General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt is not that the Clintons are rich
Certainly, they did a lot more to earn their wealth than any Bush, Koch, Romney, or for that matter most of the Kennedys. Indeed, Bill Clinton is one of America's few leaders who actually did come from the working classes, from a broken home in Hope, Arkansas.
However, there are three things that the Clintons are ignoring:
One: what is getting people angry is that just because they are not as rich as some that I mentioned, they talk as if they are John and Jane Middleclass. Yes, 80 Million would be chump change to a Walton or Koch, but most of us will never see a quarter of one million, much less 80.
Two: What is also getting people angry is the way they got rich, by ripping away protections that used to keep people in the middlecalss, against things much worse than losing a mansion.
Glass-Steagall: the repeal of this law is what primed the explosive that blew the economy away.
Telecomuncations "reform": which is what allowed Fox news to grow
Welfare reform: which made the poor poorer.
The fact that they defend Wall Streey does not help. They do not need to defend Lloyd Blankfeld, they need to agree to pillory him. Hillary does not need to do speeches defensing outsourcing and H1b Visas, she needs to ban them.
Three: An inability to show regret:
Yes, she finally expressed regret for the Iraq war vote, and if it keeps Barack from going to war, great, but on the other hand, she shows no regret for Syria, Libya, or other disasters that came very close to getting us into another war. When she publicly decalred that she wanted to be more agressive in Syria, there was no regret, even though that support helped froth up the mess that is ISIS, even though many of the people we would have armed were supporters of what would become Isis.
SlimJimmy
(3,154 posts)this time around if there is a better, more viable candidate.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)SlimJimmy
(3,154 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)but I won't stand to be criticized for voting instead of staying home.
SlimJimmy
(3,154 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)happens to 'earn' about a million a year by 'consulting' with banks, insurance companies and other really wonderful corporations.....
It is really starting to bug me. Folks act as if she shits out a few ounces of gold a day and thus got rich by simply being her.
1000words
(7,051 posts)Obviously, Hillary has started her candidacy. Her coyness about owning up to it is yet another illustration of why folks see her in a distrustful way.
7962
(11,841 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She has proposed regulation on the banks, lower interest rates on student loans and other policies that could help curb or control the inequity.
It isn't about disliking rich people. It is about changing the fact that, as Elizabeth Warren says, "the game is rigged." Bill Clinton did very little to make sure that the rigged game was made fair when he was president. He appointed Greenspan to the Fed. It doesn't get much worse than that.
This article is great on the topic:
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/22/hillary_clinton_forgets_the_90s_our_latest_gilded_age_and_our_latest_phony_populists/
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Like I said, I'll vote for Clinton in the general, but in a more ideal world I'd rather have Warren.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Propose something that can pass, that's the challenging part.
ProfessorPlum
(11,251 posts)learn and read about her some more. You'll find no greater advocate for regular people against powerful corporations.
Your ignorance shames you.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I'm a huge Elizabeth Warren supporter. I have read her book A Fighting Chance. Did you mean to respond to a post other than mine?
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Replies to you are noted in "My Posts" and it indicates a yellow color when you get new replies. Perhaps you got confused or there's a bug in the system.
ProfessorPlum
(11,251 posts)I was responding to post #2. I have her book A Fighting Chance to, and I'm also a huge EW supporter. Let's hope she runs.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)against Republicans. They were racist, homophobic and active about it. Their political rhetoric was a parfait of cold and callous, and she voted with and for them and their policies. Those policies were ignorant, based on bigotry and arrogance.
Anyone who was part of the Republican Party at that time is going to have to stand up and explain themselves if they want my vote or the votes of others who lived through what I lived through.
So excuse me for having disdain for Republican policy and those who embraced it while thousands died for their follies.
ProfessorPlum
(11,251 posts)and B) are you talking about Elizabeth Warren?
ProfessorPlum
(11,251 posts)and ask you: since you seem to be implying that EW embraced "Republican policy", what Republican policy are you specifically talking about?
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)So it'll just be called dishonest coming from Clinton.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)just for shits and giggles.
there is plenty more where those came from!
Demeter
(85,373 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)bigtree
(85,813 posts). . . most voters tune out nonsense like this.
It's amazing that people think Hillary can be easily labeled and defeated with this type of political drivel.
We used to call this sort of thing 'flamebait'
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)As many say to me when I get called an Obama Bot (even though I can slam him), no one is immune from criticism, especially when they open their mouth to the press. This is not flamebait.
and of the voters are dumb enough to tune out criticism, then I guess the BRIC countries can pop the champagne at our expense.
bigtree
(85,813 posts). . . that looks designed less to inform, than to elicit hurrahs from the anti Hillary crowd.
You might have been shooting for something else . . .
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)Did Hillary she she wanted to be agrresive against Syria?
http://www.smh.com.au/world/hillary-clinton-i-would-have-armed-moderate-syrian-rebels-20140618-zsbdd.html
Did Hillary say "assad must go"
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/hillary-clinton-syria-assad-16050179
Did hillary support outsourcing?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6044284
Just because some people choose to ignore the words that come out of her mouth does not mean we will.
ProfessorPlum
(11,251 posts)It is that they too willingly work on behalf of those who are super-rich, to the detriment of everyone else.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)It was a quick retraction of the wording.
Is it a calculated meme to rebuff the "Hillary as oligarch" meme that will invariably be used in the campaign? Purposefully say some weirdly stated thing (and yes both times she was stating it very weirdly, especially since the "pay taxes" quote came after the "dead broke" comment which she got criticized for), get the media to go off on it, retract it a bit, let it blow over, then when it comes up in the campaign, can really pass it off as a non-issue. "That's old news. The American people didn't buy it then, they won't buy it now, Bill and I came from a middle class background, I fought for civil rights causes. My path in life was political choices I had to make because I am a woman."