XPost: soc.culture.china, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.latin-america   
   XPost: soc.culture.iraq, soc.culture.african, soc.culture.pakistan   
   XPost: rec.sport.tennis   
   From: acoustic@panix.com   
      
   In article ,   
   Johanne Strause  wrote:   
   >   
   >Obama is the past. Even she was involved in her past job on Obama but   
   >it has not to do with her present choice of going for the president.   
      
   The past has much to teach the present.  But the most relevant thing   
   is that she chose to dwell on her "Situation Room" _experience_ about   
   "getting Osama Bin Laden", instead of repudiating the foreign policy   
   that has been bankrupting our economy.   
      
   >In her presentation, she is not talking about Obama, but about her   
   >American people whose jobs have been denied by their export of their   
   >jobs to overseas, mainly China and other South east Asian countries   
   >and Latin America.   
      
   Do you expect her to rescue the economy?  How?  By continuing the   
   foreign policy Obama pursued, which he inherited from his predecessor   
   G W Bush?  What makes you think that Hillary Clinton can avoid   
   continuing that same foreign policy that Obama pursued?  What makes   
   you think that Hillary Clinton is not neck-deep in being obliged to   
   her fat-cat donors.  Do you think that those donors were paying her so   
   that she would bring jobs home for those who sorely need them, instead   
   of ordering more bombings here and there on behalf of these bosses of   
   hers?   
      
   The reason why jobs have been exported is because the policymakers in   
   Washington have realized that the US is so much in debt that we can   
   ill-afford to pay union wages.  Hillary's hubby was a particpant in   
   breaking the American labor unions.  Hillary and Bill are a team; so   
   she knows that she is lying to the American people when she talks   
   about bringing jobs to the American workers.   
      
   You know America is poor and can ill-afford to pay its workers union   
   wages because Jeb Bush, another of those who have been bought and paid   
   for by the neocons, is telling us that he plans to raise retirement   
   age to 70.  He didn't say that to make himself more unpopular because   
   social security is a huge election issue.  He said that because it is   
   an issue that will come up very, very soon, even as politicians would   
   rather avoid raising it.   
      
   Why are we so poor?  It's essentially because we chose not to receive   
   the peace dividend from the dissolution of the cold war.  Washington   
   has chosen to continue to finance its military and fight wars of   
   choice, in hope to achieve world hegemony.  But war costs.   
      
   War costs a lot.  Since 2000, we have accomplished the feat of   
   accumulating nearly 20 trillion dollars of debt, largely because of   
   the cumulative effect of financing our wars and our hegemony policy.   
   Twenty trillion is twenty times ten to the twelth or two times ten to   
   the thirteen - a huge number.   
      
   Even though we use the device of QE, we cannot hide the fact that we   
   can no longer afford union or living wages.   
      
   In the old days, unions loomed large in presidential elections.   
   Today, politicians turn their noses up and go to their own super PACs.   
      
   Don't tell me that Hillary "knows that her people is suffering from   
   their past policy mistakes that also badly exported by their highly   
   paid CEOs".   
      
     >She knows that her people is suffering from their past policy   
     >mistakes that also badly exported by their highly paid CEOs.   
      
   Hillary knows a lot, including that the American people are hardly   
   responsible for "policy mistakes" of Washington.  For Hillary, "her   
   people" might be the CEOs who have written her and husband Bill big   
   fat checks and own them.  But their "mistakes" will be her policy if   
   they succeed in bringing her into the White House to do their work.   
      
   >She knows that her people is suffering from their past policy   
   >mistakes that also badly exported by their highly paid CEOs.   
      
   Hillary is no Moses and the American people are not "her people".   
   It's more like those "highly paid CEOs" are "her people".   
      
   >Her job is to revitalize American dreams and rejuvenate their sick   
   >society where their mostly jobless black people were discriminated   
   >and killed by their racist white police.   
      
   It may be the job of anybody who occupies the White House to   
      
       "revitalize American dreams and rejuvenate their sick society   
        where their mostly jobless black people were discriminated and   
        killed by their racist white police".   
      
   But if Obama isn't doing that, it's not because Obama is heartless or   
   any more corrupt than Hillary Clinton.  It's because anybody who sits   
   in the White House, so far, are servants of the neocons.  And there is   
   no evidence that Hillary Clinton can escape that fate if we the voters   
   are so blind as to believe her phony words - without any idea where   
   she is going to find the money to pay lliving wages to her "suffering"   
   people.   
      
   To give you an example, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have   
   proposed to federally finance a "quality" job program for youth.   
      
   These are jobs for youth with little work experience.  The idea is to   
   encourage companies to train our young men and women to become skilled   
   workers, with federal money.   
      
   The idea was in fact first announced by Sanders.  So, if Hillary wants   
   to do this, Bernie Sanders can also, and will, more likely, do more.   
      
   But regardless, notice that companies aren't going to cut the salaries   
   of their executives to pay these kids to learn.   
      
   It will be the Fed!   
      
   So, if you are talking about bringing the jobs back to America for our   
   skilled workers, you'll expect the Fed to help again - and a lot more   
   of this kind of help.   
      
   But where will the Fed find the money?  Of course, if we get rid of   
   our military bases in Iraq, in Bagram, Afghanistan, in Diego Garcia,   
   in Okinawa, in South Korea, in Germany, and the Arabian peninsula, if   
   we bring our troops home, if we dismantle the NSA, and if we stop   
   producing those hated missiles that have killed so many people around   
   the world, then we will perhaps have the prayer of a chance to bring   
   living-wage jobs back home.   
      
   But did Hillary Clinton indicate her opposition to Washington's   
   hegemonic policy?   
      
   No!   
      
   She chose, instead, to let her fatcat donors know that she remains   
   unwaveringly committed to the hegemony agenda pursued by G W Bush and   
   his successor Obama.  Given the chance, Hillary Clinton chose,   
   iinstead, to emphasize her experience in that "Situation Room", in   
   which she, Obama and Joe Biden watched bin Laden got assassinated.  By   
   implication, she chose to reaffirm her support for a failed policy of   
   crucial economic ramifications, which, if continued, can only defeat   
   the "American dream" she promises her voters.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)