Before Bernie called for breaking up the banks, he called for seizing family-owned wealth --

[pnwmom]

specifically, for breaking up the great wealth owned by the Rockefeller family.

If Bernie had won the nomination, this would be one of the many revelations in the general election -- one that middle of the road independents and most Democrats (except those on the farthest left) would strongly object to.

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/2853720/fri_june_28_1974_bennington_banner/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-radical-past-how-the-vermont-230255076.html

Sanders’ second main theme in his 1974 Senate race was what the Bennington Banner called his “own pet issue,” the “incredible economic power of the Rockefeller family.” As a presidential candidate and member of Congress, Sanders has assailed the influence billionaires and megadonors hold over American politics and media. However, his plan for the Rockefellers went much further, with Sanders implying he would push to have the family’s fortune used to fund government programs. In a 1974 press release, Sanders said “the incredible wealth and power of this family must be broken up.” The Rockefellers’ billions should be “used to create a decent standard of living for all people” by being redirected toward government social programs for the elderly or lower taxes.

Sanders was in the middle of running on an anti-Rockefeller platform in August 1974 when reports began to emerge that President Ford planned to nominate Nelson Rockefeller to be his vice president after the impeachment and resignation of President Nixon. Sanders was apoplectic and sent a letter to Ford urging him to pick someone else because “the Rockefellers are already the richest and most powerful family in the world.” Sanders warned that the appointment “could be the beginning of a virtual Rockefeller family dictatorship over the nation.” Rockefeller was officially nominated about a week later and went on to become vice president.

[elleng]

1. 'middle of the road independents and most Democrats

(except those on the farthest left) would strongly object to.'

[passiveporcupine]

11. I think what she is trying to say is neoliberals would object

that means right leaning dems (like the new dems, the new dealers, the third-way dems)...meaning Hillary supporters.

they have no problem with a few people having extreme wealth while so many are in poverty...even though that wealth was earned on the backs of the poor.

Remember the Ludlow Massacre was the result of the Rockefellers.

[Tavarious Jackson]

17. Enough with the condescending titles.

[passiveporcupine]

21. Oh she's back.

what is condescending about the labels I've used? Saying that most dems (except those on the extreme left) would have a problem with this is not accurate...when it's not just the extreme left fringe of the party who really has a problem with extreme income and wealth inequality. A lot of independents and even republicans (not politicians) feel the same way. A lot of people are watching this country fall apart right now and are scared...and that is probably "most" dems. Bernie was just able to see what was happening long before anyone else did.

So, what is condescending about the labels I used? They all describe the new "establishment" dem party that Bill started and Hillary and Wassherman (and most dems in politics today) represent. That party deliberately moved to the right of center, because they were so afraid they'd continue to lose elections to republicans. It became republican light. It's well known, documented and talked about, and if you can't handle what your party has become, then maybe you should think about moving.

If you don't agree with your party, you don't have to stay there, but if you do stay there, you should at least own it. Now this shift is more economic than social, as this group still tends to vote progressive (mostly) on social issues...they have just become extremely conservative (in defense of capitalism and globalism) on economic issues.

Those of us on the left of the party (not just the extremes) tend to be progressive on social AND economic issues and we happily include the word socialism in our description, because FDR and social security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, unemployment benefits, 8 hour workday, child labor laws, union protections and minimum wages...those are all things we still fight for, even if the new dems don't. Under the new dems, the middle class is dying, wages are dropping, good jobs are being replaced with service jobs, college is unaffordable, and we will never get single payer. That is NOT progressive.

The labels fit. Wear them with pride.

[TimPlo]

47. That is because they like many GOP

Think they are just a short time away from being one of the wealthy. I have a brother who is like that. That is whole thing Trump feeds. Blame the poor like immigrants for problems letting Rich assholes like him and a certain wedding quest that was with her husband in a photo of him pay hardly any taxes.

[Corporate666]

68. So you're saying the mainstream left

is in favor of seizing the assets of the wealthy?


That's baloney. That is a very extreme position that only the looniest of the left agree with.

[Armstead]

78. Um its called progressive taxation and it was a tenant of msinstream liberalism

But I realuze that New Democrat Centrists don't like mainstream liberalism anymore

[floriduck]

152. So we've gone from the Rockefellers to the Kochs, Wilton's, and others. No issue there.

[LisaM]

2. Well, he's barely changed a word of his stump speech since 1974.

Does he understand that the world has become more complex since then? His messaging is so simplistic. Talk, talk, no plans.

[redstatebluegirl]

3. Yep!

[CorkySt.Clair]

27. The message is class warfare at its core

Which preys on the gullible, as is the case with populism in general. But Bernie's message has always boiled down to class warfare. There's not a lot else under the hood.

[LisaM]

29. Yet he lives a very nice lifestyle.

I find him more than a little hypocritical.

[CorkySt.Clair]

30. Yes he does and yes he is

[ljm2002]

35. Right, he should live in a shack...

...and never wear a suit. Otherwise, how can he have any credibility when debating a multimillionaire opponent on issues of income inequality?

[LisaM]

55. No.

But he is in a position to retire very comfortably. A lot of people are not that fortunate. I don't begrudge it.

[ljm2002]

72. If you don't begrudge it...

...then WTF was the point of your comment calling him a hypocrite?

"A lot of people are not that fortunate". And just who, out of all the candidates, has been talking about EXACTLY THAT ISSUE? Bernie Sanders, that's who. Bernie Sanders, who is worth a fuck of a lot less than Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. But in your mind, he is a hypocrite for pressing that issue.

FFS people here can be exceeding dense.

[LisaM]

142. Wow. So many f bombs.

My point is that I don't think Bernie and Jane are going to give up their very nice retirement and live a less affluent lifestyle. Nor should they. But he seems comfortable asking others to do with less.

[ljm2002]

146. Any taxes that he raises...

...on people in his income category will apply to him also. You get that, right?

