Jarqui
Jarqui's JournalHillary Clinton’s Pay-for-Play Reality
Consortiumnews.com
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/11/hillary-clintons-pay-for-play-reality/
.....
But perhaps the most interesting part of Lloyd’s (Goldman Sachs CEO) warning centered on his concerns about the post-election political landscape and his sense that the real danger is not people with pitchforks taking to the street. Rather, Lloyd is worried that Washington’s political machine could stall if all that public anger hampers politicians by turning a demonstrated willingness to “compromise” into a political liability. And when Wall Streeters talk about “compromise,” they are referring to their seemingly innate ability to manufacture bipartisan consent in spite of the often-bemoaned acrimony that locks up Republicans and Democrats.
...
while other issues get inexorably stuck in Washington’s infamous gridlock. It’s the cash that lubricates the system, much like oil lubricates American foreign policy. And it’s exactly the kind of “willing to compromise” political pliability that Blankfein told Squawk Box he is afraid of losing if recalcitrant politicians like Bernie Sanders take over the system.
...
But that’s the problem with the speaking fees and, truth be told, it’s the most vexing part of what passes for payola in the two-party political racket. Most of the juiciest rewards come after service is rendered, not before. Although campaign donations and Super PAC slush funds are a great way for corporate interests to open doors to access and reward a candidate’s family and friends and ancillary business interests, the real action happens in-between stints of public service or, even better, after a seasoned pro leaves “public service” to utilize those “special insider skills” on the other side of one of a dozen revolving doors between the Beltway and a bevy of businesses and lobbying firms.
The system is not really pay for play. It’s you’ll get paid for how you played when you dutifully collected a “low” six-figure salary while toiling away in Congress or in the Executive branch. So, technically speaking, Hillary may be telling the truth. Maybe she never once changed a vote in exchange for the titanic sums of cash which, according to a new report on CNN, amounted to “$153 million in paid speeches [to her and former President Bill Clinton] from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring.”
I'm not very familiar with that site.
It's a long article and my clips do not fairly represent it.
I thought the article was an interesting read. I don't how much stock to put in it but there was some food for thought on how Wall Street might be thinking about this.
Or make the case that his actions didn't pose a risk
In this case, it got him arrested. In another case, it had the cops tailing him and taking his flyers on police brutality down right after he was putting them up. It had the dean of his school asking him to take a year off.
If you attended one of these demonstrations, like the March on Washington in 1963 that Sanders did, you risked tear gas, night sticks, arrest or worse.
Aug. 28, 1963 Military police line up at the Washington Monument prior to the March on Washington. Fearing violence from the event, 30 Army helicopters patrolled the skies, swooping low over the Reflecting Pool. Four thousand troops stood ready in the Washington suburbs, and 15,000 paratroopers were placed on standby in North Carolina.
John Lewis was told he had to tone his March on Washington speech down because it was too militant. They feared he'd spark a riot.
Despite the event being organized to be a nonviolent protest, authorities had set up crowd control measures out of fear of a riot breaking out. Military police lined the National Mall and dozens of Army helicopters patrolled the skies over the march. Nearly 6,000 police officers were on duty, as well as 2,000 men from the National Guard. Four thousand soldiers stood at the ready in the D.C. suburbs alone, and 15,000 paratroopers were on standby. The march took place without major incident, however.
Partly due to mistrust and partly due to risk in business or socially, there were not a lot of whites really standing up for blacks in 1962-3. The movement was growing but not there yet. So supporting them got you labeled things like "nigger-lover". About 1/4 of the people in the March on Washington were white. But I bet the vast majority didn't go to work the next day bragging about being at the demonstration. There were still a lot of prejudice people having trouble accepting it.
Actions have consequences. If you protest darn near anything, you're taking some sort of risk - particularly in the early 60s. To suggest Bernie didn't take risks is inaccurate and unfair. John Lewis and MLK took much bigger risks. It got MLK killed and for example, John Lewis was beaten by mobs as a Freedom Rider and in a protest for voting rights at Selma, the cops attacked them and fractured Lewis's skull here:
So to maintain perspective, Bernie actions were not as risky as the ones John Lewis took but he did take some risks standing up for the same cause.
I believe that if minorities knew the whole story about Bernie and Hillary,
the majority would handily support Bernie.
Yes, he fought for civil rights. But his fight for economic equality or fairness for minorities and those with low income or in poverty has been sincere and relentless his whole adult life.
Someone recently criticized Sanders for talking so much about criminal justice with respect to blacks. So I won't dwell on that here.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183572/race-divides-views-race-relations-top-problem.aspx
The top problems that blacks saw facing the country in the latest quarter were race relations (13%) and unemployment (13%)
Other issues that are more glaring for blacks than for whites are crime and violence as well as poverty, homelessness and hunger. The latter may reflect that blacks have lower average incomes than whites and are more likely to be living in poverty. This is also consistent with a Gallup and Healthways finding that blacks are twice as likely as whites to report having struggled to afford food at least once in the previous 12 months.
Poverty in the US
Blacks 27%
Hispanic/Latino 25%
Other 15%
Whites 10%
Mean Household Income by Ethnicity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
Asian alone $90,752
White alone $79,340
Hispanic or Latino $54,644
Black $49,629
Who is getting the short end of the deal in the above charts?
A key to Sanders single payer is that it cover the 10% of Americans who do not have healthcare insurance. It is an economic benefit to those in poverty or with low income.
A key to Sanders free tuition for college is to give those students in poverty or with low family income hope that if they get through high school, they'll have a much better shot at a college education.
A key to Sanders $15/hr minimum wage is to reach out to those who cannot make ends meet because they're not being paid a living wage.
Sanders has complained that 51% of blacks who have graduated from high school do not have a job. He has talked about stimulating jobs by rebuilding infrastructure and efforts to develop clean energy. His plan to improve income inequality will also stimulate the economy and deliver more jobs because many more Americans will have more disposable income.
The race that benefits from Sanders policies most are blacks because they're the most in poverty and have the lowest average income. Latinos are next.
The next thing that needs some discussion is beyond that, for example, when jobs come available, how do we reach these unemployed black high school graduates and get them employed? Maybe some outreach to let them know there is help. Maybe training programs are needed to help finish the job of making them more employable. Maybe some career counseling, resume preparation or helping them sell themselves to the job market. I don't know as I'm not an expert in that area. Something like that to close the deal and help salvage the lives of those in need now - to meet the problem head on is needed.
Not only would Bernie be approachable on that, I think he'd do it.
No he wasn't arrested from this
This sit in was about segregation and discrimination in student living quarters that prohibited blacks living with whites (something like that)
I think it helped lead to the dean asking him to take time off school
Sanders was arrested while demonstrating for desegregated public schools in Chicago in 1962. (a different cause and protest related to civil rights)
Five of those photos in his second post
https://dektol.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/more-bernie-civil-rights-photos-found/
have him wearing a sweater/top and pants that look the same in the disputed photo.
The different shades are development or lighting
... a little more evidence ...
Bernie Sanders Civil Rights Photographer was Danny Lyons - more Bernie pics
Looks like John Lewis can't ignore Danny. This is what he said about him:
“This young white New Yorker came South with a camera and a keen eye for history. And he used these simple, elegant gifts to capture the story of one of the most inspiring periods in America’s twentieth century.” — John Lewis, US congressman
From a blurb on Danny's book:
Memories of the Southern Civil Rights Movement
by DANNY LYON
https://twinpalms.com/books-artists/memories-of-the-southern-civil-rights-movement/
In the summer of 1962, Danny Lyon packed a Nikon Reflex and an old Leica in an army bag and hitchhiked south. Within a week he was in jail in Albany, Georgia, looking through the bars at another prisoner, Martin Luther King Jr. Lyon soon became the first staff photographer for the Atlanta-based Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), which already had a reputation as one of the most committed and confrontational groups fighting for civil rights.
This is Dann'y blog and on the blog he has two entries:
BERNIE SANDERS LEADS 1963 SIT-IN
Posted on January 30, 2016
https://dektol.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/bernie-sanders-leads-1963-sit-in/
where he identifies the two photographs he took of Berrnie that have been widely published
And a second blog that he did yesterday:
MORE BERNIE CIVIL RIGHTS PHOTOS FOUND!
Posted on February 11, 2016
https://dektol.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/more-bernie-civil-rights-photos-found/
The slander that Bernie was not a very early leader for African American civil rights got so outrageous that persons went into the archives of the University of Chicago and changed captions on Danny Lyon’s 1962 photos, claiming it was Bruce Rappaport standing in Bernie’s clothing leading the demonstration in the Ad Building. These newly discovered pictures, including close up photographs of the student activists show us exactly what Bernie was and what he remains.
He posts more photos of the sit-in and then says:
Here at the University of Chicago, in the winter of 1962, students led by Bernie Sanders and others have occupied the hallway of the Administration Building, spending the night inside. The Chancellor cannot get into or leave his office. Bernie is leading a protest against the discrimination practiced by the University of Chicago against African Americans in it’s extensive housing. This protest for equal rights for African Americans is the first sit-in to be held in the north as part of the great 1960’s civil rights movement. Bernie is the real deal. And voters, all voters know it. Feel the Bern.
I think Danny makes a pretty solid case given who he was: a civil rights photographer and John Lewis of all people attests to his work.
John Lewis would know Danny because:
Lyon soon became the first staff photographer for the Atlanta-based Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC)
and John Lewis headed up the SNCC from 1963 to 1966.
Maybe how he's wrapped it isn't appetizing
Maybe that it's not written by a black leader or someone that was close to MLK hurts it's perceived credibility.
Maybe saying "King himself supported democratic socialism" goes too far trying to put that label on it.
But there is no escaping MLK was very concerned with economic unfairness for blacks. Here's a quote of his that stuck with me:
"We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one."
MLK "I Have A Dream" speech 1963
At least, 27% of blacks, if not more, are still in that ghetto.
The one candidate who has been consistently against that and for getting people out of poverty since before he heard the above quote in 1963 is Bernie Sanders.
Absolutely
Doing something about lobbyists in an unfulfilled Obama promise
How Obama failed to shut Washington's revolving door
He vowed to keep lobbyists out of his administration, but loopholes weakened his pledge.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/barack-obama-revolving-door-lobbying-217042#ixzz3zxb0fzZc
Some of that problem was that if he excluded everyone who had lobbied, then there was almost no one who had decent experience to fill positions in some areas.
Bernie's point about money corrupting politics is valid. Obama didn't solve it.
I do not think Wall Street money influenced Obama himself. But it significantly helped finance the wall of obstruction his legislation and efforts ran into. It softened legislation like Dodd-Frank. And they were going to obstruct anything Obama tried to do about it.
I think the world of Obama and believe overall, considering what he faced, he did a great job.
But there is a lot of work that remains to be done.
The Clintons are much more of a concern. Hillary has been called weather vane for a long history of flip-flops - she can be influenced as her untrustworthy ethical rudder is not very deep. Since they left the White House, they have collected nearly $4 billion for campaigns, the Clinton Foundation, the library and speaking fees - a lot of it from Wall Street. There's no way from all the back slapping financial donations to their causes that they can address money in politics because they're a poster example of the problem. As the Politico article covered recently, Hillary will say one thing about Wall Street in public and another behind closed doors when they're paying her $250,000 to speak. To me, that alone should disqualify her from the Oval office.
I heartily disagree
Nobody is above criticism. Not even John Lewis.
When I last checked, this is a democracy with freedom of expression rights.
If John gets out of line, he can be criticized like anyone else.
I think he got out of line today.
I can't endorse all he's getting as I haven't seen it all and some of it might be ugly. But there's no doubt in my mind, he deserves some criticism.
If one opens their mouth, they're accountable for what comes out of it. No free passes.
They chartered about 2,000 "freedom buses" and a bunch of "freedom trains" and
promoted it with posters like this:
Bernie got on a "freedom bus" in Chicago and went to Washington to support them.
Once he bought his ticket and got on that bus, he was going with the flow of what they wanted him to do for this protest.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/marchonwashington.html
But on August 28, 1963, an estimated quarter of a million people—about a quarter of whom were white—marched from the Washington Monument to the Lincoln Memorial, in what turned out to be both a protest and a communal celebration.
Here's some footage of the march at the start of this video
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=96
The event began with a rally at the Washington Monument featuring several celebrities and musicians. Participants then marched the mile-long National Mall to the Memorial. The three-hour long program at the Lincoln Memorial included speeches from prominent civil rights and religious leaders.
Ever hear of "Where's Waldo?" Let's play "Where's Bernie?" in the March on Washington?
Hint: Bernie said he was near the back when MLK spoke - on the march route between the Lincoln Memorial where King spoke and the Washington Monument where the march started.
Did Bernie make the walk all the way to the Lincoln Memorial? I have no idea. But on that day, he demonstrated his solidarity with the civil rights movement by hoping on a "freedom bus" in Chicago and going all the way to Washington to support them as they asked.
As such, at the very least, figuratively, Bernie "marched" with MLK for civil rights and economic equality.
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Aug 23, 2015, 03:58 PMNumber of posts: 10,122
