Posts Tagged ‘third party’

hypocrisy copy.png

How you vote defines who you are and what you stand for.

There’s a reason Hillary Clinton’s tagline is “I’m with her.”

I am most certainly NOT.

PS.

Joss Whedon: Suck it.

s2jillstein1

 

 

Expanding the Debate: Jill Stein “Debates” Clinton & Trump in Democracy Now! Special
Part 1
Part 2

PS – Donnie, easy on the coke. You’re all sniffles.

2016-candidates-clinton-trump-stein

Part 1

Part 2

jill-stein-clean.jpg

A Look at the Green Candidate’s Radical Funding Solution

Ellen Brown

http://WebofDebt.wordpress.com

August 2, 2016

Bernie Sanders supporters are flocking to Jill Stein, the presumptive Green Party presidential candidate, with donations to her campaign exploding nearly 1000% after he endorsed Hillary Clinton. Stein salutes Sanders for the progressive populist movement he began and says it is up to her to carry the baton. Can she do it? Critics say her radical policies will not hold up to scrutiny. But supporters say they are just the medicine the economy needs.

Stein goes even further than Sanders on several key issues, and one of them is her economic platform. She has proposed a “Power to the People Plan” that guarantees basic economic human rights, including access to food, water, housing, and utilities; living-wage jobs for every American who needs to work; an improved “Medicare for All” single-payer public health insurance program; tuition-free public education through university level; and the abolition of student debt. She also supports a basic income guarantee; the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, separating depository banking from speculative investment banking; the breakup of megabanks into smaller banks; federal postal banks to service the unbanked and under-banked; and the formation of publicly-owned banks at the state and local level.

As with Sanders’ economic proposals, her plan has been challenged as unrealistic. Where will Congress find the money?

But Stein argues that the funds can be found. Going beyond Bernie, she calls for large cuts to the bloated military budget, which makes up 55% of federal discretionary spending; and progressive taxation, ensuring that the wealthy pay their fair share. Most controversial, however, is her plan to tap up the Federal Reserve. Pointing to the massive sums the Fed produced out of the blue to bail out Wall Street, she says the same resources used to save the perpetrators of the crisis could be made available to its Main Street victims, beginning with the students robbed of their futures by massive student debt..

It Couldn’t Be Done Until It Was

Is tapping up the Fed realistic? Putting aside for the moment the mechanics of pulling it off, the central bank has indeed revealed that it has virtually limitless resources, as seen in the radical “emergency measures” taken since 2008.

The Fed first surprised Congress when it effectively “bought” AIG, a private insurance company, for $80 billion. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remarked, “Many of us were . . . taken aback when the Fed had $80 billion to invest — to put into AIG just out of the blue. All of a sudden we wake up one morning and AIG has received $80 billion from the Fed. So of course we’re saying, Where’s this money come from?”

The response was, “Oh, we have it. And not only that, we have more.”

How much more was revealed in 2011, after an amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to the 2010 Wall Street reform law prompted the Government Accounting Office to conduct the first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve. It revealed that the Fed had provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the economic crisis. “This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else,” said Sanders in a press release.

Then there was the shocker of “quantitative easing” (QE), an unconventional monetary policy in which the central bank creates new money electronically to buy financial assets such as Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (many of them “toxic”) from the banks. Critics said QE couldn’t be done because it would lead to hyperinflation. But it was done, and that dire result has not occurred.

Unfortunately, the economic stimulus that QE was supposed to trigger hasn’t occurred either. QE has failed because the money has gotten no further than the balance sheets of private banks. To stimulate the demand that will jumpstart the economy, new money needs to get into the real economy and the pockets of consumers.

Why QE Hasn’t Worked, and What Would

The goal of QE as currently implemented is to return inflation to target levels by increasing private sector borrowing. But today, as economist Richard Koo explains, individuals and businesses are paying down debt rather than taking out new loans. They are doing this although credit is very cheap, because they need to rectify their debt-ridden balance sheets in order to stay afloat. Koo calls it a “balance sheet recession.”

As the Bank of England recently acknowledged, the vast majority of the money supply is now created by banks when they make loans. Money is created when loans are made, and it is extinguished when they are paid off. When loan repayment exceeds borrowing, the money supply “deflates” or shrinks. New money then needs to be injected to fill the breach. Currently, the only way to get new money into the economy is for someone to borrow it into existence; and since the private sector is not borrowing, the public sector must, just to replace what has been lost in debt repayment. But government borrowing from the private sector means running up interest charges and hitting deficit limits.

The alternative is to do what governments arguably should have been doing all along: issue the money directly to fund their budgets.

Central bankers have largely exhausted their toolkits, prompting some economists to recommend some form of “helicopter money” – newly-issued money dropped directly into the real economy. Funds acquired from the central bank in exchange for government securities could be used to build infrastructure, issue a national dividend, or purchase and nullify federal debt. Nearly interest-free loans could also be made by the central bank to state and local governments, in the same way they were issued to rescue an insolvent banking system.

Just as the Fed bought federal and mortgage-backed securities with money created on its books, so it could buy student or other consumer debt bundled as “asset-backed securities.” But in order to stimulate economic activity, the central bank would have to announce that the debt would never be collected on. This is similar to the form of “helicopter money” recently suggested by former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to the Japanese, using debt instruments called “non-marketable perpetual bonds with no maturity date” – bonds that can’t be sold or cashed out by the central bank and that bear no interest.

The Bernanke proposal (which he says could also be used by the US Fed in an emergency) involves the government issuing bonds, which it sells to the central bank for dollars generated digitally by the bank. The government then spends the funds directly into the economy, bypassing the banks.

Something similar could be done as a pilot project with student debt, Stein’s favorite target for relief. The US government could pay the Department of Education for the monthly payments coming due for students not in default or for whom payment had been suspended until they found employment. This would free up income in those households to spend on other consumer goods and services, boosting the economy in a form of QE for Main Street.

In QE as done today, the central bank reserves the right to sell the bonds it purchases back into the market, in order to reverse any hyperinflationary effects that may occur in the future. But selling bonds and taking back the cash is not the only way to shrink the money supply. The government could just raise taxes on sectors that are currently under-taxed (tax-dodging corporations and the super-rich) and void out the additional money it collects. Or it could nationalize “systemically important” banks that are insolvent or have failed to satisfy Dodd-Frank “living will” requirements (a category that now includes five of the country’s largest banks), and void out some of the interest collected by these newly-nationalized banks. Insolvent megabanks, rather than being bailed out by the government or “bailed in” by their private creditors and depositors, arguably should be nationalized – not temporarily, but as permanent public utilities. If the taxpayers are assuming the risks and costs, they should be getting the profits.

None of these procedures for reversing inflation would be necessary, however, if the money supply were properly monitored. In our debt-financed system, the economy is chronically short of the money needed to support a dynamic, abundant economy. New money needs to be added to the system, and this can be done without inflating prices. If the money goes into creating goods and services rather than speculative asset bubbles, supply and demand will rise together and prices will remain stable.

Is It in the President’s Toolbox?

Whether Stein as president would have the power to pull any of this off is another question. QE is the province of the central bank, which is technically “independent” from the government. However, the president does appoint the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, Chair and Vice Chair, with the approval of the Senate.

Failing that, the money might be found by following the lead of Abraham Lincoln and the American colonists and issuing it directly through the Treasury. But an issue of US Notes or Greenbacks would also require an act of Congress to change existing law.

If Stein were unable to get either of those federal bodies to act, however, she could resort to a “radical” alternative already authorized in the Constitution: an issue of large-denomination coins. The Constitution gives Congress the power to “coin Money [and] regulate the value thereof,” and Congress has delegated that power to the Treasury Secretary. When minting a trillion dollar platinum coin was suggested as a way around an artificially imposed debt ceiling in January 2013, Philip Diehl, former head of the U.S. Mint and co-author of the platinum coin law, confirmed:

In minting the $1 trillion platinum coin, the Treasury Secretary would be exercising authority which Congress has granted routinely for more than 220 years. The Secretary authority is derived from an Act of Congress (in fact, a GOP Congress) under power expressly granted to Congress in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8).

The power just needs to be exercised, something the president can instruct the Secretary to do by executive order.

In 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt engaged in a radical monetary reset when he took the dollar off the gold standard domestically. The response was, “We didn’t know you could do that.” Today the Federal Reserve and central banks globally have been engaging in radical monetary policies that have evoked a similar response, and the sky has not fallen as predicted.

As Stein quotes Alice Walker, “The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.”

The runaway success of Sanders and Trump has made it clear that the American people want real change from the establishment Democratic/Republican business-as-usual that Hillary represents. But real change is not possible within the straitjacket of a debt-ridden, austerity-based financial scheme controlled by Wall Street oligarchs. Radical economic change requires radical financial change, as Roosevelt demonstrated. To carry the baton of revolution to the finish line requires revolutionary tools, which Stein has shown she has in her toolbox.

___________________

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including the best-selling Web of Debt. Her latest book, The Public Bank Solution, explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 300+ blog articles are at EllenBrown.com. She can be heard biweekly on “It’s Our Money with Ellen Brown” on PRN.FM.

pink-donkey.png

 

Joe Giambrone

Hannah Arendt coined the phrase “banality of evil” when she studied one Adolf Eichmann, a mid-level Nazi bureaucrat who made the trains run on time and carried out his logistics duties according to orders. Eichmann “had consoled himself with the thoughts that he no longer ‘was master of his own deeds,’ that he was unable ‘to change anything'” (Eichmann in Jerusalem, p.136).

Arendt’s wider critique of society relates directly to Democrats today. Eichmann “internalized the cliches” of the day and therefore abdicated his own personal responsibility to stand up and to oppose a murderous system. So many in the US—for a long, long time—have also “internalized the cliches” of the two-party system and remain joyfully ignorant of any and all third-party alternatives. That is the key fact to bridge the analogy between Eichmann’s banality and that we have witnessed on stage at the DNC this past week.

According to comedian Sarah Silverman expecting to be represented and having the people’s votes actually count for something is “being ridiculous.” Maybe so, but ridicule travels in any number of directions, Sarah. Watch out.

What you don’t do is as important, in the larger scheme, as what you do. Economists even have a formal definition of this phenomenon: opportunity cost. By spending energy, money, effort, work, etc. in supporting a corrupt Democrat, you are denying all those tangible benefits to a non-corrupt alternative candidate and party. By legitimizing one, you de-legitimize the other. You. Your actions, Sarah Silverman et al. I suppose it’s a subtle point to some but more valid than anything Silverman or the Hollywood glitterati on stage at the DNC mustered up this past week.

With the coronation of Queen Hillary in Philadelphia in a deluge of scandals, the main narrative had to become that of the “first woman” nominated to run for President of the United States. History was made! Headlines said so.

That is where my personal involvement enters the story. I’m not having it. Hillary Clinton is, of course, not the first woman to run for President of the United States. When I point to these inconvenient facts, the celebratory slogans quickly morph into, “the first female candidate of a MAJOR PARTY!”

A corrupt party controlled by big money interests is what that translates to in the real world.

That’s where I live.

 

eichmann

Adolf Eichmann, 1961

 

I personally voted for Cynthia McKinney in 2008 (Green) and Jill Stein in 2012 (Green). My choice had zero to do with the presence or absence of a vagina, however. I find that concern beyond trivial, although I do accept the view that putting a woman in the White House holds some potential symbolic meaning. It is of several magnitudes less importance than what a corrupt warmonger will do to the world once she seizes the Superpower.

The Democrats exploit these symbolic bait-and-switch strategies, as with Barack Hussein Obama. Now we’ve had a black man in office. Worse than Nixon was the expert assessment. Obama’s numerous crimes, indistinguishable from those of the previous administration—including protecting the previous administration from prosecution—don’t seem to be understood by most run-of-the-mill Democrats. They simply, and always, remain blind to the crimes of their own party, believing their own spin as if it held the entire story. Anything negative must be a Republican plot of course, or perhaps the Russians; it must be anyone’s fault but their own.

My go-to rebuttal to camp Hillary is to simply play back her own statements vouching for George W. Bush’s fabricated “WMDs” in Iraq. HRC’s special touch was to add the word “undisputed.”

Average Democrats, guilty of wholesale hypocrisy as a fact of life, simply don’t care that Hillary Clinton’s hands are already soaked with the blood of Syrians, Libyans, Yemenis, Haitians and Hondurans. That she was directly involved with the rise of ISIS and associated radical Islamist proxy armies. That she approved arms to Gulf dicators after receiving millions in donations  to her foundation. They don’t care that she’s an imperialist mentored by the likes of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. The Democratic National Convention even applauded the war criminal Madeleine Allbright, one of the most despicable politicians ever to come out of the United States, who brushed aside the murder of half a million Iraqi children as if she was combing lint off of her gown.

War crimes then become “mistakes,” the kind only the elites can make and get away with. It’s a tired story with an outrageous body count.

And so we get symbols instead of accountability. That is Hillary Clinton’s only remaining card to play: the female card. She clearly stole the nomination from Sanders, clearly lies to get what she wants, and clearly commits crimes with impunity (that is unless Wikileaks nails her to the Cross as Julian Assange has hinted).

My unshakeable and bitter disgust lies then with common Democrats, those who believe today that the vagina trumps all (no pun intended), facts be damned.

 

13669119_1211034668930140_4974690992350685780_n.jpg

 

If female empowerment is suddenly so important to you in 2016, then why wasn’t it in 2012, nor in 2008? These people have already abdicated responsibility and bought into the grand deception. They have already mindlessly supported a criminal party that had never before offered them a female candidate, while ignoring the party that clearly did. That should be a mark of shame, not some marketing victory to garner more votes.

Willfully they cast a ballot not for the female who was uncorrupted by corporate money, but for Obama, who raised a cool $1Bn his last time out of the gate—more than Mitt Romney—and has continued the neocon dream of perpetual war and an expanding, brutal military empire.

Speaking of that expanding military empire, we had all best understand the recent warnings of President Putin, who issued dire pleas to western journalists regarding NATO expansion up to Russia’s borders. This provocation risks nuclear war, as the Russians can no longer tolerate the encroachment and placement of nuclear-capable missiles mere minutes from Moscow. These are the policies Hillary Clinton has pursued. She represents the neocon wing that seeks to humiliate and contain Russia, all risks to life on earth be damned. Hillary and Obama have turned Russia from a helpful ally into a defensive, nuclear-armed and desperate enemy.

The Green Party of the United States could easily be a “major party” today if the millions who suddenly now care about a woman in office had simply supported it instead of a corporatist party of belligerence and empire. Democrats have rejected and even vilified honest alternative political candidates in favor of corrupt corporatists. Much blame lies with the common “little Eichmanns,” perhaps those living next door to you. Perhaps some to be seen below in the comments section.

This is no trivial matter. The Democratic Party just imploded on live TV, split into an ungovernable mess, when a sea of disgruntled Sanders supporters stormed out of the arena. Sanders has now left the party and will return to the Senate in the fall as an Independent. Hillary Clinton was not only exposed as a cheat and a fraud, but she upped the ante two-fold. First she picked Kaine, no friend to progressive voters, and then she hired the disgraced fixer of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz! With judgment and arrogance that unsound is it any wonder that Donald Trump surged ahead by as many as 6 points?

Hillary Clinton is a corrupt fearmonger opportunist. Donald Trump is a corrupt fearmonger opportunist.

Jill Stein represents common people. Of course she is disrespected in the media and especially by Democrats. It couldn’t be any other way in today’s America.

 

http://www.joegiambrone.us/

serveimage (17)

(Not a fan of this anarchist chick, but we’ll see…)


The Final Presidential Debate is About to Start

Jill Stein / Green Party vs. Gary Johnson / Libertarian Party

Right now, pre-debate programming has started streaming live. Candidates will take the stage at 6:00 PM PST / 9:00 PM EST.

Click here to watch the live stream now:
freeandequal.org/live