Sunday, February 23, 2020

BARACK OBAMA DECLARES WAR ON BERNIE SANDERS! - SANDERS IS A THREAT TO THE SOCIALIST STATE FOR WALL STREET AND BANKSTERS THAT I BUILT! "Ultimately, Obamanomics boils down to this: every time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich, and those somebodies are friends of Barack."


* Obama and Wall Street—“Change” means more bailouts and a heavy Goldman Sachs presence in the West Wing (including Rahm Emanuel)


NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY SUCKED IN MORE BRIBES FROM CRIMINAL BANKSTERS THAN BARACK OBAMA!

This was not because of difficulties in securing indictments or convictions. On the contrary, Attorney General Eric Holder told a Senate committee in March of 2013 that the Obama administration chose not to prosecute the big banks or their CEOs because to do so might “have a negative impact on the national economy.”


 THE LOOTING OF AMERICA:

BARACK OBAMA AND HIS CRONY BANKSTERS set themselves on America’s pensions next!

 http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2015/04/obamanomics-assault-on-american-middle.html

The new aristocrats, like the lords of old, are not bound by the laws that apply to the lower orders. Voluminous reports have been issued by Congress and government panels documenting systematic fraud and law breaking carried out by the biggest banks both before and after the Wall Street crash of 2008.


Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and every other major US bank have been implicated in a web of scandals, including the sale of toxic mortgage securities on false pretenses, the rigging of international interest rates and global foreign exchange markets, the laundering of Mexican drug money, accounting fraud and lying to bank regulators, illegally foreclosing on the homes of delinquent borrowers, credit card fraud, illegal debt-collection practices, rigging of energy markets, and complicity in the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme.



OBAMA’S CRONY BANKSTERS:
STILL SUCKING THE BLOOD OUT OF AMERICA
This manufactured crisis has, in turn, been exploited by the Obama administration and both big business parties to hand over trillions in pension funds and other public assets to the financial kleptocracy that rules America.
 “Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes.  This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” ---- Karen McQuillan  THEAMERICAN THINKER.com

“This was not because of difficulties in securing indictments or convictions. On the contrary, Attorney General Eric Holder told a Senate committee in March of 2013 that the Obama administration chose not to prosecute the big banks or their CEOs because to do so might “have a negative impact on the national economy.”
  

OBAMANOMICS TO SERVE BANKSTERS 

AND GLOBAL BILLIONAIRES

"One of the premier institutions of big business, JP Morgan Chase, issued an internal report on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the 2008 crash, which warned that another “great liquidity crisis” was possible, and that a government bailout on the scale of that effected by Bush and Obama will produce social unrest, “in light of the potential impact of central bank actions in driving inequality between asset owners and labor."  

Sanders called JPMorgan’s CEO 

America’s "biggest corporate socialist" 

— here’s why he has a point


Sen. Bernie Sanders called JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon the “biggest corporate socialist in America today” in recent ad

