(* Holy cow! That was a long title for this post!)
Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke says bankers should have went to Jail, but why is he ONLY JUST NOW saying this — especially after the statute of limitations has already expired for these bankers? The American people had been asking Obama's appointed U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to take action for years.
Read the whole story at USA Today:
"Ben Bernanke says more execs should have gone to jail for causing Great Recession. The Justice Department and other law-enforcement agencies focused on indicting or threatening to indict financial firms, he notes, 'but it would have been my preference to have more investigation of individual action, since obviously everything what went wrong or was illegal was done by some individual, not by an abstract firm.'"
"Neither Chinese investors, foreign investors, nor the Chinese government seemed prepared when the [Chinese] stock market cratered earlier this summer. The Shanghai composite index plunged by 40 percent in a few weeks’ time, triggering a global collapse of stock prices ... As in the United States during the subprime property bubble, the [Chinese] market attracted too many investors, leading to a bust at the beginning of 2014. The price collapse led to thousands of unfinished skyscrapers, ghost cities, abandoned housing projects, and virtually deserted shopping complexes ... [A Chinese] was also able to hijack the massive stimulus program that had been intended to place money and resources in the hands of consumers ... some 70 percent of the stimulus funds went to infrastructure, while only 8 percent went to social welfare expenditures like affordable housing, healthcare, and education."
It's almost the same as it was (is?) in the United States, both during and after the Great Recession. This is China today according to the Nation article:
"With the economic crisis deepening, the anger and resentment of those who were stripped bare of their savings are now joined to the fear of the unknown that’s stalking many in the [Chinese] middle-class ... [and there are] increasing mass protests by peasants and workers over a variety of grievances, including environmental pollution, land-grabbing by local authorities, and lack of workers’ rights ... strikes have become the “new normal” in China ... Will [the Chinese government] manage citizens’ expectations in a period of much slower growth, increasing joblessness, greater inequality, and escalating discontent. Will it continue to tread softly around the powerful set of interests that have dominated society for 30 years? Or will it muster the courage to lead the way to a new development paradigm, one based on domestic consumption and greater equity?"
The Huffington Post: Officials Reach Deal On Trans-Pacific Partnership:
"The United States and 11 other Pacific Rim countries have reached a deal on the most sweeping trade liberalization pact in a generation ... in a deal that could reshape industries and influence everything from the price of cheese to the cost of cancer treatments ... The Trans-Pacific Partnership would affect 40 percent of the world economy ... if it is ratified by Congress ... Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a U.S. Democratic presidential candidate, said he was disappointed and warned the pact would cost U.S. jobs and hurt consumers. He said in a statement: 'Wall Street and other big corporations have won again... I will do all that I can to defeat this agreement'".
It should be noted that this is where Obama and the Republicans agree — on the TPP trade deal. 81% of all Republicans in Congress (Senate and House) voted FOR fast track and TPP — which both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden most likely support (in Hillary's own words at YouTube) and from CNN: 45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill.
Meanwhile, 80% of all Democrats in Congress (Senate and House) voted AGAINST fast track and TPP (which Bernie Sanders has also vehemently opposed all along).
Congress still gets an up-or-down vote, and there will be at least three months of debate. Because the president got fast-track authority in June, there can be no amendments or filibuster. The measure is likely to pass — but only because of GOP support. Obama must wait 90 days before he signs and sends the agreement to Congress, and the text of the accord must be made public for at least 60 of those days. That means the congressional vote is likely to happen in January, just before the Iowa caucuses.
How could the TPP trade deal ever be considered a "victory" for President Obama, just because HE wants it — despite going against the wishes of 80% of those within his own party? WTF!?!?
Before Obama was first elected, some Republicans were calling Obama a "Manchurian Candidate" for being a closet Socialist — but in reality, Obama's been a "Manchurian Candidate" (or a Trojan Horse) for the Democrats — by running as a "progressive" Democrat when he's really just a corporate Republican (the same as a "moderate" Republican or a "moderate" Democrat.)
As for Obama's "legacy" ... he'll go down in history, not for Obamacare, but for throwing American workers under the bus to benefit multi-national corporations.
The Washington Post:
"Candidates from both parties have lambasted U.S. trade policies as contributing to a reordering of the American economy that has led to a growing income gap. Opponents of the deal, including labor unions, environmental groups and liberal Democrats, have pledged to mount a final campaign to block the accord on Capitol Hill. They have criticized the TPP as a regulatory framework aimed at protecting the interests of large multinational corporations while doing little to protect worker rights and the environment. U.S. officials have said that there are chapters in the agreement with enforceable provisions to do just that."
What's also odd is, many labor unions who are opposed to the TPP trade deal, are also endorsing Hillary Clinton — rather than Bernie Sanders. Just recently the National Education Association, the nation’s largest labor union, just endorsed Hillary Clinton (as did other labor unions).
In rural America, white working-class voters are now looking to Bernie Sanders. One member of the United Mine Workers of America explained why he would probably be voting for Bernie Sanders in the next Democratic primary: “For one thing, he knows what union is, and he respects it. That’s all we need is respect. He’s just a likeable fella, trustworthy. I don’t think she [Hillary Clinton] has the same respect for the union, and she really shot herself in the foot over, you know, all that secretive stuff.”
A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll shows that Bernie Sanders outperforms Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire in a general election against Republican candidates.
“Senator Elizabeth Warren explained her differences with [Joe] Biden. Referring to the 2005 bill making it harder to file for bankruptcy, she said: Senator Biden was on one side of that fight and I was on the other. And you better believe I didn’t hold back.” When the two met in August at the VP’s residence, they had a “good conversation,” she said, stressing that they discussed “the need for a cop on the beat on Wall Street.” As for endorsing in the 2016 contest, Warren said: “Look, at this moment, I don’t know because I’m just not there.” [And Warren said she and Biden are also still on opposite sides when it comes to Wall Street reform.]
Also: Does anybody else see a pattern here? Once again, following in Bernie Sanders' footsteps (like she has on college tuition, same-sex marriage, the Keystone Pipeline, prescription drug prices, the Cadillac Tax on healthcare plans (etc.), now Hillary Clinton says she would impose stricter controls on sales at gun shows. During her presidential campaign she has JUST STARTED advocating on behalf of issues that Bernie Sanders has been doing for years, sometimes for decades.
But some labor unions and the Democratic Party establishment has been routing for Hillary. Why? But we can bet that Hillary won’t flip-flop on the TPP trade deal (unless it's "after-the-fact" a done deal) — or for repealing her husband’s bill that nullified Glass-Steagall. Maybe because those are issues the big banks would oppose (and who pays her for speeches?)
Besides the bankers, maybe some members of Congress and other politicians should have also went jail. We know they're guilty (of something); but Obama's FBI and SEC won't investigate them — and even if they did, Obama's Justice Department wouldn't prosecute them.
* My related post of the untold (and very interesting) events that led up to the U.S. bailing out the bankers: George Clooney - New Spin Doctor for Goldman Sachs? — and my related post about QE: The Great Quantitative Easing Scam