General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary and Bill earned every penny they have.
Much gnashing of teeth over the Inevitable One's storehouses full of cash. Since when is it a crime to be very wealthy? Hell, FDR was wealthy. George Washington was possibly the wealthiest man in America.
The problem isn't the Clinton's money, per se. Here's what is the problem:
First off, their money comes in huge torrents from the people Bill unchained so they could financially brutalize the 99%, and to whom Hillary is trying to gift the TPP and other outrageous stuff. It's blood money. Our blood, and the blood of our children.
Second, saying that an ex-President is broke might be technically correct, but it's truly wrong. Another "it depends on what the definition of is, is".
Finally, Hillary and Bill have a history of prevarication on topics great and small. People easily assume that Hillary's trying to mislead them again, at this point few will give her the benefit of the doubt.
It ain't the money: it's the bull@#$%.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
4Q2u2
(1,406 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)bullshit that is too common with the uninformed. Not feeding that distortion.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)What are some examples of criticisms of Hillary that would not count as "they're exactly the same", in your view.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)the same day. It's bizarre. Why do you think people are indulging in this bullshit- blinded by hatred maybe?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I don't see a comparison as you write of in my post - and even if there was one, I don't understand how it's "exactly the same", it could be the same in a single area.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)but a lot of people love thinking things are so simple.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)Apparently it's not just the wingnut right that has an irrational hatred of all things Clinton.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)you have to be in a place where you do not think or care about actual soldiers going off to war (for money) , or women denied proper medical treatment because religion (and votes and money). I guess I'm just pragmatic.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Where do they reside with the influx of new poor and homeless.
Why is "blood money" confined to soldiers and women's issues.
I guess I'm pragmatic.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)Cause you live among st them everyday and pop out your laptop just to let us know.
"naive line of thinking".
Keep patting yourself on the back though. That's how one secures their own naive truths.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)As if
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)I thought it was the stupidity of the Clinton statements, not their wealth.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)The "they're all the same" thing is just moronic. But angry people will say anything.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)[font size=3]"It ain't the money: it's the bull@#$%. [/font]
If you are unable to understand the distinction, I can't help you.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)good luck finding any candidate with money you can't tie to Wall St or the MIC these days. you might as well crop spray DC with blood if you are going to use that term that loosely.
hueymahl
(2,482 posts)It's called hyperbole for effect. I doubt Manny literally believes that the Clinton's policy choices are akin to murder.
Second, there it is actually quite easy to find a politician you can't tie to Wall St - Elizabeth Warren.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And has Warren been deeply vetted? I don't know that anyone's felt the need to.
Could be some ugly little surprises there too. 
hueymahl
(2,482 posts)Straw man AND Burden of Proof
You are using the fact that there is no evidence of Wall Street corruption as an argument that there MAY be such evidence if we look hard enough and shifting that burden to me (metaphorically).
Look, I get it - now one likes to have their gal attacked.
Peace.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)that's part of the problem. I mean, that we can't find any candidate with money that can't be tied to wall street or the MIC. Basically, our politicians pretty much have to have great wealth, or be supported by others of great wealth... just to run for office. That's not what democracy should be. With respect for the Clintons, their wealth is one of those things that makes me nervous about a Hillary Clinton Presidency.
Wealthy people can be fantastic. I know a few who I believe are genuinely wonderful human beings. I don't know the Clintons well enough to say whether or not I think they are. I can say that I'm grateful to Mr. Clinton for the surplus, for years of a prosperous economy and a generally peaceful (compared to now) foreign policy. I can say that I agree with Hillary that it "takes a village to raise a child". Hell, they seem like they might be really nice people. I don't really care what Bill did with an intern, I care about what he did for this Country.
I just wish that people of more modest means would have more of a voice in the politics of this Country. Every time I see an ad for BP, or Koch industries, Monsanto, or General Electric, I grimace. There is just way, way too much money in politics.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)as a reality.
Neither Hil nor Warren is broke or has always been perfect. Both have checkered histories. At this point we know a lot more about Hil's flaws but that will change in regards to Warren. There's a lot we need to find out about her too. Wish we could do that thoughfully, instead of as a blood sport- which is what it seems to be here these days. Instead of learning things here, 75% of the threads here are DUers going at each other for not already being firmly on one side. Du has a lot less value to me these days as a resource, I'll tell you that. I was told by a host they put me on their blacklist because I said bad things about Snowden- except I never posted once about Snowden. This place has kind of gone nuts.
I hope it is better by the midterms.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)designed to promote the myth of the inevitability of neoliberal/corporate dominance in our party.
We are only stuck with it for as long as we choose to tolerate it, and the neoliberal policies themselves are not only malignant, but also very unpopular. That's why you see so much disdain when Hillary is presented as though she were inevitable. For quite some time now, the Third Way message has been that, yes, her policies may be disappointing, but we have to be pragmatic and go for the most electable candidate. Well, we've now seen her in action during the last primary and during her book tour, and she is anything but impressive as a campaigner and public speaker. These gaffes are serious ones that amplify her most severe weaknesses as a candidate.
She represents malignant neoliberal policies in direct contradiction to what most Americans want, AND she is a poor campaigner. It seems to me that every excuse for her inevitability has now been pretty much debunked.
I want to know more about Elizabeth Warren, too. I am firmly in Bernie's camp right now, because he has a long and consistent record for the people on virtually every issue I consider most critical right now: economic policy, war policy, the surveillance/security state. Elizabeth sounds very good to me on the economy, but I need to hear more from her on the others. One thing that does draw me to her is that I believe she could form coalitions and draw votes from across party lines to address corporate cronyism in government.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Sorry to screw up your narrative. But that does not make me a third wayer. Not sure why so many are damned eager- like that DU host, to hang labels on others.
I love Bernie Sanders, he'd be my first choice at the moment. I'm not convinced we are going to unfuck the media and educate the electorate quickly enough to make the sort of impact that would make him electable. It is what it is, but anyone here that thinks trying to paint me as the enemy is helpful is a fucking idiot. I've worked on tons of lefty campaigns over the years, not going to ask anyone here for credibility.
Sorry, these threads are filled with such OTT venom towards people who aren't lock stepping 100% it's almost a joke at this point. Hasn't sucked this badly since the primaries.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)In fact, virtually all available evidence flies in the face of your contention.
Neoliberal policies - austerity, protection of banks, warmongering, the surveillance state - are overwhelmingly unpopular with the electorate. Polls about specific policy positions reliably show it. And neoliberal candidates are fully aware of it, which is why they *always* pivot leftward during campaigns in order to get elected, and then revert to pleasing their corporate masters *after* elections. That's how Obama beat Hillary the first time, by running to her left in rhetoric if not in genuine intent.
The argument that she has "electability" beyond her disturbing policy positions holds little water anymore, either, given her repeated gaffes and embarrassing performances in the media. So, really, you are left with nothing to support your contention that she is the "pragmatic" choice in any respect.
Of course, I already said these things in my first post to you. You responded by repeating the appeal to "pragmatism," but without any actual argument to support your contention that a neoliberal would be the "pragmatic" choice.
The term, "Third Way," is not an epithet, but a useful descriptor for a set of policies that Hillary represents: liberal on social issues unimportant to the One Percent, but in agreement with corporate Republicans on virtually everything else. You can go to the Third Way website for lots of evidence in their own words of what the term means. I didn't call you a Third Wayer; I merely observed that you are repeating the same unsupported rhetoric about "pragmatism" that they use to sustain their mythology that neoliberal candidates are more electable than anyone else...even though current reality suggests exactly the opposite.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I said it was over simplistic to compare her to Romney or Bush- and that's ALL I said.
Perhaps if you actually read what I wrote instead of going off on a rant, then we could talk? Right now, not so much.
It appears you just want to target someone and pointedly lecture them for things they didn't even say. Go find a Hillary supporter and lecture them, for fucks sake. LOL!
2banon
(7,321 posts)you said:
That statement meets the definition of "uninformed" Yes, Bush Co's wealth is from "Blood Money",
Anyone bothering to inform themselves of the source of Clinton Family's wealth acquired following his terms in office - might very well see their's as "blood money", just as Bush Co.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And I do not equate speaking fee money with direct war profiteering, no. Too few American even realize that Iraq was about money for oil. It is too ugly for them to contemplate those lives lost and ruined for profit. Do I think it's wise to prop up the meme that Clinton's money was just as bloody as the Bush's, nope. I think it feeds the ignorance that is already out there Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.
4Q2u2
(1,406 posts)Goldman-Sachs and Carlyle group it is blood money.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Which Bill and Hillary were founding members of.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but the rising consciousness is that these treaties are bad for you and me... no matter what letter behind the name
Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2012-06-11). The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future . W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.
Seriously, when even this kind of writing is starting to make it's appearances in places like the NEBR Economic Report to the President: 2014 edition, something is happening. I am betting that second generation historians, meaning after clinton is pushing daisies and so are most current historians, will start to make comparisons to other presidents who are considered disasters for the people, assuming we retake the country from the money interests that is. If you keep that intellectual curiosity into your seventies you might even read those critiques yourself.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I just don't think it is blood money.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)it could very well be seen that way.
This from the Report to the President:
“Real output per hour was 99 percent higher by the end of 1972 than in
1947, while real average hourly earnings (GDP deflator) grew by 73 percent.
Figure 5-3 shows that since the early 1970s, the paths of labor productivity
and average hourly earnings diverged more widely. As a result, by the end of
September 2013 real output per hour was 107 percent higher than at the end
of 1972, but average hourly earnings had only grown 31 percent.8
Since the 1970s, these trends generally have been worse for lower income
households than for higher-income households (DiNardo, Fortin,
Lemieux 1996; Piketty and Saez 2003; Lemieux 2008; CEA 2012; Haskel,
Lawrence, Leamer, and Slaughter 2012).9 In particular, the income growth
in the top percentile of the income distribution has been much stronger
than other percentiles.”
People like Bill Clinton at high policy levels set the ground for the 2008 economic crash, and people on both parties are still fighting bringing the economic system back to heel. You know, the watered down bank regulations, they want to repeal them...
And yes, this blood money analogy was being repeated by many kids in many an occupy, indignado, et al camp around the world. That has not played out. In fact, it is just starting to play out.
Now my advise to the Clintons, is stop sounding naive and nouveau riche... aka, you can afford it, get a damn publicist. What both mother and daughter said recently has really grated people's sensitivities. It is almost as if I were back at a certain Occupy camp interviewing people. There is an undercurrent, almost like an undertow... that something is really, and I mean this, really wrong and broken.
Given the policies set up the conditions where we have the most income disparity since 1913, you can see why things are kind of boiling over. And yes, those were set by neoliberal types, including Bill Clinton. And Hillary will run on populist grounds but trust me, will not revise NAFTA, or worst, get out of NAFTA, let alone get out of TISA or TTP negotiations. That ain't gonna happen. The money people will not let her, and like most pols in the US, she listens to the money people. See, it is not just her.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Sense people who die from neglect, poverty, homelessness and hunger do not usually spill blood on the ground...but they are dead never the less.
It is better to kill softly I guess...less blow back because they did not pull a trigger.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)When the hollowed out husk remnants of Glass-Steagall were finally repealed, it passed with a veto-proof majority.
NAFTA was stupid on Clintons part.
Michigander_Life
(549 posts)The blood of the 99%. Blood on her hands from stabbing us in the back and twisting the blade back and forth.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I voted for her 5 times and I always liked her. I don't always agree but she is a strong democrat. The TPP thing and the Iraq war vote is not her best moments but she is a strong democrat.
samsingh
(17,594 posts)Michigander_Life
(549 posts)She stabbed us in the back for her corporate masters. What do you do when you get stabbed? I, for one, bleed.
Beacool
(30,247 posts) Whisp
(24,096 posts)[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
oops! sorry about the 'conspiracy'.
this never happened and that wasn't said...
and sincere apologies for disturbing Hillary's fantasy of being President.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)samsingh
(17,594 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)
By either
-exploiting the natural resources of this world for financial gain or
-exploiting the labor (human capital) of the world for financial gain or
-exploiting the consumers of the world by overcharging for products/services rendered.
-or some combination of these.
This wealth was denied to those who rightly deserved it by those who kept more for themselves.
This was either done directly by those who profited or via proxy, through investments or corporations which sheltered the individual from having to do the deed first hand.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1385475
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)You could have just wrote the above quote and stopped.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)lumpy
(13,704 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)She wanted to be more agressive with Syria.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)What about her position on Syria?
lumpy
(13,704 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)so all is forgiven.
In fact, because she's a "D" who supports these things, now war, the TPP and neo-con policies are GOOD. They will only become BAD when a "R" has the White House.
marble falls
(57,063 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)so fail there
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Were there people on the left in the past who said 'Romney money good'?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)not being differentiated by a letter behind any name
This started before Occupy Wall Street, but took sharp form then. Now it is part of the undertow... so it matter little if a well to do person is Republican, Democrat, or martian, they are increasingly seen as greedy bastards.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Although we do see exceptions among them, like Warren Buffett, Sting, Elon Musk...
People who don't intend to simply plop down their entire fortunes on their children, people who are using their fortunes to push science forward, since the government can't get it's act together to increase research spending, etc.
I think the tide has turned on the 'Greed is good' mantra, and people don't want to see others simply siphoning cash out of the economy. They want to see it being put back to work in creative (not vulture capital destructive) ways.
If I won the lottery tomorrow, and won 150 million after tax dollars, I'd turn around and give away 149 million of them. And then I'd still feel guilty about keeping even a million 
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and the undertow is even in government documents.
Inequality is a serious problem.
As to how much you keep, assuming you win that much. My advise is.
1.- Talk to a money manager, and keep five million. I know, I know, it is not greed, it is a cushion against sudden inflation. But it would be nice to be able to NOT care about money, and wonder where money is coming for the electric bill.
2.- My personal things to do, would be to pay my sister's home off, pay for college for all my nieces and nephews, and get each of them a trust, so they can start life a tad better, with a little more security. That would consume, given the age of the kids, about a million, perhaps a little more. The rest, well endowments are good, not just for arts but for basic research. There are direct donations to local non profits, and all that. It would take me a few years to find those though.
And on my personal wish things... that I would be able to afford, a full format camera, two bodies actually, and top level glass, including a 600 or 800 mm piece for wildfires (The 800 mm is close to 20K buckaroos) and video camera, so we can cover local politics even better. But if you have that much in the bank growing, 20K are not an issue at that point. Right now, even getting a second body is.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)all of that money going off to relatives as part of the 'give away'. And I've said elsewhere I'm in favour of capping lifetime transfers of wealth or inheritances at something like 5 mill (current inflation dollars), so even giving 1-5 mill apiece away to various relatives doesn't bother me in the least.
My idea is that the more money is divided up, the more it stays in economic circulation. If you've got 10 heirs, that's better for the overall economy than if you have 1. If you have 100, that's better than if you have 10.
If I really were to win a large lottery, I would do something similar for close friends and relatives first, but then pour the rest into places I think have largely been left to rot by the government, like the various reservations out in the Dakotas, where unemployment runs something like 80%, and people are constantly struggling merely to even afford propane or heating oil to survive the brutal winters, and most of the buildings have black mold issues.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)that is where endowments come in, exactly. But where you need to be careful how to set them up.
Here we have a level of poverty in the back country that is down right astounding, and immigrant communities that we created that need help with things like food, the electric bill and learning English. The last one, the public libraries have stepped to the plate, the other two, a few committees have, but they still need help.
Then we have the local urban core where funding free or near free child care would go a long way. We are not that off, I just know I would have to pay a few lawyers to make sure these endowments do what I intend them to do. (help bring people out of desperate poverty)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I've worked with various ongoing fundraisers to help with food, clothing, school supplies, and heat in the winter for several of the rez out there, but with a major chunk of cash at once, I'd probably try to work with the same charity group that runs the local food pantry to maybe set up something like a very localized habitat for humanity, to train local folks in construction and subsidize them rebuilding homes for people that were mold-free, energy-efficient, and even partially or entirely powered off-grid.
Homes are a sort of 'durable good', and the less time you have to worry about surviving what the environment throws at you, the more time you can devote to learning other skills that will help you and your community to survive and thrive.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)the local economy
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)The more you can create local economic movement, the better. Fund people who want to try and start micro-businesses, selling to neighbours so they can afford tools and starting materials to make things with. Livestock, crafting tools, cloth, sewing machines, etc, etc, etc, focusing on things that don't require enormous amounts of starting capital.
I try to take a similar approach to Christmas gifts, when I can, actually. If I know someone I'm going to give a gift to is learning a skill or trying to run a small business, I tailor my gift to facilitate such. Foreign language books to a nephew trying to learn another language, credit at a silver wholesaler for a friend who does silversmithing. Learning new skills is almost never a waste of time.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Party Unity My Ass Except We Might Have President Cruz So Party Unity Or Else!
If Hillary is the nominee, I vote for her.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Who mostly seem to only hate people for their wealth. Also, Bill's wealth is not necessarily Hillary's wealth. Rich people are not our enemies, rich conservatives are.
cali
(114,904 posts)and about hating Hillary and Bill for their wealth. Most people have made it clear that that is not why they found Hillary's comments about her being broke to be so discordant. It's that she seems to have a proclivity for sticking her foot in her mouth unnecessarily. And she doesn't seem to learn from past errors in that department.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)now compare it to what I wrote. At least I bother to write in complete sentences and to make a coherent case.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts) samsingh
(17,594 posts)they made money the old fashioned way - through hard work. They did not start wars as far as I can tell- e.g. cheney to cash in on haliburton stock options
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)http://www.clintonfoundation.org/main/our-work/by-initiative/clinton-foundation-in-haiti/about.html
The Clinton Foundation has been actively engaged in Haiti since 2009, focusing on economic diversification, private sector investment and job creation in order to create long-term, sustainable economic development. After the devastating earthquake in 2010, President Clinton formed the Clinton Foundation Haiti Fund and raised $16.4 million from individual donors for immediate earthquake relief efforts. Since 2010, the Clinton Foundation has raised a total of $34 million for Haiti, including relief funds as well as projects focused on restoring Haiti's communities, sustainable development, education and capacity building. In 2012, the Clinton Foundation concentrated on creating sustainable economic growth in the four priority sectors of energy, tourism, agriculture, and apparel/manufacturing, working to bring new investors, develop and support local organizations and businesses, and create access to new markets. The Clinton Foundation also continued working to support government efforts to improve Haiti’s business environment and supported programs in education and capacity building.
http://www.haiti-liberte.com/archives/volume4-47/Washington%20Backed%20Famous.asp
The U.S. Embassy in Haiti worked closely with factory owners contracted by Levi’s, Hanes, and Fruit of the Loom to aggressively block a paltry minimum wage increase for Haitian assembly zone workers, the lowest paid in the hemisphere, according to secret State Department cables.
The factory owners refused to pay 62 cents an hour, or $5 per eight-hour day, as a measure unanimously passed by the Haitian parliament in June 2009 would have mandated. Behind the scenes, the factory owners had the vigorous backing of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Embassy, show secret U.S. Embassy cables provided to Haïti Liberté by the transparency-advocacy group WikiLeaks.
The minimum daily wage had been 70 gourdes or $1.75 a day.
The factory owners told the Haitian parliament that they were willing to give workers a mere 9 cents an hour pay increase to 31 cents an hour – 100 gourdes daily – to make T-shirts, bras and underwear for U.S. clothing giants like Dockers and Nautica.
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/10/17/headlines#10179
A new report by the Worker Rights Consortium has found the majority of workers in Haiti’s garment industry are being denied nearly a third of the wages they are legally owed due to widespread wage theft. The new evidence builds on an earlier report that found every single one of Haiti’s export garment factories was illegally shortchanging workers. Workers in Haiti make clothes for U.S. retailers including Gap, Target, Kohl’s, Levi’s and Wal-Mart. The report highlighted abuses at the Caracol Industrial Park, a new factory complex heavily subsidized by the U.S. State Department, the Inter-American Development Bank and the Clinton Foundation and touted as a key part of Haiti’s post-earthquake recovery. The report found that, on average, workers at the complex are paid 34 percent less than the law requires. Haiti’s minimum wage for garment workers is between 60 and 90 cents an hour. More than three-quarters of workers interviewed for the report said they could not afford three meals a day.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Haiti is a devastating example of predatory corporatism. The human suffering there has been incomprehensible and is directly attributable to the very policies Hillary represents.
samsingh
(17,594 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)who got the Hillary Clinton State Department to put pressure on the Haitian government to keep slave wages, or the factory owners, organized under the Clinton Foundation, who ripped off their workers?
Either way, it's bad.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Like when people buy meat at the supermarket - they don't consider from where it comes, they just want to eat it. Thinking about the cruelty involved lessens the pleasure.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)
MoonchildCA
(1,301 posts)There are plenty of rich people who fight for the poor and middle class--the Kennedys, for example.
The problem with Hillary, is the way she tries to sympathize with the struggles of people by saying things, like they were "broke" after the leaving the whitehouse, or that they're not that rich.
It's clumsy and ridiculous for her to try to relate in that fashion. She can simply see injustices in our system and want to come up with solutions to fix them. She doesn't have to pretend to "feel our pain" by recently experiencing it--it's disingenuous.
bigtree
(85,986 posts). . . you've lost your fucking mind.
4Q2u2
(1,406 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)4Q2u2
(1,406 posts)Someone else at the bottom of the thread is ignoring the truth as well.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Hillary stands for predatory, neoliberal policies that have driven millions into poverty and despair, plummeted the US on measure after measure of health and well-being, and escalated suicides. Look at disaster capitalism and what is being done to the citizens of New Orleans or Detroit, where health and mortality statistics have fallen to the level of Thailand. She also stands for the continuation and escalation of MIC warmongering for profit, the relentless slaughter of civilians in their own countries absent any declaration of war, and the escalation of MIC activities all over the world.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Or am I RIGHT?!
