Is it really a big deal if Hillary received speech money?

[Harry Bosch]

Maybe they were paying her for work already done, like with revolving doors that politicians go through. Who knows. But I don't think I've ever seen this level of amount of speaking engagements and price. There's got to be a reason for it?

I saw an analysis posted on another forum I frequent that showed her speaking fees were about the same as others of her stature. I'll see if I can find it.

There are many such links showing the above. I've posted them before. Noone cares. There is a double standard with Hillary. There are always potential conflicts of interest and overpayment to influential people. For example: Elizabeth Warren was paid $429,000 for a part time gig as a Harvard law professor for less than 12 months in 2011. No one cared.

 

[laughing dog]

As for Trump, he may try to make this an issue. It will motivate the Clinton-haters. But since he refuses to release his tax records, it will backfire on him.

Did I mishear? I thought Trump said that he would release his tax returns before the election.

You misheard (here is but one source https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/05/23/daily-202-refusal-to-release-tax-returns-emerging-as-a-big-liability-for-trump/57425932981b92a22da22839/).

Clinton said she will not release the transcripts until "everybody else does". If Sanders can use the transcripts but Trump can't, then will Clinton release them after the convention and Hillary is officially the nominee?

Who knows? And really it does not matter.

 

[arkirk]

Forget about what she might have said. This speech thing is just a thinly disguised money laundering thing to get money to a sold out politician.

 

[Axulus]

What is in the speech doesn't matter much. It is a way for outfits like Goldman Sachs to reward politicians for things they have already had done for them that fools will accept is reasonable for a (liar) person of her stature. She could get up there and say "Be boo ba boo" and still get paid for services already rendered or soon to be rendered. The money is indicative of her loyalty and believe me, it is not to you...

So what is it that Clinton has done for GS? As I understand, Hers and Sanders votes in the senate were the same 96% of the time.

Good point. What specific policies and laws did she vote for that shows evidence of being bought, something that Sanders voted opposite of her?

Why has no one gone into specifics?

 

[Tristan Scott]

A CNN reporter was at one of the GS speeches and said that the speech was un-remarkable. There is one of her speeches to Goldman Sachs (Google Goldman Sachs 10,000 women) on the web in which she applauded them for a women in the workplace initiative. Big deal. There is no win in her releasing any of her paid speeches because no matter what is in the content they will be snipped and edited and used against her in ads.

 

[untermensche]

So what is it that Clinton has done for GS? As I understand, Hers and Sanders votes in the senate were the same 96% of the time.

Good point. What specific policies and laws did she vote for that shows evidence of being bought, something that Sanders voted opposite of her?

Why has no one gone into specifics?

Where they differ is in reimplementation of the Glass-Steagall Act.

 

[Rhea]

It is a way for outfits like Goldman Sachs to reward politicians for things they have already had done for them

LOL, so how do you explain all the OTHER people who paid her the same amount? Oh noes! She's in the pocket of the camping association!

Naw, this is all just paranoid accusation and you have not presented a compelling case at all.

 

[ZiprHead]

Good point. What specific policies and laws did she vote for that shows evidence of being bought, something that Sanders voted opposite of her?

Why has no one gone into specifics?

Where they differ is in reimplementation of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Can you point to that vote, not that I'm doubting you. I would just like to see something solid in this discussion instead of the runny diarrhea that's been put out so far.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

A CNN reporter was at one of the GS speeches and said that the speech was un-remarkable. There is one of her speeches to Goldman Sachs (Google Goldman Sachs 10,000 women) on the web in which she applauded them for a women in the workplace initiative. Big deal. There is no win in her releasing any of her paid speeches because no matter what is in the content they will be snipped and edited and used against her in ads.

One could say the same thing about Trump's tax returns.

If someone lies about it, there is always the record to vindicate them.

Further in a democracy we ask our to-be-elected officials for some transparency.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Good point. What specific policies and laws did she vote for that shows evidence of being bought, something that Sanders voted opposite of her?

Why has no one gone into specifics?

Where they differ is in reimplementation of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Okay. But Hillary favors enforcement of Dodd-Frank. More enforcement than Bernie. Banks hate Dodd-Frank. How do you explain this?

 

[untermensche]

Where they differ is in reimplementation of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Okay. But Hillary favors enforcement of Dodd-Frank. More enforcement than Bernie. Banks hate Dodd-Frank. How do you explain this?

Bernie wants to go further than Dodd-Frank. He wants to break the banks up.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Okay. But Hillary favors enforcement of Dodd-Frank. More enforcement than Bernie. Banks hate Dodd-Frank. How do you explain this?

Bernie wants to go further than Dodd-Frank. He wants to break the banks up.

He just wants to break up the big banks based on a numerical size. Not impressive. HRC wants to lower their ability to affect the economy when one goes down. Under Bernie's plan, there would be no reduction to Lehman. And yet, Lehman had a huge effect on the banking system. HRC has concrete proposals that will reduce the likelihood of future bank failures (increasing capital requirement, and etc.). Bernie just wants revenge it seems to me.

 

[untermensche]

Bernie wants to go further than Dodd-Frank. He wants to break the banks up.

He just wants to break up the big banks based on a numerical size. Not impressive. HRC wants to lower their ability to affect the economy when one goes down. Under Bernie's plan, there would be no reduction to Lehman. And yet, Lehman had a huge effect on the banking system. HRC has concrete proposals that will reduce the likelihood of future bank failures (increasing capital requirement, and etc.). Bernie just wants revenge it seems to me.

Bernie wants to do something real. Something concrete.

Hillary talks about some kind of regulation that these banks just circumvent because they own the regulators.

 

[Axulus]

He just wants to break up the big banks based on a numerical size. Not impressive. HRC wants to lower their ability to affect the economy when one goes down. Under Bernie's plan, there would be no reduction to Lehman. And yet, Lehman had a huge effect on the banking system. HRC has concrete proposals that will reduce the likelihood of future bank failures (increasing capital requirement, and etc.). Bernie just wants revenge it seems to me.

Bernie wants to do something real. Something concrete.

Hillary talks about some kind of regulation that these banks just circumvent because they own the regulators.

Wrong, he wants to do something unclear (he has not released the specifics) as well as unproven (there is no empirical evidence that such a breaking up will help the economy). As such, it is a faith based position.

 

[arkirk]

He just wants to break up the big banks based on a numerical size. Not impressive. HRC wants to lower their ability to affect the economy when one goes down. Under Bernie's plan, there would be no reduction to Lehman. And yet, Lehman had a huge effect on the banking system. HRC has concrete proposals that will reduce the likelihood of future bank failures (increasing capital requirement, and etc.). Bernie just wants revenge it seems to me.

Bernie wants to do something real. Something concrete.

Hillary talks about some kind of regulation that these banks just circumvent because they own the regulators.

Hillary is working for those big banks. The concrete she has in mind is to go into a a bucket around the feet of the progressive movement...and then into the river.

 

[ZiprHead]

I like Bernie. I voted for Bernie. I've been following him for years. Frankly, though, he's done as far as the presidential race is concerned.

He should start a TEA party equivalent in the Democratic party.

 

[Harry Bosch]

He just wants to break up the big banks based on a numerical size. Not impressive. HRC wants to lower their ability to affect the economy when one goes down. Under Bernie's plan, there would be no reduction to Lehman. And yet, Lehman had a huge effect on the banking system. HRC has concrete proposals that will reduce the likelihood of future bank failures (increasing capital requirement, and etc.). Bernie just wants revenge it seems to me.

Bernie wants to do something real. Something concrete.

Hillary talks about some kind of regulation that these banks just circumvent because they own the regulators.

Again, what is concrete about Bernie's plan? Below is a good article that describes the differences between the two. To me, it just appears that HRC has a far greater grasp of the problem than Bernie.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/u...rs-schism-grows-on-too-big-to-fail-banks.html

I'm hoping that you don't think that the NY Times is conservative!!

 

[laughing dog]

Bernie wants to do something real. Something concrete.

Hillary talks about some kind of regulation that these banks just circumvent because they own the regulators.

Wrong, he wants to do something unclear (he has not released the specifics) as well as unproven (there is no empirical evidence that such a breaking up will help the economy). As such, it is a faith based position.

Well, if they are no longer too big to fail, then they won't need or receive bailouts - something all free market evangelists should embrace without evidence.

 

[untermensche]

Bernie wants to do something real. Something concrete.

Hillary talks about some kind of regulation that these banks just circumvent because they own the regulators.

Wrong, he wants to do something unclear (he has not released the specifics) as well as unproven (there is no empirical evidence that such a breaking up will help the economy). As such, it is a faith based position.

Size = wealth = power

Simply reducing the size of any corporation and you reduce it's power.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I like Bernie. I voted for Bernie. I've been following him for years. Frankly, though, he's done as far as the presidential race is concerned.

He should start a TEA party equivalent in the Democratic party.

He could probably get Trump to fund this.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong, he wants to do something unclear (he has not released the specifics) as well as unproven (there is no empirical evidence that such a breaking up will help the economy). As such, it is a faith based position.

Well, if they are no longer too big to fail, then they won't need or receive bailouts - something all free market evangelists should embrace without evidence.

LD: I believe that you are an economist. Putting on your economist hat, do you think that it's wise for an economy to have a weak banking system?

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong, he wants to do something unclear (he has not released the specifics) as well as unproven (there is no empirical evidence that such a breaking up will help the economy). As such, it is a faith based position.

Size = wealth = power

Simply reducing the size of any corporation and you reduce it's power.

And you don't think that the foreign banks will swoop in to replace the weaker banks?