Five new pics for propaganda use (a day late). Thanks!!!
We want what the people want:
Mr. Robertson, the carpet cleaner, has his own idea: nationalizing the companies. “I think forcing them to pay higher alone is inefficient,” he said, “and taxation alone is inefficient.”
The official stance of Sparking The Left is that voting in so-called democratic elections is useless. It is taking part in a corrupt system.
This opinion is based upon the fact that I would never waste my vote for either of the two dominating political parties out of respect for my own personal dignity.
You probably miss it in the media because it is so common that the media does not report it: Candidates host fundraisers at places like Goldman Sachs and/or JP Morgan Chase all of the time for campaign contributions. They also raise money from special lobbying groups, too, like the pharmaceutical industry and automaker groups. This is every presidential candidate, every leader in Congress, and both the Democratic and Republican party in whole. It’s just the nature of the corrupt beast. They get ridiculous amounts of cash from Wall St so they remain too big to fail. Pharmaceutical prices remain sky high. The auto industry makes cars in the cheapest way by doing the bare minimum to keep cars safe and reduce the amount of pollution they omit. And deregulation is at the center of it all.
Wall St. and special interest groups are not concerned with the well-being of the country. Don’t get that wrong. They are capitalists. They are insuring their financial and/or cultural interests. This is a way of keeping the working class under control. You may think that you are first in the minds of our leaders, but you’re not. This system puts in politicians who are funded and lobbied by individuals and business groups so as to keep their interests first and foremost.
And remember this: One party doesn’t care about the poor; the other party pretends to care about the poor. Don’t think candidates of either party has not sold their soul to Wall St. They hold huge debts to big business and use it as a trade-off: they rule in the interest of those donating large campaign fund amounts.
Therefore, the official stance of STL is to abstain from voting.
If you consider voting a good vehicle for change, go ahead. I’m not here to force my opinion on you. But STL believes in protests, occupations, direct action, mass actions, strikes, and general strikes. The effectiveness of street politics through solidarity is more powerful than participating in our voting system when such a radical change is needed. Voting is just crumbs thrown to us by the rich and powerful to keep us calm and obedient so we don’t threaten the real decision holders: the elite rich.
Today at the the annual Netroots Nation conference in Detroit, the nation’s largest gathering of liberal activists and organizers, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) reportedly drew an applause that Hillary could only dream of. According to NYT and Politico reports, Warren was a rock-star while Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic candidate for President, was absent.
Warren’s populist talking points and her history of taking Wall Street to task (remember that Warren was an early advocate for the creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and later worked on the implementation of the bureau as a special assistant to the president) has the left-wing of the left-wing of the Democratic party dreaming of a Presidential run. A site has even popped up at ready4warren.com stating “Run, Warren, Run!”
But Warren has stated, over and over, that she will not run be running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, telling the Boston Globe “I am not running for president. Do you want to put an exclamation point at the end of that?” She is currently only serving as speaker at rallies for Dem candidates such as Kentucky’s Alison Lundergan Grimes and West Virginia’s Natalie Tennant. That’s all.
But it’s like the NYT wrote,
Progressives like Mrs. Clinton (and think she can win.) But they love Ms. Warren (even if they are not sure she can.)
I agree with the NYT’s observation. I see Warren as the Dem’s Ron Paul or Ted Cruz: a favorite of the fervent base, but not a viable candidate for November ’16. But if Warren could just move the dialogue a little bit to the left, just maybe Hillary will move a little to the left. And I believe, if presented in a balanced way, voters will be drawn to what Warren is espousing in some measure. For example:
Voters still regard Wall Street and big banks as “bad actors.” A 64 percent majority believes “the stock market is rigged for insiders and people who know how to manipulate the system.” Another 55 percent majority believes “Wall Street and big banks hurt everyday Americans by pouring money into ‘get-rich-quick’ schemes rather than real business and investments.” Therefore, not surprisingly, most financial institutions generate huge negatives among voters.
Those results are indicative that Americans still hold a grudge against Wall Street and the 1%. So if Warren’s critical stance against large financial institutions can find its way into the spotlight, in any amount, we could really get something going here.
In a great op-ed in The Atlantic by James Kwak, Kwak argues that Credit Suisse, a Swiss bank that plead guilty to helping rich Americans evade income taxes for years in terms of billions of dollars, should be punished by revoking it’s license rather than getting the slap on the wrist it is currently receiving.
He argues that this is not a “too big to fail” situation for Credit Suisse for it is a solvent entity.
This is his three step plan to accomplish such an end:
First, Credit Suisse could simply be allowed to operate for, say, three years—enough time to sell off its assets and close its positions without having to take “fire sale” prices. Second, the bank could create a new, licensed subsidiary. That subsidiary could take over all of Credit Suisse’s current positions that can’t be closed easily, and then authorized to operate solely in runoff mode. Third, the government could create a new entity (roughly like the Resolution Trust Corporation) that would buy Credit Suisse’s more complicated assets and positions and then unwind them over as long a period as necessary, eliminating the pressure to sell quickly at a loss.
After 2008, we cannot allow big financial institutions operate with impunity when they are breaking the law with so much on the line. This insightful argument by Kwak could lead to a new blueprint for dealing with the corruption of Wall Street.
A good piece by NYT op-ed columnist, and Nobel Prize Winner, Paul Krugman on how our government’s investments in making things easier for high finance Wall Street swindlers has little return for the ordinary American.
The main point here, as I see it, is that if Wall Street is making big money it does not equate the same thing for the rest of us.
Cecily McMillan on trial in a New York courtroom accused of assaulting a police officer with her arm during an Occupy Wall St. rally. She claims that someone had grabbed her breast from behind causing a reflex motion leading to the supposed assault. She could face seven years in prison.
Not only is this a cockamamie charge against Ms. McMillan, but the potential sentence is far too extreme.
But let’s put that all aside.
What is interesting in a below linked report from The Guardian are the events taking place during the jury selection process. Here New Yorkers are showing some of their true colors regarding Occupy and they’re rightist views of Wall Street in general.
The Dow Jones led with gains of 26.5 percent with the S&P 500 gaining 29.6 percent.
But the problem here is with the rah-rah that occurs when any milestone is reached by stock market growth.
Every day, from CNN to your local 6:00pm news both gleefully report when the stock market has “gained” that day.
But what about the slow growth of Main Street in the light of all this growth? Why are the rich only getting richer while the rest are still struggling to pay the bills, worrying over their kitchen table at night?
So what we need to do is stop equating Wall St. growth with growth that benefits everyone. Stop the cheering for the latest bench marks reached everyday, week, or month for this does not guarantee improvement in your life.
Remember, the gatekeepers in society are the media, and most mainstream media personnel are invested in the stock market for they are fairly well off, if you can put it so mildly.
When the latest growth of a company results in so many points gained that day, it could be very well that the number was reached by announcing immense layoffs, economically destroying middle class/lower middle class families who have no investment in Wall St. ups and downs.
A good article in The Atlantic explains why even though Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is a true progressive loved by liberals, she could not win the 2016 presidential race because she has only spoke out on one issue and would not move to the center.
Senatorial firebrand, and all-around leftist badass Elizabeth Warren, challenged Pres. Obama at a congressional event today regarding the lack of Wall Street reform and the rise of the banks occurring once again.
Also, thought not running yet, Warren’s possible run for President in 2016 (which I don’t think will happen) may serve as a counter-weight to big finance-friendly Clinton.