The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Dennis Berube]

3 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

You would think that the party in power would have the upper hand in rigging an election (and isn't Georgia, for example, run by Republicans?), yet the Republicans couldn't steal one vote while the Democrats were having a field day?

Not if you were analyzing the "power elite" media. To me, this isn't about party, this is about trump being unpredictable and not completely controllable, that seemed very obvious to me since Russiagate began. I'm not saying he's JFK or any kind of savior, that doesn't matter to powerful groups with agendas. For instance, It is unlikely trump would surrender US sovereignty (what's left of it) to a international digital currency as has been proposed as part of the great reset. He would even possibly get in the way of the bio security rollout that is under way by potentially opposing mandatory vaccines and further lockdowns/scientific fraud. Biden most certainly will take a nap and let technocrats run wild. That's why major corporate/tech/bio powers and some groups of Republicans were doing everything they could against Trump, and still are of course. Regardless, the (s)election is a bit of a sideshow to the economic and bio security machinations happening right now and the near future in my opinion.
 

A speaker at the recent jfk virtual conference, James Corbett, has a good podcast that covers this general type of material if people are interested. 

[James DiEugenio]

6 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

Credit where it's due. The Obama DOJ gave immunity to bankers for any wrongdoing and even gave them data immunity which is a de facto sovereignty over the DOJ. The failure to prosecute any of the now immune cartel (biggest) banks has set a precedent that is hard to understate. Giving him credit for saving the economy is a bad joke, it's like crediting Bush for his "Mission accomplished" delusion.

 

Obamacare was written by BigPharma. It did contain some good things, largely token items designed to quell public backlash as much as possible, but a real president would have taken his case to the public and used their political power to pass a real "change" like a public option. This is what JFK did with the nuclear test ban treaty, it probably wouldn't have passed any other way. But Obama was always a Wall Street guy. I heard Jim D recently say that one of Obama's aides asked him if his second term would be like his first or if he was actually going to go for real hope and change, allegedly Obama said something like "Look what happened to Dr. King". I think that says it all. 

The most disappointing thing about Obama was when he appointed Summers and Geithner to run the recovery. Right then, by doing just a bit of homework, I could see that this was going to save the big banks, have maybe a bit of reform, and pretty much make no structural difference. Even though it was the opportunity of a lifetime.  Obama punted, e. g. Summers was for Glass Steagall repeal, and in opposition to Brooksley Born (a hidden heroine of the whole 2007-08 crash) he was opposed to derivatives regulation.  And consider the following:

Summers had promised Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley that in exchange for supporting the second round of the Wall Street bailout, the administration would put $50 to $100 billion toward foreclosure relief and would lobby on behalf of cramdown: a law that would empower bankruptcy judges to reduce underwater mortgages and let people stay in their homes. Neither happened, and instead Summers later lobbied against cramdown. (The Intercept 11/18/20)

[Douglas Caddy]

China: A Cold Shower

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/12/fred-reed/china-a-cold-shower/

 

[Is America is a death spiral? One has to ask this after reading this article full of startling information.]

 

[Joe Bauer]

I sometimes imagined Obama meeting with other black leaders in our society including, yet maybe even just his wife and having some discussion about the historical importance and impact his presidency would have in it's unprecedented 1st black American context.

I think the following contemplation may have been proposed:

Make sure that through the entirety of his term, that nothing too drastic, too controversial, too divisive, too status quo threatening and changing take place regards the policies, decisions and actions Obama would take during his time as President.

In other words, don't screw up by creating too much controversy, too much confrontation.

Don't take risks.

Don't be too progressive. Don't punish the recession responsible Wall Street manipulation bankers, etc.

Don't allow something to occur that was so society dividing controversial, that Americans who are racist could say loudly until their dying day..."Look, we voted in a GD XXXXXX and look what happened!"

Obama's presidency was not one of bold change, bold courage, bold risk, bold progressive advocacy and bold standing up to the wealthy 1% corporate elite and their hugely self favoring and benefitting status quo versus the opposite with the working class and poorer.

