'Not Hillary' is the true representative of the 99%.

He/She is on his/her way to being in a primary, maybe!

On to existence of a candidate, 'Not Hillary' supporters!

Last edited Tue Apr 21, 2015, 02:02 PM - Edit history (1)

she and bill have a combined net worth north of $50 million.

and sorry, but banks sure as shit do consider a client worth 21 million an important client. and yes, I know.

one more time. you have no idea what you're talking about re banks and customers. I do.

Sure you do.

is it 'cause he's older? is it 'cause he's Jewish? is it because of his accent? is it because he doesn't bother with a shit combover? What is it that makes bernie a "loser" in your estimation?

I already know that you're a fan of Hillary, good for you. I'm interested in why you decide to insist Bernie is a 'loser" though.

Do you feel that the Republicans are really so good that nobody else has a chance?

I work for a bank, too and I know.
Banks are VERY interested in clients like Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Let's put it this way, she has no idea what the 99% is going through because of NAFTA, high credit card rates, high housing costs, low wages, low interest on savings. She sure as hell never had to choose between going hungry or skipping a medication.

She has no clue. That makes her the 1%.

great pic!

Sid

For some reason the link is blocked:

http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/did-barbra-streisand-whup-sonny-liston


Thomas Hauser, Muhammad Ali's close friend and biographer,was visiting the White House with his girlfriend and Muhammad Ali and while Ali had a guest pass to see the president, Hauser and his girlfriend didn't. Muhammad Ali wanted to introduce them to the president. The Secret Service that nobody without a guest pass gets to see the president... A small kerfuffle was beginning to ensue as Muhammad Ali wanted to introduce his friends to the president. The Secret Service and realized this was Muhammad Ali. They even said, "Mr. Ali, we had to turn away Barbara Streisand, because she wasn't on the list" to which Ali said " did Barbara Streisand whup Sonny Liston?"


All three eventually got to meet President Clinton.

when she was shown a graph" Many of us have been living this "graph". She just now get's it? "reportedly". I bet that graph, or one just like it over the last 14 years has been posted at DU on a regular basis.

She and I are going to win you over.

I remember after the impeachment Bill and Hillary had gone off on vacation and a photographer with a telephoto lens caught them dancing in each other arms in a little secluded pool somewhere laughing, looking so much in love . I loved that photo, and I want them to be able to take a lot of vacations and enjoy their life together. They deserve it. She's already won me over, before Bill was even elected President. I just don't think she's what we need in the White House at this time.

I think I was rude to you the other day. We both got a little heated... But I am guided by the proposition that in most situations it is better to make a friend than an enemy.

And you make an interesting point...Her detractors say this campaign is all about her... I hope she lives to be one hundred but if she is elected and re-elected president she will be spending much of the rest of her life in office. If I had her money I would kick back and spend lots of time with my grandkids as Chelsea worked.

do just as you say kick back and spend lots of time with their grandkids and spend time working on their foundation. I hate to see Hillary and Bill spending their golden years defending themselves against all the shit the pukes and media will make up and blow out of proportion. I want to enjoy seeing them doing things, giving speeches, traveling, being shown lots of love everywhere they go. I don't want to spend my time defending them. They are the 1% and they have worked damn hard to get there,
I don't remember if you and I got heated with each other it's easy to do here, but yeah it's better to be friends and no reason to be enemies. We are all in this together.

I am on pins and needles waiting.

the right way.

It will be very hard to win some of us over because there is a trust problem for some of us regarding Hillary on financial issues. If she really has decided to forgo all she has stood for economically since she co-founded the DLC and change her belief systems regarding economics, it will be those such as yourself that may accomplish convincing us that do not trust her on such issues that she has changed, but it will not be an easy task.

I have no animus toward the rich as long as they know that they live in a nation that all of us have built and support and without the rest of us their riches would be impossible, they are willing to pay their fair share of taxes, and they play by the rules the rest of us do.

That's how I would frame it.

Calling for a coup d'etat against the rich is to put it mildly "extremist" talk.

It's not what the democratic left wants or desires.

Just as she can't explain Keynesian economics and job creation, she fails when trying to express the desires of the left.

IMO she should stick with what she really understands and believes.

This just looks like 'crazy talk' that through misrepresentation harms the interests on the Democratic Left.

Seems a lot of people forget that she's run for president already. Not a lot of mysteries left after that one.

Who believes this bullshit?

so many people use it now .

HRC hasn't shown political courage or boldness since she was First Lady.

See the forest for the trees.

Obviously naysayers don't plan to cast their vote for her anyways before nor after the Democratic primary and rest assure they will be pounding on her up to the Presidential election and thereafter.

and then offers solutions to fix the problem, solutions which also make sense.

The difference is authenticity in their positions.

Hillary's campaign here sounds like a bunch of pampered Beltway types doing an impression of their cartoon view of 'The Left'.

So she wants them to remain there, I suppose.

their favor to the detriment of the rest of us. But its more like the 10% vs the 90%...

Until Clinton, Rubins, Summers & their conservative colleagues in congress dismantled it, allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial banks. (That is what the term "broken into pieces" refers to, not "toppling the 1%". Maybe you can tell her that & she'll clean up her fake populism to make it less obvious that its fake.)

And btw, after the 2008 crash, Dodd-Frank didn't address that problem. Gensler most likely had a huge role in making sure of it.

Warren tried to pass a bi-partisan 21st century Glass-Steagall act in 2013, but too many in congress are bought by big banks~

Yes, Warren literally said something similar to Clinton. It's not even controversial. You should be glad that Clinton is channeling Warren and rather than complain about conspiracies, you might want to support more of it.

BTW, breaking up the banks actually makes them more valuable, and likewise, toppling the 1% would improve the economy (because it would give more people more money to spend back into the economy).

Democrats are good for the GDP, it's just a matter of fact.

Last edited Thu Apr 23, 2015, 09:23 AM - Edit history (1)

Rhetorically speaking, there's a big difference between calling for the break up of "too big to fail" banks into smaller, safer, more manageable constituent institutions

and

toppling a social strata (???)

You can support your candidate without switching off your brain.

Are you kidding me?

If so you're literally admitting that Warren doesn't give a shit about the top 1%.

Warren and Clinton are on the same page. Break up the banks, fix income inequality, they're the same process. The key is that breaking up the banks make some bankers more profit. In that vein Clinton has the more progressive position.

Clinton's was vague and confusing (no surprise)

- Banks are businesses, financial institutions subject to regulation.
- The one percent are a social class (many bankers happen to be members of).

When Warren speaks of the power consolidation of banks, she speaks of breaking them up, dispersing their influence and ability to damage the economy with risky investments.
When she speaks of the 1%, she speaks of more equitable (higher) taxation and less government influence and access.

When Clinton mumbles something about "toppling the 1%" she sounds like a fool.

Warren made that very case. She views the undervaluation of the banks because they are too big and complex so investors are afraid of making the investments. I can link you her words on the banking committee, and the evidence to those ends when I wake up, if you so wish. Breaking up the banks makes financial institutions more valuable and enriches investors more. Of which the top 1% make a lions share of.

Calling Clinton a fool, a Democrat her entire adulthood, unlike Warren who didn't become a Democrat until her 50s, is debasing, and plays right in to the RW hands. That's your prerogative. It's not the truth. It's nothing more than a baseless smear.

We are discussing their rhetoric. Warren's is easy to parse, Clinton's is not.

Speaking of baseless rhetoric, the notion that truthfully speaking your mind "plays right into RW hands" is some sad, weak-ass shit.

she's become one of the best FDR Democrats currently serving our country & we're damn lucky to have her.

HIS SHIRT

benefits the 1%.

Have some guts, Madame Secretary.

Now who wants to "soak the rich"?

"Our program cannot be soak the rich -- that's a mistake and alienates middle class people. But on substance, the Warren wing is correct," said Dean.

"The rhetoric about wealth creation needs to be scaled back because Americans like wealth creation," he added. "The level playing field argument wins it for us. The reason you do not want to talk about 'tax the rich' is because when middle class people hear it, they hear 'they're going to raise our taxes.' Democrats can't do that."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/the-dc-centrists-straw-me_b_6800302.html

Personally, I'm interested in ideas that will work. What does toppling even mean? Tax hikes aren't necessary to improve the economy, what is to spend the 2 trillion in tax revenues efficiently on a costs-benefits level. Slashing SNAP benefits or heating for the poor won't save money, the place to start is with the subsidies & tax breaks we put into the pockets of the wealthy.

-----

Welfare for the Well-Off: How Business Subsidies Fleece Taxpayers

The Illogic of Corporate Subsidies

Proponents of federal subsidies to private industry maintain that a government support network for American firms promotes the national interest. A multitude of economic, national security, and social arguments are offered to justify corporate aid. For example, government aid to industry is said to preserve high-paying American jobs; subsidize research activities that private industries would not finance themselves; counteract the business subsidies of foreign governments to ensure a level playing field; boost high-technology industries whose profitability is vital to American economic success in the twenty-first century; maintain the viability of "strategic industries" that are essential to American national security; finance ventures that would otherwise be considered too risky for private capital markets; and assist socially disadvantaged groups, such as minorities and women, to establish new businesses.

But let's walk through the logic of corporate welfare subsidies and undress the argument in simple terms. Let's begin by accepting the proposition that if the federal government gives $5 million to IBM, that IBM will use the money for some productive purpose. The funds may be used, for example, to help IBM underwrite research and development for the next generation of computer products, expand a domestic operation, or increase its industry market share as it competes with domestic and foreign rivals. It would seem that everyone wins: American workers, IBM shareholders, and the U.S. economy as a whole.

But hold on. That is not the full story. If the federal government offers IBM a $5 million research grant, every other American firm and non-IBM worker would be disadvantaged because the rest of us have to pay the taxes or help underwrite the debt so that Uncle Sam can give IBM a check. The fact that IBM may produce something of value with the $5 million hardly makes a prima facie case for this income transfer. After all, if Congress were to send you or me a check for $5 million, we could no doubt find useful things to do with the money--many of which might have genuine societal benefits. We might give some of the money to charity, thus helping the poor. We might use the funds to start a new business, thus building up the local economy. We might build a swimming pool in our backyards, creating construction jobs for American workers. In fact, we could no doubt issue a compelling report to the relevant committee in Congress assuring the politicians in Washington that we had made good use of the tax dollars. If we can claim membership in some "disadvantaged" group--African-Americans, Latinos, women, disabled persons--we can make the additional claim that these funds are helping a downtrodden group in society. We could (and given human nature, probably would) advise Congress in our report that the government give us $5 million again next year, so we can even do more good things for our fellow man.

Hopefully the fallacy of our defense of our grant, and IBM's, is self-evident. It is based on a false logic that permeates the corporate welfare debate called "single-entry bookkeeping." It is the deceit of counting the seen but not the unseen. The Commerce Department--which is the command and control center of America's modern-day corporate welfare state--claims to have created 250,000 jobs through its business assistance programs. This is indeed an impressive number. It seems well worth the $5 billion a year we spend on the department's economic development activities. Where does the number actually come from? The answer is that Commerce officials count all the new jobs that have been directly created through the grant dollars it distributes to the IBMs and the Chevrons each year. Take away the grants and presumably the 250,000 jobs vanish.

http://www.hoover.org/research/welfare-well-how-business-subsidies-fleece-taxpayers

I feel bad for people are swayed by "toppling the 1%". A little over a year ago she complained of "foolish anti-Wall Street rhetoric" in front of wealthy donors now what is more foolish than "toppling the 1%"?

This is the type of verbiage needed from our top contender.

and backing it up with votes in the senate, I'd be happy to vote for her.

Problem is, I don't believe it. Neither does Wall Street, considering her donors list.

Besides, we don't need to topple the 1%. It is perfectly natural for certain individuals to grow wealthy. We just need a tax that reflects their wealth. And we need a corporate system that returns more profits to their workers.

yet the "Haters" line up to work against her.

yet the "Haters" line up to work against her."
The most progressive? Really??
That's a pretty low bar considering that the others "in the race" at this point are Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio from the Gross Old Party!!!
Let's see what happens if and when she gets a challenge from the LEFT...you know...like another Democrat.
And not supporting HRC does not render one a "Hater."
It is entirely possible to prefer another candidate without "hating" the only one in our party who has made herself available at this point.
If she doesn't get an official challenger I'm going to write somebody in on my primary ballot.
I don't know who. Maybe myself or some local progressive.
Or maybe I'll write in President Barack Obama. I know he is constitutionally ineligible to run again, but writing him in would bring back that excitement I felt in 2008 and 2012. That excitement that I am NOT feeling for 2016.
I am still excited about the Obama presidency. I Love it When I Wake Up in the Morning and Barack Obama is President!!

But Hilary?

hey I will change my vote for a more progressive candidate but as of now the idea of waking up to a Rubio or Cruz or Paul. prez makes me ready for HRC. If you aint working for HRC you are working for those running against her. Call it what you like.

The two of them have nothing whatsoever in common.

HRC never spent decades in prison for her role in a liberation struggle. In fact, her career has been defined by a complee lacl of sacrifice or risk. She's done some good things, but only when it was totally safe and protected to do so.

This is also why I found it offensive for her 2008 ads to show Bobby Kennedy speeches. Unlike Bobby, HRC has never said anything that she knew might cause someone to kill her, and she never challenged the priveleged, the powerful. or anyone's comfort level anywhere. Unlike Bobby, HRC would probably call in a focus group to determine whether or not she would support the United Farm Workers or speak out against our involvement in Vietnam.

Muhammad Ali walked the walk for what he stood for-giving up the heavyweight title and enduring a long spell of exile from the boxing arena(probably losing his peak years as a fighter) rather than abandon what he stood for and join the rich white man's chosen war in Vietnam-a war in which African-Americans, Latinos, Native Americans and working-class whites(and of course, up to four million Vietnamese)were slaughtered while the sons of most D.C. hawks stayed home in total safety.

Again, HRC has nothing in common with anyone who has ever taken any risks for what they stood for. Her career has been about total, calculated safeness. No one will ever want HRC dead or blacklisted for anything she will ever say or do-which means nothing she could ever say or do will ever really matter.

Voting for HRC is like coming out against the Vietnam War in 1976-or opposing apartheid in 1992-or supporting same-sex marriage as of today.

No-Ms. Clinton opposed the Viet Nam War when she was "clean for Gene" in 68 and organizing Latinos with Bill in south Texas in 72 for George McGovern.





She might not be the heroine we deserve but she is the heroine we need.

And the campaign she and Bill ran in '92 was a vicious attack on everything the McGovern campaign had stood for-social justice, peace, human equality, and the very idea that politics should include voices from below, rather than be the exclusove preserve of the big-monied elite.

Clintonism is the exact opposite of McGovernism.

exactly like the RWers will do, will use this quote to make the preposterous claim that Hillary is a revolutionary. They're still making that claim about Obama, even after six years of him being president.

Please carry on.

I don't want to "topple" the 1%...apparently earning $300,000+ places you in the 1%....I disagree those folks are "the problem" we need to fix....what most believe (I think) is that the likes of Huge Corps/Monopolies/Wall Street/The "Adelson's/Koch's" types and other like minded ilk are the ones "generally" referred to when we speak of the 1%?
Even our most beloved MSM hosts are in the 1%.

It certainly is a departure from the rhetoric Democratic candidates and Clinton herself have used in the past. I don't know what to make of it. I have to see what's behind it. Also I don't think the issue for most Americans is in so much "toppling" the 1 percent as in doing away with the unfair advantages that promote such dramatic income inequality.

First, she is the 1%. First, don't bark that she isn't a billionaire, having a net worth north of $20 million dollars puts you in a better spot than 99.1% of Americans. HRC, talking to me, as if you were one of me, is insulting. We both know your rich. Saying things like "toppling the 1%" comes across as populist rhetoric and condescending. I want and need to hear, real ideas on how to address income inequality.

It helps to be close to them when you do the shoving.

Pure comedy gold.

If she meant it she had damn well better say it in public and then back it up with some details.

Listing that under things that will never every happen.

Comedy gold is right.

That wasn't in the article, that picture is a generation old.

Chelsea is now mega-rich, lives next door to Jennifer Lopez in a swanky NYC conversion about $10 Million for Chelsea's pad, and 22 for J-Low.

Not bad for a poor person.

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2014/10/28/a-peek-at-the-nyc-building-j-lo-and-chelsea-clinton-call-home/

Wasn't she wagging her finger about "overheated rhetoric about soaking the rich" around this same supposed time frame?

such stuff. By the time she makes office it will be in place and she will then say there is nothing she can do about it.
In the meantime she gets to pretend shes "populist"

will be the day you see flying swine circling the upper stories of the Empire State Building.

Easy to confuse the expressions and I understand.

I've just about given up on politicians waving the populist banner.

Say whatever you gotta say to win seems to be the motto - that's all that seems to count anymore.

In the meantime, we can't trust our elections, our voting rights are being chipped away, whoever has the most money will win any given election but especially the GEs, corporations are still people and billionaires and the cronies control the entire game.

I am so completely disillusioned with our country's crap WWE politics I don't even know what to do anymore.

Burning it all down is becoming more appetizing than ever.

We know who your owners are, Hill. Here you are sharing a special moment with your primary owner.

?v=1429201091

That's sort of a profoundly odd thing for a political campaign to say.

And she was also the Walrus, WAY before Paul.

She will bring the good jobs back- and the goo goo goo joob, too.

In other news, though, I want to know where Nelson Mandela buys his shirts. That thing fucking ROCKS.

of the 1%. This, for me, is a much bigger issue than a few people earning over a million bucks a year, not counting perks.

It’s likely a truism the one percent would be hard to topple. Simple and similar to how the political culture of the current Conservatives convinces the ninety nine percent to vote against many of their basic interests is actually the solution Hillary should work on.

Extending that thought to an advantage.

Besides the media scares everyone into some type of cultural belief, vary obvious by what has transpired for decades is the Limbaugh and Hannity demonization of Hillary. A sound bite is a noise bite and the same for image processing. One wrong eigenvalue and the image can take on a different meaning that will lose the game.

Huge corporations like, big oil, AT&T, and the United Health Care Company know this and use it to advantage to take the cream and give America the one percent milk.

Or if a consumer wants just a data line yet have to pay for an outrageous unbundled package. From my view it’s all criminal as much as telecasting commercial political lies and not being accountable for them.

What’s funny to me is this talk about enforcing the gun laws on the books would resolve problems, which I think is true. Carry that over to lie on the commercial media by politicians should be illegal.

Its obvious since Hillary started her crusade for better Health Care we begin to see the politicians that are complicit to rig laws in Health Care that create a necessity to buy insurance in a new age where there is enough money in combined lottery other than title funding to finance good practice in Health Care rather than corruption, but free care for everyone.

America does not understand how horrible the Health Care industry has been convoluting determinations in recovery for disease and injury into a data base that drives the culture crazy. It needs reform immediately.

This means simply to convince the current one percent they are working against their own interest as well. A sick society will reap sick profits.

It is media theater.