dagblog - Comments for "Potentially Fatal Mistakes and the Necessary Correctives"

So, if I'm black and I

Oxy Mora — Tue, 03 May 2016 03:15:41 +0000

In reply to Is your argument that it's

So, if I'm black and I realize there have been economic setbacks,I'm going to automatically assume that Sanders is going to gain back the lost ground? That's if he doesn't lose the election to a Republican and if he's elected, he can get his agenda enacted. The fact is that the majority of blacks feel that life is better now than it was fifty years ago. So if I'm black, what keeps me from making an overall risk assessment, same as a white?

Ah yes . . .

oldenGoldenDecoy — Tue, 03 May 2016 00:08:52 +0000

In reply to Typical doublespeak. Your

Ah yes . . .

Typical doublespeak.

That plus distractions and deflections are the true stock in trade of slippery attorneys and/or fast talking hucksters. Take you pick.

~OGD~

Is your argument that it's

HSG — Mon, 02 May 2016 20:44:41 +0000

In reply to Hal, the racist policies

Is your argument that it's okay that Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama each took actions that harmed African American communities because we have a 400 year history of racism? That's the only way I can reasonably interpret this statement: " Hal, the racist policies began when the first African slaves arrived."

In any case, whether you think it's okay or not, African-Americans have lost significant ground to whites since 1983. What do you think we should do to regain that lost ground?

Hal, the racist policies

rmrd0000 — Mon, 02 May 2016 20:05:13 +0000

In reply to The point I was making is

Hal, the racist policies began when the first African slaves arrived. Blacks live the experience and are not impressed by a 74 year-old white guy who had no contact with the community and comes offering a "revolution". Blacks realize that those yelling about revolution will be the first to run back to mommie and daddie when real conflict begins.

Jamal Bryant is a pastor and activist in Baltimore. Bryant supports Sanders but is based in reality enough to know that Sanders cannot accomplish much of what the Senator promises. Bryant will vote for the Democrat in November.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&I...

As a group, black voters are sick and tired of Progressives who criticize Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus, etc. for not feeling the Bern. All these armchair revolutionaries can say is that we need single-payer, etc. They point to corporate ties of politicians, yet admit that Democrats attempt to put curbs on abuses. Black activists have been lynched, burned, bombed, shot, etc. Blacks took to the streets in Ferguson and Baltimore. Blacks took to prayer in Charleston. Latinos protested often risking deportation if arrested. Occupy Wall Street had a camping trip.

I noted above the first people to run from conflict will be the armchair revolutionaries. If these revolutionaries came into power, they would first address their issue, economics. They would tell blacks and Latinos that the race stuff would be addressed in due time. Sanders can say whatever he wants, but the black community knows his priorities.

Sanders wants to tax the wealthy and the corporations. He is willing to let funding for Pre-Kbe set aside until his progressive tax system is implemented. From the Pennsylvania townhall

http://info.msnbc.com/_news/2016/04/25/35464706-full-transcript-msnbc-to...

QUESTION: Senator Sanders, I was surprised and disappointed to hear you oppose Philadelphia's efforts to bring universal preschool to all kids through a tax on big soda distributors. Here in Pennsylvania we have a state legislature that doesn't adequately fund our existing public schools, and importantly, we also have a constitution that prohibits us from taxing just the wealthy.

So given those constraints, I'm interested in hearing your ideas for funding winnable anti-poverty agendas like pre-K for all.

SANDERS: First of all, please do not be disappointed in my views on pre-K. I believe that we have right now in my state and in Pennsylvania a dysfunctional pre-K system, which is a national disgrace. That we have child care workers who make less than McDonald's employees, where we have parents who cannot find quality affordable childcare.

We have kids who are entering school way behind because they are not getting the intellectual or emotional nourishment that they need. I believe absolutely, and if elected president one of my priorities would be to establish a cutting-edge high-quality pre-K system in every state in this country. I can't think of many things that are more important to me than that.

But when it comes to funding these programs, at a time when we have massive income and wealth inequality, when the top one-tenth of 1 percent now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, when 58 percent of all the income goes to the top 1 percent, to ask poor people to pay for that, it's wrong. You are taking money from the people who are hurting the most.

So please count me in as somebody who will aggressively lead the effort for universal, high quality childcare, but I believe it has to be funded in a progressive way. The wealthy and large corporations are going to have to pay for it.

(APPLAUSE)

HAYES: A follow-up on that because I think it's a really tricky issue and there are people of all kinds of politics on either side of the issue. You know, the big soda companies are on the same side of that, right. And they have poured -- I saw them pour millions of dollars in New York City to fight that. And that's their argument, right. I mean, how do you feel when you end up on the same side as them?

SANDERS: Look, big soda companies will do what they do. And let me also be clear. I am more than aware of the negative role that sugar is playing in terms of obesity and health in the United States. But what we have got to do is to have progressive taxation.

Look, and I don't want to have to repeat it, the truth is the very, very rich are becoming much richer. Almost everybody else is becoming poor. It is absurd to go to some of the poorest people and raise their taxes. And by the way, this tax, if I recall, is three cents an ounce. Twelve ounce bottle of soda, that's 36 cents, times five sodas week, that's two bucks, 100 bucks a year. If you don't have a lot of money, you know, that's a lot.

So I think what we have got to do is to understand that nationally we need progressive taxation. There are corporations, Chris, right now who make billions of dollars a year in profit, stash their money in the Cayman Islands, not paying a nickel in federal taxes. I intend to end that.

Note:

Sanders is willing to tax cigarettes, because he considers them evil. He is not concerned that that tax impacts the poor. Here though, Sanders tells the woman to wait until his never gonna happen tax plan is put in place.

The revolution will not be televised.

The point I was making is

HSG — Mon, 02 May 2016 19:19:39 +0000

In reply to Hal, the point I was making

The point I was making is that the policies that Democratic and Republican Presidents have pursued since the early 80s - union busting, tax cuts, mass incarceration, bank deregulation, free trade, welfare reform, etc. - have done grievous harm to African-American communities even if a few blacks have achieved spectacular success and even if those few have tried to make things better for their less fortunate sisters and brothers.

Hal, the point I was making

rmrd0000 — Mon, 02 May 2016 19:09:52 +0000

In reply to There are many more blacks

Hal, the point I was making is that blacks and women who sit on corporate boards often try to make changes in the corporate culture. That appears to be what Hillary attempted at Walmart. That has nothing to do with your graph.

The number of blacks with bachelors and advanced degrees has advanced dramatically.

http://blackdemographics.com/education-2/education/

Blacks are more optimistic about the future than whites. What was the purpose of your graph?

I accept your criticism of me

HSG — Mon, 02 May 2016 19:01:24 +0000

In reply to I am shocked that you would

I accept your criticism of me CVille since you specifically asked for my feelings about Bernie's alleged failure to specify how he would break up the big banks. I ignored that question altogether to answer the one I wanted to answer which is why I wasn't concerned that he didn't provide more specificity with respect to job creation. I failed to respond because I did not read your comment carefully. For that I apologize.

That said I do not accept your premise that Bernie doesn't detail or know how he would break up the big banks. Economist Dean Baker is quoted at Common Dreams on April 6 as follows:

When asked how he would break up the big banks Sanders said he would leave that up to the banks. That's exactly the right answer. The government doesn't know the most efficient way to break up JP Morgan, JP Morgan does. If the point is to downsize the banks, the way to do it is to give them a size cap and let them figure out the best way to reconfigure themselves to get under it.

On Morning Joe on April 8 Bernie gave a detailed answer as to how he would break up the big banks. In response to the criticism that Bernie has no idea how to break up the big banks, Donna Borak at the Wall Street Journal! noted the "Vermont senator’s full interview with the New York Daily News, however, shows he offered a clearer vision than the political backlash suggests."

Borak adds:

Under Mr. Sanders’s plan, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, headed by the Treasury secretary, would have 90 days to compile a list of banks deemed to be too-big-to-fail. The list would automatically include institutions like J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs, Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp. and Morgan Stanley, a point he reiterated during the interview. The firms are among the eight identified as institutions that could pose a threat to the financial stability of the country.

After drawing up the list, the Treasury secretary, in consultation with the firm’s regulator, would have one year to make sure the banks break themselves up so that a failure wouldn’t require a taxpayer bailout to avoid a big blow to the U.S. or global economy.

There are many more blacks

HSG — Mon, 02 May 2016 18:44:42 +0000

In reply to Regarding Clinton, Booker,

There are many more blacks and women in high places than ever before. While women may be economically better off relative to where they were 33 years ago, African-Americans are significantly worse off. The chart indicates black families reached peak wealth at the end of Clinton's second term. This is misleading however because the millions of African-Americans incarcerated during the Clinton years - the great majority of whom had no assets at all - were excluded from the calculation.

Thumbs up here Mike.

HSG — Mon, 02 May 2016 18:29:52 +0000

In reply to "You mean the Big Bank Break

Thumbs up here Mike.

"You mean the Big Bank Break

Michael Maiello — Mon, 02 May 2016 18:17:38 +0000

In reply to I am shocked that you would

"You mean the Big Bank Break-up?"