It was a purposely non-risk taking "safe" presidency in terms of creating and preserving it's historical legacy as maybe not a great entire society benefitting change one but at least a smooth and no major upheavel and conflict one.

We had a black president...and in most historically important measured categories he did a decent job. A proper legacy for future Americans to remember in it's never ending racial equality and qualification debate context. 

Perhaps this agenda was of at least equal importance in the over-all longer view contemplation of Obama's presidency and leadership plan?

 

Edited December 6, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[Joe Bauer]

5 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

I'm curious as to why all the "evidence" of the election being rigged is of Democratic fraud. You would think that the party in power would have the upper hand in rigging an election (and isn't Georgia, for example, run by Republicans?), yet the Republicans couldn't steal one vote while the Democrats were having a field day?

Oh, wait, maybe that's why the Republicans did so well in the election outside of Trump. Massive Republican fraud! But then why didn't they help the poor thing at the top of the ticket?

 

 

 

 

Exactly. Lets be rational here.

[Pat Speer]

20 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

Credit where it's due. The Obama DOJ gave immunity to bankers for any wrongdoing and even gave them data immunity which is a de facto sovereignty over the DOJ. The failure to prosecute any of the now immune cartel (biggest) banks has set a precedent that is hard to understate. Giving him credit for saving the economy is a bad joke, it's like crediting Bush for his "Mission accomplished" delusion.

 

Obamacare was written by BigPharma. It did contain some good things, largely token items designed to quell public backlash as much as possible, but a real president would have taken his case to the public and used their political power to pass a real "change" like a public option. This is what JFK did with the nuclear test ban treaty, it probably wouldn't have passed any other way. But Obama was always a Wall Street guy. I heard Jim D recently say that one of Obama's aides asked him if his second term would be like his first or if he was actually going to go for real hope and change, allegedly Obama said something like "Look what happened to Dr. King". I think that says it all. 

A lot of people completely miss what Obama was and is--a reasonable moderate.

His real motto was and is "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good".

What he meant by that was that in his take on history, those who aim too high often get nowhere, while those who aim a bit lower often get somewhere, and that if you add up all the somewheres you can get where you need to be. Baby steps.

It's kinda like John Nash's big idea in "A Beautiful Mind." If all the dudes try to hit on the hot chick, most everyone goes away disappointed, and the bulk of the chicks feel like afterthoughts. The successful strategy, then, is for the bulk of the dudes to modify their ambition, and shoot a bit lower. That way more successful sales take place, with more satisfied customers. Obama--a man who grew up half-black in a mostly white world--knew that this strategy worked. 

And so we got Obamacare, instead of Medicare for All.

If he'd have shot for the moon, he'd have ended up in the dirt. That's undoubtedly what he believed. And I believe he was right.

Now, some might say, Obama's very election proved he could push the envelope when he put his mind to it. I mean, a black guy named Barrack Hussein Obama? Got elected President of the United States? But that was just a name.

I suspect Obama knew that if his mom had been black as well as his dad, and he'd been dark-skinned, he would never have been elected. I suspect Obama knew as well that if he'd been from the South, and spoke like someone from the South,  and had been a direct descendant from slaves, he would never have been elected. 

You can only scrape the surface of America so deep before the Civil War seeps out.

 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2020 by Pat Speer

[Dennis Berube]

28 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Even though it was the opportunity of a lifetime.

