Revolution Needed, Vote Sanders

Clinton Would Be Another Obama to Nowhere:

Contrarily to legend, countries such as France, its scion, Britain, and their children, among them the USA, have been highly successful not in spite, but because of a succession of beautifully executed revolutions.

The level of inequalities of the planet has become so drastic, the economy is sputtering, the biosphere collapsing. Yet, the West’s leading grandiosely self-described “liberal with a conscience”, Krugman is in full Kliton, Clinton-for-president campaign. Not a day passes without another blast against Sanders. Oh, well, it was so good last time Clinton was president, the friends Krugman comes across all the time in New York, the financial plutocrats, got to seize the levers of the world, and fed Krugman lots of caviar and champagne, besides paying for 100,000 dollars a year to send the kids here Krugman and the like teach their erroneous discourses. (I am not saying Krugman is the worst; quite the opposite, he is the sweetest.)

During Obama’s First Four Years, Tax Rates on the 400 Richest Went Down 20%

During Obama’s First Four Years, Tax Rates on the 400 Richest Went Down 20%

So give me a break with Bush… Obama was Bush’s Third and Fourth term. Or shall we call it Clinton’s Sixth term? The point is that since the ex-chair of Goldman-Sachs, Robert Rubin, officially Secretary of the Treasury, started to tell a (swearing) Bill Clinton was he was going during his presidency, we have never looked back: the financial plutocrats, the sneakiest, sleekest, slickest and sickest of them all, have been in command. That command, they would lose if Senator Sanders became president (and, as far as they are concerned the arrogant Trump, a builder of real things, is as scary, he could do a Roosevelt on them…)

Says Krugman How To Make Donald Trump President Step 1: Democrats nominate Bernie Sanders. I don’t think Sanders is unelectable, but…” The Krugman class, highly paid pseudo-intellectuals ambling the rich carpets of Davos and plutocratic academia, is aghast from the prominence of leading candidates who have been railing against Wall Street and for a dramatic overhaul of health care in the USA.

Krugman deliberately ignores the possibility that Ted Cruz, not Trump, is the real Republican nominee. Why? Ted Cruz is the Goldman-Sachs candidate, like Obama and Clinton before him.  

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/12/24/trumped-hillaryously-cruzing-to-hell/

The day before claiming Sanders would make Trump president, in the New York Times editorial, Krugman in “How Change Happens”, revived the old John Lennon’s spite for revolution:  …”there are some currents in our political life that do run through both parties. And one of them is the persistent delusion that a hidden majority of American voters either supports or can be persuaded to support radical policies, if only the right person were to make the case with sufficient fervor.”

Real weird a statement for a country which was founded in a revolution, and saw the most violent Civil War, this side of Rwanda.

Of course, nothing significant happened during the Obama presidency. (With the one single exception that, now, health insurance companies cannot just refuse to insure people, based on pre-existing conditions. To compensate, “Obama” instituted a color scheme for health insurance, where colored (“bronze”) plan is basically worthless. Is it a Freudian slip?)

Krugman, I love Krugman. Krugman is highly intelligent (many things are relative), so he can be used as a test bed of devious, not to say vicious, sophisticated logic. In particular Krugman presents us with the opportunity to dissect disinformative twisted logic:  radical policies have happened many times in the history of the USA. FDR was a case in point. But so was LBJ. More to the point, Paul Krugman served in the REAGAN White House, and Reagan (counter-) revolution was pretty much approved by voters. So was G.W. Bush let’s-go-invade-the-world, either-you-are-with-us-or-against-us, policies, which were also very radical (and not in a good way).

Krugman: “… on the left there is always a contingent of idealistic voters eager to believe that a sufficiently high-minded leader can conjure up the better angels of America’s nature and persuade the broad public to support a radical overhaul of our institutions. In 2008 that contingent rallied behind Mr. Obama; now they’re backing Mr. Sanders…

But as Mr. Obama himself found out as soon as he took office, transformational rhetoric isn’t how change happens. That’s not to say that he’s a failure…

Yet his achievements have depended at every stage on accepting half loaves as being better than none: health reform that leaves the system largely private, financial reform that seriously restricts Wall Street’s abuses without fully breaking its power, higher taxes on the rich but no full-scale assault on inequality… who can claim to be Mr. Obama’s true heir — Mr. Sanders or Mrs. Clinton? But the answer is obvious: Mr. Sanders is the heir to candidate Obama, but Mrs. Clinton is the heir to President Obama. (In fact, the health reform we got was basically her proposal, not his.)

Could Mr. Obama have been more transformational? Maybe he could have done more at the margins. But the truth is that he was elected under the most favorable circumstances possible, a financial crisis that utterly discredited his predecessor — and still faced scorched-earth opposition from Day 1.”

Here is again a piece of disinformation, which, actually, originated with Obama himself. Obama (for whichever reasons inside himself, probably greed) did not want to disappoint the powers-that-be (his considerable future income will depend upon them), nor his power base (60 million gullible voters, and your truly). So Obama pretended that the “rancor” (as he put it) of republicans prevented him to act. Parrot Krugman, following the choir of millions of pseudo-leftists, claims that “scorched earth” from the opposition stood in the way. Don’t worry: no luxury carpet burned at the White House.

We have heard this argument since day one of the Obama presidency: Obama could not do anything, because he did not control Congress (where the democrats had a majority), nor the Senate (where the democrats had a supermajority, more than 60 votes out of 100). So Obama, handicapped by his DEMOCRATIC majority and supermajority, had to kill time until he lost control of Congress, and lost his supermajority in the Senate?

Or is it that Obama was isolated among partisans of the status quo, immensely rich “democrats” such as D. Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi, who are extremely happy with the system as it is, and just want to tinker with it, to give the appearance of changing what they truly profit from and do not want really to be changed?

Using “Medicare For All” as a fundamental health system with private insurance add-ons is basically the way the French healthcare system works. The present healthcare system in the USA could be morphed towards such a French like system, without wrenching changes (whereas going abruptly to socialized medicine as in Britain, Sweden, or single payer as in Canada, Germany would be too brutal to be pragmatic, indeed).

In finance, Obama had a great crisis, thus a great opportunity to cut out all the abuse. The Roosevelt, FDR and Teddy made drastic reforms: on day one, FDR closed all banks. Instead, under Obama’s first term, the New York Times found that the 400 wealthiest taxpayers’ tax rates went down 20%… relative to Bush.

Obama is caviar left, Clinton is caviar left. But the biosphere was much warmer in 2015 than in 2014. Meanwhile giant amount of unhindered, plotting and conspiring “Dark Pools of Money” are sloshing around the world, constituting most of the world’s trades.

In the latest funny twist, the cost of a barrel of oil full of oil has become cheaper than the cost of the same barrel, once emptied of oil. I told you oil was dirty!

In Canada, said barrel, with the oil inside, cost less than five cauliflowers. Agriculture has been despised too long.

The rise of sustainable energy (including nuclear in India, China) has much to do with it. This, and fracking in the USA, and the lift of the embargo against Iran, broke the camel’s back. Revolutions may be unleashed in several countries (Venezuela, Arab oil producers, Algeria, Russia, etc.). If you add Trump and Sanders to the mix, many plutocrats are starting to seriously worry.

All the more as their old semi-enemy, the European Union, is at the crossroads between strength and weakness, between further crackdowns in all sorts of ways and further degeneracy.

So resist Krugman’s siren songs. Clinton is a plutocrat singing plutophile songs. Vote for real change, vote Sanders. Differently from Obama or Clinton I, Sanders has a very long track record, we know who he is. Differently from Clinton, although initially a genuine New Yorker, he is not on the take, something Hillary clearly is.

