Saturday, 7 May 2016

Conflicting Interests

Normally I try to keep the South Of The Border politics out of my blog, but given that the results of the upcoming election will have a very large effect on Canada as a whole, I decided that this was worth posting.

This morning an interesting debate surfaced on my newsfeed concerning what the 2016 U.S. election is really about.  Some say it's not who becomes President, but the bankers and the Supreme Court who are truly the winners in this whole game.  Here I quote from a very long exchange, which describes the situation quite well:

"People are furious at bankers because like any good demagogue Sanders has needed a scapegoat.  You notice that Sanders says nothing about A) how he had a chance as member of the House Banking Committee to stand up against the Commodities Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) and did not.  B) how it was the CFMA and not the repeal of Glass-Steagal that caused the need for Wall Street Bailouts.  C) how not only have the bailouts been paid back, but they were paid back with interest so that the American taxpayer turned a profit on the bailouts.  Sorry... This election IS MOSTLY ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT."

"If we are not out there talking to poor white voters about their suffering, you'd better believe someone else will be.  Tell the folks who got left behind by the Clinton economy, the Bush economy, and the Obama economy that the most important issue in this election is the Supreme Court.  Or tell some 20 year old who's going to be living on a planet that is openly hostile to human life by the time he's 60 that the Supreme Court is the most essential issue of 2016."

"People are furious with bankers because *they broke the economy in 2008 and took peoples houses, often committing outright fraud.*  They have not forgotten what happened to them or their friends during the crash.  People are furious with bankers because they got a whole lot of laws written for them that do things like forbid people to discharge student loan debt through bankruptcy."

"People are furious in general because they not only can't afford to buy houses, but are on the edge of homelessness.  They're only one illness, one job loss away from bankruptcy.  They're furious because they can't afford college without becoming indentured for life by debt. They're furious because they have no retirement and are terrified."

"I understand the economy probably better than most since I studied economics in college.  [Sanders] may be capitalizing on this discontent but it's real, and yes he should have voted against that monstrosity that was the CFMA and I agree with you about Glass-Steagal.  Trump is not quite a fascist but he's very close, and every time he says we should kick out all undocumented immigrants, especially Mexicans, and not let any Muslims into the U.S. and build a wall on the Mexican border, his followers erupt in cheers.  He's proposing to completely eliminate Obamacare and let insurance companies refuse to cover pre-existing conditions and charge sick people more.  That was an actually released policy statement.  Just today he proposed getting U.S. creditors to renegotiate the national debt and accept less than they are owed.  He has no clue what this would do to the price of the dollar or the disaster that would be unleashed, not only on the U.S. economy but worldwide.  For God's sake, he's talked about using nukes in the Middle East.  I'm very worried about the Supreme Court but people need to take their blinkers off and realize that it's also about stopping the rise of an authoritarian populist movement just this side of fascism."

1 comment:

  1. I'm almost entirely staying out of the fray, although of the candidates so far standing, I'd feel the Bern if I were American (thankfully, I'm Canadian.) November should be interesting.