What is Hillary hiding? She refuses to release transcripts to her Big bank Speeches.

[boomerang]

Interesting to see that the "vast right-wing conspiracy" now has members of the leftist media in their midst. It's getting harder to tell who is the 'victim' and who is the 'oppressor'.

 

[glenn1]

It's easy to say all the right things when you are a populist. It's very difficult to actually dive into the issues and understand them to be able to improve them. That's something Sanders doesn't do. His trustworthiness is based on no substance. Yes Sanders cares about people. But he hasn't a clue how to actually help people other than to give vague, generic speeches.

Trustworthiness that he actually believes and will attempt to do what he says is a different thing than the leadership ability to implement it. When evaluating candidates, I'd daresay most people go through this sort of mental checklist when hearing them speak, although some may do the steps in different order or prioritize one over another:

1. Does what they say make logical sense and grounded in reality or is it incoherent babble (nut case elimination screen)

2. Do I trust they will actually do what they say they do?

3. Do I think they can actually accomplish what they say they'll do?

4. Do I agree with what they say they'll do? (minimum threshold to vote for)

If #4 = YES then 5. Is there someone else I agree with more?

If #4 = NO then 6. If the person I want to win instead loses, re-do Steps 1-4 to compare and prioritize this candidate to other unwanted alternatives to select "least bad" option. If you're a Republican going through this exercise, it probably looks like this:

1. Bernie = PASS, Hillary = PASS
2. Bernie = PASS, Hillary = Catastrophic FAIL
3. Bernie = FAIL, Hillary = PASS (?)
4. Bernie = Catastrophic FAIL, Hillary = FAIL

So it would come down to "which scares me more, Bernie's ideas or having to trust Hillary"? I could see Republicans going back and forth several times as they attempt to answer that over the next few months. Then they'll have to decide whether it's good strategy to attempt to "help" one candidate against the other knowing that may come back to bite them in the ass if that candidate actually wins the general election.

 

[Jhhnn]

What does this really mean? Sanders opposes Wall Street. Okay. What exactly about Wall Street does he oppose? And don't say "abuses against the commoners."

Everything I've heard is he's angry because it's popular to be angry.

If Wall Street & the stock market were shut down tomorrow, the world economy would fall into chaos. Not good for commoners. So, you need to be specific. You can't just lob generic statements around to make someone like Sanders seem like the only person who cares about the country.

What specifically does Sanders oppose? What specifically is Sanders going to do about it? Do you have any actual knowledge to know that what Sanders plans to do about it is actually going to be productive? Or is it more about just angering up voting blocks and winning elections?

First off, I think there's good reason to be angry wrt Wall St. As we've seen, they've disconnected the welfare of the financial elite & the welfare of working people in an entirely predatory way. It's also clear that they were actively enabled by Repub ideology & practice during the Bush years & before. Otherwise, we wouldn't be where we are today.

The American people also have good reason to be upset with ourselves, in general, for having forgotten the lessons of the Great Depression & the forging of the New Deal, the deal where the financial elite prospered only insofar as the rest of us prospered. Instead we've allowed capital to flow offshore & into job killing automation at home w/o demanding fair recompense for our loss. The internet & consolidation of distribution into the hands of fewer, bigger & "more efficient" entities like Amazon, Google & Newegg exacerbates the trend as do better methods & materials in any sort of manufacturing, particularly automobiles.

As you say, the demise of Wall St isn't good for anybody. OTOH, their actions must necessarily be limited if the rest of us are to be shielded from the wide economic swings their natural actions induce. Bernie clearly believes in the segmentation of the financial industry that the New Deal provided and also in the smaller entities it demanded as a way of diffusing risk.

 

[glenn1]

First off, I think there's good reason to be angry wrt Wall St. As we've seen, they've disconnected the welfare of the financial elite & the welfare of working people in an entirely predatory way. It's also clear that they were actively enabled by Repub ideology & practice during the Bush years & before. Otherwise, we wouldn't be where we are today.

The American people also have good reason to be upset with ourselves, in general, for having forgotten the lessons of the Great Depression & the forging of the New Deal, the deal where the financial elite prospered only insofar as the rest of us prospered. Instead we've allowed capital to flow offshore & into job killing automation at home w/o demanding fair recompense for our loss. The internet & consolidation of distribution into the hands of fewer, bigger & "more efficient" entities like Amazon, Google & Newegg exacerbates the trend as do better methods & materials in any sort of manufacturing, particularly automobiles.

As you say, the demise of Wall St isn't good for anybody. OTOH, their actions must necessarily be limited if the rest of us are to be shielded from the wide economic swings their natural actions induce. Bernie clearly believes in the segmentation of the financial industry that the New Deal provided and also in the smaller entities it demanded as a way of diffusing risk.

I'd be fine with unbundling financials although I don't think it's the silver bullet you think it is. Although one does wonder why you're OK with allowing some industries to scale and vertically integrate and not others, say automakers. Why should Chrysler, GM, and Ford be privileged to scale in a way you'd deny banks, especially when they've already had bailouts themselves?

As far as your compaint about "financial elite prospered only insofar as the rest of us prospered" is completely without quantification or qualification of any kind. Yeah, the rich are getting richer but so is everyone.

And it also completely ignores that the standard of living for "the rest of us" has exploded over time. If you rather have the more "equal" distribution of wealth from after the Great Depression instead of the lifestyle we have today then wish away, but probably only you and Bernie Sanders would be Neo taking take that red pill . Sure, let's go back to the days where people lived in 600 square foot houses with no indoor plumbing and life expectancy in the 50s, but dammit the GINI was lower and that's what's important.

 

[ivwshane]

Have you actually read his action items? The only item of actual substance is his support of Glass-Steagall. When a list of action items against Wall Street include several new taxes to pay for free handouts elsewhere, and this wonderful gem:

"Has proposed limiting the ability of bankers to get rich from taxpayer bailouts of their institutions"

Sanders is a populist. I ask my question again, show me an actual plan with specific items. If you knew anything about the internal workings of the financial industry, you'd know Sanders is a populist who will accomplish very little.

Hell, if you knew anything about Glass-Steagall you'd know what was repealed was already an outdated and ineffective regulation needing to be rewritten for modern times.

Excellent post!

I like bernie and he definitely appeals to my emotional side so I can see how he appeals to the general population. The problem is, like ron Paul before him, his ideas and goals are unrealistic. Now if he can usher in a wave of new politicians who put country before party then we might have a game changer, until then, it's nothing but feel good fluff.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

"Why doesn't Obama just release his birth certificate and end everything?"

How'd that work out?

 

[IGBT]

The clinton "speech racket" is nothing more then "Access For Sale". They make 150 million a year with their "Access For Sale" speech racket. Get a hold of the transcripts and you will discover what they have to say out of the other side of their mouth to assure more "Access For Sale" business.

 

[nickqt]

The clinton "speech racket" is nothing more then "Access For Sale". They make 150 million a year with their "Access For Sale" speech racket. Get a hold of the transcripts and you will discover what they have to say out of the other side of their mouth to assure more "Access For Sale" business.

$150M a year? Nope.

Of course, coming from someone who thinks gas prices at $1.84 after an economic meltdown is good, because it was under Bush Jr. And then attempts to attack Obama for gas prices being so high...when they're under $1.84.

Just let a cat or toddler walk across your keyboard instead of attempting to translate what rocks back and forth in your head into words. It'll likely be much more realistic.

 

[werepossum]

Have you actually read his action items? The only item of actual substance is his support of Glass-Steagall. When a list of action items against Wall Street include several new taxes to pay for free handouts elsewhere, and this wonderful gem:

"Has proposed limiting the ability of bankers to get rich from taxpayer bailouts of their institutions"

Sanders is a populist. I ask my question again, show me an actual plan with specific items. If you knew anything about the internal workings of the financial industry, you'd know Sanders is a populist who will accomplish very little.

Hell, if you knew anything about Glass-Steagall you'd know what was repealed was already an outdated and ineffective regulation needing to be rewritten for modern times.

I actually like populists, I just prefer them to not be socialists. Two specific things here though. First, it's always worth pointing out that Glass-Steagall was written so that never again could a crash in one banking sector (savings & loan or investment) take down the other, and barely a decade after its sad tattered remains were thrown out, exactly that happened. Coincidence? Had the junk mortgage debacle taken place solely in savings & loans banks, it would have been a much more manageable crisis.

Second, one could interpret "limiting the ability of bankers to get rich from taxpayer bailouts" fairly specifically, in a couple of ways. First, require any bailouts to be in structured, prepackaged bailouts, so that "too big to fail" doesn't also mean "too big to not get the bonus I was promised even though my company is going tits up." Second, require any company getting a taxpayer bailout because it's "too big to fail" to be immediately broken up into pieces which are not "too big to fail", so that the company bailed out with taxpayer money doesn't gobble up its smaller brethren and become "way too big to fail".

Or they might both think Bernie is a better candidate to face in the general election for their prospects, AND they think he's a better potential POTUS because he's not a corrupt opportunist who would say or do anything to get the office. Even among Democrats, Iowa voters who picked trustworthiness went 83% Sanders, and “cares about voters like me” went 3 to 1 for Bernie. If you're a Republican and think both your opponent's ideas are terrible, wouldn't you at least pick the one you thought was trustworthy and wrong rather than untrustworthy and wrong?

Exactly. I know that are more Republican candidates who would drive me to vote for Bernie than would drive me to vote for Hillary, simply for that reason.

I'd be fine with unbundling financials although I don't think it's the silver bullet you think it is. Although one does wonder why you're OK with allowing some industries to scale and vertically integrate and not others, say automakers. Why should Chrysler, GM, and Ford be privileged to scale in a way you'd deny banks, especially when they've already had bailouts themselves?

As far as your compaint about "financial elite prospered only insofar as the rest of us prospered" is completely without quantification or qualification of any kind. Yeah, the rich are getting richer but so is everyone.

And it also completely ignores that the standard of living for "the rest of us" has exploded over time. If you rather have the more "equal" distribution of wealth from after the Great Depression instead of the lifestyle we have today then wish away, but probably only you and Bernie Sanders would be Neo taking take that red pill . Sure, let's go back to the days where people lived in 600 square foot houses with no indoor plumbing and life expectancy in the 50s, but dammit the GINI was lower and that's what's important.

Two points. First, although this graph accurately describes who Bernie and Hillary would tax, it doesn't really describe the people Bernie is referencing. They are the people who make most of their earnings in dividends and stock options.

Secondly, personally I see a lot more value in a very large automobile manufacturer than in a very large investment bank. Automobile manufacturers create wealth, and size definitely makes it easier to compete with other automobile manufacturers for the things we want automobile manufacturers to be doing - building great cars. For most of the things we want banks to be doing - loaning us money for businesses, homes and automobiles - a very large bank has no benefit and in fact is often worse for us. The areas where very large banks can more easily compete over smaller banks tend to be for themselves and for a very few very wealthy clients. Mom and pop's nest egg isn't going to make more money if their bank can out-muscle foreign banks for investments, and the main burdens on competition by foreign-owned banks are regulatory rather than by size. Thus for automobile manufacturers we see some benefit to the average Joe in return for the increased risk we'll have to bail them out, whereas for banks, not so much.

 

[Jhhnn]

The clinton "speech racket" is nothing more then "Access For Sale". They make 150 million a year with their "Access For Sale" speech racket. Get a hold of the transcripts and you will discover what they have to say out of the other side of their mouth to assure more "Access For Sale" business.

When righties fail to make sense of anything, it's because... conspiracy.

It would be completely insane for any political figure to say anything different before a sizeable private gathering than a public one. It's not that private, not at all.

 

[werepossum]

When righties fail to make sense of anything, it's because... conspiracy.

It would be completely insane for any political figure to say anything different before a sizeable private gathering than a public one. It's not that private, not at all.

Which explains why Hillary has already released the transcripts as well as the video.

Oh, wait . . .

 

[Jhhnn]

I'd be fine with unbundling financials although I don't think it's the silver bullet you think it is. Although one does wonder why you're OK with allowing some industries to scale and vertically integrate and not others, say automakers. Why should Chrysler, GM, and Ford be privileged to scale in a way you'd deny banks, especially when they've already had bailouts themselves?

As far as your compaint about "financial elite prospered only insofar as the rest of us prospered" is completely without quantification or qualification of any kind. Yeah, the rich are getting richer but so is everyone.

And it also completely ignores that the standard of living for "the rest of us" has exploded over time. If you rather have the more "equal" distribution of wealth from after the Great Depression instead of the lifestyle we have today then wish away, but probably only you and Bernie Sanders would be Neo taking take that red pill . Sure, let's go back to the days where people lived in 600 square foot houses with no indoor plumbing and life expectancy in the 50s, but dammit the GINI was lower and that's what's important.

There are no exploitable conflicts of interest for car makers. That can't be said for financial institutions. Carried to extremes, it becomes the systemic risk & loss we experienced in the demise of the Ownership Society.

The rest is merely false attribution on your part. Maintaining our standard of living is based on maintaining mass employment & on credit. Most families are two paychecks away from disaster. That's fundamentally incompatible with the wide swings in the economy that swashbuckling financiers create & exploit. They ride the waves that swamp ordinary people.

 

[DrPizza]

I agree. I suppose I read the bold parts out of context, which might be sufficient reason not to publish them.

Wtf kind of intellectual dishonesty is this? "I read the bold parts out of context" - the entire freaking sentence is there. How could you read them out of context?

This is what she says in such speeches

You posted that, yet you didn't read what you quoted? You've provided an example of what an intentionally misinformed voter looks like.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Wtf kind of intellectual dishonesty is this? "I read the bold parts out of context" - the entire freaking sentence is there. How could you read them out of context?


You posted that, yet you didn't read what you quoted? You've provided an example of what an intentionally misinformed voter looks like.

Wow the personal attacks.... Are you still mad, because I didn't like that dead guy after I googled him?

I realize being open minded, and admitting error is unusual here, but that's how reasonable people think. I ignorantly assumed that 'journalist' had some journalistic integrity and sense of ethics. I am not sure how you conflate that with intellectual dishonesty.

 

[cubby1223]

I actually like populists, I just prefer them to not be socialists. Two specific things here though. First, it's always worth pointing out that Glass-Steagall was written so that never again could a crash in one banking sector (savings & loan or investment) take down the other, and barely a decade after its sad tattered remains were thrown out, exactly that happened. Coincidence? Had the junk mortgage debacle taken place solely in savings & loans banks, it would have been a much more manageable crisis.

Glass-Steagall prevented commercial banks from engaging in investment banking, and vice-versa. Already prior to the repeal of the law, banks were engaged in both activities simultaneously.

The problem was not that Glass-Steagall was repealed. The problem was nothing new was put in its place modernized to current times.

Second, one could interpret "limiting the ability of bankers to get rich from taxpayer bailouts" fairly specifically, in a couple of ways. First, require any bailouts to be in structured, prepackaged bailouts, so that "too big to fail" doesn't also mean "too big to not get the bonus I was promised even though my company is going tits up." Second, require any company getting a taxpayer bailout because it's "too big to fail" to be immediately broken up into pieces which are not "too big to fail", so that the company bailed out with taxpayer money doesn't gobble up its smaller brethren and become "way too big to fail".

That whole second part is pure populist bullshit.

Yes, it is true that the large financial institutions are too large. But where the populists fail is assuming that since the banks are too large, the executives hold too much power. The problem is the exact opposite. The larger the bank, the less control executives have over them. Populists want to direct their anger at executives. What happens when populists direct their anger at individuals rather indiscriminately is (1) honest, hardworking individuals desire to leave these positions, & (2) it requires even greater salaries to keep a good individual in an executive position.

Your anger, the anger of populist Bernie Bros, everyone else who wants to be angry for the sake of being angry at executives, only serves to worsen the problems.

 

[Zorkorist]

Government, thinks it is way smarter than it is, is what the problem is.

It (Government) throws money (which it doesn't have) and police forces at anyone that opposes them.

The answer is to limit Government, starting with a Balanced Budget Amendment.

-John

 

[HomerJS]

She is not going to release them. She is "Going to look into it" she assumes Americans are dumb as sheep and will take her word for it and forget about the whole thing after Superbowl.

You committed blatant bullshit in your title. However she is dodging the request.

BTW - I thought MSNBC was in the tank for the Clintons? They are the ones who asked the question first.


Hey mods we need a title change

 

[Jhhnn]

Which explains why Hillary has already released the transcripts as well as the video.

Oh, wait . . .

The request is merely yellow journalism taken up as a rightwing battle cry of, you guessed it, conspiracy & collusion.

You offer no reason beyond that for her to divulge anything to "clear her name" of the scurrilous innuendo raised in the first place.

 

[Zorkorist]

We ask Presidential Candidates to disclose their taxes. We ask them to disclose their medical exams.

After all, they are running for the highest office.

But Hillary, won't disclose her income from speeches, or the contents of her <private> speeches?

-John

 

[disappoint]

Everybody get down! get down! It's a misogynistic sniper!

 

[Hugo Drax]

So no transcripts yet.

 

[Hugo Drax]

2.8 million in speaking fees from health companies, no wonder wht she is against single payer.

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/13/hillary-clinton-single-payer/

There are reason why she wants these transcripts out of the public eye.

 

[Jhhnn]

We ask Presidential Candidates to disclose their taxes. We ask them to disclose their medical exams.

After all, they are running for the highest office.

But Hillary, won't disclose her income from speeches, or the contents of her <private> speeches?

-John

Hillary obviously disclosed her income in releasing her tax returns.

Just as obviously, if the people paying her to speak wanted it to be public, they'd have arranged for a public venue. Many have, I'm sure. It's their money & their rightful claim to privacy if they so desire.

 

[cubby1223]

2.8 million in speaking fees from health companies, no wonder wht she is against single payer.

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/13/hillary-clinton-single-payer/

There are reason why she wants these transcripts out of the public eye.

Do you know why health companies pay her? Because they don't own her. If they owned her, they wouldn't need to pay her lots of money.

Try again with your attempt to make a rational, well-formed argument. You've failed thus far in this thread. Maybe next time's the charm!

 

[Jaepheth]

Don't sweat it.
I attended a few of the speeches; mostly just boring procedural crap about remembering to defer big decisions to the lizard people.