Trump's casino bankruptcy case still helps shield Wall St from fraud cases today.

David Sirota over at IBT has been doing some amazing investigative work this cycle (some of it focused on Democrats). Along with Avi Ascher-Schapiro, he has an article today about a court case from the 1990s: How Donald Trump Used Fine Print To Make It Harder To Sue Wall Street For Fraud

According to hundreds of pages of court documents reviewed by International Business Times, Trump notched a victory for himself and the financial industry by convincing judges that his own fine print warnings meant he had not deceived investors when he lured them to bet — and ultimately lose — hundreds of millions of dollars on one of his riskiest development projects. The real estate mogul known for his litigiousness helped Corporate America secure a ruling making it harder for investors to file lawsuits. Unlike his other past business moves that appeared to affect only Trump’s business partners, vendors and customers, this Trump case helped set a court precedent that was soon codified into law. [...]

“The pattern is pretty clear: He dodges his taxes, cheats his workers, scams students and misleads investors — all to line his own pockets,” said Sen. Warren, a former law professor who has raised concerns about weak investor protections and risk-disclosure requirements. “Donald Trump plays by his own set of rules, and he looks out for only one person: Donald Trump." [...]

Trump did not explicitly challenge the plaintiffs’ allegations that his prospectus contained misleading or inaccurate information. Instead, his lawyer argued that “the cautionary language in this prospectus was so complete, so repetitive, so obvious and so well designed” that it could not have misled investors. The court concurred.

I wasn’t aware of the role this case played in enhancing the protections afforded by standardized disclaimers till this article. In case you think it’s ancient history, the precedent has been used to dismiss recent high-profile securities fraud cases and is cited regularly. An interesting example is the collapse of MF Global in 2010, where the 2nd circuit belatedly limited it’s application to forward-looking statements. AIG’s lawyers also sought to use this precedent to shield the company from a fraud case over the mortgage crisis (unsuccessfully).

And if you needed more proof that Donald Trump isn’t the business success he claims to be, the NY Times looked at property tax records and appeals for various Trump properties. It seems Trump is counting gross income in his Federal disclosures when he claims he made over 600 million last year. For many of his buildings and properties, he is reporting the entire value of rent payments as income. For many of those properties, he has mortgage payments and expenses to pay which reduce income by a significant fraction. It's likely that, as many suspect, Trump has less than he inherited after accounting for inflation and/or his lifetime risk adjusted returns are negative.

Here’s the NY Times describing one judge’s reaction to Trump’s business acumen: Donald Trump’s Income Isn’t Always What He Says It Is, Records Suggest

After the appeal of his property taxes was heard in June, the special magistrate, Leonardo Delgado, lowered the resort’s property taxes by $46,534.

“So he spent $104 million to lose two and a half million dollars a year,” Mr. Delgado said. “I know how to lose that money without having to spend $104 million. How ’bout you, Murry?”

At one point during the hearing, Mr. Delgado stared at the income and expense report showing that Doral had lost $2.4 million in 2014, a number that did not even include millions of dollars in mortgage payments. Mr. Delgado began to chuckle and turned to the county property assessor, Murry Harris.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

Outsourcing Is Treason's picture

millions and millions to the Hillary campaign?

I know, I know, "Look over there! Russians!"

up
0 users have voted.

"Please clap." -- Jeb Bush

Hillbilly Dem's picture

"If Hillary's speeches are so good that Wall Street pays her $250,000 for a half hour, how come she can't get 400 people to come to a high school gym and listen to her for free?"

up
0 users have voted.

"Just call me Hillbilly Dem(exit)."
-H/T to Wavey Davey

tourniquet's picture

up
0 users have voted.

GIANT ALL-CAPS SIG

stein - baraka
2016

up
0 users have voted.

what's the cartoon sound of an arrow hitting its target? (thwaaang)?

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

don't feed it

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

ggersh's picture

go out and do your job and fix this loophole.

Since when was fundraising your sole purpose to be in clowngess.

#Jillneverhill

up
0 users have voted.

I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish

"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"

Heard from Margaret Kimberley

DKinMI and Laura Clawson teamed up to do that. I can't remember her dkos name, but I do remember how nasty she is, not that DKinMI was better.

It is a testament to Sirota's reality-based journalism as opposed to the propaganda we get everywhere else. I follow Greewald and Sirota on Twitter. Thank god there are a couple of real journalists left.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Trump=bad
clinton=good
Convinced me. I'm going to vote for hillary! Oh wait, I voted for Jill yesterday. Well this is on you subir, you should have posted this sooner...
Check please....

up
0 users have voted.

We had a false choice imposed on us this election because of the corruption of the Clintons and the DNC.

up
0 users have voted.

Beware the bullshit factories.

Thaumlord-Exelbirth's picture

Would be backing Trump then, wouldn't you? Instead, they back the candidate that helps write that fine print that Trump took advantage of.

You know, pretty much every argument you can make about Trump will just backfire against Hillary, because Trump couldn't exist as he does now without corrupt politicians like Hillary. Trump is just the rotten fruit the tree of corruption that grew in our government bears. You want to stop the tree from producing fruit? You got to kill the tree.

up
0 users have voted.
kharma's picture

Trump saw the huge amount of money the Clintons were making off of the US government that he wants in on the action.

up
0 users have voted.

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties.. This...is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.--John Adams

Jeez- give it up!!! Your desperation is depressing, and well, desperate.

President Trump. At least 10% for Green Party.

Send Glenn Thrush, Donna Brazile, David Brock, Sidney Blumenthal, - all of them, ALL OF THEM - to jail, with the Clintons.

Oh, and fuck Obama's "legacy" - he ain't got one!

Bye, subir.

up
0 users have voted.

She can work on that Southern drawl and do some redemptive labor.

stein - baraka
2016

up
0 users have voted.
Alphalop's picture

no-fucks-to-give_o_957912_1.jpg

Not this shit again.jpg

Peace Bitches_0.png

up
0 users have voted.

"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me

that this diary would be slammed, yet you did it anyway.
I am not the only one here who suspects you have ulterior motives for stirring up shit.

up
0 users have voted.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

tourniquet's picture

he just wants to make it clear that donald trump is not an evil genius.

or that he is...

or something.

up
0 users have voted.

GIANT ALL-CAPS SIG

Not Henry Kissinger's picture

Shorter subir: Trump has good lawyers who helped him make a lot of money he didn't really actually make.

(So I guess that explains why Trump hasn't paid taxes?)

Geez I can't keep up. No spin coherence whatsoever. Just random poo flinging hoping something sticks.

The upside is that if this is the best shot the Clintonistas can take with less than five days out, Hillary is in serious trouble.

up
0 users have voted.

The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?

tourniquet's picture

i'm thinking everyone should go vote early, because this shit is just entertaining anymore.

up
0 users have voted.

GIANT ALL-CAPS SIG

Anja Geitz's picture

Be on the phone making GOTV calls for Hillary? Like the people from MoveOn? I got yet another text from them this morning asking me to make calls. I asked them for which candidate. Their answer? "Against Trump's rhetoric of hate, bullying and misogyny." They couldn't even say her name because that's just not compelling enough. What's worse I have no idea how they got my cell number.

up
0 users have voted.

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

down-ballot races.

up
0 users have voted.

@subirgrewal

I'm more likely not to publish something when/if I believe it'll be received uncritically.

up
0 users have voted.

@subirgrewal

gulfgal98's picture

Look, I get it. Trump is corrupt. I do not think a single person here would argue that fact. But there seems to be a lot of false equivalency going on from Hillary supporters who are trying to use Trump's corruption as a white wash for Clinton's corruption. It does not work.

Only Clinton has used her position that she was entrusted with in the government to funnel huge amounts of money through the Clinton Foundation in exchange for special governmental treatment in the sale of arms and the sale of uranium rights. Only Clinton has used her position in the government to personally enrich herself and her husband by giving speeches at $250K a pop.

Clinton scares the hell out of me with her war mongering. I actually believe she likes the idea of war after war and has even threatened the use of nuclear weapons. She seems to have no problem with causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands innocent civilians.

Only Clinton has promoted war after war including her vote for the Iraq War whcih was sold under bogus pretenses. Senator Bob Graham of Florida urged all Senators to read the full report before voting for the war. He warned those who voted for it would have blood on their hands. This is why the Senators who actually read the entire report voted against it. Clinton refused to read the report and even made a speech whole heartedly supporting the Iraq War which has led to the deaths of one million civilians, including women and children. Clinton is single handedly responsible for the Libyan War when she stopped negotiations between the military and Qaddafi for a cease fire. As a result Clinton is also responsible for the rise of ISIS. Clinton has been the strongest promoter of escalating the war in Syria which has killed somewhere between 250 and 400 K civiliians and led to 12 million refugees. Moreover, Clinton has stated that her first act as President will be to impose a no fly zone and up the military commitment to toppling Assad. Only Clinton has promised to "obliterate" Iran. Clinton and the neocons in Washington are responsible for the new cold war with Russia and would like nothing more than to move into a hot war.

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

The problem with letting posts like this one go unchallenged (so disappointed in you, Subir) is that we don't know how many people drop by here to scan quickly and leave. People who may not see what Subir's been trying to do, may not see the bogus argument.

So thank you for calling him out squarely on false equivalency--an intellectually dishonest ploy but an effective one. A speeding ticket is not the same traffic offense as a drunk driver's pile-up with fatalities.

up
0 users have voted.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti

"do not push" worries me as much as does Trump's, personally I think Trump lacks the "courage" whereas wrapped in the holy robes of American Exceptionalism Hillary does not.

up
0 users have voted.

Trump has said much the same things about nuclear weapons, saying he wouldn't "take them off the table" for anybody. He has also talked cavalierly about bombing different countries. He doesn't have the ability to de-escalate, and that can easily lead to situations where his macho side allows him to let his equally macho advisers turn an incident into a war.
In terms of enrichment through public office, I have no doubt, none, whatsoever that Trump will do all he can to enrich himself if he wins the election.
I share some of your criticism of Hillary's foreign policy and bellicosity. I don't lay the blame for every war we've gotten into over the past fifteen years at her feet though. Much of what has been happening in the Middle East is the result of decades of meddling by the powers of the time and the resource curse. But I don't see Trump doing anything better. As I've said before, Jill Stein's positions align much better with mine, but I'm not convinced she and Baraka can hit the ground running. Policy positions are one thing, effecting them requires political skill and experience. I know this is not a popular view around here. But I've always voted for effectiveness/readiness along with policy alignment.

up
0 users have voted.

@subirgrewal

"Jill Stein's positions align much better with mine, but I'm not convinced she and Baraka can hit the ground running. Policy positions are one thing, effecting them requires political skill and experience. I know this is not a popular view around here. But I've always voted for effectiveness/readiness along with policy alignment."

I see. You want someone who can competently, smoothly and efficiently set the Middle East afire with a maximum of suave and polish.

This is a real argument?

up
0 users have voted.
kharma's picture

up
0 users have voted.

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties.. This...is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.--John Adams

pay attention to gulfgal's comment above. She encapsulates and articulates EXACTLY what just ONE of hers policy fails. Imo, the MOST important one.
I know your trying, what I Don't know is why? You Were a strong and rational voice in support of The Bern, and now this tripe?
Please?!?!
You still give No arguments In Favor of her, you give No positive policy positions, just resume and experience. . .IN GETTING PEOPLE KILLED!
Peace be upon you, Brother, but until after the charade is over, fare the well, Friend. I will no longer peruse your written words.
Be well.

peace

up
0 users have voted.

Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .

Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .

If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march

I thought most people here had an interest in the financial crisis, and this was an interesting story linking one of the candidates to a wide-spread defense in securities fraud cases. It's almost entirely historical, doesn't try to canvass at all.

Do you believe that any post without express criticism of Clinton is to be considered a pro-Clinton piece.

up
0 users have voted.

@subirgrewal

trying to get me to NOT vote for the orange pukestain. Which I guess is cool 'cause I wasn't going to anyway.
But unless I'm misreading your posts completely, your Intent is to persuade me(and others here) that we have no choice But her. For a great many here, no way.
Some will be, and are, receptive to this message. And the wars to be will be on you and them.
I'm Done with wars. Vote for a warmonger if you feel you must. Just I'm tired of people saying I have to.
Fuck that shit, man. Which is why I'm taking the time to explain my view. If I didn't respect you, I wouldn't bother.
Sorry about the ass chewing I gave you the other day, hit me at a bad time I guess.
Do what you feel is real, Bro.

peace

up
0 users have voted.

Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .

Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .

If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march

dervish's picture

and won't be held accountable by either Clinton or Trump. Trump will push for unrestrained Libertarian capitalism straight out of a Charles Dickens novel, and Clinton will spread the Detroit economic model to the rest of the country. Both strategies are bankrupt.

The only discernible advantage I can find in Clinton's favor is SCOTUS appointments, but that is mitigated by her undeniable passion for intervention and war. Corruption is likely to be equal between the two. What this boils down to is are you willing to risk untold numbers of lives in exchange for some court appointments?

My answer is no.

up
0 users have voted.

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

do not fear a Hillary Presidency. There are Trump supporters but they are in the minority.

The Trump supporters seem to be mostly anti Hillary but not for business reasons. They hate her for other reasons. None that I have spoken to or overheard ( these are traders I'm talking about) mention Hill being bad for business.

I can tell you who got zero support on the street- Bernie.

Every time I stumped for Bernie I would get angry feedback, like I was taking food from their kids mouths.

Jim Cramer who advises people on TV about picking stocks had a show about the election and how to reallocate your portfolio based on the winner. To paraphrase he said " there is no different strategy to take because they are both 'business friendly'.

Edit for type-o

up
0 users have voted.

I've spent my entire career in the financial industry, I think most people around here know that.
Months ago I said it was a pretty good indication of Clinton's probable policies that most folks in the financial industry were unconcerned. Though many people in finance support her because they're socially liberal but conformist enough to avoid third parties.
The post here is meant to point out a couple of things about Trump. It doesn't even mention Clinton.

up
0 users have voted.

@subirgrewal

ggersh's picture

that her heinous and her WS buddies want to do this.

what's worse subir, trump getting a tax break or the far right wing nut, her heinous, and her WS buddies screwing over all Americans.

Hint it's the latter not the former.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/04/the-coming-plague-of-poverty-amon...

November 4, 2016
The Coming Plague of Poverty Among the Elderly: Clinton’s Plan For Gutting Social Security

by Alan Nasser

Tweet
Email

Photo by aphrodite-in-nyc | CC BY 2.0

Photo by aphrodite-in-nyc | CC BY 2.0

In the recent Wikileaks revelations confirming Hillary Clinton’s duplicity, one of the clearest disclosures of her policy plans concerns her intention regarding Social Security. She stated that she would return to the position of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, charged with producing recommendations for reducing the deficit, i.e. cutting government social spending.

The Commission, or “Simpson-Bowles committee” -named after co-chairs former Wyoming Republican senator Alan Simpson, and Erskine Bowles, former Morgan Stanley board member and chief of staff under Bill Clinton- was appointed by Obama in 2010. Among its members were some of the most persistent deficit hawks. Most significantly, the Commission was stacked with leading enemies of Social Security flailing their arms over the “impending insolvency” of the program. The day before his appointment as co-chair, Simpson said in an interview with the Washington Post: “How did we get to a point in America where you get to a certain age in life, regardless of net worth or income, and you’re ‘entitled’? The word itself is killing us.” (Feb. 17, 2010) In a later e-mail he described Social Security as “a milk cow with 310 million teats,” and had characterized its beneficiaries as “greedy geezers.” Bowles’s record was in line with Simpson’s. He had earlier negotiated with Newt Gingrich how best to cut safety net programs. The ultimate objective was to privatize Social Security.

In a rare moment of candor, a then-editor of The New York Times, David Brock, wrote an article critical of the Social-Security-is-going-broke alarmists titled “Save Social Security? From What?” (Business section, November 1, 1998). Brock attributed the faux hysteria to “hidden agendas…..Wall Street would love to get its hands on at least some of the billions of dollars in the Social Security trust fund . . . But knowing that the idea [of full privatization] won’t fly politically, [politicians] are pushing for partial privatization, in which individuals would invest a portion of their contribution in the stock market, all in the name of rescuing the system.”

Bowles’s efforts to undo Social Security through “partial privatization” began during the Clinton regime. The left-liberal economist Robert Kuttner, in his 2007 book The Squandering of America, detailed how Washington elites of both Parties had been planning to weaken Social Security since the Clinton Administration. Steven Gillon’s 2008 book The Pact included letters and interviews with reliable sources illustrating Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich’s collaboration to get Congress behind a plan to begin turning Social Security’s so-called trust fund over to Wall street, which would manage, for a fee, retirees’ benefits. Clinton’s Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin had prodded the president to work with Gingrich not merely to reduce benefits and extend the retirement age, but to begin the privatization of Social Security. Clinton appointed Bowles as his intermediary. But the Monica Lewinsky scandal caused both embarrassed Congressional Democrats and Gingrich to distance themselves from Clinton. The privatization plan fell apart.

A waiting game was now under way.

Hillary Clinton’s speeches to the captains of finance strongly imply that she would resume the project of privatizing Social Security. Hers will be a gradual, stealth approach. The opening salvo will be further cuts in benefits and extensions of the full-benefit retirement age. But these alone will not satisfy Wall Street. The privatization plan will be resurrected, first in the form of legislation once again to begin “partial privatization.” In the end, the objective will be to turn the program into a broker’s-fee-for-service plan entirely in the hands of Wall Street. Retired workers will no longer be unqualifiedly entitled to Social Security benefits. Their fortunes will be tied to the vagaries of the stock market and other speculative ventures favored by brokers. And retirees will pay for this “service.” There will be no refunds when the market goes belly-up.

What Do Retirees Now Get From Social Security?

Because so many seniors have scant savings and have been employed in low- to middle-wage jobs, poverty threatens the majority absent government income supplements raising them above the poverty line. 1 in 3 working Americans has zero retirement savings, and the median working-age couple has a mere $5,000 in retirement savings. The Social Security Administration reminds us that “Social Security is the major source of income for most of the elderly.” (1) It is in fact the federal government’s biggest domestic program, paying benefits to around 1 in 6 Americans and to over 90% of the elderly. With Social Security benefits in decline as the retirement age is steadily raised, the future portends especially hard times for old folks and for the population as a whole, because the elderly are a growing percentage of the entire population.

An outstanding feature of American society well before my 20 year old daughter reaches middle age will be a serious poverty plague among the growing numbers of the elderly. This is evident in the current state of Social Security and the most reliable projections for its future.

Social Security benefits are conspicuously modest. In the countries included in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development average public pension benefits replace about 61% of median earnings. The corresponding figure for the U.S. is 37%, after subtracting (escalating) Medicare premiums. The U.S. ranks 26 out of the 30 OECD nations in this respect. The average retiree receives $1,328 a month in Social Security benefits. A third of beneficiaries receives 90% of their income from the program and 61% receive more than 50% of their income from the program. It is a telling indication of the niggardliness of the median household income that paltry Social Security payments kept 22 million from poverty in 2015. Thus, without Social Security benefits, 41% of elderly Americans would have incomes below the official poverty line, whereas with the program, “only” 9 percent do.

Social Security also benefits the non-elderly, and they too will be hit by Clinton’s announced offensive. More than 1 million children were lifted from poverty last year. Some received benefits because a parent died or became disabled or retired, and some live with relatives who receive Social Security. (2) Some 12 million disabled persons received benefits in 2015. According to the Social Administration itself, “That is barely enough to keep a beneficiary above the 2014 poverty level ($11,670 annually).” (3) All in all, without Social Security 20.5% of the total population would be in poverty; because of the program, “only” 13.5% are in poverty. The total number lifted out of poverty by Social Security in 2015 is 22,090,000. (4)

The Simpson-Bowles Recommendations for Social Security

The figures above make it clear that Clinton’s planned attack on Social Security will significantly raise total poverty, particularly among the elderly, the disabled and children. Clinton’s planned revival of Simpson-Bowles virtually guarantees this outcome. What were the recommendations of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform? The emphasis is on cutting benefits by three means.

First, the retirement age would be increased. The then-retirement-age of 66 was to be increased to 67 by 2022 for people born in 1960 and later. Early retirees would be able to claim reduced benefits at 62. The Commission recommended that both the full and the early eligibility age would continue increasing after 2022. At an unspecified time before 2050 the early eligibility age would rise to 63 and the full retirement age would increase to 68. By 2070 the early eligibility age would reach 64 and the full retirement age would climb to 69.

The recommendations would force the elderly either to work full time into the years when their physical capacities have undergone normal decline, or stop working when their bodies tell them that persistent work effort is bad for their mental and physical health and thus suffer the penalty of reduced benefits and an even lower standard of living. The recommendations amount to escalating cruelty to the elderly.

What may not be obvious at first glance is that any increase in the full retirement age entails a cut in benefits for each and every retiree irrespective of the age at which they file. (5) Because the full retirement age is the age at which full benefits are paid, so that workers who file sooner collect permanently reduced benefits and those who file later get larger benefits, raising the retirement age means that the early retiree suffers a deeper reduction and the later retiree gets a smaller increase. The economic security of everyone in the system is jeopardized whenever the retirement age is raised. And Social Security “reform” means gradually raising the retirement age.

Clinton’s announced plan means a wholesale assault on the entire elderly population.

The second means of cutting benefits consists in changing the formula for determining payments so as to reduce benefits.

The third way the Committee would lower benefits is to reduce cost-of-living adjustments. The idea is to devise a different measure of inflation in order to lower cost-of-living adjustments by 0.3 percentage points a year. A number of tricks have been effected to underestimate inflation and hence lower the estimated cost of living. E.g., the substitution hypothesis assumed that when the price of hamburger went up the typical consumer would substitute chicken in the “basket of goods” stipulated to reflect the cost of living. Hence, the measure would not count a rise in the price of ground beef as inflation. What was actually measured was the cost of maintaining a declining standard of living.

All these strategies functioning to put the squeeze on seniors are implemented on top of a system whose basic structure already fails to do what it is allegedly intended to do, to protect the elderly’s buying power. In addition to fudging inflation estimates, the weight attached to various components of the basic market basket of goods is skewed against the elderly, precisely in order to depress Social Security payments. Older Americans tend to spend a greater portion of their budgets on medical care and housing than do younger people. Yet less weight is assigned to medical care and housing costs, which have risen more than 7% and 5% respectively since this time last year, and more weight to gasoline, which has declined deeply over the same period. And because the Consumer Price Index excludes the spending patterns of those over the age of 62, it does not include one of the fastest growing costs for retirees, rising Medicare premiums. It is as if the idea was to hit the elderly especially hard. As if indeed.

It is no surprise, then, that the scandalously inaccurate estimates of increases in the cost of living actually increase the cost of living for everyone, especially seniors. The COLA increase for 2017 will be a niggardly 0.3%. From 2010 to 2016, the COLA was increased, respectively, by the following percentages: 0.0, 0.0, 1.7, 1.5, 1.7, 0.0 and 0.0.

Clinton vs. Obama on the Simpson-Bowles Recommendations

Obama opted not to endorse all of the recommendations of the Commission but to “build on the fiscal Commission’s model.” (6) He accepted most of the major tenets of the Commission but went slower on their implementation. Austerity measures would be implemented over 12 years instead of 10. But he adhered to one of his principal reasons for putting the Commission together, that Social Security benefits would soon increase deficits to unsustainable levels. He supported the Commission’s aim to cut Medicare and Social Security. But his Social Security and Medicare cuts would be smaller than the Commission’s recommendations.

Clinton will at the least swallow whole the Simpson-Bowles recommendations. All stops will be pulled. The woman holds popular sentiment in contempt, so public disapproval will count for nothing. Let us not forget that a principal function of neoliberal policy is to do away with democratic government, a requirement if the distribution of private and public resources is to be consistently to the benefit of the plutocracy. Those most dependent on government assistance -the elderly, the unemployed and the disabled- will be hit hard.

The elderly tend to be more politically active, at least with respect to voting behavior. Their demographics are noteworthy. Between 2012 and 2050, the United States is expected to experience considerable growth in its older population. People 65 and over represented 14.5% of the population in the year 2014 but are expected to grow to be 21.7% of the population by 2040. (7) By 2050, the population aged 65 and over is projected to be 83.7 million, almost double its population of 43.1 million in 2012. By 2060 there will be about 98 million older persons, more than twice their number in 2014.

The elderly are growing both in number and as a percentage of the population. They will be hit very hard under financialized neoliberal capitalism. Will they quietly bemoan their fate, or will they be among the historical descendants of Occupy and the Sanders movement, making up a growing force of resistance to an increasingly austere and repressive (dis)order?

up
0 users have voted.

I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish

"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"

Heard from Margaret Kimberley

Raggedy Ann's picture

I ask because my Arab and Muslim friends and acquaintances (I have many because I work at a large University) are all so very afraid of Trump. They are ensuring their passports (and those of their children and all family members) are current and valid or are getting them current and valid. They feel he will expunge them from America. Is this your fear? Is this why you are trying over and over and over again to inject fear into the rest of us here to vote for her heinous?

Will you answer me? This is a serious question. Your answer will explain a lot, either way.

up
0 users have voted.

"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11

Azazello's picture

But I don't think we should be outing people here or questioning their motives. Maybe subir just wants to hang out with smart people for a change. I don't like sites where they kick people out for posting forbidden opinions.

up
0 users have voted.

We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.

Raggedy Ann's picture

I think it's legitimate. I have co-workers who are frightened they will be deported. I was truly wondering if it is his fear, too.

up
0 users have voted.

"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11

straddling political fences. There's nothing wrong with that, as far as I'm concerned. I have a certain amount of sympathy for the position. It does however open one to ridicule, slings, and arrows from both sides of the divide.

up
0 users have voted.

native

flying dirt by staying on the sidelines--didn't do much for Elizabeth Warren this year. It's a calculated strategy and can have merit, but in this highly charged and polarizing election, failure to take sides labels one spineless. Correctly so, I think, because emotions run high, and any firm position becomes a target for flak. This year, taking a stand really does require the courage of one's convictions. And this year, I have to wonder about people who lack convictions.

up
0 users have voted.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti

lotlizard's picture

That’s what a Dutch friend with part-Jewish ancestry confided she couldn’t help asking herself when reflecting on who, among the people she knew, was a friend and who was merely an acquaintance. (The distinction between friend and acquaintance is still important in the culture of many European countries.)

That’s the difference between having and lacking convictions, too.

Someone who won’t even stand up to “the Man” on your behalf upon being banned for not dancing the “hail Hillary” dance — you think they’ll stand up for you or hide you when they start taking people off to Manzanar?

up
0 users have voted.

Someone who would actually risk execution to hide you, day in and day out, possibly for years, is not merely a friend; that person is a selfless hero with nerves of steel. Imagine the terror 24/7/365, but especially when hearing someone approaching.

Another standard to consider: Whom would I hide under similar circumstances? (No one says Jews per se will be among the targets again if it happens again. Could be Muslims, leftists, "useless eaters," perceived disruptors, etc.)

Even better: what signs should I watch for and what preparations and escape should I make so I won't need to hide or be hidden.

up
0 users have voted.

both ethnically and religiously.
You're right, Trump does scare me, but not simply because part of my family is Muslim. I've always been keenly attuned to how politicians treat minorities and the weak. Trump has always been willing to use and abuse minorities and the powerless to further his own end. A case I think about every day is the central park five. You've seen a lot of evidence of that this cycle. I have resources and can take care of myself, but I'm not going to sit around and let someone like Trump win. And as most of you know, my decision, very soon after the primary results were settled, was to support HRC because she had the best chance to beat Trump once Bernie was out of the picture in my view.
But I don't think you should read too much into my ethnicity or that of my family. I don't like anything Trump stands for, and I think he's a con-man.

up
0 users have voted.

@subirgrewal

Steven D's picture

and should not be President.

So is Hillary Clinton, whose campaign we now know prompted a complicit media to cover and promote Trump as one of the "pied piper" candidates running in the GOP primary.

This is why I am voting for Jill Stein and I urge you, if you have any self respect, to do the same.

Unless, of course the prospect of an escalation of military conflict with Russia, a nuclear armed state appeals to you.

up
0 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

I would never say you should vote a certain way "if you have any self respect". The very essence of democracy is thee right to make up your own mind and we should respect that. I respect the choice Trump voters are making too, btw.

up
0 users have voted.

@subirgrewal

two different species of con artist. Of the two, Clinton is by far the more cynical, manipulative, sophisticated, and broadly influential. Trump's style of chicanery is crude, a bit anachronistic, and distinctly low-brow. There is however a kind of raw, plebeian honesty about it... "In the very earliest days of Rome, plebeians were any tribe without advisers to the King. In time, the word – which is related to the Greek word for crowd, plethos – came to mean the common people." - Wikipedia

Clinton's various operations have been effectuated in the more rarefied realms of officially sanctioned political offices. This does not mean however, that they have been any less devious, corrupt, and self-serving than Trump's more obvious, and perhaps less legal, moral transgressions. It just means they have been more ambitious, and more effectively concealed in a cloak of decency.

Trump has risen to the top, in part by deceiving and cheating business associates, competitors, and the IRS; Clinton has risen to the top by deceiving the body politic, and manipulating the political process behind closed doors. If we use moral integrity as a criterion, there is very little to choose between them.

up
0 users have voted.

native

I've had long discussions with someone who can't bear to vote for Trump (supports Stein, like me) but argues that Trump is Teddy Roosevelt, and in similar times: crude and self-serving, big ego and big personality, bumbling and blustering, racist, wild and inconsistent. TR entered office with some good stated policies, left with some good accomplishments (trust-busting, national parks), and was blocked on some less-good plays.

Food for thought?

Not offered to sway votes to Trump but to help explain why many of us find him less alarming than Clinton.

up
0 users have voted.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti

Bisbonian's picture

He's certainly not as smart as Roosevelt.

up
0 users have voted.

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

but with Trump in office, almost anything is possible. That's the main problem with Trump - his sheer unpredictability. Also if he were to be elected, he would have some very powerful and ruthless enemies to contend with, in the Deep State. I'm not sure he would even survive his term in office.

up
0 users have voted.

native

and the military, if you give any credence to this 33-min video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zic64WhR14k&t=3m16s

Trump's a loose cannon, but Clinton's a fixed cannon armed, aimed, and "ready on day one" to fire.

If Hillary were installed, odds are high, I think, that she'd be announced to have become incapacitated or die in office inside a year, allowing Kaine to take charge. And he's a corporatist tool with a questionable history who'd be heir to the Clinton cartel's connections. Trump appears more benign to me, though I consider both duopoly nominees unfit for office.

Tim Kaine: A Supporter of War and Big Business
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/07/25/kain-j25.html

https://www.thenation.com/article/eat-pray-starve-what-tim-kaine-didnt-l...

up
0 users have voted.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti

remarkably well-informed fellow, and I think his analysis of the current US political dilemma is spot on. But I suspect he may be exaggerating the amount of support and influence he has within the intelligence community. If he really can do what he claims to be trying to do, if he can initiate an actual counter-coup... then more power to him. But color me skeptical, for the time being. These are strange days indeed. And there are many more to come, I think.

up
0 users have voted.

native

But from what I learned in my years in DC, it's plausible. That is how things work inside the Beltway.

Pieczenik said he was speaking for the purported counter-coup with permission, iirc, not claiming to spearhead it? He's made some statements on other subjects I take strong issue with (early grammar training: with which I take strong issue), but I can't swat this one away with complete confidence.

up
0 users have voted.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti

I'm definitely staying tuned.

up
0 users have voted.

native

Hillary has never been honest with the people she and her husband claim to represent. They used the common people to accumulate power and wealth for themselves.

up
0 users have voted.

It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back. Carl Sagan

not Clinton.

up
0 users have voted.

native

Thanks for the reminder, subir! A vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary. Jill Stein 2016!

up
0 users have voted.
lotlizard's picture

while, in contrast, the Ciintons are past masters of the con artist’s art and have an army of accomplices right across the political spectrum and in all the key industries to help them.

With Democratic leaders like Obama or the Clintons, you may know perfectly well you’re being conned somehow — and yet, when it finally kicks in, still never see it coming.

These people are the con game’s kings and soon-to-be-crowned queen — repeatedly duping progressives (who “know too much for our own good”) with endless variations on the Kansas City Shuffle.

Too dumb to fool” or so-called low-information voters, on the other hand, just go Republican and unwittingly evade this particular set of scams.

up
0 users have voted.

In conjunction with "Western"" media monopolies, and other various arms of Clinton's political influence, a neocon/neoliberal, multi-national cartel is poised to attempt total control over US foreign policy. They are already more than halfway there.

So-called "low-informaion voters" might be the nation''s last line of defense, though this line would necessarily include racists, xenophobes, sexists and whatnot. Trump's coalition: A motley assortment of pissed-off folks in fly-over country, who don't believe a word of what passes for news on MSNBC.

up
0 users have voted.

native

I will vote for Jill Stein instead of Trump.

Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump - don't look over there.
Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump - don't look over there.
Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump - don't look over there.
Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump - don't look over there.
Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump - don't look over there.
Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump - don't look over there.
Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump - don't look over there.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Anja Geitz's picture

Eats his pizza with a fork. Who the hell does that?

#ImWithJill2016

up
0 users have voted.

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Cachola's picture

Staten Island almost seceded over that.

up
0 users have voted.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.

Anja Geitz's picture

For over 20 years, and the best part about eating pizza is that you could do it on the go. With your hands!

Where in Staten Island do you live?

up
0 users have voted.

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

That hot molten cheese is wicked. Never had an NYC slice before?

up
0 users have voted.
Anja Geitz's picture

And had a slice about once a week. Never with a fork. I just ask the pizza guy to make it warm not hot. They know exactly what to do. Then I fold it length wise and lift it up to my mouth. Easy peasy.

up
0 users have voted.

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Hawkfish's picture

But then I'm a Brit. We also stick our pinkies out when we drink tea.

up
0 users have voted.

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

Anja Geitz's picture

Not what I wanted to do..

up
0 users have voted.

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

shaharazade's picture

grifter that the Clinton's are. Pretty bizarre to wave around the can't sue Wall street because Trump when Killary and the crooked Demorat's will make sure that no one can sue any corporation with the TPP. She laid it out in her Wall Street speeches who better then them to regulate themselves. She's planning on turning SS into a investor scam which would do for Wall Street what the ACA did for healthcare, mandate participation and subsidize them.

Not to mention that the Clinton's are responsible for deregulating the banksters and privatizing every damn thing they could in their thrid Way brave new world order. All the more reason to vote for Jill and down ballot for every Green, socialist and Indie. Why post these ridiculous lame essay's here? Do you get a kick out of cross posting here and then telling the Hillbot moron's at dkos to take a look see at the cc99%'s reactions to your trolling? Sad and sick. Stop it your just embarrassing and insulting to everyone here's intelligence. Trump may be a crook but he doe not hold a candle to the world class grifters and their Clinton Foundation and pay to play politics.

up
0 users have voted.