enough to curb the high-frequency excesses.

[dreamnightwind]

148. Thank you

I had an earlier exchange with this same poster who doesn't like the FTT, I went on a camping trip right after getting into the exchange and never got to respond to his claims.

It seems to me he either isn't aware of, or doesn't particularly care about, the #2 purpose in your post, slowing down the rapid automated trades which now make up a huge percentage of all trades on Wall St., and which are not purchases of stocks to be held as an inviestment, they are merely momentary transactions designed to take advantage of minute fluctuations in stock pricing, not a legitimate function of the market as far as I can see. It's an important issue because of its massive scale. Slow the beast down with a FTT.

Also, if public pensions are trading in that way and are hurt by the FTT, they shouldn't be doing it in the first place. Make sound investments based on perceived vaue and buying into a company's prospects, rather than skim money from the system with lightning fast automated transactions which don't even bother to look at the underlying fundamentals of a company, because the stock will only be very briefly held so they don't care about whether the comany is valued correctly or not.

If pension funds are trading in a responsible manner, making purchases of stocks they intend to hold as an investment, they won't be hurt by a small FTT, since they won't be making that many transactions.

[peacebird]

28. His proposed tax rate is 50 cents per $100 traded. That is a pretty tiny rate.

[DanTex]

66. More important than that, it would almost surely exempt retirement funds.

0.5% is actually a pretty large rate for an FTT. If there were no exemptions, then Sancho would have a valid concern, because large stock funds usually turn over something like 100% of their holdings per year, meaning that it would drain 0.5% annualy from retirement stock market accounts. And some funds trade more than that, which would make the loss bigger, maybe 1% or 2% per year. It doesn't sound like much, bit it accumulates and becomes a lot. Especially since the average stock fund goes up something like 7% a year in the long term. In the investment world, if you can get an extra percent per year, that's significant.

But that's the very reason that FTTs that are proposed of this size always, to my knowledge, are accompanied by exemptions for things like retirement funds. The purpose is to curb high-frequency trading, not reduce rates of return for long-term investors. And I have little doubt that Bernie's plan would include such an exemption as well.

[peacebird]

75. Exactly, and I had assumed it did exclude retirement funds.... Guess I need to research that.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

65. 50 cents per hundred dollars is 1/200th.

If it costs you 157k, that means the total amount taxed is over 31 million. Even if that's assessed every single year, that means your account manager is selling off EVERY SINGLE SHARE you own, every single year. That's not a 'rebalance'. That's a totally incompetent account manager. Far more realistic is that you are 'rebalancing' maybe 10-20 percent of your portfolio tops each year, in which case you end up paying maybe 15-30k on your million or more of investments.

(ETA: And notice, in his investment, they're only putting in 220k, not one million. You have to make wildly optimistic assumptions about gains to pay anywhere near that much in fees. If the market was flat the whole time, you'd actually end up paying like 4k in fees.)

[DanTex]

79. Mutual fund turnover rates average close to 100% per year, maybe 90%.

That doesn't mean selling every single share you own, it just means that the average holding period for stocks in the portfolio is about a year.

So, if this tax were applicable to retirement funds, that would be a valid concern. It would reduce rates of return by about 0.5% per year, which is substantial.

The real point, though, is that any FTT of this size (0.5% is actually a very large FTT, small ones are like 0.02%), is going to exempt retirement funds, 401Ks, etc. For this very reason. So Bernie's FTT will actually end up costing retirement funds nothing.

[Sancho]

86. Florida's retirement fund is 200 Billion...

and trades thousands of times every day. Not "once a year", but transactions by hundreds of professionals every hour.

Over 20, 30, 40 years...the tax would total a large amount for every retiree in the system. That's the way many state funds operate. Every penny going to the tax would NOT be there to compound for decades.

Think about it. We have some accountants in the union who think it would cost the fund millions, which would be passed on to the employees. The fund must be solvent or we all lose retirement. If there is a shortfall, the state takes more out of our checks!

[SheilaT]

81. Question about math.

.5% is five tenths of one percent, or .005. When I multiply $5500 times .005 I get $27.50. Twenty-seven dollars and fifty cents. Can't begin to imagine how that eventually add $157,000 over forty years, given that our FICA contributions are significantly more than that $27.50 and don't generally add up to such a large sum.

I think whoever did the math didn't know that .5% equal .005 when you start doing the mulitplying.

[DanTex]

7. Purists who want ponies are the ones who will sit out the GE if the primary doesn't go their way.

Voting for Bernie in the primary is great, nobody has any problem with that.

[Dawgs]

24. Maybe that's your definition, but many others suggest electing Bernie is wanting ponies.

Not just sitting out, as you suggest.

[elzenmahn]

43. Fine, then I'll take the pony...

...who actually stands for what I believe in, than the alleged, triangulating "thoroughbred" who shifts direction with the political winds.

If Hillary is the nominee, I'll vote for her. But forget the enthusiasm - she hasn't earned it.

[Dawgs]

60. Was this meant for me or the post above mine?

It's hard to tell.

[Scootaloo]

129. Seen more than a few people who have a problem with it, actually

Including a handful who are opposed to the primaries at all.

One guy was yelling that Hillary should run as an incumbent. I don't... i don't even know how he thinks it works, but... yeah, that happened.

[Gothmog]

9. I will support the Democratic Nominee no matter what

[Android3.14]

18. We appreciate your compliance

In order to compel the Democratic Party to promote sound governance for all the people, I will support the candidate that best shares my positive vision of the future of this nation.

My hope is that this candidate will also be the Democratic Party nominee.

[oberliner]

21. Are you familiar with the Terms of Service for this board?

One of them is:

Vote for Democrats.

[TM99]

41. Nope!

We have been through this before, so cut out the fucking threats.

Once the general election begins, THEN members who advocate for a third party or state they will not vote for the Dem nominee are in violation of the ToS. But not before.

[oberliner]

46. Not a threat

Just pointing out a basic fact about this board that the poster might not be aware of.

[Nitram]

140. If I dodn't know better, TM99, I'd think you took great pleasure in dumping on...

...the democratic candidates for president that aren't your first choice. You obviously aren't someone who understands the spirit of the concept.

[TM99]

162. You don't know better.

That is obvious.

[elzenmahn]

44. And Bernie Sanders IS RUNNING AS A DEMOCRAT...

...and I'm aware of the TOS. I don't think the threats are warranted.

[oberliner]

48. Yes indeed he is

But the post to which I responded was about voting for whoever is best match, and hopefully that person will be a Democrat.

No threats - I just like to remind people that on this board we all support Democrats and work hard to make sure they get elected.

[Android3.14]

94. Oh looky, we have another bully in the forum

You point out where I say I won't vote for a Democrat, and I'll pretend that you aren't being a threatening little bully on the playground.

I've met your sort. I've been threatened with worse by far better.

[frylock]

107. Gee, thanks

[Jester Messiah]

150. Oh, are these your jackboots?

Getting hard to tell around here, what with so many people wearing them. Must be the fad.

[winter is coming]

160. Why yes; yes, I am!

In fact, I'm so familiar with the TOS that I also know it's not election season!

Bonus knowledge: You have no say in whether or not long-term DUers get banned!

But go on waving your inflatable club. It's comedy gold!

[rhett o rick]

167. And oh wow, you'd bring down the wrath. But you are missing something. I will always

vote for Democrats. You and all your billionaire friends can not make me vote for H. Clinton. She betrayed the party. She helped George Bush promulgate the lies about WMD in Iraq. She is partially responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children. How can you forgive that? Do those lives not matter?

It's not like she is your only choice.

[Nitram]

108. "we appreciate your compliance?" You sound like an android.

