Let's pick on Hillary (Her Thighness)
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
The financial dealings she has had with the same backers of most Republican candidates are not illegal, just immoral and hypocritical since she states she will 'fight' Wall streets ownership of America. What's the chances of her cracking down on the owners control if they are funding her......?
Bernie Sanders took a shot at Hillary Clinton's past speaking engagements with Goldman Sachs tonight in one of his sharpest criticisms of her record on Wall Street yet.
“The first difference is I don’t take money from big banks. I don’t get personal speaking fees from Goldman Sachs," Sanders said, eliciting a few jeers and boos from the audience. The Vermont senator reiterated his call to enact a 21st-century version of the Glass-Steagall Act to separate commercial and financial banking institutions.
According to tax returns released by Clinton's campaign, she received a total of $675,000, for three separate speeches to Goldman Sachs in 2013, in South Carolina, New York and Arizona, a fact that Sanders referenced no fewer than four times during their exchange.
"I find it very strange that a major financial institution that pays $5 billion in fines for breaking the law — not one of their executives is prosecuted, while kids who smoke marijuana, they get a jail sentence," Sanders said.
Last week's announcement that Goldman Sachs would pay $5 billion to settle claims of selling faulty mortgage securities "really did appall Bernie," Devine remarked, noting that it was another opportunity to show "two different Democratic visions" for dealing with large financial institutions.
Read more: Democratic debate tonight: Bernie Sanders slams Hillary Clinton: 'I don’t get personal speaking fees from Goldman Sachs' - POLITICO
Mom always said, "Your sins will find you out."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/u...illary-clintons-strength-with-women.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/u...illary-clintons-strength-with-women.html?_r=0
The Clinton Team Is Writing 'Too Big To Fail' Out Of The Financial Crisis
Why grapple with history when you can just rewrite it?
This has accompanied a broader barrage of Clinton rhetoric suggesting that Bernie Sanders' plan to break up big banks is a weak proposal that ignores her tough-as-nails shadow banking plan. Basically, the argument goes, "too big to fail" was never a serious problem, or at least the “big” part of it wasn’t really a problem, and anyhow, Lehman Brothers wasn’t very big.
Here's the problem: This is preposterous.
The Clinton camp's “too big to fail” denialism runs against the official conclusion of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, as well as the views of other top finance scholars. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson, former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chair Sheila Bair, former bank bailout Inspector General Neil Barofsky and FDIC Vice Chairman Thomas Hoenig have all maintained that "too big to fail" was, in fact, central to the crisis.
Every official who authorized the bailouts of 2008 and 2009 said they had no choice. They argued that letting big institutions fail would have ravaged the broader economy. The havoc that followed Lehman Brothers' 2008 bankruptcy demonstrates that this fear was legitimate.
During debates, Clinton has attempted to burnish her "shadow banking" bona fides by citing Lehman Brothers and AIG as shadow banks that would be in her regulatory crosshairs and that Bernie Sanders would supposedly ignore. But Lehman and AIG weren't simply shadow banks -- they were "too big to fail" shadow banks. Breaking them up, as Sanders, Warren and others have called to do, is not a "hands-off" approach, as Gary Gensler, the Clinton campaign's chief financial officer, has described it.
We should also dispense with the idea that Clinton's own shadow banking proposals -- while perfectly sensible -- are somehow uniquely tough or comprehensive. Krugman, Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein and Mike Konczal have all heralded her plan, but they've glossed over the fact that many of Clinton's shadow banking proposals are already being pursued by federal regulators (there's a list of these at the bottom of the article). They're also ignoring a major item in Warren's Glass-Steagall bill that Sanders has endorsed.
That bill would repeal some major perks Congress afforded to shadow banking in 2005, allowing anybody involved in a repurchase agreement -- "repo" in Wall Street lingo -- to get paid back before a bankrupt firm enters bankruptcy court. That provided a major incentive to firms to keep lending money to banks taking huge risks, even after it became clear that the banks were in trouble.
"The Warren bill would be a very dramatic change in repo lending and shadow banking more generally," Miller said. "Sanders has not been given much credit for that, but it is a much more substantive plan than anything that Clinton has put forward."
Clinton's banking backers are thus not calling for tougher regulation. Rather, they're defending the regulatory status quo, while slamming Sanders for attempting to take stronger measures. In doing so, they're peddling a myth about how the financial crisis happened -- namely, that risks magically materialized in the shadow banking ether without the participation of actual shadow banks.
Or, as Bair put it "For heaven's sake, who was doing the repos?"
more
The Clinton Team Is Writing 'Too Big To Fail' Out Of The Financial Crisis
Why grapple with history when you can just rewrite it?
This has accompanied a broader barrage of Clinton rhetoric suggesting that Bernie Sanders' plan to break up big banks is a weak proposal that ignores her tough-as-nails shadow banking plan. Basically, the argument goes, "too big to fail" was never a serious problem, or at least the “big” part of it wasn’t really a problem, and anyhow, Lehman Brothers wasn’t very big.
Here's the problem: This is preposterous.
The Clinton camp's “too big to fail” denialism runs against the official conclusion of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, as well as the views of other top finance scholars. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson, former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chair Sheila Bair, former bank bailout Inspector General Neil Barofsky and FDIC Vice Chairman Thomas Hoenig have all maintained that "too big to fail" was, in fact, central to the crisis.
Every official who authorized the bailouts of 2008 and 2009 said they had no choice. They argued that letting big institutions fail would have ravaged the broader economy. The havoc that followed Lehman Brothers' 2008 bankruptcy demonstrates that this fear was legitimate.
During debates, Clinton has attempted to burnish her "shadow banking" bona fides by citing Lehman Brothers and AIG as shadow banks that would be in her regulatory crosshairs and that Bernie Sanders would supposedly ignore. But Lehman and AIG weren't simply shadow banks -- they were "too big to fail" shadow banks. Breaking them up, as Sanders, Warren and others have called to do, is not a "hands-off" approach, as Gary Gensler, the Clinton campaign's chief financial officer, has described it.
We should also dispense with the idea that Clinton's own shadow banking proposals -- while perfectly sensible -- are somehow uniquely tough or comprehensive. Krugman, Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein and Mike Konczal have all heralded her plan, but they've glossed over the fact that many of Clinton's shadow banking proposals are already being pursued by federal regulators (there's a list of these at the bottom of the article). They're also ignoring a major item in Warren's Glass-Steagall bill that Sanders has endorsed.
That bill would repeal some major perks Congress afforded to shadow banking in 2005, allowing anybody involved in a repurchase agreement -- "repo" in Wall Street lingo -- to get paid back before a bankrupt firm enters bankruptcy court. That provided a major incentive to firms to keep lending money to banks taking huge risks, even after it became clear that the banks were in trouble.
"The Warren bill would be a very dramatic change in repo lending and shadow banking more generally," Miller said. "Sanders has not been given much credit for that, but it is a much more substantive plan than anything that Clinton has put forward."
Clinton's banking backers are thus not calling for tougher regulation. Rather, they're defending the regulatory status quo, while slamming Sanders for attempting to take stronger measures. In doing so, they're peddling a myth about how the financial crisis happened -- namely, that risks magically materialized in the shadow banking ether without the participation of actual shadow banks.
Or, as Bair put it "For heaven's sake, who was doing the repos?"
more
The Clinton Team Is Writing 'Too Big To Fail' Out Of The Financial Crisis
"My opponent's plan is "to give free education to everybody." She says it like it's a bad thing
Clinton to a kid who asked about college affordability: "My opponent's plan is to give free education to everybody." pic.twitter.com/...
Two things real quick:
1) If rich people are paying higher taxes, they SHOULD get free education. This also makes them more invested in the system.
2) Rich people generally don’t send their kids to public universities.
Hillary Clinton, crushing young people’s dreams, one at a time.
video
https://t.co/1dXFfTGeja
Clinton to a kid who asked about college affordability: "My opponent's plan is to give free education to everybody." pic.twitter.com/...
Two things real quick:
1) If rich people are paying higher taxes, they SHOULD get free education. This also makes them more invested in the system.
2) Rich people generally don’t send their kids to public universities.
Hillary Clinton, crushing young people’s dreams, one at a time.
video
https://t.co/1dXFfTGeja
An orange pantsuit will look good on her.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/tom-delay-hillary-clinton-indict-fbi/2016/01/25/id/710813/
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/tom-delay-hillary-clinton-indict-fbi/2016/01/25/id/710813/
STEVEN RESURRECTION @PEACETHAHARDWAY 
Her manure pile is so deep and she's stuck in the middle of it.
https://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/...ntons-email-scandal-appears-gravely-criminal/
https://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/...ntons-email-scandal-appears-gravely-criminal/
I don't know about anyone else but I've heard enough about f**king Hillary (and f**king Trump) to do me a lifetime.
Hillary compared to Bern:
The fact-checker's guide to viral graphics contrasting Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders | PunditFact
http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact/photos/Hilberniestarkdifference.jpg
Small wonder why so many libs prefer him to her. Strangely, the polls show her way ahead of him in Gopherland but, in truth, it appears as if they are even.
As for the war on Iraq, Hillary cannot deny her role in causing it:
Veteran Thanks Bernie Sanders for Voting Against Iraq War in Viral Open Letter
Veteran Thanks Bernie Sanders for Voting Against Iraq War in Viral Open Letter
POLITICSVeteran Thanks Bernie Sanders for Voting Against Iraq War in Viral Open LetterTom Cahill | January 26, 2016
A letter penned by a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps thanking Bernie Sanders for his NO vote on the Iraq War is going viral.
Tuesday morning, Eric Gunlefinger, (known as CharlieDarwinsFather on Reddit) authored a post titled “An open letter to Bernie Sanders from a Veteran of the Iraq War” and submitted it to the SandersforPresident subreddit, an online community where supporters of the Vermont U.S. Senator share links about the anti-establishment presidential candidate. Gunlefinger, who fought in the 2nd Battalion, 6th Marines based in Camp LeJeune in North Carolina, was part of combat missions in the city of Fallujah in 2005 and 2006, and again in 2007. After thanking Sanders for opposing the Iraq War, he talked about the need for more politicians like Sanders who take a stand against endless war to protect the lives of his constituents.
Read the full letter below:
Senator Sanders,
I want to thank you. I want to thank you for exercising sound judgement even when everyone around you was beating the war drums.
See I fought in the streets of Fallujah, Iraq. I saw more blood and death than any 19 year old ever should. The amount of friends I’ve lost to war will likely be surpassed by the amount of friends I’ve since lost to suicide.
I know first hand the moral cost of war. One of the most painful truths that I must go through life with is that I fought in an unjust and unfounded war. While my intentions were good and I fought hard for the men to my left and to my right, and while I thought what I was doing what was right for the people of Iraq- I was wrong.
You knew this. You knew this before we went to war and you fought, and you spoke truth to your peers and though your words largely fell on deaf ears, I am truly heartened to know that I now have a chance to vote for a man who exercised sound and moral judgement when the war drums were beating the loudest.
I have a son. He is only one and a half years old but someday he will be 18 and I fear that if we continue to elect the same establishment politicians, he too will face the same decision that I did, and he too will go off to fight in an endless quagmire and that he too will come home, broken, and never fully returned or worse- never come home at all.
So thank you, Senator Sanders, for being of sound mind and judgement. Thank you for being the only voice in this race that does not want to continue this legacy of warfare. Thank you for being the only voice that is and has been standing up for those of us that fought in these misguided wars. Thank you for giving me hope for a peaceful future.
Sincerely, A U.S. Marine – 0311 Operation Iraqi Freedom
At last night’s Democratic Town Hall on CNN, Bernie Sanders pointed out that Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War, calling it the most significant foreign policy decision in a generation. Sanders vehemently opposed sending troops to Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein, correctly predicting that the resulting power vacuum would be filled by violent extremists, destabilizing the region.
more ....
The fact-checker's guide to viral graphics contrasting Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders | PunditFact
http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact/photos/Hilberniestarkdifference.jpg
Small wonder why so many libs prefer him to her. Strangely, the polls show her way ahead of him in Gopherland but, in truth, it appears as if they are even.
As for the war on Iraq, Hillary cannot deny her role in causing it:
Veteran Thanks Bernie Sanders for Voting Against Iraq War in Viral Open Letter
Veteran Thanks Bernie Sanders for Voting Against Iraq War in Viral Open Letter
POLITICSVeteran Thanks Bernie Sanders for Voting Against Iraq War in Viral Open LetterTom Cahill | January 26, 2016
A letter penned by a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps thanking Bernie Sanders for his NO vote on the Iraq War is going viral.
Tuesday morning, Eric Gunlefinger, (known as CharlieDarwinsFather on Reddit) authored a post titled “An open letter to Bernie Sanders from a Veteran of the Iraq War” and submitted it to the SandersforPresident subreddit, an online community where supporters of the Vermont U.S. Senator share links about the anti-establishment presidential candidate. Gunlefinger, who fought in the 2nd Battalion, 6th Marines based in Camp LeJeune in North Carolina, was part of combat missions in the city of Fallujah in 2005 and 2006, and again in 2007. After thanking Sanders for opposing the Iraq War, he talked about the need for more politicians like Sanders who take a stand against endless war to protect the lives of his constituents.
Read the full letter below:
Senator Sanders,
I want to thank you. I want to thank you for exercising sound judgement even when everyone around you was beating the war drums.
See I fought in the streets of Fallujah, Iraq. I saw more blood and death than any 19 year old ever should. The amount of friends I’ve lost to war will likely be surpassed by the amount of friends I’ve since lost to suicide.
I know first hand the moral cost of war. One of the most painful truths that I must go through life with is that I fought in an unjust and unfounded war. While my intentions were good and I fought hard for the men to my left and to my right, and while I thought what I was doing what was right for the people of Iraq- I was wrong.
You knew this. You knew this before we went to war and you fought, and you spoke truth to your peers and though your words largely fell on deaf ears, I am truly heartened to know that I now have a chance to vote for a man who exercised sound and moral judgement when the war drums were beating the loudest.
I have a son. He is only one and a half years old but someday he will be 18 and I fear that if we continue to elect the same establishment politicians, he too will face the same decision that I did, and he too will go off to fight in an endless quagmire and that he too will come home, broken, and never fully returned or worse- never come home at all.
So thank you, Senator Sanders, for being of sound mind and judgement. Thank you for being the only voice in this race that does not want to continue this legacy of warfare. Thank you for being the only voice that is and has been standing up for those of us that fought in these misguided wars. Thank you for giving me hope for a peaceful future.
Sincerely, A U.S. Marine – 0311 Operation Iraqi Freedom
At last night’s Democratic Town Hall on CNN, Bernie Sanders pointed out that Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War, calling it the most significant foreign policy decision in a generation. Sanders vehemently opposed sending troops to Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein, correctly predicting that the resulting power vacuum would be filled by violent extremists, destabilizing the region.
more ....
Locutus; said:
*snerk*
Planned Parenthood founded by Margaret Sanger whose patrons were Republicans John D Rockefeller, Prescott Bush, and Clarence Gamble. Small wonder why so many liberals consider her a Republican and vote for Bernie. By the way, for those who don't know it, several articles in democraticunderground accuse her of being a Republican.
The New York Times published a hit-piece on Mitt Romney in 2012 for taking money from Goldman Sachs yet they just endorsed Hillary Clinton, who has taken money from Goldman Sachs......
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/u...-enrich-romneys-public-and-private-lives.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/u...-enrich-romneys-public-and-private-lives.html
John Groves @jfgroves Remember @GStephanopoulos apology for covering the Clintons despite donating to them? Neither does he. #Journalism
Hillary Clinton Flip Flopped On TPP Before, So Big Business Lobbyists Are Confident She'll Really Flip Back After Election
Hillary Clinton's views on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement have received quite a lot of scrutiny. After all, while she was at the State Department, she was a strong supporter of the TPP, and so it was a bit of a surprise last October when she came out against it. Of course, the fact that the deal is fairly unpopular with the Democratic Party base probably contributed quite a lot to that decision -- and Clinton's weak attempt at revisionist history to pretend she never really supported it.
But, of course, when you do a pandering flip flop like that just to get votes, you have to remember that plenty of people will see right through it, and some of those people might reveal the strategy. Like, for instance, the head of the US Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest lobbying organization, who is leading the charge in support of the TPP. Its top lobbyist, Tom Donohue, flat out admitted recently that he knows that if she actually got elected, she'll revert back to supporting the TPP, because of course she will:
The Chamber president said he expected Hillary Clinton would ultimately support the TPP if she becomes the Democratic nominee for president and is elected. He argued that she has publicly opposed the deal chiefly because her main challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders , has also done so.
"If she were to get nominated, if she were to be elected, I have a hunch that what runs in the family is you get a little practical if you ever get the job," he said.
The same report notes that Congress is now likely to wait until after the election, but before the new Congress starts (i.e., the "lame duck" session) to vote to ratify the TPP in order to keep it from impacting the Presidential election:
Hillary Clinton's views on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement have received quite a lot of scrutiny. After all, while she was at the State Department, she was a strong supporter of the TPP, and so it was a bit of a surprise last October when she came out against it. Of course, the fact that the deal is fairly unpopular with the Democratic Party base probably contributed quite a lot to that decision -- and Clinton's weak attempt at revisionist history to pretend she never really supported it.
But, of course, when you do a pandering flip flop like that just to get votes, you have to remember that plenty of people will see right through it, and some of those people might reveal the strategy. Like, for instance, the head of the US Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest lobbying organization, who is leading the charge in support of the TPP. Its top lobbyist, Tom Donohue, flat out admitted recently that he knows that if she actually got elected, she'll revert back to supporting the TPP, because of course she will:
The Chamber president said he expected Hillary Clinton would ultimately support the TPP if she becomes the Democratic nominee for president and is elected. He argued that she has publicly opposed the deal chiefly because her main challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders , has also done so.
"If she were to get nominated, if she were to be elected, I have a hunch that what runs in the family is you get a little practical if you ever get the job," he said.
The same report notes that Congress is now likely to wait until after the election, but before the new Congress starts (i.e., the "lame duck" session) to vote to ratify the TPP in order to keep it from impacting the Presidential election:
Donohue also said TPP will not be voted on prior to the election because Senate Republicans do not want to do anything that could jeopardize Republican Senators in close races. But he said he believed there was a 75 percent chance that TPP would get done in the lame-duck session after the election.