IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New I don't think it matters any more.
The establishment is in place and it is not giving in. This Democrat/Republican bullshit is just a pantomime for the peasants. We may get a Hillary which MIGHT get us a 3% shift to the left. On the next pass, we will get a massive retaliatory shift to the right and all the problems will be blamed on the left.
It's over for me, anyway. I'm too old to emigrate, and the bankers already danced on my retirement funds. Too bad. Hopefully I'll take a bunch of them with me.
"Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable."
New Progress is never linear.
It takes time and lots and lots of effort.

The rich are paying more in taxes. (But still not enough.) The banksters are being constrained by Dodd-Frank and Neel Kashkari is (like all the hippies) talking about breaking up the TBTF institutions. (But more needs to be done.)

The Establishment™ wanted ¿JEB? or Rubio or Kasich. All are going down in flames. Mountains of money still can't buy a Presidential nomination on its own.

Solar and Wind Power are competitive with Coal and will only get cheaper.

The housing market is slowly, slowly recovering. Inflation is creeping back up to 2% with no signs of accelerating. The economy is continuing to chug along (but not strongly enough).

The country is waking up to problems with police forces, incarceration, water systems, etc. Not quickly enough and far too much needs to be done. But we're not ignoring the problems any more.

The Supreme Court will not have a troglodyte majority again for a very long time.

We're making progress and there's little chance that the reactionary forces are going to be stronger after the November election. Both Democrats are talking about increasing Social Security payments and fighting cuts or increases in the retirement age.

Yeah, things still suck. It's infuriating that we as a national government haven't done many, many more of the sensible things that need to be done. But we're at least pointed in close to the right direction and are no longer going backwards. Let's work to increase our forward progress and not get caught up in the gloom. Gloom is self-reinforcing.

Hang in there.

New I knew you and I disagreed on a lot of things, but until now I didn't suspect you were delusional.
The rich are paying more in taxes.

Are you talking about the top income tax rate? Up a whopping 4.6%? Well, do a little math, please. The top rate from 2003 to 2012 was static at 35% (half what it was under Carter). It got the GIANT bump for 2013 back to what it was in 2000, 39.6%. Note, however, that in 2000 (in constant dollars) you paid that rate on income above $384,457 but in 2013 when "the rich started paying more by paying the same amount they paid in 2000", the floor went up to $440,876. It takes some really deep pink colored glasses to look at that situation and say, "The rich are paying more in taxes."


The Establishment™ wanted ¿JEB? or Rubio or Kasich.

You left out Hillary. Where are those Goldman speech transcripts again? We've got a hint to their content here below, but I'd really like to see Mrs. Wall Street in full. Then again, wish in one hand, crap in the other and see which one fills up faster. So since she's obfuscating (my own guess is we'll never see what she said to her Wall Street masters), here's the best info we've got so far.

Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman’s workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.

“It was pretty glowing about us,” one person who watched the event said. “It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”

At another speech to Goldman and its big asset management clients in New York in 2013, Clinton spoke about how it wasn’t just the banks that caused the financial crisis and that it was worth looking at the landmark 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law to see what was working and what wasn’t.

“It was mostly basic stuff, small talk, chit-chat,” one person who attended that speech said. “But in this environment, it could be made to look really bad.”

But, wait! There's more.
A day after the debate, Clinton pollster Joel Benenson told reporters, “I don’t think voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches.” On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, Clinton pushed back even harder on calls to release the speech transcripts.

“Let everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them. We’ll all release them at the same time,” she said. “I have never, ever been influenced in a view or a vote by anyone who has given me any kind of funding.”
The person who saw Clinton’s Arizona remarks to Goldman said they thought there was no chance the campaign would ever release them. “It would bury her against Sanders,” this person said. “It really makes her look like an ally of the firm.”


"Never been influenced?" Please. Does Hillary not understand there is an Internet and that not everything about her was housed on her own private server?

Warren’s book, “The Two-Income Trap,” devoted four pages to her interaction in 1998 with Clinton, at the time first lady. Warren then was a Harvard University professor who had written an opinion article in The New York Times critical of the pending bankruptcy legislation, and Clinton had sought to learn more.

Warren praises Clinton for quickly grasping the issues. “I have taught bankruptcy law to thousands of students — some of them among the brightest in the country — but I never saw one like Mrs. Clinton,” Warren wrote. “Impatient, lightning-quick and interested in all the nuances.”

Hillary Clinton pledged to help stop the bill and Warren writes that she later learned the Clinton White House — which had been poised to approve the legislation — turned on a dime after the first lady’s concern became apparent. Bill Clinton vetoed the bill after it passed Congress in his waning days in office.

Warren blames Clinton’s about-face as senator on the impact of campaign contributions. “The bill was essentially the same, but Hillary Rodham Clinton was not,” she wrote. “Hillary Clinton could not afford such a principled position. Campaigns cost money, and that money wasn’t coming from families in financial trouble.”

New The G-S speeches are a red herring.
She made over $10M by 2005 just from book royalties. 3 speeches at $200k or so a piece aren't going to buy her.


All told, the Clintons have made their tax returns public for every year dating back to 1977.

There's no there there.

Why should she release transcripts of her speeches to private groups? She wasn't in office then. Do you really think that she sold her soul for $600k? She was in no position to promise them anything, and why should she even if she wanted to? Why would she say something out of character to some big industry gathering? Tape recorders, video recorders, etc., weren't invented last week. She's not stupid.

If she did release the transcripts, they would just demand something else from her - nothing she does ever satisfies the insane critics.

This G-S speeches stuff is right up there with her "killing Vince Foster".

We're not electing a all-powerful monarch. We're electing a president who can only sign bills that pass the Congress, who can only appoint people to Treasury and State that are approved by the Senate, who can only spend money that the Congress appropriates. Sure, who's in the White House matters - it matters a lot. But they aren't going to somehow "reward Wall Street" or whatever all by their lonesome.

Maybe she will release the transcripts. If she does, I'm sure that people digging into it will find something to accuse her of. It's what they do.

“It was mostly basic stuff, small talk, chit-chat,” one person who attended that speech said. “But in this environment, it could be made to look really bad.”

Yeah, funny how that works, isn't it?


New Now tell me the one about how she "told them to cut that out."
Puhleeze. You're right about one thing, though. We aren't electing an all-powerful monarch. We are electing (just as we did in 2008) a tool of the oligarchs on that little island between the East and Hudson Rivers. For example, just as then, she wants to continue and strengthen the profit for Wall Street of our medical system. From FDR to Carter a single payer healthcare system was part and parcel of the Democratic Party's platform. With the new DNC (who recently rescinded the no-Lobbyist donation rule - guess which one of the two candidates has called for that rule's re-instatement? Hint: it ain't the oligarch's tool with two X chromosomes) you have to be a half-crazed Socialist to want that today according to DNC establishment.

The Clintons are the poster children for all that is wrong with our body politic dating back to 1980.

I think it is very worthy of noting that Obama's "Signature Legislation" was the neo-fascist ACA that requires every single American to pay a profit to a private corporation for merely daring to draw breath in this vaunted "Land of the Free." Mussolini would be so proud.

But, fine. If this is what you want, then Trump's got my vote. At least with him, I'm not certain he'll be entirely beholding to the criminals on Wall Street. In contrast with Hillary, he has called for new taxes on hedge fund managers. That's more Progressive policy than you'll ever see out of a Clinton.

The transcripts are important because I believe they will show her sentiment toward the criminals on Wall Street who evaded jail and any real responsibility for the destruction of pensions, foreclosures of homes and personal bankruptcies they created and exploited to make themselves even more obscenely wealthy than they already were. She's their cheerleader. That's damning enough. Nothing further need be understood about the Bankster's Tart.
New You need to review your Marxist-Leninist tracts.

The term compromise in politics implies the surrender of certain demands, the renunciation of part of one’s demands, by agreement with another party.

The usual idea the man in the.street has about the Bolsheviks, an idea encouraged by a press which slanders them, is that the Bolsheviks will never agree to a compromise with anybody.

The idea is flattering to us as the party of the revolutionary proletariat, for it proves that even our enemies are compelled to admit our loyalty to the fundamental principles of socialism and revolution. Nevertheless, we must say that this idea is wrong. Engels was right when, in his criticism of the Manifesto of the Blanquist Communists[1] (1873), he ridiculed their declaration: “No compromises!”[2] This, he said, was an empty phrase, for compromises are often unavoidably forced upon a fighting party by circumstances, and it is absurd to refuse once and for all to accept “payments on account”[3] The task of a truly revolutionary party is not to declare that it is impossible to renounce all compromises, but to be able, through all compromises, when they are unavoidable, to remain true to its principles, to its class, to its revolutionary purpose, to its task of paving the way for revolution and educating the mass of the people for victory in the revolution.


You're going to be very, very lonely waiting for the Pure Revolution™ to come.


If you want Bernie to win - fine. Good, even. But if he doesn't win, if she beats him, maybe it's because more people think she's better than him. Maybe it's as simple as that. Screaming about how horrible she is when anyone with eyes can see that she's actually quite talented, accomplished, strong, principled, and pragmatic especially compared to the troglodytes on the other side is missing the big picture.

Governing is all about compromise.

New Re: because more people think she's better than him.
No one ever lost any money betting on the stupidity of the Murican Peeple.
New So only "good enough" people should vote then? ;-p
New I was in a hurry.
You might also like...
On the one hand we must ruthlessly suppress* the uncultured capitalists who refuse to have anything to do with "state capitalism" or to consider any form of compromise, and who continue by means of profiteering, by bribing the poor peasants, etc., to hinder the realisation of the measures taken by the Soviets. On the other hand, we must use the method of compromise, or of buying off the cultured capitalists who agree to "state capitalism", who are capable of putting it into practice and who are useful to the proletariat as intelligent and experienced organisers of the largest types of enterprises, which actually supply products to tens of millions of people.
*In this case also we must look truth in the face. We stlll have too little of that ruthlessness which is indispensable for the success of socialism, and we have too little not because we lack determination. We have sufficient determination. What we do lack is the ablllty to catch quickly enough a sufficient number of proflteers, racketeers and capitalists -- the people who infringe the measures passed by the Soviets. The "ability" to do this can only be acquired by establishing accounting and control! Another thing is that the courts are not sufficiently firm. Instead of sentencing people who take bribes to be shot, they sentence them to six months' imprisonment. These two defects have the same social root: the influence of the petty-bourgeois element, its flabbiness.
Bukharin is an extremely well-read Marxist economist. He therefore remembered that Marx was profoundly right when he taught the workers the importance of preserving the organisation of large-scale production, precisely for the purpose of facilitating the transition to socialism. Marx taught that (as an exception, and Britain was then an exception) the idea was conceivable of paying the capitalists well, of buying them off, if the circumstances were such as to compel the capitalists to submit peacefully and to come over to socialism in a cultured and organised fashion, provided they were paid.


Illych was talking about "compromising" with capitalists who were willing to embrace "state capitalism" and I sure as heck don't see any of those kinds of capitalists around here. I see the other kind. The kind that must be "ruthlessly suppressed."

The "more people might think ..." argument doesn't move me. More people thought Ronald Reagan was the better candidate, more people thought Dick Nixon was the better candidate, more people thought George W. was the better candidate (second term). You're talking about a population that includes a non-trivial number of folks who parade signs reading, "Government Hands Off My Medicare!" I don't follow the herd and you'll never convince me to believe anything based upon "how many people think this." Eight in ten Americans think angels are real. 'Nough said.
New Fair enough. People make mistakes. Film at 11. ;-)
New yeah, 10mil for selling < 2k books, I would likle that deal
always look out for number one and don't step in number two
New Really?

By comparison, Clinton's 2003 book, Living History, sold six times as many volumes in its first week and eventually 1.4 million worldwide in hardback.


In January 1996, Clinton went on a ten-city book tour and made numerous television appearances to promote the [It takes a village] book,[1] although she was frequently hit with questions about her involvement in the Whitewater and Travelgate controversies.[2][3] Her efforts were rewarded; the book spent 18 weeks on the New York Times Best Seller List during 1996 including three weeks at number one.[4] By 2000 it had sold 450,000 copies in hardcover and another 200,000 in paperback.[5]

Those aren't her only books.


New you dont know how that scam works?
how many copies do you have of her books? Donors buy them in job lots then donate them to goodwill and other charities as well as libraries. They get a charitable write off and the pol looks like they sold a bunch of books.
always look out for number one and don't step in number two
New Just because some people do that doesn't mean her sales were. HTH.
New so how many of her titles do you own purchased new?
always look out for number one and don't step in number two
New 0. There are lots of peoples' books I haven't bought. Doesn't mean they don't sell. ;-)
New and you are a fan :-) scam sales
always look out for number one and don't step in number two
New She has a lot of fans.
She did get around 18 million of votes against Obama in 2008 after all. ;-)

I'll probably vote for her (unless Bernie somehow shows he can win the base of the Democratic party and fleshes out his fantastical proposals in a sensible way), but I'm not really a "fan". I think she's far more liberal than MM, and J, and many critics give her credit for, but I worry about her inclinations in the Middle East. I worry about her defensive mode in thinking about how to counter unfair criticism warping her judgment in times of stress. I worry about some of the people she may have around her. But I'm a worrier. ;-)

We'll see.

     how clinton buys delegates - (boxley) - (29)
         Scott? Is this "the Good" we shouldn't let "the Perfect" injure? -NT - (mmoffitt) - (28)
             Meh. - (Another Scott) - (27)
                 RIGHT. The DNC under Wasserman-Schultz treats Bernie and Hillary the exactly the same. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (26)
                     I thought Obama appointed DWS. Silly me. - (Another Scott) - (25)
                         You're better than that - (hnick) - (24)
                             I'm not seeing the problem with DWS. - (Another Scott) - (23)
                                 Another course heard on Steele and Ungar tonight - (malraux) - (22)
                                     rofl. - (Another Scott) - (21)
                                         what if she does does well enough to place and at the convention Bernie is ahead by a razor thin - (boxley) - (20)
                                             The Democrats will win in the fall. - (Another Scott) - (19)
                                                 I've heard more hispanics are in favor of Bernie in NV. - (a6l6e6x)
                                                 I don't think it matters any more. - (hnick) - (17)
                                                     Progress is never linear. - (Another Scott) - (16)
                                                         I knew you and I disagreed on a lot of things, but until now I didn't suspect you were delusional. - (mmoffitt) - (15)
                                                             The G-S speeches are a red herring. - (Another Scott) - (14)
                                                                 Now tell me the one about how she "told them to cut that out." - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                                                                     You need to review your Marxist-Leninist tracts. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                         Re: because more people think she's better than him. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                                             So only "good enough" people should vote then? ;-p -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                                                 I was in a hurry. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                                                     Fair enough. People make mistakes. Film at 11. ;-) -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                                 yeah, 10mil for selling < 2k books, I would likle that deal -NT - (boxley) - (7)
                                                                     Really? - (Another Scott) - (6)
                                                                         you dont know how that scam works? - (boxley) - (5)
                                                                             Just because some people do that doesn't mean her sales were. HTH. -NT - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                                 so how many of her titles do you own purchased new? -NT - (boxley) - (3)
                                                                                     0. There are lots of peoples' books I haven't bought. Doesn't mean they don't sell. ;-) -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                                                         and you are a fan :-) scam sales -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                             She has a lot of fans. - (Another Scott)

cf. Amway - same phenom; effective too.
96 ms