I can't help but think the snark, the hyperbole, and the hysteria are covering deep doubts that Sanders can win. And if he loses, his supporters are going to throw up their hands and give up because the corporations are controlling everyone and everything except Bernie.

[blackspade]

10. Why the hate for ponies anyway?

And pure things are good too...like water, which the corporatists are buying up so that it can be rationed to the rest of us.

[mmonk]

15. Yes, clean and abundant water would help since it is essential to life itself.

And the air we breathe.

[tazkcmo]

87. Cuz ponies are difficult.

In fact, so difficult it's not even worth trying. Reminds me of my kids when they were young. "But it's HARD, dad!" and my response was always, "That's how you know it's important!".

[CharlotteVale]

12. K&R

[polichick]

16. It's amazing how many will adopt the con artists' rhetoric...

Americans for far too long have been getting less and less from THEIR government, and with little protest. Those who accuse awakened citizens of wanting ponies are acting as tools. k&r

[sofa king]

17. Please stop telling me you're voting!

It's not guaranteed that Bernie is going to survive to the primaries, and if you're poor or a minority there is no guarantee that you will be able to vote.

None of these issues have been addressed since another Bush got close enough to steal it--twice, so unless the Democratic candidate has an overwhelming groundswell of support that cannot be statistically hidden, as Senator Obama created, our votes don't mean jack shit.

[SusanCalvin]

100. Thank you.

Never forget that Republican votes carry more weight than Democratic votes due to gerrymandering and voter suppression. Never forget that W stole the election twice, yes he did, and the mechanisms are still in place for it to happen again. We need a tsunami to overcome that, and I think Bernie can do it.

[mmonk]

137. And you left out gerrymandering.

Where I live, it takes 3.5 votes for Democrats to equal 1 Republican vote.

[J_J_]

147. + one million

Hillary supporters seem very confident in diebold.

[Scuba]

22. My "pony" is Social Security. My "unicorn" is Medicare.

[cstanleytech]

26. I want a ponicorn because I want the Democrats to boot the Republicans

out of control over the House and Senate with enough force that the Republicans still feel the boot imprint on their ass 100 years from now.

[MisterP]

117. this wing of the party openly called people who want it Greedy Geezers and say we have

to pass the Contract on America because its ideas are so popular there's no other way to beat the GOP

[cstanleytech]

23. Purist? I wouldnt call you that at all because supporting Bernie is 100% ok just like

supporting Hillary is 100% ok as both are Democrats and this is the Democratic Underground.

[GoneFishin]

89. +1. Yes. I will vote for Democrats.

Bernie + down ticket candidates.

[KittyWampus]

29. I strongly dislike the term "purist" and am now avoiding using it.

The 'pony' reference is hard to give up though.

[Enthusiast]

30. You are exactly right, mmonk!

And one more thing. Trickle down. The idea that we cannot tax high income earners and corporations has got to come to an end.

Supply side is the main reason for this huge income inequality.

[mmonk]

50. True that.

It hurts domestic demand as well.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

69. I prefer the older name for it. Horse and sparrow.

Because the idea that you feed the sparrows from the crap that falls from the horse is just that. Horse shit.

[jwirr]

76. +1

[alc]

31. primary voters should be purists (to they extent each of us is)

We should tell ALL candidates what we want. I'd like to see 100 options on the ballot so we can all say exactly what we prefer. Some single-issue. Some economic focused. Some social focused. Some general approach to governing. Etc. The priorities (votes) would differ across the country and even across many states. And the candidates can see how voters feel on issues. Seeing which candidates/issues get votes is more telling that what (rigged) surveys say voters care about. Of course this depends on voters actually paying attention and learning about the candidates rather than being swayed by ads and mud.

Then the general election candidate would know pretty exactly what the voters are FOR. The way it is now primary votes mean very little in terms of issues. Is my vote about a single issue? Which one? Or a majority of the candidate's issues? Or only about electability in the general?

As it is now, when the candidate is elected, he/she will push his/her/donors'/lobbyists' main issues regardless of how the voters felt about those issues. And we expect a pony and they tell us we gave them a mandate to give us pony poop.

If Sanders gets 5% in the primaries, Hillary can pretty much ignore his voters on issues they differ. If he gets 30% she'll have to consider those voters in the first term or she'll have a tough time in reelection if she delivers too much pony poop.

Also, if you were a real purist you'd want a unicorn. At least at this point in the process we need to be vocal about exactly what we want in a candidate.

[Walk away]

32. I don't think you are unreasonable for wanting those things....

just a tetch deluded about the possibility of attaining the with Bernie. But that's just fine with me. Hillary supporters have been called much worse things by many more people here at DU.

I suggest you grow some as you belong to the loud majority at DU call "Bernie supporters". They constantly bash Hillary and her supporters and post gloating bile about her as soon as they can find it (even if the source is a right wing website). And now they are sad because we dare to point out that Bernie Sanders is a pie in the sky?

Why would that bother you if you are so sure he will win the primaries and the general?

[Maedhros]

104. Deluded?

I'm laughing at the "superior" intellect.

/ignore.

[Walk away]

155. Yes....deluded.

[BooScout]

33. Waaaah.....

And if you don't get your way are you gonna stomp off and take your pony home?

[TM99]

42. If she somehow wins the primary,

Clinton is going to need all of the pony riders she can get.

Some of us on here and LOTS out there are not going to support her. Period.

If we have a different choice, hell yes, the Democratic party then deserves to win. But Clinton? Nah, we don't need another neo-liberal New Dem to fuck us over even more than the last two plus the GOP have done.

[BooScout]

71. I suggest you read the TOS of DU

One is to vote Democratic. Taking your ponies and stomping off in a snit and not voting for the nominee is not an option here.

[TM99]

92. Oh FFS, the ToS

states that during the general, DU members must refrain for advocating another candidate or party. That does not apply to any other time including now during the primaries.

If Clinton gets the nod, then I will not post until after the election when I return to say - told you so!

[frylock]

109. Great. Another hall monitor.

[HappyMe]

144. We don't have a nominee yet, do we?

Maybe you are the one that needs to tone down the snit and stomp off.

[mmonk]

52. You mock those us of who been wrecked by such policy.

That is a cruel streak you need to get rid of if you are to make any case for your candidate.

[carolinayellowdog]

136. cruelty and mockery of Sanders supporters are the stock in trade

of those who can't or won't make a reasoned, evidence-based argument for their chosen candidate or against Sanders; alas that seems to be a large number of scolds

[artislife]

158. I heard empathy was a choice nt

We should all choose.

[WillyT]

36. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[SoapBox]

45. K & R!

[Politicub]

49. Please, stop the whining

His most enthusiastic supporters make him out to be some kind of messiah. They get called out on that, and then they start to feel defensive.

You and many others are projecting this aura of purity about him. It isn't Hillary supporters or anyone else. If anything, the Hillary folks get that politics isn't some pollyanna dance in the park where a knight will ride in on his magnificent steed and set the world back on its proper course.

One of the reasons people don't like Obama - and on the flipside, it's the reason he was able to become one of the most consequential presidents of all time - is he understands and leverages the machinations of politics. That's why he was able to get healthcare passed when no one else was able to.

I'm sure Bernie knows how to play politics after being in office for this many years. It takes coalitions of people, and sometimes those people are whom with which you disagree, to get things done in our two-party system.

Hillary supporters know she isn't perfect. That she sometimes makes mistakes. That there's tremendously positive aspects of her experience, and some things that cause us to chaff.

But the only way to argue that she's somehow unfit to be president is to take one thing and blow it all out of proportion. Taken on balance, I can't think of anyone else who has worked harder than Hillary to make real so many democratic values. She isn't afraid to stand up to bullies in congress. And sometimes she makes mistakes.

[JoePhilly]

56. Great response.

You should now prepared to be yelled at for "attacking Bernie".

[stevenleser]

72. Bernie fans are setting new records for use of logical fallacies. I've had to go to the fallacy ref

to deal with them.

See my #19 and #96 under this OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251450837

[stevenleser]

70. Yep. nt

[Maedhros]

105. From my perspective, there are many reasons why Hillary is unfit for the Presidency.

They have been well-discussed.

No matter how many Hillary supporters come to lecture us about what we should think, we're not going to simply swap one set of convictions for another.

Project what you want onto your candidate, we're not buying it.

[J_J_]

146. +1000000

They think they can bully us into liking Hillary

[frylock]

110. I remember when Obama supporters were accused of treating him as a messiah..

nothing learned from 2008 at all. Keep up the good job.

[d_legendary1]

124. Never thought I'd hear Right Wing Memes on DU

"Messiah" is word that was frequently used by right wing media to describe the Democratic base i.e. peopel who voted for him. It was offensive when they used it to describe Democrats as a cult following, its offensive now when used to describe Bernie supporters.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/10/23/when-leaders-get-messiah-complexes.html

Giving you an example in case you don't believe me.

As far as Sanders and HRC's records go that's self explanatory. Either one would be fine as long the Republicans are defeated. Personally I would choose Sanders but until the fat lady sings we'll just have to agree to disagree on who is best for America.

[Roy Rolling]

53. Why not both?

He effectively addresses the issues that are important to me and the future of the United States.

AND I want a pony.

[marym625]

64. K&R!

Now, I'm not going to lie. I would love a pony. Unfortunately, because of so many bad economic policies and the continuation of deregulation, tax breaks for the wealthy, corporate welfare and the oligarchy we live in, I wouldn't be able to feed the pony.

So I'll forego the pony for reasonable economic policy and vote for Senator Sanders

[iamthebandfanman]

67. They are still sayin that?

Jeez, how 2004/2008. :p

Same ole shtick every year... Hmmm.. wonder why that is... and what party that sounds like :p

[skepticscott]

73. How many examples can you point to

of people actually telling you that specifically?

[Arkana]

74. OK. You're voting for Sanders because you're a lefty who likes almond milk.

[jwirr]

85. Sorry, us lefties are voting for Bernie because we and those we love cannot afford almond milk.

[colsohlibgal]

78. Obama

He will be consequential for being the first non white president but Obamacare hardly cured health care of it's ridiculous cost, all due to obscene profits flowing to fat cat executives who have nothing at all to do with health care delivery.

The big talking point of 'Obamacare" is not that it's lowered the insane costs, but that it's slowed down the rate of increase.

It and Medicaid do help out some people in need. But for the rest of us, it can still bleed us dry.

Also, just as NAFTA/CAFTA has dogged the legacy of Bill Clinton, Obama is working with mainly republicans to make sure the TPP will do the same for Obama.

[Prism]

82. LGBTers once wanted ponies

And all the same voices told us all the same things in the 2008 primaries.

Well, giddyup fuckers.

[SusanCalvin]

101. Yep. That's the first thing I thought of. nt

[haikugal]

114. All true....I'm so tired of the third way finger wagging. nt

[still_one]

84. Gee, yesterday it was about "stop telling me I will vote for Hillary because I am a woman"

Today it is "stop telling me I am voting for Bernie because I am a purest"

I can hardly wait to see what tomorrow brings, and which real or imaginary folks will tell us to vote or not vote for someone because "I am a _____"

[djean111]

96. Well, you know, you can count on one or more OPs telling us very sternly that we better

vote for Hillary in the general election. There's that to look forward to.

[still_one]

97. I have no doubt. I am waiting for the one on Donald Trump though. I really love this Kabuki show

[djean111]

98. Oooh! You reminded me! I have not seen a "Say Hello to President Trump!" as yet.

I wonder if he know he is not a serious contender until that happens.

[olddots]

99. but. but but

Muffy and I want to live in a gated communitity.

[HassleCat]

103. I admit it

I want the "pony." The accusation about the pony is that we demand something completely unrealistic, and we better lower our expectations or be ready for a crushing blow. Well, this is my first chance to vote for a democratic socialist and progressive, and I am not passing up this opportunity. The "pony" thing also refers to the idea that Sanders cannot possibly win the general election. Well, he certainly can, if he gets some support from the party. What will they do? Will they jump in and campaign for a real Democrat? Or will they sit at home and sulk?

[Indepatriot]

112. Stop bashing the Pony Community!

I, for one, would LOVE a pony!

[MisterP]

166. always talkin' 'bout the Pride of Krakow, eh?

[azmom]

116. Merchants of doubts!!!

[AgingAmerican]

119. Anything that is not right wing

...is labeled 'purist' or 'pony' by some folks here.

[PatrynXX]

125. I've gotten called names already

by supposed Democrats so much for being nice. Being mean turns people away. that and fiction like the Abortion one that tripped up many of my friends on the right. and I'll never be hard left. Bernie is not hard left. Hillary's Minions (are they yellow? I like the yellow ones but not the purple ones ) have pretty much totally turned me off. They did it in 2008 and they reminded me again this year.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

133. Besides that, ponys are terrible on a hardwood floor.

[Xipe Totec]

134. Not if they're unicorn ponies; those poop floor wax. nt

[winter is coming]

159. Correction: a floor wax that is also a dessert topping. n/t

[arcane1]

135. Notice that the "pony" argument always comes from the right side of the target candidate?

Funny how that works.

[mmonk]

139. Certainly. It means we don't care what you want or need or the country.

[calimary]

141. With all due respect, it wouldn't be so rough around here if some Bernie fans DID "ask for these

things made worse through bad policy to be fixed." I WISH that was all some here were doing! "ASKING for these things." NOT bellowing, yowling, threatening, overpowering, monopolizing, intimidating, insulting, and insinuating insults. Then it'd still be civil around DU. But the brickbats and insults and snark and avalanche of Hillary-sucks/I-won't-vote-for-Hillary-even-if-she's-the-nominee/I-hate-Hillary/Hillary-can't-be-trusted/Hillary-is-this/Hillary-is-that/don't-tell-me-I-have-to-vote-for-Hillary-just-because-I'm-female...etc etc etc etc etc etc... Frankly, I'm at the point where I strongly suspect there are mischief-makers and trolls from the other side of the aisle who are doing everything they can, in every way they can, to drive a big wedge into us and divide us and sow lots of animosity and other negativity. The opposition is VERY skilled, VERY sneaky, and VERY good at this type of thing.

It's Snark Week every week around here, anymore. The increasingly virulent gang-bang around here for Bernie is rather suffocating, and it's not us Hillary people who are pushing it and force-feeding it to all DUers here. ANY quick glance at the home page would strongly suggest that this is Bernie Sanders Underground because almost every post is about how wonderful he is and Hillary sucks, or about Hillary sucks and how wonderful Bernie is.

Go ahead and crowd us out if you have to. I sense that some Bernie people do want that. Because their heavy-handed non-stop force-feeding is actually driving some of us away - both from DU AND from coming around to supporting Bernie Sanders. The efforts here hover dangerously close to being counter-productive. MANY of us on the Hillary side have already vowed that we'll vote for him if he's the nominee. Conversely, I see precious few from the Bernie camp who are willing to stand by a similar promise. Which I find dreadfully disappointing. And I fear that such intransigence will alienate some of us on the Hillary side that - if Bernie DOES become the nominee, some of US might have been driven permanently away, too.

[carolinayellowdog]

152. with all due respect, from a very lukewarm Sanders supporter

"bellowing, yowling, threatening, overpowering, monopolizing, intimidating, insulting, and insinuating insults" has been the non-stop abuse of progressives by self-proclaimed "sensible centrists" here for YEARS. The behavior towards Obama supporters by Clinton supporters back in 2007-08 had a great impact on my feelings toward both candidates and my vote for Obama in the primary. And eight years later, it's deja vu all over again. You cannot BULLY people into line, and that is far more the behavior of Clinton supporters than Sanders supporters here. It comes down to threats, open threats, about future hypothetical reasons to throw people off the site in 2016 for opinions expressed in 2015-- IF they don't toe the line and change their tune. I don't see any Sanders supporters threatening Clinton supporters with ostracism next year!

There has been an extraordinarily nasty and insulting campaign against progressives for years, and yet even now, they are far more civil and friendly than their "centrist" attackers. So when you say "Then it'd still be civil around DU" I can't help feeling that civility here was destroyed long ago, the incivility has been overwhelmingly right-vs-left here as in US society at large, and now the self-proclaimed martyrdom of Clinton supporters finding themselves in a minority has unleashed all manner of nastiness and ugliness.

Unlike most of the Sanders supporters, I'm far from convinced he can win the nomination. But he is a voice for the voiceless and if he can make Hillary listen to the 99% even slightly more, and to the 1% even slightly less, he has my primary vote.

[lewebley3]

142. No, the Bush and GOP crashed the economy and sent facotres over sea!

[PowerToThePeople]

154. Mmonk, you are a very decent person who cares.

That is why I think you will vote for Bernie.

[Lordquinton]

157. "You're a purist!"

Says the crowd claiming Sanders isn't a real democrat.

[intheflow]

163. I'd reather be a purist who wants a pony

than a cynic who thinks they have to eat whatever is handed them from inside the beltway.

[whereisjustice]

164. Hillary represents everything that is wrong with Wall Street... she is an opportunist, it will

be disappointment after disappointment with her- every bad move by her will be countered with bullshit apology after bullshit apology. Hillary stands out as a Democrat who is for trickle down economics, more benefits for the rich, fewer civil liberties, more NSA.

The idea that anyone left of Mitt Romney thinks she is a good idea for the Democratic Party is sickening.

She really should go back to work at her Walmart roots, I'm sure they'd love to have her back. Perhaps she won't do that because Walmart doesn't have such a good track record with paying older employees, or women, what they are owed.

When Sanders was out fighting for justice, Hillary was working for Walmart shipping jobs overseaqs and destroying small businesses across America.

You thought NAFTA was bad? The Walmart girl can't seem to say no to TPP and cheap Asian labor. Between her and Walker its hard to decide who hates US workers more.

I'll give Hillary credit for knowing how to spew out meaningless platitudes to the middle class while plotting with Wall Street to sell more jobs to Vietnam for pennies on the dollar.

Walker just comes out and says he's gonna fuck us over.

Hillary went from being against gay marriage to being for it after she "evolved" her position to agree with the vast majority of Americans. She probably spent $100,000 on her advisers to reach that evolution.

Don't worry, she made up for it with $250,000 speeches to Goldman Sachs. No problem.

Don't we deserve a trustworthy President of the US who can just do the right thing because it is the right thing instead of a political opportunity?

[PatrickforO]

165. I'm voting for Sanders because I want single payer healthcare and expanded Social Security.

I like his policies.

[John Poet]

175. I'm not a purist, but I DO want a Pony! And Hillary says

she won't give me one.

I'm still waiting for Bernie to return my calls....

[PATRICK]

177. This is not an official quote

but a second or third hand one from a friend of a friend who asked her one on on about what would happen if/when they coincidentally crashed the economy again as she took office. The expression was she would "put her foot down".

Knowing, sincere, vague. As to who is more electable and who could do more and what actually be done the general question is who is straightening out the twisty political scene so the people can get behind the facedown.

People plus president versus the banks sounds more like Greece. In all events no on(who is not rich with their own getaway jet) dare elect any of the GOP candidates. By the way, that conversation did convince my son to vote for Hillary should she be the candidate.