Hillary: Wrong for America


Watching the debate last night, Bernie seemed a bit uncomfortable, Hilary seemed confident. So what?
Bernie was right on with free education, while Hilary offered standard republican band aide programs. Yet another loan shark program with a non solution. This is one of the reasons I am a Socialist and spent time in the Socialist Party USA and American Labor Party (Still am)
The Democratic recovery that has brought such tremendous gains to Wall Street and has made income inequality more profound was inaugurated under a president who beat Hillary Clinton in 2008 by being more progressive and more critical of Wall Street than she was.
It would be more natural if Clinton was president for eight years, had accomplished some form of health-care reform, and was delivering an economic recovery to an incoming Obama administration, which had the mission to make America’s gains more equitable. That’s not the case.
Clinton has remarkable trouble shifting into a more progressive gear. When Clinton visited Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s territory last October, she tried to imitate the progressive icon, saying, “Don’t let anybody tell you that corporations and businesses create jobs.” But within a few days she was clarifying and retracting those remarks.
So far Hillary is a Republicrat conformist. And we need to look at her investors.
But Clinton is not a good fit for the 2016 race. She’s a candidate associated with the past, leading the party that is demographically more like America’s future. She’s a candidate of the wine-and-brie set of her party, in a post-Occupy America that is crying out for a more equitable social contract. She’s the candidate that you settle on after Obama, in an era when Democrats are quietly upset that Obama himself seems to have settled for something less than his best self.
Individual Contributions
– Small Individual Contributions
– Large Individual Contributions $46,938,582
$8,098,571 (17%)
$38,840,011 (82%) (99%)

PAC Contributions $332,396 (1%)

Candidate self-financing $278,821 (1%)

Federal Funds $0 (0%)

Other $150 (0%)

Sullivan & Cromwell $148,100
Akin, Gump et al
Yale University $95,434
Latham & Watkins $94,580
Morgan Stanley
Creative Artists Agency $88,501
Time Warner
University of California
JPMorgan Chase & Co
Munger, Tolles & Olson $72,850
DLA Piper
Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett $69,550
Centene Corp $67,150
Skadden, Arps et al
Harvard University
Paul, Weiss et al $60,500
Wilmerhale Llp $59,250
Google Inc $58,021
Blackstone Group
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2016 cycle. The money came from the organizations’ PACs; their individual members, employees or owners; and those individuals’ immediate families. At the federal level, the organizations themselves did not donate, as they are prohibited by law from doing so. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Why (and How) We Use Donors’ Employer/Occupation Information
NOTE: Federal-level numbers are for the 2016 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Tuesday, July 21, 2015.
Hillary is also backed by Monsanto. More specifically, the lobbying firm heavily relied upon by agribusiness giant Monsanto. Monsanto leads the industry in genetic livestock breeding and Superfund violations, and it will likely see a ban this week on one of its seed types in France because of health concerns. Monsanto was promised more than $680,000 in tax breaks Monday night, courtesy of the town of Ankeny, Iowa, just for promising to bring new jobs to the area. We’re guessing this isn’t the photo op Rodham Clinton wants for leaflets in Iowa, exchanging ideas over coffee and sandwiches with suits rather than John Deere hats. Maybe that’s why Rodham Clinton herself won’t be at the event, a wise choice considering how it might look.

Edberto Willies States:

Bernie Sanders gave a speech in which he articulated the need for a grassroots movement to effect a government that really works for us all. If we are to have a middle-class and citizenry that have the protections of a safety net as articulated below, the movement Bernie Sanders talks about is indeed what we must effect now.

Last year Denmark was ranked the happiest country in world. This year Denmark is ranked the second happiest country in the world topped only by Norway. They are both successful high tax, very good social safety net (universal healthcare, unemployment compensation, retraining, free or affordable higher education, etc.) countries. They are both democratic.

Denmark and other Scandinavian countries weathered the 2008 Great Depression better than most of Europe and the United States. They did this even with what Americans would consider a bloated public sector.

Many will argue that these countries are small in comparison to the US and as such it is not a good comparison. Many will argue that the wealth from North Sea Oil reserves is partly the reason. Many will argue that because these countries are strong welfare states that they are less competitive.

The reality is Americans have been lied to or allowed to wallow in their own ignorance. They have been taught to believe fallacies that counter one’s intuition. Once this indoctrination is complete, change towards progress is non-existent or painfully slow.

If one is to believe in the economy of scale, America’s size makes efficiency even more possible than in these small countries. America is extremely rich with natural resources, not only oil. The problem is that it is distributed unfairly among the few that ‘stole’ it or bought it on the cheap (e.g.,25 families own 1% of all land and the resources of that land in America).

Denmark and other Scandinavian countries’ with strong social safety nets have not made them less competitive. In fact they are way at the top of the list with the United States. Most other countries at the top have strong social safety nets as well. As a society they care more for the social, economic, and health well-being of their fellow citizens than America.

One of the reasons Denmark and other Scandinavian countries with strong social safety nets weathered the Great Recession better is that they had a built in stimulus. In America when one loses a job, they get unemployment for a short time (this recession was an exception). That unemployment is much less than wages and runs out quickly. That means the contribution to the economy by that laid off worker makes a recession much worse as much less money is entered into the economy. In countries with strong safety nets, workers get up to 90% of their wages. As such the economic shock from unemployment is mitigated till the economy’s ‘overstock’ is mitigated until increased employment is required.

In America we are encouraged to disregard logic and obvious reality for the sake of ideology. The ideology is present to maintain not only a status quo, but a country where only a select few will ever have the opportunity to be wealthy. It is a ‘me first’ and selfish ideology. It is an ideology where wealth is built on the backs of the middle class and the poor, Class Warfare.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s