Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jack Rabbit

(45,984 posts)
49. Mrs. Clinton wants us to forget more than that
Sat Jan 16, 2016, 06:07 PM
Jan 2016

It isn't just Mrs. Clinton's disastrous record as a war hawk, but her disastrous record as a neoliberal.

Neoliberalism is the colonialism department of neoconservatism.

-- Granny D (Doris Haddock 1910-2010)


The late, great American citizen, Granny D got the formula backward. Full spectrum dominance is the stated goal of the infamous PNAC latter, meaning control of the world's natural resources on behalf of US-based corporation and the military power to seize them from unwilling foreign states. As we know, the Bushies lied the people of the nation into war with Iraq with charges of Saddam's complicity with terrorists and the existence of his secret biochemical arsenal with a capability of striking the US, neither of which had any credible foundation known to the national intelligence community. Even if the Bushies didn't know their case for war was made up of falsehoods, they went to extraordinary lengths, including outing a CIA officer, to maintain the fiction that hey had good reason to believe it was true. The goal was never so much to oust Saddam, but to make sure ExxonMobil could get at their oil laying under the Iraqi people's sand.

Thus, neoconservatism is the enforcement department of neoliberalism.

We must not think that neoliberalism is nothing more than just the colonial occupation of defiant resource-rich nations. like Iraq under Saddam any more that we should mistake Saddam as a wise and benevolent leader. It is the entire regime of deregulation and free trade, rules rewritten for the world's largest corporation and the executives who hide behind the corporate logos, like the con artist hiding behind the curtain in Emerald City. Democracy is a system of government that is supposed to protect the people from shady businessmen and common criminals alike, but democracy is not perfect. When the people, who supposedly consent to be governed by those they choose are lulled to sleep and become lax in the vigilance required to maintain democracy from being undermined by clever men with evil spirits. then it is undermined. A bribe becomes a campaign contribution, and if you think you're not naive enough to think there's any difference, then just to prove it is true in all cases. Sophistry like that leads us to the nonsense of Citizens United v. FEC, where corporations have human rights and money is free speech.

Under the neoliberal regime, co-extensive with the administrations of Ronald Reagan and each of his successors, regardless of party, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act "modernized" the banking industry and made it legal to use the savings of small depositors in commercial banks in risky ventures that were once handled by investment banks, whose depositors were fully aware of the risks and had more to fall back on should the venture fail. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley, some small savers lost everything they had, including their homes and retirement funds. The obvious answer is to repeal Gramm-Leach-Bliley and reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial and investment banking, preventing banks from using Mom-and-Pop's saving in risky ventures until Gramm-Leach-Bliley replaced it in 1999.

Only nine years into the regime of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, reckless behavior by Wall Street banks resulted in the global meltdown of 2008. Congress used taxpayers' money bail out the banks because they had become "too big to fail." Today, those banks are even bigger and still making risky investments using small savings. What happens if their continued reckless behavior caused another global meltdown? They expect another taxpayer bailout so they continue operating on the "modernized" business model. Nevermid that it is an unsustainable business model.

Mrs. Clinton, who gets an awful lot of free speech from Wall Street banks, not only to her political campaign, but in exorbitant speaking fees and donations to the Clinton Foundation, has expressed opposition to reinstating Glass-Steagall. Her opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, supports reinstating Glass-Steagall. Wall Street doesn't give a lot of money to Senator Sanders; Senator Sanders depends on small contributions from the kind of people who maintain small savings accounts in banks that used to be safe until the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act replaced Glass-Steagall.

It isn't just her coziness with Wall Street banks along with her support for foreign policy misadventures like Iraq (when she was in the Senate) and Libya (when she was Secretary of State). She has supported free deals like NAFTA; she supported the TPP until she opposed it, and not because it contains the ISDS provision that threaten the deal crippling fines to any state that passes regulations that a panel of corporate shysters find inhibit expected future corporate profits. We must assume that since she has been silent on the ISDS issue that she's OK with it. I feel differently. Any deal with such a provision in it should be opposed regardless of what else is in it. As Secretary of State, she greased the skids for the fracking industry, an all-around bad idea. And in just the last week, she threw under the bus the concept of universal healthcare, which she championed as First Lady. Senator Sanders, on the other hand, is suspicious of use of military power just because we can, is opposed to free trade on principle, opposed to an environmentally destructive technique which would produce more unhealthy fossil fuels, and has been over the years an unwavering supporter of universal healthcare, unequivocally declaring that access to healthcare is a human right.

Senator Sanders is accused by some on this board of not being a real Democrat and making a career of bad-mouthing Democrats. If he has bad-mouthed Democrats it is because they opened themselves to criticism by supporting corporate interests in a clear betrayal of public trust, from supporting job-killing free trade deals to supporting an unsustainable and anti-consumer banking model to support for destructive environmental policies, like fracking or more oil drilling. As an independent, he's been a better Democrat than those who took those positions. He deserves our support.

Mrs. Clinton, on the hand, would like us to forget about all the past and present stands she's taken on the wrong side of issues important to Democrats.




Bernie can lean on His, She has to Hide hers at every turn, Why won't people acknowledge that . n/t orpupilofnature57 Jan 2016 #1
I don't forget Hillary's record on being a war hawk and I don't forget Sanders Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #2
Uh huh. You're selling, nobody is buying. N/t JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #5
Oh, no. How dare he..... daleanime Jan 2016 #7
I thought you people were attacking him for being a Pacifist? Motown_Johnny Jan 2016 #11
It's ambiguous like their candidates positions on the TPP, Same sex marriage and you fill in the orpupilofnature57 Jan 2016 #13
It does not change the fact of his votes, Hillary also made decisions based Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #23
He didn't bust a gut laughing about a failure in Libya. Fawke Em Jan 2016 #32
+1 BeanMusical Jan 2016 #33
When you throw rights and lefts like that it looks like you're drowning. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2016 #39
LOL !!! pangaia Jan 2016 #51
Libya. nt. polly7 Jan 2016 #3
Honduras. nt DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2016 #4
Haiti. JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #6
And a close friendship with The King of Extrajudicial Death, Henry Kissinger tops it all off. nt. DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2016 #10
K&R..... daleanime Jan 2016 #8
She would have already panicked and nuked Iran in response to the capture of the US sailors tularetom Jan 2016 #9
She might have tried to invade, since we would still have armies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Motown_Johnny Jan 2016 #12
Some of this probably is in some way linked to her gender...women are not judged libdem4life Jan 2016 #15
After Bloody Maggie Thatcher, Golda Meir, Catherine the Great, how can you say that? Proserpina Jan 2016 #20
You missed the point. libdem4life Jan 2016 #44
I get that, yet she seems overly anxious to prove that she isn't like "most women" tularetom Jan 2016 #25
There is no psychological hangup about being a woman. They are called traditional gender libdem4life Jan 2016 #45
It's the Elephant in the Living Room...or the Very Large Hawk, if you will. libdem4life Jan 2016 #14
One of my biggest problems with HRC farleftlib Jan 2016 #16
"We came, we saw, he died," sulphurdunn Jan 2016 #17
How anyone can support her after that comment and her IWR vote is beyond me. nt Live and Learn Jan 2016 #19
..! KoKo Jan 2016 #21
Clinton should be kept well away from any red buttons, that is for sure. eom Betty Karlson Jan 2016 #18
She and McCain can yuck it up to the tune of nc4bo Jan 2016 #22
Threads like these LW1977 Jan 2016 #24
Her record is fair game - As long as it's the truth Ferd Berfel Jan 2016 #26
If what is said on a political forum is strong enough to sway you nc4bo Jan 2016 #27
! ejbr Jan 2016 #41
OK, as long as you have a good reason. bvf Jan 2016 #43
A story from a liberal source without comment is a problem? Motown_Johnny Jan 2016 #48
I won't forget: it's the first thing I think of. Fawke Em Jan 2016 #28
Yet, she claims to be anti-gun. Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2016 #29
K&R. Another thing that irks me, is MSNBC addressing her as "Madame Secretary". Duval Jan 2016 #30
I just goggled the protocol re: former SOS. Duval Jan 2016 #36
The entire US political class EdwardBernays Jan 2016 #31
Bernie is certainly far less pacifist now than when he was of draft age. cpwm17 Jan 2016 #46
The lesser evil or the greater one Motown_Johnny Jan 2016 #47
Well EdwardBernays Jan 2016 #50
But then there are things where she has shown great courage. INdemo Jan 2016 #34
Hillary goes out of her way to remind everybody that she loves war, cpwm17 Jan 2016 #35
Didn't she vote for cluster bombs? Rosa Luxemburg Jan 2016 #37
Yes. nt. polly7 Jan 2016 #40
That's the big issue for me yellowwoodII Jan 2016 #38
She wants us to forget everything but our account and routing numbers. last1standing Jan 2016 #42
Mrs. Clinton wants us to forget more than that Jack Rabbit Jan 2016 #49
And now she wants new sanctions on Iran. thesquanderer Jan 2016 #52
I assumed she would have a reaction like that. I decided to post this first. Motown_Johnny Jan 2016 #53
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»What Hillary Clinton want...»Reply #49