MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Hits of the Day
And, Here's Hillary: The Clintons’ Paid-Speech Bonanza
By A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 01/06/2016 - 1:29pm |With primary voting set to start soon, one of Hillary Clinton’s remaining hurdles is convincing Democratic voters that she is not beholden to Wall Street and other wealthy interests that have fattened her family’s bank account with tens of millions of dollars for paid speeches
URL:
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/05/the-clintons-paid-speech-bonanza/
- Add new comment
- 7517 reads
Comments
And here is Ralph.
http://theempirefiles.tv/
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 01/06/2016 - 1:31pm
She doesn't have to convince every Democratic voter that she's not beholden to Wall Street - only the anal ones. So Jeb gives shitty speeches and is paid a lot less - color me surprised. Hillary gave 51 speeches and only 3 were to "Wall Street". I'm impressed by the diversity of her audience, and yes, someone with her health background will give speeches to health orgs - not just big pharma. Am I worried about some big quid-pro-quo from Cisco? No, not really.
The Clinton's are now wealthy, just like AL Gore is fat and now wealthy. Just another obsession. And yeah, giving money to their charity, oh the horrors.
Maybe I'll go vote for Hillary 2 or 3 times just to piss people off. I never heard the left clutching its collective pearls so much over John Kerry marrying into the Heinz fortune or Teď Kennedy's bootlegger derived fortune from Dad or John Edwards' career as a trial lawyer & pimping poverty - but that cunt Hillary is giving speeches that people pay for and raising money for charity - something foul is going on. Cue The Witches of Eastwick.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/06/2016 - 4:43pm
Hillary gave 51 speeches and only 3 were to "Wall Street".
You just don't get it do you. It's the law of threes. I tell you once. I tell you twice. What I tell you three times is true. Pretty clear evidence that Hillary is bought and paid for by Wall Street.
Of course it doesn't actually always take three. When Hillary gave the second speech to Wall Street we knew she was a Wall Street stooge. Because you know, Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice....ah...ah...Can't get fooled again.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 01/06/2016 - 5:18pm
If I had never read or heard any news anywhere for the last few years except at Dag I would still have heard many complaints about the effects of big money in politics. What percentage of American citizens in either major party do you think actually believes that politics [except for Hillary's?] are not corrupted by big money? The Citizens United decision by itself prompted enough discussion to reveal an overwhelming belief that money has corrupted DC politics. That one was easy though since it could be blamed on the Republicans. I do not recall ever having a comment jump off the page because it took the position that politicians in general or any other politician in particular are not compromised by big money or that the big money providers did not expect any return on their support for a candidate. Maybe you did so but I doubt you ever took that position here and certainly not so vociferously until now and only in the case of Hillary raking in millions for her speeches. Would you have her wear a white veil for her inauguration.
You suggest that Hillary gets more for speeches than Jeb because she is a better speaker. Did those paying her get value for their bucks at over seven thousand dollars a minute just from the content of her speeches or is it reasonable to believe they expect more from their investment. Regardless, even if we were to stipulate that you are right that she is untainted by the millions donated to her personally, but laundered through the device of paid speechifying, there are many millions of people who believe differently. Rather than the ridiculous goal of making them believe she is above almost every other politician in that respect she is just counting on everybody who supports her because she is a Democrat and a woman and it is ‘her turn’ and she is better than Trump, to ignore how very much she is alike the politicians we cuss every day and with good reason.
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 01/06/2016 - 6:53pm
1) politicians have been taking donations forever - local office, Congress, president. How are Hillary's donations different from donations to George Bush, John Edwards, Bernie Sanders, Bill Bradley, AL Gore - they all want something, or they represent a cause people support? I would guess people think the candidate can deliver.
2) Hillary was the target of Citizens United - it's strange to see her tarred as the one who created this limitless moneybsystem.
3) Bernie holds speeches and Hillary gives speeches. Both get money off those speeches, whether up front or post-facto - which is how the world works.
4)FDR, Truman, Jfk, LBJ ,Carter, Clinton, Obama - they all had big backers, big donors, complicated and sometimes seamy politics. Why is Hillary different?
5) Bernie will only be as effective and honest as his followers. 3 of his guys took an immoral option to rifle through Hillary's fundraising/GOTV for an hour. Others will parley their closeness to power for favors or money. This happened under Truman, a nice guy backed by a Kansas City mobster, it's happened under Obama, it happened under Ikole, it happens under everyone, nice or bastard. This is a huge political-economic machine, and it will be fed. It might be fed less, or as under Bush it might be a field day, but let's be real. To get anything done, big players have to move things and those players work on money. Don't pay? It comes to a grinding halt.
6) If we were a homogenous country like Sweden or Ireland we might have a public good or shared togetherness to call on, but we're a bunch of competing tribes - not a melting pot but a lumpy mix of chili con carne fighting with goulash fighting with potato soup. It will be an unpalatable mess - the only question is how unpalatable.
7) whatever.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/07/2016 - 1:22am
1] Yeah, it’s a dangerous weakness of our system, money talks and it sometimes screams. Hillary hasn’t invented a new concept of sleazy politics but rather as an outstanding politician she has used the tried and true methods very well.
2] You know full well that this is a diversion from my point in referencing Citizens United. I never used Citizens United to tar Hillary, I used the reaction to it by Democrats in general so as to tar Hillary supporters that hypocritically absolve her from otherwise common failings they see so clearly in Republican politicians.
3] Yeah, that’s what we are saying, that is exactly what we are talking about; how the world works. Or at least how an important part of it works. At least for now. So far. Democracy is largely about expressing the common will through numbers. I know that you don’t believe there is no a significant difference in the correct evaluation expressed by a million small donations vs fifty huge donations.
4] She isn’t different. That is exactly the point. Percentages of the soul that was sold may vary somewhat from one case to another.
5] I can’t argue that and am not interested in doing so and so I won’t. So yeah, let’s be real, do you suggest that we accept the venality of the system as the best we can do or might it be worthwhile acknowledging what our choices entail so as to consider other choices.
6] I like spicy food.
7] Exactly my reaction: “What ... ever”.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 01/07/2016 - 2:52am
to tar Hillary supporters that hypocritically absolve her
We don't absolve her. We tend to think people focus on her for opprobrium while not applying the same standard to others. But I know this is an important issue for you so I'm sure you wouldn't do that. I must have missed all the post you wrote attacking Obama for taking pac money and large donations. Remind me with a couple of links. I think Hillary is as influenced by the money she got as Obama was influenced by the money he got.
So yeah, let’s be real, do you suggest that we accept the venality of the system as the best we can do or might it be worthwhile acknowledging what our choices entail so as to consider other choices.
The choice Sanders supporters seem to favor is unilateral disarmament. This has been discussed a few times and I've never seen a good answer or usually any answer at all. I think that's the worst choice available. The system is what it is whether we accept it or not, pretending won't make it go away or change it. The republicans aren't going to take the high road and refuse the money. I think democrats should have enough money to compete. But it's not just about Hillary or Sanders. For a presidential candidate with sufficient popularity money from small donors is fairly easy to get. It's the down ballot races that are often starved for cash. Hillary isn't just raising money for her campaign. She has also raised at least 18 million for the DNC. That money is used in the states for house and senate races. If the republicans control the house and senate nothing Hillary or Sanders wants to do will get passed. I haven't seen anything about Sanders raising any money for down ballot races. Sanders may be honorable but he's not pragmatic.
Both Hillary and Sanders have said they will appoint Supreme Court justices that will overturn Citizen's United.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 01/07/2016 - 4:01am
I don't know what you are talking about, what that refers to. As to raising campaign money and the necessity of doing so, that is not what the article is about. It is about the Clintons being gifted money by way of a ruse and so becomes theirs to do with as they please and I don't expect any of it to go to the DNC, for instance. It is about the appearance of that money being paid for services rendered or services to come or both. That appearance is important whether correct or not. Her election may hinge on that. The article was about reasons for that perception. Did you actually miss that? Do you believe that the money was for the value of the speech? Really?
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 01/07/2016 - 12:13pm
You know exactly what I'm talking about. You just don't have a good argument to make so both you and Hal have refused to address it. Campaign cash is a very closely related issue to the topic you raised. I've seen you raise issues that are much farther removed from the blog topic and expect discussion. So spin spin spin if that's the way you want to play it.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 01/07/2016 - 2:20pm
I like Bernie better than Hillary but I am luke warm on him at best. I don't think anything I have said about him would characterize me as a supporter in any strong way. I have posted several articles here that are quite critical of him in ways that I often agreed with. And, believe it or not I do not know what you mean when you say that Sanders supporter seem to want to unilaterally disarm. I agree that campaign cash is closely related to the topic of big money in politics. I said that I almost everybody believes that to be a problem and I agree. Who doesn't, I wonder. But, that was partly to distinguish legal money that shouldn't be legal from the particular way that has been used to give Hillary and Bill huge amounts of money legally. I have called it laundering of a gift and I stand by that.
A big donor to a particular candidate's campaign may honestly do it for principled reasons. They all say that they do. But that isn't the main topic. The topic is the appearance that Is created by Hillary putting $50,000 a pop into her own pocket . The topic is:
Hillary has CEO's and others giving her other enough of other people's money to make her very rich [they tend to do pretty well and stay on top as long as they can use other people's money in any way they choose] and yes, I am a bit cynical. I like Bernie's image way better.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 01/07/2016 - 3:13pm
"4] She isn’t different. That is exactly the point. Percentages of the soul that was sold may vary somewhat from one case to another. " - ah, but you treat her very different, as if she is one of the slimiest of the slimy.
Was she so slimy when she was raising money for McGovern and doing get-out-the-vote? Was she getting rich from Wall Street and Big Pharma in 1993 when she spent much of her political capital trying to get universal healthcare through? Has her only motivation since 1972 been money and power, or if not, when did she become so corrupt that you have to go on and on about her negatives?
I gave a small amount of money to her campaign once - surprisingly, I wasn't expecting any special favors - I was expecting her to do a good job. I can easily imagine if I were a multi-multi-millionaire I might spend $300K for a speech or for a campaign or for some other type of support *without* expecting any kickback, special benefit, other than her doing what I think would be a better job than any of the others could do. You continuously ignore this aspect of her support - you present it as every dime she gets for the Clinton Foundation or a speech or for her campaign is some criminal-minded rogue waiting for some shady benefit out in the alley.
And the "venality" of the system is part of the fuel. Someone noted that as SoS, Hillary managed to get some oil company to pony up $2 million or so for the US Expo in Beijing - yeah, that's part of getting things done. The Clinton Foundation raising $2 billion for charitable causes is a plus more than a minus - it means they have the possibility of funding their good ideas, and for someone who's wasted a lot of time on good ideas without financial backing, I can appreciate that. I don't really care about the asterisk next to Bernie's name about small donors - yeah, it's great for him to have many supporters (as does Hillary), but at the end of the day he'll need some heavy hitters to work with him.
And as OceanKat notes, I think Hillary will be more effective in reviving and paying for the 50-state approach that would improve the roots of the Democratic party, not just the feeble weak president at the top fighting the entrenched opposing party throughout his/her tenure.
And this may surprise you, but I think it's a lot more likely that rich donors will work with Hillary without expecting any quid-pro-quo than working with Bernie. He's a nobody, and for someone to put a lot of time and money into him requires either serious infatuation or a fat payoff.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/07/2016 - 4:19am
" - ah, but you treat her very different, as if she is one of the slimiest of the slimy.
One mistake both you and OK are making is to defend the more than seven-thousand-dollar-a-minute money that legally [but ethically?] goes directly into her own pocket with money legally donated to finance a political campaign. Do you really not see the difference? Those legal political contributions are problematic enough to our democratic system but what the article I presented explores is the huge amount of money funneled directly into the Clinton’s personal accounts. If corporations, foreign governments, etc, simply gave Hillary and Bill millions of dollars during a short period between her tenure as SoS and the time she began officially running for President would that be brazen enough to lead to some legitimate questions? I called the act of paying big bucks for a speech a way of laundering money that would most probably be illegal if simply given and it would certainly be unethical to accept it, at least IMHO.
As I said above, Hillary didn’t invent this method of getting rich off of her political standing but she has taken it to new heights and into new territory. Ronald Reagan was excoriated for taking $2 million for two speeches in Japan after he left office. That excoriation came from Democrats while Republicans defended him and now things are reversed and the sides of the attackers and defenders has flip flopped which is business as usual but at least Reagan was out of office before he took the money. Do you really believe that those who paid Hillary half a million dollars for a thirty minute speech were paying that money for the value of the words spoken? You may, but don’t expect me to believe it. More importantly, don’t count on all the disaffected Democrats and independents to believe it.
As the preface to the article said:
Bernie is weak tea but he is widely considered to be honest. This might be a year when that is important.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 01/07/2016 - 11:55am
I suppose Hillary would be considered honest, too, if she weren't subjected to the constant steaming heaps of "maybe she is and maybe she isn't" attacks from both sides.
Show some real proof that she is in Wall Street's pocket. Payment for speeches won't do it.
by Ramona on Thu, 01/07/2016 - 12:10pm
I didnt see any $420,000 speeches, so I guess she spoke less than an hour. I don't think she can do these paid speeches as a candidate, so I don't think it's me and OK's "mistake".
You calling speeches unethical certainly doesn't make it so.
Hillary's been out of office, but that's not good enough for you - she's no Reagan, no Jfk I guess
I know you're able to read, so how did you get half a mill for 30 minutes? Her payments are between $100k and $325k - most at $225k. Trying to trash your credibility? Congrats, succeeding. A far cry from Reagan $2mill
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/07/2016 - 12:23pm
My bad, I did some simple math in my head rounding everything and missed a bit. 11.8 million divided by 51 equals an average of $231372.54902 per speech. They were said to be from 30 minutes to an hour so I intended to use 45 minutes for an average but apparently used 30 minutes which makes her rate $7712.41830065 per minute. But $231372.54902 divided by 45 equals $5141.61220044 per minute. I guess that changes everything.
And some brilliant numbshmuck can't argue what was actually said. I never said that campaign funds or gifts to her charity went into her pocket. I only spoke of the $5141.61220044 per minute for giving a speech that went into her pocket.
Do you think or even suspect that those who paid those big bucks had a financial or ideological motive in doing so? Wouldn't a CEO who was spending shareholder money at an exorbitant rate have a fiduciary obligation to spend it in a way that brought in a return? What could THEY have been thinking
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 01/07/2016 - 1:38pm
Hillary isn't considered honest because schmucks can't reason. $2 billion to her family charity doesn't go to her pocket. Money to her campaign doesn't go to her pocket (including what she lends or gives to her own campaign). Only those 14 months when she wasn't secretary of state nor presidential candidate could she do those speeches, $230k avg, which is normal for someone of her stature. So fuck off already. No, Joe Blow doesn't make this kind of money, nor does he marry the Heinz princess nor get $1 mill from Dad to start a business or make a half a billion as venture capitalist or 10s of millions as trial lawyer or millions from Vp/president pappy's friends to start her own oil company. She and her husband built those connections, and while wealthy they're also still giving, unlike George who fucked the economy and fucked Iraq and now sits around painting moronic paintings and applauding his idiot dynasty brother who has $100 mill in Carlyle money he can't make work for him. Get it yet? There are dozens of unworthy assholes out there sucking up money, and she's trying and you're spending more time giving her shit than anyone else. Congrats, I think.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/07/2016 - 12:43pm