eom

On how to continue and enhance the shifting of every penny and property into their portfolio.

I have an entire city to sell whoever thinks Hillary will fight for us.

Obama was for it but Clinton was against it because it'd "hurt the middle class." Of course, at the time and even now, it'd only "hurt" the top 5% at most. So if she really wants to make it known where she stands on inequality, raising the SS cap would be the start.

the central point of her critique is valid. SS, by definition, only applies to earned income and no one suggesting raising the cap is suggesting changing that fact. The vast majority of the truly wealthy became that way off of unearned income. If you want to tax the rich the better way to do that is to increase the number of brackets and to get rid of the carried interest loophole or just outright tax capital gains the same as earned income.

Clinton used to argue that raising the cap would hurt the middle class when most people (95%) don't even make the kind of money that would be affected by raising the cap. Clinton was just wrong on that. If she comes out in favor of raising the cap, then she will show that she understands where 95% of Americans stand.

Obviously calling for a progressive tax schedule would also indicate a stronger stance on inequality, but "raising the cap" doesn't sound like "raising taxes" and she could rightly say "raising the cap only affects the top 5%." And you can't expect a running presidential candidate to argue for a progressive tax schedule (say, 90% on the top 1%).

Wall Street and too big to fail banks have only gotten bigger and more powerful since the crash of 2008. I live in fear and loathing awaiting for the next "nobody could have predicted" bursting financial bubble.

The next collapse and requisite bailout of the elites by the taxpayers is not a question of if, but a question of when.

And one of the newest perverse financial constructs is to securitize rental income? Like a replay of the rampant mortgage fraud prior to 2008 that helped trigger the collapse!

He who smiles in a collapsed economic bubble has already lined up the taxpayers to bail them out, to abusively paraphrase the old saying. "He who smiles in a crisis has found someone to blame."

Hillary, and the entire Clinton family, You are either with Wall Street or you are with the bottom 99%. You cannot be both.

I do think she's too closely allied with wall street - I doubt she will regulate them even as much as Obama has. I think she has the wrong idea that Wall Street somehow produces the money that keeps the economy going and that without it functioning and providing that money everything will fall apart. And since Wall Street Professionals tell her they need to be under regulated or not regulated at all, that's what she does.

But in reality Wall Street is more like an energy grid - it's mission is to take capital that already exists and get it to where it can be most effective. Most of what Wall Street Professionals do is to siphon off as much capital as they can, which makes the whole system more and more inefficient. That's why they desperately need regulation, to ensure that capital gets where it should go without being diverted into wasteful or destructive channels (see for example the synthetic CDO).

This all assumes you support a continuation of capitalism, which some don't, of course.

Bryant

the people who have a voice in the decision-making. Even when it appears to be a broad base of representatives, there are hundreds of ways to manipulate just who made it to the table. Once that number is determined, inducements can be used to get people to think your way, while the rest are relegated to minority status.

This is why trickle down will never work. The benefits that accrue from these discussions are being routed to the most greediest of people who don't have an altruistic bone in their body.

. . . I suspect that's because she's afraid of offending moneyed interests. I just cringe when I read her remarks on the subject. I don't think they're complete or well thought out, so, I'd perhaps like to hear more from her on this subject.

According to Politico:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/hillary-clinton-2016-shadow-campaign-101762.html

Page 2:
>>
She is working closely with clusters of aides on different policy initiatives — one involves child development, and Clinton is also being advised to address income inequality.
>>

Good grief.

She didn't even know that this needs addressing? She had to be advised to address it?

The 1% are not in any mess at all. They're getting richer. And their enablers are people named Clinton, Bush, Romney etc.

You and Bill are both worth over $100m. Don't pretend that you've experienced any form of economic hardship, or that there is some fantasy consensus.

so if they are worried it means Hillary is in bad trouble.