RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Taibbi writes: "Lloyd Blankfein, Chief Executive Cephalopod of Goldman Sachs, issued a warning about the Bernie Sanders campaign this week. 'This has the potential to be a dangerous moment,' he said on CNBC's Squawk Box."

On CNBC this week, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein expressed dismay that Bernie Sanders has no interest in 'compromising' with Wall Street. (photo: Adam Jeffery/CNBC/Getty Images)
On CNBC this week, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein expressed dismay that Bernie Sanders has no interest in 'compromising' with Wall Street. (photo: Adam Jeffery/CNBC/Getty Images)

The Vampire Squid Tells Us How to Vote

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

06 February 16


Lloyd Blankfein charges for investment advice — but his political wisdom is free

loyd Blankfein, Chief Executive Cephalopod of Goldman Sachs, issued a warning about the Bernie Sanders campaign this week.

"This has the potential to be a dangerous moment," he said on CNBC's Squawk Box.

The Lloyd was peeved that Sanders, whom he's never met, singled him out in a debate last week. "Another kid from Brooklyn, how about that," he lamented.

He ranted about how frightening it is that a candidate like Sanders, who seems to have no interest in "compromising" with Wall Street, could become so popular.

"Could you imagine," he asked, "if the Jeffersons and Hamiltons came in with a total pledge and commitment to never compromise with the other side?"

The slobbering Squawk Box hosts went on to propose firing all the academics in the country, because clearly it is their fault that so many young people are willing to support a socialist.

"I'm ready," said co-host Joe Kernen, "to send my daughter to Brigham Young or Liberty or something."

Then Kernen, Becky Quick and Blankfein all made jokes about how socialism doesn't work and how all those Berniebots should take a trip to Cuba.

"The best real-time experiment is, I went to Cuba," said Lloyd.

"I haven't been," Kernen said proudly.

"You should go," said Lloyd. "You go there, stop in Miami and you just see the Cuban community and how much wealth they've generated. 

Of course the politics of Sanders is closer to what you'd find in Sweden or Denmark than Cuba, but they were rolling by then.

Lloyd added that the current popular discontent with Wall Street was just something that happens randomly, like the weather. "There's a pendulum that happens in markets and it happens in political economy as well," he said. 

He added that he didn't want to pick a candidate because "I don't want to help or hurt anybody by giving an endorsement."

For people who so very pleased with themselves for ostensibly being so much smarter than everyone else, people like Blankfein are oddly uncreative when it comes to deflecting criticism.

The people who don't like them are always overemotional communists. All those young people who are flocking to the Sanders campaign? Dupes, misled by dumb professors who've never been to Cuba.

And their anger toward Wall Street? Causeless and random, just a bunch of folks riding an emotional pendulum that brainlessly swings back and forth. Don't take it personally, people are just moody that way.

Bill Clinton apparently agrees. A story about the former president's thoughts on the subject appeared in Stress Test, the vile battle memoir of the financial crisis penned by infamous Wall Street toady and former treasury secretary Tim Geithner.

In the book, Timmy goes on at length about how sad it made him that the public was so upset about the bailouts and other policies he engineered to make the Blankfeins of the world whole again. Looking for a way to not feel so hated, he went to Clinton to "discuss the politics of populism with the master practitioner." 

It's an important detail. Geithner's instinct for figuring out how to deal with ordinary people was not to go talk to any, but instead to talk to someone who'd had success marketing himself to them.

This squares with accounts I heard after 2008, about the Treasury Department in the Geithner years. In one story I remember, it took a presentation from a major retail company about expected lower holiday spending levels to enlighten Geithner's staff as to the level of economic pain in the population. Until they saw the graphs from executives, they had no clue.

Anyway, according to his book, Geithner got good advice from Clinton. The former president advised him to press for tax hikes on the rich, but to "make sure I didn't look like I was happy about it." Then Clinton added that Timmy shouldn't take the public-anger thing too hard:

"You could take Lloyd Blankfein in an alley and slit his throat, and it would satisfy them for about two days," Clinton said. "Then the blood lust would rise again."

Ordinary people aren't just overemotional and dumb, they're also zombies! They don't have grievances, just blood lusts.

The attitude shared by Lloyd and Geithner and Bill Clinton is that the mindless quality of public discontent means that there's no point in worrying about it, or negotiating with it. This is funny because Blankfein is the one complaining that people like Sanders and his followers don't want to compromise with him.

Lloyd apparently thinks politicians should naturally reside in a state of more or less constant accommodation with Wall Street. Thomas Jefferson would have compromised with us, he says!

One can assume that his model of a "compromising" politician is Hillary Clinton, who took $675,000 to give three speeches to his company. "Look, I make speeches to lots of groups," Hillary explained. "I told them what I thought."

Asked by Anderson Cooper if she needed to take $675,000 to tell Goldman what she "thought," Hillary shrugged. "I don't know," she said. "That's what they were offering."

Even more significant than the $675,000 Hillary took from Goldman, or the $30 million in speaking income she and her husband received combined in the last 16 months, is the account of what Hillary apparently told Goldman she "thought" during those speeches.

According to Politico, who spoke to several attendees, Hillary used the opportunity to tell the bankers in attendance that the "banker-bashing so popular within both parties was unproductive and indeed foolish."

She added that the proper attitude should be, "We all got into this mess together, and we're all going to have to work together to get out of it."

This squares with Geithner's account of what Bill Clinton said. The former president told Geithner that slitting Lloyd's throat would only satisfy "them" for about two days. Them was all those pissed-off regular people, and the we or us were politicians like himself and Geithner.

In her speech, Hillary's we included the executives in her audience. Her message was basically that It Takes a Village to create a financial crisis. This was the Robin Williams breakthrough scene in Good Will Hunting, with Hillary putting a hand on the Goldmanites' shoulders, telling them, "It's not your fault. It's not your fault." 

But it was their fault. The crash was caused by a tiny handful of people who spent years hogging fortunes through a bluntly criminal scheme in the home lending markets. The FBI warned back in 2004 of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud that could have an "impact as big as the S&L crisis," but those warnings were ignored.

What the FBI was talking about back then mainly had to do with smaller local lending operations that were systematically creating risky home loans, falsifying credit applications to get unworthy borrowers into mortgages they couldn't afford.

What they didn't understand back then is that the impetus for that criminal activity was the willingness of massive banking institutions on Wall Street to buy up those bad loans in bulk. They created a market for those fraudulent loans, bought billions' worth of them from local lenders, and then chopped up and resold those bad loans to pension funds, unions and other suckers.

The "village" didn't do this. Lloyd Blankfein and his buddies did this. (Goldman just a few weeks ago reached a deal to pay a $5.1 billion settlement to cover its history of selling bad loans to unsuspecting investors, joining Bank of America, Citi, JP Morgan Chase and others).

People aren't pissed just to be pissed. They're mad because a tiny group of crooks on Wall Street built themselves beach houses in the Hamptons through a crude fraud scheme that decimated their retirement funds, caused property values in their neighborhoods to collapse and caused over four million people to be put in foreclosure.

And they're particularly mad that they got asked to pay for this criminal irresponsibility with bailouts funded with their tax dollars.

What the Clintons have done by turning their political careers into a vast moneymaking enterprise, it's not a value-neutral activity. The money isn't just about buying influence. The money also physically moves people, from one side of an imaginary line to another.

You will never catch Bernie Sanders standing in a room as a paid guest of a bank under investigation for ripping billions off pensioners and investors, addressing the audience in the first-person plural. He doesn't spend enough time with that kind of crowd to be so colloquial.

The Clintons meanwhile have by now taken so much money that when they stand in a room full of millionaires and billionaires, they can use the word "we" and not have it sound odd. The money has irrevocably moved them to that side of the ropeline. On that side of the line, public anger isn't legitimate, but something to be managed and waited out, just as Lloyd suggests.

When people like Blankfein tell us they don't take criticism personally, what they're saying is that it's too brainless and irrational to be taken any other way. He means to be insulting. And we should all take it that way. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+214 # Phillybuster 2016-02-06 12:01
As long as psychopaths like Blankfein, Dimon and the Clintons reign, we can expect no change, except pocket change.
# Guest 2016-02-06 14:44
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
+194 # jsluka 2016-02-06 14:54
This is the most foolish comment I've seen in a long time. There is nothing at all "progressive" about Hillary Clinton. A vote for Hillary is a vote for the status quo. NRESQ needs to learn how to pay attention to reality.
-145 # jazzman633 2016-02-06 16:12
I despise "progressives" who try to run my life for me and spend my money to do it. J
+109 # Jim Rocket 2016-02-06 17:20
So you're okay with the big bailouts where conservatives took your money and handed it to their criminal friends? It seems that Hillary is.
+5 # CL38 2016-02-08 17:07
You're talking about 'small government' misogynist, racist, authoritarian republicans. Not progressives.
+10 # SusanT136 2016-02-08 18:42
Quoting jazzman633:
I despise "progressives" who try to run my life for me and spend my money to do it. J

No one is trying to run your life. Who cares what you do? (and I mean that in the nicest way possible...)

How are you with Big Banks spending your money to bail themselves out and make huge profits? Don't forget about the Golden Parachutes for the executives, that is, those who actually left and didn't just stick around for their expected multi-million $ yearly bonus, year after year? Or are you one of the very very few who profited from these schemes, therefore you have no sympathy for those who paid the bill and then some?
+4 # fletch1165 2016-02-10 04:11
So you must hate Hillary almost as much as the Rethuglicans. Bernie is no fake progressive like they are, serving foreign powers and creating stifling taxpayer burden through illegal wars AGAINST American interest. He's a social democrat. He stands for people, not fascists.
# Guest 2016-02-06 19:34
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
+49 # Phillybuster 2016-02-07 12:16
Please keep your patronizing to yourself. This "Bernie-Baby" is 68-years-old, campaigned door-to-door for "Clean Gene" McCarthy in 1968, held my nose and voted for Humphrey in 1968 because Nixon was unthinkable. Since then voted for McGovern, Carter x 2, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton x 2, Nader (in Texas, GWB was a shoe-in), Kerry and Obama x 2. Not exactly a baby in political matters and I know many other Bernie supporters are not either.

So how long have you been observing the political scene?
+6 # Anarchist 23 2016-02-08 12:31
Wow...we must be twins!
+26 # Texas Aggie 2016-02-07 19:35
I'm trying very hard to think of a progressive cause that she's actually gone to the mat for. I've drawn a complete blank, Even her attempt at health insurance was only half hearted. Can you maybe give us some examples?
+12 # Anarchist 23 2016-02-08 12:29
Your comments are very much understood...I just wonder if, since I could use some extra being a troll is well paid? The actual facts are plain enough. For example: 62 men control as much wealth as the bottom 50% all together....and for those who can now be classed the 'precariate' life is barely sustained, let alone lived with pleasure due to the lack of good paying secure jobs. In European countries, life is actually pleasant and people are equally afforded things like good food, health care, access to natural beauty, public services...whil e in this country...we are cutting all sorts of social services...Flin t's the water crises for example...and that is NOT the only water crises going on...just the most recent. The United States of Amnesia, as Gore Vidal labeled it, has probably forgotten about the poisoning of Charleston WVA water supply by the storage tanks of Liberty Corp. If you really believe what you write, you should do some research. Otherwise, from a business POV (which is the only one that matters in USSA) you get paid by word or post?
+4 # fletch1165 2016-02-10 04:13
To me she represents the past. Old News. Hardly progressive by any definition. Like the GOP candidates, she represents REGRESSION to an even more primitive society. One where serfs serve lords.

Not a Bernie baby either. Born on Guy Fawkes day on the eve of the opening military action in Vietnam 1965.
+48 # Nominae 2016-02-06 22:19
Quoting jsluka:
This is the most foolish comment I've seen in a long time. There is nothing at all "progressive" about Hillary Clinton. A vote for Hillary is a vote for the status quo. NRESQ needs to learn how to pay attention to reality.

Doesn't NRESQ sound suspiciously like a planted Troll for Clinton ? And a very dull example at that ?

Either that, or someone *DESPERATE* for attention. Simply adorable.

Either way, it is a waste of your time seeking to "educate" this person in any real way.

Such a person is being paid to "re-educate" *YOU*, and will no longer be posting after the elections.

Take a deep breath, people, relax.

Trolls are gonna troll.

Their flaccid, impotent little word games really should NOT be so much as dignified with a *serious* response.
+28 # Pikewich 2016-02-06 23:29
Either a paid troll or a person incapable of rational critical though processes.

I have come to the conclusion NRESQ is best ignored.
+133 # EternalTruth 2016-02-06 15:34
"Narrow visioned people tend to forget how successful the Bill Clinton years were for progressives,"

Yes, they were great for upper middle class and rich progressives. The rest of us, not so much. Look up how much the standard of living of the middle and poor went up during those years. Remember wellfare reform? NAFTA? Tough on crime (colored folks)? Dismantling Glass Stegal? Remember the continued deregulation of the media? And how was the infrastructure doing after Clinton? Clinton was very successful in terms of stock market and GDP numbers, which allowed the media to crow about how great the economy was doing. But "we the people" got screwed, and we're sick of it. Thats why we support least those of us who don't buy into the MSM bullshit that Bill and Hillary are progressives.
Now go peddle your bs elsewhere. We know better.
+8 # RLF 2016-02-07 07:11
I said when he was in office and it is still true...Bill Clinton was a republican in everything but name. He left Bush with an economy that was in shambles...not that Bush didn't deserve it and do the same thing to Obama but even worse! Where Clinton put his dick was the least evil thing about him as president!
+6 # Anarchist 23 2016-02-08 12:36
I still keep Barbara Ehrenreich's book 'Nickl and Dimed On (Not) Getting By in America' , written about the economics in the Clinton years....truthf ul and d it must be worse, far worse now!
+152 # vt143 2016-02-06 15:38
I'm so sick of people saying "I like Bernie but I'm voting for Hillary because she can win." We're at the tipping point, Jack. Another 4 or 8 years under Clinton or a Republican and the government will be bought, sold, paid for. Finis. Kaput! I'd rather risk anything at this point to back Bernie. Hell, if he gets elected and starts making real change they'll probably kill him. We are lost as a nation and the only person with a chance to right this sinking freighter is Sanders. And I can't even approach talking about Blankfein. That self satisfied moron. Making a lot of money doesn't make you smart, just rich and the way he makes it is off the backs of others.
+57 # Street Level 2016-02-06 15:46
I agree. Stupid people will vote for someone they don't want.
+4 # fletch1165 2016-02-10 04:21
Don't forget those aligned with and peddling for Israel have been directed to vote Hillary and not Sanders. The networks have clearly been pandering to this group and anyone they can bring along. We all know it may very well end up War with Iran, which none of us can afford except the elites who make even more cash off it while bankrupting even more of us in the next recession. We must elect Sanders to avert this potential catastrophe they have planned for us.
+4 # Anarchist 23 2016-02-08 12:39
I think we have already tipped over but I am willing to try to vote for change. IMHO, the PTB have already chosen who will run and who will win. As King Theoden said in 'Return of the King' when told that the odds were overwhelmingly against them: "No, we cannot win but we will meet them in battle nonetheless'
+46 # ronjazz 2016-02-06 17:16
NRESQ is Sarah Palin, there is no other explanation of such nonsense.
+37 # Jim Rocket 2016-02-06 17:25
It is still early in the process. Anything could happen including blue-collar conservatives waking up and realizing that Bernie is the only one out there that gives a damn about improving their lot. If that happens Bernie WILL win with or without Hillary supporters. The black vote could move Bernie's way...Hillary could be indicted on the email foolishness. Most Bernie supporters will vote for Hillary if they have to but why not keep the pressure on? There is nothing stopping Hillary from tacking left and stealing a big chunk of Bernie's platform...exce pt maybe all the money she's pocketed from Wall St. or generally not giving a hoot about anybody but the wealthy.
+2 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-02-08 17:39
If she changes her entire platform now everyone will call her a liar and they already are.
+31 # cookiecorp 2016-02-06 18:17
Your patronizing, disgusting garbage belongs on breitbart, not here. How many Bernie supporters are you going to win over with "pull your heads out of your collective asses and try to remember we're all on the same team"? What a mature, convincing argument.

You and I are not on the same "team", and that goes for the other dozens who have voted your stupid post down.
+13 # phrixus 2016-02-06 18:45
Not only are you stupid, a liar and a jackass, it's obvious that you are just another brain-dead troll. Hopefully the admins will see through your childish play-acting and ban you.
+28 # wrknight 2016-02-06 18:57
Quoting NRESQ:
Hey, folks, this is patty-cake compared to what's coming if Sen. Sanders becomes the nominee.

With a majority of the American voting public being low information voters, a substantial number of them will lap this shit up like a dog drinking anti-freeze (tastes good, but then they die).
..blah, blah, blah.

And speaking of low information voters...
+48 # ahollman 2016-02-06 22:15
NRESQ warns calls a "majority" of the voters "low information voters"; that Sanders can flop as did McGovern and Mondale, thus jeopardizing things that Democrats want, e.g. abortion rights and campaign reform; and warns that Clinton can win without Sanders supporters, but the converse is false; and ends by alleging that a Sanders candidacy is a "risk to the progressive movement".

NRESQ says "narrow visioned people tend to forget how successful the Bill Clinton years for progressives..."

As response to both. McGovern was the right candidate. As a lifelong resident of Massachusetts, the only state which voted for McGovern, and as someone who remembers how disastrous Nixon was for the country, I can say that. Similarly, Mondale's defeat ushered in Reagan, with similarly disastrous results. That the nation's voters twice made poor choices is a poor reason to suggest that Democrats / progressives nominate mediocre candidates instead of good ones.

Progressives don't get what they want by compromising upfront, which is what NRESQ is suggesting. A Presidential primary is not the time to compromise.

As for how good the Clinton years were, NRESQ seems to forget NAFTA and the "giant sucking sound" made by jobs (mostly manufacturing) leaving the US, a substantial increase in the prison population, welfare "reform", the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the deregulation of the financial services industry, and other precursors of our current economic condition.

I support Sanders.
+16 # James38 2016-02-07 11:25
Excellent post, Ahollman.
+35 # Promoting Peace 2016-02-06 22:46
How pathetic that your post is totally based on fear, and not reality. Bernie is truly the absolute best candidate we've had in many decades.

He has incredible integrity, and the unbelievable courage to truly say it as it is, and be willing to stand up to anyone, even the super, super-rich.

Hillary obviously doean't have this same courage, and truly is one with the super-rich. It's very clear that she can't truly relate to the poor, the common people, because she is financially in a "financial" class none of us can even imagine.

I'm not saying this to slam Hillary, as I do feel she would be better than any of the bozos the GOP has put up, but reality is reality and Hillary has a long-standing record of playing politics and putting the "game" ahead of people's real needs and concerns.

Bernie isn't playing the game. He's real, he's consistant, and he isn't backing down. He has my total support and if you chose to learn the reality behind Bernie, instead of promoting your unreal propaganda, you could certainly see and understand why so many people, yound and old, support Bernie!
If you choose to become more aware, a good starting point would be to read Bernie's book, "An Outsider in the White House". He's fought many battles over decades, for the sake of the people.
He's lost some, and won many, and has developed a wisdom far beyond what most politicians ever experience. He has the ability to bring this wisdom together with his deep concern for the common people
+23 # angelfish 2016-02-07 00:18
For NRESQ: Hillary is NOT on the "same Team" as Bernie or ANY Progressive Democrat! She started out working for Barry Goldwater who was considered a Nut-Job back in the day, and ALL she is, is a watered down version of the same old Bull-Puckey. She is a Liberal RePublican!(?)S eems like the only one with his head up his Ass, is YOU! There are NONE so blind s those who WILL not see. She's very comfortable with her Millions and should retire to Westchester, or WHERE-EVER she lives, and be content to smother her Grand-daughter with hugs and kisses on a daily basis. She ONLY wants to be President so she can go down in History as America's FIRST Woman to hold the Office! She's NOT qualified, she'll have us in perpetual War and conflict ALL over the Globe! Bernie's commitment to Americans, ESPECIALLY the Working Poor and disadvantaged, has not wavered. We are READY for a President who wants to rebuild this country, STOP the War and Violence and devote his time and energy to achieving that aim! PEACE and Prosperity are achievable in our lifetime IF we give him the chance to DO it! There are more of us who believe and WANT the same things! Hillary is NOT the one, Bernie IS!
+17 # randrjwr 2016-02-07 16:28
In Re: "Narrow visioned people tend to forget how successful the Bill Clinton years were for progressives........"

I seem to remember that the Bill Clinton years were mighty successful for the conservatives; he gave them:

Welfare reform commonly known as "work-fare"

Repeal of Glass-Steagall


Steady $5.15/hr minimum wage, which meant the real value of the minimum wage declined by ~35%

Hillary has been pretty favorable to the conservatives, too, and, from her own words, seems likely to continue to do so. She:

Voted to invade Iraq

Oversaw the take-down of Ghaddafi, leading to the current mess in Libya

Seems to favor having our troops on the ground in Syria

Has not indicated she would want Glass-Steagall repealed and has not pledged to stand by and strengthen the Consumer Protection Board and the Dodd-Frank bank reforms, both of which the banks will continue to fight to roll back. Will she resist? I wonder.

For more on this, see "The Nation", Feb. 15, 2016, pg 5.

You certainly may be right, that Sanders could be another McGovern, especially if the Democrats are unsuccessful at getting out the Dem vote, and that would, indeed, be a shame--no, a tragedy.

If Hillary is the candidate, I will definitely choose her over any Republican (or Trump if he ends up running on his own), all of whom (including Trump) I consider to be downright evil.
+13 # LtDan65 2016-02-07 16:45

"So, pull your heads out of your collective asses and try to remember we're all on the same team!"

No we are not at all on your team! What do you really think you will accomplish,\ by calling everyone else "stupid"?
+3 # fletch1165 2016-02-10 04:35
My team does not endorse the burning and bombing of Palestinian babies as does Hillary Rodam Clinton. NOT THE SAME TEAM. And the killer Madeleine Albright, who starved 30,000 Iraqi children annually for ten years straight and later said it was worth it, can just go away. How can that killer and mas murderer be an endorsement for anyone? Only a fascist.
+10 # Texas Aggie 2016-02-07 19:32
Talk about wishful thinking! The surveys show that not only will Sanders beat the repub candidates, but he beats them by bigger margins than Hillary does. So what was that you were saying about Bernie not being able to win? As for Hillary winning without a good portion of the Democrats, do you REALLY think that a significant of the republicans will vote for her?
+49 # Laurence 2016-02-06 15:34
OK focus a few moments on rich people and how their rationalize their power and wealth, but then switch gears and go into what are we going to do about this mode. Bernie is right when he says his campaign is just the beginning and by himself, he cannot make the major transformations in power currently controlled by the Blankfein's etc.

Whose help does Bernie need? Ordinary people's help. Who are they? The 99%. Before Bernie started there were already in place a Black Lives Matter! movement, a women's movement, LGBT movements, anti war efforts, $15 minimum wage, single payer health care, $0 tuition in public universities, debt relief for students, progressive taxes (although weakening), and big noise about inequality. That list gets at the idea.

So, people involved in those campaigns need to publicly support Bernie's campaign. If Bernie does not win the primaries, there is the Green Party to support. That party holds many of the positions that Bernie does. Now is not the time to make this a competition, but to build a movement.

Now is the time for vampire squids to start talking about how THEY will compromise for the good of all. No trickle down economics. No more weak charity efforts. Real fundamental change in economic distribution.

Power to the People!
+112 # zepp 2016-02-06 12:04
I think most people interpreted Blankfein's comments as a ringing endorsement of Bernie Sanders.
-42 # bobbygoode 2016-02-06 14:20
Deep Throat: "They wanted to run against McGovern. Look who they're running against".
+14 # jsluka 2016-02-06 14:56
Say whaaat?
# Guest 2016-02-06 14:58
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
+20 # ronjazz 2016-02-06 17:18
Quoting NRESQ:
Most cogent comment on this entire blog.

2nd dumbest comment on the blog, after yours.
# Guest 2016-02-06 19:39
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
+17 # Jim Rocket 2016-02-06 17:54
At this point they don't have anyone who could beat Hillary or Bernie.
+30 # warrior woman 2016-02-06 15:15
It's reason alone to vote Bernie
+69 # cymricmorty 2016-02-06 12:42
These elitist banksters and their concerns are Hillarious.
+73 # Crebbafrabitz 2016-02-06 14:13
If Sanders does not win the primary (Which, I believe, means a win in the general) then the "REAL CITIZENS" of this country will never have another chance to save its Soul, now a subsidiary of Wall Street and all the Greed Kapitalists like Blankfein, STILL NOT IN PRISON GARB!
+67 # Radscal 2016-02-06 15:32
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

~ John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962
+5 # Pikewich 2016-02-06 23:35
Yes, hopefully one or the other soon.
0 # fletch1165 2016-02-10 04:39
We are going Gandhi or Franz Fanon. Its their choice.
+66 # chemtex2611 2016-02-06 14:17
Obviously, good advice from a man whose pockets bulge with money taken from even the smallest taxpayers in the country. He makes $$ whether the citizens or the country win or lose.

If you want to give more power to folks who always have their fingers in your pocket, listen to this man. Otherwise, listen to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

It is time to put the genie back in the bottle, so that it can serve us, not enslave the weakest among us.
+5 # bobbygoode 2016-02-06 14:24
The reality is it costs $1 billion to run for President. Sanders generate that with Soros and 3 million $25 donors? While HC's coziness with Wall Street is troubling, it's not remotely as troubling as President Marco Rubio. Who btw, aside from his sociopathic policies returning us to 1930, has no trouble sucking up to Wall Street. This is an unfortunate time to make perfection the enemy of the good. HRC can always be challenged to take on Wall Street. No way Rubio is not going to set fire to the Middle Class.
+48 # warrior woman 2016-02-06 15:17
She will NEVER take on her wall st friends
+6 # Phillybuster 2016-02-07 12:26
Rubio imploded in Saturday night's debate. Christie did a Tony Soprano on him.
+5 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-02-08 17:44
After taking millions in speaking frees from Wall Street she will not be challenging them at any level.
+1 # fletch1165 2016-02-10 04:42
So you think Hillary will help average people? What evidence is there of this when Sheldon Adelson is her number one funder and has said exactly the opposite?
+44 # indian weaver 2016-02-06 14:25
The security details for this criminal, Diman, the Clintons etc. must be extensive, expensive and ruthless to have managed to kept these people alive, so far. Send copies of this article to the DNC. I've sent 3 such packaged to Debbie Wasserman so far. This will be among my next package, along with a few salient comments as to why I know she, Hillary and Bill are stinking whores.
-28 # RevOleson 2016-02-06 14:39
After Bernie Sanders' supporting of Clinton's Kosovo bombing, Jeremy Brecher, one of Sander's staff member resigned and wrote," "Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support?"
+55 # Jim Rocket 2016-02-06 14:54
If you have a more perfect candidate than Bernie Sanders please let us in on their name.
+47 # EternalTruth 2016-02-06 15:50
I agree with the implications of your comment. Bernie is not nearly progressive enough for me on military/foreig n affairs. But he's light-years beyond Hillary, and he's the only chance we've got at this point. I've no doubt that if "the people" demand a cessation of violence in any given situation, Bernie would take heed. Hillary would ignore us (as she did when supporting Iraq war).
+9 # Pikewich 2016-02-06 23:40
I am certainly hoping you are right. The fact that he has adopted Black Lives Matter! seems to suggest he is open to reason.
+62 # danireland46 2016-02-06 14:45
HRC"s words to WS condemn her, as Taibbi points out:
"Even more significant than the $675,000 Hillary took from Goldman, or the $30 million in speaking income she and her husband received combined in the last 16 months, is the account of what Hillary apparently told Goldman she "thought" during those speeches. According to Politico, who spoke to several attendees, Hillary used the opportunity to tell the bankers in attendance that the "banker-bashing so popular within both parties was unproductive and indeed foolish." She added that the proper attitude should be, "We all got into this mess together, and we're all going to have to work together to get out of it."
In other words we're all responsible for the economic breakdown.
Except, as Taibbi counters: "But it was their fault. The crash was caused by a tiny handful of people who spent years hogging fortunes through a bluntly criminal scheme in the home lending markets. The FBI warned back in 2004 of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud that could have an "impact as big as the S&L crisis," but those warnings were ignored."
+38 # DD1946 2016-02-06 16:29
That's why it's so crazy to me that the Clinton supporters just want to ignore this. Hillary didn't get the big bucks to speak to these people for saying things they didn't want to hear. That is why what she did say is important and also why she doesn't want us to know.
+31 # indian weaver 2016-02-06 14:50
These people have to hang together, or they'll hang apart. These are what are humorously called "mutual admiration societies": no one else likes us so let's like each other (the origin of Facebook), and feel better that way (inside the bubble that is not related in any way to reality - works for us as long as we hang out inside this bubble anyhow).
+15 # rradiof 2016-02-06 14:51
What's the price of rope in Lower Manhattan, or as my Jacobin amigos would say "Aiguiser les Guillotines!". See you at the barricades.
+36 # gd_radical 2016-02-06 15:36
Once a ratfcker, always a ratfcker I say. That whole crew only cares about making mana and their own asses. Bernie ain't perfect, but he's doesn't give a damn about either of the above and at least he's speaking some truth again.
+32 # chuckstar66 2016-02-06 15:56
I love how Tiabbi calls Gaeitner Timmy. Little Timmy played nice with Obama to engineer the bailout then quit his government job just in time to rake in the profits of his work. Little Timmy reminds me of that kid who was such a smart a** that you wanted to give him a smack just for being a little jerk off.
+22 # overanddone 2016-02-06 16:41
Kinda like Cruz?
0 # Floridatexan 2016-02-09 18:46
It's "Taibbi". And "Timmy" didn't "engineer the bailout". The bailout was engineered during the BUSH administration. Your post is hogwash.
+35 # ProgressiveWave 2016-02-06 16:22
Bernie is the antithesis to the current pathetic crop of wannabe Republican candidates. In the last economic crisis no bank CEO or mortgage executive was prosecuted. Is wall Street afraid of someone who says on the front end there are no deals? Of course it is.
+42 # ligonlaw 2016-02-06 16:38
"We all got into this mess together." Oh yeah, I forgot that I packaged toxic loans in my basement and sold them to pensions, trusts, 401Ks and my grandmother. I forgot that I too crashed the economy in 2008 because of the billions of dollars worth of fees I bilked out of my friends and neighbors. Wait a minute! That was Wall Street. Oh yeah, that was my retirement account that took the hit. So I guess it wasn't all of us.
+34 # overanddone 2016-02-06 16:40
Lloyd thanks for the tip just sent my 5th contribution to Sanders.
All The Best AH
+15 # tm7devils 2016-02-06 16:46
There is a drug that is promoted on TV that may have a side effect of inducing suicidal tendencies. If someone has a spare bottle of it, will you please relabel it as Cialis and send it to NRESQ.
+23 # caphillprof 2016-02-06 16:48
I see the French revolution on the horizon and it's heading our way.
+30 # Realist1948 2016-02-06 17:21
Matt, Matt, Matt ... why all the vitriol directed at Blankfein? After all, he was "Doing God's Work." He said so himself, so you know it must be true.
+13 # Jayceecool 2016-02-06 18:24
Something tells me the time for pitchforks and guillotines is fast approaching...
+9 # wrknight 2016-02-06 18:41
"I'm ready," said co-host Joe Kernen, "to send my daughter to Frig'em Young or Liberty or something."
+20 # wrknight 2016-02-06 18:45
Actually, if you consider the economic stranglehold the U.S. put on Cuba, their socialism worked quite well.
+23 # wrknight 2016-02-06 18:49
"Thomas Jefferson would have compromised with us, he says!"

Thomas Jefferson was opposed to corporations and a central bank.
+21 # Radscal 2016-02-06 21:07
Yes indeed. Tommy had no love of private banks. Though often misquoted, his feelings were strong, and have largely proven accurate.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to John Taylor in 1816, "And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

In a comment to John Wayles Eppes, Jefferson said, "Bank-paper must be suppressed, and the circulating medium must be restored to the nation to whom it belongs."
+2 # w.p.dean 2016-02-06 18:50
Hey Phillybuster, you bin a'readin
Amazing how many people just ain't a'caught on.
And they do not understand how it works in politics, expecially.
It's the Amygdala. Organic. they can't help it.
Fearlessness, lack of empathy, etc. go to the URL above and see if it fits.
I guarantee that you will be glad that you did.
+12 # jimmykeys 2016-02-06 18:52
I want you all to remember that NRESQ's responses show that he/she is enjoying the criticism and outrage. When he/she shows the enjoyment, and uses putdowns in response, that means we have a TROLL. Very clever to be a troll in Clintonesque disguise. We usually ignore them when they lean Republican....
+25 # Greg Scott 2016-02-06 20:17
Hillary, try to understand, it’s not up to Bernie...or PROVE that the money you take from Wall Street has affected your vote, it’s up to YOU to prove that it hasn’t. Everyone knows that you dance with those what brung ya’.

We believe Bernie because...despi te all the efforts of the Hillary camp and DNC apologists to SPIN it otherwise...he has made the bold and brilliant leap to just NOT TAKE THE BIG MONEY. It’s that simple. WE trust him because WE are paying for him. And if he makes it, we KNOW whose side he will be do dance with those what brung ya’.

So Hillary, here’s the bottom line. We know that you will be good on those cultural and women’s issues that don’t really affect the bottom gay rights, abortion rights, even equal pay for women...we know you understand that one. But the policies that would take...some, from those BIG DONORS in finance or pharma or trade or offshoring or whatever?…

We just don’t believe it.
+16 # Robbee 2016-02-06 20:18
says - # NRESQ 2016-02-06 14:44 "Bernie has the potential to be another George McGovern or Walter Mondale--with similar results.

"The ONLY issue is: How much of a risk to the progressive movement is a Sanders candidacy?"

- beg your pardon! there is one more issue: can hill fire-up the dem voter base and independents with her blah-zay message of little hope for little change?

for one thing, hill wants to build on private, for-profit obamacare without ridding us of her healthcare insurer campaign donors - so, what? someday her private, for-profit buddies will universally cover all americans with no deductibles or co-pays? - yeah! that'll sure be popular with her buds! - and our top-earning 4% stuck with paying her buds to cover the last uninsured 30 million of us!

put it this way - no GOP in congress will vote to expand obamacare - no GOP in congress will vote for single-payer - we lost NO support by demanding what our nation needs - what every industrialized nation already has - what costs them all at least 50% less than what our nation pays per patient, due to hill's super-expensive middle-men buddies! - when bernie explains cost of care to our nation, dems and independents will vote again! - smarter GOP will vote dem too!

note that every time a super-pac runs an add calling bernie a socialist, bernie bags another half-million in campaign donations!

the ONLY candidate with net positive voter rating is bernie! vote for mr. electable! vote bernie!
+11 # Robbee 2016-02-06 21:43
nr - i am no bookie, i don't care to handicap your hypothesis that bernie is unelectable - but somebody else says -

From an article on FiveThirtyEight .Com by Nate Silver:

“We’ve got an unpopular set of presidential candidates this year– Bernie Sanders is the only candidate in either party with a net-positive favorability rating — but Trump is the most unpopular of all. His favorability rating is 33 percent, as compared with an unfavorable rating of 58 percent, for a net rating of -25 percentage points. By comparison Hillary Clinton, whose favorability ratings are notoriously poor, has a 42 percent favorable rating against a 50 percent unfavorable rating, for a net of -8 points. Those are bad numbers, but nowhere near as bad as Trump’s.

"Contra Rupert Murdoch’s assertion about Trump having crossover appeal, Trump is extraordinarily unpopular with independent voters and Democrats. Gallup polling conducted over the past six weeks found Trump with a -27-percentage- point net favorability rating among independent voters, and a -70-point net rating among Democrats; both marks are easily the worst in the GOP field. (Trump also has less-than-spect acular favorable ratings among his fellow Republicans.)

"You could plausibly argue that Ted Cruz would be a worse nominee than Trump ... It’s perplexing that Republican elites have resigned to nominating either Trump or Cruz ..."

notions of bernie's unelectablility seem overblown - and hill polls worse against GOP zombies!
+15 # Savage 2016-02-07 01:52
Let us not forget, that voting for Hillary is voting for two Clintons! Do you honestly believe that they are two people apart politically? Could or would Bill resist to preserve his "legacy?" Elect Hillary and give up all hope for banking and financial reform, and for the resurrection of the Glass-Steagal.
+17 # Kindinosaur 2016-02-07 09:54
NSESQ welcome to 2016. Mc govern and Mondale ran decades ago. In the meantime the democrats moved to the right becoming the new republicans. The republicans moved to the right becoming the fascist party of America. Bill Clinton gave us NAFTA and WTO with the help of republicans. I hear that created a lot of jobs. Good thing because it takes two jobs to equal one of the jobs that went overseas.Hillar y is just a wolf in sheeps clothing. The ACA is a screw job that let the foxes (insurance companies ) in the henhouse. A vote for Hillary is a vote for Wall Street and the new Republican Party.
+2 # fletch1165 2016-02-10 05:00
Not only that, our youth actually had money during McGovern and Mondale. We have kids right now with next to no savings at all. Its the greatest poverty we have seen in a long time for healthy young people to endure. They are not happy. We need real solutions. We need Bernie. Not status quo Clinton and her corrupt partners.
+7 # Antler 2016-02-07 14:17
These guys really should not be complaining about the class war they started. I hope they don't escalate it any more, or decide to use violence, because there are 300+ million of us and we'll finish it. It would be so wise for these clowns to just be quiet at least till the election is over. They are not helping anything by opening their mouths. They are terrible at every single thing they do, and we had to bail them out, they give themselves bonuses and they have the nerve to chirp? WOW.. DUMB.. no wonder they suck and need bailouts...that 's really stupid.

Clinton is on the clock. It's comical how she feigns hating her donors. Well we are all stupid after all..

But yeah.. keep a low profile there sparky.
0 # fletch1165 2016-02-10 05:01
We have to do it for the future generations. If they won't capitulate then its time to notch up resistance any way we can.
+3 # Scott479 2016-02-07 20:35
Blankfein gave Bernie the warning that wasn't given to Occupy Wall st. protesters. Heed or bleed. What is terrible is not that I post this but that precedent set by Wall st. makes it truthful. Obama and Shillary got the memo, fell into line, and are shamefully wealthier for it.
+5 # Firefox11 2016-02-07 20:37
Quoting NRESQ:


So, pull your heads out of your collective asses and try to remember we're all on the same team!

The ONLY issue is: How much of a risk to the progressive movement is a Sanders candidacy?

Wow. And there is supposed to be a significant difference between Hillary and The Donald?????
-3 # Firefox11 2016-02-07 20:38
Actually since he claims to be self-funded and she definitely is not,perhaps we should be comparing and contrasting The Donald and Bernie as they are both avoiding Super-Pacs
+1 # JSRaleigh 2016-02-07 23:58
I'm in favor of compromise. So, how about when we hang 'em, we use a NEW rope.
+15 # sharsand 2016-02-08 09:24
As an investor in my retirement, a few comments 1) we owned corporate bonds that were rated AAA by Moody's, etal, and most of the corporations declared bankruptcy--no consequences for the rating agencies or the corporations with cooked books; and certainly, no bank CEO's paid any price, particularly Blankfein of GS, one of the worst; 2)when things go wrong on Wall Street, as they did in 2008 because of sub-prime garbage and derivatives, no one was held accountable at the top; and 3) no one in the corporate media will tell you these things: it's not China that's the problem, it's us, after all we shipped our jobs and factories there for cheap labor and cheap products with no loyalty to this country; if no one here is working for decent wages, there's no one left to buy the shoddy products they offer 2) the millennials cannot be blamed for not buying stocks; that generation has gotten smart enough to know the markets are a scam, and, they also don't have enough money to buy stocks because they're too busy trying to find jobs and pay off their needless debt to fraudulent university tuition and loans; and 3) public corporation executives are so busy trying to find ways to prop up their stock options by cuts, and more cuts, and to hide profits from taxes, that there's nowhere left to cut. I'm tired of hearing about free markets; how about fair markets; Bernie Sanders is not the culprit; just the scapegoat--he wants fair markets so that everyone can have a chance to succeed.
+4 # James38 2016-02-09 00:10
Breath of fresh air, sharsand. Thanks.

Well stated, important points.
+1 # fletch1165 2016-02-10 05:04
100% accurate. Great statement.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.