PAUL ADLER
FEBRUARY 13, 2020 9:59AM (UTC)
Sen. Bernie Sanders called JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon the "biggest corporate socialist in America today" in a recent ad.
He may have a point — beyond what he intended.
With his Dimon ad, Sanders is referring specifically to the bailouts JPMorgan and other banks took from the government during the 2008 financial crisis. But accepting government bailouts and corporate welfare is not the only way I believe American companies behave like closet socialists despite their professed love of free markets.
In reality, most big U.S. companies operate internally in ways Karl Marx would applaud as remarkably close to socialist-style central planning. Not only that, corporate America has arguably become a laboratory of innovation in socialist governance, as I show in my own research.
Closet socialists
In public, CEOs like Dimon attack socialist planning while defending free markets.
But inside JPMorgan and most other big corporations, market competition is subordinated to planning. These big companies often contain dozens of business units and sometimes thousands. Instead of letting these units compete among themselves, CEOs typically direct a strategic planning process to ensure they cooperate to achieve the best outcomes for the corporation as a whole.
This is just how a socialist economy is intended to operate. The government would conduct economy-wide planning and set goals for each industry and enterprise, aiming to achieve the best outcome for society as a whole.
And just as companies rely internally on planned cooperation to meet goals and overcome challenges, the U.S. economy could use this harmony to overcome the existential crisis of our age — climate change. It's a challenge so massive and urgent that it will require every part of the economy to work together with government in order to address it.
Overcoming socialism's past problems
But, of course, socialism doesn't have a good track record.
One of the reasons socialist planning failed in the old Soviet Union, for example, was that it was so top-down that it lacked the kind of popular legitimacy that democracy grants a government. As a result, bureaucrats overseeing the planning process could not get reliable information about the real opportunities and challenges experienced by enterprises or citizens.
Moreover, enterprises had little incentive to strive to meet their assigned objectives, especially when they had so little involvement in formulating them.
A second reason the USSR didn't survive was that its authoritarian system failed to motivate either workers or entrepreneurs. As a result, even though the government funded basic science generously, Soviet industry was a laggard in innovation.
Ironically, corporations — those singular products of capitalism — are showing how these and other problems of socialist planning can be surmounted.
Take the problem of democratic legitimacy. Some companies, such as General ElectricKaiser Permanente and General Motors, have developed innovative ways to avoid the dysfunctions of autocratic planning by using techniques that enable lower-level personnel to participate actively in the strategy process.
Although profit pressures often force top managers to short-circuit the promised participation, when successfully integrated it not only provides top management with more reliable bottom-up input for strategic planning but also makes all employees more reliable partners in carrying it out.
So here we have centralization — not in the more familiar, autocratic model, but rather in a form I call "participative centralization." In a socialist system, this approach could be adopted, adapted and scaled up to support economy-wide planning, ensuring that it was both democratic and effective.
As for motivating innovation, America's big businesses face a challenge similar to that of socialism. They need employees to be collectivist, so they willingly comply with policies and procedures. But they need them to be simultaneously individualistic, to fuel divergent thinking and creativity.
One common solution in much of corporate America, as in the old Soviet Union, is to specialize those roles, with most people relegated to routine tasks while the privileged few work on innovation tasks. That approach, however, overlooks the creative capacities of the vast majority and leads to widespread employee disengagement and sub-par business performance.
Smarter businesses have found ways to overcome this dilemma by creating cultures and reward systems that support a synthesis of individualism and collectivism that I call "interdependent individualism." In my research, I have found this kind of motivation in settings as diverse as Kaiser Permanent physiciansassembly-line workers at Toyota's NUMMI plant and software developers at Computer Sciences Corp. These companies do this, in part, by rewarding both individual contributions to the organization's goals as well as collaboration in achieving them.
While socialists have often recoiled against the idea individual performance-based rewards, these more sophisticated policies could be scaled up to the entire economy to help meet socialism's innovation and motivation challenge.
Big problems require big government
The idea of such a socialist transformation in the U.S. may seem remote today.
But this can change, particularly as more Americans, especially young ones, embrace socialism. One reason they are doing so is because the current capitalist system has so manifestly failed to deal with climate change.
Looking inside these companies suggests a better way forward — and hope for society's ability to avert catastrophe.
Paul Adler, Professor of Management and Organization, Sociology and Environmental Studies, University of Southern California
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.
Obama spearheads campaign against Sanders’ 

