HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » imagine2015 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Home country: USA
Current location: Merica!
Member since: Wed Sep 16, 2015, 02:36 PM
Number of posts: 2,054

Journal Archives

Wall Street has made Hillary Clinton a millionaire

Election 2016: Your money, your vote

Wall Street has made Hillary Clinton a millionaire
by Heather Long
October 13, 2015

As Clinton tries to talk tough about how she will stand up to America's biggest banks, her Democratic rivals are likely to remind voters just how cozy she's been with Wall Street.

Clinton made $3.15 million in 2013 alone from speaking to firms like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and UBS, according to the list her campaign released of her speaking fees.

"Her closeness with big banks on Wall Street is sincere, it's heart-felt, long-established and well known," former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley has said on the campaign trail.

While Clinton has given paid speeches to many groups, Wall Street banks and investment houses made up a third of her speech income.

She even made more money speaking to UBS and Goldman Sachs than her husband Bill did. Goldman Sachs in New York paid Bill $200,000 for a speech in June 2013 and Hillary $225,000 for a speech in October of that year.


Hillary knows how to get things done. She sponsored 3 bills during her 8 years in the Senate! Wow!

One established an historic site in New York, another renamed a Post Office, and the third named a portion of a highway in New York after Timothy J. Russert.

Throwing dollar bills at Hillary is insulting! You'll have to do better than that!

That's really insulting.

And it's disrespectful.

And it's offensive.

She gets $200,000 dollars an hour from Wall Street!

So come on now folks.

Buying establishment politicians isn't cheap.

Now try matching Wall Street!

Release of Clinton's Wall Street Speeches Could End Her Candidacy for President

Published on
Friday, April 15, 2016
by Huffington Post

Release of Clinton's Wall Street Speeches Could End Her Candidacy for President
But don’t just take my word for it...
by Seth Abramson

The reason you and I will never see the transcripts of Hillary Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street fat-cats — and the reason she’s established a nonsensical condition for their release, that being an agreement by members of another party, involved in a separate primary, to do the same — is that if she were ever to release those transcripts, it could end her candidacy for president.

In fact, it appears they’d cause enough trauma that Clinton would rather publicly stonewall — to the point of being conspicuously, uncomfortably evasive — in public debate after public debate, to endure damning editorial after damning editorial, and to leave thousands and thousands of voters further doubting her honesty and integrity, all to ensure that no one outside Goldman Sachs, and certainly no voter who wasn’t privy to those closed-door speeches, ever hears a word of what she said in them.

The real experts on this topic are the friends and acquaintances of Hillary’s who, for whatever reason, have chosen to be candid about what they believe is in those speeches. And it’s only that candor that helps explain the longest-running mystery of the Democratic primary — a mystery that’s been ongoing for over seventy days — which is this: why would anyone pay $225,000 for an hour-long speech by a private citizen who (at the time) claimed to have no interest in returning to politics?

1. Former Nebraska Governor and Senator Bob Kerrey (Clinton surrogate)

“Making the transcripts of the Goldman speeches public would have been devastating....[and] when the GOP gets done telling the Clinton Global Initiative fund-raising and expense story, Bernie supporters will wonder why he didn’t do the same....[As for] the email story, it’s not about emails. It is about [Hillary] wanting to avoid the reach of citizens using the Freedom of Information Act to find out what their government is doing, and then not telling the truth about why she did.”

Release of the transcripts would therefore, it appears, have three immediate — and possibly fatal — consequences for Clinton’s presidential campaign:

1.It would reveal that Clinton lied about the content of the speeches at a time when she suspected she would never have to release them, nor that their content would ever be known to voters.

2.It would reveal that the massive campaign and super-PAC contributions Clinton has received from Wall Street did indeed, as Sanders has alleged, influence her ability to get tough on Wall Street malfeasance either in Congress or behind closed doors.

3.It would reveal that Clinton’s policy positions on — for instance — breaking up “too-big-to-fail” banks are almost certainly insincere, as they have been trotted out merely for the purposes of a presidential campaign.


Some Questions for Hillary Clinton Supporters

Published on Sunday, April 17, 2016
by Common Dreams

Some Questions for Hillary Clinton Supporters
by John Atcheson

John Atcheson is author of the novel, A Being Darkly Wise, an eco-thriller and Book One of a Trilogy centered on global warming. His writing has appeared in The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the San Jose Mercury News and other major newspapers.

1.) Why is Wall Street Giving her Money?

Since Sanders made it an issue, Ms. Clinton has repeatedly said she would be tough on Wall Street and the big banks. If that’s the case, why have they given her so much money?

Are we to believe these savvy, bottom line types aren’t looking for a return on their investment?

Here’s a few more related questions for you. Could the banks and Wall Street believe she’s only saying what she thinks the people want to hear? Do they have assurances – beyond her track record – that she’s on their side? Which brings us to …

2.) Why is she so unwilling to share what she said to the big banks in her multi-million dollar talks?

This issue has hurt her as much as anything throughout the campaign, and yet it is the easiest one to put behind her. If she’s telling the truth, if she has nothing to hide, why doesn’t she simply release them?

3.) Why is she on record championing the repeal of Glass-Stegall, among other regulations?

About the best Clinton could do when challenged for being too cozy with Wall Street was to claim that she told them to “cut it out,” in her words. The facts tell a different story.

4.) If she understands how big a mistake her Iraq vote was, why does she continue to advocate regime change without examining what happens the next day?

She’s doubled down on what is essentially a neocon foreign policy with her positions on Honduras, Libya, and Syria. Her belligerent approach to foreign policy is closer to that of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney than it is to Obama’s. Do you want to run the risk of perpetual war? Which brings us to …

5.) Can you really be “Ready on Day One” if you got most things wrong and haven’t learned from it?

She got Iraq and foreign policy wrong. She got trade policy wrong. She got deregulation wrong. But these aren’t the only area she’s demonstrated poor judgment.

6.) Do you want to risk having a Republican win the Presidency?

First, in polling she doesn’t do as well in head-to-head races against Republicans and Sanders does, and that’s been true for months, now. .... if the convention deadlocks, Republicans will try to nominate a more electable candidate, in which case, Democrats are in serious trouble if Hillary gets the nomination.

Second, Ms. Clinton is weak in each of the most important factors in gauging electability -- the ratio of favorable to unfavorable ratings, her “likability”, and a candidate’s perceived trustworthiness. Hillary Clinton is the least liked and has the worst favorability ratio of all candidates except Trump. And her trustworthiness has been below even his, on most polling.

Finally, do you honestly think that what this country needs right now is incremental change?

C’mon. You know we are in a crisis. Elections and candidates are bought and sold like cattle, the middle class is disappearing, our infrastructure is collapsing, our climate is on the way to creating the biggest disaster humanity has ever known, and all Ms. Clinton has to offer is “deals.”

Sanders is right. It will take a political revolution to deal with the challenges we face. It will take a candidate who attracts new voters; one who uses the Bully pulpit and people power to confront the Oligarchy and the political establishment that has created this mess. The neoliberal economic consensus and the militaristic neocon foreign policy Ms. Clinton espouses amounts to putting trim tabs on sinking ship.

And in your heart, you know it.

Read the entire article at:

George Clooney hopes Bernie stays in the race "for the entire election."

Clooney hopes Sanders stays in the race
By Colin Wilhelm

One of Hillary Clinton’s most famous supporters, actor George Clooney, says he hopes Bernie Sanders “stays in for the entire election.”

Clooney, who hosted a big-dollar fundraiser for the former secretary of state Friday, said in an interview aired Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he likes the Vermont senator, who has been challenging Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.

“I think what he's saying in this election is important if you're a Democrat,” Clooney said, adding he'd do “whatever I can” to help Sanders if he wins the nomination.

]Clooney also said he understood the criticism from protesters outside Friday’s event for Clinton, who has long been the Democratic front-runner, saying he shared their distaste for money in politics.

“They're absolutely right,” Clooney said of protesters. “It is an obscene amount of money. The Sanders campaign when they talk about it is absolutely right. It's ridiculous that we should have this kind of money in politics. I agree completely.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clooney-hopes-sander-stays-in-222055#ixzz4693wT1rT

A Voter’s Guide to Hillary Clinton’s Policies in Latin America

A Voter’s Guide to Hillary Clinton’s Policies in Latin America
Support for coup regimes, militarization, and privatization; trade deals that wreak economic havoc—they reveal the failure of Clintonism.
By Greg Grandin
April 15, 2016


By now, Clinton’s involvement in helping to institutionalize the 2009 coup against a reforming president who had the support of all of the country’s most courageous and bravest people—land reformers, gay activists, unionists, feminists, environmentalists, and so on—is well known. “Women’s rights are human rights,” Clinton famously declared. But in Honduras, she worked to legitimize the overthrow of a government that was trying to make the morning-after pill available and advance the rights of members of the LGBT community. In so doing, Clinton helped install a regime that has been killing women and men at an impressive clip. Death squads have returned to the country.


The idea that Hillary Clinton wants to do to Central America what her husband did to Colombia is troubling.

Here’s what Plan Colombia did to that country: In 2000, just before leaving the White House, Bill Clinton ratcheted up military aid. Plan Colombia, as the assistance program was called, provided billions of dollars to what was the most repressive government in the hemisphere. The effect was to speed the paramilitarization of society, with government—and military—allied death squads penetrating the intelligence services, judiciary, municipal government, legislature, and executive branch. Washington money effectively subsidized the narco-right’s enormous land grab. According to the US government’s own figures, “in rural areas, less than 1% of the population owns more than half Colombia’s best land.” “Torture, massacres, ‘disappearances,’ and killing of non-combatants” became routinized, with trade unionists, peasants, and Afro-Colombians the main victims. The CIA’s own World Factbook says that a staggering 6.3 million Colombians have been internally displaced (IDP) since 1985, with “about 300,000 new IDPs each year since 2000”—that is, the year Bill Clinton enacted Plan Colombia. Added up, that’s 2.4 million people during Clinton’s eight-year presidency.


As she was about to run for president in 2008, Clinton opposed a free-trade agreement with Panama—an agreement that, as Sanders pointed out, would make the kind of money-laundering we learned about from the Panama Papers even more pervasive. But as soon as she became secretary of state, Clinton successfully pushed for the treaty, despite being warned that it would make it easier for the rich to hide their money, as Clark Mindock and David Sirota write.


As secretary of state, Clinton continued to administer the punishing security and economic policies put into place by her husband and his successor, George W. Bush, policies that have turned Mexico into a country of mass clandestine graves. Clinton’s own contribution to Mexico’s misery was to push for the privatization of its national petroleum industry. As Steve Horn has written in detail on DeSmog blog, not only did the Clinton State Department help open up of Mexico’s oil sector to foreign capital, a number of Clinton’s close aids then moved into the private sector to profit from that opening. It was FDR who forced US oil interests to accept Mexico’s nationalization in the 1930s, so here we have a case of Hillary Clinton quite literally rolling back the New Deal.

El Salvador:

In 2012, Hillary Clinton’s State Department, acting through its ambassador, Mari Carmen Aponte, threatened to withhold critical development aid unless El Salvador passed a major privatization law. (Hilary Goodfriend provides the details here.) It wouldn’t be the only time that Ambassador Aponte, a political ally of the Clintons, menaced Salvador’s leftist FMLN government. Recently, she warned Salvadorans about the need to buy corporate manufactured GMO seeds, insisting that the FMLN’s seed-cooperative program violates the terms of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).


Honduras wasn’t the only Latin American country to suffer a “constitutional coup” (the overthrow of an elected leader through formally legal mechanisms) under Clinton’s State Department watch. In Paraguay, a leftist former Catholic priest, Fernando Lugo, was removed from office at the behest of his agroindustry opponents. Nearly all other Latin American nations called it a coup. But not Clinton’s State Department, which quickly recognized the new government.

Clinton’s record in Latin America reveals the failure not just of Clintonism as it is applied to a specific region. It rather reveals the failure of Clintonism.

Read the full article at:

Birdie Sanders: The Canary in the Coalmine of Democracy


Hillary Clinton Throws President Obama Under The Bus!

Defending Attack on Libya, Clinton Blames Obama—And Suggests Repeat for Syria
Former secretary of state mounts questionable defense of disastrous intervention in Libya during Democratic debate
by Nadia Prupis, staff writer
April 15, 2016

During a heated Democratic debate in New York on Thursday night, Hillary Clinton sought to both defend and deflect responsibility for her central role in destabilizing Libya—by blaming President Barack Obama.

"The decision was the president's," she said in response to criticism from rival Bernie Sanders over her leadership as then-Secretary of State during the 2011 military intervention to overthrow Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

"Did I do due diligence? Did I talk to everybody I could talk to? Did I visit every capitol and then report back to the president? Yes, I did. That's what every secretary of state does," Clinton said. "But at the end of the day, those are the decisions that are made by the president to in any way use American military power, and the president made that decision, and yes, we did try without success because of the Libyans' obstruction to our efforts, but we did try and will continue to try to help the Libyan people."

In a previous debate, Clinton said the president had made "the right decision at the time" and blamed the instability that followed on the Arab Spring and "a lot of other things."

The contrast in perspectives was quickly noted by observers, who also pointed out that Clinton's seeming blame of the president comes after she criticized Sanders for his disapproval of Obama's policies.

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