Discussion for article #246973
What a vacuous bit of sophistry.
Bernie gets paid $40,000 a speech and hasnāt released ANY of his speeches. Yeah he hasnāt given any speeches to Wall Street, but he gives PLENTY of speeches to other people and isnāt trying to open his kimono on those, now is he?
Sorry. No politician has ever been asked to release transcripts of speeches to private groups. Ever. In our entire history. Play Clinton Calvinball with someone else.
12 Likes
Both of these candidates are working hard to obfuscate the reality that they are vastly more alike than different, save as to electability. The āissuesā that they raise about one another are so many dandelion puffs.
1 Like
But, really, thatās all Sanders has. Wall Street bad. Clinton talk to Wall Street. Clinton bad.
7 Likes
got a link for that claim?
Mrs. Clinton is not running against a Republican in the Democratic primaries. She is running against Bernie Sanders, a decades-long critic of Wall Street excess who is hardly a hot ticket on the industry speaking circuit. The Sanders campaign, asked if Mr. Sanders also received fees for closed-door speeches, came up with two from two decades ago that were not transcribed: one to a hospital trade association, and one to a college, each for less than $1,000. Royalties from a book called āThe Speech,ā Mr. Sandersās eight-hour Senate floor diatribe against President Obamaās continuation of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy, were donated to the nonprofit Addison County Parent/Child Center in Vermont. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/opinion/mrs-clinton-show-voters-those-transcripts.html
7 Likes
I found his comments about her speeches must be āShakesperianā to get paid $200K from Goldman Sachs. You know who else got paid that much? Larry the Cable Guy. And Lady Gaga.
And Hillary has donated millions from her paid speeches the charities. Is it better to let Goldman Sachs,the company he reviles at every turn, keep that money for the nefarious purposesā¦or is it better to give a speech about expanding womenās roles in economies and extract that money from GS, and donate it to a charity? Because that is precisely what has happened.
8 Likes
Honestly, I admit I get into wayyy too many political discussions on a daily basis, bur no one ever discusses her emails or wall street. We do discuss however, how the media and the far left have pushed the meme of her being too close to wall street on the basis of giving speeches and tgerefore untrustworthy.
6 Likes
From politifact
Lower rates are permanent, thanks to fiscal cliff
By Louis Jacobson, Molly Moorhead on Wednesday, January 2nd, 2013 at 4:35 p.m.
The first time President Barack Obama tried to revise the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush, he had to settle for a compromise with Republicans in Congress. Obama wanted to extend the rates for lower incomes and repeal them for the wealthy. Republicans wanted to extend them for everybody.
Obama relented in December 2010, agreeing to a two-year extension of all rates. That timetable ran out as the nation neared the fiscal cliff. On Jan. 1, 2013, Congress passed and Obama signed a law permanently extending the Bush-era rates on incomes below $450,000 for families and $400,000 for individuals.
That income threshold is higher than Obama wanted ā he sought limits of $250,000 and $200,000 respectively ā but the effect is the same for middle- and lower-income Americans: their lower tax rates are permanent. We rate this a Promise Kept.
1 Like
was your reply intended for me?
1 Like
Wall Street is no ordinary audience and $40,000 doesnāt hold a candle to $225,000. And Hillary didnāt just give one speech. She gave 3 to Goldman alone in 2013. She took in roughly $3 million. Okay, so there is orders of magnitude.
Then there is conflict of interest. Wall Street fraud nearly brought global civilization to an end in 2008, Main Street was ruined, yet no one was prosecuted, Wall Street has been made whole in a fortnight, in fact stronger than before, while the middle class is still contracting - under 7 years of Obama. She says she will continue Obamaās policies, which means more of the same: more middle class contraction, more black youth unemeployment at 50%, more supply side nonesense. The conflict of interest with the banskters is more than just her being on the take. Her daughter had worked for a hedgefund manager and her son in law is a bankster. She says that being on the take never affected her decisions, but it did effect one decision - the decision to give the speeches in the first place. It they werenāt giving money she wasnāt giving the speech. So Hillary has proven that she will come to your place and give a speech if you pay her $225.
The idea that she will put Main Street before Wall Street contradicts all common sense and once she were in the White House, itās too late. Weāll have another 4 to 8 years of enemic growth with potential for another crash unless demand side bias policies are introduced. Something she cannot even seem to envision - probably because all that speech money is inhibiting her vision.
BTW you can be sure that Trump knows people who heard some of those speeches. If there is anything inflammatory in them, he wonāt wait for a Romney 47% video to surface, instead his flunkies will release a million faux transcripts over the internet that will come close enough to the truth to make it all an issue all over again. Heāll use the Clinton secrecy thing against them. Then he will hammer her on it relentlessly pointing out the conflict of interest which even he doesnāt have.
Sheās a progressives when sheās speaking to prorgressives, sheās a neocon when sheās speaking to neocons, sheās a neoliberal pro free trade agreement when sheās speaking to CEOs. What will she do if elected? Probably what sheās paid to do. It wonāt matter, sheāll be bantha fodder for Trump.
7 Likes
Thatās reason enough. Wall Street owns the government. They singlehandedly nearly destroyed global civilization. Most of us want Wall Street strictly and strongly regulated, not the reverse. In an era of inequality this is THE issue. Talking about most other things is a distraction.
6 Likes
Iām pretty sure that the average American could really give a rats ass about the speeches. The only reason it bothers me is that thereās segment of the so called progressives who are chewing on it like a dog with a bone and (some) are using it as an excuse for not voting for Clinton.
EDIT TO ADD: I also think it might be a disservice to Sanders campaign to hit this one note constantly because they more the average person hears his schtick, the more it might become the butt of a joke. Iām just wondering if it becomes just so much background noise.
14 Likes
i canāt find a thing about @Dave_MBās $40,000 claim, i think itās bullshit.
http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-calls-out-hillary-releases-transcripts-paid-speeches/
9 Likes
And it is an issue that has limited appeal to the broader mainstream voters needed to win an election in November.
3 Likes
Yes! This, precisely! It only appeals to a narrow group. Yet Sanders and his supporters continue to think it is the critical issue. Myopic to say the least.
3 Likes
Pure GOP talking points. smh
2 Likes
In Wall Street terms, $200,000 is my 2 bucks.
I say BFD if she talks in front of them and takes their cash, the business of running for President and āwinningā takes cash. Bernieās playing innocent when in fact, he just isnāt getting any from WS. Heās spinning being dissed as a good thing.
Because Bernie supposedly turns down requests to speak for hundreds of thousands of dollars does that mean that he would just waltz in and turn that segment of our economy on itās ear? How would he do that and who with-who are his allies in congress, in high finances?
Bernie is basically pre-accusing Hillary of being a sell out, of having no morals or ethics, of being a money grubbing ā¦ that is faking it as a ruse to make money.
She should slap him, for reals, not metaphorically and then she should go all in on his NRA love, which is a proven thing, not a presumed likelihood.
6 Likes
If Sanders and the media continues down this line, I think she should tell the organizations to release the transcripts and get it out in the open instead of keeping it as a low hanging fruit.
7 Likes
Strong stuff, Davey. A comedian and a singer got paid as much as HRC to give a speech to Wall Street, so therefore, the person whoĀ“s running to be President should be under no obligation to potential voters to reveal what she said (implied?) to the monied interests who have so many friends in government. Is that your argument? Do I have that right?
7 Likes
Yes, there is no reason that any American should be concerned at all when monied interests with business before the government pay tremendous fees for speeches, book deals, and honoraria to candidates who will be involved in regulating those interests. Why should that bother any reasonable person?
6 Likes