Is Bernie Bro over the edge?

[Harry Bosch]

Yes, banks overbuilt their branches greatly. Banks make money when providing services (loans, fees, treasury, and etc.) to large clients (companies or individuals with heavy banking needs). Once they secure a relationship, they make more money by expanding the relationships. We offer checking accounts and other types of retail products to our clients because they are "sticky". It makes a large profitably client less likely to leave the bank. I require that all my clients move their entire banking relationship to me. Does that make sense?

Very much so, thank you.

But it seems to contradict your initial statement that banks would welcome USPS banking.

IMO, banks would welcome a competitor who could offer retail products to rural and remote retail clients that aren't profitable to a bank. They won't admit to this of course!

 

[fromderinside]

Powerful article on Bernie. There's been something about Bernie that has bothered from day one. I'm not white and don't understand the love affair with him. I think that Paul Krugman perfectly captures my hesitation in embracing "Bernie Bro". According to Krugman, Bernie tends to go for easy solutions over hard thinking (exactly how I feel about Trump as well!). For example, Bernie thinks that breaking up the big banks will prevent future economic collapse. BS. Too big to fail didn't cause the 2008 crash. Most of the banks that wrote subprime loans were smaller non-bank entities. And most of them did fail.



I like the energy that Bernie brings. I think that at heart he's a good person. I think that he will rally around Clinton once he's eliminated. But I also think that he's an empty suit who doesn't have a clue on how to run the country. Your thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html?_r=0

Support of Bernie isn't a white thing. It's a young thing. Young African-Americans support Bernie. Older African-Americans seem to have pretty much the same reaction as older white Democrats. The idea that only white people support Bernie is just another lie from the Hillary camp, just like the claim that only men support Bernie. It's selling a narrative that is at odds with reality in order to support Hillary and the rest of the bribe-taking establishment.

The only place I saw stats like those to which you refer are for Wisconsin. Hillary leads with all age groups of blacks in NY and, by poll results, in PA as well.

As for whether Bernie is depending too much on hot button slogans I tend to agree with Harry_Bosch. His answers to detailed questions tend to be boiler plate not referenced to what took place in 2007-8. I really like him, but, I think he's actually too old and two little versed in recent administrative functions.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Powerful article on Bernie. There's been something about Bernie that has bothered from day one. I'm not white and don't understand the love affair with him. I think that Paul Krugman perfectly captures my hesitation in embracing "Bernie Bro". According to Krugman, Bernie tends to go for easy solutions over hard thinking (exactly how I feel about Trump as well!). For example, Bernie thinks that breaking up the big banks will prevent future economic collapse. BS. Too big to fail didn't cause the 2008 crash. Most of the banks that wrote subprime loans were smaller non-bank entities. And most of them did fail.

I like the energy that Bernie brings. I think that at heart he's a good person. I think that he will rally around Clinton once he's eliminated. But I also think that he's an empty suit who doesn't have a clue on how to run the country. Your thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html?_r=0

Support of Bernie isn't a white thing. It's a young thing. Young African-Americans support Bernie. Older African-Americans seem to have pretty much the same reaction as older white Democrats. The idea that only white people support Bernie is just another lie from the Hillary camp, just like the claim that only men support Bernie. It's selling a narrative that is at odds with reality in order to support Hillary and the rest of the bribe-taking establishment.

Hmmmm. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I think that it is more nuanced than that. IMO, white people tend to think that just throwing money at people is all that it takes. I grew up on a reservation. We had people throwing money at us all the time: free tuition, food, lodging, entrepreneurship development, and etc. There were many people and agencies who tried to fix the reservation where I grew up. And yet, we had a 90% unemployment rate (I hear people bitch about 5% unemployment in the US, imagine 90%!). But giving everyone free stuff (the socialist way) will not cure all ills. It will not bring prosperity on it's own. Here's an excellent article on this issue:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/why-black-voters-dont-feel-the-bern-213707

 

[fromderinside]

IMO, banks would welcome a competitor who could offer retail products to rural and remote retail clients that aren't profitable to a bank. They won't admit to this of course!

IMHO² : Banks do offer retail products to remote clients. They are getting rid of store fronts though. I January BAC wrote they were transferring my accounts to another bank who was acquiring retail sites in SW Oregon. Since my banking is mostly online I chose to stay with BAC. They agreed and here I am a BAC customer in SW Oregon where there are no BAC store fronts getting along just fine thank you very much. I get my cash from retail markets that provide such services through my Debit card. No charges from BAC. But, as I wrote elsewhere recently, I've got a bundle in BAC so I don't pay fees anyway.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The statisticians put Bernies chances, barring major events, for the nomination at 5%.

So it's kind of academic.

I prefer Bernie because he keeps the focus leftward, but other than that I don't think there's a huge difference between him and HRC. My guess is it's going to be HRC in a snoozer of an election.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Powerful article on Bernie. There's been something about Bernie that has bothered from day one. I'm not white and don't understand the love affair with him. I think that Paul Krugman perfectly captures my hesitation in embracing "Bernie Bro". According to Krugman, Bernie tends to go for easy solutions over hard thinking (exactly how I feel about Trump as well!). For example, Bernie thinks that breaking up the big banks will prevent future economic collapse. BS. Too big to fail didn't cause the 2008 crash. Most of the banks that wrote subprime loans were smaller non-bank entities. And most of them did fail.

I like the energy that Bernie brings. I think that at heart he's a good person. I think that he will rally around Clinton once he's eliminated. But I also think that he's an empty suit who doesn't have a clue on how to run the country. Your thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html?_r=0

The US Government had to save a major Insurance company and publicly liquidate the major banks in the US due to bad investments they made. During '08 to '12, a lot of banks went under. However, the biggest ones didn't because they were "too big to be allowed to fail". If breaking up the big banks doesn't help divert from a potential major crisis that requires trillions of dollars to be pumped into large banks, why were the small ones able to close without too much notice?

Because there were other larger banks (though small in general) that could absorb it. Banks can't just absorb a massive giant like Bank of America.

Sanders didn't seem to have an answer regarding how to break up the banks, interview with NY Daily News. I found that surprising as it'd seem easy to just set up a scaling requirement for liquidity based on the assets they held... with the percentage of liquidity getting pretty high at whatever arbitrary level that is considered too big. At that point, the big banks break up as they see fit to reach manageable liquidity requirements.

I wouldn't say Sanders is an empty suit. He has been on the right side of a lot of arguments over the decades. He may not have the major influence in DC, though... and unlike Clinton, does not possess a machine to "get it done". He is a 21st Century Norman Thomas who has stepped up to help bend the Democrats back to the middle a bit.

 

[bilby]

If you consider an idea first implemented in 1861 'progressive', then I guess so.

Americans.

Fair enough, but progressives are the only ones advocating it. Seems appropriate to label policies advocated by progressives as progressive.

That's completely bass-ackwards.

A progressive is, by definition, one who advocates progressive action.

Advocating a 155 year old idea is clearly NOT progressive; so those advocating this idea can only be 'progressives' if they have some unrelated progressive ideas that they are advocating - something that your selection of Post Office banking services as an example strongly suggests is not the case.

Unless you are happy for the definitions to be circular, and therefore completely meaningless - which seems to be a common trend in US politics.

"Joe is a progressive; we know this because he supports progressive policies. We know the policies are progressive, because they are supported by progressives such as Joe" is only a useful set of statements if you have lots of airtime or column inches to fill, and nothing with which to fill them. Certainly we learned nothing about Joe, his preferred policies, nor what the label 'progressive' might mean.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

My primary problem with Bernie is that imo, he is an absolutist. I was once a big fan of his but once I really took a hard look at his record, I was very disappointed to realize that he rarely if ever seems willing to compromise. For example, he refused to vote for the auto bailout, despite supporting it, because it included the bank bailout. Most liberal economists explained that the bank bailout was necessary in order to prevent a much more destructive economic crisis. I'd call the bailout a necessary evil. Bernie has a history of sticking to his principles even when compromise would be a much better option. It's fine to have principles and ideals, but the only way effective government works is when both parties comes to terms with the fact that "you can't always get what you want." In other words, legislation usually has to happen somewhere in the middle. I've had enough of obstructionist Republicans. I sure don't want to see the Democrats go in that same direction.

Secondly, Bernie doesn't seem to understand just how difficult it would be to implement any of his unrealistic ideas. As a health care provider with over forty years experience, I can tell you that the US is in no way ready or capable of having single payor care for all. We have enough problems funding Medicare and there are many areas that need to be changed. How in the world does Bernie expect things to change? Does he honestly believe he can get the cooperation of the other side for single payor? If so, I'd say he's delusional. If not, he's just being another politician who makes empty promises that he knows he can't make become a reality. He speaks constantly of a revolution. Yeah. Right. We sort of tried that in the 60s but it didn't turn out all that well, despite all of our efforts.


Finally, I haven't heard him say much about foreign policy. That worries me. But, if you think Krugman, who I highly respect, is being hard on Bernie, you should hear what Barney Frank says about Bernie. It's not good.

Regardless, I will vote for Bernie if necessary because despite all of the things about him that I don't like or worry about, the Republican candidates scare me a lot more. It's foolish, imo, to think that you should only vote for someone you completely support. Nobody will ever meet all of my ideals so all I can do is look at the choices and decide who has the chance of heading the country in a better direction than the others.

What is Sanders proposing that we have not already done before, or that other countries are not doing right now?

New Dealism is not something this contry can't do. it is something we used to do and do damn well.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That usually makes person qualified to be US president.

Yea, Sarah Palin and Dan Quale fit the above criteria perfectly. Noone said that they weren't qualified.

Actually, people did.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yea, Sarah Palin and Dan Quale fit the above criteria perfectly. Noone said that they weren't qualified.

Actually, people did.

Ya, the main complaint against them was that they were morons who weren't qualified for the jobs.

Sure, that was a lie that we only said because we were so terrified that they'd be so competent and successful that it would completely undermine the entire basis of our liberal philosophy, but that doesn't change the fact that it's no factual to claim that we didn't actually say it.

 

[Harry Bosch]

My primary problem with Bernie is that imo, he is an absolutist. I was once a big fan of his but once I really took a hard look at his record, I was very disappointed to realize that he rarely if ever seems willing to compromise. For example, he refused to vote for the auto bailout, despite supporting it, because it included the bank bailout. Most liberal economists explained that the bank bailout was necessary in order to prevent a much more destructive economic crisis. I'd call the bailout a necessary evil. Bernie has a history of sticking to his principles even when compromise would be a much better option. It's fine to have principles and ideals, but the only way effective government works is when both parties comes to terms with the fact that "you can't always get what you want." In other words, legislation usually has to happen somewhere in the middle. I've had enough of obstructionist Republicans. I sure don't want to see the Democrats go in that same direction.

Secondly, Bernie doesn't seem to understand just how difficult it would be to implement any of his unrealistic ideas. As a health care provider with over forty years experience, I can tell you that the US is in no way ready or capable of having single payor care for all. We have enough problems funding Medicare and there are many areas that need to be changed. How in the world does Bernie expect things to change? Does he honestly believe he can get the cooperation of the other side for single payor? If so, I'd say he's delusional. If not, he's just being another politician who makes empty promises that he knows he can't make become a reality. He speaks constantly of a revolution. Yeah. Right. We sort of tried that in the 60s but it didn't turn out all that well, despite all of our efforts.


Finally, I haven't heard him say much about foreign policy. That worries me. But, if you think Krugman, who I highly respect, is being hard on Bernie, you should hear what Barney Frank says about Bernie. It's not good.

Regardless, I will vote for Bernie if necessary because despite all of the things about him that I don't like or worry about, the Republican candidates scare me a lot more. It's foolish, imo, to think that you should only vote for someone you completely support. Nobody will ever meet all of my ideals so all I can do is look at the choices and decide who has the chance of heading the country in a better direction than the others.

What is Sanders proposing that we have not already done before, or that other countries are not doing right now?

New Dealism is not something this contry can't do. it is something we used to do and do damn well.

Athena: since Sanders policies are so vague, how do you know that they've been implemented in other countries?

 

[Harry Bosch]

IMO, banks would welcome a competitor who could offer retail products to rural and remote retail clients that aren't profitable to a bank. They won't admit to this of course!

IMHO² : Banks do offer retail products to remote clients. They are getting rid of store fronts though. I January BAC wrote they were transferring my accounts to another bank who was acquiring retail sites in SW Oregon. Since my banking is mostly online I chose to stay with BAC. They agreed and here I am a BAC customer in SW Oregon where there are no BAC store fronts getting along just fine thank you very much. I get my cash from retail markets that provide such services through my Debit card. No charges from BAC. But, as I wrote elsewhere recently, I've got a bundle in BAC so I don't pay fees anyway.

What is BAC? Good that your bank is offering rural services. Although eliminating store fronts is a pain for you I'm sure!

 

[Harry Bosch]

Powerful article on Bernie. There's been something about Bernie that has bothered from day one. I'm not white and don't understand the love affair with him. I think that Paul Krugman perfectly captures my hesitation in embracing "Bernie Bro". According to Krugman, Bernie tends to go for easy solutions over hard thinking (exactly how I feel about Trump as well!). For example, Bernie thinks that breaking up the big banks will prevent future economic collapse. BS. Too big to fail didn't cause the 2008 crash. Most of the banks that wrote subprime loans were smaller non-bank entities. And most of them did fail.

I like the energy that Bernie brings. I think that at heart he's a good person. I think that he will rally around Clinton once he's eliminated. But I also think that he's an empty suit who doesn't have a clue on how to run the country. Your thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html?_r=0

The US Government had to save a major Insurance company and publicly liquidate the major banks in the US due to bad investments they made. During '08 to '12, a lot of banks went under. However, the biggest ones didn't because they were "too big to be allowed to fail". If breaking up the big banks doesn't help divert from a potential major crisis that requires trillions of dollars to be pumped into large banks, why were the small ones able to close without too much notice?

