Bill Black

[dcarrigg]

Re: Bill Black

Sanders is applying for a physically and mentally challenging job.
Does it bother anyone that he is 74?

Sanders is 74. Biden is 73. Trump is 69. Clinton is 68. Reagan was 73 when he was elected in 1984.

I really, truly believe that a lot of reason Sanders gets singled out for his age is that unlike Biden and Trump and Clinton, he hasn't had any plastic surgery or dental implants.

This is not how a natural 69 year old man looks. Not one of these teeth is real:



These are not a 73 year old's natural teeth. The dental work alone here is a good six figure job:



Clinton's facelift was even more obvious, because she hadn't been keeping up with it from 2012 to 2015. She started looking like a woman in her late 60s (Like Trump, with died blonde hair instead of natural grey). Now she has bolted-on dimples. It's amazing what illusion a million dollars can buy you. Her teeth do look more natural than Biden's or Trump's, though.



This guy is 74, but unlike the others I put up here, he hasn't had any plastic surgery or major cosmetic-only dental work. That makes him appear much older than the others. But that's only because he's by far the poorest candidate running. Even if he had the money, I doubt he'd dump it on vanity activities like plastic surgery anyways. Doesn't seem his style:

[DSpencer]

Re: Bill Black

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:

I mostly agree with your sentiment, but I would rather a half-ignorant but contentious interviewer as opposed to scripted softball type interviews. If Hillary doesn't like a question she just laughs it off. Maybe Bernie needs to try the Hillary method: "Break up the banks? Like, with a hammer? Hahaha"

[DSpencer]

Re: Bill Black

Sanders is 74. Biden is 73. Trump is 69. Clinton is 68. Reagan was 73 when he was elected in 1984.

I really, truly believe that a lot of reason Sanders gets singled out for his age is that unlike Biden and Trump and Clinton, he hasn't had any plastic surgery or dental implants.

dcarrigg,

We're bored with politics. We need more excitement. Trump is simply a stepping stone to get us where we really want to be: Kanye and Kim in the White House. What better way to spice up the State of the Union than to do it 140 characters at a time?

In all seriousness, you are probably right. The age does concern me a bit, but as you said it's not like he's decades older. Part of the issue is that age affects people differently and serving two terms is not uncommon. Bernie Sanders would be 83 when he left office if he served two terms. Even for a healthy man that might be past the time when he's really capable of the kind of decision making you would hope for in a President.

Sure he could step down, but can you imagine that struggle? It was hard enough to get my grandma to give up driving. Who's going to say "Mr. President, this is really tough, but we've all talked about it and we think it'd be best if you stopped being the President".

[Woodsman]

Re: Bill Black

The age does concern me a bit, but as you said it's not like he's decades older. Part of the issue is that age affects people differently and serving two terms is not uncommon. Bernie Sanders would be 83 when he left office if he served two terms. Even for a healthy man that might be past the time when he's really capable of the kind of decision making you would hope for in a President...

Depends on the person and it's hard to generalize about these things. FWIW, my great-grandmother ran her business and managed her properties with great care and success until her end at 91. She darn sure never forgot to call me if I ever dared be late in delivering payment, banker to the family office that she was. Grandmother was also on the presbytery of her church until she was hospitalized, having among other things led the finance committee and managed the construction of a rather sizable addition to the building (never mind paying for a fair share of it).

Have some confidence in your elders, DSpencer .

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Bill Black

Juan Gonzalez was at the meeting. His take...

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/6...bernie_sanders

[jk]

Re: Bill Black

. Bernie Sanders would be 83 when he left office if he served two terms. Even for a healthy man that might be past the time when he's really capable of the kind of decision making you would hope for in a President.

before we worry about how the next president might function towards the end of his or her second term, let's worry about the beginning and the middle.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Bill Black

As `Brit' it is very enlightening to read your debate about the merits of Sanders as the next POTUS. Some of you seem to forget that the United States is a nation of immigrants and that, as the population of the planet increases, so must the population of the USA. Here are some thoughts for you all to ponder; the second largest French city is London; how many of your neighbours have lived beside you in your neighbourhood for more than eight years?; and if so, do you see them as fellow citizens or as some form of `enemy'?

Monday I attended a One Bank Flagship Seminar with Professor Nick Bostrum at the Bank of England which ended with drinks and canapes whereupon I found myself in a deep and very friendly discussion with a young man, (compared to me at near 72), whose origins I could only guess at. He had made his own way forward and stood in front of me as an equal. Did I care one jot about where he had come from? Of course not.

You have as a nation made South America deeply unstable; it would be foolish to try and deny that fact. Such instability has rewarded you in many ways that have left the citizens of those nations keen to leave their own and travel North; who can blame them for trying to improve themselves; as did so many of your founding citizens?

The long term solution to your immigration problems involve making South America as prosperous, (and as successful), as North America; but who in the USA truly wants that to happen? The same questions arise in the Middle Eastern nations such as Syria. It is so easy to ignore the dreadful attitudes of your own executive who set into motion repeated strategies to destabilise other nations and regions; and then to pretend that "it is nothing to do with me" because I was not there at the time and so cannot be implicated as such!; when the entire responsibility rests upon every citizen who can vote otherwise.

Age gives a wonderfully clear view of problems so easily ignored by a more youthful candidate.

Just for the record; the greatest challenge we face here in the United Kingdom is the need to reform our own executive government; the Civil Service. And no, I see not one jot of interest in such here either.

PS: I am not on Skype; do not know how to remove the reference.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Bill Black

Age gives a wonderfully clear view of problems so easily ignored by a more youthful candidate.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5571407

He's a poet with an accent so listening to it is richer than reading it.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Bill Black

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5571407

He's a poet with an accent so listening to it is richer than reading it.

Beautiful; absolutely beautiful.

[DSpencer]

Re: Bill Black

before we worry about how the next president might function towards the end of his or her second term, let's worry about the beginning and the middle.

Fair enough. In reality I suppose age is a moot point. Given a choice between an 80 year old who shares my views and a 50 year who doesn't, I would never vote for the younger person. It would only really matter if we could craft an ideal candidate or had multiple good choices so that we had to decide based on issues of lesser importance. Basically the exact opposite of reality. Instead, as we always do, we will make our choice between a giant douche or a turd sandwich.

[shiny!]

Re: Bill Black

Chris, I must respectfully disagree with some of this.

You have as a nation made South America deeply unstable; it would be foolish to try and deny that fact. Such instability has rewarded you in many ways that have left the citizens of those nations keen to leave their own and travel North; who can blame them for trying to improve themselves; as did so many of your founding citizens?

I don't deny that trade agreements and the stupid War on Drugs have helped make Central and South America deeply unstable. Those things haven't done us any favors, either. Nor do I blame the victims for trying to escape their poverty. But when you say "WE" did it, I object. "WE the PEOPLE" (with a hat tip to Lektrode) strongly objected to GATT and NAFTA. Wall Street, Ford, ADM and the like made out like bandits, but our factory jobs got sent over the border, just as Mexican farmers were driven out of business when they could no longer sell their crops for less than ADM could.

The long term solution to your immigration problems involve making South America as prosperous, (and as successful), as North America; but who in the USA truly wants that to happen?

And how exactly are we to do that when their own 1% will fight to the bitter end to keep their 99% of the pie? The people of Central and South America have suffered financial repression for centuries. There is no middle class by design; only masters and serfs. When it comes to the causes of instability, why are you giving their plutocracies a free ride in your argument? We're losing our middle class here, but they hardly even had one. How do you expect us to get countries to change when they don't want to? All we do is muck things up when we meddle.

Ask a hundred average Americans on the street if they want stability or instability in South America, and I'll give you a dollar for every one who tells you they want instability. You give me a dollar for every one who tells you they want to see stability there. (Hint: I'll win)

Earlier I made the point that no matter what the problem is, the United States gets blamed for it. This is what you're doing here, putting all the blame for the instability in Central and South America on us. On people like me, in fact.

Those countries must bleed-off their suffering poor to us to prevent revolution. Why do you think the president of Mexico is so angry at talk of a real border here? Heaven forbid that Mexico should have to make things more equitable for their own!

So the elite down south collude with the elite up north in trade agreements to turn all of us into serfs, then when their poor come up here illegally and overrun our social services, WE get all the blame.

The same questions arise in the Middle Eastern nations such as Syria. It is so easy to ignore the dreadful attitudes of your own executive who set into motion repeated strategies to destabilise other nations and regions; and then to pretend that "it is nothing to do with me" because I was not there at the time and so cannot be implicated as such!; when the entire responsibility rests upon every citizen who can vote otherwise.

As you can clearly see from our present political circus, our votes do not matter. They haven't for a long time. If we vote in bad guys, they do bad things. If we vote for change, they do bad things. If we try to throw the whole lot out, they ignore us and put whomever they want in over our objections. Between hackable electronic voting machines and corrupt delegate selection processes, our elections and legal system are rigged. At least now the illusion that we have any control over our government is finally being stripped away.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Bill Black

Chris, I must respectfully disagree with some of this.

In a very real sense you show the absolute value of debate; one individuals viewpoint can be shown, as here, to be deeply flawed; when looked at from another, such as mine. But then, it is that objectivity that must drive us forward.

I don't deny that trade agreements and the stupid War on Drugs have helped make Central and South America deeply unstable. Those things haven't done us any favors, either. Nor do I blame the victims for trying to escape their poverty. But when you say "WE" did it, I object. "WE the PEOPLE" (with a hat tip to Lektrode) strongly objected to GATT and NAFTA. Wall Street, Ford, ADM and the like made out like bandits, but our factory jobs got sent over the border, just as Mexican farmers were driven out of business when they could no longer sell their crops for less than ADM could.

In truth, I was looking at the overall history from a much longer time frame; Chile, Sandinista, to mention just two.

And how exactly are we to do that when their own 1% will fight to the bitter end to keep their 99% of the pie? The people of Central and South America have suffered financial repression for centuries. There is no middle class by design; only masters and serfs. When it comes to the causes of instability, why are you giving their plutocracies a free ride in your argument? We're losing our middle class here, but they hardly even had one. How do you expect us to get countries to change when they don't want to? All we do is muck things up when we meddle.

One of my treasured books in my library is Three Voyages of Drake as recorded in contemporary accounts, Edited by J. D. Upcott, B.A. From it, we get a very clear view of how we Brits, (and of course, the Spanish), both discovered South America's riches and how we set about plundering them. So your point is well made and I humbly stand corrected.

Ask a hundred average Americans on the street if they want stability or instability in South America, and I'll give you a dollar for every one who tells you they want instability. You give me a dollar for every one who tells you they want to see stability there. (Hint: I'll win)

Earlier I made the point that no matter what the problem is, the United States gets blamed for it. This is what you're doing here, putting all the blame for the instability in Central and South America on us. On people like me, in fact.

You will surely have to agree, for the purposes of this debate; that South America is today seen as being under the long term influence, and thus within the orbit of the United States.

Those countries must bleed-off their suffering poor to us to prevent revolution. Why do you think the president of Mexico is so angry at talk of a real border here? Heaven forbid that Mexico should have to make things more equitable for their own!

So the elite down south collude with the elite up north in trade agreements to turn all of us into serfs, then when their poor come up here illegally and overrun our social services, WE get all the blame.



As you can clearly see from our present political circus, our votes do not matter. They haven't for a long time. If we vote in bad guys, they do bad things. If we vote for change, they do bad things. If we try to throw the whole lot out, they ignore us and put whomever they want in over our objections. Between hackable electronic voting machines and corrupt delegate selection processes, our elections and legal system are rigged. At least now the illusion that we have any control over our government is finally being stripped away.

The point I was trying to make, (and agreed not successfully), was about the underlying ethos of the US administration; which you so eloquently describe above, (and which I also see here in the UK).

If one nation sets out to destabilise another, then what we get in return is a facsimile of the original; that nations used for our own purposes seem to be then led by those that best respond to the original input in exactly the same manner. Just like our personal relationships, we tend to fight off that with which we disagree.

Our attitudes to others defines what we get in return. What I was trying to get across is the need to redefine the underlying ethos. History, (and your honest response to my input), has reminded me that we have all set out to plunder South America; that same history has taught both of us that the self same attitudes, so deeply embedded within government administrations, yours and mine; has led to the definition of the word plunder being applied just as much to us; as citizens of our own nations.

It will take another five centuries to undo what has been done before. So my underlying point is the desperate need to change the underlying plunderer ethos to one of always friendly co-operation with nations. To always set out a dialogue of peaceful friendly attitudes, designed to, over the very long term, bring forward the sort of leadership we also desire to see within our own nations.

And yes, before you or someone else says so; a very faint hope indeed. But then, if we do not express the hope, how do we define the changes needed to bring about a better future?

[Woodsman]

Re: Bill Black

Wherein Bill Black tears Krugman a new one. What kind of "signal" would you say the Sanders campaign is putting out with this one?

“Liberal” Economists Cheered the New Democrats’ Deregulation of Finance

By William K. Black
April 11, 2016 Bloomington, MN

This is the second part of my series on how Hillary and Bill Clinton and Paul Krugman have pivoted in response to Bernie Sanders’ series of electoral wins and are racing hard right on finance and crime. In my first column I wore my criminology “hat” to explain how Bill was disinterring outrageous (false and racist) positions that Hillary and he had once championed.

This was all the more bizarre because Hillary and Bill had recently repudiated those positions. In the mid-1990s, Hillary and Bill sought to spread a “moral panic” about subhuman black “super predators” in order to secure passage of the crime bill that led to mass incarceration and then to maintain the 100-to-one disparity in sentencing for crack v. powder cocaine once it was known that the scientifically baseless sentencing disparity was leading to a dramatic rise in the incarceration of blacks and Latinos. I also deplored Bill’s false claim that Black Lives Matter protesters were “defending” those who murdered black children.

In this second column I provide context essential to understanding Krugman’s race to the right on finance. Readers are unlikely to understand how ultra-right wing the economic policies were of the Clinton administration.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore were two of the most powerful leaders of the “New Democrats” – a group of Democrats determined to move the party strongly to the right on economics, budget, national security, regulation, and crime. The New Democrats’ policy apparatus was funded overwhelmingly by Wall Street but its ideological support came from economists who were “liberal” on some social issues. The Clintons and Gore delivered for Wall Street by embracing the three “de’s” – deregulation, desupervision, and de facto decriminalization that encouraged and allowed twin bubble to rapidly expand. The “dot com” bubble was the first bubble to burst. The housing bubble burst in late 2006, leading to the financial crises of 2008 and the Great Recession that began in 2007.

I discuss two articles illustrating how ultra-right the “liberal” economists of the Clinton-era were in shilling for the pro-corporation policies championed by the New Democrats. Both articles were published in Fortune in spring 1999 – roughly one year before the peak of dot com bubble. In that era, the magazine was proudly pro plutocrat. The tone of economist that authored the article was one of pandering to the plutocrats’ prejudices...

[gwynedd1]

Re: Bill Black

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.

That is why most people are the rest of us. The union of the Ottomans and the French was not because they were beholden to their ideals. They were beholden to a pragmatic will to survive. If the "3rd rail" did actually want to emerge, Trump is a no brainier. You'd support the weaker elites, always. Britain had the policy of supporting the weaker power on the Continent, and the Byzantines always supported the weaker pretender to the Ottoman throne. Piles of idealists were always found on the battle field. Idealize anything you don't want to see survive the winter.

My gut lies to me, so I look at what happens.

[rjwjr]

Re: Bill Black

You will surely have to agree, for the purposes of this debate; that South America is today seen as being under the long term influence, and thus within the orbit of the United States.

I don't agree with this. Brazil, Venezuela & Argentina are obvious examples of independent, even anti-US countries/regimes. Maybe I'm not understanding your term "within the orbit of the United States".