nomination as Democratic presidential candidate

The first votes for the Democratic presidential nomination will be cast in two months’ time, in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. With former President Barack Obama taking the lead, the Democratic Party is moving to ensure that issues of social inequality and wealth distribution are excluded from the elections.
An article in Politico last week (“Waiting for Obama”) reported that the “Democratic establishment is counting on [Obama] to stop Trump and, perhaps, stave off Bernie as well.”
While noting that Obama’s public position is that he will support whatever candidate is nominated, the article states, “There is one potential exception: Back when Sanders seemed like more of a threat than he does now, Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama would speak up to stop him.”
The report conforms to what Obama has said in statements over the past two weeks to party donors and fundraisers in Washington, DC and California. He claimed that the American people were opposed to any radical change. “This is still a country that is less revolutionary than it is interested in improvement,” Obama said. “They like seeing things improved. But the average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it… They just don’t want to see crazy stuff.”
He continued, “We also have to be rooted in reality and the fact that voters, including the Democratic voters and certainly persuadable independents or even moderate Republicans, are not driven by the same views that are reflected on certain, you know, left-leaning Twitter feeds. Or the activist wing of our party.”

BLOG: BARACK OBAMA'S BANKSTER INFESTED ADMINISTRATION SPEARHEADED THE GREATEST TRANSFER OF WEALTH TO THE RICH IN AMERICAN HISTORY!
While he did not name them, the meaning was clear, as the New York Times noted: “His comments offered an implicit critique of Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren…”
The concern of the Democratic Party establishment is not over Sanders and Warren, both of whom are tested political operatives. Rather, they do not want to run an election that appeals even in a limited way to the class-based concerns of the vast majority of the population.
Beginning with Obama’s statement that the 2016 election was an “intramural scrimmage” between two sides of the same team, the Democrats have sought to redirect popular hostility to Trump behind their militarist, anti-Russia campaign, the focus of the impeachment drive. This will be combined with efforts to promote divisions based on race and gender.
Obama was only the most prominent spokesman for a right-wing campaign throughout the month of November, including commentaries and editorials in the Times and the Washington Post (owned by Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos), an op-ed from former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, and public statements from billionaires Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Mark Cuban and Leon Cooperman, all attacking proposals by Warren and Sanders for a tax on accumulated wealth.
Billionaire Michael Bloomberg went even further, officially announcing himself as a belated candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination and funding a $30 million advertising blitz that began last week.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi joined in with an attack on the health care proposal identified with Sanders and Warren. “I’m not a big fan of Medicare-for-all,” she said on Bloomberg TV, the cable network controlled by the billionaire now-candidate. She claimed that “there is a comfort level that some people have with their current private insurance.”
Both Warren and Sanders have responded by shifting to the right. Warren has backpedaled on her “Medicare for All” proposal, releasing a “Plan B” that backtracks on the main component of her campaign.
For his part, Sanders was queried in last month’s Democratic presidential debate about Obama’s repudiation of revolution. “Is President Obama wrong?” the moderator asked Sanders. The Vermont senator shelved his rhetoric about “political revolution” and meekly replied, “No, he’s right. We don’t have to tear down the system, but we do have to do what the American people want.”
Both Sanders and Warren accept the fraudulent presentation of the Obama administration as a “progressive” government that laid the basis for further social reforms. They make no criticism of Obama’s bailout of Wall Street, his wage-cutting attacks on auto workers, or his slashing of federal support to public education and other social programs. They do not address the undeniable political fact that it was the alignment of the Obama administration with corporate America that drove sizeable sections of workers to turn their backs on the Democratic Party and either vote for Trump or stay home on Election Day in 2016.
Most critically, they support the foreign policy consensus in the Democratic Party that underlies the campaign to impeach Trump, not for his real crimes against immigrant workers and the democratic rights of the American people, but for his transgressions against the demands of the military-intelligence apparatus in relation to Ukraine, Russia and the Middle East.
Warren has publicly embraced the Trump administration’s efforts to strangle Venezuela with financial sanctions, while tacitly supporting the overthrow of Bolivian President Evo Morales by a right-wing US-backed campaign in which the Bolivian military played the central role. Sanders has referred to the overthrow of Morales as a “coup,” but offers no alternative to the aggressive assertion of US imperialist interests around the world, which is supported by both the Democrats and Republicans.
And like most Democrats, Sanders has criticized Trump’s trade war policies towards China from the right, demanding even more aggressive protectionist measures that would only add fuel to the mounting global tensions that bring with them the danger of a third world war.
The working class cannot defend its social rights to good-paying jobs, decent schools, medical care and other social services, or fight the growing danger of imperialist war, by means of the Democratic Party. This requires the independent mobilization of the working class in both industrial and political struggle, through strikes, mass demonstrations and the building of an independent political movement directed against the capitalist system based on a socialist program.

Obama panicking about his legacy? Advises left to pick any Democrat

President Obama, who has yet to endorse anyone for president, has one piece of advice for voters: Pick a Democrat, any Democrat, doesn't matter who.
PJMedia captures the sense of panic in one of Obama's addresses to the barons of Silicon Valley:
"Everybody needs to chill out about the candidates, but gin up about the prospect of rallying behind whoever emerges from this process," Obama told the millionaire techies, according to far-left news channel CNN. "There will be differences" between them, he added, "but I want us to make sure that we keep in mind that, relative to the ultimate goal, which is to defeat a president and a party that has ... taken a sharp turn away from a lot of the core traditions and values and institutional commitments that built this country," those differences are "relatively minor."
"The field will narrow and there's going to be one person, and if that is not your perfect candidate and there are certain aspects of what they say that you don't agree with and you don't find them completely inspiring the way you'd like, I don't care," he went on to say. "Because the choice is so stark and the stakes are so high that you cannot afford to be ambivalent in this race."
Which is nuts advice to that audience, given that several of the candidates are all but pledging to put those companies out of business. Should Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, go vote for Elizabeth Warren, who can't stop singling him out as her model bad guy? It's not exactly in tune with what the Silicon Valley is up against. How about Bernie Sanders? Should they vote for a guy like that? Some will, but probably not the ones who know that the Sanders idea is annihilation.
What we have here is Obama being Obama, always looking out for himself.
The only real reason he could really be so tin-earred toward his audience is that a Democrat in place instead of a Republican would be his best hope of saving his legacy.
President Trump's been dismantling that piece by piece, and any president who manages to stay in power is going to leave a mark.
The problem with Obama is that his legacy is built on water. Having rammed through signature legislation such as Obamacare on strictly partisan lines, and having enacted regulations such as DACA by executive order after Congress refused to pass his proposed legislation, dismantling his one-man rule is pretty much a given, a matter of time, given that pendulums swing for a reason. President Trump's unusual election was likely a bid to correct Obama's nonpartisan rule by fiat at least in part, he was only possible because Obama was so extreme. Historically, only bipartisan bills stand the test of time as power shifts from one side of the political aisle to the other. Unless your party's rule is permanent, unpopular fiats are going to get swept aside in favor of better stuff. That's the real way democracy works. Obama's legacy as I noted here, was all but certain to be erased as the pendulum swings, and doubly so if voters give the next party a stronger mandate on a second term.
Obama always dismissed bipartisanship as Republican recalcitrance, and never attempted to cut deals with them. He was always the holy one, calling his one man rule things such as "core traditions and values and institutional commitments that built this country," as he said above. It's a laughable statement if there ever was one, given his far-left and Marxist past and associations.
In any case, the ex-president can see the writing on the wall as Trump surges in the polls, and most Democratic presidential candidates fall flat on their faces. (How's Joe Biden doing these days, Barack?) They're all a disaster and he knows they're a disaster yet they're his only hope for keeping a scintilla of his legacy intact. So he throws out that desperate plea to vote for anyone, for nothing more than to beat Trump.
For all of George Bush's shortcomings, we never saw the man do that.
But Obama's a bit different. 
Color me doubtful that anyone listens to him.

Obama Seeks Brother of "Chicago Mob Boss" for Top White House Post

The roaches and con-artist, fake journalist on cable news are all lying about William Daley being all this and all that, this man is an open borders, down with America, free trade globalist.  MSNBC and Gretta "the Scientology" Van Susteren from Fox News are knowingly deceiving the public about D. Issa & his letter to "business owners"=which they made into such a BIG DAM DEAL, but no one says anything when Barrack Hussein Obama, comes around with all of these shady bankers, hedge fund managers and Wall St. Tycoons, which he puts in his cabinet.  All of Obama's meeting with Wall Street asking, "What can I do for you?" is never something covered by Keith Oberman or Rachel Maddow.

(Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama is considering naming William Daley, a JPMorgan Chase & Co. executive and former U.S. Commerce secretary, to a high-level administration post, possibly White House chief of staff, people familiar with the matter said.

BOOK
Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses

BY TIMOTHY P CARNEY

Editorial Reviews
Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?
Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and consumers. In Obamanomics, investigative reporter Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and the White House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics.
Congressman Ron Paul says, “Every libertarian and free-market conservative needs to read Obamanomics.” And Johan Goldberg, columnist and bestselling author says, “Obamanomics is conservative muckraking at its best and an indispensable field guide to the Obama years.”
If you’ve wondered what’s happening to America, as the federal government swallows up the financial sector, the auto industry, and healthcare, and enacts deficit exploding “stimulus packages,” this book makes it all clear—it’s a big scam. Ultimately, Obamanomics boils down to this: every time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich, and those somebodies are friends of Barack. This book names the names—and it will make your blood boil.
Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and consumers.

Investigative reporter Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and the White House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics. In this explosive book, Carney reveals:

* The Great Health Care Scam—Obama’s backroom deals with drug companies spell corporate profits and more government control

* The Global Warming Hoax—Obama has bought off industries with a pork-filled bill that will drain your wallet for Al Gore’s agenda

* Obama and Wall Street—“Change” means more bailouts and a heavy Goldman Sachs presence in the West Wing (including Rahm Emanuel)

* Stimulating K Street—The largest spending bill in history gave pork to the well-connected and created a feeding frenzy for lobbyists

* How the GOP needs to change its tune—drastically—to battle Obamanomics

Praise for Obamanomics

“The notion that ‘big business’ is on the side of the free market is one of progressivism’s most valuable myths. It allows them to demonize corporations by day and get in bed with them by night. Obamanomics is conservative muckraking at its best. It reveals how President Obama is exploiting the big business mythology to undermine the free market and stick it to entrepreneurs, taxpayers, and consumers. It’s an indispensable field guide to the Obama years.”
—Jonha Goldberg, LA Times columnist and best-selling author

“‘Every time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich.’ With this astute observation, Tim Carney begins his task of laying bare the Obama administration’s corporatist governing strategy, hidden behind the president’s populist veneer. This meticulously researched book is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand how Washington really works.”
—David Freddoso, best-selling author of The Case Against Barack Obama

“Every libertarian and free-market conservative who still believes that large corporations are trusted allies in the battle for economic liberty needs to read this book, as does every well-meaning liberal who believes that expansions of the welfare-regulatory state are done to benefit the common people.”
—Congressman Ron Paul

“It’s understandable for critics to condemn President Obama for his ‘socialism.’ But as Tim Carney shows, the real situation is at once more subtle and more sinister. Obamanomics favors big business while disproportionately punishing everyone else. So-called progressives are too clueless to notice, as usual, which is why we have Tim Carney and this book.”
—Thomas E. Woods, Jr., best-selling author of Meltdown and The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to American History
·         Hardcover: 256 pages

·         Publisher: Regnery Press (November 30, 2009)

·         Language: English

·         ISBN-10: 1596986123

·         ISBN-13: 978-1596986121



Bernie Sanders Slams Jamie Dimon On Socialism – They’re Both Wrong

Bernie Sanders has hit back against Jamie Dimon's comments about socialism, but they're both missing the point on Wall Street greed.



  • Bernie Sanders went after Jamie Dimon on Twitter calling him a hypocrite for his comments on socialism.
  • Senator Sanders is not telling the whole truth when it comes to Wall Street bailouts.
  • Jamie Dimon is also wrong as corporate welfare is rampant, and creating a dangerous imbalance in U.S. society.
What is the saying about people in glass houses? Jamie Dimon has been getting a lot of press for his comments on several economic topics at the billionaire ski-meet, otherwise known as the World Economic Forum in Davos. Of particular interest were his comments regarding socialism, of which the JPMorgan Chase CEO and Chairman were very critical. The United States’ most famous socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders, is not having it, and reminded Dimon of a very inconvenient truth.

Bernie Sanders, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase
Source-Twitter

Bernie Sanders Stretches The Truth To Slam Jamie Dimon

While the above tweet will no doubt get Bernie Bros feeling the Bern and pumping their fists, a note of caution. JPMorgan Chase did pay back their bailout money, and Bernie Sanders must be referring to Wall Street as a whole, not specifically Jamie Dimon’s bank, which only received $25 billion.

JP Morgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, Bernie Sanders, Wall Street
Source-PROPUBLICA-Bailout Tracker

The JPMorgan Chase CEO Owes A Lot Of His Considerable Wealth To Socialism

So Sanders is not telling it precisely as it is here. The point he is really making paraphrases as “don’t insult the concept of receiving aid from the government when your corporation went broke and used Wall Street food stamps.” The senator has a point.
What truly irks the everyday American is not that some people rise to the top of the corporate ladder on Wall Street and earn billions. What annoys them is when those CEO’s mess up, get everything wrong, screw over the working man and crash the housing market, and still walk away with their vast compensation packages.
Yes, the taxpayer technically got most of it back, but a large contingent of those people didn’t get the jobs or houses back that they lost in the recession.

Fed Interventions Are Enabling Wall Street Recklessness, Again

The same economic mistakes that required the Federal Reserve to put the U.S. economy on life support have, in turn, stagnated wage growth and disproportionately benefited the financial class that got so greedy in the first place.
Now that Jamie Dimon has shown that JPMorgan paid back their bailout money, what’s to stop them from taking excessive risks and blowing everything up again? Rinse and repeat, as Wall Street relies on government handouts to catch it when it falls.
Long considered somewhat of a conspiracy theory, more and more market voices are speaking up against the Fed’s interventions in financial markets. Scott Minerd, the CIO of Guggenheim Partners, is about as mainstream a figure as you can get in the hedge fund world, and he called the stock market a “Ponzi scheme” in Davos.

You Can’t Cherry-Pick What Is Socialism & What’s “Necessary”

So Bernie Sanders is absolutely right. Taxpayer funds were used to make the rich richer but looks to be wrong that these were not a good investment from perspective of taxpayer funds.

Ron Paul, Wall Street
Source-AZ Quotes

Jamie Dimon is wrong because he doesn’t understand that he is himself, a billionaire product of corporate socialism. CEOs love to talk about how corporations should legally be treated as individuals, so we can probably just call it socialism.
A person who is down and out in society is no different from a bankrupt Wall Street firm when it comes to needing a handout. Whatever the result, or the amount in question, they are all part of the same system.
Bernie Sanders is right to tell you not to listen to people like Jamie Dimon, who criticize socialism when they don’t need it, yet are first in line and full of excuses when they do. Secondly, please don’t believe word for word everything Bernie Sanders says about Wall Street, because he is often exaggerating to make his point.
Finally, it’s impossible to have an article about socialism and not give former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher the last word.
This article was edited by Samburaj Das.
Last modified: January 23, 2020 9:29 AM UTC
Author Image
Francois Aure @bullishtulips
Financial speculator & author living in the hills in Los Angeles. J.D. but very much not a lawyer. Favorite trading books are anything written by Jack Schwager. Email: bullishtulips@gmail.com,
MORE OF:

No comments: