HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "No, Mr. Summers – i...

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 10:39 AM

"No, Mr. Summers – it’s not the politics of envy. It’s the politics of responsibility."

The Politics of Responsibility – Not Envy
Next New Deal - Blog of the Roosevelt Institute
2/11/2015

Americans are looking for politicians who ask the wealthy to take responsibility for their fair share of our society.

According to former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers – who is emerging as a key economic advisor to Hillary Clinton – the big political challenge in addressing economic inequality is not to embrace “a politics of envy.”

No, Mr. Summers – it’s not the politics of envy. It’s the politics of responsibility.

Summers was quoted in The New York Times about “what has emerged as a central question of her [Hillary Clinton’s] early presidential campaign strategy: how to address the anger about income inequality without overly vilifying the wealthy.”

The rich may imagine that blaming them for the struggles of the rest of us is driven by envy, but that’s their own conceit to make them feel good. Americans don’t resent the rich. While we might fantasize about winning the lottery, we are not consumed by jealousy. What most Americans understand is that they are struggling financially because the wealthy have rigged the economic and political system to benefit them at the expense of the rest of us. That’s not envy: it’s reality.

Summer’s formulation is meant to give intellectual cover to the real problem that Democrats like Clinton face: taking on those who finance their political campaigns. As the Times puts it: “And she [Clinton] must convince a middle class that feels frustrated and left behind that she understands its struggles, even as she relies heavily on the financial industry and corporate interests to fund her candidacy.”

...For example, wages are stagnant because corporations engaged in concerted strategies to limit the proportion of profits shared with workers, including: busting unions, rather than negotiating with them; shipping jobs overseas rather than paying higher wages to American workers; and aggressively using campaign contributions and lobbyists to undermine labor standards (minimum wage; overtime protection; etc) and labor laws. Corporations spent their huge profits on stock buybacks and CEO pay, rather than better compensation for workers.

Then there’s Wall Street’s culpability for using its political clout to shred financial regulations and oversight while engaging in the orgy of financial speculation and predatory lending that triggered the Great Recession.

Or tax policy, where corporations pushed to reduce their proportion of taxes paid to the federal government and by the wealthy so that they now pay a lower share of taxes than the middle-class. The result: working and middle class families pay higher taxes and more for public services. A glaring example is the enormous rise in the cost of public higher education, as funding for public colleges and universities has been slashed.

The economic story about who is responsible requires acknowledging the democratic story. One thing that Americans on the left and right agree on is that the wealthy and corporate lobbyists have hijacked our democracy. That’s not cynical – it’s true....

http://www.nextnewdeal.net/politics-responsibility-%E2%80%93-not-envy



And btw, isn't it GREAT that one of the men responsible for repealing Glass-Steagall, and thus helping bring on 2008, during Bill Clinton's tenure is now a key economic advisor to Hillary?

Run, Hillary, Run!!

Summers hailed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, which lifted more than six decades of restrictions against banks offering commercial banking, insurance, and investment services (by repealing key provisions in the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act): "Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century," Summers said.[17] "This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy."[17] Many critics, including President Barack Obama, have suggested the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis was caused by the partial repeal of the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act.[18] Indeed, as a member of President Clinton's Working Group on Financial Markets, Summers, along with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Arthur Levitt, Fed Chairman Greenspan, and Secretary Rubin, torpedoed an effort to regulate the derivatives that many blame for bringing the financial market down in Fall 2008.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers

82 replies, 6530 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 82 replies Author Time Post
Reply "No, Mr. Summers – it’s not the politics of envy. It’s the politics of responsibility." (Original post)
RiverLover Feb 2015 OP
monmouth4 Feb 2015 #1
djean111 Feb 2015 #3
antigop Feb 2015 #12
RiverLover Feb 2015 #25
Cryptoad Feb 2015 #39
ND-Dem Feb 2015 #69
antigop Feb 2015 #14
CTyankee Feb 2015 #31
CrispyQ Feb 2015 #41
peacebird Feb 2015 #51
jtuck004 Feb 2015 #65
Autumn Feb 2015 #56
rhett o rick Feb 2015 #68
JDPriestly Feb 2015 #70
Vincardog Feb 2015 #71
RobertSF Feb 2015 #74
elleng Feb 2015 #55
Katashi_itto Feb 2015 #2
CTyankee Feb 2015 #32
Katashi_itto Feb 2015 #45
CTyankee Feb 2015 #46
Katashi_itto Feb 2015 #48
peacebird Feb 2015 #52
LittleBlue Feb 2015 #67
hifiguy Feb 2015 #62
truebluegreen Feb 2015 #4
RiverLover Feb 2015 #5
LWolf Feb 2015 #21
truebluegreen Feb 2015 #27
whathehell Feb 2015 #24
Dustlawyer Feb 2015 #6
DesertDiamond Feb 2015 #8
Paladin Feb 2015 #10
Dustlawyer Feb 2015 #15
prairierose Feb 2015 #23
djean111 Feb 2015 #16
antigop Feb 2015 #22
bread_and_roses Feb 2015 #80
kairos12 Feb 2015 #7
whereisjustice Feb 2015 #9
Nay Feb 2015 #82
winter is coming Feb 2015 #11
jwirr Feb 2015 #13
onecaliberal Feb 2015 #17
olegramps Feb 2015 #18
antigop Feb 2015 #20
newthinking Feb 2015 #36
antigop Feb 2015 #19
closeupready Feb 2015 #28
Carolina Feb 2015 #35
antigop Feb 2015 #59
CTyankee Feb 2015 #58
greatlaurel Feb 2015 #26
RiverLover Feb 2015 #29
DallasNE Feb 2015 #30
Octafish Feb 2015 #33
pa28 Feb 2015 #40
antigop Feb 2015 #60
hifiguy Feb 2015 #63
pa28 Feb 2015 #34
merrily Feb 2015 #37
RiverLover Feb 2015 #57
Kablooie Feb 2015 #38
CrispyQ Feb 2015 #42
Populist_Prole Feb 2015 #43
merrily Feb 2015 #49
Populist_Prole Feb 2015 #50
Rex Feb 2015 #44
winter is coming Feb 2015 #47
Dont call me Shirley Feb 2015 #53
treestar Feb 2015 #54
daredtowork Feb 2015 #61
whereisjustice Feb 2015 #64
LittleBlue Feb 2015 #66
Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2015 #72
emsimon33 Feb 2015 #73
RiverLover Feb 2015 #76
Enthusiast Feb 2015 #75
RiverLover Feb 2015 #77
99Forever Feb 2015 #78
stillwaiting Feb 2015 #79
JEB Feb 2015 #81

Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 10:41 AM

1. Geezus, an HRC presidency is really starting to scare me...n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth4 (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 10:54 AM

3. Me too. When the tumult and the shouting dies, when the confetti is swept up, and

 

we just may realize that being cheered at a basketball game is not a good reason to vote for someone - then, I fear, we are truly fucked. I believe Hillary will further cement the Investor State that transcends sovereign nations, or else the GOP will swiftly dismantle any and all safety nets. Either way, we lose - just more quickly under the GOP. What a thing to look forward to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:37 AM

12. but, but, but...she CAN WIN!!!! And, exactly, what do we win? More outsourcing of jobs

and in increase in H-1b visas

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Hillary+h-1b

HILLARY: "Outsourcing will continue"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702780.html

When Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton flew to New Delhi to meet with Indian business leaders in 2005, she offered a blunt assessment of the loss of American jobs across the Pacific. "There is no way to legislate against reality," she declared. "Outsourcing will continue. . ., We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences."

Two years later, as a Democratic presidential hopeful, Clinton struck a different tone when she told students in New Hampshire that she hated "seeing U.S. telemarketing jobs done in remote locations far, far from our shores."

The two speeches delivered continents apart highlight the delicate balance the senator from New York, a dedicated free-trader, is seeking to maintain as she courts two competing constituencies: wealthy Indian immigrants who have pledged to donate and raise as much as $5 million for her 2008 campaign and powerful American labor unions that are crucial to any Democratic primary victory.
...
High on the agenda of union officials is an explanation of how each candidate will try to stem the loss of U.S. jobs, including large numbers in the service and technology sectors that are being taken over by cheap labor in India. During the vetting, some union leaders have found Clinton's record troubling.

"The India issue is still something people are concerned about. Her financial relationships, her quotes -- they have both gotten attention," said Thea M. Lee, policy director for the AFL-CIO.



So great, you lose your job to offshoring....or you lose your job to an h-1b visaholder.

Still waiting for HRC to tell us what IT and tech people are supposed to train for after their lose their jobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:23 PM

25. Good post.

I was checking out at a grocery store the other day & the cashier, a young black man, proudly told me he was a student majoring in IT. My heart sunk.

Shameful that in our country, that is a bad choice to make now with all the IT jobs going to low-wage India. Thanks to the wonderful H1b Visas that Hillary loves so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 01:46 PM

39. Time for a Progressive to ,,,

step forward and run!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 17, 2015, 01:20 AM

69. i'd like to outsource hillary and bill. maybe we should just outsource the presidency and be done

 

with it. I'd like to see a Scandinavian in the seat. or maybe a latin American.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:40 AM

14. and we win more disastrous trade agreements

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth4 (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:54 PM

31. Before we all get carried away, remember that with a Republican you'll get economic

policy really loaded against the middle and the poor classes AND that wonderful other added benefit which is the likelihood of getting more Supreme Court justices appointed thereby finishing off Roe v. Wade.

DOUBLE WHAMMY!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #31)


Response to CTyankee (Reply #31)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:20 PM

51. And with HRC you get economic policies really loaded against the middle class, H1B visas,

Outsourcing.... Fail to see how the republican option is really much worse for us economically?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #51)

Tue Feb 17, 2015, 01:03 AM

65. I've always thought that date rape was worse than rape by a stranger. There

 

is no expectation of trust, or any element of betrayal with other party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #31)


Response to CTyankee (Reply #31)

Tue Feb 17, 2015, 01:12 AM

68. Ah yes the manipulation by the Oligarchy.

 

Either vote for Oligarchy Thing 1 or you will have to deal wit Oligarchy Thing 2 which is worse.

It's time for Democrats to stand up to the Oligarchy and refuse to play their game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #31)

Tue Feb 17, 2015, 02:57 AM

70. And then, remember that if we nominate and elect either Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders,

we get the best possible economic policy and really progressive Supreme Court justices.

There is a fundamental assumption in your post that is not supported by facts:

That our choice will be either Hillary or a Republican. I think that the Democratic Party can do better than nominating Hillary Clinton in 2016. Hillary should retire with Bill to some beautiful part of Hawaii and have a good time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #70)

Tue Feb 17, 2015, 03:13 AM

71. Second that Hillary should retire with Bill to some beautiful part of Hawaii and have a good time.

I say that without regard to her sex but in considerations of her political leanings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #70)

Tue Feb 17, 2015, 04:58 AM

74. Unfortunately, a Warren or Sanders presidency would be pointless.

Not only would they not secure the cooperation of the Democrats in Congress, the Republicans would block them just like they've blocked Obama.

The only benefit of Hillary Clinton as President is that she too drives the Republicans into frothing rages. They will try to stop everything Clinton will try to do, which will include getting us into war and shoveling money at Wall Street.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth4 (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:40 PM

55. Me too,

if she's got this guy 'informing' or speaking for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 10:49 AM

2. A Republican President would simply be sheer incompetence and corruption. Hillary would

 

systematically dismantle us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:54 PM

32. nope. see above...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #32)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 03:37 PM

45. Yes, that makes all the difference.

 

Impoverished with the illusion that we have social justice. Or Impoverished with no illusion of social justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #45)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 03:48 PM

46. well said. Altho I wouldn't say that the Roe decision and Griswold before it

were no small events. Deciding when and whether to have a child is an issue of enormous importance and is key to the freedom of women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #46)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 04:04 PM

48. That was because we had actual Dems in power or running back then. It was a different world.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #45)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:21 PM

52. ^^this!^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #45)

Tue Feb 17, 2015, 01:11 AM

67. Agreed. You'll have people on DU supporting this 1%er trash

 

out of pure party loyalty. And Republicans are free to venture farther to the right just to give the appearance of opposition.

Hillary is one of those disasters we can see coming a mile away (like TPP, HIB visas, arming Syrian rebels, etc.) but we're powerless to stop it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 07:35 PM

62. Speaking in terms of economic policy and nothing else

 

the only difference between HRC and Jebbie is how quickly we frogs in the pot would get boiled. That we would be boiled by either of them is not open to rational debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 10:56 AM

4. I hated it when Obama brought Summers on board....

 

The only good thing about mistakes is we are supposed to LEARN from them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:09 AM

5. Me too.

I think that's when I knew I had an ideology but no representation. We've learned from our mistakes(some of US), now if only the DNC leaders would too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:55 AM

21. I hated it too.

Along with several other of his appointments:

Arne Duncan, Rahm Emmanuel, and Vilsack, just to name a few.

I never thought it was a mistake, though. At least not his. It was our mistake to nominate and elect a neo-liberal. A mistake I hope we do not make again with HRC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:33 PM

27. I agree: Obama didn't make a mistake,

 

he knew exactly what he wanted and that was apparent with all of his choices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:19 PM

24. Me too, and I'm SO glad that, due to democratic "popular demand"

Obama wasn't able to bring him in as the head of the Federal Reserve.

What a nightmare that would have been.

He's a repugnant elitist, and Elizabeth Warren writes about her strong "disagreements"

with both he and Geithner in her book, "A Fighting Chance".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:12 AM

6. Let's support what we really want for a change, instead of who we think is electable.

We might find that someone like Bernie Sanders is "electable" after all. He is the only candidate considering a run for the White House that is not doing it for personal gain or because some industry or company has promised him something if he does. He wants to fight for Publicly Funded Elections and ending campaign contributions which strikes at the heart of the 1%'s ability to control our government. This is the root problem that causes most of our other problems.
Why shouldn't we fight for a return to our Democracy? Representative Democracy is dead, politicians only represent Donors as evidenced by our leading candidate, Hillary Clinton and Her choice of Larry Summers. Why would we accept that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:17 AM

8. I'm with you, Dustlawyer. If Hillary becomes our candidate, it will be the first election ever where

I truly felt it didn't matter who won, the result would still be just as bad either way. I'm for supporting Bernie. Or Elizabeth if she runs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DesertDiamond (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:32 AM

10. Two words for you and the rest of the Hillary bashers: Supreme Court.

If we don't support our strongest candidate and the Repubs end up with control of all three branches of the federal government, we'll allow several more Scalias to populate the court, controlling it for decades to come. Fuck that. In my entire life, I have never had a president who satisfied me in all respects. Never, ever. Instead, I've tried to act like a grown-up: I've gritted my teeth and made the best of it. Hillary Clinton currently represents our strongest chance for hanging on to the White House and future SCOTUS nominees, her Democratic credentials are sound, and thus she has my support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:42 AM

15. Then support Bernie in the primary, and the winner of that in the general. It will most likely

be Hillary, but at least give the uncorrupted candidate a chance. I agree Hillary is better than any Republican, but she will do what Obama has and appoint corporate Democrats to SCOTUS. Obama and Hillary would never appoint a Ruth Bader Ginzberg (Nortorious RBG), but Bernie would!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:16 PM

23. This is my position....

I will not support Hillary in the primary but if she becomes the candidate, I will vote for her. Even though she is a neoliberal, I think the Supreme Court would be better off in her hands than in any republicant's hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:43 AM

16. I honestly think Hillary would appoint a Centrist judge.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to antigop (Reply #22)

Tue Feb 17, 2015, 10:13 AM

80. Well said (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:15 AM

7. Americans are fed up with a rigged system. That is the message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:18 AM

9. BAD CHOICES. Maybe Hillary will hire Condi Rice to advise her on torture policy. Jesus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whereisjustice (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 17, 2015, 01:55 PM

82. Indeed. Clinton isn't even trying to hide the fact that the same old rich insiders are going to

populate her campaign, her advisor team, and her presidency, if she wins. At least with Obama, we didn't see him with Summers and Geithner until AFTER he won. Now, the 1% is so arrogant they don't care that the rabble sees Summers with Hillary. What a slap in the face. Anyone who thinks that Hillary is gonna be some centrist Dem is nuts; she will continue the march to the right, and what will we be able to say other than "uh, uh, but she's a Democrat! We'll get.....a sorta centrist Supreme Court nominee, maybe!!"

It's always been my contention that, in one way, it's WORSE to have a right-leaning Democrat than a regular Republican because the Dem can get away with more righty stuff since Dem dissent will be muted. Worse, more RW stuff can be "put on the table" by a Dem (like SS 'reform' discussed by Obama) and Dem voters can only stand there, stunned. When both parties are headed rightward, in defiance of the true feelings of the electorate, it's no surprise that we voters have no idea where to go or what to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:34 AM

11. Responsibility is for the little people. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:38 AM

13. IMO she needs to get rid of Summers as an advisor. He is part of the problem and cannot be part

of the answer. In fact she has a lot of so called advisors on that list that are part of the problem. Please Hillary, if you insist on running at least act like you are with us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:46 AM

17. Summers and his ilk are the problem.

Thinking this point is lost democratic voters is the height of arrogance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:46 AM

18. This makes me wonder if there is a viable alternative to the present situation.

It appears that due to the present situation a candidate must attract the support of mega-corporations to run a successful campaign. I wonder if a Democratic candidate actually refused the support of corporations they could win if they appealed sole to the working class and pledged to support their presently hopeless situation. Perhaps it is foolhardy to propose this, but could it actually work? I appreciate the opposition to the so-called Third Way that has been explored here on DU and what it has actually wrought. Is this an alternative? I know Obama had wide spread appeal, but he also had the support of Wall Street. Could such a candidate attract both Independents and even some Republicans or is it just a hopeless situation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to olegramps (Reply #18)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:53 AM

20. Yes, I definitely think it is an alternative if they can wage an effective social media campaign.

They couldn't count on the mainstream media for coverage...they would have to reach people through social media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to olegramps (Reply #18)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 01:36 PM

36. Local elections

It seems more and more like the only answer starts locally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:51 AM

19. and this is what the Third Way sycophants DON'T understand...

The middle class is being decimated and their lives are becoming sh*ttier and sh*ttier by the day.

They aren't going to give a **** about Supreme Court nominees when they have a sh*tty job and unaffordable health care, can't send their kids to college, and can't afford to retire.

...and the Democratic Party "leadership" better figure this out.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:41 PM

28. With Dem leaders like Debbie Wasserman Schultz who can't bring herself

 

to boycott Netanyahu's address (being given at the invitation of the Republican party), as a responsible opposition leader should. can we expect them to figure this out in years ... or decades?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 01:35 PM

35. Touche, antigop

They aren't going to give a **** about Supreme Court nominees when they have a sh*tty job and unaffordable health care, can't send their kids to college, and can't afford to retire.

Summers is a disaster who was booted out of the presidency of Harvard University because of his comments about women and equally importantly, because he lost the University $1 billion (yes, with a B) in money.

That HRC would choose this loser, 1% mouthpiece as an advisor speaks volumes about her. She ran a lousy 2008 campaign (so much for her leadership) and sought to claim credit for the alleged goods of Bill's presidency.... recall her repeated pronouncements of 20 years of experience. Yeah, right 12 as first lady of Arkansas and 8 as first lady of the US. Hell, imagine the ridicule the HRC supporters would heap on Babs Bush if she made a similar claim based on her 4 years as 2nd lady of the US, 4 years of 1st lady of the US and 8 years as 1st mom?!!!

Anyway, if HRC wants credit, then yes, thanks Hil for NAFTA, Gramm-Bliley-Leech, Welfare deform, the Telecommmunications Act, etc. Also never forget, HRC was one of the founding members of the DLC; as a NY senator, she voted for IWR despite knowing about PNAC and the Bush history of lies and deceit; and as Sec'y of State, she's proven herself to be a war hawk. Plus, she remains a Third Way, 1%er to her core.

I will not vote for her under any circumstances because, as you so correctly said: who gives a flying fig about the Supreme Court when you don't know where your next meal is coming from, you don't know if you will have a roof over your head, you don't what will happen if/when your health will deteriorate and your children's future looks bleak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carolina (Reply #35)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 06:50 PM

59. yeah, they think that will be a "winning"strategy. Yeah, that'll work. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 06:33 PM

58. Polling shows that a huge majority of American voters do NOT want Roe reversed...

at the same time that they say they are pro-life. What does that seemingly contradictory opinions mean? I think it means they don't particularly LIKE abortion but they sure as hell don't want to see that option taken away. Lotsa folks say they are pro-life but caught with an unwanted pregnancy in their lives, they want the choice, leaving ideology aside...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:32 PM

26. Where is the link to Larry Summers becoming her chief economic advisor?

I see a couple of opinion pieces saying Summers is going to be her chief advisor, but I have not found anything definitive or any evidence that HRC would like to have him as an advisor. I doubt that she would call him out for the nitwit he is, as he has many very powerful friends and it is not wise to make enemies this early on. I have found nothing concrete that indicates HRC wants anything to do with Larry Summers, especially after he stabbed her in the back when she ran in 2008.

I do agree that she should keep Summers as far away as possible from anything important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greatlaurel (Reply #26)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:42 PM

29. He's a "key" advisor for her not-yet-official 2016 run, as board member of CAP.

Center for American Progress. As in John Podesta.

They're the puppet masters behind the scenes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:50 PM

30. Summers Is Plagarizing Newt Gingrich

By using the same phrasing that Gingrich uses. Maybe he should stop watching Fox News.

And Hillary, you need to distance yourself from Summers comments and quickly or else suffer the consequences in the polls as this will flame an anybody but Hillary movement. Indeed, you need to ask "who is my base" and address those needs. Money does no good if your base stays home because you have alienated them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:55 PM

33. What would Goldman think of that?

Summers looked at Stiglitz like Stiglitz was some kind of naive fool who'd read too many civics books.

http://www.gregpalast.com/larry-summers-goldman-sacked/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #33)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 02:15 PM

40. She has to make sure Lloyd and Jamie know all the populist talk is just rhetoric.

What better way than putting Summers on the team?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #33)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 06:52 PM

60. Lloyd Blankfein: "I held fundraisers for her." (HRC)

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/wall-street-republicans-hillary-clinton-2016-106070.html

But the private consensus is similar to what Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein said to POLITICO late last year when he praised both Christie — before the bridge scandal — and Clinton. “I very much was supportive of Hillary Clinton the last go-round,” he said. “I held fundraisers for her.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #60)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 07:38 PM

63. She is a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman and the rest

 

of the banksters. How can people not see this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 01:35 PM

34. Elected leaders on both sides act like the cause of inequality is a great mystery.

It's not. The author gives us the answer in plain english right here:

Wages are stagnant because corporations engaged in concerted strategies to limit the proportion of profits shared with workers, including: busting unions, rather than negotiating with them; shipping jobs overseas rather than paying higher wages to American workers; and aggressively using campaign contributions and lobbyists to undermine labor standards (minimum wage; overtime protection; etc) and labor laws.

To keep those donations rolling in from Pfizer and to collect their earned millions when they leave public office our Democrats must shrug their shoulders and pretend the issue of wealth inequality is a Gordian Knot that cannot be solved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 01:39 PM

37. With all due respect, emphasis on "due," Larry Summers is an ass who has this backasswards.

When someone takes from the poor to give to the rich, my reaction is not to envy the thief.

Let me give you just one example.

Hershey got Cadbury banned because Hershey made a private business deal with Cadbury to sell under that name in the US. However, the recipe of the US product emphasizes sugar more than milk, while milk is the first ingredient in the English version. So, it's not the same recipe, just the same name. That leaves a market in the US for the English version.

Who is going to enforce that ban? Hershey, at the expense of Hershey? Or law enforcement supported by taxes?

Libertarians say even the fire department should be supported by private funds. Otherwise, if you and your family and everything you own burns up while the firefighters ignore you because your payment is not up to, it's your own damn fault.

Ever hear anyone say owners of copyrights, trademarks and exclusive licenses should pay for enforcement of their own intellectual property, though? Disney, Ralph Lauren, etc.? Taxpayers should make sure their brands don't get diluted, but firefighting should not be a community responsibility?

That's what I call backasswards. And that is what Summers may never be able to understand because he can see things only from the perspective of those who feel entitled to have ordinary taxpayers pay for or suffer from whatever benefits their businesses, from tax breaks to law enforcement to pollution of the environment, etc.

Frack Summers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #37)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:55 PM

57. Good post.

Privatizing water is another good example.

But I like very much the juxtaposition being highlighted in your example of the PTB wanting fire rescue services to be direct pay for people to protect their homes only when they can afford it, while our "reps" enforce the profit protection of large corporations using taxpayer funds.

This would cause an absolute outrage in the media, if only media weren't an arm of corporate propaganda now.

What a sad situation we find ourselves in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 01:42 PM

38. I'm voting for whoever is the farthest away from these Blind Wall Street assholes.

Im not committed to HRC.
Hell, I'm not even committed to the Democrats if someone else ran on a platform of reining in these criminals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 02:37 PM

42. Our political system is broken, deliberately, & I fear it cannot be fixed via the ballot box.

Citizen's United
gerrymandered districts
electronic voting
a corporate media with an agenda
a disengaged/apathetic public

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 03:10 PM

43. Envy? That crowd is still playing that card?

I'm surprised he didn't use the tired and true ( and very trite ) "class warfare" canard.

The arrogance of these people is staggering. Absolutely staggering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Populist_Prole (Reply #43)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 04:35 PM

49. Class warfare was fine with that lot, until some of the 99% mentioned fighting back.

As long as they were reaming everyone else and the 99% were taking it quietly, they didn't mind class warfare one tiny bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #49)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:16 PM

50. Bingo. Well said.

They also accepted rising incomes for themselves without demur; as they think they drive the economy with their own spending. - But: every time incomes rise for the 99 percent they crap their pants over inflation worries and do their damndest to cool the economy off.

They name streets after these people: One-Way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 03:12 PM

44. Look, if we don't stop income inequality now...our future generations

 

will have to AND wouldn't that be a real travesty? They telling their kids how we were total failures and nothing but minions of Wall Streets fat cats?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #44)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 03:58 PM

47. If we don't fix it soon, things will deteriorate to the point where there will be violence.

Does anyone really want to go there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:22 PM

53. Your "class" is the one who practices envy on a mass scale, Larry. Take the boulder out of your eye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:24 PM

54. I hate the concept of envy

and what is the politics of it? What does he mean - what is he for or against as being overly envious?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 07:13 PM

61. Someone needs to talk about the free ride of privilege

Let's use Chelsea Clinton as an example.

Here first job out of grad school paid over 100k a year because of her "rolodex".

During the economic meltdown when poor unemployed people were sternly lectured to "network" with other poor unemployed people, Chelsea got to choose between meetings where potential employers asked her what she wanted to do next.

Chelsea wanted to be the visible medium of her Message (about "social issues" next. For doing what she wanted, she was paid $600k/year.

The Bush girls got the same sort of deal at NBC - I didn't use them as an example because I didn't know the tidbits from their previous work history like I happened to know about Chelsea's.

This is what the super-connected get, and then they have the gall to set policies for the rest of us that deprive people of food because they don't magically have a job - even though a 6% unemployment rate is considered normal and the current actual unemployment rate is more like 20%!

TO HELL WITH YOU AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON LARRY SUMMERS!












9about "social issues

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Feb 17, 2015, 12:37 AM

64. We might hurt the feelings of the guy making $38,000,000 a year who systematically fucks us over

Heartbreaking.

Sniff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Feb 17, 2015, 01:08 AM

66. He sounds like a Republican

 

Another reason not to vote for Hillary. This 1%er is her economic guru.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Feb 17, 2015, 03:22 AM

72. This is why Liberals wanted to ditch the Clintons in the 90s.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Feb 17, 2015, 04:16 AM

73. This is the very reason that I will not vote for a presidential candidate in 2016 if it is HRC

I am so tired of voting for these third way, neoliberal "Democrats" who are puppets of the enemies of democracy and just as narcissistic and psychopathic as their Republican counterparts.

Perhaps if all the "little people" "stay home" for Hillary but instead devote their time and money to true liberal Democrats in 2016, we may lose the presidency but regain the soul of our party. Seems like a good trade to me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emsimon33 (Reply #73)

Tue Feb 17, 2015, 07:36 AM

76. Sadly, I agree. They turned our party into Republican-lite.

And "they" should be authentic and call themselves the rethugs they are, and PLEASE will they stop calling their freaking pro-deregulation, pro-war, pro-big ag, pro-small govt, pro-big oil think tanks "liberal".

Here are a couple of good articles on the subject~

Needed: A Bold Left to Challenge Government Downsizing
http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/02/05/needed-bold-left-challenge-government-downsizing/

What Divides Democrats
http://prospect.org/article/what-divides-democrats





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Feb 17, 2015, 05:19 AM

75. First time I heard "politics of envy" it was from Paul Ryan.

That's no surprise. Paul Ryan and Larry Summers are on the same team.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enthusiast (Reply #75)

Tue Feb 17, 2015, 07:43 AM

77. Yep. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Feb 17, 2015, 08:00 AM

78. No more DINOs.

Just another in the long list of reasons Hillary Goldman Sachs MIC Clinton should NEVER be allow anywhere near the Presidency. EVER.

Larry Summers can go eff himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Feb 17, 2015, 08:56 AM

79. And it's the politics of "You Should Be Ashamed of Yourselves" aka


the politics of "Have You No Shame Sirs and Madams"?

Among others no doubt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Feb 17, 2015, 11:38 AM

81. A slow motion car wreck.

 

Agonizingly powerless to stop it with my puny vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread