Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why ... Made Bill and Hillary Rich

[MachineGhost]

Yummy! 

[quote=http://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Fore ... 062369288/]In 2000, Bill and Hillary Clinton owed millions of dollars in legal debt. Since then, they’ve earned over $130 million. Where did the money come from? Most people assume that the Clintons amassed their wealth through lucrative book deals and high-six figure fees for speaking gigs. Now, Peter Schweizer shows who is really behind those enormous payments.

In his New York Times bestselling books Extortion and Throw Them All Out, Schweizer detailed patterns of official corruption in Washington that led to congressional resignations and new ethics laws. In Clinton Cash, he follows the Clinton money trail, revealing the connection between their personal fortune, their “close personal friends,”? the Clinton Foundation, foreign nations, and some of the highest ranks of government.

Schweizer reveals the Clinton’s troubling dealings in Kazakhstan, Colombia, Haiti, and other places at the “wild west”? fringe of the global economy. In this blockbuster exposé, Schweizer merely presents the troubling facts he’s uncovered. Meticulously researched and scrupulously sourced, filled with headline-making revelations, Clinton Cash raises serious questions of judgment, of possible indebtedness to an array of foreign interests, and ultimately, of fitness for high public office.[/quote]

[moda0306]

This is why I think politicians should be far-better paid, but have to put any assets over a certain portion into a blind trust, and have no outside economic dealings for not just their term, but after their term is over for up to maybe a decade.

Don't like it?  Don't sign up for public service!

Think that rules everyone out?  I'm pretty certain that you could find 535 truly patriotic public servants.  Forcing them to neuter sizable wealth could eliminate a good chunk of the megalomaniac factor.

[Libertarian666]

This is why I think politicians should be far-better paid, but have to put any assets over a certain portion into a blind trust, and have no outside economic dealings for not just their term, but after their term is over for up to maybe a decade.

Don't like it?  Don't sign up for public service!

Think that rules everyone out?  I'm pretty certain that you could find 535 truly patriotic public servants.  Forcing them to neuter sizable wealth could eliminate a good chunk of the megalomaniac factor.

I'm sure the real criminals could figure out a way around any rules. How about ending every government action not authorized by the Constitution? Then there would be a lot less opportunity for corruption.

Note: I'm still against government. This is a suggestion to reduce the harm it causes within the current institutional environment, not my preferred solution without that constraint.

[moda0306]

tech,

In my mind, that would result in less "government corruption," and more "corporate corruption" and a lot of instability on a macro-economic level.  Further, if we're going with a libertarian's interpretation of the Constitution, then we'd roll back extremely popular federal programs and probably have a huge recession as a result (IMO).  This isn't a recipe for sustainability. At some point, we have to accept that government is going to do a lot of things we don't want it to.  I'm most concerned with making those actions publicly debated rather than done in-secret, and removing the incentives for ulterior motives to creep into government.

While certainly not perfect, it would be a lot harder for politicians to have other motivations tugging at their heartstrings.  I'd also add to this heavy public funding for campaigns, and having a runoff voting system (or at least eliminating plurality voting for a better method) to eliminate the two-party atmosphere.

[moda0306]

After the federal government goes 4 years of absolutely massive deficit spending on a war, usually what societies have after that is a ton of dollar/bond savings and an economy either crushed (Europe) or geared for war instead of peace, thereby demanding a transition of productive capacity (USA).  Either is going to result in a flood of new demand for new things, but a transmission period over which the economy can't produce it... hence, inflationary forces.  Also, plenty of public support for returning troops helps.

This is very, very different than a peace-time economy completely cutting off SS & Medicare checks for those who can't really rejoin productive society, as well as all welfare-esque programs, and eliminating agency after agency.  After a weak recovery from a deflationary recession, no less.  It would be a lot like 1937... not like 1945. IMO of course.


The first is very inflationary.  The latter is very deflationary/recessionary.



But I think there's something else to hit on here.  This assertion that "the Depression ended after WWII" is so filled with contradictions.  Austrians seem to want to redefine terms within a paragraph, if not a sentence.  Unemployment went from 15% to 0% in about a year in a half after WWII started.  The recession was over.  Were there other problems?  Surely! 

But let's not forget that in 1945, there was a relatively nasty post-war recession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... ted_States).  Economic adjustments after wars often have a lot of volatility.  But at least, in 1945, people had healthy balance sheets. They didn't have that for pretty much all of the 1930's.

[MachineGhost]

While certainly not perfect, it would be a lot harder for politicians to have other motivations tugging at their heartstrings.  I'd also add to this heavy public funding for campaigns, and having a runoff voting system (or at least eliminating plurality voting for a better method) to eliminate the two-party atmosphere.

I don't believe we can come up with a system of public funding that doesn't entrench incumbents, promote censorship and government-revenge on opponents.  So if we're going to go that way, only if it is chain-ganged to short term limits and outlaw all lobbying.  No exceptions.

[moda0306]

While certainly not perfect, it would be a lot harder for politicians to have other motivations tugging at their heartstrings.  I'd also add to this heavy public funding for campaigns, and having a runoff voting system (or at least eliminating plurality voting for a better method) to eliminate the two-party atmosphere.

I don't believe we can come up with a system of public funding that doesn't entrench incumbents, promote censorship and government-revenge on opponents.  So if we're going to go that way, only if it is chain-ganged to short term limits and outlaw all lobbying.  No exceptions.

Eliminating plurality voting for a better option would be the biggest death-blow to the two-party system. Rich public expenditures in elections would probably have to come after to not simply entrench the existing incumbents/parties.

[MachineGhost]

Eliminating plurality voting for a better option would be the biggest death-blow to the two-party system. Rich public expenditures in elections would probably have to come after to not simply entrench the existing incumbents/parties.

Yeah, but the advantage of the two party Mommy-Daddy moderation system is the winner take all relative simplicity of how things actually get done compared to eternal parliamentary lockups, freezes, no confidence votes, reassembling, etc...  Nor do I want a parliamentary-style democracy that enables the wingnut extremes to have any power.  Look how much trouble the Republicans have with the civil war brewing between the RINO's and the Tea Party.  Imagine that process playing out over a bunch of minor whackjob parties.

[MachineGhost]

Speaking of public campaign finance and Montana, this is very interesting look at the effect of Citizens United on one of the most conservative states.  Apparently, Montana had the strictest campaign finance laws in the country for 100 years, now undone (go to minute 21 or 22 [after the colored guy speaks]):

http://video.pbs.org/video/2298009584/

I think the core problem with a political topic like this is it is just a perfect match for for media sensationalizing.  No one automatically likes a lack of transparency in society, even if it is for their own good.  To the extent people give into their knee jerk emotional gut about that, free political speech is doomed.