HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » stupidicus » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »


Profile Information

Name: Jim
Gender: Male
Member since: Thu Apr 5, 2012, 08:33 PM
Number of posts: 2,425

Journal Archives

Hillary Clinton’s no-tax pledge is Republican policy sprinkled with Third Way politics

otherwise known as rightwing-lite

Clinton’s no-tax pledge is Republican “starve the beast” policy infused with Third Way politics. It doubles down on the premise that taxes are bad, and insists that they should only ever be raised on other people — no matter what higher taxes on the broader tax base could pay for. By promising to only raise taxes on incomes in the top one or two percent, Clinton is writing off most potential new revenue, and is therefore writing off the possibility of any semblance of a progressive economic agenda. However, by only foreclosing on the possibility of tax increases for 98 percent of Americans, as opposed to the full 100, she feels safe calling herself a progressive because Fox News will call her a class warrior. Sanders, rightly, thinks this claim is ridiculous.

It’s ridiculous because Clinton’s pledge boxes her into policy corners that leave her with no choice but to use creative and regressive tweaks on otherwise good ideas in order to keep her price tags down. Take, for example, her proposed tax credit for caregivers. Clinton’s policy would provide a tax credit of up to $6,000 for families that are taking care of an elderly family member. However, the only way to keep the budgetary costs of such a program down — $1 billion per year, by all available estimates — is by making the credit non-refundable (you can only claim it against existing tax liability, as opposed to a refundable credit, which allows you to have negative liability). Making the credit non-refundable may make it less expensive, but it also makes it useless. As Demos analyst Matt Bruenig explained:http://americablog.com/2015/12/hillary-clinton-no-tax-pledge-republican-policy-third-way-politics.html

. "Question the candidate, not our beloved system!"

So while we were all focusing on who did what, with what and how, the DNC was out there employing the great smoke and mirrors of politics. "Question the candidate, not our beloved system!" became the message relayed from the DNC, and that was despite the well known fact that it was that very system that lead to this entire issue.

makes the most sense to me too.

I'd add a whole hell of a lot more than rhetoric suggesting criminal intent on the part of the guy leaving the trail behind him. Apparently he's up for this years "America's Dumbest Criminal" award eh?

What would Hillary say, is what enquiring minds wanna know

At the unveiling ceremony, Cheney was, in the playful words of NPR, “lightly roasted” — as though he’s some sort of grumpy though beloved avuncular stand-up comic. Along with George W. Bush, one of the speakers in attendance was Vice President Joe Biden, who spoke movingly of Cheney’s kind and generous soul:

As I look around this room and up on the platform, I want to say thank you for letting me crash your family reunion. I’m afraid I’ve blown his cover. I actually like Dick Cheney. … I can say without fear of contradiction, there’s never one single time been a harsh word, not one single time in our entire relationship. https://theintercept.com/2015/12/04/u-s-first-shields-its-torturers-and-war-criminals-from-prosecution-now-officially-honors-them/

The Clinton Files: Those White House Coffee Klatsches

or "More things for her supporters to be proud of"

First came the lobbyists, but they were not bought....

First, some sociology on the attendees. By far the most heavily represented group were the Washington lobbyists, arriving in a familiar torrent of names: Patton, Boggs, and Blow, the most influential firm on the Hill; Skadden, Arp, the Republican lobby-shop; the PR house of Hill & Knowlton; Mickey Kantor’s old firm, Manatt, Phelps, and Phillips; and Davis, Polk and Wardwell, the law offices of Robert Fiske, the first special prosecutor in the Whitewater scandal.

Chasing close on the lobbyists’ heels were the bankers, bond traders, and mutual fund operators, including executives from Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, and Chase Manhattan. One intriguing session, which seems particularly ripe for the scrutiny of a special prosecutor, occurred on May 13, 1996, between the top 16 bankers in the country, the President of the United States, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Secretary of the Treasury.

Third in frequency was the telecommunications sector, headlined by what must have been a tense session with Sumner Redstone, who owns the controlling interest in cable giant Viacom, and the company’s CEO, Frank Biondi, who Redstone fired soon thereafter. Also making an appearance were executives from Time/Warner, Disney, Knight-Ridder, Miramax and the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial page pounds out a daily anti-Clinton drumbeat. Remember that in this period the largest “reform” of telecommunications since 1932 was in progress, with billions at stake. Telecommunications companies wired the Democratic Party with nearly $20 million.

Next came the health care and insurance lobbies, which were keen on killing any new initiative for a national health care system. The most frequent insurance company sipping coffee with the president was Travelers Group, whose executives attended no less than seven White House klatsches, one of them ennobled by the attendance of Travelers’ CEO Sanford Weill, at $50 million a year the highest paid corporate executive in 1995. Weill made clear his position on product liability lawsuits: He wants them limited. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/04/the-clinton-files-those-white-house-coffee-klatsches/

What We Can Expect From Hillary Clinton on Israel/Palestine

I'm betting full support for the war criminals, and full support for her from her supporters.

As a senator, Clinton defended Israel's colonization efforts in the occupied West Bank and was highly critical of the United Nations for its efforts to uphold international humanitarian law, which forbids transferring civilian populations onto territories under foreign belligerent occupation. Clinton criticized the UN's enforcement of four UN Security Council resolutions calling on Israel to end the practice, and even took the time for a 2005 visit to a major Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank in a show of support. She moderated that stance somewhat as secretary of state in expressing concerns over how the right-wing Israeli government's settlement policies harmed the overall climate of the peace process, but she has refused to acknowledge the illegality of the settlements or demand that Israel abide by international demands to stop building additional settlements. Subsequently, she has argued that the Obama administration pushed too hard in the early years of the administration to get Israel to suspend settlement construction.

In 2011, Clinton successfully pushed for a US veto of a UN Security Council resolution reiterating the illegality of the settlement drive and calling for a settlement freeze. The UN Security Council has traditionally been the vehicle for enforcing international law in territories under foreign belligerent occupation, but Clinton noted, "We have consistently over many years said that the United Nations Security Council - and resolutions that would come before the Security Council - is not the right vehicle to advance the goal," despite the US failure to stop this colonization drive on its own.http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33868-what-we-can-expect-from-hillary-clinton-on-israel-palestine

Hillary Clinton's Ghosts: A Legacy of Pushing the Democratic Party to the Right


which makes most of her supporters supporters of rightwingery-lite, doesn't it?

When Bill Clinton left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate. She quickly became a major player for the DLC, serving as a prominent member of the New Democratic Caucus in the Senate, speaking at conferences on multiple occasions and serving as chair of a key initiative for the 2006 and 2008 elections.

She was even promoted as the DLC's "New Dem of the Week" on its website. (It would be remiss not to note that Martin O'Malley also served as a "New Dem of the Week," and even co-wrote an op-ed on behalf of the DLC with its then-chair, Harold Ford Jr.)
New Democrats were never really about popular support; they were about bringing together big business and the Democrats.

More importantly, Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed. She tried to portray herself as a crusader for family values when she introduced legislation to ban violent video games and flag burning in 2005. She also adopted the DLC's hawkish military stance. The DLC was feverishly in favor of Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. Will Marshall, one of the group's founders, was a signatory of many of the now infamous documents from the Project for the New American Century, which urged the United States to radically increase its use of force in Iraq and beyond.

And if you factor in her rightwing religious buddies http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-hillary-clintons-religion-and-politics , well, it's kinda like putting the fox in charge of the lefty henhouse, no?

How The Clinton And Sanders Infrastructure Plans Measure Up

Clinton's $275 billion infrastructure plan offers modest spending and contains few specifics. Contrast that with candidate Bernie Sanders, who has proposed a highly detailed, $1 trillion plan.

Sanders' infrastructure plan was originally introduced in January as a Senate bill called the Rebuild America Act. A summary is laid out on his campaign issues page, Creating Jobs Rebuilding America. The plan calls for spending $1 trillion over the same five-year period. Here's what his plan includes:http://crooksandliars.com/2015/12/how-clinton-and-sanders-infrastructure

How can this possibly be true? I've read repeatedly from HC supporters that Bernie doesn't do details.

why are alerters allowed to slander/libel their targets?

as in how in the samhell does asking if someone else was chasing HC's skirt decades ago get translated into
Insinuating that Hillary gives out sexual favors for endorsements?

On Wed Nov 25, 2015, 02:33 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

who? WHo's the pea and who's the pod?


This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.


Insinuating that Hillary gives out sexual favors for endorsements is way over the line! Especially since she was only 16 in the Goldwater Days.

who? WHo's the pea and who's the pod?

John Allan Yarmuth is the U.S. Representative for Kentucky's 3rd congressional district and has been since 2007. He is a member of the Democratic Party and a former member of the Republican Party. Wikipedia

Did he chase her skirt while she was Goldwater girl?

Rightwing repubs and dems alike wanna kill single-payer in the crib again

with their fallacious/erroneous assaults on costs and "pie in the sky" characterizations.


I'd like to thank Bernie for making it such a large part of our national conversation again, and condemn those who are trying once again to dampen it's promotion by piling assorted bags of garbage https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/15/no-bernie-sanders-is-not-going-to-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/ on top of it. Obviously that type has no problem with the millions that will remain uninsured under whatever Hillarycare they find themselves behind, nor the human misery that will also necessarily accompany it, because they are just hapless victims of their unreasonable desire for pie in the sky, who need to suck it up and tug on their damn bootstraps. We all have them, no?

It's almost like BS is more worthy of condemnation for promoting it than the rightwing types are for obstructing it, given the huge disparity in the count of such respective efforts here on DU. But then, how can Hillarians condemn rightwingers over something their candidate opposes as well eh?

The reality is, an HC presidency insures 4-8 more years of no movement in the "right" direction of SP, and all the negative ramifications that comes with that, much as say, the relative and otherwise dem inaction on inequality and climate change have made those mountains taller and harder for the younger citizens to climb in the future. It's almost like inaction can have no consequences or something, as long as it's a Hillary-type demanding it.

Apparently they no longer believe that "change" stuff that BHO peddled, because now all they're peddling is "can't do"/AWK AWK, BUT POLITICAL REALITIES/"PIE IN THE SKY!!!, you fools and tools" stuff.

It seems that the only confidence they have is in next to no change at all with a Clinton presidency, unless of course she continues the rightward drift in DC, which will no doubt be accepted and excused under the "well, it's not as rightwingnut as it otherwise woulda been" rationale.

Sadly they seem to think it better to rinse and repeat with all this so to speak, than to engage in the Network Moment-like behavior that they find so abusive on the part of Bernie supporters, and like they have all the moral currency in this game as rightwing-liters.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »