More ammunition for Bernie's argument (which Hillary opposes) that America's megabanks must be broken up:

Big Banks still too big to fail

Bank of America, JP Morgan, other banks fail key regulators test.

Regulators on Wednesday flunked most big banks on a key test of whether they're still too big to fail as they rejected their plans for winding themselves down in a crisis.

The vote of no confidence raises questions about whether the system put in place by the 2010 Dodd-Frank law is going to prevent another bank bailout.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz45ik0ydhd

In the Democratic debates, Bernie has consistently argued that the megabanks are too big to fail--and their executives too big to jail. He has also advocated that Glass-Steagall be reinstated as one (proven) measure to combat systemic risk in the financial system. Hillary, on the other hand, has argued that Dodd-Frank is sufficient to head off another banking meltdown. It isn't and it won't. I sincerely hope that Bernie draws on this new information to win the argument on this key issue in Thursday night's CNN debate.

Originally Posted by TnT

Hey, I'm with you 100%. Medicare for all is virtually the only system that makes any sense. This bastardized approach to keeping the health insurance companies in business makes no sense.

Did you know that once upon a time, the AMA was against health insurance? They thought IT was TOO "socialistic."

-- yep the AMA was the reason we didn't get health care back in the 60's when the other industrialized countries were implementing it. Now they want it, to stave off malpractice suits, but the insurance companies & Big Pharma got a stranglehold on it. It would be funny if ppl weren't getting screwed

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...and he stopped at Alsace and Lorraine. German rule of Alsace-Lorraine was not gentle. It was practically a colony, much like Posen. The German-speaking Alsatians seemed not to like the harsh, centralized rule from Berlin which was very different from that in, for example, Bavaria or Saxony.

-- or Paris maybe? Alsace was/is a French province, ie part of the country. Big difference than being some flippin colony. On this side of the Pond we had a Revolution bcuz ppl were tired of living in some flippin colony

There are still German-speaking Alsatians in Alsace-Lorraine... and they consider themselves French

-- um, mebbe bcuz they live in France? See above response

Awwwww Rocky.. couldn't you wait until after the election? Bernie needs superd's


http://m.deseretnews.com/article/705...acebook.com%2F

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Move to another jurisdiction

-- iow emigrate. Rule of thumb, ppl who can't afford this "health" crap probably can't afford to emigrate either. Even if they could, there's the matter of finding a country that'll take them in. You usually have to have some kind if certain job skill the host country is looking for, or a sponsor

or pay the fine.

-- which is what ppl are doing since it's the cheaper option. But it's wrong, forcing ppl to do this. Look , I'm a Boomer, an Idealist. I'm coming @ this from a moral angle. Obummercrap is a big Ponzi scheme, a cashcow for the insurance companies, & a royal screwing for we the ppl. It's wrong plain & simple. Reprehensible even

Or better still work to change the political terrain so we can have "Medicare for all" or a similar system (Japan, Taiwan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and almost all the European counties all have them).

-- agreed, no argument here. Bern baby Bern

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- iow emigrate. Rule of thumb, ppl who can't afford this "health" crap probably can't afford to emigrate either. Even if they could, there's the matter of finding a country that'll take them in. You usually have to have some kind if certain job skill the host country is looking for, or a sponsor.

If people are too poor to afford insurance, Obamacare does not require them to purchase it, particularly if they live in those states where Medicaid was not expanded to cover them. They still don't have insurance, but they didn't have insurance before Obamacare. Obamacare is an improvement on what we had before, but is certainly not where we want to stay.
[/QUOTE]

In a New York Times op-ed today, Jeff Merkley, Dem. Senator from Oregon, outlined his rationale for endorsing Bernie Sander for President:

"Why I’m Supporting Bernie Sanders" http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/op....html?emc=eta1

No decision we make as Americans more dramatically affects the direction of our country than our choice for president. He or she is more than the manager of the executive branch, commander in chief or appointer of judges. The president reflects, but also helps define, our national values, priorities and direction.

After considering the biggest challenges facing our nation and the future I want for my children and our country, I have decided to become the first member of the Senate to support my colleague Bernie Sanders for president...

Many middle-class Americans are working longer for less income than decades ago, even while big-ticket expenses like housing, health care and college have relentlessly pushed higher.

It is not that America is less wealthy than 40 years ago — quite the contrary. The problem is that our economy, both by accident and design, has become rigged to make a fortunate few very well off while leaving most Americans struggling to keep up.

Bernie--far more than Hillary has--makes this argument emphatically in his stump speech.

Merkley continues by writing--

And as economic power has become more concentrated, so too has political power. Special interests, aided by their political and judicial allies, have exercised an ever-tighter grip on our political system, from the rise of unlimited, secret campaign spending to a voter suppression movement...

...Bernie Sanders is boldly and fiercely addressing the biggest challenges facing our country.

He has opposed trade deals with nations that pay their workers as little as a dollar an hour. Such deals have caused good jobs to move overseas and undermined the leverage of American workers to bargain for a fair share of the wealth they create in our remaining factories.

He has passionately advocated for pivoting from fossil fuels to renewable energy to save our planet from global warming — the greatest threat facing humanity. He recognizes that to accomplish this we must keep the vast bulk of the world’s fossil fuels in the ground.

Bernie is a determined leader in taking on the concentration of campaign cash from the mega-wealthy that is corrupting the vision of opportunity embedded in our Constitution...

...People know that we don’t just need better policies, we need a wholesale rethinking of how our economy and our politics work, and for whom they work...

...It is time to recommit ourselves to that vision of a country that measures our nation’s success not at the boardroom table, but at kitchen tables across America. Bernie Sanders stands for that America, and so I stand with Bernie Sanders for president.

Elizabeth Warren, are you listening?

Can't believe the DNC is still down with this stuff. Shit needs 2 stop

http://heavy.com/news/2016/04/election-fraud-voter-registration-changed-suppression-party-affiliation-sanders-clinton-ca-ny-az-md-pa-what-to-do/

Washington Sq Park last nite:

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-s...n-square-park/

To get back to my op- can he turn those crowds into votes?

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

In a New York Times op-ed today, Jeff Merkley, Dem. Senator from Oregon, outlined his rationale for endorsing Bernie Sander for President:

"Why I’m Supporting Bernie Sanders" http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/op....html?emc=eta1

No decision we make as Americans more dramatically affects the direction of our country than our choice for president. He or she is more than the manager of the executive branch, commander in chief or appointer of judges. The president reflects, but also helps define, our national values, priorities and direction.

After considering the biggest challenges facing our nation and the future I want for my children and our country, I have decided to become the first member of the Senate to support my colleague Bernie Sanders for president...

Many middle-class Americans are working longer for less income than decades ago, even while big-ticket expenses like housing, health care and college have relentlessly pushed higher.

It is not that America is less wealthy than 40 years ago — quite the contrary. The problem is that our economy, both by accident and design, has become rigged to make a fortunate few very well off while leaving most Americans struggling to keep up.

Bernie--far more than Hillary has--makes this argument emphatically in his stump speech.

Merkley continues by writing--

And as economic power has become more concentrated, so too has political power. Special interests, aided by their political and judicial allies, have exercised an ever-tighter grip on our political system, from the rise of unlimited, secret campaign spending to a voter suppression movement...

...Bernie Sanders is boldly and fiercely addressing the biggest challenges facing our country.

He has opposed trade deals with nations that pay their workers as little as a dollar an hour. Such deals have caused good jobs to move overseas and undermined the leverage of American workers to bargain for a fair share of the wealth they create in our remaining factories.

He has passionately advocated for pivoting from fossil fuels to renewable energy to save our planet from global warming — the greatest threat facing humanity. He recognizes that to accomplish this we must keep the vast bulk of the world’s fossil fuels in the ground.

Bernie is a determined leader in taking on the concentration of campaign cash from the mega-wealthy that is corrupting the vision of opportunity embedded in our Constitution...

...People know that we don’t just need better policies, we need a wholesale rethinking of how our economy and our politics work, and for whom they work...

...It is time to recommit ourselves to that vision of a country that measures our nation’s success not at the boardroom table, but at kitchen tables across America. Bernie Sanders stands for that America, and so I stand with Bernie Sanders for president.

Elizabeth Warren, are you listening?

Great endorsement

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- iow emigrate. Rule of thumb, ppl who can't afford this "health" crap probably can't afford to emigrate either. Even if they could, there's the matter of finding a country that'll take them in. You usually have to have some kind if certain job skill the host country is looking for, or a sponsor



-- which is what ppl are doing since it's the cheaper option. But it's wrong, forcing ppl to do this. Look , I'm a Boomer, an Idealist. I'm coming @ this from a moral angle. Obummercrap is a big Ponzi scheme, a cashcow for the insurance companies, & a royal screwing for we the ppl. It's wrong plain & simple. Reprehensible even




-- agreed, no argument here. Bern baby Bern

I'm feeling the Bern too. But I disagree with you about the ACA. Are you saying it was better before? My grandson earns about 15K Obviously he could not afford insurance. Because of the ACA he now has health insurance. To pay for it I pay more in taxes. That's fine, I approve of taxes that actually buy tangible goods for Americans.

A friend has a daughter who had an organ transplant as a child. To stay alive she needs expensive meds, plus she had other health issues that had it difficult for her to keep a job with an employer that provided insurance. With this pre-existing condition she was uninsurable as an individual. When the ACA passed she was able to go back on her father's insurance, until age 26, by which the ACA had rolled out and she could get a plan. The ACA saved her life. I am happy for her, even though covering people like her is what makes the ACA insurance more expensive that the plans they replaced.

If you are low income, there are subsidies and so the insurance should be affordable. If you make more than ~90K (where the subsidies phase out) then you should be able to afford the premiums and co-pays. Insurance costs money, Sander's plan will cost me $14K more than what I have now, should I oppose it for that reason?

Medicare for all was off the table in 2009. Republicans were 100% against it and the ONLY way it would vote was with 100% Democratic support in the Senate. Some Democrats were dead set against Medicare for all, period. They would never have changed their mind. They have since been replaced by Republicans. Do you think you will have a better chance with them?

I support Bernie for two reasons. One is the issues he brings to the table (higher taxes and opposition to free trade). The other is the political revolution, which means that the political reality I described above changes.

The political revolution refers to a very specific thing. The Sanders campaign sought to create a groundswell of interest in changing what Sanders calls "the rigged economy". It would manifest as large numbers of new voters, mostly working class and young people, who previously did not vote, coming to the polls to support Bernie. This would show up as record turnout in the Democratic primaries. It did not happen. Turnout was considerable smaller than in 2008. Had it been larger, Bernie would be ahead in delegates, total votes and the super delegates would be flocking to his standard.

The plain fact is Sanders did not spark a political revolution. The political revolution DID happen. The new voters Sanders sought did come to the polls. Turnout did set record levels. It just happened on the Republican side. Donald Trump, sounding some of the same memes as Sanders, has brought new participants to the Republican primaries and in doing so has upended the Republican party. If they nominate Cruz, as now seems likely, and the GOP loses both the presidency and the Senate, movement conservatism will have been severely damaged, possibly irreparably. Trumpism (without Trump) provides a possible path for the party that will have more to offer the GOP base than tax cuts for the rich.

Given a re-tooled GOP, the Democratic party will need to figure out a response or become irrelevant. They will need to figure out how to offer something besides business-like policies. For example, Sanders could have proposed the free tuition, infrastructure and Medicare as an ACA option and pay for it by eliminating the GOP tax cut--saving X trillions of dollars!

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- or Paris maybe? Alsace was/is a French province, ie part of the country. Big difference than being some flippin colony. On this side of the Pond we had a Revolution bcuz ppl were tired of living in some flippin colony

I say that the governments of Wilhelm II treated Alsace-Lorraine as a colony. Germany bled the region and flooded it with troops, which is typical behavior of colonial rulers. At the end of World War I, Alsace-Lorraine declared its independence, only to be assigned to France, where it belongs.

As for the American Revolution, people in the British colonies took a very long time to dislike British rule. From the founding of the Plymouth settlement in 1620 to the Boston Massacre in 1770 was 150 years. Few of those who set foot on Plymouth Rock from the Mayflower got to know any infant who might have ever known anything other than British rule. Crown authority was acceptable until George III tried to strip the Colonies of the autonomy that they had -- autonomy that included elected legislatures such as the Massachusetts General Court. The Crown had to give the colonies much leeway just to enforce civil and criminal law, repress pirates, and defend against Indian attacks because the British authorities could not be everywhere.

-- um, mebbe bcuz they live in France? See above response

French nationality does not depend upon being a native speaker of France. It has Basques, Catalans, and Bretons ... and some Alsatians who still speak a dialect of German. France has also had large immigrant communities -- Poles, Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, Russians, and of course more recent Arabs, Africans, and Vietnamese.

,m

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I say that the governments of Wilhelm II treated Alsace-Lorraine as a colony. Germany bled the region and flooded it with troops, which is typical behavior of colonial rulers. At the end of World War I, Alsace-Lorraine declared its independence, only to be assigned to France, where it belongs.

-- yes there was an Alsatian independence movement, sorta like a 19th century IRA. Not the best place to raise kids, so my Greatgrandparents left, taking their kids with them. My Dad's Aunts & Uncles that is, my Grandad was born over here.
So yeah, I'm talking about my Dad's Grandparents, my Grandad's family, I have an Alsatian last name

As for the American Revolution, people in the British colonies took a very long time to dislike British rule. From the founding of the Plymouth settlement in 1620 to the Boston Massacre in 1770 was 150 years. Few of those who set foot on Plymouth Rock from the Mayflower got to know any infant who might have ever known anything other than British rule. Crown authority was acceptable until George III tried to strip the Colonies of the autonomy that they had -- autonomy that included elected legislatures such as the Massachusetts General Court. The Crown had to give the colonies much leeway just to enforce civil and criminal law, repress pirates, and defend against Indian attacks because the British authorities could not be everywhere.

-- I was just pointing out the difference between being part of a country & being a colony of a country & that ppl get tired if it after awhile

French nationality does not depend upon being a native speaker of France. It has Basques, Catalans, and Bretons ... and some Alsatians who still speak a dialect of German. France has also had large immigrant communities -- Poles, Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, Russians, and of course more recent Arabs, Africans, and Vietnamese.

--yep very diverse indeed

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Wher is selling a gun to a minor legal?

This guy was only 20 years old at the time -



At my age, someone in their 20s is still a kid.

But neither he or anyone else regardless of age should be able to posse the firepower he had.

Someone else may be agreeing with me (see next post)

Lots of ammosexuals are sweating bullets now -

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/04/br...-rules-against

BREAKING: Connecticut Judge Rules Against Gun Manufacturers Re Sandy Hook.
By Sarah P

ust moments ago a motion filed by gun companies requesting that a lawsuit brought by 10 families affected by the Sandy Hook school massacre was denied by a Connecticut Judge. They had requested to be shielded by a law known as Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects gun manufacturers from civil lawsuits.

Newsweek reports that the basis of the argument of the plaintiffs is that the rifle shouldn’t have been entrusted to the general public because it is a "military-style assault weapon" that should not have been in the hands of civilians and that the gun companies knew, or should have known, the risk it posed.

The families of the plaintiffs issued this brief statement through their lead attorney, Josh Koskoff:

“We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied. The families look forward to continuing their fight in court"

The next court date, per Newsweek, is April 19th, at which time the Judge is expected to issue her ruling. This decision, if in favor of the plaintiffs, would potentially open up gun manufacturers to a litany of civil suits and could potentially change protections given to weapons manufacturers nationwide.

The worm may be turning. Just need to get that SCOTUS vacancy filled with the Progressive we need.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

More ammunition for Bernie's argument (which Hillary opposes) that America's megabanks must be broken up:

Big Banks still too big to fail

Bank of America, JP Morgan, other banks fail key regulators test.

Regulators on Wednesday flunked most big banks on a key test of whether they're still too big to fail as they rejected their plans for winding themselves down in a crisis.

The vote of no confidence raises questions about whether the system put in place by the 2010 Dodd-Frank law is going to prevent another bank bailout.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz45ik0ydhd

In the Democratic debates, Bernie has consistently argued that the megabanks are too big to fail--and their executives too big to jail. He has also advocated that Glass-Steagall be reinstated as one (proven) measure to combat systemic risk in the financial system. Hillary, on the other hand, has argued that Dodd-Frank is sufficient to head off another banking meltdown. It isn't and it won't. I sincerely hope that Bernie draws on this new information to win the argument on this key issue in Thursday night's CNN debate.

You do understand that the "regulators test" is part of Dodd-Frank?

No Dodd-Frank, no banks legally identified as too big to fail.

Without Dodd-Frank, there isn't anything a President Savior Sanders could do about it - unless you believe Paul Ryan and Mitch the Turtle are going to pass finance legislation (if you do, I have this magic unicorn that poops single payer I can sell you, real cheap!).

Even with Dodd-Frank, all President Savior Sanders could do is beg the Federal Reserve Board, an independent agency, to do something.

Capiche?

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

In a New York Times op-ed today, Jeff Merkley, Dem. Senator from Oregon, outlined his rationale for endorsing Bernie Sander for President:

"Why I’m Supporting Bernie Sanders" http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/op....html?emc=eta1

No decision we make as Americans more dramatically affects the direction of our country than our choice for president. He or she is more than the manager of the executive branch, commander in chief or appointer of judges. The president reflects, but also helps define, our national values, priorities and direction.

After considering the biggest challenges facing our nation and the future I want for my children and our country, I have decided to become the first member of the Senate to support my colleague Bernie Sanders for president...

Many middle-class Americans are working longer for less income than decades ago, even while big-ticket expenses like housing, health care and college have relentlessly pushed higher.

It is not that America is less wealthy than 40 years ago — quite the contrary. The problem is that our economy, both by accident and design, has become rigged to make a fortunate few very well off while leaving most Americans struggling to keep up.

Bernie--far more than Hillary has--makes this argument emphatically in his stump speech.

Merkley continues by writing--

And as economic power has become more concentrated, so too has political power. Special interests, aided by their political and judicial allies, have exercised an ever-tighter grip on our political system, from the rise of unlimited, secret campaign spending to a voter suppression movement...

...Bernie Sanders is boldly and fiercely addressing the biggest challenges facing our country.

He has opposed trade deals with nations that pay their workers as little as a dollar an hour. Such deals have caused good jobs to move overseas and undermined the leverage of American workers to bargain for a fair share of the wealth they create in our remaining factories.

He has passionately advocated for pivoting from fossil fuels to renewable energy to save our planet from global warming — the greatest threat facing humanity. He recognizes that to accomplish this we must keep the vast bulk of the world’s fossil fuels in the ground.

Bernie is a determined leader in taking on the concentration of campaign cash from the mega-wealthy that is corrupting the vision of opportunity embedded in our Constitution...

...People know that we don’t just need better policies, we need a wholesale rethinking of how our economy and our politics work, and for whom they work...

...It is time to recommit ourselves to that vision of a country that measures our nation’s success not at the boardroom table, but at kitchen tables across America. Bernie Sanders stands for that America, and so I stand with Bernie Sanders for president.

Elizabeth Warren, are you listening?

Like every Progressive that actually works to get something done, I would say, "no shXt Sherlock, now what are you actually going to do about it?"

... and then we get the mumble-mumble we got in the NY Post punctuated with "that evil Hillary, I tells ya!"

I realize that goes far in magic pony land, but for the rest of us, not so much.

Originally Posted by marypoza

Can't believe the DNC is still down with this stuff. Shit needs 2 stop

http://heavy.com/news/2016/04/election-fraud-voter-registration-changed-suppression-party-affiliation-sanders-clinton-ca-ny-az-md-pa-what-to-do/

This is the same kind of anecdotal and unreferenced horsecrap that the t-backers get all foamy-at-the-mouth with Obamacare.

Originally Posted by marypoza

Washington Sq Park last nite:

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-s...n-square-park/

To get back to my op- can he turn those crowds into votes?

Yea, Obama did the same thing in '08... and then went on to lose the NY primary.

You can have your crowds, I'll take the delegates.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I'm feeling the Bern too. But I disagree with you about the ACA. Are you saying it was better before? My grandson earns about 15K Obviously he could not afford insurance. Because of the ACA he now has health insurance. To pay for it I pay more in taxes. That's fine, I approve of taxes that actually buy tangible goods for Americans.

A friend has a daughter who had an organ transplant as a child. To stay alive she needs expensive meds, plus she had other health issues that had it difficult for her to keep a job with an employer that provided insurance. With this pre-existing condition she was uninsurable as an individual. When the ACA passed she was able to go back on her father's insurance, until age 26, by which the ACA had rolled out and she could get a plan. The ACA saved her life. I am happy for her, even though covering people like her is what makes the ACA insurance more expensive that the plans they replaced.

If you are low income, there are subsidies and so the insurance should be affordable. If you make more than ~90K (where the subsidies phase out) then you should be able to afford the premiums and co-pays. Insurance costs money, Sander's plan will cost me $14K more than what I have now, should I oppose it for that reason?

Medicare for all was off the table in 2009. Republicans were 100% against it and the ONLY way it would vote was with 100% Democratic support in the Senate. Some Democrats were dead set against Medicare for all, period. They would never have changed their mind. They have since been replaced by Republicans. Do you think you will have a better chance with them?

I support Bernie for two reasons. One is the issues he brings to the table (higher taxes and opposition to free trade). The other is the political revolution, which means that the political reality I described above changes.

The political revolution refers to a very specific thing. The Sanders campaign sought to create a groundswell of interest in changing what Sanders calls "the rigged economy". It would manifest as large numbers of new voters, mostly working class and young people, who previously did not vote, coming to the polls to support Bernie. This would show up as record turnout in the Democratic primaries. It did not happen. Turnout was considerable smaller than in 2008. Had it been larger, Bernie would be ahead in delegates, total votes and the super delegates would be flocking to his standard.

The plain fact is Sanders did not spark a political revolution. The political revolution DID happen. The new voters Sanders sought did come to the polls. Turnout did set record levels. It just happened on the Republican side. Donald Trump, sounding some of the same memes as Sanders, has brought new participants to the Republican primaries and in doing so has upended the Republican party. If they nominate Cruz, as now seems likely, and the GOP loses both the presidency and the Senate, movement conservatism will have been severely damaged, possibly irreparably. Trumpism (without Trump) provides a possible path for the party that will have more to offer the GOP base than tax cuts for the rich.

Given a re-tooled GOP, the Democratic party will need to figure out a response or become irrelevant. They will need to figure out how to offer something besides business-like policies. For example, Sanders could have proposed the free tuition, infrastructure and Medicare as an ACA option and pay for it by eliminating the GOP tax cut--saving X trillions of dollars!

The Dems response will be Hillary trumping The Donald in the general.

All his crap will be remembered as loser crap... a fitting cherry-on-top of the shXt-eating sunday they've made for themselves as they become politically irrelevant at the national level.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The Dems response will be Hillary trumping The Donald in the general.

Just curious about your prediction for a Clinton/Cruz matchup.

Originally Posted by playwrite

This guy was only 20 years old at the time -



At my age, someone in their 20s is still a kid.

But neither he or anyone else regardless of age should be able to posse the firepower he had.

Someone else may be agreeing with me (see next post)

So I take it you think we should raise the voting age and minimum enlistment age to 21, since you think 20yo people are "kids"?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Lots of ammosexuals are sweating bullets now -

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/04/br...-rules-against



The worm may be turning. Just need to get that SCOTUS vacancy filled with the Progressive we need.

Once you destroy the 2nd Amendment what other parts of the Bill of Rights to you want to go and abolish?

Bernie is rocking this debate

Originally Posted by playwrite

This guy was only 20 years old at the time -



At my age, someone in their 20s is still a kid.

But neither he or anyone else regardless of age should be able to posse the firepower he had.

Someone else may be agreeing with me (see next post)

He looks anorexic, and the expression is that of a madman. He had to be trouble before he shot up a church.