Patrice Ayme’

Advertisements

Tags: , , ,

24 Responses to “Revolution Needed, Vote Sanders”

  1. John Rogers Says:

    Thank you.
    It’s sort of superfluous of me to leave a comment since you said everything I believe so much better.
    But what it really comes down to in this election is a gaggle of people (gaggle as you know being a collection of geese) who want to be president – that would be the GOP Clown Car plus Hillary. And then there is this other socialist-communist-NY Jew-troublemaker Sanders who keeps talking about changing things (as you so very correctly point out) and principles and inequality and stuff (god!, he’s been nattering about this for 30 or 40 years. So boring.).
    I’m sure you also know what a pantomime is (as the British use the term) and what everybody wants in this election is a pantomime – a really good show. Not Sanders and this stuff about poor people and injustice. That’s not entertaining!

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I find both Hillary and Cruz scary. Of course, Cruz is way worse. No comparison. And he could/would beat Hillary (probably). And Hillary will be beaten, in great part, because she proposes more of the same, including with the ACA (which now Krugman recognizes was her plan, not Obama: Obama had opted, and pleaded for my MEDICARE FOR ALL… But he was the one and only democrat in Washington suggesting this; after he was crushed on this, he never recovered psychologically…)

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear John: Your comments are never superfluous.

    • EugenR Says:

      Dear John, if Sanders would be Irish, would it be worth mentioning it? Or you would be satisfied by mentioning his other attributes?

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Indeed.
        Although Americans tend to pay attention to people’s origins… Much more so if “”””Jewish”””… Something indeed 100,000% irrelevant in the case of Sanders. Nobody goes around paying lots of attention to Ted Cruz being …”Hispanic”… Although since he was born in Canada from a non-American father, some try to claim he was not “American born” (the noble law scholar had not just misread early 18C Common Law, but ignored it completely… Cruz is indeed “American Born”.

        There was a big deal made around 1960 of the fact JFK was “Irish” “Catholic” (he was not really either…) JFK was the first Catholic American president. There has been no other. And the continual preaching of Obama, and, now, Cruz, grates on my nerves. Obama won’t ask “god” to “bless the US of America” if he were a Catholic…

  2. SDM Says:

    Obama squandered his opportunities much to the frustration of his electorate. His golden moment came and went by midpoint of his first term. Weak ACA and Dodd Frank instead of re-instituting Glass Steagal and criminal prosecution of financiers. Still better than McCain -Palin or Romney-Ryan but disheartening nonetheless. The steady attack on the common working class is maddening yet the plutocrats have been successful in their divide and conquer strategies along race, ethnicity, “patriotism” “support the troops” propaganda. How long can it continue? Sanders has a track record (unlike Obama) and without the racial backlash he may be able to accomplish something. Big obstacle could be the Socialist label once GOP and Clinton attack dogs begin howling.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Obama could have done everything in his first three months. But he was a baby. And pluto-demos (Pelosi, etc.) were firmly in control. They were the problem not the Republicans.

      When Reagan became president, he took command, chaining, hand and foot, the air traffic controllers… Obama still does not have command. His ACA is a bad joke, which just augmented the profits of health insurance (mostly, not always). I wrote long essays at the time, explaining how they gave money to banks and the like (TARP), then allowing those to reimburse with Quantitative Easing. Arguably, DARK MONEY is more powerful than ever: see all the towers rising in New York. All dark money towers…

      Sanders is seriously conservative in some ways (guns, defense). He has also a multi-decade track record. It’s not easy to brand him a socialist, but Clinton has already started. If I were a fairy and I had a magic wand, I would make him president, with Trump as VP (hahahahahaha). Seriously: those two agree on the two most important things, where plutocracy is the most hysterical!
      PA

      • SDM Says:

        Obama was thwarted by his own hesitancy (he wanted to try bipartisanship no less), GOP and also Dems such as Pelosi. Under those circumstances, getting the ACA passed ( a plum for the health insurance industry) was no easy task and he capitulated on the public option. After that it was all down hill. No prosecutions of Wall Street corruption, no penalties, and failure to break up big banks. Banks are bigger now than ever.
        Sanders is the clear choice in the fight against plutocracy- Trump has fired some shots at plutocracy but what does he really want to accomplish? Given his position and interests, it seems unlikely he would pursue any reforms against plutocracy-inequality if elected.
        Certainly, Clinton and Trump will cry Socialist all the against Sanders if they believe it in their interest.
        Could Sanders’ continued popularity drive Clinton further left in her campaign or perhaps lead an opportunistic Trump to lean further against plutocrats to bolster his position?

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          I think Obama was HIDING his true disposition behind a screen of wanting to avoid “RANCOR”. As I said in my analysis of his latest state of the union speech, he was/is obviously lying. The truth is simple, and dreadful: he did not want to do nothing, BUT, to please his family’s future, to be rich and influential in the future, he went down the road of the Clinton: pleasing the plutocrats. Then, also, things were as you said (and I have also said other demo-plutos are more right-wing than the tea party… but they hide it under soothing pseudo-liberal, impotent rants…)

          I mention some of this, with more details, in:
          https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2016/01/13/idiocy-supreme-remember-guantanamo/

      • John Rogers Says:

        I live in New York and you’re right about those Dark Money towers. Ever so often there’s a newspaper article about the phenomenon of so many super-luxury apartments being vacant.
        http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/real-estate/no-home-manhattan-luxurious-apartments-article-1.1928637
        But of course they’re intended to be a store of value (like a gold bar) and not an actual residence.
        A lot of the same thing in LA and Miami with estates and mansions.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          It’s a worldwide infection. Lots in Paris and London too (perhaps even more). Just one close relative of Syrian dictator Assad has more than 200 million Euros of known property, in France alone.

          The USA is the greatest tax haven in the world. Cracking down on Switzerland, Panama and the Caymans, has made it even more so. The American authorities know this, it’s the whole idea.
          Second is the UK and its “dependencies”… Including the banana capital of the world, the not-so-tropical isle of Jersey… Plutocracy is truly miraculous…

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          The American authorities know that the USA is ever more of a tax haven for plutocrats, it’s the whole idea of the plutocratic empire: control power.

  3. Paul Handover Says:

    Your essay seems to offer a subtext: that Trump has no chance of being nominated GOP candidate, and winning the presidency. Did you intend to convey that?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Good analysis, Paul. In:
      https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/12/24/trumped-hillaryously-cruzing-to-hell/
      I argued that Trump (not that he wants to) is being used as a first stage to Cruz. Krugman, and people like Krugman, supposedly on the left, play a role in this. They present Trump as an arch-devil. That’s rather curious: why not present the Goldman Sachs candidate, the FOURTH in 20 years, as the arch-devil? Then Trump is presented as culprit of “populism” for wanting single payer or socialist healthcare, and taxing the hedge funds…

      In truth they are making anybody-but-Trump (or Sanders!) into paradise. All the powers that be don’t want Trump. They fear him, because, first he knows how banks work, and they don’t intimidate him… And so forth.

      So my position, more precisely, is that Trump (and Sanders) are the two guys whom the establishment fear and detest. It will do its best to avoid them.

      Little said, Cruz has already gathered 100 million dollars (50 million in direct control; and that’s even before any big donor has kicked in, as they are writing the legend of Cruz-hated-by-the-establishment). My insertion in the Obama campaign long ago showed me there is no limit to the manipulations…

      Well, yes and no

  4. EugenR Says:

    To this used to say: ” Was kann man machen, die grosse welt.”

  5. benign Says:

    There is no Difference between “Left” and “Right” in the West today.

    There is only Up and Down.

    Wealth destroys empathy. The ruling class has lost touch with the rest of the species. They think they don’t need us.

