General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 147

just an update. the link says the bill has failed.

 

lol

Yes, it's lack of opposition to the financial industry that has impeded proper legislation: not the utter lack of representatives who have any interest in doing anything about it-- now possibly lacking by one more. But, hey, now she can project her anti-banking message during those highly televised Vice Presidential debates and can do so while standing next to the most finance-corrupted Democrat in the country. Sounds like a super efficient use for Warren.

Also, if you think Warren will have any semblance of the financial reform hellcat of before while at Clinton's side, and during a Clinton fundraising effort, you're delusional.

 

Do you have more evidence of this claim or are you just assuming "Clinton gets a lot of wall street funding thus she must be corrupted by it"?

Cause its one thing to disagree with her foreign policy views, or weak stance on environmental issues, or any of her other policy positions you dislike but I've only heard of a few scenarios where people were actually able to piece together "Clinton had stance X on an issue, then got a lot of money from some special interest group and suddenly later had the opposite stance". Hardly proof of her being the "most finance-corrupted Democrat in the country". Not saying it isn't true, just saying show your sources.

 

Well, one can look at her record. Or, just use common sense to understand how politics actually works in this country, particularly for those who are a part of the establishment.

 

Public already overwhelming supports regulating Wall Street.

Voters support strong regulation of the financial industry. Over nine in ten voters (91%) agree that it is important to regulate financial services and products to make sure they are fair for consumers,i and four-fifths (79%) say Wall Street financial companies should be held accountable with tougher rules and enforcement for the practices that caused the financial crisis.ii By nearly a 3:1 margin, voters want to see more, not less, oversight and regulation of financial companies.iii Fewer than a quarter (23%) believe tough regulations on Wall Street will hurt the U.S. economy.

...

Voters are concerned about predatory actions by payday lenders and they support strong regulations on mortgage and small-dollar lenders. By more than a 3:1 margin, voters agree that payday lenders have predatory tendencies, over a counterargument that they are an important resource.x Over two-thirds of voters—including nearly threequarters of Republicans—favor keeping the requirement that mortgage lenders must fully verify borrowers’ ability to repay before issuing a mortgage.xi Voters also overwhelmingly support a proposal to require small-dollar lenders to verify a customer’s ability to repay (88% support, 68% strongly), or to make sure a loan is affordable in light of a customer’s income and expenses (86% support, 69% strongly).

Voters are highly concerned about the influence of Wall Street on elected officials: they will punish candidates who receive large amounts of campaign money from big banks, and reward candidates who favor tough rules on Wall Street. 84% of likely 2016 voters say they are concerned about the influence of Wall Street financial companies on elected officials, including nearly two-thirds (64%) who are very concerned.xiii Majorities across party lines say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate or member of Congress who received large sums of campaign money from big banks and financial companies,xiv and a majority of Democrats (72%), Independents (54%), and Republicans (52%) say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who favored protecting consumers by keeping tough rules on Wall Street to prevent irresponsible practices and abuses.

WaPo


edit:

According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, 67 percent of Americans would support a president who favors stricter regulations of financial institutions on Wall Street (compared to 24 percent who want someone who opposes stricter regulations). And that stance is near-universal; there's no large variation by gender, race, age and education level.

 

I support Wall Street, but the sequel sucked.

 

Good article on Gawker about the Clintons' ties to the for-profit education industry:

Last spring, just as Hillary Clinton began her presidential campaign, Bill Clinton resigned from his post as honorary chancellor of Laureate International Universities, the world’s largest chain of for-profit colleges and universities . He’d held the position for five years, visited 19 of the system’s global campuses, and been paid a $16.5 million for his services.

...

While, according to the Times, Laureate is “not considered among the worst offenders in the for-profit college industry,” it has nevertheless been subject to domestic and international complaints. Critics allege that, in expanding its operations overseas, Laureate has unfairly profited by skirting regulations imposed by the Obama administration aimed at targeting recruiting abuses. According to a 2012 report, issued by the U.S. Senate Committee on Heath, Education, Labor, and Pensions, for-profit colleges “devote tremendous amounts of resources to non-education related spending.” As a whole, the committee found, the sector spent far more on publicity and profit-sharing than actual education and instruction.

...

Through March of this year, Laureate International Universities has given the Clinton Foundation between $1 million and $5 million, according to the foundation’s donor disclosures. The Clinton Global Initiative, in turn, has partnered with Laureate “on a number of initiatives since 2008.” Despite the network’s failings, in an August 2009 email, Secretary Clinton asked that Laureate, “the fastest growing college network in the world...started by Doug Becker who Bill likes a lot,” be included in a higher-education policy dinner. “It’s a for-profit model that should be represented,” she wrote. A senior vice president from Laureate was added to the guest list, along with faculty from UC-Davis, Yale, Bryn Mawr, NYU, and Cornell. Internal State Department emails show that about a year later, Bill Clinton began negotiating a consulting contract with Laureate. In fiscal year 2012—two years into Bill Clinton’s tenure as honorary chancellor at Laureate—budgetary records show that the International Youth Foundation, a well-regarded charity, received $1.2 million in grants from the Hillary Clinton’s Department of State. Doug Becker, “who Bill likes a lot,” was (and is) IYF’s chairman of the board.

 

Its hard to prove a negative. Do you have actual examples from her senate record or policy speeches where she has changed her views on an issue because of corporate cash?

 

We've certainly seen an effect in terms of arms deals.

IBT found that between October 2010 and September 2012, State approved $165 billion in commercial arms sales to 20 nations that had donated to the foundation, plus another $151 billion worth of Pentagon-brokered arms deals to 16 of those countries—a 143 percent increase over the same time frame under the Bush Administration. The sales boosted the military power of authoritarian regimes such as Qatar,Algeria, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, andOman, which, like Saudi Arabia, had been criticized by the department for human rights abuses.

17 out of 20 countries that have donated to the Clinton Foundation saw increases in arms exports authorized by Hillary Clinton's State Department.

The Colombian FTA is another example, where she strongly opposed it publicly, all whilst Bill "earned hundreds of thousands of dollars speaking on behalf of a Colombia-based group pushing the trade pact," then HRC lobbied for it while she was in office.

 

Elizabeth Warren Recalls a Time When Big Donors May Have Changed Hillary's Vote - BillMoyers.com

 

Just got this in my email from Elizabeth Warren:

 

Anyone see this?

Pulse shooter Omar Mateen ‘did it for revenge’: alleged ex-lover

 

Thanks I hadn't see these. Though I'd also like to see the full list of arms deals increases even with countries that didn't donate to the Clinton foundation. If arms deals went up ~150% across the board under Clinton its really just more evidence of her hawkish behavior rather than corruption.

Right, this is what I was referring to when I had heard of a couple of cases. But I feel like with most politicians you could find similar scenarios. One such scenario for me doesn't strike me as "the most finance-corrupted Democrat in the country". Its more just the kind of stuff I expect from our politicians. I certainly don't think it betrays Warren's stance on campaign finance reform to join Clinton on the ticket.

 

Why do you think Hillary is the chosen candidate for finance capital?

 

While I still am hedging actually giving Hillary my vote, and I don't necessarily love Warren's endorsement of her, I don't know how much we can comment on her authenticity given this endorsement yet. I don't like Hillary for a few reasons - mostly her hawkishness - but I don't think Warren's associating with her is fair game to speak over Warren's career. Maybe as VP she'll pull Hillary left, although it's not enough of a chance for me to vote such a ticket on those grounds alone. We'll see.

 

I still have undecided if I will vote for Hillary in November, probably won't but we'll see, but picking Warren as VP is one of the things that she has to do to gain my support. Personally, out of the people she was discussing on being VP, Warren is obviously the one I want to see most. As Spencer Control just said above me, maybe her being VP would get Hillary to the left a little more. Perhaps she can convince Hillary to want a modern version of glass steagall, strong campaign finance reform, among other things. We'll see.

 

The point he makes about not trusting the people in power is a valid one. I fear the cuts will be much more severe should we vote to leave.

 

Barf.

 

Warren accepting the VP spot in Clinton's campaign undermines everything she seemed to be about. It fucking sucks.

So now instead of being a leading campaigner for progressive values in Congress, she'll be another spokesperson for Hillary. Fan-fucking-tastic.

 

You guys really remind me of right wingers that think she's a socialist. Jesus.

She is seriously not as far to the right as everyone here thinks she is. And not a chance in hell Warren joins the Clinton ticket without certain assurances. And Hillary backstabbing her on those assurances would guarentee an already likely 1 term presidency.

I still don't think the pick will be Warren, though. Could be, but I don't think that's the smart move politically for Clinton.

 

I don't think the criticisms were of her being far-right. Just, like, what she does and has done. Like, supporting murderous regimes that kill labor activists, for example. And sculpting policy to appease Wall Street. lol.

 

People acting like Warren is abandoning everything she fights for by supporting Clinton is insinuating Clinton is a right winger.

Clinton and Warren will agree on far more than they will disagree on. Because one is decently far left and one is moderately left. One can support the other without abandoning what it is they traditionally support. If Clinton supported Warren in her Senate race, I wouldn't suddenly think "oh man, Clinton is totally ditching everything she's fought for in her career". Because it wouldn't be true.

 

Some believe Warren is a left-liberal that speaks truth to power and wants to rein in corporate power. Those same people think Hillary is a middling, centrist democrat that is beholden to corporate interests. There is a disingenuousness to the former throwing support behind the latter, and it is rooted in a party apparatus that has many people weary of mediocre candidates that have sold them out on multiple occasions.

 

For the most part I agree with you. But I think there is something to be said about Warren saying "For 25 years, (Clinton)'s been on the receiving end of attack after attack." without acknowledging that she has been the one attacking Clinton in the past. I feel like she would've been better off acknowledging Clinton's flaws while still presenting the argument that she is the better choice than simply completely falling in line.