Bernie Sanders: Wall Street Regulates Congress

I would ask Sanders who has been in Congress for over 20 years exactly how Wall Street came to "regulate Congress". The only way I can see banks "regulating Congress" is for Congress to hand the reins over to the banking industry. And I ask you, would Congress do that, given Congress's greed and love of power? Not on your life!

Congress is definitely corrupt enough to take bribes which they now want to blame the banks for, and this Sanders crap on the tape was just that, CRAP. If banks control DC, it isn't the fault of the banks - it is the fault of corrupt politicians who cannot bring themselves to pass up a buck. And I believe they are hollering now because so many of us have been openly talking about arresting some of these hustler grifters who call themselves "politicians", giving them prison sentences, charging THEM with the humongous debt they have run up.

Good democrats, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, almost single handedly caused the housing uproar and the loss of homes particularly of the black people whom they so sympathize with - and they FORCED the banks to lend money to bad risks. Anybody today who will listen to a politician and believe he is hearing the truth is too naive to vote. CONGRESS MAKES LAWS AND THE REGULATIONS - NOT THE BANKS. CONGRESS HAS THE BENEFIT OF JAILS AND JUDGES - NOT THE BANKS. CONGRESS CAN GET AWAY WITH ANY CRIME IT CHOOSES TO - NOT THE BANKS. The Administration has driven jobs out of the country - NOT THE BANKS.

I wish those of you who can think, WOULD, just once place blame where it belongs if you are determined that blame must be placed somewhere. When (if) you ever get it right, I'll join you, but as long as you bleat along that Wall Street, banks are our problem, I simply refuse to allow myself to sound that stupid. You are not getting at the problem, but are making the problem worse.

You don't consider it stupid to place the blame where it belongs? Here's a thought? Then try doing it!

If Wall St was so innocent of any wrongdoing then why did they pay their fines without a whimper and why haven't they pushed back and claimed they were without guilt? B of A paid $8.5 BILLION and Goldman Sachs paid $550 million which admittedly is an annual bonus for Blankfein and nary a peep! Explain that? Say, you don't think it might have been because they were guilty do ya? Nah, couldn't be! Then you say the banks were "forced" to make those fraudulent, toxic sub prime loans to people who couldn't afford them? Oh yeah, try showing me exactly what bill or law made them do that? They don't give a rats' ass what the government tells them to do and I'll prove it. They took all that TARP money and were told to make business loans with it. They used it to pay retention bonuses and take annual mtgs abroad and never made those loans.

You're also apparently ignorant of the fact that Wall St has budgeted a million $ per politician for their lobbying efforts. That and the fact that most of the Treasury guys were former Wall St/Goldman Sachs guys who've been promised gigs with them after they're done in politics makes it extremely unlikely that they'll ever prosectute any CEO's like Lloyd Blankfein et al who should all be in jail. Still wanna argue Wall St doesn't run Congress? If so, then your objectivity is trumped by your partisanship.

Funny how ALL of your placing the blame goes on the Dem ledger not the Repubs side. Even Stevie Wonder can see what you evidently can't.

Well, I see you need to be schooled & I will gladly oblige.

According to dictionary.com, socialism is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. In Marxist theory, it is the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles."

Please note that it is the stage FOLLOWING capitalism. Capitalism has many forms in a mixed economy, with public (collective) ownership of various enterprises based upon economic conditions. Limited public ownership does not comprise Marxist socialism, which requires complete public ownership. When controlled by a police state, however, limited public ownership may become fascism ("national socialism"), Marxist socialism, or even "perfect implementation of collectivist principles." Limited public ownership occurs at virtually every point on the mixed economy spectrum.

Every advocate of greater government economic control might be called a "socialist," but none are true socialists unless they advocate the complete elimination of private enterprise, which requires the complete replacement of capitalism with collectivism. True (laissez-faire) capitalism means zero government control of private enterprise, which is economic anarchy. Neither of these extremes works in the long run. Every successful economy is a mixed economy, existing somewhere on a spectrum between both extremes. Every successful economy is part capitalist and part socialist. They all contain a mix of private and public ownership, and they all have some government control of private enterprise. The only relevant question is "WHERE on this spectrum can we achieve the greatest success?" The rise of Asian economies, with their varying degrees of centralized planning, proves that economic planning helps economic development.

Both laissez faire capitalism and true communism are artificial constructs, as impossible to sustain as cold fusion. Every successful society requires private enterprise regulated by public policy, regardless of Ayn Rand's fantasies. Extremists on either fringe are equally delusional. In some ways regulation is a necessary evil like body fat: too much or too little are both lethal. The normal tendency is to add layers with age. The challenge is to find the level that will produce the optimum outcome, all things considered.

Unless someone advocates the complete replacement of capitalism with collectivism, they do not truly advocate socialism or communism. To accuse them of either, when they have not explicitly advocated as much themselves, suggests either unfamiliarity with mixed economies or intellectual dishonesty. Even George W. Bush and John McCain were accused of advocating socialism based upon their support of 2008 bailout legislation.

The bottom line is simple. If you consider any variation of a mixed economy, including ANY public ownership or regulation of industry to be "socialism," then the United States and ALL other economies are "socialist." The debate is over, because by that definition we have been "socialist" since the 18th century. If you only consider complete collectivism to be "socialism," according to Marxist theory, then no successful economy is actually "socialist." The closest to a Marxist socialist economy is the economic basket case, North Korea. If you consider socialism to occur at some other point on the spectrum between unregulated capitalism and Marxist socialism, then any such point would be arbitrary.

To accuse a mixed economy advocate of being a socialist or communist suggests that you believe that ANY degree of government regulation qualifies as "socialism," or that you believe that any regulation beyond an indefinite "trigger point" qualifies as "socialism,", and that YOU get to set the trigger point. The "trigger point" explanation reminds me of the egocentric explorer who says that anyone who explores farther into dangerous territory is a fool, but anyone who doesn’t explore as far as he does is a coward. His arrogance presumes that his own boundaries are common standards.

Marxist "socialism," in contrast to European "democratic socialism," requires collective ownership of the means of production in lieu of capitalism. That is the death of private enterprise. We may or may not be on a path to collectivism, just as a dating couple may or may not be on a path to pregnancy. Traveling on a path in any direction does not imply any specific goal. For example, traveling on Interstate 10 does not imply that either coast is the goal.

"Direction" is one thing. "Goal" is another. All mixed economies exist at some point in the spectrum between the fatal terminuses of unregulated capitalism and true socialism. In most Marxist states, however, capitalism reappeared as people recognized the lethal consequences of such extremes. Russia, China and other communist nations now recognize the virtue of mixed economies. They learned the hard way.

I await empirical evidence, instead of specious speculation, that Obama wants to eliminate capitalism by moving to that extreme. To say Obama advocates the goal of socialism, based upon his movement on the spectrum instead of being based on his explicit advocacy, is to create a straw man. It is intellectually dishonest and unworthy of serious debate.