    A vote for Donald, for Hillary, for Jeb, for any other high net worth Establishment-approved candidate is a vote against the 99 Percent. It is a vote for continued servitude, if you are in the 99 Percent.

    Feel the Bern.

    What is Bernie Sanders’ Net Worth? – Money Nation

    http://moneynation.com/bernie–sanders–net–worth/

    Compared to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s combined net worth of $121 million, Bernie Sanders’ net worth of $528,014 is 230 times smaller. Compared to Bill Gates’ net worth of $80 billion, Bernie Sanders’ net worth is 151,515 times smaller. Finally, Jeb Bush has an estimated net worth of about $21 million.

    cheers,
    benign

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Agreed to all. Remarks:
      Through his Foundation, Bill Gates controls much more than 80 billion directly. It’s more like above 130 billions, slightly ahead of the two Koch brothers.
      Then he leverage that, by having the likes of Obama lick his toes, and putting him and beautiful Melinda in charge of American education, while he decided research in biology should be contracting with Monsanto…

      The true wealthy HIDE THEIR WEALTH. So all the announced numbers are underestimates.
      PA

      • John Rogers Says:

        “The true wealthy HIDE THEIR WEALTH.”
        I worked for a while as an attorney at a major NY bank cleaning up their records in a very large vault to get by a government audit. I was appalled at the sloppiness and disorder of the files (contracts, trust agreements, letters, etc.) which were supposed to support hundreds of millions in transactions. I suppose as long as the accounts balanced nobody could be bothered to do the paperwork right. Which was why they were worried about the audit.
        Anyway, what really astounded me was the inventiveness and creativity in the asset structures reflected in the files. Nothing that would occur to you right away to own, like office buildings or factories or yachts or whatever people think the super rich own. But rather remote tracts of forest land, obscure holding company agreements for items with imaginative names for things not otherwise identified, reciprocal contracts for god-knows-what and god-knows-where, etc. It was flabbergasting and eye opening. And this was in an American bank subject to some oversight. Offshore I can’t imagine what they get away with.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          This is indeed what DARK POOLS are all about: money completely hidden in complex structures. Sending the money to a chain of accounts help. The tax code is thousands of pages, always evolving dynamically, from year to year, precisely to serve the .1%.

          The only solution is a WORLD WIDE “CADASTRUM” (an inventory of all and any property). Taxation for surveillance and punishment of the 99.9% will not be enough. Actually, it will have the opposite effect, augment the plutocratic drive.

          Thanks for sharing that. It seems you have very interesting real-life tales to tell, John.

  6. Gmax Says:

    Big money plutocrat Bloomberg is so incensed at SANDERS, he thinks about running as a third party candidate (that would get Trump or Cruz elected).

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes, this was in today’s NYT. Bloomberg is a FINANCIAL plutocrat. He really dislikes fellow New Yorker Sanders…

      • John Rogers Says:

        Bloomberg has the same problem Trump and Cruz do – megalomania. It’s not a coincidence.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          To be a politician, nowadays, one has to be megalomaniac, or an opportunist, or both. I had a distinct impression Obama did not believe one word of what he was saying during the SOTUS…
          But those three you mention, deserve the laurels of the top prize. Hard to say who is tops. Although, for official, loud delusion, Cruz is clearly the one (although, here again, he does not believe too many words he says, as his record as a lawyer shows…)

  7. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to RSN, March 3, 2016.]

    I have subscribed to the New York Times for more than 35 years. Ethically, it’s not any better than Fox News. Speaking of Murdoch, the NYT is often more on the right than the Wall Street Journal, but in a very stealthy, sneaky way. It censors me industrially… Often to just use a few days, or weeks, later what I was saying in the comments it censored. Still, it’s the so-called “newspaper of record of the USA”. But it’s definitively a plutocratic newspaper. As much of the establishment, it hates Sanders and Trump (and for roughly the same reasons!!)

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: