Forum Thread

Bottom line, easy money or an economy.

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 18 1 2 Next
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The status quotians see Hillary as the protector of their assets. The college debt is the size of half Obama's budget. Sanders promising to tax speculative trading flies in the face of a quadrillion investment fund. The 1.2 trillion dollar college debt has the highest rate of default of any debt and is held by the least able of any group to pay it back. But it is secured by the US goverment. So how did it happen that the government is securing the largest worst rated debt? I say the Clintons are responsible. The debt was accrued believing students would graduate into good paying jobs. But the legislation supported and passed by Clinton allowed new investing in unregulated futures to absorb money that the "economy" needed for new businesses, expanding businesses and General business financing. The path to quick, easy and cheap profits is not through labor. It is through speculative trades. If you think that is the nature of the stock Markey then so be it. I think speculative trading short cuts money to profits by eliminating slow, expensive and complicated industrialization. Choosing easy is disastrous.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I agree that Bill Clinton and the Republican dominated Congress of the 90's are largely to blame for this mess, but you lose me when you make it plural. Secretary Clinton was the First Lady at the time. You can't blame someone who has no official position for the student loan debt crisis.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: The status quotians see Hillary as the protector of their assets. The college debt is the size of half Obama's budget. Sanders promising to tax speculative trading flies in the face of a quadrillion investment fund. The 1.2 trillion dollar college debt has the highest rate of default of any debt and is held by the least able of any group to pay it back. But it is secured by the US goverment. So how did it happen that the government is securing the largest worst rated debt? I say the Clintons are responsible. The debt was accrued believing students would graduate into good paying jobs. But the legislation supported and passed by Clinton allowed new investing in unregulated futures to absorb money that the "economy" needed for new businesses, expanding businesses and General business financing. The path to quick, easy and cheap profits is not through labor. It is through speculative trades. If you think that is the nature of the stock Markey then so be it. I think speculative trading short cuts money to profits by eliminating slow, expensive and complicated industrialization. Choosing easy is disastrous.
    Your argument seems to put the most powerful woman in the world in a very diminutive posture. I find it inconceivable that Hillary was not involved in that decision making. Her actions and statements to date support a position of support for Wall Street. That is consistent with the thinking that supports Bill's legislation. She is name dropping Dodd/Frank but the evidence shows a dismissive attitude of the market toward Dodd/Frank.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Your argument seems to put the most powerful woman in the world in a very diminutive posture. I find it inconceivable that Hillary was not involved in that decision making.

    Do you honestly believe that the First Lady of the United States is the most powerful woman in the world? I'm not trying to put her in a diminutive posture, but to suggest someone who has literally zero official responsibilities is the most powerful woman in the world defies logic. Presidents have always discussed policy with their spouses, but that doesn't mean their spouses are the most powerful women in the world.

    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Her actions and statements to date support a position of support for Wall Street. That is consistent with the thinking that supports Bill's legislation. She is name dropping Dodd/Frank but the evidence shows a dismissive attitude of the market toward Dodd/Frank.

    I don't disagree. Her positions as a candidate are one thing; blaming her for the student loan crisis that her husband and the Republican Congress ushered in is another.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The enormity of the issues I am talking about would either have Hillary as a supporter or vocal protester. She cannot claim ignorance of those issues because that would make her incompetent. That hundreds of billions of dollars that were lost demand an explanation from her unless she agrees with the outcome. A republican opponent won't challenge her about them because it is coincident with their policies. Only Bernie has that position that would call her out about them. Interesting to note that the Republicans have no problem with her picking the next justice.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Regarding Hillary, who she is now is who she was then. She all of a sudden did not become Secretary of State and then develop into a politician. She has always had the talents she has now. She has not been a developing person in the background. She has always been smart, talented and opinionated. There is no way that she hasn't always had a defined goal. It is inconceivable to propose that she wasn't fully involved in Bill's decisions. She has always been the senior partner in that marriage. Bill was and is a charismatic orator but she stands above everybody in her oratorical presentation. Her Benghazi testimony attests to that. The only problem she has and it is small and limited is that she is so polished and directly responsive that it seems she has prepared answers for anything and everything.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Regarding Hillary, who she is now is who she was then. She all of a sudden did not become Secretary of State and then develop into a politician. She has always had the talents she has now. She has not been a developing person in the background. She has always been smart, talented and opinionated. There is no way that she hasn't always had a defined goal. It is inconceivable to propose that she wasn't fully involved in Bill's decisions. She has always been the senior partner in that marriage. Bill was and is a charismatic orator but she stands above everybody in her oratorical presentation. Her Benghazi testimony attests to that. The only problem she has and it is small and limited is that she is so polished and directly responsive that it seems she has prepared answers for anything and everything.
    Chet, she has a 100% lawyer attitude and tricks; she studied for it. Sorry US lawyers use every trick in the book the way it suits them.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    She is unparalleled in her ability to spin anything away from herself. Her soninlaw is involved in a hedge fund. I don't think Chelsea would have and does campaign for her unless she felt comfortable with Hillary's intentions with Wall Street.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Chet -- Yes we understand that you are anti-Hillary. You have cherry picked every thing from Hillary's past and made connections where none really exist except in your mind.

    Wikipedia: United States Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton

    Wikipedia: Political positions of Hillary Clinton

    I have spent considerable time looking at the career of Hillary Clinton, but also that of Bernie Sanders. I'll just share a couple of Wikipedia links above to help add some balance to your perspective. Hillary Clinton is an accomplished woman. Has she made some mistakes in her life? Yes. But is there something sinister and morbid about her that precludes her from being president? Certainly not in my view. You can take all the Republican talking points and blow them out of proportion, but that doesn't change the fact that she is highly qualified to lead the nation. She may not pass your "purity test" but if you demand purity with your ideological beliefs, you will not find that "purity" in any of the candidates if you go cherry picking everything you don't like and ignore all the positives.

    Spend some time studying Hillary's career and tell me what you like about her and don't like about her. Then ask yourself if the positives far outweigh the few niggling things that seem to have captured your thinking to the exclusion of everything else.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    PS -- I would be remiss if, for comparison, I didn't share the Wikipedia Political positions of Bernie Sanders

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    PS -- I would be remiss if, for comparison, I didn't share the Wikipedia Political positions of Bernie Sanders

    Excellent review of Sanders; I like most of the things he supports, except the "gun" control issue. but my fear is that he will be torpedo'd by the GOP and be called a "communist" while he is far from it. Just in case Clinton wins, I hope she introduces/copies a lot of his idea's. Indeed copying the Swedish model would be great; but knowing the attitude of most Americans they are way to "patriotic" to accept anything from the outside.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Dutch -- Yes Sanders also has a good resume. For many supporters there are one or two really hot button issues that get them excited. And you might even be able to line up behind a candidate on a whole host of issues. But to support a candidate on an issue does not mean necessarily that the candidate will succeed in making an impact or being able to lead legislation to a successful conclusion. Any legislative effort by either Bernie or Hillary is likely to be vehemently opposed, and if it is somehow able to get passed it will be diluted down with compromises. That defines the Obama presidency...compromise after compromise after compromise, especially on budget deals. And that's why so many liberals feel he betrayed them. Will they feel the same way about Bernie or Hillary after the first compromise? Unfortunately yes. I know my fellow liberals well.

    "So when I hear voices in either party boast of their refusal to compromise as an accomplishment in and of itself, I’m not impressed. All that does is prevent what most Americans would consider actual accomplishments -- like fixing roads, educating kids, passing budgets, cleaning our environment, making our streets safe." -- President Obama

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Dutch -- Yes Sanders also has a good resume. For many supporters there are one or two really hot button issues that get them excited. And you might even be able to line up behind a candidate on a whole host of issues. But to support a candidate on an issue does not mean necessarily that the candidate will succeed in making an impact or being able to lead legislation to a successful conclusion. Any legislative effort by either Bernie or Hillary is likely to be vehemently opposed, and if it is somehow able to get passed it will be diluted down with compromises. That defines the Obama presidency...compromise after compromise after compromise, especially on budget deals. And that's why so many liberals feel he betrayed them. Will they feel the same way about Bernie or Hillary after the first compromise? Unfortunately yes. I know my fellow liberals well.

    "So when I hear voices in either party boast of their refusal to compromise as an accomplishment in and of itself, I’m not impressed. All that does is prevent what most Americans would consider actual accomplishments -- like fixing roads, educating kids, passing budgets, cleaning our environment, making our streets safe." -- President Obama

    Thus as a matter of fact you believe as I do, that this country is un-governable with a two party system which are miles apart.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt, Explain this in a way that will dispel the figments in my imagination that say Hillary doesn't have the lower classes and the country as a top priority. :

    robertreich.org/post/124114229225

    And that she didn't support repealing Glas/Steagall

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt said : You have cherry picked every thing from Hillary's past and made connections where none really exist except in your mind.

    Thanks for the editorial credit but I am only repeating what I read. Somebody else in all cases made the connections.