Bill Black

[Woodsman]

Re: Bill Black

i think the whole immigration issue is a red herring. i don't think much is different from the way it's been for decades, so why the focus now? it's because all the financial benefits of growth and increased productivity have been going to a handful of people at the top of the system. longstanding stagnation of wages, unemployment and underemployment is the real issue- immigration is a sideshow and a way of distracting people from the issue of incomes.

Absolutely correct! And only Sanders is saying as much:

Inequality across the world is universally acknowledged as the driving force behind migration. This inequality does not develop organically and the United States must be introspective about its role. For example, the ill-conceived NAFTA, devastated local economies and pushed millions to migrate.

• Establish Fair and Equitable Trade Policies. Senator Sanders will rewrite our trade policies to end the race to the bottom and work to lift the living standard of Americans and workers throughout the world. Not only have our trade policies with Mexico, Central America, and China led to the loss of millions of decent-paying jobs and thousands of factories, but they have led to destitution for local communities around the world. Accordingly, our nation must level the playing field for workers everywhere. Those who wish to remain in their home country should be able to earn livable wages and not migrate for economic survival. Furthermore, Sanders will work tirelessly to build an international coalition to fight global poverty and address crises to humanely manage migration patterns. Multi-faceted policies that look beyond our borders are critical to addressing the root causes of migration and economic inequality.

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Bill Black

Not sure where you read "open door" in any of Sanders' immigration proposals. All look quite sensible and have the added value of requiring no additional concrete or concertina wire!

Check it out here:

I still like Sanders and will most likely vote for him in the presidential election. However, I disagree with almost every point of his immigration proposals. He also uses the language of "separating families" as a talking point for granting illegal immigrants either permanent residency status or citizenship.

Deportation is not separating families. In many cases, it is anchor babies (and I'm not just talking about Hispanic anchor babies; the Chinese anchor babies also have to go) who can go to their parents' country of origin. If it is a relative or a spouse who happens to be a U.S. citizen, the illegal alien should go through the standard process of getting permanent residency or citizenship.

Exceptional cases based on skills should be evaluated on a case by case basis.

I see a lot of the negative effects of illegal immigrants and of poorly thought-out legal immigrant policies like the H1-B visa program. Both types of immigration need substantial reform. I'm for the harsh action of deportation for illegal immigrants with no amnesty and, at a minimum, changing of the H1-B visa program to at least allow visa holders to freely change jobs while their visas are in effect.

[Woodsman]

Re: Bill Black

I still like Sanders and will most likely vote for him in the presidential election. However, I disagree with almost every point of his immigration proposals. He also uses the language of "separating families" as a talking point for granting illegal immigrants either permanent residency status or citizenship.

So you're for even more punitive measures against immigrants? I don't see how that gets us to a solution, MK. These people are here and are not going away.

I see a lot of the negative effects of illegal immigrants and of poorly thought-out legal immigrant policies like the H1-B visa program. Both types of immigration need substantial reform. I'm for the harsh action of deportation for illegal immigrants with no amnesty and, at a minimum, changing of the H1-B visa program to at least allow visa holders to freely change jobs while their visas are in effect.

I can't get with you on the harshness. Seems to me being poor and illegal with no rights and no advocate is harsh enough. And so is life under H1-B so I would agree with you that giving H1-Bs that sort of mobility is a good thing.

Bottom line, without drastically altering life in America for all of us, we are not going to go through mass deportations and other punitive measures for those illegal aliens here but otherwise law-abiding.

Sanders deals with the realities that the swells in the GOP and Democratic parties have left us and there are no easy answers here. But doing nothing or making things much worse seem to me the only thing the other candidates offer us.

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Bill Black

I'm tired of multi-culturalism. I want immigrants to assimilate, not balkanize, the way my French-Irish-German-Catholic-Russian-Polish-Jewish ancestors did.

I especially agree with this. I entered the U.S. public school system not speaking a word of English and was not given any special assistance or classes taught in the language I spoke. I feel fairly confident that I now possess a greater command of the English language, both written and spoken, than the great majority of people whose first and only language is English. Why must I pay additional tax money to provide public services in languages other than English? Why can't these people learn English? And I know for a fact that some of them intentionally refuse to learn or speak English to "stick it to us."

[DSpencer]

Re: Bill Black

Open doors are what we have now under Obama and previously under GOP administrations. What you read from Sanders is a rational and humane approach to solving the problem of illegal immigration.

If you are a single issue voter on immigration; if you want a border wall and mass deportations, then Trump or Cruz are your guys. Hillary will do nothing because that's what her benefactors want - the status quo.

If you are not a single issue voter; if you want a rational (rather than punitive) program to deal with the folks who are here and a plan to move forward, Sanders is your guy on immigration.

I don't want to get dragged into the weeds debating what open door immigration means, but it seems clear that Sanders is pushing for a more lenient and permissive immigration policy on all fronts. You say Sanders has a rational and humane approach to "solving the problem" of illegal immigration. The big question is: How are you defining the problem?

If you say that the problem is a lack of humane treatment, no pathway to citizenship, overly harsh punishments, etc then yes, it seems Sanders has the solutions.

If you say that the problem is that the immigrants bring crime, terrorism, disease and downward pressure on wages, I don't see how Sanders has a plan for that.

I'm certainly not a single issue voter. I also can't imagine voting for Trump, Cruz, Hillary or Sanders.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Bill Black

i think the whole immigration issue is a red herring. i don't think much is different from the way it's been for decades, so why the focus now? it's because all the financial benefits of growth and increased productivity have been going to a handful of people at the top of the system. longstanding stagnation of wages, unemployment and underemployment is the real issue- immigration is a sideshow and a way of distracting people from the issue of incomes.

Yes and no. People who have the means are more or less libertarian. Few people are happy to find a crowded beach, even when everyone is the same color and culture. However when the state is dysfunctional and there is danger , then basic tribalism is instinct. The Caribbean being a boom bust machine is an excellent example of racial tension increasing during the bust. The lack of access gives rise to tensions and it also prevents its resolution.


I like the Trinidad example, a small island with two large minorities of non Europeans and we get more of the same.

If one does not have a melting pot of small groups of people from different part of the world, the politics will not fall along ideological lines. For a corrupt body of elites, that is ideal.


http://www.guyana.org/features/confl...andblacks.html

Racial issues had destroyed any possibility of lower class solidarity, where ideological viewpoints would
replace racial identification. Ideological appeals to class during the early phase of the nationalist movement
served more as an adhesive holding these racially diversified groups together, rather than as a basis for the
compression of a confederated mass movement. Race became the preeminent ingredient in the organization
of popular political participation. (Hintzen 1989)

This might not be apparent in functional society of middle class and higher since we have the material , conditional and even intellectual means to have a ideological underpinnings. In IT departments with individual from all over I see a lot of integration, so long as it is not all from one place.


If Unions were a vital part of our history and a foundation of the old left in this country....this is a very serious problem. This is in fact why I thought Ukraine was a serious problem even in the 90s. No one bothered to notice the political polarization and half the per capita income of it Eastern European nation states. They only knew of it when it became a hot war. Ukraine should be considered a multicultural disaster that repudiates the ideological myths.

An even older principle than the unions was the tyranny of the majority problem. The solution was the relative independence of the states...

Multiculturalism is the most dangerous weapon I have seen in the hands of the elites since being anointed by god. They can destroy unions , alter the democracy by the content of its people , or even arrest it by importing ignorance, which is the other well know principle weakness of democracy .

[DSpencer]

Re: Bill Black

i think the whole immigration issue is a red herring. i don't think much is different from the way it's been for decades, so why the focus now? it's because all the financial benefits of growth and increased productivity have been going to a handful of people at the top of the system. longstanding stagnation of wages, unemployment and underemployment is the real issue- immigration is a sideshow and a way of distracting people from the issue of incomes.

I'm not sure why you think it's not much different from the way it's been for decades. Immigration has been increasing in both absolute and relative terms for 40+ years:

record-setting-2011-f1.jpg

http://cis.org/2000-2010-record-sett...of-immigration

Do you think that immigration has any effect on incomes?

[jk]

Re: Bill Black

I'm not sure why you think it's not much different from the way it's been for decades. Immigration has been increasing in both absolute and relative terms for 40+ years:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5784[/ATTACH]

http://cis.org/2000-2010-record-sett...of-immigration

Do you think that immigration has any effect on incomes?

sure, immigration can have effects on income, but i have a hunch outsourcing has had a much greater effect in the last few decades.

[Woodsman]

Re: Bill Black

I don't want to get dragged into the weeds debating what open door immigration means, but it seems clear that Sanders is pushing for a more lenient and permissive immigration policy on all fronts. You say Sanders has a rational and humane approach to "solving the problem" of illegal immigration. The big question is: How are you defining the problem?

If you say that the problem is a lack of humane treatment, no pathway to citizenship, overly harsh punishments, etc then yes, it seems Sanders has the solutions.

If you say that the problem is that the immigrants bring crime, terrorism, disease and downward pressure on wages, I don't see how Sanders has a plan for that.

I'm certainly not a single issue voter. I also can't imagine voting for Trump, Cruz, Hillary or Sanders.

It's a tough sell. In this economic environment, doubly so. And with the exception of the usual suspects in the GOP and Democratic parties, no one wants to see the current system perpetuated. I think Sanders gets us closest to a solution to the present crisis. I myself would prefer a moratorium for the next 25 years, but if the queen had a pair she would be king. It's not happening and neither is a mass deportation nightmare the Trump people threaten. And I shudder to think where we will be with 8 more years of status quo under Clinton.

We don't have to get it perfect, folks. We should expect to make plenty of mistakes along the way. Our frustrations are many and all righteous. But a means is at hand that does not require us to debase ourselves and our values even further than the depths to which we've so far sunk. My god, we've deployed a surveillance and internal security apparatus that would make the Stasi and Erich Mielkeand blush. And now two presidential candidates want to make us even more like the GDR, with border walls and border troops and neighborhood sweeps. Apparently that element of socialism troubles some of us less, present company excluded DSpencer.

I regret biting on the "open door" loaded language and should have known better. And I can live with your binary only I might simplify it as justice vs protection. Everyone has to choose which is more important to them and everyone will have a different threshold of fear. I respect Sander's political courage and humanity even if I don't agree with him, but especially when I do.

Anyway, what I mean to say was "Did you hear? Bill Black has joined the Sanders campaign!"

[vt]

Re: Bill Black

Woody I've been advocating bank reform and TECI (due to EJ's book) for over two years here. Maybe I should take my New Majority Party and run!

If it's Clinton vs. Trump it would be a cakewalk for a fiscally reasonable, socially liberal outsider with good credentials to win over two of the most disliked candidates in American History.

What do you think!

[vt]

Re: Bill Black

Woody,

I could have joined FFV (we didn't have the wealth but earlier entry) but I don't go for that closed club stuff. We can trace back to 1609 and about 1637 on Dad's side into Virginia and 1775 on Mom's.

Do you support UVA or VT?

[DSpencer]

Re: Bill Black

Woody I've been advocating bank reform and TECI (due to EJ's book) for over two years here. Maybe I should take my New Majority Party and run!

If it's Clinton vs. Trump it would be a cakewalk for a fiscally reasonable, socially liberal outsider with good credentials to win over two of the most disliked candidates in American History.

What do you think!

Fiscally "reasonable" is a pretty subjective term, but overall don't you think this is what the Libertarians have been trying to do for many years? Cut the warfare and welfare spending, preserve individual rights. It seems like a no-brainer to me, but it's human nature to not understand why people don't share your personal views.

In a similar vein, if it's Clinton vs. Trump, my gut tells me that almost any third party should win. Alas, this is not the case.

[DSpencer]

Re: Bill Black

It's a tough sell. In this economic environment, doubly so. And with the exception of the usual suspects in the GOP and Democratic parties, no one wants to see the current system perpetuated. I think Sanders gets us closest to a solution to the present crisis. I myself would prefer a moratorium for the next 25 years, but if the queen had a pair she would be king. It's not happening and neither is a mass deportation nightmare the Trump people threaten. And I shudder to think where we will be with 8 more years of status quo under Clinton.

We don't have to get it perfect, folks. We should expect to make plenty of mistakes along the way. Our frustrations are many and all righteous. But a means is at hand that does not require us to debase ourselves and our values even further than the depths to which we've so far sunk. My god, we've deployed a surveillance and internal security apparatus that would make the Stasi and Erich Mielkeand blush. And now two presidential candidates want to make us even more like the GDR, with border walls and border troops and neighborhood sweeps. Apparently that element of socialism troubles some of us less, present company excluded DSpencer.

I regret biting on the "open door" loaded language and should have known better. And I can live with your binary only I might simplify it as justice vs protection. Everyone has to choose which is more important to them and everyone will have a different threshold of fear. I respect Sander's political courage and humanity even if I don't agree with him, but especially when I do.

Anyway, what I mean to say was "Did you hear? Bill Black has joined the Sanders campaign!"

Woodsman,

Back to the original topic, what do you make of the criticism of Sanders following his interview with the New York Daily News? Does Bill Black give him some extra credibility that he will be able to back up the rhetoric with a solid plan?

One (of many) concerns I have about Sanders is that he thinks new regulation will be the answer. My view is that we had plenty of laws being violated already, but what we really lacked was a will to prosecute.

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Bill Black

Woodsman,

Back to the original topic, what do you make of the criticism of Sanders following his interview with the New York Daily News? Does Bill Black give him some extra credibility that he will be able to back up the rhetoric with a solid plan?

One (of many) concerns I have about Sanders is that he thinks new regulation will be the answer. My view is that we had plenty of laws being violated already, but what we really lacked was a will to prosecute.

After the AFC and bailouts, Black was at a Congressional hearing and called himself a stern regulator. (I believe he will be a stern regulator.) And if Sanders is elected and does appoint Black, I believe that prosecution of new frauds will not be a problem because Sanders could give the hook to an ineffective attorney general.

It's a shame that the statute of limitations is past for a lot of the nonsense that occurred in the run-up to the AFC. I'd love to see Black be given free reign the prosecute all of big-time crooks who have gotten away Scot-free so far.

Did anyone see that Goldman Sachs was fined $5.1 billion yesterday for their role in the MBS frauds during the housing bubble?

[Woodsman]

Re: Bill Black

Woodsman,

Back to the original topic, what do you make of the criticism of Sanders following his interview with the New York Daily News? Does Bill Black give him some extra credibility that he will be able to back up the rhetoric with a solid plan?

One (of many) concerns I have about Sanders is that he thinks new regulation will be the answer. My view is that we had plenty of laws being violated already, but what we really lacked was a will to prosecute.

Putting front and center the man in charge of cleaning up the savings and loan crisis adds plenty of credibility to Sander's plan. Surely it's gotten the attention of the banksters and the criminal element on Wall Street. I think it is a clear signal of Sander's intention to prosecute.

I consider the Daily News interview a hatchet job, since you asked. Morty Z is in the tank for Clinton, for one. So no one should be surprised that the Daily News and the establishment have tried to frame this as some sort of flub as has been so widely misreported.

But as far as I can tell, the criticism revolves around the perception that when pressed to go beyond his usual slogans on how he would reform the banks, Sanders somehow fell short. I read the transcript as a serious discussion on both sides, with the Daily News editors not exactly coming across as...ahem...prepared.

Here is what I see as the relevant part of the transcript:

Daily News: Okay. Well, let’s assume that you’re correct on that point. How do you go about doing it?” (That is: break up the big banks.)

Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.

Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?

Sanders: Well, I don’t know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.

Daily News: How? How does a President turn to JPMorgan Chase, or have the Treasury turn to any of those banks and say, “Now you must do X, Y and Z?”

Sanders: Well, you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that, make that determination.

Daily News: You do, just by Federal Reserve fiat, you do?

Sanders: Yeah. Well, I believe you do.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/t...8306?cid=bitly

The relevant facts are these: Under Section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Act the Board of the Governors of the Federal Reserve has the authority, subject to a 2/3 vote of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to take a range of actions, including (as a last resort) to “require the company to sell or otherwise transfer assets of off-balance-sheet-items to unaffiliated entities”, that is, to shrink the size of the bank in question.

Note that the Chair of the FSOC is the Secretary of the Treasury. So, Sanders is correct that the Federal Reserve and the Secretary of the Treasury are the key players here. To be sure, Sanders’ last statement above, that Federal Reserve could break up the banks just by fiat – whatever that means – is not true under section 121.

That said, the Federal Reserve has other tools under its control through Dodd-Frank. For example, under section 619 (one of the key sections outlining the so-called Volcker Rule that tries to ban proprietary trading), states that for these financial institutions “no transaction, class of transaction, or activity may be deemed a permitted activity……(iv) would pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States.” The Federal Reserve would have significant power to issue regulations in this situation.

More generally, the goal of Dodd-Frank, as stated in Section 112 in describing the mission of the newly created Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) is “eliminating expectations on the part of shareholders, creditors, and counterparties of such companies that the Government will shield them from losses in the event of failure.” That is, end too big to fail.

What it appears to me is that the Daily News editors don't clearly understand the difference between the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve in this regard. Just follow in the transcript where Sanders keeps referring to the authority of the administration and the Treasury Department through Dodd-Frank, known as Wall Street reform, while the Daily News editors shift to the Fed. This is simply a factual dispute between the Daily News and Sanders, not a matter of opinion. And the Daily News was wrong.

In short, anyone who reads the transcript can see for themselves that Sanders’ answers were way beyond slogans and talking points.

Even Clinton herself said as much. “We now have power under the Dodd-Frank legislation to break up banks. And I’ve said I will use that power if they pose a systemic risk,” Clinton said at a February debate:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...big_banks.html#!

Of course, there was no media outcry following her assertion, because it was true and also because they toss journalistic ethics in the round file when it comes to Sanders.

The interview wasn’t so much about policy details as it was about who the media has decided is presidential and who isn’t, who is serious and who isn’t. The Daily News and much of the rest of the media don’t think Sanders is qualified to be president, and that’s the motivation for an interview meant to expose what the media have already decided is true.

If you review the transcript, it's pretty evident that the real lightweights in the room are the Daily News editors. They don't understand Dodd-Frank or the difference between the authority it gives the Fed and Treasury. Hell, they can't even get the basic facts of Sanders' biography straight:

Daily News: But when you were mayor of Vermont ...
Sanders: Burlington.
Daily News: Mayor of Burlington, I’m sorry.

It's a non-issue, bullshit story and won't amount to much.