Reminder: Please see the Posting Guidelines. Discuss, disagree and debate politely. Be nice. Respect each other and the Ten Club Community forum environment. Thank you
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont began his day of campaigning Wednesday by criticizing Hillary Clinton’s support of welfare reform in 1996, accusing her of backing legislation that ultimately increased poverty levels and led more Americans to face economic anxiety.
“What welfare reform did, in my view, was to go after some of the weakest and most vulnerable people in this country,”
“When my mother says she’s going to vote for Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman, to me that is identity politics at its worst,” Soldati tells Quartz. “It’s putting the value of a female president over the value of a president with your values.”
“When my mother says she’s going to vote for Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman, to me that is identity politics at its worst,” Soldati tells Quartz. “It’s putting the value of a female president over the value of a president with your values.”
"We don't need Muslims. We need smart, educated, white people," according to the male voice on the calls, which began Thursday night and urge voters in New Hampshire to vote for Donald Trump. So... if people that vote for Hillary are engaging in identify politics, as evidenced by that one quote above, then it must be true that people that vote for Trump are racists..as evidenced by this quote from a robocall on CNN. Does this mean you're a racist?
Sexists supporting Hillary Clinton and racists supporting Donald Trump are not mutually exclusive. Clinton became a caricature of gender politics in 2008 and we have seen flashes of the same in 2016. Trump meanwhile is drawing large swaths of support from the racially charged underbelly of the GOP.
Both are repulsive...yet both look like winning strategies for the nomination.
Sexists supporting Hillary Clinton and racists supporting Donald Trump are not mutually exclusive. Clinton became a caricature of gender politics in 2008 and we have seen flashes of the same in 2016. Trump meanwhile is drawing large swaths of support from the racially charged underbelly of the GOP.
Both are repulsive...yet both look like winning strategies for the nomination.
I don't think Hillary is actively playing the gender politics role. In her debate performances, she has focused on Obama's legacy and that Bernie threatens to dismantle it for something that is not possible vs. the methodical moving forward of the progressive agenda. I'm not arguing that there aren't people who will vote for (or against, frankly) her because she is a woman, rather that I haven't seen her personally playing that card.
Sexists supporting Hillary Clinton and racists supporting Donald Trump are not mutually exclusive. Clinton became a caricature of gender politics in 2008 and we have seen flashes of the same in 2016. Trump meanwhile is drawing large swaths of support from the racially charged underbelly of the GOP.
Both are repulsive...yet both look like winning strategies for the nomination.
I don't think Hillary is actively playing the gender politics role. In her debate performances, she has focused on Obama's legacy and that Bernie threatens to dismantle it for something that is not possible vs. the methodical moving forward of the progressive agenda. I'm not arguing that there aren't people who will vote for (or against, frankly) her because she is a woman, rather that I haven't seen her personally playing that card.
Disagree. This is a campaign strategy regardless of whether or not she personally has uttered the words.
Sexists supporting Hillary Clinton and racists supporting Donald Trump are not mutually exclusive. Clinton became a caricature of gender politics in 2008 and we have seen flashes of the same in 2016. Trump meanwhile is drawing large swaths of support from the racially charged underbelly of the GOP.
Both are repulsive...yet both look like winning strategies for the nomination.
I don't think Hillary is actively playing the gender politics role. In her debate performances, she has focused on Obama's legacy and that Bernie threatens to dismantle it for something that is not possible vs. the methodical moving forward of the progressive agenda. I'm not arguing that there aren't people who will vote for (or against, frankly) her because she is a woman, rather that I haven't seen her personally playing that card.
Disagree. This is a campaign strategy regardless of whether or not she personally has uttered the words.
Perhaps... but I'm a man and I will be voting for her because I actually think she is qualified for the job, certainly more so than the other candidates.
Words uttered "why are there different rules for me?"
I don't get what you are saying...
When asked about releasing the wall street money funnel transcripts, that was hrc reply. Kinda insinuating the public, her constituents, the electorate, have different set of rules for her being a women. I say what makes the rules different is that Bernie doesn't have a money funnel from wall street.
Words uttered "why are there different rules for me?"
I don't get what you are saying...
When asked about releasing the wall street money funnel transcripts, that was hrc reply. Kinda insinuating the public, her constituents, the electorate, have different set of rules for her being a women. I say what makes the rules different is that Bernie doesn't have a money funnel from wall street.
That could be the insinuation. Or it could be that there are different rules for someone so politically connected for 30 years, or for someone that was a Senator from NY. If Schumer was running, would people ask for his transcripts? Not sure. No one has asked for Donald's speeches yet. Or what about Cruz? Did he ever speak to Goldman? His wife is a Director there.
I could personally care less what she said to Wall Street. She was a private citizen and I wouldn't expect her to go in there and berate them for 90 min. Who TF wants to pay for that? And the reality is that Bernie is angling on this because it works, and plays into his narrative. Good for him. But I wouldn't release them if I were her. Especially today when the odds of him winning the delegate race (even without the super d's) is very, very low. Releasing those is no win.
Words uttered "why are there different rules for me?"
I don't get what you are saying...
When asked about releasing the wall street money funnel transcripts, that was hrc reply. Kinda insinuating the public, her constituents, the electorate, have different set of rules for her being a women. I say what makes the rules different is that Bernie doesn't have a money funnel from wall street.
That could be the insinuation. Or it could be that there are different rules for someone so politically connected for 30 years, or for someone that was a Senator from NY. If Schumer was running, would people ask for his transcripts? Not sure. No one has asked for Donald's speeches yet. Or what about Cruz? Did he ever speak to Goldman? His wife is a Director there.
I could personally care less what she said to Wall Street. She was a private citizen and I wouldn't expect her to go in there and berate them for 90 min. Who TF wants to pay for that? And the reality is that Bernie is angling on this because it works, and plays into his narrative. Good for him. But I wouldn't release them if I were her. Especially today when the odds of him winning the delegate race (even without the super d's) is very, very low. Releasing those is no win.
Her electorate isn't asking about schumer cruz or trump, Bernie isn't asking for her transcripts as far as I know, voters such as myself are asking for the transcripts. This isn't about Bernie you me cruz trump Bush JFK Nelson Mandela or Adolf Hitler it's about Hillary saying to you me and her electorate that she is going to crack down on wall street, the same wall street that paid her millions to hear what she had to say. Do the American voters have no right to ask what was said during those "speeches"? How many other private citizens has wall street paid to "speak"? Names and $?
Personally, if they paid her a nominal speaking fee of say $5k I wouldn't have a problem with it, but millions!
Let's not forget too that were not talking about green peace here, were taking about Goldman who just happened to play a big role in tanking the economy then running to the taxpayers with their hand out for billions, she personally chummy with all the wall street big wig fat cats.
Personally, if they paid her a nominal speaking fee of say $5k I wouldn't have a problem with it, but millions!
Let's not forget too that were not talking about green peace here, were taking about Goldman who just happened to play a big role in tanking the economy then running to the taxpayers with their hand out for billions, she personally chummy with all the wall street big wig fat cats.
Ha! Little side not here: Greenpeace is a money machine too. Go with Sea Shepherds and get the job done!
Sorry... carry on!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Personally, if they paid her a nominal speaking fee of say $5k I wouldn't have a problem with it, but millions!
Let's not forget too that were not talking about green peace here, were taking about Goldman who just happened to play a big role in tanking the economy then running to the taxpayers with their hand out for billions, she personally chummy with all the wall street big wig fat cats.
Ha! Little side not here: Greenpeace is a money machine too. Go with Sea Shepherds and get the job done!
Sorry... carry on!
Don't know anything about green peace was the first thing that came to mind. On a scale of "ruining the economy" to 20 and Goldman was a 4 where would green peace rank?
Words uttered "why are there different rules for me?"
I don't get what you are saying...
When asked about releasing the wall street money funnel transcripts, that was hrc reply. Kinda insinuating the public, her constituents, the electorate, have different set of rules for her being a women. I say what makes the rules different is that Bernie doesn't have a money funnel from wall street.
That could be the insinuation. Or it could be that there are different rules for someone so politically connected for 30 years, or for someone that was a Senator from NY. If Schumer was running, would people ask for his transcripts? Not sure. No one has asked for Donald's speeches yet. Or what about Cruz? Did he ever speak to Goldman? His wife is a Director there.
I could personally care less what she said to Wall Street. She was a private citizen and I wouldn't expect her to go in there and berate them for 90 min. Who TF wants to pay for that? And the reality is that Bernie is angling on this because it works, and plays into his narrative. Good for him. But I wouldn't release them if I were her. Especially today when the odds of him winning the delegate race (even without the super d's) is very, very low. Releasing those is no win.
Her electorate isn't asking about schumer cruz or trump, Bernie isn't asking for her transcripts as far as I know, voters such as myself are asking for the transcripts. This isn't about Bernie you me cruz trump Bush JFK Nelson Mandela or Adolf Hitler it's about Hillary saying to you me and her electorate that she is going to crack down on wall street, the same wall street that paid her millions to hear what she had to say. Do the American voters have no right to ask what was said during those "speeches"? How many other private citizens has wall street paid to "speak"? Names and $?
It was Bernie and his team that started floating that leading up to the debate in Iowa, and then the press picked up on it. But you're right, you're asking for them. And I'm a voter too and I don't care, so it's a strategic decision on her part whether to release or not.
And for this voter, "cracking down on Wall Street" is just meaningless cliche. I don't even know what that means. The financial crisis of 2008 was caused by EVERYONE... the consumers, real estate agents, brokers, lenders, institutional traders, they all had a hand in it. The financial markets are heavily regulated and really don't need any more. I'm not even sure a new Glass-Steagel is necessary today.
If Elizabeth Warren wants to crack down on Navient (her current target) well I wouldn't want Hillary or any other Democrat picking up that battle. The reason we have a nation of young debtors today is because college is so damn expensive, not because lending is unfair. Warren ought to look at her University as they are the problem. But I digress.
What do consumers and real estate agents have to do with mortgage backed securities?
It's the whole chain.. Consumers wanted houses they couldn't afford. Real estate agents convinced them they could do stated income, interest only, 3/1/1 ARMs... saying "hey, your house will only increase in value. You can refinance in 2 years, take out the equity, etc. It's a great investment". Brokers found underwriters for it, wrote the loan. Lenders underwrote them, institutions bought them, packaged them, and traded them.
Everyone was complicit. Consumers - buying homes they could not realistically afford Agents - convincing them they had options when the interest came due for these 'creative' loans Brokers - moving loans through the pipelines Lenders- lax lending standards and documentation requirements Institutions - buying securities where they knew nothing about the underlying debt
Cracking down on wall street means closing tax loophole that permits billion dollar companies to pay a lower effective tax rate then you and me.
Goldman Sachs’s latest financial report shows that the company avoided paying federal income taxes on almost half its United States profits in 2014. In fact, the company paid an effective tax rate of just 18.6 percent on $6.8 billion in U.S. profits.
Most of Goldman's low tax rate (about half the statutory rate of 35 percent) can be attributed to a tax break that allows corporations to write off the so-called cost of issuing stock options to their executives in lieu of salaries. Goldman disclosed saving a whopping $782 million in income taxes through this break in 2014.
Other wall street loopholes having to do with foreign safe havens and off balance sheet financing.
Cracking down on wall street means closing tax loophole that permits billion dollar companies to pay a lower effective tax rate then you and me.
Goldman Sachs’s latest financial report shows that the company avoided paying federal income taxes on almost half its United States profits in 2014. In fact, the company paid an effective tax rate of just 18.6 percent on $6.8 billion in U.S. profits.
Most of Goldman's low tax rate (about half the statutory rate of 35 percent) can be attributed to a tax break that allows corporations to write off the so-called cost of issuing stock options to their executives in lieu of salaries. Goldman disclosed saving a whopping $782 million in income taxes through this break in 2014.
Other wall street loopholes having to do with foreign safe havens and off balance sheet financing.
These aren't Wall Street loopholes, this is corporate welfare. Perhaps we are speaking slightly different languages here. I'm talking about the regulating of the financial markets and where that right mark is. I'm very supportive of closing tax loopholes that benefits corps, whether it's Google, Apple, Exxon, Bank of America or Goldman. Absolutely.
There is a remedy for not being able to afford your house it's called foreclose. The buyer is out of the house and the bank now has its collateral. There is a remedy for lying realtors, never using them again.
Cracking down on wall street means closing tax loophole that permits billion dollar companies to pay a lower effective tax rate then you and me.
Goldman Sachs’s latest financial report shows that the company avoided paying federal income taxes on almost half its United States profits in 2014. In fact, the company paid an effective tax rate of just 18.6 percent on $6.8 billion in U.S. profits.
Most of Goldman's low tax rate (about half the statutory rate of 35 percent) can be attributed to a tax break that allows corporations to write off the so-called cost of issuing stock options to their executives in lieu of salaries. Goldman disclosed saving a whopping $782 million in income taxes through this break in 2014.
Other wall street loopholes having to do with foreign safe havens and off balance sheet financing.
These aren't Wall Street loopholes, this is corporate welfare. Perhaps we are speaking slightly different languages here. I'm talking about the regulating of the financial markets and where that right mark is. I'm very supportive of closing tax loopholes that benefits corps, whether it's Google, Apple, Exxon, Bank of America or Goldman. Absolutely.
Regulating the financial markets is secondary to closing loopholes. First you need corporate cops, right now our corn subsidy budget it's more than the SEC budget. Closing loopholes can happen overnight regulating will take years.
Cracking down on wall street means closing tax loophole that permits billion dollar companies to pay a lower effective tax rate then you and me.
Goldman Sachs’s latest financial report shows that the company avoided paying federal income taxes on almost half its United States profits in 2014. In fact, the company paid an effective tax rate of just 18.6 percent on $6.8 billion in U.S. profits.
Most of Goldman's low tax rate (about half the statutory rate of 35 percent) can be attributed to a tax break that allows corporations to write off the so-called cost of issuing stock options to their executives in lieu of salaries. Goldman disclosed saving a whopping $782 million in income taxes through this break in 2014.
Other wall street loopholes having to do with foreign safe havens and off balance sheet financing.
These aren't Wall Street loopholes, this is corporate welfare. Perhaps we are speaking slightly different languages here. I'm talking about the regulating of the financial markets and where that right mark is. I'm very supportive of closing tax loopholes that benefits corps, whether it's Google, Apple, Exxon, Bank of America or Goldman. Absolutely.
There is a remedy for not being able to afford your house it's called foreclose. The buyer is out of the house and the bank now has its collateral. There is a remedy for lying realtors, never using them again.
I'm not sure they lied... they were naive like everyone else. Housing values ALWAYS increase...right? Until they don't... But my point is that the whole chain had a hand in what culminated in 2008. I bought a house in Northern Virginia in 2002, right as the market was really zooming. NOVA is quite expensive and the realtor kept trying to move me up...take a 3/1/1 you can't lose! I've always been anti-balloon, anti-ARM so I didn't bite, but it would have been very easy for that proverbial "least sophisticated consumer".
Should Mr. Trump clinch the presidential nomination, it would represent a rout of historic proportions for the institutional Republican Party, and could set off an internal rift unseen in either party for a half-century, since white Southerners abandoned the Democratic Party en masse during the civil rights movement.
Former Gov. Michael O. Leavitt of Utah, a top adviser to Mr. Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, said the party was unable to come up with a united front to quash Mr. Trump’s campaign.
LOL
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Comments
Please see the Posting Guidelines. Discuss, disagree and debate politely. Be nice. Respect each other and the Ten Club Community forum environment.
Thank you
“What welfare reform did, in my view, was to go after some of the weakest and most vulnerable people in this country,”
http://qz.com/623503/why-young-women-reject-hillary-clintons-brand-of-feminism/
So... if people that vote for Hillary are engaging in identify politics, as evidenced by that one quote above, then it must be true that people that vote for Trump are racists..as evidenced by this quote from a robocall on CNN. Does this mean you're a racist?
Both are repulsive...yet both look like winning strategies for the nomination.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/02/hillary-clinton-women-revolution-sanders
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I could personally care less what she said to Wall Street. She was a private citizen and I wouldn't expect her to go in there and berate them for 90 min. Who TF wants to pay for that? And the reality is that Bernie is angling on this because it works, and plays into his narrative. Good for him. But I wouldn't release them if I were her. Especially today when the odds of him winning the delegate race (even without the super d's) is very, very low. Releasing those is no win.
This isn't about Bernie you me cruz trump Bush JFK Nelson Mandela or Adolf Hitler it's about Hillary saying to you me and her electorate that she is going to crack down on wall street, the same wall street that paid her millions to hear what she had to say.
Do the American voters have no right to ask what was said during those "speeches"?
How many other private citizens has wall street paid to "speak"? Names and $?
Let's not forget too that were not talking about green peace here, were taking about Goldman who just happened to play a big role in tanking the economy then running to the taxpayers with their hand out for billions, she personally chummy with all the wall street big wig fat cats.
Sorry... carry on!
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
On a scale of "ruining the economy" to 20 and Goldman was a 4 where would green peace rank?
And for this voter, "cracking down on Wall Street" is just meaningless cliche. I don't even know what that means. The financial crisis of 2008 was caused by EVERYONE... the consumers, real estate agents, brokers, lenders, institutional traders, they all had a hand in it. The financial markets are heavily regulated and really don't need any more. I'm not even sure a new Glass-Steagel is necessary today.
If Elizabeth Warren wants to crack down on Navient (her current target) well I wouldn't want Hillary or any other Democrat picking up that battle. The reason we have a nation of young debtors today is because college is so damn expensive, not because lending is unfair. Warren ought to look at her University as they are the problem. But I digress.
Everyone was complicit.
Consumers - buying homes they could not realistically afford
Agents - convincing them they had options when the interest came due for these 'creative' loans
Brokers - moving loans through the pipelines
Lenders- lax lending standards and documentation requirements
Institutions - buying securities where they knew nothing about the underlying debt
Goldman Sachs’s latest financial report shows that the company avoided paying federal income taxes on almost half its United States profits in 2014. In fact, the company paid an effective tax rate of just 18.6 percent on $6.8 billion in U.S. profits.
Most of Goldman's low tax rate (about half the statutory rate of 35 percent) can be attributed to a tax break that allows corporations to write off the so-called cost of issuing stock options to their executives in lieu of salaries. Goldman disclosed saving a whopping $782 million in income taxes through this break in 2014.
Other wall street loopholes having to do with foreign safe havens and off balance sheet financing.
There is a remedy for lying realtors, never using them again.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana