Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[Slings and Arrows]

I was looking at the subtext of throwing dollar bills at women, as is frequently done in strip clubs...

In strip clubs, dollar bills are thrown as a reward for a good performance (a gratuity); not as a gesture of disparagement.

In Hillary’s case, the implied message was “money-grubber”.

 

[Bob001]

...
Bottom line, Sanders may be one of the rich not paying enough taxes that he's constantly complaining about.
....

If you think Sanders is "rich" by any rational standard or you put Sanders and Hillary in the same basket, you don't understand the issues at all.

Sanders is certainly well-paid as a U.S. Senator. But unlike many politicians, he hasn't gotten rich selling books, collecting fat speaking fees or making business deals for himself or his spouse. Their joint net worth, after a lifetime of work, is less than $400,000, including their home -- less than Hillary makes in an hour. And wealth is what matters, much more than current income. As Chris Rock used to say, "Michael Jordan is rich. The guy who signs his checks is wealthy."

Sanders' focus is not on the top 5% of wage earners, which probably includes most professionals, or even the top 1%. He -- and increasingly, people who pay attention to him -- is outraged that the top .1% -- the top one one-hundredth -- of Americans holds more accumulated wealth than 90% of everybody else. And it's not because the Waltons (I keep wanting to call them the Walmarts) or the Kochs are smarter or more deserving than anybody else; it's the result of specific tax and trade policies that have evolved fairly recently and could be changed by legislation. The Clintons have placed themselves in that rarefied company by using their public positions to acquire as much as $200 million of personal wealth (the numbers are never precise), and by controlling a "charity" whose income, donors and expenditures are shielded from public examination.

Comparing Sanders' money to Hillary's is just silly.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...ong-the-least-wealthy-presidential-candidates
http://heavy.com/news/2016/03/berni...come-debt-wife-welfare-president-meme-photos/
http://www.theguardian.com/business...quality-top-01-worth-as-much-as-the-bottom-90
http://robertreich.org/post/102926070780

 

[Bob001]

I was looking at the subtext of throwing dollar bills at women, as is frequently done in strip clubs. If the people throwing the dollar bills claim innocence about this, I will not believe them. I would be a traitor to my gender if I brushed this off so easily. Heck, even if this happened to Carly Fiorina, I would be outraged.

The thought of Hillary as a stripper has struck me blind.

 

[varwoche]

As for paid for future access, that is drinking the koolaid. Sanders insists they only pay for influence but that's crap. Corporations pay for speakers like Clinton because it's a status symbol. All you need do is look at the high-paid speaker-fee industry to see political influence is not the usual reason.

There is a commercial speaker circuit where the public pays to attend -- name brand speakers earn name brand dollars. And then there are private, corporate engagements, ala those that Clinton participated in. I firmly believe that when corporations ply politicians with money for private events, that in general, their intentions are less than honorable -- that they seek access/influence. I think it's a reasonable default assumption that GS sought access/influence. Of course, this doesn't mean that Clinton is corrupt and that she will comply. Still, distrusting GS motives impresses me as critical thinking 101, certainly not koolaid.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you think Sanders is "rich" by any rational standard or you put Sanders and Hillary in the same basket, you don't understand the issues at all.

Sanders is certainly well-paid as a U.S. Senator. But unlike many politicians, he hasn't gotten rich selling books, collecting fat speaking fees or making business deals for himself or his spouse. Their joint net worth, after a lifetime of work, is less than $400,000, including their home -- less than Hillary makes in an hour. And wealth is what matters, much more than current income. As Chris Rock used to say, "Michael Jordan is rich. The guy who signs his checks is wealthy."

Sanders' focus is not on the top 5% of wage earners, which probably includes most professionals, or even the top 1%. He -- and increasingly, people who pay attention to him -- is outraged that the top .1% -- the top one one-hundredth -- of Americans holds more accumulated wealth than 90% of everybody else. And it's not because the Waltons (I keep wanting to call them the Walmarts) or the Kochs are smarter or more deserving than anybody else; it's the result of specific tax and trade policies that have evolved fairly recently and could be changed by legislation. The Clintons have placed themselves in that rarefied company by using their public positions to acquire as much as $200 million of personal wealth (the numbers are never precise), and by controlling a "charity" whose income, donors and expenditures are shielded from public examination.

Comparing Sanders' money to Hillary's is just silly.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...ong-the-least-wealthy-presidential-candidates
http://heavy.com/news/2016/03/berni...come-debt-wife-welfare-president-meme-photos/
http://www.theguardian.com/business...quality-top-01-worth-as-much-as-the-bottom-90
http://robertreich.org/post/102926070780

I didn't compare Sanders' wealth to Clinton's. I said specifically the Clintons are richer because they are more talented than Sanders.

What I did compare was the fact the Clintons were not screwing the poor like Sanders accuses all the rich of doing. They pay their fair share of taxes at least in comparison to the Buffets in the 1%.

And I said Sanders never mentions he should pay more taxes or at the very least people making less than him shouldn't be paying more than he does.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

What I did compare was the fact the Clintons were not screwing the poor like Sanders accuses all the rich of doing. They pay their fair share of taxes at least in comparison to the Buffets in the 1%.

The latest numbers from the IRS—based on just-released data from 2013 tax returns—show what it takes to be among the top 1% of income earners: At least $428,713 of adjusted gross income.

http://www.financialsamurai.com/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/

Sanders doesn't make it into the top 1% of income earners. However, both Clinton and Trump do.

Trump makes his money building golf courses and charging membership dues and green fees.

Clinton, on the other hand, makes her money giving secret speeches behind closed doors to Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions eager to game the system.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is a commercial speaker circuit where the public pays to attend -- name brand speakers earn name brand dollars. And then there are private, corporate engagements, ala those that Clinton participated in. I firmly believe that when corporations ply politicians with money for private events, that in general, their intentions are less than honorable -- that they seek access/influence. I think it's a reasonable default assumption that GS sought access/influence. Of course, this doesn't mean that Clinton is corrupt and that she will comply. Still, distrusting GS motives impresses me as critical thinking 101, certainly not koolaid.

It's intuitive that is so. But when I looked into it, big corporations hire just as many celebs as they do politicians for these big speaker-fee events. And Clinton has spoken often on expanding the role of women in business as well as promoting other women success stories talking at events at Goldman Sachs.

Goldman Sachs regularly invites leading thinkers from a broad range of backgrounds to share their views and expertise.

84 results for Clinton on the GS web page. The majority of the search results are to pages like this one:

10,000 WOMEN PROGRAM AT THE 2014 CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE

The Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women program is proud to partner with the Clinton Global Initiative on our shared mission to empower women worldwide. See how 10,000 Women graduates like Gircilene, Sharmila and Varsha, participants at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York, are helping drive economic growth in their communities.

It's about promoting the GS image. Assuming it's a payoff for a quid pro quo buys into the marketed message. Looking at the actual evidence paints a different picture.

I don't know why Clinton won't release the transcripts or why her GS Talks are not available on the website. It could be the talks don't fit the image GS wanted promoted on their website or Clinton's agreement with them. Having your speeches publicly available lessens the value of hiring you as a speaker to say the same thing.

When I look at how words are taken out of context and used in sound bites, or even instances like I mentioned where Obama talked about people clinging to guns and God or Romney calling half the country takers, implying they freeloaded off the government teat, it could be there are one or two potential 'gotcha' lines in the speeches.

Does anyone think for a minute she stood on a stage and said something like "only the little people pay taxes"? I find it highly unlikely there is much in the speeches terribly damaging but she's a politician. I think what is most likely in them are the kinds of things you say in a corporate CEO setting that you wouldn't say in O'Malley's diner.

The bottom line is Clinton's record and yes she is a more centrist Democrat than Sanders, but i think that will make her more effective. I don't think that negates her years of working for progressive values.

Sanders is being asked right now on CNN, again, name one thing Clinton did that is evidence she's taking money for votes.

Sanders: "She voted for a bad bankruptcy bill."

WTF, that is supposed to be evidence of GS and WSt influencing her vote?

He can't name a single thing. He reverts back to noting the overall general influence of money (which you and I both agree is an issue). He talks about his plan to break up big banks like Clinton is for keeping them large. She has articulated a different plan but it's not a position opposite of Sanders'.

Would it be nice if Sanders movement was big enough to be effective? Yes. But do I think his single issue campaign against the corruption of money in politics is enough to run the country on? No. There are some serious international problems facing this country and I worry Sanders won't be able to handle them well.

 

[Bob001]

The latest numbers from the IRS—based on just-released data from 2013 tax returns—show what it takes to be among the top 1% of income earners: At least $428,713 of adjusted gross income.
....

I just note that that number appears to be the per capita figure, not per return. Considering that the Sanders' filed a joint return, their per person income is about $105,000.

 

[Maya22]

In strip clubs, dollar bills are thrown as a reward for a good performance (a gratuity); not as a gesture of disparagement.

In Hillary’s case, the implied message was “money-grubber”.

While I do my best to see all people as equals, comparing someone to a stripper can be considered offensive.

Unfortunately, due to our current mode of campaign financing, ALL people running for office are money grubbers, even Trump, who is mostly, but not completely, self-funded.

 

[wareyin]

In strip clubs, dollar bills are thrown as a reward for a good performance (a gratuity); not as a gesture of disparagement.

In Hillary’s case, the implied message was “money-grubber”.

Are you certain the implied message wasn't "stripper"? Because people are certainly working hard to give that impression.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I just note that that number appears to be the per capita figure, not per return. Considering that the Sanders' filed a joint return, their per person income is about $105,000.

No one claimed Sanders was in the 1%. The article I linked to said as a family (ie joint return) the Sanders were close to the 5% rank.

Two individuals sharing an income of $100K each is a pretty well off household.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The link above puts Sanders close to the top 10% instead of the top5% and I'm not sure who had it wrong, that link or the one I posted. That link looks specifically at 'individual returns' so I don't know if they neglected to include joint returns which may have shifted the percentages even if one then splits the numbers into per capita.

I'll have to look further.

Notice in that chart though, the Clintons' effective tax rate was well over the average tax rate paid by the 1% while Sanders' was on the low end of his income bracket.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Finally got to hear a little more of Clooney's post fundraiser comments. They weren't so much raising money for Clinton as they were raising money for the down ballot Democrats and he said, rightly so, while the amount of money in politics is obscene, if we don't change Congress, it's not going to change.

 

[Allen773]

Hillary Clinton is so done, she's currently leading by nearly 700 delegates.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A review of the "bad bankruptcy bill" Sanders is now touting as an example of Clinton changing her position because of money influence:

The Vote for Bankruptcy Reform that Haunts Hillary Clinton
I'd say it haunts about the same as Sanders' vote against gun manufacturer/dealer liability vote.

Essentially Clinton was against the bill when Bill was POTUS:

Ms. Warren’s critique had its beginnings in 1998, when Congress was contemplating an overhaul to the bankruptcy system. Ms. Warren, a Harvard law professor, wrote an Op-Ed piece for The New York Times warning that under such an overhaul, a woman owed child support could lose some of her ability to collect it if the child’s father declared bankruptcy.

Clinton voted for a revised bill when she was a senator:

The legislation was avidly sought by the banking and credit card industries; its supporters said it would rein in abuse of the bankruptcy system that had driven up the cost of borrowing.

At the time, Mrs. Clinton said improvements had been made to the legislation, explaining that women could be assured that they would be able to collect child support. ...

Mrs. Clinton represented Wall Street as a senator, but as she made the case for the legislation, she talked about small credit unions around New York whose members suffered, she said, when the credit union had to cover bankruptcy losses.

So, Mom and Pop gun dealers vs small NY credit unions?

Double standard or campaign funding quid pro quo? Or the problem with a lot of legislation, there are gray areas and competing tradeoffs.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Finally got to hear a little more of Clooney's post fundraiser comments. They weren't so much raising money for Clinton as they were raising money for the down ballot Democrats and he said, rightly so, while the amount of money in politics is obscene, if we don't change Congress, it's not going to change.

The whole Clooney interview is on MTP. He not only said the majority of the money was going to down ticket races, but he cited the SCOTUS appointments as the most critical issue riding on this election.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's intuitive that is so. But when I looked into it, big corporations hire just as many celebs as they do politicians for these big speaker-fee events. And Clinton has spoken often on expanding the role of women in business as well as promoting other women success stories talking at events at Goldman Sachs..

Wow, Hillary and Goldman Sachs seem like one HELL of a team!

As such, I am sure we are all eager to see what Clinton spoke about at all her events at Goldman Sachs.

 

[sunmaster14]

I didn't compare Sanders' wealth to Clinton's. I said specifically the Clintons are richer because they are more talented than Sanders.

While I welcome your belated conversion to capitalism, it's certainly not true in all cases that people make more money because they're more talented or work harder. And it's probably not true in this case. As varwoche perceptively noted, paid speeches which actually make the promoters money, e.g. by selling tickets to the public, is a far better gauge of the value added by the speaker than a paid private speech to a big company. Goldman Sachs certainly did not make money from Clinton's speech directly. Maybe they think the wisdom she imparted was worth several hundred thousand dollars to their firm. Probably not though, unless it was "insider" information of the kind that is legal now (before she becomes President) but would be illegal after she becomes President.

Regardless, if you really want to compare Hillary's talent to Sanders', I'll point out that Sanders has proven himself capable of drawing 10,000+ crowds on a consistent basis, and getting tens of millions of dollars of small donations from people for whom there could not possibly be any quid pro quo. He hasn't translated this new-found stardom into personal wealth, but no doubt it is a product of talent that Hillary can't seem to match.

 

[Beeyon]

I know this is old, but I just grasped Marcotte's pretense here:

The strange silence about Hillarymania: Clinton fires up voters more than Bernie does, so why is no one talking about it?

More Clinton supporters are enthusiastic than those backing Sanders, but the media won't tell you that...

Gallup released a poll showing that actually, her supporters love her more than any other candidate besides Donald Trump, a man who literally expects everyone around him to act like he’s God’s gift.

And yes, Bernie Sanders supporters were polled, and fell about 10 points behind Clinton supporters in the enthusiasm department. Over half of Clinton supporters — 54% — rated themselves as “extremely enthusiastic” or “very enthusiastic.” Only 44% of Sanders supporters could say the same....

On top of that, most journalists who echo the Sanders enthusiasm narrative spend a lot of time on social media, and if you do that, then it’s safe to say that it looks like Sanders is inspiring a lot of enthusiasm. ...

(my emphasis)

The Gallop poll was measuring "enthusiasm for voting (for candidate)", rather than the "enthusiasm (for candidate)" referenced in the Marcotte article. The poll specifically notes:

In both parties, people's enthusiasm for voting in the election could reflect a combination of factors -- including excitement about their preferred candidate's presence in the race as well as confidence that the candidate will succeed in winning either the nomination or the general election. The latter could be particularly relevant on the Democratic side, where Clinton is widely seen as the likely nominee and is poised to be the first female major-party nominee.

Poll Link

 

[The Big Dog]

While I welcome your belated conversion to capitalism, it's certainly not true in all cases that people make more money because they're more talented or work harder. And it's probably not true in this case. As varwoche perceptively noted, paid speeches which actually make the promoters money, e.g. by selling tickets to the public, is a far better gauge of the value added by the speaker than a paid private speech to a big company. Goldman Sachs certainly did not make money from Clinton's speech directly. Maybe they think the wisdom she imparted was worth several hundred thousand dollars to their firm. Probably not though, unless it was "insider" information of the kind that is legal now (before she becomes President) but would be illegal after she becomes President.

Regardless, if you really want to compare Hillary's talent to Sanders', I'll point out that Sanders has proven himself capable of drawing 10,000+ crowds on a consistent basis, and getting tens of millions of dollars of small donations from people for whom there could not possibly be any quid pro quo. He hasn't translated this new-found stardom into personal wealth, but no doubt it is a product of talent that Hillary can't seem to match.

Hillary's talent for ruthless self promotion is not one most people would be interested in their politicians...