Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Here's Krugman in 2008 pushing for single-payer healthcare:
I have absolutely no fucking idea who Rudy Giuliani or Alan Greenspan are, that is just a quick google search. I did not know they were Republicans. In the lists I linked, her husband is there too so it is not a political thing.
I don't even live in the U.S, Solipsist. I don't care. And from outside, it seriously looks like obsession with a tenuous at best connection.
Al gore is in those lists too. I am pretty sure he is a dem.
edited 29th Jan '16 3:40:09 PM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesYeah that's fine he can be a monkey's uncle for all I care, but the point is people are paid a lot by banks, exec groups, universities everything, for no real good reason at all and this happens a lot when people are as famous as Clinton.
Parading her name around as a speech guest is like making of her a prize dog show in the world of business conventions. Not making an infernal soul binding contract with her.
It's just what those things are and have always been...
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesIf it makes you unwilling the vote for her that's fine, but don't discard voting against the other guy.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThe change in Krugman's tune probably comes down to him thinking it was much more possible then then he does now, what with the House pretty much locked in for Republicans until at least the end of the decade.
He's also noted that Sander's proposed plan is much more generous then medicare and apparently more generous then other single-payer systems, though I don't know how true that is.
Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, has just published an editorial criticizing Krugman on misunderstanding Sanders' theory of political change:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weisbrot/paul-krugman-misunderstan_b_9116490.html
edited 29th Jan '16 3:48:42 PM by SolipsistOwl
Mark Weisbrot also thought Venezuela's economic policies were tickety-boo (how's a shortage of necessities and 808% inflation working out for you?) and the CEPR, despite its name, is a left-wing version of the Cato Institute. I certainly wouldn't trust him over Krugman.
edited 29th Jan '16 3:55:23 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiFormer presidents and political figures will make that money regardless of who gets elected
The clinton connection with goldman sachs via speeches is just plain silly. I am not contesting or favoring, or rather, trying to favor someone to vote one or the other guy (unless I can convince you not to vote for trump. My suggestion is: don't), just arguing that the goldman sachs clinton connection doesn't really stand...
Ach: Did I ever teeeeeeeeeell you you're my herooooooo
edited 29th Jan '16 3:54:35 PM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
The presidential pension was created to prevent former presidents from "peddling prestige" to the highest bidder. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have broken the compact of the presidential pension.
One of these men was Andrew Carnegie, who made his fortune from the steel industry; by the time of his retirement in 1901 at the age of 66, he was the world's richest man. Known as both a tremendous philanthropist and a man who ruled his own industry with an iron fist, Carnegie entered the debate over presidential pensions by offering to fund a private $25,000 pension for all retired ex-presidents.
This drew great controversy in the Congress and in political circles all over the country, as the idea that presidents would retire with the knowledge they'd receive huge sums of money from the world's richest man—the equivalent figure is over $600,000 in today's dollars—could create real conflicts of interest.
Moved by his plight, the Congress finally passed the FPA to ensure that presidents could retire with some financial comfort. But Truman had one more trick up his sleeve to bring himself back to comfortable living. He received a $700,000 advance for his memoirs, and charged a fee for appearing on Edward R. Murrow's television program “See it Now.”
http://www.alternet.org/obscene-federal-money-gravy-train-ex-presidents
edited 29th Jan '16 4:01:23 PM by SolipsistOwl
Yeah, it sucks, but it's a fact of public life. Uniquely singling out Clinton for it in this campaign makes your true motivation really obvious, and makes me less interested, not more, in voting for Bernie.
edited 29th Jan '16 4:01:25 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I am a registered Democrat. I intend to vote Democrat. I care about where candidates receive their campaign contributions.
Clinton is the only Democrat currently running for president who has accepted such large amounts of money from financial organizations. She is also the "frontrunner."
Should I instead "single out" O'Malley?
edited 29th Jan '16 4:04:42 PM by SolipsistOwl
@110066
Basically you need oil and lubricant on the machines to keep them running, metaphorically.
Now mind you, the level Clinton is doing it is sketchy as shit, even if there is no crime.
And is why she's probably increasingly suffering in the polls. (Also doesn't help that Sanders has been playing the role of offering the other cheek when the first is struck, and Clinton has been attacking the bejezus out of him in recent days.)
@110096
The Republicans, though this only applies to the actual election, when we're talking primaries there's nobody to vote against just yet.
edited 29th Jan '16 4:17:15 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Democrats passed-up single-payer, not Republicans. Democrats held a supermajority in Congress, and opted not to go full single-payer because of the expected fight from the special interests. Had nothing to do with the Republicans—not that they made it any easier.
edited 29th Jan '16 4:18:40 PM by SolipsistOwl

edited 29th Jan '16 3:38:48 PM by sgamer82