[SMC22307]

95. If you didn't begrudge it, you wouldn't have taken the cutesy little *hypocritical* swipe.

Not sure where that type of bullshit plays, but it *ain't* at DU.

I applaud Bernie's Formica countertops... can only imagine what's gracing the cabinets of the Wall Street-funded Clinton estates.

[Yurovsky]

42. He has a net worth of about $700k...

for a US Senator in his 70s, that's not exactly lifestyles of the rich and famous.

To put it in Clinton terms, his net worth is equal to about 3 30-minute TelePrompTer reading gigs Hillary might perform for Goldman Sachs. You folks might want to redirect your outrage towards the only remaining presidential candidate who went into politics to get rich...

[barrow-wight]

77. Ah, so let's take hers and not his, right?

The hypocrisy is overwh ... nah ... it's actually underwhelming.

[SMC22307]

96. Do you have *any* grasp of $700K v. Rockefeller money?

Seriously, not a trick question.

[barrow-wight]

100. Takin' is takin'.

[SMC22307]

102. Spoken like a true right-winger...

when attempting to dupe the unwashed masses into voting against their best economic interests. *Regressive tax schemes good!*

[barrow-wight]

103. Did you rehearse that?

I know you did. You can tell me.

[SMC22307]

110. Pretty much the same message since the rise of Limpballs and Corporate Dems...

with Bill leading the charge. Interesting timing, eh?

No rehearsal necessary, I've got it down. Anyone who has been paying attention the past couple o' decades has it down.

[Yurovsky]

122. Exactly. If you're against a progressive tax structure...

and you're one DU, you're either a right-wing troll or deeply confused.

Then again, if anyone else has a more just way of generating revenue to provide for the general welfare and security of our nation, I'm all ears. But those who have benefitted most from our country should certainly contribute more towards its maintenance, upkeep, and future.

[barrow-wight]

106. Did you start to say something?

I saw that it was self-deleted. I figured it must need more rehearsal.

[SMC22307]

107. Project much?

"Rehearsal." That's pretty amusing.

[barrow-wight]

108. Well in this case it wasn't rehearsal ...

... so much as it was reversal. But then I guess we'll never know what was in that self-deleted treasure trove.

[SMC22307]

111. What's life without mystery.

You're welcome.

[Corporate666]

70. Bernie is a champion of the little guy

Look at his tax plan. He is proposing dramatic tax increases on the wealthy!*




*the wealthy happen to be defined, according to his tax plan, as people making just a few thousand dollars a year more than he makes


I guess being in the top 2% is "just a regular hard working guy" and it's only the people above his very upper-crust level of living that are the problem.

[whathehell]

127. Not ccompated to the Walton family..

or Hillary Clinton.

He:s 74 years old, and is one of the poorest men in the Senate...After 30 plus years, he earns $200, 000 a year -- A paltry sum compared to most of his colleagues.

[Perogie]

33. you mean like what FDR did?

[socialist_n_TN]

49. Well, it's only class warfare when we fight back........

Until then it's what it's been for the last 4 decades or so, a class massacre. And it ain't the Rockefeller and Walton class that's been massacred.

Bernie's pretty mild compared what to what I would do.

[brewens]

58. It's really only class warfare when we fight back. The wealthy are organized against us. When we

organize, it's "union thugs", "filthy hippies" and slackers wanting "free stuff".

It was only the labor movement in the last century that gave us a strong middle class. The last thing the ruling class ever wanted to do was pay decent wages and benefits. The workers got the ax handles out and made them want to! That's the only way it could have happened. A perfect country for Rush Limbaugh and his kind would be one where he could afford a harem of peasant houseboys to frolic with. It's the looting at the top that has to stop, and they are the ones that are going to make it happen again.

[Armstead]

80. There has been class warfare for a long time

The Wealthy have been waging it and they have been winning it.

Ther was a time when the Democrats recognized that. But now too many sound like Rush Limbaugh, ahem

[SMC22307]

97. Are these folks "gullible"?

Damn right it's class warfare... it's been waged on the middle and lower classes for decades. And Hillary Clinton won't do jack shit for low-wage workers no matter how many "relationships" or "friendships" or fish frys. The truly gullible get sucked in by right-wing memes (e.g., job creators, death taxes, and free market). I'm sure you're quite familiar with those, eh?

Thankfully others are paying attention, unlike you, and know there's plenty else under the hood.

[Gore1FL]

116. Let me put this in a way you will understand.

There are 100 people in a room, and 100 Cheeseburgers are delivered for lunch. The first person eats 91 leaving the other 9 for the remaining 99 people. Suggesting that the other 99 get at least 1/2 a cheeseburger is NOT class warfare. To suggest so demonstrates a severe gap in knowledge concerning the wealth and income gaps in the nation.

[CorkySt.Clair]

139. How large are the cheeseburgers?

[Armstead]

124. Thank you Rush

[blackspade]

132. Please define what you mean by 'class warfare'

It's obvious that you don't know what you are talking about.
No one who did would make such willfully ignorant comments.

[CorkySt.Clair]

140. Berners have said as much on DU

And proudly so. Their words.

[blackspade]

155. So you can't define it.

Typical.

[socialist_n_TN]

46. Yeah, you're right. He needs to add the Walton family to the..........

list.

[Corporate666]

69. He is running for president of 2016, not of 1974

he should know more about these issues. They are important issues and he will make them centerpieces of his campaign. But he is running for 2016, not for 1974 so he needs you to ask him only things in his 2016 stump speech.

[Armstead]

79. The same problem keeps getting worse

The World changes in many ways, but it is just adding new complexity to the same old scams and Gilded Age economic exploitation.

[Thinkingabout]

4. I used to see post alluding to taking the profits, etc from coorporations and they would be

Divided among everyone and they would have more money than they would be able to handle. If the money was divided up then those who tend to be ne'er do wells would be broke soon and they would expect someone to share with them. This is not reasonable.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. And at the same time, Rockefeller was pushing laws to put pot smokers in prison for long sentences.

A position which now is only supported by Chris Christie and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

People said some stupid shit, back in those days.

[beachbumbob]

6. Angry old socialist wanting more free stuff while attacking success

Would be destroyed immediately in the media...without working up a sweat

[Zen Democrat]

37. bob, fyi, talking about "free stuff" is a dead giveaway.

The successful get most of the "free stuff."

[brewens]

60. They get the lions share of our tax dollars too. Many of the wealthy are way in the black on our

tax dollars. That's what needs to be looked at. Even a smaller percentage from a billionaire might sound like a lot of money paid in taxes. It is really, but it's what they rake in that screws us. It's how they can afford to pay billions to lobbyists. The return is astronomical and the best investment they ever make.

[Corporate666]

71. You have an incorrect view of how our economy works

Tax dollars are not collected and then handed out to the citizenry, so saying the wealthy "get the lions share of our tax dollars" is simply untrue.

And what "they rake in" doesn't screw over others anymore than a software developer earning $120k a year screws over the guy loading packages in the shipping department.

I can hear it now "right winger!! neocon talking points!". It's important that people realize how economies work so that we can implement *effective* policies that actually work and actually help people.

A law that capped CEO pay at $1 million a year would not suddenly make people earn more money. Such revenge-oriented legislating is a bad, bad idea. But that's the kind of stuff Bernie touts every step of the way.

[brewens]

73. Lets look at an easy one. A CEO or top corporate officer at a defense contractor. Where does his

salary and bonuses come from? How does his company get the huge contracts that yield all that profit? They pay lobbyists to bribe Congress to approve the programs and award them contracts. Also to support the wars that help them rake it in. It screws all of us when it's money that could be spent on much more worthwhile projects that would benefit more people.

You could say the same for oil company executives or anyone doing a lot of business with the government, much of it necessary, but also much of it is looting. Federal and state governments buy a shitload of fuel. It's of course not just people working for those corporations but also those heavily invested in them. They rake in more of our tax dollars than they pay out.

[Corporate666]

74. I disagree

I own a manufacturing company.

We do some defense work.

I don't pay anyone off to get contracts. And I never have.

Through years of being in this industry, I know a lot of people in this business (it is not the only area my company operates in nor is it the biggest, but it's one of them so I know something about it). I don't know anyone who is paying off anyone to get contracts. Actually, the government rules are so strict on that type of thing that they have created huge layers of bureaucracy and red tape that make it extremely difficult for a little guy to navigate the sea of BS - largely due to all the checks and balances and restrictions and such that are designed to make sure everything is handled correctly.

I also spent years on the other side of the equation - working for the government on contracting and bidding (developing electronic systems for the gov't to streamline bidding). I don't know anyone that took payoffs or bribes. I do know that we were *constantly* accosted by reporters and "FOIA warriors" demanding every detail of every decision we made. We were under a microscope constantly.

As for the CEO you refer to - his income comes from the same place as it does for the tens of thousands of people who work at that company. From the delta between cost and revenues of whatever it is they are selling. Sure, they hire lobbyists at the higher levels and those lobbyists are often (or even usually) former colleagues of the decision makers. I had the same thing happen when I was working for the gov't. But the lobbyists were more like salesman and I never witnessed any corruption take place - and there sure was a whole lot of people watching every move by every person involved.

And I am absolutely sure there are lots and lots of people who "know" the projects I worked on are corrupt and bribes were given and payoffs made, just like you "know" this to be true also.

Ironic that you mention fuel. That was the last project I worked on for the fed gov't. If you are pointing to fuel contracts as an example of cronyism, you couldn't have picked a worse example. I've never seen anything have so much scrutiny and never seen a buyer put the screws to a vendor more than with fuel contracts. Often times the oil companies refused to bid because there was just no money in it for them at all.

[brewens]

86. The main point is that it is our tax dollars go to the top more that to the so-called

"welfare queens" the half-wits got taught about by St. Reagan.

[Corporate666]

117. I disagree that our tax dollars

"go" to anyone. You're making it sound like "tax dollars" are a big pie and it gets cut up and various people get a slice. It doesn't work like that.

Furthermore, most of our tax dollars go to social security and medicaid/medicare. The next biggest cost is the military, but most of that is salaries of soldiers. Even the portion that is spending on weapons is not all profit, most of that goes to pay materials and overhead costs of developing those weapons, as well as paying the average joe workers that work at those military contractors.

It's just a falsehood that the people at the top are making out like bandits - they aren't, not on tax dollars anyway.

[Recursion]

75. Umm... Congress doesn't award contracts

Last edited Sun May 29, 2016, 12:09 AM - Edit history (1)

You have a kind of troublingly simplistic view of how this works.

[brewens]

82. So I should have said their lobbying results in their being awarded contracts. Bribery and

looting all the same.

[Recursion]

91. Except that doesn't happen

Seriously, you don't really seem to have any idea how federal contracting works.

[Corporate666]

118. It's been explained to you that it doesn't work that way yet

you refuse to acknowledge that you might be wrong. It seems you aren't interested in facts at all, but just want to wage war against the people you feel are getting one over on you somehow.

[Armstead]

87. God I wish we were all that smart

Foolish little Bernie supporters.

Actually to think that basic policies and values that gave America a Middle Class have any relevance in the 21st Century. We should change and go back to the 19th Century and the Gikded Age, when the poor slobs knew their place and accepted it.

[brewens]

136. They will say anything to preserve the status quo. We know that. As far as I'm concerned, every

dime of our national debt is directly related to the looting by the wealthy. They would like us to believe it's all the fault of poor people, immigrants or whoever they can convince the half-wits to hate. They already pay too much in taxes! You could take it all and it wouldn't even make a dent! Yeah right. We've heard it all before.

It's class warfare and wealth redistribution I'm talking about all right. It's what's been going on for 35 years or more that has ruined the country. Bernie's supporters and even some of Trump's show that people are waking up.

[think]

41. America is the only one of the 25 wealthiest nations that doesn't provide universal health care

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/sep/01/dan-gecker/dan-gecker-says-us-only-wealth-nation-without-univ/

America's healthcare isn't exactly getting high marks in the world either:

http://time.com/2888403/u-s-health-care-ranked-worst-in-the-developed-world/

And yet we tend to pay more than the rest of these countries:




But universal healthcare is just "free stuff" even though we'll pay for it..

[SMC22307]

104. Jesus Christ. Too many newsbunnies and too few Ida Tarbells.

One MAJOR thing wrong with this country.

[riversedge]

7. I imagine Hannity has this in his oppo Bernie folder--'redistrbution of weath" would be memed

over and over


...........In a 1974 press release, Sanders said “the incredible wealth and power of this family must be broken up.” The Rockefellers’ billions should be “used to create a decent standard of living for all people” by being redirected toward government social programs for the elderly or lower taxes.

[TimPlo]

50. Funny you would say Hannity

When most of HRC people here are posting same crap about people only wanting free stuff as the GOP do. I use to think ignorance and voting against ones own interest was only a GOP thing. This primary has proven me wrong on that account.

[Armstead]

88. Yeah...How awful. People might actually agree with it.

[Vinca]

8. 1974? You're digging up 1974?

That was the year after I was married . . . more than 40 years ago. I think I've changed my thinking on a few items over the decades and I imagine Bernie has too. This is pretty much scraping the bottom of the old barrel for a Bernie smear.

[pnwmom]

18. Oh, right. Bernie people can make an issue of 16 year old Hillary being a "Goldwater girl,"

but what Bernie said as a 33 year old adult, making his second run for the U.S. Senate, is irrelevant.



Even though what he said then about breaking up the Rockefeller family fortune is almost word for word what he says today about breaking up the banks.

[AZ Progressive]

34. Hillary back in 1996 basically said that she was still a conservative

That her political beliefs are rooted in the conservatism that she was raised in.

[Yurovsky]

53. Mic drop!

But of course she's a progressive...

[brewens]

138. In my experience, people tend to hold on to political beliefs they were raised with. I know

a few that rebelled and went the other way, but for the most part, some kid who was indoctrinated as a conservative will remain so. We have every reason to believe Hillary has been a conservative all along. Just playing the rubes every step of the way.

[MonkeyChamp]

9. this is some "big" revelation from 1974

Yawn.
You think this little gem from 1974 would sink Bernie in the general? You're entitled to your opinion...HRC was a Goldwater gal if we want to start going tit-for-tat.

[pnwmom]

19. Exactly. How many times have Bernie people slammed her for being a 16 year old Goldwater Girl?

But Bernie was 33, a full adult, making his second Senate run when he made that statement. And he still believes in redistribution today.

[thesquanderer]

24. By the time Hillary was 33, she'd already done her first shady deal (cattle futures).

Words versus deeds.

Personally, I don't knock HRC for being a Goldwater girl at 16, or blame her for what she was doing in the 60s. Though I think it is of more interest that, as an adult, she didn't refer to it as any kind of error of youth or something she would disown, but rather, something she was still proud of... basically, that she had become a Democrat not because SHE had changed, but because the PARTY had changed... and this was 1996, while she was first lady.

So yes, as you say, Bernie "still believes in redistribution today" though he is not as extreme today (and certainly isn't proposing all the same things, nor is there any reason to believe he would).

Similarly, Hillary has always had a conservative streak. She's correct that the Republican party has moved (even more since 1996), she would certainly be liberal for a Republican, but she is conservative for a Dem, on fiscal and foreign policy.

Bottom line, philosophically, neither of them have moved terribly far from where they were in their youth. We are who we are...

[pnwmom]

25. Ken Starr spent $70 million dollars failing to prove Hillary or Bill had done something "shady"

but some idiots still think she did. Amazing.

Bill had some consensual blowjobs with Lewinsky. That's all that came out of $70 million and several years trying to pin something, anything, on one of the two of them.

[thesquanderer]

43. You don't have to be an idiot to think that something was shady about that cattle futures trading...

...even if it could not be proven.

I also happen to think OJ was probably guilty, but I guess only idiots believe that, too.

[pnwmom]

44. No, just a Rethug dupe. n/t

[PufPuf23]

81. I 100% supported the Clintons in the 1990s and still think they were subject to witch hunts.

That said, fifteen people were convicted of crimes over Whitewater and some did prison. Susan McDougal spent 22 months in jail because she refused to testify about Bill Clinton.

"Susan McDougal (born 1955) is one of the few people who served prison time as a result of the Whitewater controversy although fifteen individuals were convicted of various federal charges. Her refusal to answer "three questions" for a grand jury about whether President Bill Clinton lied in his testimony during her Whitewater trial led her to receive a jail sentence of 18 months for contempt of court. This comprised most of the total 22 months she spent in incarceration. McDougal received a full Presidential pardon from outgoing President Clinton in the final hours of his presidency in 2001." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McDougal

Almost any other executive that had a relationship like the Bill Clinton-Lewinsky relationship, they would have lost their job and been sued for civil damages.

I judge Hillary Clinton unfavorably now and the judgement is because of her time as Senator, SOS, principle in The Clinton Foundation, and POTUS candidate.

Hillary and Bill Clinton were paid over $140 million for speeches to financial institutions. The Clinton Foundation received about $2 billion in donations including 8 figures from Saudi Arabia while Hillary Clinton was SOS and approved a major arms sale to the Saudis. Bill Clinton said oops.

WikiLeaks released emails between Hillary Clinton and Blumenthal regards to Libya. POTUS Obama had banned Blumenthal from his administration but he provided intelligence to the SOS anyway and was paid $10,000 a month from The Clinton Foundation. The emails discussed "business opportunities" and possible "cooperators but never mentioned "humanitarian" concerns. Some of the information was classified.

etc etc

BTW I am not an idiot. What you do there is referred to as gas lighting. What you may not see is how transparent you are and how transparent Hillary Clinton is to many of us. Clinton does not represent the best interests of most people but is very willing to play with hearts and minds for the votes and power that allow her wealth and vanity. No one is that deserving and anointed.

[pnwmom]

83. We know that Julie Hiatt Steele faced 35 years in prison because she refused to lie

for Kathleen Wiley and confirm her story. Ken Starr prosecuted her for obstruction even though Linda Tripp ALSO contradicted Kathleen's story, and even though Kathleen contradicted herself so many times that Starr couldn't even believe her. Read Ray's final report of the Ken Starr investigation. It is quite revealing.

So I regard Julie and Susan as heroes. Neither one of them would give false testimony against the Clintons, and Susan even went to jail rather than do so.

[PufPuf23]

90. Who cares about the 1990's bimbo eruptions?

Last edited Sun May 29, 2016, 12:51 AM - Edit history (1)

What happened within the Clinton's marriage should have remained their own business had not Bill Clinton played in the White House.

White collar financial crimes are lucrative and hard to prosecute.

What we do know is that the Clinton's became very rich after Bill Clinton was in office and started a non-profit of endowment and form like no other.

We also know that Hillary Clinton lies repeatedly and apparently cannot help herself.

But then Hillary Clinton supporters deny that Clinton is a neo-liberal and a neo-conservative and deny that these economic and political philosophies and methods have specific definitions in our time. These economic and political philosophies are not egalitarian and redistribute wealth and power to an elite at a cost of lives and environment. A neo-liberal trades off progressive social and cultural issues at a cost of economic justice. A neo-conservative hand in hand builds regional and global empire by violence. The body politic is manipulated by lies and fear. Many of those that benefit do not want to lose the status quo or know no other.

[pnwmom]

92. I know some people hate the idea that a woman who had left office could be paid a lot for speeches.

And her husband, even though there was that woman with the blue dress.

But they are not personally profiting from the Foundation. They aren't taking salaries and they are donating a significant part of their speech money to it.

The fact that most Foundations (not all) simply make grants and don't try to do the charitable work themselves doesn't make their set-up wrong. They should be applauded for the work of their Foundation, not castigated for it.

[PufPuf23]

93. The Clintons were paid $143 million for speeches to financial institutions;

of this they paid $56 million in income taxes and donated $15 million to The Clinton Foundation for a net of $72 million in personal fortune over about a seven year period. The Clinton Foundation pays expenses for the Clintons, pays for events, and provides employment for some of their entourage (like the $10,000 a month for Blumenthal).

One cannot be so naïve to think the financial institutions paid that sort of money without the expectation of something in return or already given or general access and meeting of minds. Long ago Janet Yellen was on my MBA committee at Cal Haas School (not that impressive and nearly zero help). I spent about a decade of my life post MBA in project finance, M&A, appraisal, and public policy for a historic boutique management consulting firm. I had spent my 20s and early 30s as a career Fed.

The Clinton Foundation is a vehicle for influence peddling as much as it is a charity. Folks on the ground in Haiti or Indonesia for example are not complimentary of the Clintons. The Foundation has an endowment of $2 billion. If so altruistic, why is the Foundation even necessary except as a vanity and influence project for the Clintons? Why did Hillary Clinton send children back to the instability in Honduras?

[creeksneakers2]

98. I know cynics don't believe this is possible

But the Clintons started the foundation because they wanted to do good for the world. It doesn't make sense that they'd go to all this trouble for something that paid them no direct money just to employ Sid Blumenthal.

Rich people donate to charity all the time with no expectation of return. If it weren't for that there would be few charities. Celebrity speakers earn big money all the time. Its an entire industry.

[PufPuf23]

101. Then why have the Clintons done so much bad to the world?

Some people are too wealthy and have too much influence and get numb as to what they are actually doing.

I have been around wealthy people and worked at one time in corporate finance.

I bet that the travel and food expenses alone paid for the Clintons out of the Foundation could support a number of families or endow more effective and idealistic foundations. How can Hillary Clinton be so generous yet support intervention by bombing innocent women and children and civilian infrastructure? I don't want her to have a legacy comparable to Margaret Thatcher. How can she send children back to the instability that is Honduras? How can she put social security on the table and say health care will never anything but expensive when it should be a human right? The wealth and money is there but the Clintons are neo-liberals and neo-conservatives and serve wealth and empire for the few. Yes there is trickle down from the modern form of feudalism and yes this doesn't address other countries but it is similar to what I believe about the Democratic party (or one's self); it is a focus on the immediate and where one can have most ready impact. We make monuments but people live in the streets ill and homeless, lucky to have an associated heat vent.

Someone in this thread mentioned the Rockefeller Forest in Humboldt Redwood State Park. I spent my last time in the woods in Rockefeller Forest with my Dad when he was in hospice. Likewise have enjoyed the collections at the De Young Museum and similar where I have traveled in North America and Europe. I see what could be and see people like the Clintons as an impediment, not as bad an impediment as a Trump or a Bush, but still an entitled impediment.

[creeksneakers2]

109. I thought you went to bed

Travel and meals wouldn't attract the Clintons. They travel all the time. A night at home would be a luxury for them. Innocent people aren't the targets of her bombing. Where she supported military force I'm sure she sincerely believed it was for the greater good. Children had to be sent back to Honduras because there was a flood of them. The more we would have accommodated them the more would have come. The pubic was in an uproar about it. Hillary doesn't have social security on the table. The characterization of the Clintons as pawns for the wealthy ignores their records and is only supported by cherry picking from their records. Hillary had a very liberal voting record in the Senate.

I'm glad you liked the forest. I don't hike much anymore but my wife and I did lots of it.

If you are for flat out socialism I guess the Clintons would be an impediment. The whole country is an impediment. We are not a socialist country.

[creeksneakers2]

94. Saudi Arabia did not donate to the foundation

while Hillary was secretary of state. They donated before but then it was not known she was going to be secretary. I don't know where you came up with the $2 billion figure. That's about what the foundation took in from all sources over its lifetime.

Arms deals are extremely complex and go through many entities. They can take as long as seven years. Most of what happens comes under the Pentagon. Its not as if somebody could take a bribe and just approve one.

The Saudi Arms deal was a major initiative of the entire administration. It started under Bush but was expanded under Obama for two major reasons. First, it was expected to produce 50,000 or 75,000 jobs. This was at a time when the 2008 crash left the country with high unemployment and the arms jobs were among the few that could be produced. The administration also wanted to build a barrier to Iran. The Saudi deal was the largest arms sale ever. It was inconceivable that Hillary wouldn't approve it. Tying the approval to donations to a foundation the Clintons got no direct compensation from is far fetched. Its like a whole city being flooded by a hurricane and somebody saying the flood was caused by someone letting their faucet drip.

The falsehood that Hillary's approval was because of Saudi donations to the foundation comes from an International Business Times article that is full of holes.

[PufPuf23]

99. The $2 billion endowment for The Clinton Foundation was from the wiki link

I understand that an arms deal is complex there are many steps, agencies, private companies, and individuals involved and also that unfortunately arms manufacture and military basing and support are (too) important to the economy.

I was a Fed from 1969 to 1985 and quit because of Reagan. I knew what Reagan was because he was Governor of California (including when I was an undergrad at Cal) and subsequently greatly damaged the agency as POTUS where at the time I expected to spend my working life. Taking bribes as a Fed is not part of the culture I observed and would have been difficult. I still speak with others regards that part of my life and people believe the Feds were corrupt and on the take (which is ridiculous). I later quit a corporate management consulting finance job is a specific corporate sector for similar reasons to leaving the Feds and downsized my life and ambition. Now I am old and of ill health.

I mentioned Saudi Arabia because it was one of the largest donations and because Bill Clinton gave a glib quote that was basically oops as to any appearance of impropriety. I did not mean at all to imply direct bribes. The Clinton Foundation received at least seven figure donations from many corporations, individuals, countries, and other agencies while Hillary Clinton was SOS. I am disgusted that we are a nation where arms dealing is a major sector of our economy and "foreign aid". The money and jobs could have been better spent rebuilding or building American infrastructure. There is nothing more wasteful and damaging to lives and the environment than war but armaments are a large margin and large order sector for the arms merchants. Saudi Arabia and no one else in the Middle East need more arms. I am specifically not saying we should remove our influence or action from the region. We "own" more than a little responsibility for the horrors in the Middle East. So I am rambling and should hit the sack.

I am not that particularly naïve nor uninformed. The medium of a message board that is largely a flame war at present is limiting. There are as many people here at DU that stifle discussion as make a genuine effort. Thank you as you did make the effort.

[MonkeyChamp]

153. The "R" Word

I'm not sure what you mean by "redistribution"...seems like you thinks it's an ominous, bad word?
Graduated income tax rates are "redistribution".

Tax credits for low-income Mom'sfamilies for Kids is redistributive. Food stamps are...tons, and tons of things are redistributive.
If you are against Redistribution writ broadly & think it's bad, their are other parties for you: Repub or Libertarian.

[pnwmom]

154. The problem is

that back then he used the word "redistribution" to be a synonym for "confiscation."

And many will suspect that he would be comfortable with the same meaning today.

[MonkeyChamp]

156. Loaded terms - Confiscation & Redistrbution

I think you are using very loaded, negative terms to describe Sanders positions. I also think you are using terminology of the Right and should be a little more aware of this.
All taxes can be argued as "confiscation". Many methods of taxation are "redistributive". These terms have been used by RepubsLibertariansLaissez Fairists to smear progressiveliberal policies for a long time.
Higher taxes are going to be a big part of fighting inequality...I find it alarming that HRC is defining "No higher taxes on the Middle Class" and quietly defining the Middle class as a family with 250k income.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/28/opinion/campaign-stops/250000-a-year-is-not-middle-class.html?_r=0

[pnwmom]

157. What else are we to make of his call for "breaking up" the wealth of the

Rockefeller family and using the funds for social programs? That would sound like confiscation to most people.

[KingFlorez]

10. Not much has changed

Most posters on this site would see nothing wrong with that plan.

[ucrdem]

12. Now it's the Walton family.

I got an earful when he rolled through my neck of the woods. Plus ça change . . .

[Zen Democrat]

38. The Walton family should be made to pay a decent wage and offer benefits,

or get out of business. They have made billions from the largesse of the US middle-class taxpayer.

[Demsrule86]

125. Walmart pays their workers in Northern Ohio

better than most retailers...Target just matched them. Places like Kohls, Penneys, Sears etc..pay minimum. My daughter will start a 10 and hour...not bad for a college kid.

[azurnoir]

145. just when ya think you've seen it all-now Walmart is a good employer

what about employees that aren't collage students-ya know those who have family's and stuff?

[Retrograde]

13. Ironically, the Rockefeller family has done some good with their money

One example: back in the early 1900s a large stand of old-growth redwoods in Humboldt County, CA was threatened by loggers. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. bought them and surrounding acreage and presented them to the state: it's now Humboldt Redwoods State Park and worth a visit. Then on your way back to San Francisco you can stop at the De Young Museum and see the fine collection of American art the Rockefeller family donated.

Possibly in atonement for his father's business practices, John D. Jr. seems to have been determined to spend his money on philanthropy. Two of his sons became governors: Nelson in New York, and Winthrop in Arkansas. Nelson was governor most of the time I lived in New York, and he was reviled for his tax and drug policies and his performance at Attica (his recent biographer gets a 10.0 in mental gymnastics for attempting to gloss over that one). Nelson was the reason my grandfather told me never to vote for a Republican. But he was also an integrationist and advocate of goverment-sponsered health care. By today's standards he'd probably be to the left of Clinton.

Will Sanders say the same about the Walton family? They don't seem to be openly involved in politics - that's the Koch's job - but they're a lot richer than the Rockefellers currently. Will he be pushing for the breakup of Wal-Mart? Or the Koch industries?

[Demsrule86]

126. Also

Williamsburg...amazing....the Rockefellers save those old buildings and let owners live their during their lifetime.

[Barack_America]

14. Somebody call for congressional hearings!

There are communists among us.

[Cheese Sandwich]

15. There is such a thing as having too much money. There should be a limit.

This just makes me respect Bernie even more than I already did.

The Walton family, the Kochs, etc. These people have too much. You can't have a democracy with so much wealth and power concentrated in so few hands.

That's common sense. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis was hardly a socialist, but he said it:
"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

[vintx]

26. Yep. And most Americans would agree.

Conservadems and RWers will balk. And the RWers wouldn't vote for us anyway

The rast of us still live in reality and not that bubble of privilege.

Can you imagine how many people would suddenly see a reason to vote?

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Background on New York's Draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws

"On the books for over 35 years, the racist Rockefeller Drug Laws failed to curb drug use or abuse in New York, but successfully disrupted low income communities of color and tens of thousands of lives through mass incarceration –all at taxpayer expense
Enacted in 1973 under then-Governor Nelson Rockefeller, the Rockefeller Drug Laws mandated extremely harsh prison terms for possession or sale of relatively small amounts of drugs. Although intended to target “kingpins,” most people incarcerated under the laws were convicted of low-level, nonviolent, first-time offenses. The laws marked an unprecedented shift towards addressing drug use and abuse through the criminal justice system instead of through the medical and public health systems.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/background-new-yorks-draconian-rockefeller-drug-laws

Rockefeller policy had national and lasting negative influence.
The Drug Laws That Changed How We Punish
http://www.npr.org/2013/02/14/171822608/the-drug-laws-that-changed-how-we-punish

Since when did people on DU side with Rockefeller?

[libtodeath]

20. Sure,dont want to upset freepers by wanting to help the average person.

[pnwmom]

22. He would alienate millions of voters in the middle, who would suspect that such a

redistribution could eventually come to them . . . and not in a good way.

[libtodeath]

23. So I guess we just bow to our oligarchs then.

[Gore1FL]

112. We've been doing it for so long, some seem to believe that's a Democratic Party value.

No voter under the age of 35 can remember a United States where we taxed the uber rich and built schools, improved infrastructure, developed new technologies, and exported goods rather than jobs.

It's no wonder that the Democratic party maintains it's rightward drift, even after two consecutive landslide presidential election wins.

[CrowCityDem]

31. Yup, totally vetted, lol.

[Perogie]

32. OMG

and FDR raised taxes on the wealthy to 90%. It was horrible. The US collapsed under that huge tax burden and we turned into a communist country eliminating all the Capitalists......

Oh wait that never happened.

[bobbobbins01]

36. I'm fine with that.

There should be a limit to wealth.

[Zen Democrat]

39. That's what Benjamin Franklin strongly believed.

[Live and Learn]

40. Yikes, we must protect the Rockefeller wealth!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. The comfort of the rich relies on an abundant supply of the poor. Voltaire

[GRhodes]

48. Clinton supporters defending the Rockefellers from Bernie Sanders

I can't think of a better and more apt microcosm of this election and her campaign.

[socialist_n_TN]

52. Great start to your DU posting career........

Welcome and check us out in the Socialist Progressives group.

[Gore1FL]

113. Welcome to DU!

Nice first post!

[DemocraticWing]

51. Why stop with the Rockefellers?

I can think of a lot of rich people who should surrender some of their hordes of money so their countrymen can eat, have a home, etc.

But Hillary supporters don't want that because they love capitalism. They think they're going to get rich one day, or get pie in the sky when they die. It's all fucking nonsense.

[zigby]

57. Yep. It's either taxes and pitchforks.

Out here in Silicon Valley, there's a reason the newly rich don't flaunt wealth. It takes very little for the anger to boil over into outright rebellion. The Uber classes who cemented their positions through generations of wealth inheritance on hte backs of the working class should sit up and pay attention. Or make their bunkers nice and strong.

[AZ Progressive]

54. OMG! The richest families' wealth cannot be broken up!

And yet Teddy Roosevelt and Taft broke up the largest corporations back in the 1900s through 1910s (a total of 134 corporations.)

[Alex4Martinez]

76. Won't somebody please think of the wealthy???

[zigby]

56. Pretty telling you think this is controversial.

Indicates the kind of people you surround yourself with. The angry working class, urban, rural, of color, white...everyone...would support this.

I'd rather see reasonable taxation on wealth inheritance than allowing the ridiculously wealthy to hide their billions in "philanthropies" anyways.

[PowerToThePeople]

59. Nothing wrong with that plan.

No more Oligarchs.

100% inheritance tax!

[pnwmom]

61. There is if you want to win a General Election, not a DU poll. n/t

[Gore1FL]

114. So we can put you in the "Democrats should sell out their values" column, then

Thanks for the clarification.

[pnwmom]

148. Most Dems think that after people have paid their taxes, their remaining

assets shouldn't be subject to confiscation. Which is what Bernie was advocating.

[Gore1FL]

149. I think you might want to read more on the subject.

your blinding hatred of all things bernie is showing.

[pnwmom]

150. His words speak for themselves. n/t

[Gore1FL]

151. And you clearly didn't read them all.

And you never read Jefferson.

And you are blinded by your anti-Bernieness so much that it's almost to the point of laughable.

[GRhodes]

147. So

there is a huge backlash, in 2016 in the US, about taxing the rich and expanding programs to help working people? I know the polls, I'd love for you to find that polls show this. How's life in your elite bubble, must be nice? Amazing how tone deaf the Clinton team and her defenders are. Almost impossible to a worse job in making sense of what is going on in the country. This is why you blew the sixty point lead you out of touch people had on Sanders.

As I said above, I think this perfectly captures Clinton and her supporters. You know, there is a right wing party that is concerned with keeping the rich on top (as if government policy hasn't done that in recent decades), and cementing their power. Maybe move on over to that party, wouldn't be an ideological conversion for you, just check a different letter when you vote.

[Eric J in MN]

62. Bernie Sanders believes that 'a decent standard of living'

...'for all people' has precedence over inherited wealth.

So do I.

[hobbit709]

63. Read a little Jefferson.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. Before Hillary proposed putting flag burners in prison for a year, she called marriage

A "sacred bond between a man and a woman". Before that, she voted for the Iraq war.

[basselope]

66. How dare you attack her based on what she did, said and voted for!!!

The only things you are allowed to bring up, is what she "believes" now. (DISCLAIMER: Beliefs change depending upon region of country and audience being addressed.)

[Warren DeMontague]

67. Bernie attacked rockefeller while the poor man was busy trying to save New York from pot smokers

Can you imagine? The guy was just trying to do the lord's work, you know, sticking tens of thousands of people in rikers for small amouts of weed... An important torch the carrying of which sadly has been abandoned by everyone except chris christie and debbie wasserman schultz.

[basselope]

65. You mean he would have been even MORE electable??? Wow. Cool.

[PufPuf23]

84. I am for diminishing but not destroying large family-wealth.

I am for a graduated income tax that shifts tax burden to the those of higher income. I am for higher capital gains taxes. I am for higher inheritance taxes. I am for transaction taxes on the security markets. I am for transfers from the Feds to States and locals to reduce sales and property taxes. I am against privatization of the public commons including schools. I am for inexpensive universities where research belongs to the taxpayers. I am for aggressive anti-trust actions in just about every industry. I am for a guaranteed income, housing, food, transportation, medical care, and other items for a meaningful and comfortable life. I am against free trade deals because the economic models cannot be replicated out of the theory. I am for Keynesian stimulus in infrastructure projects and direct federal or other government hired with federal funds (like WPA, CCC, CETA - these programs no longer exist). I am for greatly reduced military. I am for environmental protection and non-development of large areas of natural habitat. I am for a Manhattan-style project to develop clean and portable energy technology. And so on.

I want an egalitarian and mobile society and a gradual reduction in population.

If one raises taxes on the wealthy, reduces military spending, and flattens the distribution of income and wealth, the money is there for this type of society and then we truly will have a philosophy and way of life where we could be an example and share what we have with the less fortunate.

Idealistic? Yes.

[Armstead]

85. Oh Wonderful....Now Progressive Taxation is Under the Bus

Let's just come on out and say it. We are Not Liberals anymore.....at least not when it comes to anything related to Money and Power.

Rush Limbaugh is Correct.

[Gore1FL]

115. Too many Democrats have bought into the lies of Reaganomics.

Pretty sad.

[Rex]

121. People are just ignorant as to what the world socialist means...again.

I am always perplexed by fellow DUers that seem to not be able to grasp what socialism is AND that maybe it won't lead to global diarrhea or cooties. That word and COMMUNISM still have many here confused as to the actual definition.

We still have a lot of liberals and progressives here that comprehend terms used in politics and society, the rest...I don't know what their problem is.

Of course Bernie would want to distribute wealth, most people should know that.

[David__77]

119. I don't object to wealth taxation as a concept.

Reallocation of wealth isn't necessarily bad.

[Rex]

120. Pfffttt Rockefellers...he should be going after the Rothchilds.

Nobody is richer and more well connected on the planet. Seriously, did people forget Bernie is a socialist? Of course he would want to do something like that.

If he thinks breaking up wealthy families is going to help, he is about 300 years too late.

Try huge banks Bernie, better yet just stick with Wall Street...they owe the American citizen trillions of dollars in bailout money. Maybe get some of that back for us. I take VISA.

[Armstead]

123. Psssssst...That was an old speech dredged up from the 1970's

[riversedge]

128. People dredge up old stuff on Hillary and Bill on Du all the time.

[Armstead]

133. This thread is about a speech in 1974

Sure the GOP may trot it out...But the criticisms here are behaving like this is is current campaign.

[Txbluedog]

130. And you think it won't be dredged up if he was in the GE?

[Armstead]

134. Yah, so what?

[Rex]

137. Yeah and the second link is from Jan 2016

BFD.

[Armstead]

141. And it talks about the past -- which is not all that bad

Among other things, during the 1970s and ’80s, Sanders regularly called for public takeovers of various businesses, including utilities and the oil industry.

Before deregulation fever, utilities were a form of quasi-public enterprises. Some were publicly owned, others were private but were extremely accountable due to very strict regulations that required them to operate in the publoic interest....Then the craze of substituting "for profit market-driven" of the Deregulation and Privatization fervor changed that and led to the Era of Enron.

Remember Enron?

Sanders advocated seizing money from corporations and from one of America’s richest families.

Yeah, progressive taxation. It's what we used to have. It helped keep the wealthy from getting too greedy, made corporations more acocuntable, and generally spread the wealth to benefit the middle class and the poor.

And, as a mayor, Sanders made forays into foreign policy that included meetings with representatives of hostile nations, rebel groups and Canadian separatists.

I don't if you were alive and paying attyention in the 80's, but there was quite a bit of public push-back to Reagan - Ollie North's Contra War against the Sandinistas.

[blackspade]

131. What a pathetic attack.

1974? Really?

This Brock opposition research is pretty sad.

[Autumn]

135. 40 years, that's just fucking sad and 100% predictable from you guys.

[lumberjack_jeff]

143. Won't someone please think of the Rockefellers? n/t

[azurnoir]

144. up next Bernie want's to steal Matryoshka & Petrushka's Faberge' eggs