Jan 31, 2016

Studies Prove Hillary Clinton Makes Bad Decisions Because of Her Wealth!

Background:
Hillary & Bill Clinton Make BAD Decisions 1 - Imprisoning Black People 
Hillary & Bill Clinton Make BAD Decisions 2 - Bill Paved The Way For The Financial Collapse Of 2008 
Hillary & Bill Clinton Make BAD Decisions 3 - Against & Then FOR LGBT Rights



Studies have shown that wealthy people make bad decisions because wealth has skewed their perception of reality.

Studies;


Harvard: The 'Luxury Prime: How Luxury Changes People

Harvard: The Devil Wears Prada? Effects of Exposure to Luxury Goods On Cognition & Decision Making


Scientific American: How Wealth Reduces Compassion

Lets begin.

Hillary talks about how she was one poor. You know back in the days when her husband was a lowly governor and she only made $92,000 a year (poor woman). I'm sure compared to thier super yacht owning friends she was poor, however for the vast majority of Americans, many of whom the Clinton's put in prison and then paved the path to destroy the countries wealth with banking deregulation, the Clinton's have clearly been rich alot longer than when they THINK they became wealthy. Another example of wealth skewing perception. (See a list of bad decisions in the list of posts below)


The Clintons did not move into the White House with old money akin to the political dynasties of the Roosevelts, Kennedys and Bushes. And unlike nearly every other president, Clinton’s wife was the breadwinner ahead of his run for the Oval Office.
Clinton sought a political career not long after graduating from Yale Law School in 1973 and marrying Hillary Rodham two years later, first winning a term as Arkansas’ attorney general in 1976 and following it up with five terms as governor.
He earned $35,000 a year as governor, consistent with the lower pay of other Southern governors, as well as some speaking fees, honorariums and in-kind income, such as living in the governor’s residence. Hillary Clinton, then a lawyer and senior partner in the Rose Law Firm of Little Rock, earned $92,000 salary and listed her share of her law firm’s profit-sharing and retirement plan between $100,001 and $250,000, according to a New York Times examination of the couple’s finances in 1992.

Since Clinton left the Presidency on 2000 thier wealth has increased even more;

Continued from Politifact; Nowadays, the Clintons are not known for living on modest means. A Washington Post report says Bill Clinton earned more than $100 million from speeches given in the U.S. and abroad between January 2001, when he left office, and January 2013, when Hillary Clinton left her role as Secretary of State. She reportedly draws $200,000 for each public appearance, a new talking point among pundits who oppose her potential 2016 presidential candidacy.
Clinton is considered the wealthiest living president and among the top-10 all-time wealthiest, with the Clintons’ combined net worth at about $55 million, according to the website 24/7 Wall Street, which started evaluating the net worth of presidents in 2010.

A note on the Republican style derugulation Bill did while in office that led to the financial collapse (which I covered here);

Alternet Article: In 1999, Bill Clinton made repealing the Depression-era Glass-SteagallAct — which separated commercial and investment banking — a priority. He commanded a bipartisan push in repealing the law, which was primarily advocated for by Wall Street lobbyists. Not long after his pen hit the paper to repeal the law, Citigroup, a top beneficiary of the repeal, recruited Clinton’s Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin to join as an executive at the firm. Rubin went on to be one of Citigroup’s highest-paid officials, pulling in $115 million in pay from 1999 and 2008.


While Rubin was made rich from Wall Street deregulation, his boss went on the lecture circuit. In February of 2001, Clinton had been out of the White House for less than a month when he gave his first paid speech, to none other than Morgan Stanley — another beneficiary of and advocate for Clinton’s Wall Street deregulation — for$125,000. His next address in Manhattan was at Credit Suisse First Boston, which gave him an additional $125,000. His paid speaking arrangements took him around the world, from Canada to Hong Kong, speaking to a variety of interest groups with major public policy interests, including the American Israel Chamber of Commerce and the investment banking giant CLSA. Clinton had also made passing the North American Free Trade Agreement a priority during his presidency, so it is no surprise that major Canadian firms such as the Jim Pattison Group ($150,000) were happy to pay to hear a few remarks from him as well.
The Wall Street payments were significant in that they represented a form of gratitude not only for Bill Clinton’s deregulation of Wall Street. That year Hillary Clinton, now a senator from New York, voted for a bankruptcy bill that made it much harder for people to qualify for Chapter 7 bankruptcy; the bill was backed primarily by banks and credit card issuers.


Overview of Hillary's & Bill's Bad Decision Making Skills (History)

Hillary Clinton Makes Bad Decisions (Proofs)




Jan 30, 2016

Hillary & Bill Clinton Make BAD Decisions 3 - Against & THEN For LGBT Rights


Hillary held a very strong Republican view towards gays for most her her career, i.e. she was anti-gay rights, despite the Constitution's Bill Of Rights. It was her husband that signed the very Republican sounding Defense Of Marriage - DOMA - act (which, of course, he regrets). They were successful in protecting marriage from gay people so they clearly became very close to Republicans. Well, at least some of them. (I sometimes wonder if 'moving to the center' is something the rich people who own media came up with to gain consensus to push their own agenda through and then started acting like is was a real rule... like they seem to do with "news" even today)

As is the pattern of the Clinton's, they make bad decisions and then they change positions and act like they made the right decision all along. Unless they are left with no choice but to apologize because what they did is just so bad that they have no choice. They have made some good decisions on the small scale (& the Democrat base is immune to religious economics... so there is a limit to what they can pull off there... not that they aren't able to, just takes more work). Since Democrats follow polls and Republicans create them, some of this may simply be coincidence.


Here is Hillary Clinton Against & For Gay Rights (Interestingly enough she's calling it a 'Constitutional right' now. Took her decades to figure that out. Definitely not a plus for her decision making skills):

From The Atlantic:


Hillary Clinton didn't refrain from supporting same-sex marriage for political reasons—before last year, she earnestly believed that marriage equality should be denied to gays and lesbians. That's the story the 66-year-old Democrat settled on when NPR host Terry Gross pressed her on her views. The admission is easily the most significant in the interview with the former senator, secretary of State, and presidential candidate, though much of the subsequent media attention has focused on the perception that there was a "heated exchange" where Clinton "lashed out" at her interviewer.* The mild tension stemmed from persistent questioning as Clinton obfuscated on an issue that could damage her chances in a 2016 primary but is relatively unlikely to hurt her in a contest against a Republican, given that her coalition is so much stronger on gay rights than the opposition. 
In a primary, Clinton could be forced to explain a longtime position that a significant part of that Democratic political coalition now views as suspect or even bigoted. Most famously, the Silicon Valley left forced the ouster of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for a 2008 donation he made to an anti-gay-marriage ballot initiative. That same year, Clinton ran for president while openly opposing gay marriage. If she is to be believed, she also opposed gay marriage as recently as 2013, long after a majority of Americans already held a more gay-friendly position. Would the subset of Democrats who thought 2008 opposition to gay marriage should prevent a man from becoming CEO in 2013 really support the 2015 presidential campaign of a woman who openly opposed gay marriage until last year?



Washington (CNN)As recently as a year ago, Hillary Clinton was sparring with a public radio host about her position on same-sex marriage, defending her past reticence to discuss the issue and falling well short of full-throated support. Now, in a markedly new position, Clinton is offering just that, calling gay marriage a right afforded by the Constitution.
"Hillary Clinton supports marriage equality and hopes the Supreme Court will come down on the side of same-sex couples being guaranteed that constitutional right," said Adrienne Elrod, a Clinton spokeswoman, in a statement.
This is an entirely new position for Clinton.
    As a candidate in 2008, Clinton opposed same-sex marriage, supporting the idea of civil unions instead. She did not proclaim her personal support for same-sex marriage until 2013, after she left her diplomatic position as secretary of state.




    From Politifact;

    On the day that the U.S. Supreme Court was poised to hear oral arguments about same-sex marriage April 28, Hillary Clinton changed her "H" logo to rainbow-colored and tweeted: "Every loving couple & family deserves to be recognized & treated equally under the law across our nation. #LoveMustWin #LoveCantWait."
    Clinton came out in support of same-sex marriage in 2013 after more than a decade of opposing it. But her views are particularly in the spotlight now that she is apresidential candidate.
    We decided to put Clinton’s statements about same-sex marriage on our Flip-O-Meter, which measures whether a candidate has changed their views without making a value judgment about such flips. We found that as public opinion shifted toward support for same-sex marriage, so did Clinton.

    Hillary Clinton Makes Bad Decisions (Proofs)

    Jan 29, 2016

    Hillary & Bill Clinton Make BAD Decisions 2 - Bill Paved The Way For The Financial Collapse Of 2008

    Background:


    This post outlines how Bill Clinton helped dergulate the banking system and promoted the very same housing policies (based on direction of policy) that led to the financial crisis.

    Lets begin. Here's an article PROVING that Bill Clinton is lying about his role in the events that led to the financial crisis of 2008:



     You know, the usual Bill Clinton interview. But Clinton’s comment about his record on regulation is an actual newsmaker, because it’s a giant whopper:
    What happened? The American people gave the Congress to a group of very conservative Republicans. When they passed bills with the veto proof majority with a lot of Democrats voting for it, that I couldn’t stop, all of a sudden we turn out to be maniacal deregulators. I mean, come on. I know Senator Warren said the other day, admitted when she introduced a bill to reinstate the division between commercial and investment banks, she admitted that the repeal of Glass-Steagall did not cause one single solitary financial institution to fail.
    This is, to be kind, bullshit. Memory is a hazy thing, but I have a hard time believing Clinton doesn’t know full well he’s not telling the truth here (and with his record, he doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt).
    Let’s go to the tape. Clinton installed Robert Rubin and Larry Summers in the Treasury, which resulted in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which officially did in Glass-Steagall and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which left the derivatives market a laissez-faire Wild West (not to mention a disastrousstrong dollar policy that was a critical and underrated factor in the bubble). He also reappointed Ayn Rand-acolyte Alan Greenspan, who has as much responsibility as anyone for creating the crisis, as Fed chairman—twice.
    Now it’s true that Clinton faced an extremely hostile Republican Congress for the last six years of his presidency. But his administration actively encouraged the big deregulatory legislation, and squashed its own dissenters, like Brooksley Born, who saw disaster ahead.
    Clinton would have you believe that he signed those bills because his administration was forced to by a GOP that was beholden as usual to Big Business, but then what about the deregulatory legislation he signed in 1994, before Gingrich & Co. took Congress?
    More...

    Businessweek: Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far

    Add President Clinton to the long list of people who deserve a share of the blame for the housing bubble and bust. A recently re-exposed document shows that his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. It’s clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place. President Bush continued the practices because they dovetailed with his Ownership Society goals, and of course Congress was strongly behind the push. But Clinton and his administration must shoulder some of the blame.


    Video: George Bush Explains The Reasoning Behind The Housing Bubble



    Unsolved Mystery;




    Going Deeper:

    We had a nation of laws for everyone till the Republicans started following a fiction writer called Ayn Rand and decided to make policy based on the ideas of a fiction writer with no degrees or knowledge of anything. Alan Greenspan, specifically, decided (for an unknown reason) that throwing out decades of economic history & science and adopting the idealized 'wars between rich people' view of a fiction writer that spent the last days of her life on government support after escaping communist Russia, was the way to go. It's clear Ayn Rand believed rich rulers was a fine idea but that these rulers should be businessmen. I can see how this would appeal to someone who is rich and a businessman with hands in the government. Despite Alan Greenspan being wrong about Ayn Rand's fictional economic ideas, none of his rich buddies got hurt by the financial collapse of 2008... which was a miracle in and of itself.

    First, a debunking of the fictional economics ideas of Ayn Rand (shouldn't be necessary for anyone with any education);





    Next, the look at the madness that fueled the bad decision made by Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton by enabling the GOP to destroy the economy and many citizens lives. What was thier logic? Business men are honest! Clearly, they didn't think laws have anything to do with business decisions. This belief despite the fact that millions died in slavery and people were treated awfully.

    PBS: The Warning: Long before the meltdown, one woman tried to warn about a threat to the financial system;




    Related Posts:




    Hillary & Bill Clinton Make BAD Decisions 1 - Imprisoning Black People


    There is a very good discussion of the issues and problems in this video about the prison problem. My goal here is to show that Hillary & Bill can't make good decisions by going over one issue at a time. Lets look at the racist decision that was made with the crime bill by Bill & Hillary in 1994 (my words "racist decision" is based on the interview and discussion in the video below). Hillary & Bill are clearly biased in ways that only comes out when they make policy and not so much when it comes to electioneering. Clearly they know how to campaign well. I'm guessing Bill is the brains here.


    TA-NEHISI COATES - AMERICA'S MASS INCARCERATION PROBLEMOCTOBER 12, 2015 - TA-NEHISI COATES - The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates explains why mass incarceration is a uniquely American phenomenon that disproportionately affects black people. (6:50)




    Highlight - No one cared to make the right decision when it was time to make the decision... at least not the ones in power;















    Important - shows bad decision making skills;

    Article Extract: Atlantic Monthly

    The problem with this argument is that many of the crime policies the Clintons supported in the 1990s were probably wrong even back then. 


    Here is Hillary supporting the awful decision of 1994;

    Video: Mass Incarceration: Can Hillary Clinton Undo Bill's Legacy On Crime? 




    Highlight:




    Here is Bill apologizing after the fact (he does that alot. Passes bills to help his rich buddies - in this case Private Prison campaign donors - then he apologizes for it. They are smart enough to cut thier ties before an election. Maybe they will do nothing on prisons maybe they will do something... but one thing is for sure, if they keep thier current pattern alot of rich people are going to get richer and we will hear alot more apologies after the fact... maybe when it's time for their daughter to run for something.)


    Bill Clinton says he made mass incarceration issue worse -Bill Clinton said Wednesday that the crime bill he signed into law as President in 1994 worsened the nation's criminal justice system by increasing prison sentences. "I signed a bill that made the problem worse," Clinton told an audience at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's annual meeting in Philadelphia. "And I want to admit it."

    (says nothing about his private prison friends who make a killing off this bill)

    Note: The cause for high crime rate amoungst poor humans is poverty. This is something that has been known throughout recorded history. Black people are no different when from other people when it comes to poverty & high crime. Remember the financial crisis of 2008 and how everyone flipped out at the crash of the economy followed by the resurgence of hate groups with Obama's election? Poverty, or the prospect of poverty, puts a person in a basic survival instinct where do they things that resemble madness. Why are things not that bad right now? Because the economy isn't close to as bad as the traitor republicans are saying.



    More;

    EXCLUSIVE - TA-NEHISI COATES EXTENDED INTERVIEWOCTOBER 12, 2015 - TA-NEHISI COATES - The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates describes how a progressive examination of crime in America was co-opted to justify the mass incarceration of black people. (10:23)




    Related blog posts:



    Jan 28, 2016

    Corporate Media DID Do A Blackout On Bernie Sanders Like They Did With Ron Paul (Larry Wilmore, Bernie, Jon Stewart & Rachel Maddow Illustrate What's Going On)



    Those who are not only watching and reading Corporate media channels know about the Bernie Sanders blackout. Here is a summary;


    Why Is There a Media Blackout on Bernie Beating Trump in the Polls?Whether or not this goes any further, something remarkable has happened.


    Whether or not this goes any further, something remarkable has happened. The Donald Trump campaign (in many ways outlandish and uniquely dangerous) more or less fits the usual mold in terms of media success; the data are very clear that the media gave Trump vastly disproportionate media coverage, following which he rose in the pollsthe same polls later used to justify the coverage. This was the story of how the media created Howard Dean's success before tearing him down in 2004, and it has been the story of most candidates, successful and otherwise: the polling closely follows the coverage, not the other way around.
    Bernie is something new. The major media has given him ridiculously little coverage, and belittled him in most of that coverage. Yet he has surged in the polls, in volunteers, in small-donor fundraising, and in real world events. While television news has shunted aside actual events, crises, social movements, the state of the natural environment, any number of wars, countless injustices, and most legislative activities in order to focus more than ever on the next election, and has done so ever since it was nearly two years away, the media has also given wildly disparate attention to certain candidates, in a way that bears no correlation to polling or internet searching or donors or any such factor. As of last fall, Bernie Sanders had received a total of 8 minutes of coverage from broadcast evening news, less than Mitt Romney or Joe Biden got for deciding not to enter the race.
    And yet, Bernie polls better against Donald Trump (now that a pollster finally asked that question and released the results) than does Hillary Clinton. 

    I covered how the media likes to create public opinion and then act like it arose on it own here:



    Clear Proof That The Media Creates Public Opinion (Example of Fear-mongering For A Ground War Against ISIS)


    This is what media is trying to do again. (list of media weirdness links below)


    So, the Democratic Establishment seems to be doing it's best to take Bernie Sanders off the air by trying to keep him in a low profile (non-prime time debate etc.). The reasons for that are pretty clear

    Bernie Sanders


    Hillary Cinton

    Chris Hayes Talks About The Clinton Political Dynasty & The Bush Political Dynasty & The Paul Political Dynasty & Asks If This Is What America Deserves?


    Recently DNC is considering adding a debate cause Hillary is losing NH and they think she can do better (i.e. "with medias help" is the subtext). Here is Larry Wilmore commenting on the Democrat Establishment's weird debates (ask yourself: why did they do such a thing that even Trump can call out as weird?)

    EXTENDED - BERNIE SANDERS CHATS WITH LARRY JANUARY 5, 2016 - SEXIST DONALD TRUMP & BERNIE SANDERS CHAT - Bernie Sanders talks ISIS and climate change and ponders whether Donald Trump should be "schlonged." (18:16)




    Larry Wilmore on the democratic debates;




    Bernie Replies;




    This sort of orchestrated media effort to suppress a Presidential candidate happened with Ron Paul too; Jon Stewart comments on this;


    Watch the first 50 seconds of the following video and you will notice that one particular person (Ron Paul) is ignored even though he came within 200 votes of winning the straw poll...
    The media consistently treats Ron Paul like 'he is the thirteenth floor in a hotel', yet he is the one that planted the grassroots that the establishment republicans are benefiting from now. Why is that? 


    (Note: By money I mean a paycheck, i.e. a liar for a paycheck)

    Rachel Maddow was involved as well (not being directly tied to corporate but the word is that they took away her corporate card and she's running scared).

    Maddow: Proof Ron Paul Was Robbed In Maine.






    The following links illustrate how far the corporate media has fallen;



    The Mystery Of The Media



    Media Mysteries


    ISIS Exposed


    Media's Iraq War Cover-Up