General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI wish we could talk sanely about the Clintons and their long history
of dependence on and entanglement with corporate big $$$. We've discussed it as regards repubs but it devolves into a food fight when it comes to the Clintons. So go ahead, excoriate me for this post, yawn, dismiss it, but that doesn't mean that the Clintons aren't part of this.
I'd be happy to stipulate that they haven't done anything illegal- but that doesn't mean that it isn't problematic.
And I wish we could dispense Schwiezer: The discussion of this far, far predates his idiotic book- which I see as a huge stumbling block to discussing it; bring it up and people immediately start screaming that you're on the side of the right wingers.
The intersection between politics and corporate money is a serious problem. And it's not just CU. It was recognized and discussed as a serious problem long before 2008.
The Clintons owe virtually all of their financial success to corporate money. They owe the success of their Foundation to corporate money. If neither one were in politics anymore, that wouldn't be a problem.
Money buys access. Period. The more access, the more influence. Again, not saying that any of this is illegal, but it functions to shut out other voices. You can argue that some of that money is buying access for the good, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that most of it is.
The Clintons earned $25 million since the beginning of 2014 making speeches. This is not money that was donated to the Foundation. It was personal income. Most of it came from speeches to corporate interests.
Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband made at least $30 million over the last 16 months, mainly from giving paid speeches to corporations, banks and other organizations, according to financial disclosure forms filed with federal elections officials on Friday.
The sum, which makes Mrs. Clinton among the wealthiest of the 2016 presidential candidates, could create challenges for the former secretary of state as she tries to cast herself as a champion of everyday Americans in an era of income inequality.
The $25 million in speaking fees since the beginning of last year continue a lucrative trend for the Clintons: They have now earned more than $125 million on the circuit since leaving the White House in 2001.
<snip>
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/16/us/politics/clintons-reportedly-earned-30-million-in-the-last-16-months.html?_r=0
marym625
(17,997 posts)You're brave for trying. I think you will receive a few thoughtful replies and there will be a few on both sides willing to discuss. But you will have the inevitable thread hijackers too.
Maybe if they are ignored, you will get somewhere. I am going to just sit back and watch
<- first time I used that
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)We lovessses them so muchsss!
marym625
(17,997 posts)I didn't say Clintonesss. Really. I didn't .
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Stolen.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,178 posts)funny
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)While they Eye of Sauron is turned in that direction, lots of hobbitses in Europe and Latin America are taking advantage.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Most high profile politicians' net worth goes way up during the course of their lifetime. There is no quid pro quo here that anyone can point to. It's a red herring. The last time we had a Clinton in office we had no wars and unprecedented job growth. Peace and prosperity.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)And the last time we had a Clinton as secretary of state we didn't go into the middle east? This mind blowing news... google has it all wrong apparently
certainot
(9,090 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)beltanefauve
(1,784 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)It was an effective use of our air superiority. It doesn't compare to our 10 year war in Iraq.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)I won't argue with you that most high profile pols make a lot of money both while they're in office and once they leave.
I'm not concerned about a quid pro quo with the Clintons. It's the influence of money that concerns me. And honestly, I think the fall out from the Clinton years counts too- the rise in poverty following that many connect directly to Clinton's welfare reform, the repeal of Glass-Steagall that without doubt led to the expansion and creation of banks too big to fail- and those banks are some of the largest contributors to the Clintons' personal wealth. I am NOT suggesting that President Clinton signed the repeal for a future payoff, but there's no doubt that folks controlling these banks were grateful. In addition, mass incarceration went up hugely after Clinton's anti-crime efforts.
And we criticize republicans for their close ties to corporate money and even in cases where there is no quid pro quo, DUers hammer them for those associations.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Bothers me the most where it concerns the Clintons. They are not the ones who pioneered this phenomenon, nor are they the only family to currently profit from their influence from holding office, but that doesn't excuse their actions.
I, also, find it very problematic with their ease of lying to the public and refusing to take firm stands on many issues that have meaningful impact, good or bad, on working class citizens.
My view of Hillary is that Bill is more liberal than he seems, but Hillary pulls him to the right on many economic and foreign policy issues.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)a company or wealthy person gives you money via book sales, speaking fees or any method. Also, when they give your personal charity millions.
rbnyc
(17,045 posts)I've spoken a few times about my role as a not-for-profit fundraising executive. When an organization has major donors with obvious interests, it's very hard for programmers not to consider those donors when making choices about what to include and exclude in programming, even if they are dedicated to the mission and don't want to be influenced.
My strategy for preserving mission integrity has always been to move away from major gifts and grow the base of modest individual gifts.
It is scary for organizations to move in this direction, but when done correctly, organizations grow and preserve program integrity at the same time.
I've overseen unprecedented growth in my current organization, one that formerly spent tremendous energy cultivating major donors, and now spends the bulk of its resources creating excellent community programs.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Many editors will say that news drives revenue, but in many editorial meetings I have witnessed the fight over whether to publish a story because it might upset advertisers.
The other common fight was whether distribution drives the news, or does news drive distribution?
rbnyc
(17,045 posts)LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Always come with a Quid pro Quo attached to it. Always.....
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Last edited Sun May 17, 2015, 03:18 PM - Edit history (1)
NAFTA and the repeal of Glass-Steagall were purely coincidental
On edit:
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)If you are not being sarcastic, I have to give you credit for your certainty. No "I doubt there was, or I don't think there was, etc"
As I said above it is very hard to believe that if someone gives you big money, your campaign big money or your personal charity big money, that you won't be appreciative. To not think there are strings attached is naive.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)I thought the sarcasm came through stronger than it did. I will edit my post with the sarcasm tag
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Halberstam, "War in a Time of Peace" covering Somalia/Blackhawk Down, Christmas Bombing of Baghdad, Kossovo
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)While people are toiling for slave wages they stop by for tea and get hundreds of thousands of dollars. As Dire Straits would say, "that's not workin'"
treestar
(82,383 posts)They make it because people want to hear from them in large numbers.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)very rich people want to use politicians so they pay them large sums of money to speak to groups they hope to influence.
How many times has anyone offered YOU a $200,000 to give a talk?
Just get elected and see how that changes.
Our whole system is corrupt.
Politicians should go to Washington once elected, do the job the people sent them to do, and then go home, back to whatever it was they were doing before.
If they want to write a book about it, fine.
But money CORROPTS politics and to deny that is to deny reality.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)It's like me being willing to pay $100 for a ticket to see U2 but not willing to pay anything at all to hear you play.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,499 posts)that Hillary was running. I have been at big attorney fundraisers and trust me, they extract policy for that money. They don't give it all at once either, the politican can count on regular big checks as long as they are saying and/or voting for all of the right things as far as that donor is concerned. These bribes are legal, but still bribes. It is all about a quid pro quo, otherwise we would not see all of this money being donated.
The Clintons have only been doing what almost every single politician has been doing, but now we have Bernie who doesn't. It should be that way for all and we should have publicly funded elections (PFE). Of course I can keep dreaming that we will get PFE, but not likely either.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)The CGI has worked to help people around the world, starting project to make better lives for others, assisting in getting HIV treatments, and trying to relieve the suffering of those in need.
Hillary has advocated for women and children's issues, civil rights and other ways of helping those in need.
cali
(114,904 posts)can see the problems that stemmed from legislation enacted during that period. A lot of lives have been made worse due to that.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Bernie do to stop the changes, looks like Bernie is also guilty.
think
(11,641 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)at as not working with others to not take this action. What did he do other than "vote", did he try to talk others out of doing this, did he do all he could to halt the passage.
think
(11,641 posts)Sanders voted correctly and you blatantly dismiss this.
Each congress person is responsible for their OWN vote. That fact doesn't seem to be sinking in here.
Next you'll blame Hillary's Iraq war vote on Sander's since he couldn't convince her that going to war without UN sanctions was wrong.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)It is not just voting while you are in Congress, you gotta work the aisles.
think
(11,641 posts)Where was Bill Clinton? Why didn't he WORK the isles and make sure Glass Steagall wasn't repealed.
Why because he knew he had a wonderful speaking tour in his future giving speeches to big banks for millions of dollars.
Making empty allegations that the repeal of Glass Steagall is somehow Bernie Sanders fault when he was one of the few people who had the guts to vote NO is completely ignoring the facts at hand...
2banon
(7,321 posts)You seem to be completely oblivious to recent history.
OnlinePoker
(5,729 posts)Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill.
I support financial modernization--if modernization means more choices for consumers; more competition; greater safety and soundness; stopping unfair bank fees; and protecting consumers and under-served communities.
But Madam Chairman, I believe this legislation, in its current form, will do more harm than good. It will lead to fewer banks and financial service providers; increased charges and fees for individual consumers and small businesses; diminished credit for rural America; and taxpayer exposure to potential losses should a financial conglomerate fail. It will lead to more mega-mergers; and small number of corporations dominating the financial service industry; and further concentration of economic power in our country.
The banking industry is currently involved in some of the largest mergers in history. Four of the top ten mergers last year involved bank deals totaling almost $200 billion. Today, three-quarters of all domestic bank assets are held by 100 large banks. And this bill, if passed in its current form, will further accelerate the consolidation of banking and financial assets that we have seen in recent years.
It is no secret, Madam Chairman, that bigger financial institutions lead to bigger fees--which totaled more than $18 billion last year. The U.S. Public Interest Research Group and the Federal Reserve Bank have conducted studies and confirmed that bigger banks charge higher fees than smaller banks and credit unions. The Public Interest Research Group's 1997 study of deposit account fees at over 400 banks found that big banks charge fees that are 15 percent higher than fees at small banks. Credit union fees, by comparison, were half those of big banks. And the Public Interest Research Group's 1998 ATM surcharging report found that more big banks surcharge non-customers, and big-bank surcharges are higher.
This bill is certainly good for the big banks of America, but the big banks are doing fine even without this bill. Government-insured banks earned a record $18 billion in just the first three months of this year--$2.1 billion more than they earned in the same period last year. Bank profits were also up $1.9 billion in the first three months of this year--beating the previous record set in 1998. And, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the increase in earnings was led by the largest banks, while smaller banks saw their earnings decline.
This bill has everything the big banks want, but it has little or nothing for consumers. It does not modernize the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) by applying CRA requirements to new financial conglomerates. It does not stop ATM surcharges. It does not safeguard stronger consumer protection laws passed by the various States. It does not provide the strong privacy provisions that will be needed with the creation of large financial service conglomerates, It does not require that banks serve low- and moderate-income consumers by offering basic, lifeline accounts. And it does not even include provisions to protect women and minorities from discrimination in homeowner's insurance and mortgage services. These anti-discrimination provisions were included in the version of the bill that was reported out the Banking Committee, but they mysteriously disappeared from the bill when it came out of the Rules Committee.
At a time of increasing bank fees, ATM surcharges, credit card fees, increasing minimum balance requirements, discrimination against women and minorities, and the loss of many locally-owned banks to large, multi-billion dollar corporate institutions, Congress should consider pro-consumer legislation to directly address those problems. But this bill is not good for consumers, or small businesses, or taxpayers, or under-served communities. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r106:107:./temp/~r1066gjC2v:e116270:
Qutzupalotl
(14,340 posts)I love DU sometimes.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)a case that he is as responsible as the President with a veto, you need to do some research. Seems you are flinging schit at the wall hoping some will stick.
neverforget
(9,437 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Did you forget who made the decision to remove the inspectors? Did you forget who decided to go forward with the invasion?
neverforget
(9,437 posts)She never does anything wrong, even when she does, it what for the right reasons. And besides, it was just a vote.......that has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's, thousands of Americans and created ISIS and the fucked up Middle East of today. But she's not responsible for her vote.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)votes.
Amazing how people will just throw all logic and reason out the window to try to make things fit their ideology.
neverforget
(9,437 posts)especially the IWR vote. Did you see what he said about the IWR vote in that link above?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Take back her vote, but to accuse her of the Iraq invasion is totally wrong, this was Bush's decision. The vote did not kill anyone, blame the responsible
Party. Just as her vote may not be the one you like, thinking her vote caused the invasion is just as wrong.
neverforget
(9,437 posts)cover. Everyone who voted for that has a responsibility for their vote and it's consequences. And who the fuck is saying that her "vote caused the invasion"? NO ONE.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)against something that passed.
But Hillary is not responsible for her own vote, much less the votes of the rest of Congress even though she voted for something that passed.
You must be pretty limber to make such a stretch.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)against it's passage in the attempt to dissuade others from voting for such bad legislation.
Outside of voting against and arguing against such bills in the legislative body there is not much more he can do as he does not bribe people to vote no.
So, you are completely full of shit and not simply a glass half full of shit kind of poster.
7962
(11,841 posts)I think he's outspoken quite often
cui bono
(19,926 posts)of congress?
That is a ridiculous argument and makes absolutely no sense what so ever.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Was ONLY responsible for HIS vote, and he voted the right way. NO to Glass-Stengel.
Meanwhile, Senator Clinton voted for a war in Iraq, costing millions and darn near billions of dollars, lives lost, families without love ones, the mess the war left behind and so forth and so on.
Each Elected Official is responsible for their vote! Not the votes of their colleges.
cali
(114,904 posts)He voted against Clinton's welfare reform- which has been disastrous for the poor.
So no, Bernie is not guilty.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)he should be able to work with others, work across the aisle, he is a politician, he should know how to work the system.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,178 posts)"work with others, work across the aisle"? This usually means compromising a position to come to some consensus. So he should have compromised like Hillary and voted for the war to what?...get a bridge built in his own riding? Keep digging.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)they do not know how to work with others. This should be part of their responsibility to work with others, it is not a one mans island. Gridlock at its best.
cali
(114,904 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,178 posts)So you would have preferred Bernie to have compromised his principles and voted for the war? And what pray tell would this have accomplished? What could he possibly have gotten back from the "other side of the aisle" for doing so? From a majority side where he is regarded as highly as Karl Marx. Think about it.
cali
(114,904 posts)*smacking myself*
cali
(114,904 posts)You seem to actually be suggesting that he should have been able to talk both democrats and repubs out of voting for it and that he's responsible for the Congress not voting against it. That's just loony, offensive and a heap of stinking offal.
He was a new to the Congress at that time. He obviously didn't have the sway of senior dems or the fucking President of the U.S.
lame
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)You can't change what you don't acknowledge. Yes BC signed a bill after a lopsided vote in Congress.
cali
(114,904 posts)He could have vetoed it.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Difficulty keeping it in the middle of the road. Insults does not hurt me, I just look past them.
rbnyc
(17,045 posts)...to respond sanely to your comments, followed by understandable fatigue.
2banon
(7,321 posts)seriously, what's the point of engaging on this level? You can't possibly be that clueless.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)(a/k/a the "Protect Mickey Mouse in Perpetuity act" , allowing Glass-Steagall to be repealed, "financial modernization", NAFTA. The beat goes on.
Bill and Hill got their payoff AFTER they left office for the plenitude of services they rendered and water they carried for the plutocrats. Clinton sold the people down the river. Now HRC is coming around to put the final nails in the coffin
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)I think that list should be quite sufficient.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)rbnyc
(17,045 posts)Yes, that list of grievances has been oft repeated by some. It's an old list. That doesn't diminish its significance in any way. It's like you're arguing just to argue.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)A few slick youtube videos helping a poor person in a 3rd world country propped up by a tyrannical dictator who receives US foreign aid, and a collection of billionaires in Morocco don't make up for devastation Clinton and his 3rd way have caused in America .
treestar
(82,383 posts)They are good at that. There's no way around that.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)The real enemies.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)The enemy you know is not as bad as the enemy you don't know...because they work together.
One to scare the shit out of you and the other to move you in the direction they want you to go.
The unseen enemy is the influence of big money, and it works on both sides of the isle.
Having and using the money is just half the battle. Finding those that can be bought is the other half. And there are minimally 13 Democrats currently in the Senate and one in the White House
You nailed it
cali
(114,904 posts)association with the banking industry and other corporations. And no one, but no one, can deny that money gains you access.
And it's both repub billionaires and dem billionaires have enriched the Clintons.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)'What makes something a 'Right Wing' attack or a 'Right Wing' argument or talking point?'
In the sense that I see the phrase used around here, it simply means 'an attack that anyone on the right has also levied against a Democrat'. It doesn't matter if the attack is dead on, and aimed directly at something bad that a Democrat has done, the mere fact that anyone on the right has also made that particular point immediately brands it as 'a RW talking point'.
Which is ridiculous.
What SHOULD make something 'RW' is that it actually derives from an ideologically right wing viewpoint. Attacking someone for being 'soft on crime' or 'bad at national security', for instance, is a REAL RW attack, because it derives from a right wing canard about 'wimpy Democrats'. Pointing out 'ties to money' has nothing that makes it ideologically RW. Indeed, the vast majority of politicians with 'ties to money' are Republicans, so it's the farthest thing from a 'RW argument'.
cali
(114,904 posts)as relates to the Clintons, is met with and dismissed as being a right wing attack- no matter that plenty of liberal democrats have attempted to discuss the issue.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)So much easier to just label it a right-wing smear and insist it is invalid. That way you can go on pretending your preferred candidate is super-human and will do exactly everything you want. Even when their record shows otherwise.
BainsBane
(53,101 posts)Last edited Sat May 16, 2015, 11:44 AM - Edit history (1)
Hillary Clinton seeks the Democratic nomination. She exists as an individual, not an appendage of her husband. Using her husband's record against her and this continual conflation of the two shows is one of the ways in which women continue to be treated as less. That so-called progressives engage in this reflexive diminishment of women is unacceptable.
Additionally, personalizing the issue of money in politics to make it all about this one couple is the best way I can think of to maintain it. While certainly people may factor that into their decisions and support Sanders or someone else as result, this continual discussion of the role of money in terms of Hillary Clinton misses the severity of the problem. The presidential level may be the place where money is least influential. It can determine the outcome of congressional races, is enormously influential in state and local elections, and results in industry lobbyists writing legislation. I submit that continuing to make the argument all about Clinton is a way to conceal that problem, to pretend it is an individual issue rather than systemic. The issue is FAR more important than the nomination or a single presidential administration. It profoundly impacts government at all levels and the relationship between state and citizen.
madville
(7,413 posts)Most married couples file taxes jointly so regarding income, it is "the Clintons" and just not her individually.
BainsBane
(53,101 posts)Why don't we see that discussion, if being married and sharing income means they cease being an individual?
madville
(7,413 posts)It's a valid point, what they make together is their income, not hers or his alone. Diane Feinstein gets grief about here husband making billions with military war contracts, John Kerry and Mitch McConnell having very wealthy wives has been brought up in the past.
cali
(114,904 posts)but as the Sanders aren't wealthy and have little to do with corporate money on any level, there isn't much to discuss with regard to them.
Ted Cruz' wife, Heidi was a big shot at Goldman Sachs until a couple of months ago and her position there in relation to Cruz being a Senator has been discussed in the press.
cali
(114,904 posts)currently- they are linked. You can't have it both ways- "2 for the price of one"- when he was running and now "he has nothing to do with it". It's a very small fig leaf.
It's bullshit to claim it's sexist. That's a diversionary tactic.
BainsBane
(53,101 posts)I don't make a 2 for the price of 1 argument. What I observe is endemic sexism that results in Clinton not being treated as an individual person. Can the "divisionary." After all the deliberate attempts people engage in around here (not by you personally) to exclude as many people as possible by continually insulting other DUer, I'm not having that right-wing trope that commenting on sexism and racism is "divisionary." How is it that people can actively work to create an us vs. them dynamic and not be called divisionary, yet mention anything that challenges white male entitlement and it's "divisionary." That's precisely what the GOP does. I'm already the enemy. I've been called every fucking name in the book and explicitly excluded from the body politic more times than I can even count. That's never divisive, but if I challenge endemic sexism and racism that's "division" because certain forms or privilege are sacrosanct.
cali
(114,904 posts)and I refuse to get pulled into the sexism bullshit- and on this, it's bullshit. and it's not about YOU.
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)should be more than clear by now.
When did the 2 for 1 team disolve, by the way? They were supposedly a power duo in the 90's when did this stop? The only clear difference I can come up with from a rubber mets the road policy standpoint is she is more of a blustery hawk than he ever was when left to her own devices.
It isn't about being an appendage but rather being two people that are very, very close ideologically.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)she was the one who carried the ball for him on healthcare. She was an active member of his administration. So we can ask how she now feels about his actions. In fact the talk of the day was that he was very impulsive and that she was the one that kept him in line on most issues.
I would ask her about Glass-Steagal, NAFTA, and other economic issues.
tritsofme
(17,422 posts)Whether it is the Kennedys, the Bushes, or the Clintons.
I don't think yours is a fair criticism of Clinton detractors.
The strength of the Clinton brand and the success of the 90s is a major factor in my support for Hillary.
BainsBane
(53,101 posts)The Bushes and the Kennedys are dynasties, and some of the same people who loathe Hillary Clinton worship JFK. A former president's wife running because during his time she was denied opportunities is hardly a dynasty.
tritsofme
(17,422 posts)But that is not how most people perceive the situation.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Is a pretty strong word. No one should worship another Human Being subject to the same faults as they are. Just saying....
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)She refers to having "thirty years experience" of political life, but much of that was essentially as spouse to Bill Clinton, meaning that she is running on the strength of his political career as much as hers. She also has him feature prominently during her campaigning, and during 2008 he essentially played running back for her, prompting Obama to remark "sometimes I'm not sure who I'm up against".
She evidently feels the need to exaggerate the quality of her experience (eg the alleged sniper incident in Bosnia) but I presume now that she has more experience of her own that probably won't be as much of an issue.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)I still would have voted for John Kennedy given the chance.
Richard Milhous Nixon was of "considerably more modest means" than the scion of a rich and powerful family who was the beneficiary of a trust fund that allowed him to never have to work a day in his life.
cali
(114,904 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Precisely...His dad set him and his siblings up with trust funds so they would never have to work a day in their lives...
Here's a fascinating article on the Kennedy Trust...It's genius:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/carlodonnell/2014/07/08/how-the-1-billion-kennedy-family-fortune-defies-death-and-taxes-3/2/
jwirr
(39,215 posts)people. JFK was born to it. I did vote for him.
stonecutter357
(12,698 posts)Good, anything to beat the CON's
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)For some, being rich is a sin. Even if it took 50 yrs or more to get there. Apparently you can only be a liberal if you're poor.
procon
(15,805 posts)You can't just single out one politician when the whole US political system is corrupt to the core because we -- yes, all of us! -- have let politicians make a career trolling for big money. It's been pay to play for over half a century, growing steadily more egregious, more openly insidious and blatantly obvious. By any other name it's bribery, and in days gone by a robust press would be headlining stories on political graft, corruption and the quid pro quo of our dirty 'democracy' where nothing happens without money to grease the wheels of the legislative process up front.
Set aside the scarce few who aren't in the game, they're up against a system that run like a mafia business with a well established old guard who work tirelessly to vigorously protect the status quo... and their handsome income. Both in and out of politics, politicians make their fortunes in exchange for keeping the river of corporate cash flowing so have no illusions that this shady enterprize can be changed from the inside.
If Clinton is more proficient in reaping the benefits of her celebrity status, fame, fortune, cunning and ingenuity by successfully exploiting our legally corrupt system with great finesse, is that a stroke of political genius or a shortcoming?
Every election we gripe about the frontrunner's vast war chest if our chosen candidate is broke and trailing, we complain about the obscene sums of money gathered and spent by the top tier candidates, we wail about the Citizens United decision and roll our eyes when billionaires are buying their own pet presidential candidates.
Yet nothing changes. A serious complaint can't be laid a only at Clinton's feet is the true goal is to change our political system. That will have to come from the outside, from an organized, bipartisan, grassroots movement that gains enough public clout to finally compel or replace the entrenched politicians who keep the corruption humming along year after year.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)Some like to act like it's just the Clinton's that take corporate money or earn large amounts of money after office. Hell, I'd go a step further and say this is why a lot of politicians actually get into politics, the bank roll they can make. Is that political genius or a shortcoming to borrow your phrase.
Yes, it would be nice if all politicians were as broke as the rest of the nation but that isn't the reality at the moment. Our political system is broken so damn that too and ALL the politicians that take advantage of that broken system.
procon
(15,805 posts)There is simply too much easy money in play, and too many affiliated stakeholders stirring the pot to increase their own revenues, for us to ever wean our politicos off the current system of increasingly endless, expensive and hopelessly negative election campaigns.
Look at the recent election in Great Britain, they have a time limit of only a few weeks for political campaigns, there is a ban on paid radio and TV ads, also strict limits on who can make donations and how much, and the parties get about $33 million in public funding.
Maybe term limits would help to break up these powerful, wealthy cliques, but given the makeup of our Supreme Court, who can predict how far they'll let the corruption spread and still rule that bribing the crooks is perfectly legal.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)adoption of the GB election season and funding cap.
I also agree about the public funding of elections.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Naw, perish the thought.
cali
(114,904 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)All those nice corporations invited to write and sit in on the discussions didn't get there because of lack of influence. And, they didn't fork over $25mil to the Clintons just to hear them say they want the money out of politics.
brooklynite
(94,893 posts)How generous of you.....
bigtree
(86,013 posts)...you believe we should view everything through that negative lens.
I disagree with that narrow perspective. If we are actually going to 'discuss the Clintons sanely' you'll need to accept that there are very real and important accomplishments by both Clintons during their years of public service which also define them; in the view of some folks you may want to debate, in more ways than the money which you apparently believe taints all else.
...and no, I don't wish to debate this any further with you - on this thread or any other. I'm not spending my time defending the Clintons in any protracted way, in this election (yet). I just think your expectations that someone should be able to have a 'sane' discussion with you on this subject is compromised by the circular argument you present in your query. Just accept that you have a pov, and that people are bound to differ.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Sanders, her other Democratic competitors, and the Republican's running to be our representative as the head of the Executive Branch of Federal Government.
Mbrow
(1,090 posts)My wife and I marched in Seattle against the WTO
when BC signed it and marched as well at the DNC Convention and the RNC convention. This has been on the radar for decades and i'm glad you brought this into the light again. People seem to forget after a few years, but to make it clear, if I have to hold my nose and vote for HC then I will, till then Bernie get all my support, remember when everybody said Obama couldn't win? well maybe that was a mistake but I guess it was better then the repugs
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)The Clinton's aren't on the list but since you're combining their net worth, I guess, technically they could have made the list (if they were current politicians). However, if you divide their speaking fees in half (you know, to be generous because I doubt MRS. Clinton is making nearly as much as PRESIDENT Clinton on their speech circuit) that puts each at $62.5 million total net worth for speaking engagements. Still not close enough to the 10th richest person on the above list but we're not talking about royalties from books that Mrs. Clinton has written (ghost-written). So theoretically she could have made as much as her husband since leaving the White House and made the list, if she were still in office.
We cannot have this discussion without discussing the fact in the era of modern politics, it's all about the money. You almost have to have money to make or raise money to get anywhere within politics nationally. Is this the Clinton's fault? Did they start this trend? Or was it started because Democrats started out fundraising Republicans, so the repubs decided they'd level the playing field by screwing everyone?
In the Senate, over the last 6 years, Elizabeth Warren has raised $45,964,247 for her political war chest (how long has she been in office?). Al Franken has raised $30,770,856--these are the top 2 Democratic fundraisers currently in office.
The 2012 Presidential election cost almost $7 billion dollars.
I agree, we need big money out of politics. If it were more like the UK's 38 day election season, I'd say our elections would cost a lost less. There's also a spending cap in UK elections ($33 million US), another smart idea. If we, the American people, demanded things done this way, maybe our politicians would get on with representing us than spending the majority of their time fundraising so they can actually win office.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)The total money spent on congressional elections and presidential elections was ~7 billion. Not just presidential elections
kentuck
(111,110 posts)...for some.
The Clintons came to Washington with nothing and were able to make a fortune from their political experiences.
I have a problem with that.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)we have to have this discussion.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)that make them worth $200,000 to the listeners to hear.
Personally, I have never cared for her speech-making ability regardless of the topic or content because I can't concentrate because of the cadence ..
It's too slow and unnatural, and condescending, as tho we couldn't understand if the words were not pronounced as though we were being given a list of words in a spelling test.
But that's just me. Others seem to like them just fine and don't complain about the inflationary cost of the speeches.
s
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)"soft corruption". Buying influence without a provable quid pro quo.
I mean, what can she tell employees at Goldman Sachs that is worth $300,000?
Or Bill Clinton being paid a half a million for a speech given to United Arab Emerites? That's crazy.
More on Bill's speeches~
True: "Of the 13 (Bill) Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state."
...Schweizer didnt respond to our requests for comment, but income information on the financial disclosure forms supports his claim.
Heres a list of all the speeches for which Clinton received a fee of $500,000 or higher, including the year, location, host and actual fee:
2003 -- Japan, $500,000 Sakura Asset Management (Japanese finance corporation) (A note: This speech was canceled, but the fee went to Clintons presidential library foundation);
2008 -- California, $500,000, Power Within (life coach Anthony Robbins brand);
2010 -- Russia, $500,000, Renaissance Capital (Russian finance corporation);
2010 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Novo Nordisk (Danish pharmaceutical company);
2011 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);
2011 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation (Austrian nongovernmental organization);
2011 -- Netherlands, $600,000, Achmea (Dutch finance corporation);
2011 -- China, $550,000, Huatuo CEO Forum (business conference);
2011 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Abu Dhabi Global Environmental Data Initiative (international environmental information organization);
2011 -- Hong Kong, $750,000, Ericsson (Swedish multinational communications technology company);
2012 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);
2012 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation (Austrian nongovernmental organization);
2012 -- Italy, $500,000, Technogym (fitness equipment manufacturer).
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/26/peter-schweizer/fact-checking-clinton-cash-author-claim-about-bill/
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)What could these countries possibly gain? Clinton wasn't in office nor would ever be...
Very fishy stuff.
Biggest problem to me were the contributions from Nigeria. this is a poor country, ebola-ridden and terrorist threats, girls kidnapped, killings ...what could he do for them? (maybe except give them their money back)
It's hard to trust them, evidence or not. He said he makes the speeches (last week) because he's got to pay the bills....
I think of the governor of Illinois, who offered Obama's seat to someone for some payment to him...he went to jail...and that was a relatively small crime. Bill must have a lot of good lawyers and accountants to protect him from accusations. That must be one of the bills he needs money to pay.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Where are the answers to:
Climate change
Lost manufacturing jobs
Wall Street/bank fraud
The horrible state of US health care
The failed attempt to privatize education (failed?)
Perpetual unnecessary war
The ridiculous level of wasteful military spending
The obvious two tiered justice system that goes unacknowledged by a corrupt media
A completely out of control police forcenationwide
The absurd level of incarceration especially of minorities
A completely unfair, biased media
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)You wish people would either agree with you or shut up. I think we have discussed it sanely. We just have people that disagree.
No disrespect but you are no smarter than the average working-class Democrat who isn't on Democratic underground every day. I'm no smarter. We are not more informed. We're just louder at expressing our opinions.
Polls are not not rigged. The majority of Democrats have no problems with what the Clintons have done.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Just not their own facts as hard as that is for some here to believe.
I believe there are some people who are misinformed about the nature and state of the Democratic Party past present and future. There are some who were misinformed about the nature of politics in general.
There are no saviors.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)We may not be told what to think, but we are told what to think about.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)... that the Democratic electorate doesn't have. Why else would you say the polls are telling people what to think about and then allude you're not falling for it?
Could it be that the majority of average Democrats who don't spend time on DU and KOS heard the constant handwringing from the media and have made up their minds in favor of the Clintons? I think that's likely.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)All the Presidents have been rich: Particularly FDR who started SS:
I glad the Clinton's have their own money as well as people who
are willing to support them financially. Obama got elected with
money as well as being a good candidate.
You only need to look at the Clinton Admiration to see what a Clinton's Presidency might
be like. It was great!: not perfect but great!
It was the most successful in American history because it rebuilt the middle class.
They raised taxes on the rich, and spent money on the American people!.
Its Bush and the GOP who have destroyed middle class, do not visit the sins of
Regan's on Clinton's.
And there is nothing wrong with having money!!
cali
(114,904 posts)I never said there was anything wrong with having money.
The Clinton administration perpetrated mass incarceration is a major way. It paved the way for the too big to fail banks that crashed the economy, with the repeal of Glass-Steagall. It helped immensely in creating the wealth gap. Clinton's Welfare Reform Act of 1996 has been HORRIBLE for poor people.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)And paved the way for privatization of federal programs, such as prisons. And the monopolies of telecom companies....Sub-prime mortgages...incentivizing linking CEO pay to stock value...the list is endless how our country got screwed by that administration.
And we're coming back for more because we were riding the bubble created during that stretch & the population is largely low-information...
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)The Clinton Administration didn't perpetrate a mass incarceration, the country
wanted to be tough on crime. The banks crashed under the Bush Administration,
they people on Wall Street committed crimes.
Obama did not prosecute any: there was so much damage, he chose to work on
bring the country to it feet.
The Clinton were the most successful Administration in history: and they
help rebuild the middle class, and they did help the poor. Minority
unemployment went down to single digits.
Under the Clinton's, the food stamp budget for the poor was double.
Don't visit the sin of Bush and GOP on the Clintons: The GOP wanted the
three strikes your out!
cali
(114,904 posts)YOU have been babbling nonsensically here at DU for less than a year. I have been posting substantively at DU for over a decade, through 3 presidential election cycles.
So take your stupid comments and put them where.... yeah there.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)You can't claim to "have been posting substantively" etc.: and
then use the word "stupid"
In fact, if after over decade and three Presidential cycles, this
is the best you can do, spout empty vulgarity.
Well, that says more about you than me.
Best wishes!!
\
cali
(114,904 posts)have posted. But hey, add rank hypocrisy to your less than sterling qualities, honey.
Good luck with the babbling and hypocrisy, sweetiepie!
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)And its the right word, not a name!
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)and in return they give them political IOUs.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Clinton's are going to need millions of donors, as well as the DMC:
The GOP only needs a few donors, they are only accountable to very many people,
the Clinton's are not trust fund babies. They will have to put their lives and
personal wealth on line for the American people, and the DNC.
The Clinton's and Dem's are going to have to work very hard for every penny, and it still
won't be enough.
Everyone has IOU's in politics, no one get elected by themselves, except rich GOP people,
who are accountable to no one!
Getting the Clinton's elected will be team effort, why are you concerning your self with
Clinton money instead of the GOP money
Tom Cotton, committed treason with 47 GOP Senators, and then picked up a check from a
defense contractor. Senator Cotton wants a war for profit, he says the USA can take Iran
in seven days.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)suggesting that the free market should allow corporations to buy and sell senators on a Wall Street exchange? Maybe they could sell drugs to get even more money.
After all, I'm told its for a good cause.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)That just the a facts, whether I like it or not: We have to fight
the GOP in the real world and that takes money! Citizen United
was game changer for the GOP, that is what winning an election
did for them. Its what they paid for!!
Hillary is not choosing the battle field she will be fight on, she will
do what it takes to become President, and she should not be
bashed by people who sit on side line and heckle her efforts.
If you think that you can run for office without money good luck with that!
cali
(114,904 posts)serving in the body and is one of the least wealthy. Pat Leahy has never been for sale. Bernie isn't either.
what crap.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)They are just for sale for groups you probably support.
cali
(114,904 posts)the meaning of the word, I encourage you to look it up. and do try to learn some grammar.
Call me a troll and then ignore my response? Gutsy aren't you, lewe, old boy?
And no sorry, Leahy and Sanders are no more for sale than Paul Wellstone was. Just because your candidate is a corporate creature doesn't mean they all are.
now go and ..... yeah, that.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and be able to get an education. We might aim towards a society where all who are smart enough get an education, but it's not always true and the rich get better schools.
There was an argument on DU about whether or not Bill or Hillary came from the middle class. But they didn't come from families like the Roosevelts. And oddly, FDR is the one held up as so progressive compared to today's Democrats. Do they think he was elected without raising money to campaign? They seem to.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Does any corporation think that either of the Clintons can deliver $400,000 worth of profitable information in an hour speech? Unless they're divulging classified information or providing insider tips, I doubt it.
If not that, just what is it the Money Boys are buying with those amazing speaking fees?
No, no quid pro quo. Just
kinda
making a few friendly gestures to establish a bit of a "special relationship with special people," ya know.
And as far as the foundation goes, it really doesn't hurt to be known for your good works. Like that Walton art gallery, or the Koch Boys phallic fountain at Rockefeller Center (or wherever the hell it is; I'm too lazy to look it up for the sake of this post).
cali
(114,904 posts)for the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
The denial around this is a work of art in itself.
certainot
(9,090 posts)[link:http://www.republiconradio.org|stops ignoring rw radio. republican radio is the right's single most effective and successful weapon and the left has completely ignored it the last 25 years. we live in an alternate political reality that rw radio was instrumental in creating and until the left stops giving it a free speech free ride the collective left cannot say it is getting sanders, or warren's, backs. that is the same with hillary/clintons, and it is the main reason the left cannot have wellstones and sanders and warrens in the white house.
it started when reagan killed the fairness doctrine in 87 and was built into the reality creating monopoly it is now right under the noses of the democratic party and the left - because it hurt their heads to listen to it and there was no way to read it.
it was already going strong when clinton got in and was instrumental in forcing the clintons right, as it has obama. it was instrumental giving republicans leverage to force deregulation of all kinds. it is the voice of the corporations and we let 90 or our biggest universities endorse more than 1/4 of those 1000+ radio stations.
evaluating the clintons behavior as political animals having to take corporate money is useless as long as the left ignores rw radio. for instance, it was rw radio that ended the clintons early efforts heading toward single payer, just as it was rw radio (the teabagger base) that was instrumental in stopping the public option, forced obama right, and obstructed just about everything. if the left hadn't been ignoring rw radio then we would have had single payer long ago.
all talk about money in politics and who gets it and who will kowtow to it is irrelevant until the left realizes money is not the right's most important weapon. and until rw radio is fixed there will be no sanders or warrens in the white house. nor can there be serious national discussions about money in politics that can't be distorted by the right and its army of 400 UNCHALLENGED blowhards on 1000 UNCHALLENGED corporate think tank scripted radio stations.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)For instance, this image has me wondering about our national back-story...
Kennebunkport, July 30, 1983: Bill Clinton, George Bush & George Wallace
Wallace and his third wife, the former Lisa Taylor, meet with Vice President George Bush and Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton at a lobster bake at Bush's residence at Kennebunkport, Maine, July 30, 1983. The third Mrs. Wallace, whom the governor married in 1981, was 30 years his junior and half of a country-western singing duo, Mona and Lisa, who had performed during his campaign in 1968.
CREDIT: AP/Birmingham Post
SOURCE: http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/george-wallace/13/
Here's analysis from 2007 that got Bartcop so mad he stopped being nice to Robert Parry. Funny thing, no one thought the winning Democratic candidate would also feel so closely about "looking forward."
Hillary Signals Free Pass for Bush
By Robert Parry
ConsortiumNews.com, December 31, 2007
Hillary Clintons campaign is signaling that a second Clinton presidency will follow the look-to-the-future, dont-worry-about-accountability approach toward Republican wrongdoing that marked Bill Clintons years in office.
That was the significance of former President Clintons remarkable Dec. 17 comment that his wifes first act in the White House would be to send Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush on an around-the-world mission to repair Americas damaged image.
The first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again, said Bill Clinton, who has accompanied the senior Bush on international humanitarian missions over the past several years.
What was perhaps most stunning about the remark was its assumption that Americans would be impressed that the countrys two dominant political dynasties would team up in early 2009 to tidy up some of the mess created by the headstrong son of the senior dynasty, the Bush Family.
The Bushes and the Clintons who have held pieces of the nations executive power for more than a quarter century dating back to George H.W. Bushs election as Vice President in 1980 essentially would be keeping matters within the board rooms of the Washington Establishment.
In responding to Bill Clintons remark, George H.W. Bush issued a statement making clear he would not join in any slap at his sons foreign policy. That also means Hillary Clintons first thing is unthinkable if her new administration were trying to exact any accountability from George W. Bush for his wrongdoing.
So, to get the senior Bushs cooperation on the worldwide tour, there would have to be an implicit understanding that the second Clinton administration wouldnt investigate the younger Bushs crimes from authorizing torture, ordering warrantless wiretaps, exposing CIA officer Valerie Plames identity, waging war under false pretenses and other abuses of executive powers.
If Hillary Clinton does get elected, you can expect to hear lots of talk about leaving that one for the historians or about the danger of increased partisanship if the Democrats were viewed as trying to get even by exposing Bushs offenses.
The wise heads of Washington surely would nod in approval at this bipartisanship of a Democratic administration deciding not to get bogged down in refighting the battles of the second Bush administration.
The First Clinton-Bush Deal
Thats exactly what happened in 1993 when Bill Clinton entered the White House after defeating George H.W. Bush.
Clinton and other senior Democrats shut down or wrapped up four investigations that implicated senior Republicans, including Bush, in constitutional abuses of power and criminal wrongdoing during the Reagan-Bush years.
The Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages case was still alive, with special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh furious over new evidence that President George H.W. Bush may have obstructed justice by withholding his own notes from investigators and then ducking an interview that Walsh had put off until after the 1992 elections.
Bush also had sabotaged the investigation by pardoning six Iran-Contra defendants on Christmas Eve 1992, possibly the first presidential pardon ever issued to protect the same President from criminal liability.
In late 1992, Congress also was investigating Bushs alleged role in secretly aiding Iraqs Saddam Hussein during and after Husseins eight-year-long war with Iran.
Representative Henry Gonzalez, a Democrat from Texas who had served three decades in Congress, had exposed intricate financial schemes that the Reagan-Bush administrations employed to assist Hussein. There also were allegations of indirect U.S. military aid through third countries, including the supply of dangerous chemicals to Iraq.
Lesser known investigations were examining two other sets of alleged wrongdoing: the so-called October Surprise issue (allegations that Bush and other Republicans interfered with Jimmy Carters hostage negotiations with Iran during the 1980 campaign) and the Passportgate affair (evidence that Bush operatives improperly searched Clintons passport file in 1992, looking for dirt that could be used to discredit his patriotism and secure reelection for Bush).
All told, the four sets of allegations, if true, would paint an unflattering portrait of the 12-year Republican rule, with two illegal dirty tricks (October Surprise and Passportgate) book-ending ill-considered national security schemes in the Middle East (Iran-Contra and Iraqgate).
Had the full stories been told, the American people might have perceived the legacies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush quite differently.
But the Clinton administration and congressional Democrats dropped all four investigations beginning in early 1993, either through benign neglect by failing to hold hearings and keeping the issues alive in the news media or by actively closing the door on investigative leads.
Clinton let George H.W. Bush retreat gracefully into retirement. [For details on the scandals, see Robert Parrys Secrecy & Privilege.]
Joining the Cover-ups
In his 2004 memoir, My Life, Clinton wrote that he disagreed with the [Iran-Contra] pardons and could have made more of them but didnt. Clinton cited several reasons for giving his predecessor a pass.
I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided, even if that split would be to my political advantage, Clinton wrote. Finally, President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the matter between him and his conscience.
By his choice of words, Clinton revealed how he saw information not something that belonged to the American people and had intrinsic value to the democratic process but as a potential weapon that could be put to political advantage.
On the Iran-Contra pardons, Clinton saw himself as generously passing up a club that he could have wielded to bludgeon an adversary. He chose instead to join in a cover-up in the name of national unity.
Similarly, the Democratic congressional leadership ignored the flood of incriminating evidence pouring in to the October Surprise task force in December 1992.
Chief counsel Lawrence Barcella told me later that he urged task force chairman Lee Hamilton to extend the investigation several months to examine this new evidence of Republican guilt, but Hamilton ordered Barcella simply to wrap up the probe with a finding that the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign had done nothing wrong.
Some of the new incriminating evidence including an unprecedented report from the Russian government about its knowledge of illicit Republican contacts with Iran was simply hidden away in boxes that I discovered two years later and dubbed The October Surprise X-Files.
The Iraqgate investigation met a similar fate under Clintons Justice Department, which chose to ignore or dismiss evidence of covert shipments of war materiel to Saddam Hussein during the 1980s.
In 1995, when former Reagan national security official Howard Teicher came forward with an affidavit describing secret U.S.-backed arms shipments to Iraq, Clintons Justice Department went on the offensive against Teicher, trying to discredit him and bullying him into silence.
That same year, the Clinton administration did nothing when Reagans 1984 campaign chief Ed Rollins wrote in his 1996 memoir Bare Knuckles and Back Rooms that a top Filipino politician had admitted delivering an illegal $10 million cash payment to Reagan from Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos.
"I was the guy who gave the ten million from Marcos to your campaign," the Filipino told Rollins in 1991, according to the memoir. "I was the guy who made the arrangements and delivered the cash personally. ...It was a personal gift from Marcos to Reagan."
The stunning anecdote did attract some press coverage in 1996 but the story died because the Clinton administration made no effort to follow it up. No government investigator demanded that Rollins reveal the identities of the Filipino politician and the Republican lobbyist who handled the pay-off.
(Rollins is now chairman of Republican Mike Huckabees presidential campaign.) [For details on Marcos-Reagan case, see Consortiumnews.coms Huckabees Chairman Hid Payoff Secret.]
Proving Themselves
In the mid-1990s, even as the Republican attack machine pounded the Clintons with allegations about alleged ethical lapses and marital infidelities, the Clinton administration acted like it was determined to prove that it could be trusted with the nations dark secrets, that it could cover up wrongdoing with the best of them.
The consequence for America, however, was different. With George H.W. Bushs dubious public record whitewashed, the door was opened to the restoration of the Bush Dynasty. If the full truth had been known about former President Bush, its hard to conceive how George W. Bush ever could have become President.
Now, as Hillary Clinton seeks a strong showing in the Iowa caucuses to solidify her image as the inevitable Democratic nominee, she appears ready to pick up the mantle as the Democratic protector of the Bush Familys legacy. Though she may utter some tough words about George W. Bush on the campaign trail, shes not likely to follow up if she wins the White House.
If Bill Clinton is telling the truth about Hillary Clintons first thing to do as President recruiting George H.W. Bush for a worldwide goodwill tour on behalf of Americas image that will require closing the door on any serious investigation of George W. Bush.
The two dynastic families then can look to the future, again.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.
SOURCE (OK to post in full, per ConsortiumNews): https://consortiumnews.com/2007/123107.html
Something is very wrong when the rich keep getting rich from wars without end.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)eom
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Maybe, just maybe....the fix was in for us regular folks for a LONG-TIME. Heck, the picture was taken in 1983. How much has the Middle & Lower Classes lost in America since this time.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)admired, world wide. That is why she gets paid to give speeches.
Here's a link: http://hillaryspeeches.com/category/speeches/
If you choose to follow the link you can watch any of the speeches she has given, and if you do you will find there is nothing nefarious about them.
As far as her ability to win over everyday Americans, she seems to be doing just fine.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)http://www.forbes.com/profile/david-koch/
The koch bros are worth 42.7 billion. They didn't get their money from speeches either, by god, they got it the old fashioned way! By fucking over their employees and oppressing the poor and sick!
Why the attacks against democratic candidates who will try to make the lives of the working class, the poor and sick better while evil rich capitalist oppressor pigs like the koch bros get a free pass...from "democrats"???
These bastards own their own state, Kansas Brownbackastan and they are spending unknown millions/billion to buy up the whole fucking country!
And all I see here on Democratic Underground is unrelenting attacks against DEMOCRATIC candidates!!!
This fucking BS makes me PUKE!
I'm sure the republican party appreciates all the help its getting here from the "left"?!
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)Over and over, whether it's in discussions of politics, religion, or culture, a certain trollish/bullying/cyberstalking dynamic keeps reasserting itself here at DU. And I see you as one of the targets of some of the more relentless trolls/bullies/stalkers. "You are either ONE OF US or ONE OF THEM; if the former we will support you no matter what wrong thing you say or do, and if the latter we will relentlessly attack you."
Well, as a voter who has always voted for Democrats ever since 1972, maybe that makes me "one of us." But as a 99%er with grave doubts about the Clintons and all their 1% friends, there is a cadre here that would define me as "one of them."
Sanity perhaps can only be found in a few safe havens like the Sanders group.
BKH70041
(961 posts)I see no reason to sidestep this issue. The Clintons are for sale. You want access to them, you better pony up. I don't see how admitting to this harms anything. It's the truth.
I would also say if someone were to give $50K to the Sanders campaign, they'll have much, much more access and ability to influence his policies than someone who only give $500. Sanders can be bought like anyone else. That is beyond denial. I see no harm in admitting these things.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)I have my issues with Sanders, but he has been very consistent about avoiding those corporate and big money donations. It's one of his big issues, actually. I'm sure he can be bought, but so far he's tried his best to fight against it, which is more than can be said for most.
salib
(2,116 posts)Most of the money is now going to be for the party, pacs, and issue ads, etc.
Now, that said, i think it is fair to say that if my wife and I contributed $5700 to Bernie's campaign, the campaign would contact us, want to set up a house party or something, and could even mean Bernie would visit (we live in Vermont), or at least someone important in his campaign.
It does mean access.
However, again as the OP pointed out it is not how rich someone is, or how much they are earning, but instead how they are earning it.
It does mean access.
Now, Hillary has just come out fairly strongly in changing the scotus to reverse citizens United. And that would certainly dramatically cut the dark money. I think this makes sense for her. A real strength she has is the ability to raise money, which is under her control, and the dark money is not under her control. Of course she wants to eliminate it. However, publicly funded or very low maximums on funding would not play to her strengths and so she does not support these.
Of course Bernie wants publicly funded elections and has worked to see it happen. I could say that plays to his strengths.
Nevertheless, it does mean access. And the need for access, e.g. Need to be friends with Jamie Dimon, does make it difficult to be outside the influence of those people.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Their entanglement with Big Biz is a worry, no doubt about it.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)If the Bushes got rich for destroying the republic the Clintons deserve a reward for trying to save it.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)Parties can take all the credit for our destruction.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Under Bill Clinton
-the poverty rate was at its lowest level in a generation
-African American unemployment was at its lowest level in a generation
-Latino unemployment was at its lowest level in a generation
-African American home ownership was its highest level in a generation
-abortion levels were at their lowest level in a generation; people were optimistic about the future, fucking like crazy, and keeping the kids.
That's why when HRC runs this time she will rack up eighty, ninety percent of the African American and Latino votes in the primaries. They remember the good times.
You can bookmark this post.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)put another million into deep poverty. It didn't happen over night, but his capitulation ultimately came at the expense of the middle class and below.
You don't get to cherry pick historical facts and ignore the inconvenient ones.
We are not better off for those horrible bills. We were sent backwards and those laws are driving our poverty and disparity today.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Unless you want to give George Walker Bush the credit for the Obama recovery.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)is in on Clinton. He was wrong, the middle class and below paid the ultimate price, the damage incalculable and irreparable. Neither Hillary nor Jeb should be allowed to continue their family's legacy of personal enrichment and Wall Street fealty.
Instead, we have both political parties doubling down on the same old shit.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Next to the "Second Coming" a HRC presidency is the best thing that can happen to our planet.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)completely. Money has drowned out the voices of "the people". Not here though, which is a good thing. So far. HRC will tell us she is going to look out for us poor citizens, but big money puts people in a bubble where they really don't know how hard the struggle is for everyday retired citizens such as I. I really don't think those same rich politicians, in the corporate/banker pockets, will not let a real champion of the people rise. They already are using "exclusionary" rules when it comes to the upcoming debate(s). We'll see how it all pans out. I hate to say it, but we must make them fear and respect the 99% by making sure they know that we know their BS and aren't buying it.
DFW
(54,476 posts)Zero.
I was riding in a train from New York to Washington, and I heard a voice behind me. I thought, "wow, that guy sounds EXACTLY like Bill Clinton." That's because it WAS Bill Clinton.
He and his entourage made their way through to the first class car. When the train was underway, I talked myself past the burly guards at the door to the first class car (silver tongued devil that I am, I guess), went in and interrupted him at whatever he was doing. He remembered me (thank goodness) and chatted for about 5 minutes, although I saw he wanted to get back to whatever he was doing. I relented, said nice to see you again. He said "God bless you (I didn't have a good response to that one, so I shut up)," and I went back to the peon class car. He did give me a wave when he passed me again on the way out of the station.
Ironically enough, the last policy discussion I had with him was about whether his foundation was doing anything to boost fresh water supplies with de-salinization plants. We were talking about the Middle East at the time--who knew that a few years later, it would become such an acute problem in California?
But my point is that he's actually a pretty accessible guy if you can get past the layers of insulation.
Logical
(22,457 posts)DFW
(54,476 posts)Over the last 50 years, I have met and talked to plenty of prominent politicians of both parties. A number of them, Bill Clinton included, are true people persons, were/are glad to chat with anyone, friend or stranger, on any subject on a spontaneous one-on-one basis.
But just as many of them are completely uptight if the situation is not planned and controlled. Reagan comes to mind, LBJ struck me that way, too, although since I was 13, there wasn't a lot we were going to have in common anyway. I never met Reagan, but my dad knew him. At least one sitting Democrat in Congress, whom most of us admire, so I won't say the name on the board, is reputed to be like that, too. I don't know this individual personally, but someone whose judgement I very much respect (as does much of DU, for that matter) has mentioned this to me more than once.
Getting past their handlers physically is the easy part, if you know how to do it. Getting them to open up if they are not into opening up is the hard part. Some up them close up tighter than a Cape Cod clam.
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)I'll wait here.
The most I've ever been paid for speaking to corporate audiences was $1000, plus expenses. Of course, I wasn't a former POTUS or Secretary of State. Just a lowly contributing editor of a computer magazine. Now, I would have asked more, but then I wouldn't have gotten the gig.
If you've been a head of state or a leading diplomat, you get far more requests to speak than you can possibly manage, so you can earn a lot doing it. It's a nice job, if you can get it. Easy, too. Once you get over the stage fright thing, standing up and talking about a subject you know intimately is a breeze.
Very few people can command six figures for a speech. Even fewer than can get it for a musical performance or a sporting event. More power to them. Being President or SOS doesn't pay all that well, really, and the tenure is brief.
Such a good OP. And I started to think, maybe we can have a sane conversation about this. A few replies in and I see, sadly no.
Apparently without a play-by-play accounting of what Bernie Sanders did to convince others to join him in voting against the repeal of Glass Steagall, anyone who wants to examine the impact of corporate money flowing to the Clintons has no ground to stand on.
aka-chmeee
(1,132 posts)azureblue
(2,155 posts)But you can't. You identify yourself as nuts from the very beginning. When you say, "I'd be happy to stipulate that they haven't done anything illegal- but that doesn't mean that it isn't problematic. " You immediately expose yourself as a smear artist.The only thing you offer as fact is the amount that the Clintons have made from giving speeches, as you claim. But did you do any comparison to previous former Presidents' post office speaking engagement incomes? No. You make a clear admission that what you post is not illegal. You take it upon yourself, like all Republicans do, of claiming that something she said or did is a "problem" (yeah a problem for some muck raking Gooper) and use that as a launch pad. How Benghazi of you.
Let's be honest here- you quoted a source that has very recently proven to have a track record of smearing Ms. Clinton, and every one of those smears were rebutted and proven false, or at best, half truths. Need I mention a certain book that they touted that was proven to be a top to bottom lie? But that's OK with you, to use a discredited source.
Pitiful. You cannot present facts and show how those facts will adversely affect her ability to be a good president, nor diminish her impressive credentials and successes. You have to rely on innuendo, half truths, and character attacks to make your case. Pitiful.
If you want to go way back, then how about talking about how she and her husband, to the day he took office, tried to get universal health care, but the Repubs shut that down. Talk about the smear attacks that were launched against her as first lady, sec. of state and congressperson. Talk about how the GOP ginned up whitewater and hired a team to find anything they could to stop Bill Clinton. Talk about how she earned the admiration of world leaders. And as long as you want to treat them as a couple, then get to the stark truth of how Bill Clinton left office with a budget surplus.
But when you admit that talking about the Clintons makes you nuts, you pretty much blow your case out of the water.
rbnyc
(17,045 posts)OP: Can we talk about this?
Reply #130: No.
kjones
(1,053 posts)OP: Can we talk about this sanely? (Statements discrediting plea)
Reply 130: Your post discredits your plea and preempts unbiased discussion. Here is why.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)So sick and tired of the relentless innuendo and smear job against Hillary on this supposedly democratic board!
First the Bernie-ites went on the attack with republican lies and slander book, Clinton Cash.
Now that that has been proven to be pure HS they still just can't let the lie go.
Makes me sick to see this freakrepublic bs here.
I applaud your great post!
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)She has made a good chunk of change is bs. I spent 40+ years thinking there is something wrong with making money. I had the good fortune to hit a few good licks in my 50s. I'm still the same person. I know some creepy people with money and I know some great generous people with money. Money makes people more of what they already are.
LiberalArkie
(15,732 posts)The Stephens Financial boys always supported the ultra right-wing except for one candidate and that was Bill Clinton. They have that southern charm.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)joshcryer
(62,280 posts)I thought this was about their dedication to civil service their whole lives.
But nope, just another failed attempt to pretend sincerity.
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)what do you mean....
i WISH we could talk...
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)Clinton never figured out how to get laid while president...let's see...FDR had his mistress with him when he died...Lyndon Johnson liked taking a piss of the WH porch and had enough guilty secrets on so many politicians, he got away with Gulf of Tonkin
lies..Secret Service brought JFK whoever he wanted...Eisenhower had a long term mistress...Clinton got impeached...
HRC was given health-care reform...failed to deliver...
The economy appeared better under BC and his adviser, HRC...actuality is quite different because Bubba sowed the seed of destruction...
Failed trade agreements, especially NAFTA
Repealing Glass-Steagal...
Obviously very good at appearing to do something for the poor...while actually carrying out policies that harmed all Americans...
Not stupid...supremely GREEDY...
quadrature
(2,049 posts)if yes, which ones?
or, is staying out of prison, good enough?
...........................
the whole 'Morocco phosphate mine' situation
really bothers me, as it looks like
an opportunity for money laundering.
Or not, I don't know.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Pretty much the third rail around here, polarized to the max. Clinton supporters have long ago accepted the corporate agenda, driven by corporate money, as the best we can do, they just want a kinder version of it than the Republicans provide.
I would go along with that myself, if not for evidence that this is no longer sustainable. Corporations work against our interests on issues like climate change, which is the deal-breaker for me, we have no future whatsoever without radical change on that issue, and the powers that be refuse to embrace that kind of radical change, because they are too heavily invested in the current petro economy and resource wars. Hence, to accept that path is to accept our doom. The entire globalist approach to manufacturing and distribution is antithetical to a sustainable human future, you cannot ship logs to China to be milled there with cheap labor and ship the products back here for resale, that kind of shipping of everything burns too much carbon, things need to be done more locally. That is just one example.
They (corporations) also work against our interests on just about every other issue, unless we happen to be among the people who profit from stocks and wall street based pension funds.
Getting back to a heavily managed and regulated capitalism in a political framework of democratic socialism is about the least radical solution I can see that could actually be sustainable, and anything that isn't sustainable isn't acceptable.
I have heard the argument from some Clinton supporters that her SCOTUS appointments could lead to the reversal of Citizen's United. I think that is a good-faith argument they make. The probem with it is that, even if her appointments would be to justices who would overturn CU (and I by no means see that as a certainty), our system was already a captured regulatory deep state before Citizen's United, we need much more radical change than that or we can kiss everything we love goodbye.
I wish that was exaggeration, but all evidence is to the contrary, they will count their money as our planet overheats and ocean acidification and methane releases from the warmed sea floor destroy us.
So I will no longer support candidates who suck up to corporations for campaign war chests, to do so is to support our end as a species. If that is not true, the burden is on the corporations and their candidates to show that they have a path to stop climate change in time to avoid some of the unthinkable tipping points we are approaching.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)The foundation is largely an American creation. No doubt the accumulation of vast wealth was one reason for its rise; another-at least in the days when Carnegie, Rockefeller, and others perpetuated their names through their now world famous bequests-was unquestionably a desire of wealthy and successful men to purge their consciences before God and man and to justify the acquisitive society which had enabled them to accumulate enormous riches by leaving a vast proportion of their wealth for the benefit of mankind.6 But in recent years these reasons for the earlier foundations have become less important, and the incorporated foundation or trust has become predominantly a business device, a paramount instrument in the struggle between the demands of the modern Welfare State and the wish of the individual entrepreneur to perpetuate his fortune and his name. The greatest and most influential of the foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie) are the creations of individuals or families, but the large foundations of the future will increasingly be the creations of corporations. The desires to give and to perpetuate the name of the individual or corporate donor are undoubtedly still important motivations, but the immense growth in the number and size of foundations in recent years7 suggests that business considerations play an increasing role. By either bequeathing or giving during his lifetime a proportion of his estate to a permanent institution established for officially recognized charitable purposes, the donor, usually the controller of an industrial or business empire,8 achieves a number of purposes.9 In the United States gifts to such organizations are exempt from gift taxes, and bequests to them are deductible for estate tax purposes. The organizations themselves are normally exempt from income tax, property tax, and other taxes. A charitable gift intervivos is an allowable deduction from the taxable income of the donor.10 The absence of the latter privilege in English law may be one reason why incorporated charities are not so widespread in Britain (apart, of course, from the vastly greater capital wealth of United States business). Otherwise, motivations for the establishment of charitable companies are very similar." The arithmetics of these benefits vary from year to year and are, of course, subject to legislative changes. Unless, however, there were to be a fundamental change in legislation in regard to charitable gifts,12 the advantages of transferring both capital and annual income away from the personal estate of a taxpayer in the high income brackets or away from a corporation are very considerable.13 But in the age of the managerial revolution and the Welfare State, a motive at least equal to that of providing a suitable mechanism for philanthropy and a tax free reservoir for an otherwise highly taxable income is the power which the foundation gives to the controller of a business or industry to perpetuate his control.14
Friedmann, W. G. (1957). Corporate power, government by private groups, and the law. Columbia Law Review, 57(2), 155-186.
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 Haitis 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 Levis, 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 Haitis 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 Haitis export garment factories was illegally shortchanging workers. Workers in Haiti make clothes for U.S. retailers including Gap, Target, Kohls, Levis 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 Haitis post-earthquake recovery. The report found that, on average, workers at the complex are paid 34 percent less than the law requires. Haitis 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.
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/16-4
Haiti's Caracol Industrial Parkthe U.S. State Department and Clinton Foundation pet project to deliver aid and reconstruction to earthquake-ravaged Haiti in the form of private investmentis systematically stealing its garment workers' wages, paying them 34 percent less than minimum wage set by federal law, a breaking report from the Worker Rights Consortium reveals.
Critics charge that poverty wages illustrate the deep flaws with corporate models of so-called aid. "The failure of the Caracol Industrial Park to comply with minimum wage laws is a stain on the U.S.'s post-earthquake investments in Haiti and calls into question the sustainability and effectiveness of relying on the garment industry to lead Haiti's reconstruction," said Jake Johnston of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in an interview with Common Dreams.
Caracol is just one of five garment factories profiled in this damning report, released publicly on Wednesday, which finds that "the majority of Haitian garment workers are being denied nearly a third of the wages they are legally due as a result of the factories theft of their income." This is due to systematic employer cheating on piece-work and overtime, as well as failure to pay employees for hours worked.
...
Financers included the Inter-American Development Bank, the U.S. State Department, and the Clinton Foundation, who invested a total of $224 million with promises to uphold high labor standards. Its anchor tenant is the Korean S&H Global factory, which sells garments to Walmart, Target, Kohl's, and Old Navy, according to the report.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022415607
Discuss.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)That sums it all up.