FOR SAL and OTHER HILLARY LOVERS: This time it's not Markle or Sean Hannity talking, it's Elizabeth Warren

MOYERS: What did it mean when 25 years ago, the lending industry, the banking industry was deregulated? What did that mean for these people?
WARREN: The deregulation of the consumer credit industry gave us lots of good things. Lots of credit available out there. Lots of people who can go out and borrow at low interest rates, but it also gave birth to a monster. And that monster is now eating middle class American families. That monster…
MOYERS: And that monster?
WARREN: It's sub-prime credit. It's predatory lenders. It's learning that when the wholesale cost of money, that is what the banks can borrow the money for is down around two percent and they can find ways to lend it out at 18 percent, 22 percent, 26 percent, 34 percent that there are staggering profits to be made here.
And it's middle class families who are paying that money, and more to the point, it's middle class families who get tangled in that debt when they lose a job, when somebody gets sick and they don't have health insurance, when they divorce.
So, the consequence is that credit card companies which this year will collect $78 billion, that's billion dollars, in interest charges are in effect taxing a middle class. And it's principally the middle class that's already in financial trouble.
MOYERS: You tell a story that to me illustrates what has happened to our political system in regards to the middle class, in regards to democracy in the country as a whole. And it involves Hillary Clinton.
WARREN: I had written an op-ed about a piece of pending bankruptcy legislation. The credit card companies have been pushing to try to tighten the bankruptcy laws, sort of like locking the doors to the hospitals and then claiming nobody's sick in America.
So, they were trying to get the bankruptcy laws constrained, constricted, so that fewer families could get in. Why? Because you can make more money if those families don't go into bankruptcy, if you're a credit lender.
And so I'd written an op-ed about how this would fall disproportionately hard on women who were raising families and who would be put in the position under this bill of trying to compete with Citibank, MasterCard, Visa, Bank One for getting alimony and child support from their ex-husbands.
Mrs. Clinton evidently saw…
MOYERS: The First Lady then.
WARREN: The First Lady. She was then First Lady. This is the 1990s. Late 1990s. Mrs. Clinton saw the piece, and I got a call from the White House. And they said Mrs. Clinton was going to be in town to give a speech in Boston and would I come and meet with her. I said, "Sure."
And so I put together all my files. I show up at the appointed place. After she's finished her speech, we're ushered into a tiny, little room somewhere in the bowels of this hotel, and just the two of us. They close the door. Mrs. Clinton sits down. We have hamburgers and french fries.
MOYERS: You tutor her.
WARREN: And she says, "Tell me about bankruptcy." And I got to tell you, I never had a smarter student. Quick, right to the heart of it. I go over the law. It's a complex law. Went over the economics. Showed her the graphs, showed her the charts. And she got it.
Within 20 minutes, she could play where the rest of it would come. Well, then that will mean this part's happened. That will mean this has happened. I said, "Yes, that's right." And at the end of the conversation, Mrs. Clinton stood up. She said, "Let's get our picture taken" which we did, and she said, "Professor Warren, we've got to stop that awful bill," referring to this bankruptcy bill that sponsored by the credit card companies.
So I left. She went back to White House, and I heard later from someone who is a White House staffer that there were skid marks in the hallways when Mrs. Clinton got back as people reversed direction on that bankruptcy bill. President…
MOYERS: That was supporting the industry. And because of her…
WARREN: President Clinton had been showing that this is another way that he could be helpful to business. It wasn't a very high visibility bill. And when Mrs. Clinton came back with a little better understanding of how it all worked, they reversed course, and they reversed course fast. And indeed, the proof is in the pudding.
The last bill that came before President Clinton was that bankruptcy bill that was passed by the House and the Senate in 2000 and he vetoed it. And in her autobiography, Mrs. Clinton took credit for that veto and she rightly should. She turned around a whole administration on the subject of bankruptcy. She got it.
MOYERS: And then?
WARREN: One of the first bills that came up after she was Senator Clinton was the bankruptcy bill. This is a bill that's like a vampire. It will not die. Right? There's a lot of money behind it, and it…
MOYERS: Bill, her husband, who vetoed…
WARREN: Her husband had vetoed it very much at her urging.
MOYERS: And?
WARREN: She voted in favor of it.
MOYERS: Why?
WARREN: As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different. It's a well-financed industry. You know a lot of people don't realize that the industry that gave the most money to Washington over the past few years was not the oil industry, was not pharmaceuticals. It was consumer credit products. Those are the people. The credit card companies have been giving money, and they have influence.
MOYERS: And Mrs. Clinton was one of them as Senator.
WARREN: She has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency.
____________________


"You know a lot of people don't realize that the industry that gave the most money to Washington over the past few years was not the oil industry, was not pharmaceuticals. It was consumer credit products. Those are the people. The credit card companies have been giving money, and they have influence."

That was 2004.  THIS was a "recent afternoon"...

On a recent afternoon, executives at Goldman Sachs invited a few hundred major investors to the Conrad Hotel in lower Manhattan. The bankers and their guests filed into a large room and turned their eyes to Hillary Clinton.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Would a President Clinton look at us as fellow citizens or as vassals?

I don't like the two-facedness on bankruptcy law, and thanks for bringing that interview between Warren and Moyers to our attention, Bob.

Wow...two Socialists, Bill Moyer and Elizabeth Warren having a discussion where they agree on everything.

As you know, it was Elizabeth Warren who wrote a paper stating that the majority of bankruptcies were due to Medical expenses. That has been proven to be totally bogus. In other words, she lied so she finds a kindred spirit in Hillary Clinton.

She would say or do anything... literally anything... to seize power. There's no reasonable rationale to vote for her.

PkrBum wrote:She would say or do anything... literally anything... to seize power. There's no reasonable rationale to vote for her.

There's no reasonable rational to vote for her.

I will assume you meant to use rationale' instead of rational but I disagree with that statement completely.  As others have said perfect is the enemy of good and the American people are selecting our next President which we both would agree is a very big deal.  For myself I acknowledge HRC's history in her decades of public service, some of it exemplary some of it not so much . . . . she does want power, I agree with you but they all want power.  What distinguishes her from the GOP choices is the stark contrast between the Dem view of the world and the GOP's view . . . . . I won't bore everyone with the long long list of issues supported by the GOP platform but everyone here knows they are clinging to an ideology that is not accommodating to all American citizens and will turn back the clock decades.  I will vote for Bernie in the primary and after he loses I will vote for HRC without reservation.  If you can imagine Trump or Cruz as President you have an imagination for sure . . . . I still respect your choice.

Well, I''ll say this. If that were Hillary saying the shit Trump has said-I wouldn't vote for her regardless of party.

I'm sure she'll have the base party vote... but I'm also sure there will be no energy or enthusiasm to turnout.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/clintonss-200000-an-hour_b_9069720.html

Goldman Sachs -- the investment bank that was so instrumental in causing the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression -- pays Hillary Clinton $200,000 an hour or more to speak to their executives and investors. (The median income for an American family is $52,259 a year.)

What do Hillary and the Wall Street bank discuss that's worth over $200,000 an hour? And what does Goldman Sachs,and other Wall Street firms who have paid Hillary $2.5 million in the past two years,expect in return?

If you ask Hillary,you'll never find out.

When asked by a reporter in Manchester,New Hampshire on Friday if she would release transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches,she laughed and turned away (just as she initially laughed when asked about her email server.)

Hillary's typical speaking contract forbids the public release of any recordings of the event and requires a stenographer selected by Hillary to transcribe the event and turn the notes over to her,so there's nothing stopping her from releasing her speeches except fear of the political fallout.

Democratic voters,who are concerned about the undue power of Wall Street over the economy and the government,might think twice about how seriously to take Clinton's campaign promises to reign in Wall Street, particularly in light of her opposition to Elizabeth Warren's bill to reinstate a modern-day Glass Steagall Act,after it was repealed by Bill Clinton.

(They might also wonder whether Hillary's increasingly belligerent attacks against replacing private insurance with Medicare-For-All -- not just in short-term grounds of political feasibility but on long-term grounds that it's not right for America -- has anything to do with the $5 million in speaking fees she and Bill have received from the medical-industrial complexover the past two years.)

Democratic voters might also remember Mitt Romney's infamous statement to a $50,000 a plate gathering that 47 percent of Americans are lazy,entitled recipients of government handouts.

His private remarks became public when someone -- probably from the catering crew -- released the video of Romney's remarks to a reporter and they went viral. The video of the private remarks probably did more than anything else lead to Romney's defeat in an otherwise close Presidential campaign.

Which brings us to Hillary's electability. Democratic voters who are leaning towards Hillary because they think she's more electable than Bernie (despite polls showing Bernie doing better than Hillary against the main Republican contenders) should perhaps worry that there are statements in one or more of the Clintons' $120 million in private speeches over the past 14 years that,if made public during the general election,could sink Hillary's campaign and turn the White House over to the Republicans,the way Romney's 47 percent remarks sunk his presidential ambitions.

In one of the few journalistic reports on Hillary's private Wall Street speeches,Politico indicates that Goldman Sachs executives were quite comfortable with her message.

Ordinarily these masters of the universe might have groaned at the idea of a politician taking the microphone... But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring,according to accounts offered by several attendees,declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish... Certainly,Clinton offered the money men -- and yes, they are mostly men -- at Goldman's HQ a bit of a morale boost... [Clinton's remarks] did register as a repudiation of some of the angry anti-Wall Street rhetoric emanating from liberals rallying behind the likes of Senss. Elizabeth Warren...

The only way for Hillary to relieve Democratic voters' valid worry of a devastating bombshell from a leak of one of her private Wall Street speeches is to release the transcripts early in the primary season.

And journalists,who have so aggressively sought Hillary's email transcripts, should equally aggressively seek transcripts of her private paid speeches, which her speaking contract indicates she's in possession of.

The contract,made public through a Nevada's public records law after she spoke at UNLV,stipulates that the only record of her speaking events allowed are made by a stenographer approved by Clinton whose transcription will be given only to Clinton. It also provided that she must travel only on a $39 million Gulfstream G450 jet or larger,be put up in the Presidential Suite of a luxury hotel of her choosing (along with five more rooms for her advance staff),detailed requirements on the refreshments to be provided in the green room,and Clinton's approval of all publicity, moderators or introducers.

While Hillary hasn't driven a car since 1996,until recently Bernie Sanders flew home most weekends from Washington coach-class on Southwest. Those who remember how the first President's Bush's befuddlement at seeing a scanner at a grocery store check-out counter reinforced his image as an out-of-touch Washington politician and helped him lose his 1992 reelection campaign might want to consider how Hillary's taste for the lifestyle of the rich and famous might impact ordinary voters.

The millions of dollars in personal payments Wall Street and other business interests have paid to the Clintons at least raise questions about how serious Hillary's promises to reign in Wall Street should be taken by voters.

And even Democratic voters who otherwise prefer Hillary should worry about what bombshell remarks from her secretive Wall Street speeches might be released by Republican dirty-tricksters during the general election campaign,if she's the nominee,and help put Donald Trump,Ted Cruz,or another right-wing Republican in the White House.

Markle wrote:

As you know, it was Elizabeth Warren who wrote a paper stating that the majority of bankruptcies were due to Medical expenses.  That has been proven to be totally bogus.  In other words, she lied so she finds a kindred spirit in Hillary Clinton.

So what are you saying markle?  That medical bankruptcy is not a problem?
Believe it or not,  markle,  but not everybody out here can go into a hospital in Hawaii and get treatment and pay for it with his pocket money like Rush Limbaugh did.  That's not the real world,  markle.  That's just bloviation from a media blowhard who folks like you made as rich as Trump.
The real world isn't what Limbaugh and Hannity and O'Reilly,  or yes,  AND Maddow and Scarborough and Adrianna Huffington and Clinton and Trump and the rest of those celebrities live in.
And no,  the real world is not just a bunch of lazy welfare bums. 
It's working people like one of my best friends right now.  He's a schoolteacher,  his wife is a school bus driver.  They both have gainful employment.
But all of a sudden he's facing a $300,000 bone marrow transplant on top of a million dollars worth of other hospitilization and cancer treatment.
And since his wife is now his caretaker and nurse,  she won't be able to stay working.  And once that happens she will lose her part of the health insurance contribution which will mean their share of the medical bills will be much greater.  And yes now they're worried about a possible medical bankruptcy too. 

So what exactly did Elizabeth Warren say about medical bankruptcy that was "totally bogus"?  Is it that the figure she used was not correct so that makes it all be "totally bogus" as if there is no problem of medical bankruptcies?  Who told you that,  O'Reilly?

Okay,  markle,  let's do it like this.  Here's the same statement you attribute to Elizabeth Warren...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148


Now this is coming from CNBC,  markle.  No,  CNBC is not the socialist liberal media.  It's a mouthpiece for Wall Street and industry (which includes the insurance industry).

So let's start with that.  What you now need to do is to convince me what's in that article is "totally bogus".

Oh I forgot.  Since CNBC is owned by NBC you automatically don't believe it.

Well what about when it's coming from Bill O'Reilly's outfit?  Do you trust it then?

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2014/02/18/medical-bankruptcies-are-still-problem-here-what-to-expect.html

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Would a President Clinton look at us as fellow citizens or as vassals?

I don't like the two-facedness on bankruptcy law, and thanks for bringing that interview between Warren and Moyers to our attention, Bob.

Well...President Clinton does look at all women as vessels intended for his use.