Bob, certainly the dems have to thread much more lightly than the repubs when
championing causes given how many people are open to being paid to jump into a
dem's lap for a smear photo, remember Gary Hart?
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Hachey
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 7:43 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Ascendance of Paul Ryan and Hillary Clinton
Equals Big Win for Big Business
Hi Frank,
I agree with you here on the AHCA which would have died if Obama didn't'
back down. But in the case of welfare reform, Clinton could have stood stronger
and won that round. I think that Bubba did truly support that welfare reform
bill. We can only hope that Hilary is a bit more progressive, but I tend to
doubt that. The only threat the Republicans had was to threaten a government
shut down and that ploy usually leads to victory for the Democrats.
One thing that frustrates me is that when the Republicans support a cause, they
do it loudly and proudly. In too damned many instances, the Democrats do not
display the same level of chutzpah in support for their causes.
Bob Hachey
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Frank Ventura
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 8:24 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Ascendance of Paul Ryan and Hillary Clinton
Equals Big Win for Big Business
Miriam, that is the way the republicans have always done business. They will
fight any democratic president no matter what. That is why they forced Clinton
(Bill) to support welfare reform and that is why they forced Obama to abandon
single payer health care and that is why they will force Clinton, or President
Johnson, or president stein, to accept social security cuts and the repeal of
the FLSA.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam Vieni
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9:33 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Ascendance of Paul Ryan and Hillary Clinton
Equals Big Win for Big Business
I read a horrifying article which said that John McCain said that the
Republicans would fight Hillary Clinton on everything she wants to do in the
same way that they've fought Obama. And another article said that in order to
do anything, she'll have to compromise by raising the age for social security
and changing to the chain CPA. So we're being prepared for things to get worse.
Bernie's Our Revolution would have to get a majority of Progressive Democrats
into the House and Senate. We can work and dream.
It'll happen when pis fly!
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 8:39 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Ascendance of Paul Ryan and Hillary Clinton
Equals Big Win for Big Business
The sad truth is that Gerrymandering has given House Republicans an impregnable
fortress of safe seats in the House.
While Bernie's "revolution" was all in his head, that is no excuse for turning
tail and running. We do need to redouble our efforts to force President
Hillary Clinton to keep some of her "slightly left leaning"
campaign promises. We need to find some way of getting the
Foxes(lobbiests) out of the Hen House(Congress). And if we live in a
congressional district that is sewed up by big money, we need to show up at
every meeting where our representatives are, and demand that they represent us.
Carl Jarvis
On 10/17/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So much for the revolution.Great Depression.
Miriam
Ascendance of Paul Ryan and Hillary Clinton Equals Big Win for Big
Business Published on Monday, October 17, 2016 by RobertReich.org
Ascendance of Paul Ryan and Hillary Clinton Equals Big Win for Big
Business by Robert Reich
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, and House Speaker
Paul Ryan, could find room for agreement if Clinton is elected president.
Hillary Clinton won't be the only winner when Donald Trump and his
fellow haters are defeated on Election Day (as looks increasingly
likely). Another will be Paul Ryan, who will rule the Republican roost.
Democrats may take back the Senate but they won't take back the House.
Gerrymandering has given House Republicans an impregnable fortress of
safe seats.
This means that in order for President Hillary Clinton to get anything
done, she'll have to make deals with Speaker Paul Ryan.
While the Clinton-Ryan years won't be marked by the same kind of
petulant gridlock we've witnessed over the last eight, the ascendance
of Ryan and Clinton will mark a win for big business and Wall Street
over the strongest anti-establishment surge America has witnessed
since
Clinton might be able to summon Ryan's support on a "Buffet rule" forhigh-tech companies.
the highest-income taxpayers - an effective minimum tax of 30 percent
on top incomes. She might also be able to wangle some additional
spending on infrastructure and paid family leave.
But the price Ryan can be expected to exact will be lower corporate
tax rates, along with a tax amnesty on corporate profits repatriated
to the United States. And to offset the added spending and tax cuts,
Ryan will probably want Clinton to trim Social Security (perhaps
reviving the terrible idea of a "chained" CPI for determining cost of
living increases), and slow the growth of Medicare.
None of this will do much to remedy the central economic challenge of
our era - reversing the declining incomes and wealth of most Americans.
Although incomes rose in 2015, the typical household is still worse
off today than it was in 2000, adjusted for inflation. The assets of
the typical family today are worth 14 percent less than the assets of
the typical family in 1984. And the typical job is less secure than at
any time since the Great Depression.
These trends are not sustainable - neither economically nor politically.
They generated the fury that's undergirded Trump's ugly campaign, and
fueled the anger that propelled Bernie Sanders's insurgency.
They've fed a growing sense that the political-economic system is
rigged in favor of those at the top.
And it is. Big money has corrupted our democracy, resulting in laws
and rules that systematically favor big corporations, Wall Street, and
the very rich over everyone else.
Consider, for example, the growing market power of leading
pharmaceutical companies, private health insurers, the biggest Wall
Street banks, giant cable providers, four major airlines, and five
largest
And the decreasing market power of unions.contractors"
The resulting imbalance is transferring money out of the pockets of
average Americans directly into the pockets of major shareholders and
top executives.
A similar upward distribution is occurring through bankruptcy laws
that allow giant corporations and billionaires to avoid paying what
they owe, yet don't allow average people overburdened with mortgage or
student debt to renegotiate those obligations.
Mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts with giant corporations are
forcing people to give up rights under a wide variety of consumer and
employment laws. Meanwhile, workers classified as "independent
are losing whatever rights they once had under the nation's labor laws.top.
In all these respects, the American political economy has become
radically imbalanced.
The reforms Hillary Clinton and Paul Ryan are likely to agree to are
miniscule compared with the scale of this imbalance.
Hopefully, the leaders of big business and Wall Street - the true
winners of the 2016 election - will realize that although they avoided
Trump's authoritarian populism and Sanders's "political revolution"
this time around, they won't for much longer.
The forces that gave rise to both will grow unless our political
economy is rebalanced to work for everyone and not just for those at
the
There is precedent. In the first decades of the twentieth century,high-tech companies.
enlightened business leaders joined with progressive reformers to
rebalance American capitalism - thereby rescuing it from the savage
inequalities and corruption of the Gilded Age.
If they understand what happened in the 2016 election, enlightened
business leaders will do so once again.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike
3.0 License.
Robert Reich
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Monday, October 17, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. Defeating Dakota Access
. Election 2016
. Hillary Clinton
. Donald Trump
. Jill Stein
Ascendance of Paul Ryan and Hillary Clinton Equals Big Win for Big
Business Published on Monday, October 17, 2016 by RobertReich.org
Ascendance of Paul Ryan and Hillary Clinton Equals Big Win for Big
Business by Robert Reich
. 29 Comments
.
. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, and House Speaker
Paul Ryan, could find room for agreement if Clinton is elected president.
. Hillary Clinton won't be the only winner when Donald Trump and his
fellow haters are defeated on Election Day (as looks increasingly likely).
Another will be Paul Ryan, who will rule the Republican roost.
. Democrats may take back the Senate but they won't take back the
House. Gerrymandering has given House Republicans an impregnable
fortress of safe seats.
. This means that in order for President Hillary Clinton to get
anything done, she'll have to make deals with Speaker Paul Ryan.
. While the Clinton-Ryan years won't be marked by the same kind of
petulant gridlock we've witnessed over the last eight, the ascendance
of Ryan and Clinton will mark a win for big business and Wall Street
over the strongest anti-establishment surge America has witnessed
since Great Depression.
Clinton might be able to summon Ryan's support on a "Buffet rule" for
the highest-income taxpayers - an effective minimum tax of 30 percent
on top incomes. She might also be able to wangle some additional
spending on infrastructure and paid family leave.
But the price Ryan can be expected to exact will be lower corporate
tax rates, along with a tax amnesty on corporate profits repatriated
to the United States. And to offset the added spending and tax cuts,
Ryan will probably want Clinton to trim Social Security (perhaps
reviving the terrible idea of a "chained" CPI for determining cost of
living increases), and slow the growth of Medicare.
None of this will do much to remedy the central economic challenge of
our era - reversing the declining incomes and wealth of most Americans.
Although incomes rose in 2015, the typical household is still worse
off today than it was in 2000, adjusted for inflation. The assets of
the typical family today are worth 14 percent less than the assets of
the typical family in 1984. And the typical job is less secure than at
any time since the Great Depression.
These trends are not sustainable - neither economically nor politically.
They generated the fury that's undergirded Trump's ugly campaign, and
fueled the anger that propelled Bernie Sanders's insurgency.
They've fed a growing sense that the political-economic system is
rigged in favor of those at the top.
And it is. Big money has corrupted our democracy, resulting in laws
and rules that systematically favor big corporations, Wall Street, and
the very rich over everyone else.
Consider, for example, the growing market power of leading
pharmaceutical companies, private health insurers, the biggest Wall
Street banks, giant cable providers, four major airlines, and five
largest
And the decreasing market power of unions.contractors"
The resulting imbalance is transferring money out of the pockets of
average Americans directly into the pockets of major shareholders and
top executives.
A similar upward distribution is occurring through bankruptcy laws
that allow giant corporations and billionaires to avoid paying what
they owe, yet don't allow average people overburdened with mortgage or
student debt to renegotiate those obligations.
Mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts with giant corporations are
forcing people to give up rights under a wide variety of consumer and
employment laws. Meanwhile, workers classified as "independent
are losing whatever rights they once had under the nation's labor laws.top.
In all these respects, the American political economy has become
radically imbalanced.
The reforms Hillary Clinton and Paul Ryan are likely to agree to are
miniscule compared with the scale of this imbalance.
Hopefully, the leaders of big business and Wall Street - the true
winners of the 2016 election - will realize that although they avoided
Trump's authoritarian populism and Sanders's "political revolution"
this time around, they won't for much longer.
The forces that gave rise to both will grow unless our political
economy is rebalanced to work for everyone and not just for those at
the
There is precedent. In the first decades of the twentieth century,
enlightened business leaders joined with progressive reformers to
rebalance American capitalism - thereby rescuing it from the savage
inequalities and corruption of the Gilded Age.
If they understand what happened in the 2016 election, enlightened
business leaders will do so once again.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike
3.0 License.