That is exactly why i disagree with Joe's, and seemingly Pat's, "Decent job" analysis. The Obama administrations actions (really, inactions) with regard to the massive LIBOR and other cartel banking frauds like HSBC in particular, represent a kind of criminal negligence, very indecent. Instead of jailing bankers for crimes like trading with the enemy, Eric Holder started asking around how the bankers would react to criminal indictments and he not only backed off, but started the "too big to jail" mentality shared by both parties. This reaction to the opportunity of a lifetime is so far from FDR. Can you imagine what history would have looked like if FDR did what Obama did? Open, systemic fraud legalized and protected by Obama. That alone is enough to say wall street president, nevermind his lack of transparency, support of terrorists in Syria and Libya, drone killings, etc... How many consecutive presidents can we afford if they continue to do a decent job like this? If Kamala ends up as president somehow, are we to say she can fulfill the highest job in the land decently by protecting high level financial crimes against the public because shes the first women potus? 
If Obama tried to right the ship ala FDR, just tried, id be willing to extend some of Joe and Pats charity towards him, but I do not believe he ever seriously did anything other than window dress and likely ascended the party so quickly and became potus because that was well known about him. Appointing the Goldman team to manage things is proof enough he was not interested in trying.
 

I recommend this video if anyone's interested in the 2012 hsbc case and similar.

 

[David Andrews]

7 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

I'm curious as to why all the "evidence" of the election being rigged is of Democratic fraud. You would think that the party in power would have the upper hand in rigging an election (and isn't Georgia, for example, run by Republicans?), yet the Republicans couldn't steal one vote while the Democrats were having a field day?

Oh, wait, maybe that's why the Republicans did so well in the election outside of Trump. Massive Republican fraud! But then why didn't they help the poor thing at the top of the ticket?

 

Plus, the 2020 media has studiously avoided mention of past GOP election fraud, e. g. in Bush v. Gore 2000, exposed by high-profile journos such as Palast and Taibbi. 

For the media to ignore past reporting is to tacitly support the Trump/alt.right notion of a Clinton-Obama-Biden "Crime Family."  They'll pimp DEM election fraud to the public on the strength of memories of the GOP 2000 steal, referencing that for plausibility/precedent but not for fact/culpability.

Edited December 5, 2020 by David Andrews

[Joe Bauer]

20 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

It's kinda like John Nash's big idea in "A Beautiful Mind." If all the dudes try to hit on the hot chick, most everyone goes away disappointed, and the bulk of the chicks feel like afterthoughts. The successful strategy, then, is for the bulk of the dudes to modify their ambition, and shoot a bit lower. That way more successful sales take place, with more satisfied customers. Obama--a man who grew up half-black in a mostly white world--knew that this strategy worked. 

I adhered to this mind set all through secondary school.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Dennis Berube said:

 That's why major corporate/tech/bio powers and some groups of Republicans were doing everything they could against Trump, and still are of course. 

Trump’s manifest unfitness, aggressively ignorant incompetence, and drive for one-man rule wouldn’t have anything to do with The Resistance on all levels?

[Cliff Varnell]

They.  Never.  Give.  Obama.  Credit.  For.  Anything...Ever!

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dodd-frank-financial-regulatory-reform-bill.asp

What Is the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act? 

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is a massive piece of financial reform legislation that was passed in 2010, during the Obama administration. It was created as a response to the financial crisis of 2008. Named after sponsors Senator Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the act contains numerous provisions, spelled out over roughly 2,300 pages, that were to be implemented over a period of several years.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act—typically shortened to just the Dodd-Frank Act—established a number of new government agencies tasked with overseeing the various components of the act and, by extension, various aspects of the financial system. When Donald Trump was elected President in 2016, he pledged to repeal Dodd-Frank; in May 2018, the Trump administration signed a new law rolling back significant portions of it.

How the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Works 

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act has many components. These are some of its key provisions and how they work:

Financial Stability 

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the Financial Stability Oversight Council and Orderly Liquidation Authority monitor the financial stability of major financial firms because the failure of these companies could have a serious negative impact on the U.S. economy (companies deemed "too big to fail").

The law also provides for liquidations or restructurings via the Orderly Liquidation Fund, established to assist with the dismantling of financial companies that have been placed in receivership and prevent tax dollars from being used to prop up such firms.

