Hillary, agree to support the Glass Steagall bill,by David Lindsay

I just sent the following message to Hillary Clinton, labeled by a drop down, as Message to Hillary, to which I added underneath,
and idea for the campaign
Dear Hillary,
I’ve been a long time supporter of yous, and before that of your husband.
I have two suggestions. First, tonight in the the debate, agree to support the Glass Steagall bill, re-breaking up investment banks from commercial banks, or explain to everyone, including me, why should we have any banks too big to fail, and why big banks should be able to privatize profits while socializing losses. If you do not, Bernie Sanders deserves to be the next President, since this is what the left wing of your party really cares about.
Two, fire who ever is in charge of your website and email fundraising. It has bad breath. Since I gave you $25 in December, I got 20 or 25 emails begging for more, about every day. It is ludicrous, and you look pathetically scared. You are also bullying poor and or unemployed supporters. I’m am embarrassed for you.
Truly yours,
David Lindsay
Yale 1976
University of Washington MBA, 1991

Hillary Clinton’s Toughness. Voters see her as a strong leader, but they think her party is weak on terrorism. Which will matter more to the presidential election? nytimes.com|By Thomas B. Edsall

Good piece on Hillary by Tom Edsall. Great comment by”
Christine McMorrow is a trusted commenter Waltham, MA, 02452 6 hours ago

“Great column. Having weathered all 11 hours of the Benghazi Trey Gowdy witch hunt, my impression of Clinton did a double take–man, the lady is made of steel. Talk about a “bend but don’t break” defense–and she didn’t even have to bend that much, unless one considers taking nonstop slurs on her character without snapping as a form of bend.

The standard GOP line is that Clinton was a disastrous Secretary of State, mocked by Fiorina for the miles traveled with no accomplishments. I would beg to differ. Her job, in the wake of Iraq, was to rebuild broken relationships with many countries, while pushing her core beliefs on humanitarian rights. Lest the GOP insist human rights don’t count in the domain of foreign policy–that only the number of bodies killed counts in the toughness arena–think again. Who would you rather have represent the US in an international forum or mano a mano with a leader like Putin?

There is some commercial running that shows Trump in the Oval Office, and yes, he does look ridiculous. When it comes to being the leader of the free world, I want someone who can quickly absorb the nuances of complex policy decisions, who can name where every country is on the map, and who has the guts to call a spade a spade in the realpolitik of this messy world. For me, that Commander in Chief would be the lady in the room.”

Reply 77Recommended

Voters see her as a strong leader, but they think her party is weak on terrorism. Which will matter more to the presidential election?
nytimes.com|By Thomas B. Edsall

Hillary Clinton: How I’d Rein In Wall Street. We need to go beyond Dodd-Frank … nytimes.com|By Hillary Clinton

Dear Hillary, You know I care for you, but you are missing the boat by not starting with bringing back Glass Steagall. The following commenter, RM, explains it extremely well.
“RM is a trusted commenter Vermont 7 hours ago

“The root of the problem is the executive compensation protocols on Wall Street. If the bets win, there are generous bonuses based on short run performance. If the bets lose, the executives do not have to pay in. This asymmetrical protocol encourages risk, as the executive shares in wins, but does not share in losses.

Absent major reform in executive compensation, the incentive is there to bet the farm and take big risks. Rather than trying to police all of this, we need to quarantine such risks away from the Main Street economy. Reimpose Glass Steagall.

Back in the Eisenhower era, the top marginal tax rate was 91% No executives wanted cash compensation back then. They wanted stock options, that would grow in value over time as the businesses they led grew in value. As the option was a capital investment, its rise in value, if exercised, was taxed at the much lower capital gains rate. This tax structure encouraged executive decision that would build long term value……not risky short term killings. And if the executives made disastrous decisions and their employer went belly up, the stock options became worthless.

Go back to the Eisenhower era tax structure to align executive financial interests with that of their employers once again.”

I am not advocating returning to the Eisenhower tax rates, nor is RM necessarily, but in the structure might lie part of a solution to better executive behavior, aligned with long term company and stakeholder interests.

We need to go beyond Dodd-Frank to increase oversight of all big financial institutions, make executives accountable and make regulators independent.
nytimes.com|By Hillary Clinton

The Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio Moment – David Brooks, The New York Times

“For example, Rubio’s tax policy starts where all Republican plans start. He would simplify the tax code, reduce rates and move us toward a consumption-based system by reducing taxes on investment.But he understands that overall growth no longer translates directly to better wages. He adds a big $2,500 child tax credit that is controversial among conservative economists, but that would make life easier for working families.His antipoverty programs are the biggest departure from traditional Republicanism. America already spends a fair bit of money aiding the poor — enough to lift most families out of poverty if we simply wrote them checks. But the money flows through a hodgepodge of programs and creates perverse incentives. People are often better off over all if they rely on government rather than getting an entry-level job. As Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute has pointed out, there are two million fewer Americans working today than before the recession and two million more receiving disabilities benefits.”

DL: I worry that the $2500 child tax credit might encourage extra children. It is time the world adopts a two child per couple or individual policy.

Source: The Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio Moment – The New York Times

The Empire Strikes Back – Maureen Dowd Mugs Hillary Clinton Again in The New York Times

“Hillary Clinton faces the vapid, impotent right-wing conspiracy,” and fails, according to Maureen Dowd.

This feeble op-ed by Maureen Dowd is repulsive and sick.
Here is the comment that inspired me to publish the unworthy piece:

“Mary Scott is a trusted commenter NY October 24, 2015

“Ms. Dowd seems to have never gotten over the Ms. Clinton she couldn’t stand 20 years ago. In her view, there’s no room for the maturity, introspection and empathy that can grow within a person over decades if they work at it and that I see in Hillary today and I’m a Bernie Sanders supporter.

This will never happen, pure fantasy, but if Hillary Clinton ended child poverty, Maureen Dowd would probably find a reason she didn’t deserve any credit for such an accomplishment, some character flaw that only she could discern.

I think it’s time for Ms. Dowd to get over Ms. Clinton. Time to move on to someone like Paul Ryan, our soon-to-be House Speaker whose draconian, Ayn Randian budget proposals, will diminish the middle class and further impoverish the already poor.

His 2012-2013 budget took over $300 million dollars (estimates of reductions range from $300 to $500 million) out of the State Department’s budget, surely limiting their ability to protect our foreign service facilities in some of the most dangerous parts of the world, especially remote outposts which have been grossly underfunded for years.”

Source: The Empire Strikes Back – The New York Times

Queen Hillary Came to Play Sanders’s strong performance was subsumed by Clinton’s even stronger one. She held steady and defiant. nytimes.com|By Charles M. Blow

Sanders’s strong performance was subsumed by Clinton’s even stronger one. She held steady and defiant.
nytimes.com|By Charles M. Blow
David Lindsay I was disconcerted by the intense negativity towards Hillary and the column above. Thought about republishing my thoughts from yesterday.But then, way down, past the Read More button, I found this gem of a comment.:
Sophia chicago 1 hour ago

Wow. Lots of yeah buts in the comment thread.

Listen guys. I love Bernie. I was writing about Bernie Sanders in comment threads years before most of y’all probably even heard of him.

But. I want the Democrats to win the election.

Enough already with the Hillary bashing.

As Democrats, let’s support the best ideas.

Many of those come from Senator Bernie Sanders.

Running the country, though, isn’t just about ideas. It’s also about foreign policy, it’s about experience and yes it is about getting elected, and that requires more than just Democrats, it also requires independents and being effectively with Congress means you need to be able to communicate with the Right, and also with powerful corporate interests.

Now. Progressive purists complain about Hillary Clinton and her supposed lack of purity.

Enough with that and enough with second-guessing her motives.

Several of you claim “she doesn’t care.”

Based on what evidence, I’d like to know? If Hillary DIDN’T care she could happily retire to a plush existence, where she’d be far removed from the brutal, nonstop attacks from the Right but also from the likes of “progressive” purists, who see nothing totalitarian about their own demands for purity, which are in fact pretty similar to those of the Freedom Caucus when it comes down to it.

The ability to bend bend isn’t a crime in a democratic politician.

It is a necessity.

Reply 59Recommended

Hillary Clinton Turns Up Heat on Bernie Sanders nytimes.com|By MICHAEL BARBARO and David Lindsay on the Debate

What a fabulous debate. I am so proud of these five great individuals. They all had a big, great moment or two. Very good and surprisingly fair article by Michael Barbaro and Amy Chosik. Nice work guys, since there are hundreds of us breakfast bloggers ready to take your heads off. Now that I have finally met Bernie Sanders, I am very impressed. He would make an excellent Vice President for my candidate Hillary Clinton, if he were only from Texas or California or Georgia. Regarding the excellent comments to the article, I do not agree that Hillary and Bernie were the only two viable contenders. I was deeply impressed by Lincoln Chaffee and Marty O’Mally. While over anxious, Jim Web had one stunning answer to what he would do differently in redirecting American Foreign Policy. It had four points, and showed his military intelligence. Unfortunately, he was the only one of the five to not mention Climate Change as a major challenge facing America, which has become a ltimas test of sorts for yours truly. He would be better than any of the Republicans we have met in their embarrassing debate. Both Chaffee and O’Malley want to stop making war in the middle east, and make war on green house gases to prevent climate change. Both should be invited to join the next presidents team of rivals, and both could do the job themselves. Lincoln Chaffee deserves to be proud of the fact that he got his vote to not war with Iraq right.

I will put my favorite comment from the comments below this entry.

The Democratic presidential candidates debated and disagreed on subjects including gun control and health care.
nytimes.com|By MICHAEL BARBARO

3 Peerless Republicans for President: Trump, Carson and Fiorina – Nicholas Kristof, The New York Times

The first eight comments in the comments section of the NYT are very good, but I wish that each had started with something like: Great column Nicholas Kristof. Thank you for your excellent writing and analysis.
I particularly liked the point that we over value CEO’s and that in the 1960’s their salaries were only 20 times the lowest workers. Now, they are 303 or so times greater. It is frightening, and dangerous. It is time for shareholders to revolt. It is easy to think clearly for a few minutes after such a magnificently written piece.

Kristof wrote: “More broadly, the United States has overdone the cult of the C.E.O., partly explaining why at the largest companies the ratio of C.E.O. compensation to typical worker pay rose from 20 to one in 1965 to 303 to one in 2014, according to the Economic Policy Institute.In any case, even if you were conducting a job search for a great C.E.O. to lead the free world, you wouldn’t turn to either Trump or Fiorina.”

Source: 3 Peerless Republicans for President: Trump, Carson and Fiorina – The New York Times

The Blackmail Caucus, a.k.a. the Republican Party The Republican Party in the Boehner era has had little understanding of economic or political facts, and it will probably get worse. nytimes.com|By Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman: “For me, Mr. Boehner’s defining moment remains what he said and did as House minority leader in early 2009, when a newly inaugurated President Obama was trying to cope with the disastrous recession that began under his predecessor.

There was and is a strong consensus among economists that a temporary period of deficit spending can help mitigate an economic slump. In 2008 a stimulus plan passed Congress with bipartisan support, and the case for a further stimulus in 2009 was overwhelming. But with a Democrat in the White House, Mr. Boehner demanded that policy go in the opposite direction, declaring that “American families are tightening their belts. But they don’t see government tightening its belt.” And he called for government to “go on a diet.” ”

The Republican Party in the Boehner era has had little understanding of economic or political facts, and it will probably get worse.
nytimes.com|By Paul Krugman

The Marco Rubio-Carly Fiorina Option. The Grand Old Party is changing, but not to the extreme it’s flirted with this summer. nytimes.com|By David Brooks

This piece by David Brooks offended me, but has great hightlights. I have now read it four times. It is brilliant. The analysis is original.
For example: “One group wants to rip up the political process and disrupt everything. Renounce the Iran deal on Day 1, no matter what our allies say. Ignore the Supreme Court and effectively disallow gay marriage. Shut down the government to defund Planned Parenthood. Magically deport the 11 million illegal immigrants.

This is more or less the Bobby Jindal-Ted Cruz wing. (During those milliseconds when Trump is capable of entertaining a policy thought, he wanders into this camp.)

The others, like Lindsey Graham, John Kasich and Jeb Bush, live within the confines of reality. You can’t actually defund Planned Parenthood or end Obamacare if you don’t control the White House. Offending every global ally on the first day of a new administration might have some nasty knock on effects. You can’t actually erase the 14th Amendment and end birthright citizenship.”

Brooks is not endorsing Rubio and Fiorina, he is saying this is where it appears the Republican electorate is heading.

The Grand Old Party is changing, but not to the extreme it’s flirted with this summer.
nytimes.com|By David Brooks