Home | About | Donate

Saturday’s Democratic Debate: Does 9/11 Justify Wall Street Donations?


Saturday’s Democratic Debate: Does 9/11 Justify Wall Street Donations?

Dave Johnson

The Democratic candidates debated for the second time Saturday evening, in Des Moines, Iowa. Because of the terrible terrorist attacks in Paris and Beirut, the emphasis of the beginning of the debate focused on a discussion of terrorism, national security and foreign relations. After the first half hour, the debate turned to other issues.


Sec. Clinton, with all due respect please study Piketty's findings and reflect that while Wall Street is located in the state that you "represented", its interests concentrate wealth away from the great majority of New York's citizens. Now you are seeking to "lead" the nation, still beholding to Wall Street (with your family values being ensconced in Goldman Sachs), with this concentration of wealth being increasingly removed from the citizenry of the entire nation.


My major concern about a potential Sanders presidency (even greater than his subservience to the MICC and to Israel) are the traitors to democratic ideals within the Democratic Party (Clinton, Wasserman-Schultz et al) who will likely play the same destructive role Ted Kennedy played during Carter's presidency.

The Clinton and Wasserman-Schultz crowd are every bit as beholden to the Banksters and Corporate OverLords are as the Republicans. Their only concern is that THEY receive the payoffs from the Criminal Class, not the Republicans.

Next year you will be voting for her and you know it.

Not a chance. If Sanders is not nominated, I'll vote Green or not vote at all.

If sHillary wins the presidency we'll just have four (or eight) more years of the same domestic and foreign destruction caused by her husband, by GW Bush, and by Obama.

Corporate Dems pay lip service to progressive social issues, then do absolutely nothing to push those issues until and unless they are forced by protests and court decisions to do so after taking office. But when it comes to issues of domestic social welfare and foreign policy, the only difference between corporate Dems and corporate Republicans is their rhetoric.


Clinton may be YOUR candidate, but not mine, and Bernie does stand a real chance of winning, despite your pessimism (or is that optimism?).

We need more debates and more scrutiny of corporate bought and owned Hillary Clinton, not less.


Clinton may be your candidate, but is most certainly not mine. Sexism has nothing to do with it, and I will not endorse her should she be the final candidate.

And Gozer said: "Choose the form of the Destructor!"


Not only did HRC invoke GW Bush, she did it in a positive way.
But we've seen Bill C. show up with GWB in places like Haiti (GWB want$ to help, see?), so it's all the same to HRC.
They should be ashamed to willingly associate with him, or his name.
That is utterly ludicrous.


HRC will get the sleepwalkers' vote.


I guess DJ thought he had to recap the debate for those who might have missed it.

To my mind the most telling passage therefrom was when Clinton responded to Sanders' accusation of Wall Street subservience with righteous indignation. Here in a nutshell is how Clinton will respond to any suggestion of her obvious mendacity; with feigned injured dignity in the face of logical (and often documented) conclusions. Clinton then fired her big gun, that 60% of her donors were women. Probably statistically true, but that obscures what dollar total of the take that represents.


Vote HRC! Not me buddy! I will support the green party after Bernie gets thrown under the dem o rats bus.

And further, to show you how much I detest HRC, if I had to choose between the Wall Street whore and the buffoon Trump...I would choose the later.


Gee whiz, I for one and being female, do NOT vote for anyone based on their effing gender.
It is well past the time recognize someone's content of character rather than their gender or race al la Dr Martin Luther King.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


At this point I disengage from this and succeeding campaign discussions, and here's why:

At this moment my guess is the corrupt and corrupted political servants of the ruling class will surrender - no, deliver - the remnants of this democratic republic to their masters and approve the TPP. The aspects of our domestic governance will henceforth and thereafter be beyond the reach of the individual citizens, and wrt the "homeland" it will not matter then which poser gets elected. As far as foreign policy goes, there is very little daylight between Clinton's positions as those of the quacks and demagogues of that other party of pretend, and it seems the world will continue to be ground under the delusions of this empire.

If, through some quirk of improbability Sanders gets elected he would desperately need that political revolution he invokes. Please note that I said improbable and not impossible.


Look at the posting history of "snowbike". Showed up here recently, to pump for Clinton. Virtually zero substantive content in any of its posts (it does not identify itself on its profile). Just short, empty phrasing about how wonderful Clinton is, and how inevitable Clinton is.


Clinton was Sec of State as Isis grew in strength>this will be a major issue by a republican candidate.
It was interesting that Obama is in Turkey today.And I actually liked his response to the Paris attacks-he is trying to contain the mess Bush and Clinton's have created by invading Iraq.
Hillary Clinton says it was a "mistake" to invade Iraq-and at what cost was this mistake?People are still paying for this mistake to this day. Go back and look at the Senate debate on the vote to invade Iraq. Clinton's vote was for her political future, not the consequences for thousands of American soldiers and thousands of innocent Iraq people,and all the other blow back happening today. She voted to invade a country that never attacked us.----And what is Clinton's mental state when she invokes 9/11 to defend campaign contributions from wall street? There is a reason people chose Obama over Clinton,and today we saw the difference. Clinton would be escalating war not trying end it.

Every time I see Sanders he seems the perfect fit to succeed Obama.Sanders is tempered and truly seems to understand the issues of the day.He is in line with most of Americans today. And I consider him a moderate. Hillary can go hang out with Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio. Because every thing she is saying now is total BS.


The headline's a bit misleading but the article is a good overview of the debate.

As for 9/11 justifying Hillary toadying up to Wall Street - of course it did.

And since the suicide bombers in Paris went after the Soccer Stadium we should stop prosecuting all the corrupt FIFA officials.

If we don't stop the prosecutions the terrorists win.


Hillary: "However what Alan Krueger said in the piece you’re referring to is that if we went to $15.00 there are no international comparisons. That is why I support a $12.00 national federal minimum wage."

That is not true. There are several countries with minimum wages higher than $15.00. In Australia they use a base plus "awards" minimum wage system where minimum wage is effectively $17.50 plus benefits. Their economy is doing fine aside from the fact that that it is based too much on resource extraction...



That is correct what you say about minimum wages being higher than the U.S. - coming from an American who has been living abroad mostly in the Netherlands for 35 years now. A credible comparative report is: "Do Other Countries Have a Higher Minimum Wage Than the U.S.?" by Louis Jacobson, Sept. 2014. His report is based on figures published by: "OECD. Stat of Real Minimum Wages 2014." ( 2014 Constant Prices and PPPs)

The OECD data reflects purchasing power differences in the cost-of-living between one country vs. another. These differences are accounted for by using 'purchasing power parity' adjustments (PPPs). The 2014 OECD TOP TEN Real Minimum Wage Results are as follows:

Luxembourg ------------------$25,025
Germany )Est.)---------------$22,950
New Zealand-------------------$20,002

United States------------------$15,080

As is evident, minimum wage structures are much higher in the mature EU countries than the U.S. but so are taxes, although tax rates do drop significantly on annual incomes below +-$26,000 in the Netherlands and most EU countries.

But after making adjustments for purchasing power parity differences, the Gap still remains high between EU countries and U.S. because of various Mandatory Allowances provided by many EU countries. For example, the Netherlands has a number of mandatory allowances ( bonuses or benefits) that significantly drive up the annual minimum wage figure. The main allowances are: cost-of-living adjustments; free health and dental care for children under 18; 20 paid work holidays for full-time employees plus 7 paid public holidays; a yearly holiday allowance of 8% of gross annual income usually paid in May; a quarterly children's allowance to allay the costs of care for each child up to age 18 (including step and foster children); overtime and irregular work-hour premiums; a monthly rental allowance depending on income level; expense allowances; municipal assistance, etc.

The Dutch minimum hourly wage of $9.60 (excluding taxes and mandatory allowances) declines by 15% to 50% for young people below 23 in the 22-15 age bracket. But, that age group still receives free health and dental care, some of above benefits noted, and very low taxes. Another benefit is that two parents pay a relatively LOW $240 monthly premium for an excellent mandatory basic health care coverage that also covers health and dental care for children up to 18 as mentioned. For household gross incomes below +-$26,000, a monthly rebate of up to 75% of the basic health care monthly premium is given depending on one's annual income amount.

Hillary and other U.S. politicians generally have a very poor understanding of how minimum wage structures and social benefits work in the mature European societies.


Have we met?
I vote for candidates, not parties. Right now, I'm supporting Sanders in the primary. If he doesn't win, I'll decide between the candidates who are running.


I remember how the Democratic congress treated President Carter and I was disgusted with their cowardice. They did nothing to support Carter in the tough decisions and ran away when the Republicans/right-wingers barked. I stopped voting for John Kerry for senator because of the way he acted in congress during the Carter Administration, I used to write in my own name to avoid voting for him.