Because there were other larger banks (though small in general) that could absorb it. Banks can't just absorb a massive giant like Bank of America.

Sanders didn't seem to have an answer regarding how to break up the banks, interview with NY Daily News. I found that surprising as it'd seem easy to just set up a scaling requirement for liquidity based on the assets they held... with the percentage of liquidity getting pretty high at whatever arbitrary level that is considered too big. At that point, the big banks break up as they see fit to reach manageable liquidity requirements.

I wouldn't say Sanders is an empty suit. He has been on the right side of a lot of arguments over the decades. He may not have the major influence in DC, though... and unlike Clinton, does not possess a machine to "get it done". He is a 21st Century Norman Thomas who has stepped up to help bend the Democrats back to the middle a bit.

I was too harsh when I called Sanders an empty suit. I just wish that he'd be more specific. For example: what does he plan to do against the corporations? 50% of all workers work for a corporation. We deserve to know what he plans to do against them and whether or not our corporate jobs will remain. How will he hurt the banks? Does he have any positive plans? When will he move past slogans? Slogans aren't going to move my vote.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What is Sanders proposing that we have not already done before, or that other countries are not doing right now?

New Dealism is not something this contry can't do. it is something we used to do and do damn well.

Athena: since Sanders policies are so vague, how do you know that they've been implemented in other countries?

You are being kind of vague about what you find vague. What do you find vague, or anymore vague than any other candidate?

 

[bilby]

IMHO² : Banks do offer retail products to remote clients. They are getting rid of store fronts though. I January BAC wrote they were transferring my accounts to another bank who was acquiring retail sites in SW Oregon. Since my banking is mostly online I chose to stay with BAC. They agreed and here I am a BAC customer in SW Oregon where there are no BAC store fronts getting along just fine thank you very much. I get my cash from retail markets that provide such services through my Debit card. No charges from BAC. But, as I wrote elsewhere recently, I've got a bundle in BAC so I don't pay fees anyway.

What is BAC? Good that your bank is offering rural services. Although eliminating store fronts is a pain for you I'm sure!

BAC is the NYSE code/abbreviation for Bank of America Corporation.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Athena: since Sanders policies are so vague, how do you know that they've been implemented in other countries?

You are being kind of vague about what you find vague. What do you find vague, or anymore vague than any other candidate?

Well, he says that "corporations won't like him". What does that mean? I work for a corporation. Do I need to fear for my job? He says that his foreign policy will be "responsible". What does that mean? He's going to raise taxes. On who? Who will pay more?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Well, he says that "corporations won't like him". What does that mean? I work for a corporation. Do I need to fear for my job? He says that his foreign policy will be "responsible". What does that mean? He's going to raise taxes. On who? Who will pay more?

So you don't have a clue on how he would run the country.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You are being kind of vague about what you find vague. What do you find vague, or anymore vague than any other candidate?

Well, he says that "corporations won't like him". What does that mean?

Probably something along the lines of what this man meant

I work for a corporation. Do I need to fear for my job?

Don't you already?

He says that his foreign policy will be "responsible". What does that mean?

What he said.

He's going to raise taxes. On who? Who will pay more?

Go to his website and find out.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Fair enough, but progressives are the only ones advocating it. Seems appropriate to label policies advocated by progressives as progressive.

That's completely bass-ackwards.

A progressive is, by definition, one who advocates progressive action.

Advocating a 155 year old idea is clearly NOT progressive; so those advocating this idea can only be 'progressives' if they have some unrelated progressive ideas that they are advocating - something that your selection of Post Office banking services as an example strongly suggests is not the case.

Unless you are happy for the definitions to be circular, and therefore completely meaningless - which seems to be a common trend in US politics.

"Joe is a progressive; we know this because he supports progressive policies. We know the policies are progressive, because they are supported by progressives such as Joe" is only a useful set of statements if you have lots of airtime or column inches to fill, and nothing with which to fill them. Certainly we learned nothing about Joe, his preferred policies, nor what the label 'progressive' might mean.

Elizabeth Warren is the most prominent advocate of USPS banking. By all accounts, she's among the most liberal, or progressive, members of Congress.

I see nothing in any definition of progressivism, yours included, that relates to the age or provenance of a policy or idea. Yet that's critical to your "argument".

Progressive actions are actions advocated by progressives, no?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Well, he says that "corporations won't like him". What does that mean? I work for a corporation. Do I need to fear for my job? He says that his foreign policy will be "responsible". What does that mean? He's going to raise taxes. On who? Who will pay more?

So you don't have a clue on how he would run the country.

I don't. And I have a good idea of how HRC will run the country. I think that it will be pretty similar to how it was under her husband. And that would be fine with me. HRC has my vote.....