Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs Transcripts
Transcripts from Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches have recently hit the net, and they do not look pretty. The speeches have Hillary Clinton elucidated about the finer points of law, finance, and regulation. It also shows her giving bankers the eye wink. In order to court Bernie supporters, Clinton said she would be tough on Wall Street. Well, her transcript says otherwise.
Hillary Clinton has little interest in curbing the abuses of Wall Street.
This makes sense, since the recent bubble in 2008 was caused by policies her husband pushed. I guess she has always been squarely in the pocket of Wall Street and the recently released transcripts just gives us more evidence of this.
As early as October 2013 Clinton claimed that any action to curtail Wall Street abuses would only be done “for political reasons”. She goes on to say “There was also a need to do something because for political reasons, if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it’s all the fault of Wall Street, you can’t sit idly by and do nothing.” In other words, her positions aren’t based on what is in the best interest of the average voter or principle, but is based on who lines her pockets. And who are these people you say? Well, she received 1.8 million dollars from Goldman Sachs to speak to them.
Now, ask yourself, what would she know about finance to be paid 1.8 million dollars to speak? Do you really think that Goldman Sachs were interested in her insights on high finance? Or was there something more going on? Clinton has also stated in leaked transcripts that she has a “public” and “private” position. It is clear that publicly she will say whatever is politically expedient. Privately, she is in the pocket of corporate interest that basically sees her as an extension of themselves.
Hillary Clinton is a Corporatist
The Democratic Party likes to style itself as the progressive party, but somehow managed to nominate someone who is the farthest thing imaginable from progressive.
She is a raging corporatist and will do anything to keep the crony capitalism gravy train going. It makes sense, since her legacy demonstrates a willingness to use government to help special interests. The strange thing is, how can someone who is actually liberal or progressive support someone who is more of an elitist than any Republican in recent history? The Clintons have amassed 110 million dollars from public speaking. Does anyone really believe that all of this was from public speaking?
Hillary Clinton is in the business of bartering government influence for money. She is the queen of pay-for-play. Is there any wonder why corporations are lining up to fill her coffers? They are making a sound investment in someone they know will sell out the American people. They know she can be counted on to be a shill.
Gary St. Fleur
Latest posts by Gary St. Fleur (see all)
- Don’t Let Gun Control Hysteria Strip Us of Our Rights - March 16, 2018
- Do Robots Have Rights? - May 16, 2017
- North Korea and its Violation of the NAP - May 11, 2017