Skip to main content

View Diary: Naked Capitalism: "...Democrat Bank Stooges Launch Bills to Permit Bailouts, Deregulate Derivatives" (109 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It really doesn't matter. (13+ / 0-)

    It's trivial. Pretty much irrelevant. The American people would throw both Parties to the sharks if they could at this point,  but our electoral game is rigged to leave us unable to do that.

    Is our Party delivering for the People or not? That's all that matters.

    The Insider Baseball Game of Optics is pure bullshit, and the only way it does matter is what OUR PARTY is communicating to the public.

    Is our Party delivering for the People or not in the fields of Economics and defending the Safety Net? What are the American people seeing us do? What's your take on that? Yes or no?

    If Republicans said every 3rd person named "Smith" should hang, we'd bargain them to every 7th. Then we'll see apologia written praising this most pragmatic compromise. There's our losing formula.

    by Jim P on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:36:44 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  It does matter (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shrike, ericlewis0, I love OCD, scott5js

      You said so yourself. If you think that Republicans being successful at duping people doesn't matter, then 2010 is irrelevant. The point is that getting Democrats to do better doesn't require elevating Republicans unnecessarily. Bolstering their dubious positions serves no one. There goal is to dismantle Dodd-Frank. Claiming that their criticism of the bill is valid is bolstering a dubious position.

      •  Nope. (9+ / 0-)

        Did you read the article?

        Whatever passing reference is made to Republicans, this is what WE'RE doing.

        Stand for the people, stand for the safety-net, stand against the criminal banker class and we win elections hand over fist.

        Stand for pretending and extending the Criminal class, stand for cutting back social security, stand for hurting the voters, and OF COURSE the Republicans are going to make headway.

        So instead of worrying about trivial shit we can't control, why not simply take control?

        I dare you to answer the question:

        Is our Party delivering for the People or not in the fields of Economics and defending the Safety Net? What are the American people seeing us do? What's your take on that? Yes or no?

        If Republicans said every 3rd person named "Smith" should hang, we'd bargain them to every 7th. Then we'll see apologia written praising this most pragmatic compromise. There's our losing formula.

        by Jim P on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:49:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A dare? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jim P, I love OCD, kefauver

          Dodd-Frank, including the CFPB, Medicare is strengthened, the Affordable Care Act are all for the people.

          Are these all perfect? No. There is much more to be done.

          One of the best ways to attack inequality is raising the minimum wage.

          House Republicans Unanimously Vote Down Minimum Wage Hike

          The Senate Budget Committee just passed legislation to increase minimum wage:

          The Senate Budget Committee on Thursday approved a plan that would reduce the deficit by $1.85 trillion over 10 years through a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. The panel added amendments by Sen. Bernie Sanders to end offshore tax havens and raise the minimum wage. In the House, meanwhile, a budget was proposed that would make drastic spending cuts without asking the wealthy and profitable corporations to contribute to deficit reduction. “Disastrous” and “insane” were two words Sanders used to describe what House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan proposed. Earlier in the week, Sanders chaired a Wednesday hearing on a claims backlog at the VA. And on Tuesday he introduced a constitutional amendment that would undo Citizens United, the notorious Supreme Court ruling that voided campaign finance regulations.

          Budget Committee One Sanders amendment approved by the committee would go after tax-dodging corporations. A second one supports increasing the minimum wage. Both Sanders amendments were approved by votes of 12 to 10. House Republicans, meanwhile, offered what Sanders called a “disastrous” budget that would cut programs for working families. “It is insane to simply talk about ‘cut, cut, cut’ when you’ve got the wealthiest people and large corporations doing phenomenally well and paying lower effective tax rates than they should,” Sanders said Thursday on The Cycle on MSNBC. Watch the MSNBC interview

          Tax Havens The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that its own analysis of 60 big U.S. companies found that they parked $166 billion offshore last year. Sanders has called for closing those tax loopholes to help bring down deficits. “At a time when we have a $16.6 trillion national debt; at a time when roughly one-quarter of the largest corporations in America are paying no federal income taxes; and at a time when corporate profits are at an all-time high, it is past time for corporate America to contribute significantly to deficit reduction,” he said.

          Speaking of Elizabeth Warren:

          Warren politely SCHOOLS businessman at Senate hearing who tries to explain wage economics to her

          There was also a debate about the impact of the recent tax deal, but simple arithmetic shows the reality.

          Pre Bush tax cuts: lowest tax bracket 15 percent and top tax bracket 39.6 percent.
           Bush tax cuts: lowest tax bracket 10 percent and top tax bracket 35 percent.
          President Obama's tax deal, lowest rate 10 percent, top rate 39.6 percent.

          Do the math and it will show that the gap between someone earning $50,000 and someone earning $500,000 closed to more than what it was in the 1990s. Add the health care law tax and the gap closes even more.


          Perhaps the best prism through which to see the Democrats’ gains is inequality. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama said that his top priority as president would be to “create bottom-up economic growth” and reduce inequality...In the 2009 stimulus, he insisted on making tax credits “fully refundable,” so that even people who did not make enough to pay much federal tax would benefit. The 2010 health care law overhaul was probably the biggest attack on inequality since it began rising in the 1970s, increasing taxes on businesses and the rich to pay for health insurance largely for the middle class.

          Obama and Redistribution

          Some notes for myself: how much impact have Obama’s policies actually had on current and prospective inequality?

          The main policies to consider are PPACA (the health reform) and ATRA (the fiscal cliff deal with its associated tax rise).

          I’m not a fan of the Tax Foundation’s work, but their analysis of the distributional effects of Obamacare looks about right: significant benefits to the bottom half of the income distribution, paid for largely by taxes on the top few percent (the Medicare surcharge and the extra tax on investment income). The Tax Policy Center — whose work I do trust — has the Act reducing the after-tax income of the top 1 percent by 1.8 percent, the top 0.1 percent by 2.5 percent.

          Meanwhile, ATRA raises taxes relative to a continuation of the Bush high-end tax cuts: after-tax income down 4.5 percent for the 1-percenters, 6.2 percent for the top 0.1 percent.

          Putting this together, we have a roughly 6 percent hit to the 1 percent, around 9 to the superelite. That’s only a partial rollback of these groups’ huge gains since 1980, but it’s not trivial.

          These are steps in the right direction, but again, there is much more to be done.

          I hope that answers your question.

          •  Thanks for trying, but you missed the (5+ / 0-)

            obvious I hate to tell you again.

            We started with umbrage that the insulting "Democrat" was quoted in an article which was about Democratic Party members proposing legislation which will protect criminal bankers, while increasing risk and difficulty to every depositor in the United States, and ultimately, all the tax-payers.

            There was also the passing reference to Republican's pledges against bailouts and a challenge to Sen. Warren. (Which she will more than rise to meet, I'm certain.)

            The idea, I take it, being that if someone reads a stupid insult, and a statement of publicly-taken Republican positions... that knowledge alone will hurt Democratic Party electoral chances.

            But that's absurd. And in context of the actual policies being promoted by Democratic Leadership, it's like looking at a twig on the water while the Titanic is racing at your head.

            President Obama has repeatedly offered to cut Social Security as part of a deal around the deficit and the debt. But you know, and I know, and I don't see how it's possible President Obama doesn't know that Social Security being in trouble, being connected to debt/deficit is...

            a Republican lie. The President offers to negotiate based on a Republican lie.

            It's a Republican lie. And he, and Pelosi, and Reid, actually validate a Republican lie.

            Now, since there are tens of millions of voters now dependent, or soon to be, on Social Security -- including elderly, disabled and disabled Vets, and various other pockets of humanity --

            ...which "promotion" of Republicanism do you judge the more dangerous to our Party, and the more worthy of your concern?

            That a blogger seen by, what? 10,000? -- wrote a trivial insult and pointed to Republican rhetoric against banks?


            That our President repeats Republican lies as if they were true, while putting a thumb in the eye of tens of millions of voters -- voters who by all rights should be 100% Democratic -- for no sound reason whatsoever; neither economic (it's actually BAD for the economy); nor political advantage; nor for any real service to the nation in its real needs?

            Remember. You are not an inside player in DC politics. You're just a citizen. Our job is not to defend them; their job is to meet our necessities. DC politics is about doing everything possible to deaden the will of the People, so counting the points on the scorecard... It's like this:

            ACA. Hooray, better than a stick in the eye. Original complaint about healthcare? Insurance unaffordable; Illness leading to bankruptcy; lousy health care outcomes compared to the rest of the monied world.

            ACA. Hooray. What happens to the original complaints? Insurance has risen and will continue to rise. More and more people can't afford the deductibles, and seek care when something small grows to crises. People will still go bankrupt from illness. And we didn't even mention the lousiest health care in the world's top 40 nations.

            But that's what the corrupt DC game is about. Throw them a bone, tell them anything that actually works is unrealistic, and blow smoke up their ass with statistics.

            Gallup just said 72% of the American people want stimulus to create Jobs. 72% want Federal Job Creation

            On the other hand, with the safety-net, we've seen 2/3 of the voters, even more in some polls, say "don't touch Social Security; don't touch Medicare."

            And you know, everybody knows, that Jobs Jobs Jobs is the one way to fix deficit/debt issues.

            Well, the President created a Jobs and Competitiveness Commission. And then picked a pace-setter in exporting US jobs to head it. Which Commission met four times the first year, none the second, as is now disbanded.

            Why aren't you worried that our Leadership is a) affirming lies told by Republicans, b) accepting Republican priorities as our own, c) hurting likely Democratic voters, while d) ignoring that the Public demands jobs at all costs, nor focusing that demand, e) while offering the very things the voters want preserved up for sacrifice?

            Don't you think that will affect elections more than someone called you a name?

            If "Democratic Leaders Pushing Republican Priorities Over and Over" equals 1000, being called a name and a friendly reference to a claimed Republican position, is about .0001 on any sane scale, as far as threats go.


            If Republicans said every 3rd person named "Smith" should hang, we'd bargain them to every 7th. Then we'll see apologia written praising this most pragmatic compromise. There's our losing formula.

            by Jim P on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:39:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks JimP - speaking truth about Grand Bargain (0+ / 0-)

              a nation of shoppers should love a bargain


              kick the new deal down the curb


              republicans been trying since law passed to do this, but it takes a "democrat" to pull off the deed


              and using the shock doctrine (check it on wiki if you don't know about it) and a shoppers wonder word, Grand Bargain, you can sell anything to our country of shoppers

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (155)
  • Community (65)
  • Baltimore (47)
  • Bernie Sanders (37)
  • Civil Rights (35)
  • Culture (29)
  • Freddie Gray (23)
  • Elections (23)
  • Law (21)
  • Hillary Clinton (21)
  • Economy (21)
  • Education (21)
  • Racism (20)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Environment (18)
  • Politics (17)
  • Texas (17)
  • 2016 (16)
  • Media (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site