The council has the authority to break up banks that are considered so large as to pose systemic risk; it can also force them to increase their reserve requirements.3 Similarly, the new Federal Insurance Office was tasked with identifying and monitoring insurance companies considered "too big to fail."4

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), established under Dodd-Frank, was given the job of preventing predatory mortgage lending (reflecting the widespread sentiment that the subprime mortgage market was the underlying cause of the 2008 catastrophe) and make it easier for consumers to understand the terms of a mortgage before agreeing to them. It deters mortgage brokers from earning higher commissions for closing loans with higher fees and/or higher interest rates and requires that mortgage originators not steer potential borrowers to the loan that will result in the highest payment for the originator.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was intended to prevent another financial crisis like the one in 2008.

The CFPB also governs other types of consumer lending, including credit and debit cards, and addresses consumer complaints. It requires lenders, excluding automobile lenders, to disclose information in a form that is easy for consumers to read and understand; an example is the simplified terms now on credit card applications.

The Volcker Rule 

Another key component of Dodd-Frank, the Volcker Rule, restricts the ways banks can invest, limiting speculative trading, and eliminating proprietary trading. Banks are not allowed to be involved with hedge funds or private equity firms, which are considered too risky. In an effort to minimize possible conflicts of interest, financial firms are not allowed to trade proprietarily without sufficient "skin in the game."6 The Volcker Rule is clearly a push back in the direction of the Glass-Steagall Actof 1933, which first recognized the inherent dangers of financial entities extending commercial and investment banking services at the same time.7

The act also contains a provision for regulating derivatives, such as the credit default swaps that were widely blamed for contributing to the 2008 financial crisis. Dodd-Frank set up centralized exchanges for swaps trading to reduce the possibility of counterparty default and also required greater disclosure of swaps trading information to increase transparency in those markets.8 The Volcker Rule also regulates financial firms' use of derivatives in an attempt to prevent "too big to fail" institutions from taking large risks that might wreak havoc on the broader economy.

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Office of Credit Ratings 

Because credit rating agencies were accused of contributing to the financial crisis by giving out misleadingly favorable investment ratings, Dodd-Frank established the SEC Office of Credit Ratings. The office is charged with ensuring that agencies provide meaningful and reliable credit ratings of the businesses, municipalities, and other entities they evaluate.9

Whistleblower Program 

Dodd-Frank also strengthened and expanded the existing whistleblower program promulgated by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). Specifically, it established a mandatory bounty program under which whistleblowers can receive from 10% to 30% of the proceeds from a litigation settlement, broadened the scope of a covered employee by including employees of a company's subsidiaries and affiliatesand extended the statute of limitations under which whistleblowers can bring forward a claim against their employer from 90 to 180 days after a violation is discovered.

Criticisms of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 

Proponents of Dodd-Frank believed the Act would prevent the economy from experiencing a crisis like that of 2008 and protect consumers from many of the abuses that contributed to the crisis. Detractors, however, have argued that the act could harm the competitiveness of U.S. firms relative to their foreign counterparts. In particular, they contend that its regulatory compliance requirements unduly burden community banks and smaller financial institutions—despite the fact that they played no role in causing the financial crisis.

Such financial-world notables as former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, Blackstone Group L.P. (BX) CEO Stephen Schwarzman, activist Carl Icahn, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon also argue that, while each institution is undoubtedly safer due to the capital constraints imposed by Dodd-Frank, the constraints also make for a more illiquid market overall. The lack of liquidity can be especially potent in the bond market, where all securities are not mark to marketand many bonds lack a constant supply of buyers and sellers.

 

The higher reserve requirements under Dodd-Frank mean banks must keep a higher percentage of their assets in cash, which decreases the amount they are able to hold in marketable securities. In effect, this limits the bond market-making role that banks have traditionally undertaken. With banks unable to play the part of a market maker, prospective buyers are likely to have a harder time finding counteracting sellers. More importantly, prospective sellers may find it more difficult to find counteracting buyers.

History of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 

Siding with the critics, the U.S. Congress passed a bill in 2018 called the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, which rolls back significant portions of the Dodd-Frank Act. It was signed into law by President Trump on May 24, 2018.11 These are some of the provisions of the new law, and some of the areas in which standards were loosened:

Small and Regional Banks 

The new law eases the Dodd-Frank regulations for small and regional banks by increasing the asset threshold for the application of prudential standards, stress test requirements, and mandatory risk committees.

Large Custodial Banks 

For institutions that have custody of clients' assets but do not function as lenders or traditional bankers, the new law provides for lower capital requirements and leverage ratios.

Mortgage Credit 

The new law exempts escrow requirements for residential mortgage loans held by a depository institution or credit union under certain conditions. It also directs the Federal Housing Finance Agency to set up standards for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to consider alternative credit scoring methods

Small Lenders 

The law exempts lenders with assets of less than $10 billion from requirements of the Volcker rule and imposes less stringent reporting and capital norms on small lenders.

Credit Bureaus 

The law requires that the three major credit reporting agencies allow consumers to "freeze" their credit files free of charge as a way of deterring fraud.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

Rob,

     If you're truly interested in the subject of election fraud in Georgia, try studying the horrible history of voter suppression in that former penal colony.

     Whining about liberal election fraud in Georgia is like whining about Third World atrocities committed against the CIA.

[Dennis Berube]

18 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Trump’s manifest unfitness, aggressively ignorant incompetence, and drive for one-man rule wouldn’t have anything to do with The Resistance on all levels?

Yes, those perceptions have ignited an "ends justifies the means" attitude to many citizens who oppose trump. Therefore, when Trump says he wants to end section 230 that protects big tech, the normally civil rights minded left goes silent because those tech companies are helping their "ends" through censorship and propaganda. At one point, Biden said it should be revoked, but he seemingly cannot bring himself to say anything now.
As I said earlier, this attitude is at the point where I am not sure Democrats would overturn the election even if they all believed it was stolen. That's not good when those peoples beliefs align quite well with certain corporate power agendas.

 

As far as Dood-Frank goes, that would be an example of window dressing. An FDR style bill would have either outlawed or put a 1% Tobin tax on all non-underlying asset holders derivatives trading over a certain amount, they were mostly illegal from the 30's to the early 80's. Also, a reinstatement of the Clinton repealed Glass Stegall act. That, plus criminal indictments would be the minimum Obama could have done if he was "decent". Lord knows he had the political capital and public mandate on his side, but somehow he came up short with a few good token policies while leaving the beast largely unharmed, ala Obamacare. Instead, we got "too big to jail", now with Trump we get "too large to charge" with Epstein. Clearly, there is a certain toxic crust of society that has criminal immunity from even a potus. Remind anyone of the JFK case?

 

Speaking of, I finally received my copy of Poulgrain's new book yesterday, it should be a good one.
 

Robert, I think we share somewhat similar views except I do not believe there is such a thing as a truly free market and I reject the Austrian and Chicago schools of economics, Keynes as well. Hamilton had it right...

Edited December 6, 2020 by Dennis Berube

[Kirk Gallaway]

I agree with Wheeler. To my Trump supporter friends in Georgia, I say the President is right!  Don't participate in this election sham and these phony runoffs any further! Stop the steal!, don't further perpetuate it, or you'll only play into the hands of  the Deep State Democrat regime! 

Edited December 6, 2020 by Kirk Gallaway

[Joe Bauer]

2 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

At the Georgia Election Fraud hearing the other day, two of the Legislators on the Democrat's side became somewhat unhinged when questioning the witnesses and experts that provided evidence of fraud. 

One of them kept repeating that a particular video was "debunked", even though the 14 hours of security camera footage was only recovered 12 hours earlier from the Fulton County arena. The 20 minute segment used at the hearing was "debunked" according to the nitwit even though it was only made public at the hearing.

In any case, the two Georgia Legislators that were the most panicked by the revelations apparently had good reason.

Here they are stealing Trump votes during the Election over a month ago. (more pictures in the Twitter thread.)

 

I don't get it? Who is this blond woman in the tweeted photo and why is the tweeter expressing concern?