In the interest of fairness - if you want to read how the High Preist of Neoliberalism defends deregulation by artfully deflecting frompolicy making to budget numbers, claiming deregulation was aleready in place and derivatives were already regulated. You can read it all here https://www.heritage.org/report/the-myth-financial-market-deregulation#_ftn37

Didn't have time to do this before - but below is a case study of how right wing propaganda works. Here is one classic examples from the above "analysis"

The False Narrative of Deregulation

The role of deregulated financial markets was central to the political narrative that explained the 2008 financial crisis. For instance, shortly after the crisis, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated that “the Bush Administration’s eight long years of failed deregulation policies have resulted in our nation’s largest bailout ever, leaving the American taxpayers on the hook potentially for billions of dollars.”[1] Similarly, in the second presidential debate that year, Barack Obama asserted that “the biggest problem in this whole process was the deregulation of the financial system.”[2] At best, these types of statements are a complete mischaracterization of policy changes during the Bush years.

Regulation can be measured in many different ways, but various metrics show that financial markets were not deregulated during the Bush Administration.

Immediately he starts to deflect the conversation

In terms of rulemaking—that is, the promulgation of specific rules by regulatory agencies—federal financial regulations imposed a net cost on the economy for the eight years of the Bush Administration. In other words, even though some federal regulations during these eight years reduced burdens, the overall impact of the rulemakings increased the cost of regulation. Data provided by the agencies themselves show that the major regulatory changes (defined as those with an economic effect of $100 million or more) cost the economy more than $2 billion (in constant 2010 dollars) from 2001 to 2008.[3]

It is also helpful to examine the total budget of regulatory agencies because much of their work takes place in day-to-day activities rather than in formal rulemaking activities. Excluding the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the total budget of federal financial regulators increased from approximately $2 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2000 to almost $2.3 billion in FY 2008.[4] During the same period, the SEC’s budget increased from $357 million to $629 million.[5] Total staffing at these agencies basically remained steady during this period, at close to 16,000 employees.[6] Thus, federal financial regulators’ budgets increased, and their staff levels were not cut.

All of these statistics for the Bush Administration are broadly consistent with longer-term trends as well. For example, outlays for banking and financial regulation increased from $190 million in 1960 to $1.9 billion in 2000, while staff rose from approximately 2,500 employees to more than 13,000.[7] That is, long-term trends in both budget outlays and staffing suggest that regulation has been increasing steadily for decades. Not surprisingly, many who claim that deregulated financial markets caused the crisis ignore these types of metrics and, instead, point to specific legislative changes. In virtually all cases, though, these legislative changes have been mischaracterized as deregulatory.

The core of the argument presented here by a guy with a Ph.D is that regulation and not deregulation increased in the Bush years becasue the overall budget and the number of employees of the regulatory agencies increased. Notice how he fails to talk about the actual laws resulting in deregulation but only gives budget numbers to support his claim? Rather clever isn't it?

Then he talks about how the budget of regulatory action went from $190 Million in 1960!!! to $1.9 Billion in 2000 - Wow a 10 fold increase!! So that must mean more regulation,not leass. Right? Sure, as long as you can't do math. What he carefully doesn't say is how much the size of the Finance sector changed in the same period of time, that's the industry the regulators are supposed to regulate. - Instead he pulls out numbers in isolation to make the case for a utter falsehood that he promotes as a fact.

Now let's look at what made the economy grow in all those years, shall we?
https://tcf.org/content/commentary/graph-how-the-financial-sector-consumed-americas-economic-growth/?agreed=1

What percent of US economy is financial services?
The services sector is an important part of the U.S. economy. According to BEA, in 2009 services accounted for 79.6 percent of U.S. private-sector gross domestic product (GDP), or $9.81 trillion. Services jobs accounted for more than 80 percent of U.S. private-sector employment, or 89.7 million jobs.

In 1960 if a regulatory Agency had 100 employees to regulate a 1 Billion dollar industry and they grew in budget to 300 employees by 2008 to regulate a 10 TRILLION dollar industry it means more regulation!!! And this mofo has a Ph.D. See how his "analysis" carries weight for the readers of Heritage.org? Now you can do this to every piece of his article, but what's the point? His audience is people who can't or won't think for themselves.

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Olbrannon wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

JesseDark wrote:He is bailing out farmers due to his tariffs on China, golfs at his own golf clubs every weekend but can't give a f u c k in 2.1% pay raise.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/30/politics/trump-cancels-federal-employee-pay-raises/index.html

Why we would want to increase the hidden welfare called government jobs?
The biggest waste of our taxes. Most of them can be privatized or eliminated by automation.
And we can use taxes to improve infrastructure, education, and run innovative programs to create wealth instead of wasting money on bunch of useless people to move papers around.
At least we will save more trees.

WTF??? How about some examples of govt. Jobs that can be eliminated by automation. Do you even understand why we have a government? And no the answer is not "wealth creation".🤬🤬

We need government to protect country, law, and order, collect taxes and support citizens not able to work due to age, health, and mental reasons.
It also should be used to coordinate infrastructure project performed by private contractors, finance fundamental science, space exploration, and other strategic projects , cultural and art initiatives, which cannot bring immediate profits and so will not be taken on by private business. This about it. And many of this activities can be also outsourced to private companies and consultants.
The operation of almost all government agencies are extremely inefficient. Multiple projects are going on now to automate operations in most of this agencies.
It is painful business as very little support provided by government employees who afraid to lose their jobs and benefits. But it is inevitable.
We need much less and much more qualified workers and new technologies (specifically IT) instead of bunch of low paid high benefits army of clerks.
US only has 15% of workplace employed by government (much better that Russia - 40%). But I think we can do even better.

So more voicemail services instead of reachjing an actual person at a gov't agency? What state are you promoting there comrade? doesn't sound like a Scandinavian state

He preaches the privatization playbook so more and more decision making power can be taken away from the people and given to corporations. Like all neoliberals he couches it as an argument favoring efficiency. This idiocy of the corporate view of everything, meaning everything should be run like a corporation is how neolibs have pushed their BS for the last thirty years. You can see the results all around you. Neoliberalism is and has been a failed ideology for years, but it had enough support from the idiot-savants that were converted to it via propaganda that it will take society another 30-40 years to wake up to it.

Still not clear who are this evil "corporations". Are they run by creatures from Mars, Zion Elders, or some other world conspiracy group to enslave and destroy the humankind?
There are people who know how to create and grow wealth of nations and who only know how to use and destroy it.
So power should go to first group for second group to survive and not descend back to the trees.
And when power goes to the second group the nations are indeed destroy themselves and all that was created by hard work of generations.
This is the truth anyone with opened mind can see in every time and every place.

Did I say "evil", NO. You twisted what I said into your one stupid non argument you have made 3 billion times without being able to substantiate it. Now the real data shows more wealth was created when a middle class was flourishing than when power is held by 1% of the population.

To help put a name on in it. Ive posted this before, but it rings even more true today. Some here are defending the status quo, which is defending shareholder capitalism. Which is no better than any other "ism" that has gone off the rails because of rampant (bipartisan) corruption.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-shareholder-capitalism-vs-stakeholder-capitalism/2014/05/15/ffc6424c-dc61-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cb398d54b0b4

Eactly correct. Neoliberalism brought about a paradigm shift from Stakeholder capitalism (social democracit ideals) to shareholder capitalism (corporatocracy/oligarchy/fascism)
When the two dominant parties are taking turns in deciding how many avoidable deaths are "OK" by choosing to not create universal healthcare - you know you have hit rockbottom. Just wish the majority of the people would smell the #COVFEFE and wake the fukk up.

Middle class is majority of US population including all entrepreneurs, small businesses, independent contractors, licensed professional, and employees of all this mentioned by you "corporation".
And this majority holds the power by electing whoever they think will better protect the status quo of continuous progress in all areas of life.
There are obviously some losers who are falling off because of variance of human life.
Then they blame anything they can find but themselves for this "injustice".

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/lawrence/status/1037431546612015104

GustavBahler wrote:Even more true today..

Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy

Zachary Davies Boren, 

The Telegraph

Apr. 16, 2014, 8:16 AM

 AP The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded.

The report, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" (PDF), used extensive policy data collected between 1981 and 2002 to empirically determine the state of the U.S. political system.

After sifting through nearly 1,800 U.S. policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile), and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the U.S. is dominated by its economic elite.

The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

Researchers concluded that U.S. government policies rarely align with the preferences of the majority of Americans, but do favour special interests and lobbying organizations: "When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it."

The positions of powerful interest groups are "not substantially correlated with the preferences of average citizens," but the politics of average Americans and affluent Americans sometimes does overlap. This is merely a coincidence, the report says, with the interests of the average American being served almost exclusively when it also serves those of the richest 10%.

The theory of "biased pluralism" that the Princeton and Northwestern researchers believe the U.S. system fits holds that policy outcomes "tend to tilt towards the wishes of corporations and business and professional associations."

The study comes after McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a controversial piece of legislation passed in the Supreme Court that abolished campaign-contribution limits, and record low approval ratings for the U.S. Congress.

Gustav - do you have a link to this or to the peer reviewed article they talk about. Would love to read that.

This word from the anonymous New York Times op-ed may prove Mike Pence wrote it

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/word-anonymous-new-york-times-op-ed-may-prove-mike-pence-wrote/

If its true, looks like the start of a power play..

nixluva wrote:SHE HAD HIM SQUIRMING‼️🤪

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1037518507423002629

do we need to mansplain the question to him?

Cartman718 wrote:

nixluva wrote:SHE HAD HIM SQUIRMING‼️🤪

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1037518507423002629

do we need to mansplain the question to him?

The way she worded the question, he was justified in his answer. If she was asking if he talked to anyone who represented the firm or it's interests that he knew of, she should have asked that.

meloshouldgo wrote:I would move to Texas just to vote for this guy - please watch.

https://www.facebook.com/NowThisPolitics/videos/2422498247760393

Yea, him and Elizabeth Warren have become my favorite politicians as of late.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/brianklaas/status/1038009625361170435

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1038081855919140864