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

Skwmom

(12,685 posts)
Tue Sep 15, 2015, 03:43 PM Sep 2015

Clinton wants to insure Biotechs against losses. First banks, now Biotechs..

Last edited Tue Sep 15, 2015, 05:51 PM - Edit history (1)

She announced this at the Biotech Conference which was a really lucrative day for Hillary. She pocketed a $335,000 speaker fee. Wow, more than a quarter of a million dollars for a speech. What a payday! I think I am safe in saying Hillary doesn't suffer from any gender pay discrepancy.

http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-all-the-six-figure-speaking-fees-that-hillary-clinton-received-after-leaving-the-state-dept-2015-5

“Maybe there’s a way of getting a representative group of actors at the table” to discuss how the federal government could help biotechs with “insurance against risk,” she said.

http://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2014/06/25/hillary-clinton-cheers-biotechers-backs-gmos-and-federal-help/

It would seem that the 1% (with all their money) are probably investing in biotechs. So now we should guarantee their losses, provide them with insurance like we do for the too big to fail banks. Really?

I wonder how many trillion that will cost us?

I wonder how much will be left over for the little people.

13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Sanity Claws

(21,847 posts)
1. Private benefits, public losses AGAIN?
Tue Sep 15, 2015, 03:45 PM
Sep 2015

If they want insurance against risk, then it is no longer a private enterprise in which they reap all the benefits.

Can't have it both ways.

Skwmom

(12,685 posts)
12. Capitalism with no risk because if they lose money the taxpayer will pick up the bill.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:10 AM
Sep 2015

And if they make money, well there are plenty of tax loopholes.

I think that's what you'd call a WIN WIN - for the biotechs that is.
 

HassleCat

(6,409 posts)
2. Well, yeah
Tue Sep 15, 2015, 03:47 PM
Sep 2015

That's SOP. When you show up and speak to a group such as this, and they give you a nice fee, you're expected to promise them something without really committing to anything. This is Candidate 101.

TBF

(32,055 posts)
6. It's what she does -
Tue Sep 15, 2015, 03:55 PM
Sep 2015

Going back to her days on the Board of Walmart. You don't become a multi millionaire by helping low income folks ...

 

bunnies

(15,859 posts)
8. What could be more important that protecting her precious Monsanto with taxpayer money?
Tue Sep 15, 2015, 04:41 PM
Sep 2015

Amirite?

TBF

(32,055 posts)
10. She doesn't work for us.
Tue Sep 15, 2015, 05:45 PM
Sep 2015

She works for these folks:

Lobbyists for Monsanto, ExxonMobil Raise Money for Hillary Clinton: Registered lobbyists brought in more than $2 million in fundraising for the Clinton campaign, recent filings show.
Jul 17, 2015 3:50 AM CDT

The former secretary of state raised more than $2 million from 40 "bundlers"—fundraisers who get their contacts to give to campaigns—who were also lobbyists, according to financial forms released Wednesday by the Federal Election Commission. In all, the Clinton campaign raised $46.7 million between the beginning of April and the end of June.

Bundlers, who are often wealthy or well-connected individuals, do more than donate to campaigns. They put their social networks to work for favorite candidates, persuading (often equally wealthy and well-connected) family members, friends, colleagues, and other contacts to donate as well, effectively bringing in far more money than they could under the current legal donation limits. Individuals can contribute $2,700 to candidate committees (as opposed to super PACS) for the primary election and the same amount for the general election, for a total of $5,400 in a campaign cycle. Campaigns don't have to disclose their bundlers—unless those bundlers are also lobbyists.

Clinton's bundlers include some familiar names: Jerry Crawford, an outside lobbyist to Monsanto and Iowa kingmaker, put together another $35,000 or so. Tony Podesta, a mega-lobbyist who co-founded the Podesta Group and is the brother of Clinton's campaign chair John, bundled almost $75,000.


http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-17/lobbyists-for-monsanto-exxon-mobile-raise-money-for-hillary-clinton
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Clinton wants to insure B...