SteveG’s Posts

The UnDemocratic Party   Recently updated !

Here is an email I received from Alan Grayson. Alan spells it out in a way that no other politician will. We have to empower the Bernie Sanders’ wing of the Democratic party, and take power away from the Hillary Clinton wing. If we don’t do that, we will have a continuation of all the problems that Alan Grayson describes.

I have deactivated all the contribution links in the email. If you would like to, you can contribute by using this Alan Grayson For U.S. Senate link.

Cosmic breakthrough: Physicists detect gravitational waves from violent black-hole merger

The Washington Post has the article Cosmic breakthrough: Physicists detect gravitational waves from violent black-hole merger.

“It had a very rough beginning,” Weiss said. “The [National Science Foundation] had a tough time explaining to other people why they would back such a crazy thing.”

This is a great scientific event. It is of significant interest to anybody who enjoys knowing about and reading about physics.

Now, let me go on to its political significance. This is scientific socialism at its best. There was no money in it for private enterprise and the capitalist free market to sponsor it. It could only be done be an extremely wealthy philanthropist who liked science enough to spend $1 billion over ten years, or it could be done by “government”. However, the government did not own the means of production, so there were plenty of contracts given out to the capitalists to build the experimental equipment.

Benjamin Studebaker: Why Bernie vs Hillary Matters More Than People Think

Benjamin Studebaker has posted the article Why Bernie vs Hillary Matters More Than People Think.

This is a wonderful article that explains why I am so adamantly opposed to electing Hillary Clinton instead of Bernie Sanders. It is a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party. If we lose that fight, then the Democratic Party is not worth saving. You might even say that there is a special place in hell for what the Democratic Party has become under Carter, Clinton, and Obama.

In the years since 2008, many Americans, in particular young people, are willing to consider the possibility that neoliberalism–the economic ideology espoused by both the post-Reagan republicans and the post-Carter Clinton-era democrats–is fundamentally flawed and must be revised or potentially replaced entirely.

This can only happen if democrats recognize that Bernie Sanders is not just a slightly more left-wing fellow traveler of Clinton’s. This is not a contest to see who will lead the democrats, it’s a contest to see what kind of party the democrats are going to be in the coming decades, what ideology and what interests, causes, and issues the Democratic Party will prioritize. This makes it far more important than any other recent primary election. The last time a democratic primary was this important, it was 1976. Only this time, instead of Anybody But Carter or Anybody But Clinton, the left has Bernie Sanders–one representative candidate that it is really excited about. The chance may not come again for quite some time.

Hillary Clinton is a neoliberal building on the legacy of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. She doesn’t understand the pivotal role inequality plays in creating economic crisis and reducing economic growth. She has been taken in by a fundamentally right wing paradigm, and if she is elected she will continue to lead the Democratic Party down that path.

Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist building on the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. He understands that inequality is the core structural factor in economic crisis and that growth in real wages and incomes is required for robust, sustainable economic growth.

It doesn’t matter which one is more experienced, or which one’s policies are more likely to pass congress, or which one is more likely to win a general election, or which one is a man and which one is a woman. This is not about just this election, or just the next four years. This is about whether the Democratic Party is going to care about inequality for the next decade. We are making a historical decision between two distinct ideological paradigms, not a choice between flavors of popcorn. This is important. Choose carefully.

How Many Lies Can the WSJ Pack into a Chart on Liar’s Loans?

William K. Black has a second article in his series, this one titled How Many Lies Can the WSJ Pack into a Chart on Liar’s Loans?

If you don’t read this article you have no way of knowing just how fraudulent Wall Street has been, nor how clueless are the people that Barack Obama put in charge of prosecutng Wall Street. I had the “pleasure” of engaing one of these clueless appointees in a Facebook exchange.

Here is an excerpt from the article.

I have discovered even more amazing indicators of fraud in my pro bono efforts on behalf of alleged fraud “mice.” One of the largest home lenders in America ordered its staff – in a passage that they put in all-caps to highlight its importance – never to verify the borrower’s income on liar’s loans even when the underwriters could have done so without any expense. In particular, while the underwriter was permitted to call the employer and verify the borrower’s employment, the underwriters were forbidden to verify the borrower’s income even though they had the boss on the phone line staring at the employee’s records. Everything about liar’s loans screams “accounting control fraud” by the lenders’ controlling officers.

Hillary Clinton Explains the Clinton Foundation

Crooks and Liars has the video excerpt I have been looking for from the CNN Democratic Town hall

At about 3:35 into the video below, Hillary Clinton said about the billionaires,

They could care less about income inequality. They salve their consciences by giving big money to philanthropy. And, you know, getting great pictures of them standing in front of whatever charity they have donated to.

Is she trying to describe the purpose of the Clinton Foundation? I have often thought that the billionaires might do good works by giving philanthropy, but they might have done much better by not stealing the money from the middle-class in the first place.

One also has to wonder if the Clintons have any self-awareness at all.

Video Shows State Police Discussing How To Charge Protester

The Hartford Courant has this article and video Video Shows State Police Discussing How To Charge Protester.

Picard told The Courant Thursday that he was standing near a state police DUI enforcement checkpoint near the on-ramp to I-84 on Park Road at about 7 p.m. holding a sign that read “Cops ahead. Keep calm and remain silent.” He said he also had a handgun visible in a holster on his waist because Connecticut is an open-carry state and he had a valid permit for the gun.

What this really shows is that some state laws lead to a paradox. Picard was legally and openly carrying a weapon. It is also true that people openly carrying weapons logically scares the hell out of people. Is there a solution.

I know the feeling of the passers-by. I was driving home from work in Oregon one day. Less than half a block from my house there was a teenager standing in his driveway aiming a rifle toward the spot in the street that I was about to pass by. I took a detour and notified the police. What do you think I should have done instead? Should I have just continued to drive, and hope to hell I wasn’t going to get shot? Should I have taken the detour, not notified the police, and hoped to hell the next person by wouldn’t get shot?

Then there was the time I was walking to my car in my employer’s parking lot. A person was getting into his pickup truck and momentarily a concealed handgun revealed itself. I knew that guns were forbidden on the property. A call to company security revealed to me that the person wearing the concealed weapon was a security officer employed by my employer.

I maintain that there is a difference between being frightened by people because of the color of their skin or some other ethnic identifier and being frightened by someone carrying a gun, especially one that is about to be aimed at you. In the one case I am suffering from a belief in a stereotype of what someone is (and has no choice about) and an observation about someone who chooses to carry something that does threaten my life.

Wall Street’s Third Way Absurdly Wrong About Sanders’ Social Security Plan

The Huffington Post has the article Wall Street’s Third Way Absurdly Wrong About Sanders’ Social Security Plan. Maked Capitalism comments on this article in their article titled Third Way Misleads Hard in a Weak Effort to Discredit Social Security Expansion.

Read the rest of this post to understand the magnitude of the deception that Third Way is pushing.

The Naked Capitalism article said:

As Altman goes on to point out, Third Way isn’t even playing straight on the benefit side, to say nothing of ignoring the tax side. The report breaks beneficiaries into quintiles based on average lifetime income.

This made me suspicious that Third Way was using a particularly egregious ploy that few people will understand the depth of the deception unless they think about it a little more deeply.

I went to the original article to see if it was more explicit about this trick. There is a section in that original article:

The only way to even plausibly make the case that the Sanders proposal disproportionately favors the rich is to obscure the facts.
Instead of using dollar figures to analyze to whom the new benefits go, the report refers to “quintiles.”

This does not clarify my point. I will see what I can do to clarify the point. The headline in the Politifact article Bernie Sanders, in Madison, claims top 0.1% of Americans have almost as much wealth as bottom 90% is a good starting point for my explanation.

These numbers can be converted into another way to look at the wealth imbalance per capita. Per capita, the top 0.1% have almost 900 times the wealth that the per capita bottom 90% have. This multiplier of 900 is only for an equal distribution of total wealth between the top 0.1% and the bottom 90%. There is no upper limit on the ratio of what the top can have compared to the bottom. As more and more of the wealth gets concentrated at the top, the multiplier goes up without limit.

This is decidedly not the case when you talk about money received from Social Security in retirement. The top payment from Social Security does not go up without limit. The ratio between the top payment and the minimum payment does not go up without limit. Even if the top payment were 10 times higher (I think an overestimate) than the minimum payment and all the lower 99.9% got the minimum and all the top 0.1% got the maximum, the ratio of total dollars per segment of the population would be [10 X ( 1/1009 )] : [1 x (999/1009)]. This is 0.99% going to the top 0.1% and 99.0% going to the bottom 99.9%.

To summarize the comparison – the top 0.1% of Americans have almost as much wealth as bottom 90% , and, with some pessimistic assumptions about the unequal distribution of Social Security pension benefits, the top 0.1% would get 0.99% of the benefits and the bottom 99.9% would get 99.0% of the benefits. If you took all the skew out of the Social Security payments, the bottom 99.9% would hardly see any difference. If you took all the skew out of the wealth distribution, the bottom 90% would see their wealth double.

I doubt you could have guessed that the Social Security payments could possibly be this minimally skewed compared to the wealth distribution. This is an indication of the magnitude of the deception promulgated by Third Way.

If you want a revolution, you’re going to have to do something about it

I received an email from Alan Grayson, If you want a revolution, you’re going to have to do something about it.

Of course it is a fund raising email, and if you want to support Alan Grayson, I urge you to follow the link.

I mainly post this here as another explanation of what it takes to have a Bernie Sanders’ type of political revolution. You are going to have to do something about it.

Announcing the Bank Whistleblowers United Initial Initiatives

New Economic Perspectives has several articles on this topic, the first is Announcing the Bank Whistleblowers United Initial Initiatives. The second one, An Explanation of the Bank Whistleblowers United 60-Day Plan, is included at the end of the first one. There are two other documents in the set.

Here is what William K. Black wrote in the introduction of the first document.

I am writing to announce the formation of a new pro bono group and a policy initiative that we hope many of our readers will support and help publicize. Gary Aguirre, Bill Black, Richard Bowen, and Michael Winston are the founding members of the Bank Whistleblowers United. We are all from the general field of finance and we are all whistleblowers who are unemployable in finance and financial regulation because we spoke truth to power and committed the one unforgivable sin in finance and in Washington, D.C. – being repeatedly proved correct when the powerful are repeatedly proved wrong.

This may be a good litmus test for Presidential hopefuls. If I were a betting person, I would bet that Sanders would back most of these proposals, and Hillary would claim her experts tell her not to. (Those experts being from the banking business.)