Fucking calm down, would you? Hillary is responsible for what the REPUBLICAN governors of Michigan and Louisiana are doing in their states? And Hillary is responsible for "escalated suicides?" Fucking really?
Jesus Christ, a simple "she's not my favorite Democrat" would be sufficient. You sound like a meth-induced segment of Fox News.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)as you are the only one here posting with exclamation points and all caps. Predatory corporate policy and disaster capitalism are well alive in the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party. Just ask Chicago, where unions are being busted and schools are being first starved and then shut down by Obama's close colleague, Rahm Emanuel.
The point here is that corporate neoliberals are in collusion with Republicans behind these policies...austerity, union-busting, warmongering for profit. Do I need to post the lengthy lists again of the policies this administration has actively pushed? The Republicans and crony capitalists installed in every branch of government? The looming predatory trade agreements with Hillary's handprints all over them? Hillary's record on drone murders, military expansion, and war? The bloody, predatory history of the Carlyle Group?
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)I need to calm down? You're about to have a fucking aneurysm.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)First you inexplicably told me to calm down, and now you are still going on about it. It's almost as though you are trying to give a false impression of this conversation for anyone who is casually reading only the post headlines.
I tried to redirect the conversation from me to the predatory corporate policies that neoliberals and Republicans agree upon and that Hillary has consistently represented. Also, please take a look at OnyxCollie's excellent post above about the devastating human consequences of predatory corporate policies in Haiti, in which Hillary Clinton has been intimately involved.
It's the pattern and the policies. We can't afford four more years of neoliberal corporatism wearing a populist costume.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)So you'll stop hurling personal insults at Democrats and make it all about the policies? Glad to oblige.
With regard to Haiti, it's a pretty complicated situation there. At $400 annual income per capita, it's just about the poorest place on the planet. It's got endemic crime, poverty and political corruption. On the World Bank's list of business climate in 185 countries, Haiti ranks 174th. The unemployment rate is somewhere between 50% and 70% -- nobody knows for sure because Haiti's government isn't capable of keeping the statistics. You take just about anything that sucks in this life and you'll find that Haiti has more of it than just about anybody else. Hell, the UN had 10,000 peacekeepers stationed in Haiti, and that was before the earthquake.
The problems of Haiti aren't going to be solved by the United States alone or by garment industry. My guess is that it's going to require joint action by (possibly) the Organization of American States to help stabilize the country and to not rely on piecemeal private investment. Don't get me wrong, if you're unemployed in a country where the average income is $2/day, then getting a $0.75 per hour job in a sweatshop is going to seem like friggin' Nirvana. But I'm pretty sure that Haitians can do better than that. We could start with the sanitary infrastructure on Haiti -- something like only 10% of Haitians have access to clean water -- and that's led to periodic outbreaks of cholera. So we could improve the health and the economy of Haiti by getting western nations to pony up the funding -- about $2 billion -- but the problem remains with regard to who's going to manage the project? The Haitian government? They haven't proven to be terribly reliable in that department.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It's a baseless accusation that reflects on your own conduct here rather than mine. You are the only one in this conversation who has repeatedly tried to make it personal, and you continue to do so. It is revelatory as to your lack of argument.
Your comments about Haiti here are similarly nonresponsive. More to the point, they are weirdly and dishonestly avoidant of the longstanding and continuing history of US corporate and military domination and exploitation of Haiti. You opine about poverty in Haiti "even before the earthquake," as though the earthquake, rather than decades of military and political manipulation, prevention of any development of independence through denial of sovereignty, installation of corporate goals rather than goals for Haitians, and coup/installation of government to enable theft and stripping by corporations of the country's own resources were not at fault. You ignore the more recent massive privatization forced on Haiti by the US and its allies after the 2004 coup and the neoliberal "restructuring programs" that have deepened poverty for Haitians through familiar Shock Doctrine measures like making IMF loans conditional on the implementation of vicious neoliberal wage and social policies.
In short, you deal with the accusation of US corporate exploitation of Haiti by utterly ignoring it and adding baseless personal attacks to distract from the fact you are ignoring it.
Corporate exploitation of Haiti, resulting in the deaths of countless Haitians and unfathomable misery over the decades, has been and remains a national shame for the US. More importantly, it serves as a deadly warning of what happens to countries and human beings when governments are subverted for corporate interests rather than human interests.
Decades and decades ago, the US took control of Haiti by force and changed its Constitution to allow corporations to seize the land of the Haitian people. Now we're facing relentless attempts by corporate-bought politicians to dismantle our own Constitutional protections and grow the power of corporations over our lives through predatory "trade agreements" that will overrule the will of the people on issues ranging from environmental regulation to worker protections.
Americans have largely been insulated from the effects of US corporate policy all over the world. We mostly grew up believing that hunger and privation just happen, usually over there somewhere, to people who don't look like us and for reasons that are never quite clear. But there are reasons. Corporations don't operate on morality. For them, there is no currency in a government, "of, by, and for the people." The only consideration is profit.
The global corporatists are just getting started here. But they have already impoverished and killed masses of human beings all over the world, for profit. We are not special to them.
We cannot afford four more years of allowing corporatists to grow their power in Washington. We can't afford continued assaults on our Constitutional protections and the growth of this surveillance state. We can't afford more austerity and privatization and protection of banks over people. And we can't afford Hillary's TPP.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)You started this by accusing Hillary Clinton of being behind "escalating suicides."
And the remainder of this post is a lot of bitching and moaning about things that happened in the past and not one syllable about when might be done for Haiti's future. And it concludes with yet another attack on Hillary Clinton.
You don't want a discussion. You just like hearing yourself talk.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)is a large part of the reason corporate politicians now struggle to convince voters that they are honest representatives for the people.
More Americans Committing Suicide than During the Great Depression
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023836565
Economic Recession Linked to 10,000 Suicides
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101695474
We are constantly fed the lie that the economy just happens to us, like weather or an earthquake in Haiti, and that well-meaning politicians battle helplessly against it on our behalf. But as bvar22 summarized here re: recent neoliberal policies and their effects...
...THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4853706
Study: "Trade" Deal Would Mean a Pay Cut for 90% of U.S. Workers
http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/09/the-verdict-is-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-a-sweeping-free-trade-deal-under-negotiation-with-11-pacific-rim-coun.html
CHARTS: The Amazing Wealth Surge For The Top 0.1 Percent
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-amazing-wealth-surge-for-the-top-0-1-percent
Korean Free Trade Deal devastating for US Workers
What happened to the 70,000 jobs that the Korea Free Trade deal was supposed to create? They never materialized. Instead, U.S. workers lost 40,000 jobs in the first year of the agreement.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-cohen/koreaus-free-trade-agreem_b_4965492.html
Retirement: A third have less than $1,000 put away
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2014/03/18/retirement-confidence-survey-savings/6432241/
65 percent of working families are living from paycheck to paycheck.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/01/10/why-conservatives-old-divide-and-conquer-strategy-%E2%80%94-setting-working-class-against-the-poor-%E2%80%94-is-backfiring/
"Obama Admin’s TPP Trade Officials Received Hefty Bonuses From Big Banks"
http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/20/obama-admin%E2%80%99s-tpp-trade-officials-received-hefty-bonuses-from-big-banks/
95 percent of the economy’s gains have gone to the top 1 percent
http://billmoyers.com/2014/01/10/why-conservatives-old-divide-and-conquer-strategy-%E2%80%94-setting-working-class-against-the-poor-%E2%80%94-is-backfiring/
Billionaire wealth doubles since financial crisis
http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/11/12/Billionaire-wealth-doubles-since-financial-crisis/5011384268135/?spt=hts&or=12
The Top .01 Percent Reach New Heights
http://www.demos.org/blog/9/13/13/top-01-percent-reach-new-heights
Rates of unemployment for families earning less than $20,000 - have topped 21 percent
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_JOBS_GAP_RICH_AND_POOR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-16-08-11-23
Obama appoints industry insider to head the FCC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024521140
Obama selects former Monsanto lobbyist to be his TPP chief agriculture negotiator
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662210
The Totally Unfair And Bitterly Uneven 'Recovery,' In 12 Charts – HuffPo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662029
Larry Summers Gets 'Full-Throated Defense' From Obama In Capitol Hill Meeting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014553343#post1
Wall Street will get away with massive wave of criminality of 2008 - Statute of Limitations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022516719
Income gap widest ever: 95 Percent of Recovery Income Gains Have Gone to the Top 1 Percent
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/09/10/one_percent_recovery_95_percent_of_gains_have_gone_to_the_top_one_percent.html
Older Workers:.Set Back by Recession, and Shut Out of Rebound
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/booming/for-laid-off-older-workers-age-bias-is-pervasive.html?smid=tw-share&_r=3&
Corporate Profits Have Grown By 171 Percent Under Obama -- Highest Rate Since 1900
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/corporate-profits-have-grown-171-percent-under-obama-highest-rate-1900
THIS ^ does NOT happen by accident.
It is the result of carefully planned and implemented Economic Policy.
It requires careful preparation, marketing, buying the right politicians, message control, courts packed with Conservative Corporate Rights Judges, and the marginalization and suppression of any opposition.
Corporate policies create economic despair. Neoliberalism creates economic despair. We had better damned well pay attention to what has been done to Haiti and other nations around the world, and to the predatory policies that corporate-backed politicians are now forcing upon us through secret agreements and dismantling of our Constitutional protections. Compared to other nations, we have only had a taste of pain so far. These corporations are only at the beginning of harvesting us.
This is deadly serious. Yes, Carlyle Group money is blood money. Look honestly at the history of these corporate predators, and try to deny it.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)ALL OF THIS is the fault of one Hillary Rodham Clinton. She has single-handedly, like some puppet master in a pant suit, managed to bend the power of the United States government and the will of the American people to her own nefarious purposes.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)That ludicrous strawman perfectly summarizes the quality of your arguments here.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)
lumpy
(13,704 posts)responsible for all the misery in the world.
JEB
(4,748 posts)She's on the list with Zell Miller, DiFi, Lieberman, Baucus.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Every dollar goes to supporting more of the same that has got us to this point. The ideas form in the mind of wealthy sociopaths to think tanks to out of control military budgets to spying to wars for resources and the overthrowing of third world governments.
Our world is being literally made uninhabitable for virtually every life form on it by the insatiable and ever growing greed represented by every new dollar in the markets. Every speculator driving up false demand and forcing huge amounts of waste of our limited natural resources all in the sake of getting a few extra bucks.
These are all done for the shareholder, for the sake of the shareholder, in the shareholders name.
None of it is making life better for our children or our children's children. It is stealing it and wasting it, it is ensuring they lead lives of if not enslavement to our legacy, at least unable to breathe because of it.
It is destroying everything those who came before us fought and died for, it is limiting the amount of life this planet can sustain.
If that ain't blood money, I don't know what is.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)
Phlem
(6,323 posts)But, but, but they sold books and have high speaking fees.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)altering those economic systems?
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)We all have our own dreams. Our own meaning of what it means to live a "good life".
For me, making the world better because of my existence always seemed like a decent objective.
Now, I'm just hoping I don't make it much worse.
I don't know what the answer is. I just know that if one wants to stand against something, not standing with it is a good start.
And siding with GE and BP would blow my objective out of the water.
In my perfect world we'd be using the economic might of the USA to lift all boats. Instead of weakening regulations in foreign countries we would be making them rise to ours in order to do business with us.
Instead of drilling and fracking as much as we can, we would take an orderly and reasoned approach to getting the most bang for the buck, so to speak, with the least amount of waste as possible.
We would consider the impacts of every action generations into the future. And then we would move forward.
These are pipe dreams of course. It is all over. If we had better education, if we had people who truly loved wilderness and animal life, if we had people who couldn't sleep if others couldn't eat, if we could do it all over, I hope we would do it better.
I doubt it.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)Some of those pipe dreams have come true thanks to Democratic leadership and some progressive Republicans. Hopefully more to come. Positive outlook versus negative.
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)dsc
(52,155 posts)which comes from people buying their books. In no case did a book of theirs not sell enough to cover the advances they got, instead they made more from the book than the advances were.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)I see you're back in fine form. Woot! K&R
Beacool
(30,247 posts)BLOOD MONEY??????
If anyone is spouting "the bull@#$%".......
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)at places like Occupy San Diego...
You might want to reach for the smelling salts, because you will hear more of this.
On the bright side this is directed at the 1%, not just the Clintons.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)I don't expect any different from this place.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)At least the NEBR and the Economic advisors to the President do get it.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)These so called gaffes won't matter one iota in two years. That is if she indeed runs. That's still an "if", it's not a certainty. As for Obama's advisors, they should worry more about their boss' low polling and help him to device an economic plan that will create sustainable jobs, not what a private citizen is saying about her finances.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but at this level they do.
INEQUALITY IS GROWING, and the political system is bought and paid for. The first point matters to the folks in the club in DC because that can lead to things like these?
And that is quite inconvenient. That is just starting to start to actually play out. So is the Citizens United and how the system is bought and paid for.
Now that is what you are missing. They are not, but they are concerned for other reasons than obviously you are.
As to these gaffes, they matter in the sense that they confirm certain things in the minds of potential voters, especially those who bought the message of hope and change and now have become cynical non voters.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Very much in the 1%. But that's not to be mentioned. She was also a Republican when they were on a crusade against human rights and choice. Also not to be mentioned.
It makes the whole set of arguments seem highly situational.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)You've got them coming out of the woodwork.
840high
(17,196 posts)Exactly.
unblock
(52,183 posts)there's simply no way that any one person can accumulate vast riches without at least taking a grossly unfair share, and far more typically, screwing people outright or ripping people off or stealing from the commons or doing something else rotten.
one thing's for sure, the republican candidate will be backed by an army of rotten people who got their obscene wealth from doing many rotten things. the candidate might also be directly rich and rotten in this respect, but it hardly matters, because they will represent the interests of their rotten backers regardless.
moreover, the political process in washington is so thoroughly corrupt at this point that saints are one-termers if they can even get that far.
personally, i'd much rather abstain from attacks on democratic candidates that serve as trial runs for attacks in the general.
besides, i'm much more interested in senator warrens' amazing talents and plans than i am about hearing rotten things about hillary. i still feel like i overdosed on that in the 90's.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)rotten things about hillary. i still feel like i overdosed on that in the 90's. "
I hear ya.
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)The hyperbole on DU used to piss me off. Now it just amuses me.
In the real world, Liberals overwhelmingly like the Clintons. The "99%" overwhelmingly support them. The idea that the Clintons are these horrible people who sit around counting their cash and drinking the blood of poor people is such a small, fringe view that it cannot be taken seriously.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)is blamed for a lot of the current ills. And that is the truth Jack
You might want to ignore it, but not everybody does.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)One that I had saved money for to put myself through school and hopefully have a wife and child and a house. I stayed in touch with some higher ups after that and one confessed the company was in complete offshore mode. A company run by religious right wingers.
And I'm supposed to be clueless because I don't feel all warm and fuzzy for the Clintons.
Bullshit.
Have the centrists (all right leaning) just dropping that label altogether? They're just flat out calling themselves liburuls and then telling us 99% approve of Clinton?
I wouldn't be surprised.
Keep fighting the good fight Nadin, I'm right here with ya.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
Phlem
(6,323 posts)
-p
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Your officially on my quick link bar.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I know there were some changes in the hearings
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Let's vote for someone who will perpetuate our low living standards else we might get a Republican.
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)Vote Hillary.
I stand with the LIBERALS of this country in supporting her.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)"You want progress? You want higher living standards?"
Show me where this clearly evident.
"I stand with the LIBERALS of this country in supporting her."
So if I don't support her I'm not a liberal, or excuse me, LIBERAL?
And that says a lot about the dumbing down of America, and no this is not directed at you.
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)It's just that you are in a small minority of liberals. And that in itself is neither good nor bad. It's just reality.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)I'll take my information else where.
Yes, I do notice you haven't answered my first question.
Where's the overwhelming evidence she's the right one for us?
Also, what's right for you and your reality is NOT everyone else's reality.
All you have is your opinion....that your trying to push onto other people.
See #94
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)which FORCED it to shift rightward?! at least that's what i read here yesterday.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025141055
Phlem
(6,323 posts)The Centrists had "0" effect on the party moving to the right. I would imagine they're the one's pushing hard for the Hillary agenda. Funny how they've gone dark.
Don't give me the if you don't vote crap. I always have and I always will and it's always been Democrat even as fucked as the party is.
And please cut the crap.
I don't follow sheshe1 or 2, I've read their opinion on many things and find them all to be lacking and weak and to much rah rah rah sis boom bah.
Liberals have always been here and always will be here. What has taken over the party is nothing remotely close to liberal.
-p
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)i was just sharing the BULLSHIT that's coming from centrists about their need to move right. it most certainly had nothing to do with their base...the people who actually vote for them. oddly though, the party power brokers keep spouting stupid shit about liberals leaving the party, etc. 30+ years of voting D for me...and I am almost done. because democrats are as complicit in fighting against my interests as are republicons.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)I just get tired of arguing with people who believe in nonsense as I'm sure you are too.
"because democrats are as complicit in fighting against my interests as are republicons." Whole heartily agreed.
I still haven't found full time work since my job was shipped over seas when NAFTA came out and people are trying to convince me Hillary's the ticket? 
I keep asking myself "Why the hard sell?" Why do people on DU need to sell Hillary to the rest of the crowd. If she's so fucking great, it wouldn't be a problem.
Take care noiretextatique, I'll be looking out for more of your posts. Hang in there.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts) i am 55 and this "downturn" took everything i've worked for over 20+ years...everything. i am working again, but making 25% less than I was in 2010. i have no more time for playing the D good R bad game. republicons are horrible, and democrats are ineffective...even with a majority in both houses...because they are trying to serve too many masters. if anyone really believes today's party is remotely like the party of FDR...they are delusional. not fond of cheerleaders either best of luck to you in finding employment. Maedhros
(10,007 posts)who now claim to be Democrats.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)But your supposed to think liberals left the Democratic party.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)when you look at the actual results, for human beings, of corporate-driven policy around the world.
leftstreet
(36,103 posts)FDR, Washington...beloved more or less
Maybe you missed that
lumpy
(13,704 posts)anyone, seriously.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)And that was because Republicans hated his fucking guts!
In the intervening 13+ years he's endeared himself to the Bush family, made a ton of money by making speeches to Wall Street and corporate clients, and attempted to trash his own party's 2008 presidential candidate with vaguely racist insinuations. So the country club wing of the republican party has now accepted him as one of they own, which I suspect was his intent from the start. So there's no reason left for me to have any positive opinion of him.
But he can still bullshit with the best of them. Hillary lacks this ability. It's so easy to tell when she's lying she'll be a sitting duck for her opponents. And she has a tendency to be less than faithful to the truth every time she gets into a tight spot.
It's immaterial to me how they "earned" their money. What's important is that she somehow senses that they are perceived as rich fat cats and this won't play well with middle class and low income American voters. I don't think she'll be able to talk herself out of that perception.
leftstreet
(36,103 posts)lumpy
(13,704 posts)Using only words and some outright lies to downgrade anyone they have disagreements with. Bloody Hell.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Tea Party + Spell Check = Democratic Underground
I used to think that we were better then the assholes on the right.
Hillary is not my favorite Democrat, and she's probably no better than third on my list of who I'd like to see with the Democratic nomination. But she's not the friggin' anti-Christ, and if she winds up with the nomination, she winds up with my vote. Simple as that.
Bloody hell, indeed!
Chuck Finley
(12 posts)Most of it came from their speaking fees. Whoever paid those fees must think it was worth it, or they wouldn't have paid it.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)They were paid because of their long resumes and experience as governor, senator, president, and secretary of state make them valuable. GW Bush isn't making doodly squat because nobody values his opinion on anything. The Obamas will do the same when they are out of office in a couple years. Same with Elizabeth Warren.
BootinUp
(47,138 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)DURec.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Look at their job resumes going back to the 60s. They worked for a living. Law firm, Governorship, Presidency and first lady duties, Senator, Secretary of State. Etc, etc.
They earned everything they have.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Not that the Clintons are a fraction as evil as, say, the Bushes, but their hands aren't exactly clean either.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)To me is it odd to offer up a wildly wealthy former Republican who supported the Reagan Bush era racism and homophobia as well as the economic policy of that Party as an alternative to a wealthy Democrat who was married to the man who defeated the former Republican's choice, George HW Bush.
I used to demonstrate against the Republicans when Warren was one. She's filthy rich. She was a Reaganite when Reagan stood for Death.
How is that any better than Hillary? If Warren had had her way, Bill would never have been President, it would have been more HW Bush.....is that what you wanted then too?
I have a very hard time supporting a person who laughed at the death of my friends. Who voted for Death as policy. I'm sure she looks spiffy to Pope loving Straights. All they care about is $$$$.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Probably more than a million people slaughtered and trillions spent over oil. I'd have thought you'd be against that kind of thing.
Can you help us to understand why you want those wars?
marble falls
(57,063 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"brutalize the 99%"
99% of the worlds population would laugh at your use of the word brutalize. Well, maybe not laugh. That is hard for so many to do in other countries lacking our privilege. That is what using that term in this manner shows. A lack of knowledge of worldwide events and American privilege.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Than purely economic issues because they are doing so much better. Than who?!?!
And it appears they weren't joking. Talk about tone deaf, and ignorant to boot.
Back of the bus, friends, back of the bus again.
BootinUp
(47,138 posts)without any specifics to back up YOUR bullshit, I can't stop you, at least not until she is our candidate.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)