It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hillary Clinton Calls at Private Fundraiser for Infrastructure Bank*Snipped

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Say what? As if the damage done by the creation of the Federal Reserve wasn't bad enough by Clinton's party. Let's double down on some EPIC, and I DO MEAN EPIC stupidity once more. A 'national infrastructure Bank'!!!!!! A 'revolving loan fund'. Funding private, and public. Mostly public. Notice how she brought up unions ? That is who is going to be building that 'infrastructure'. That means people it's going to take YEARS to build, and cost over runs out the wahzoo. Unions will be sitting pretty though. They gets paid by the hour. After a year rolls around automatic pay increase. Few more years roll on by. it's time to renegotiate!

Clever girl Clinton. Clever indeed. Meanwhile billions,trillions disappear someplace since Clinton is not very good a record keeping, or her own money.



Hillary Clinton told donors at a private fund raiser in New York last Thursday that she plans as president to create a “national infrastructure bank” modeled on the Clinton Global Initiative, according to a recording of her remarks obtained by the Washington Free Beacon


Infrastructure bank

Ya know people ?

Back in the good ole days ?

States use to issue BONDS when they wanted to build new roads, and bridges.

Clinton scares the ever living hell of me. All most as much as Sanders.

They really are living in their own little worlds, and buy their own hype.

Hey Hillary ?

Does BiIl get to run that 'new' bank?

Just wondering.
edit on 30-9-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Clever Girl, indeed. Putting the bank robber in charge of the bank.
She is in panic mode, desperately trying to regain Union support.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
The power behind Unions, like communities, is dangerous to the PTB, that why Reagan attacked them as soon as he got into office.

Any other organization is dangerous to The Organization. She may be paying lip service to garner support, but they won't be returning power to Unions anytime soon. The power of the Unions is only a shadow of its former self.
edit on 30-9-2015 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
After all with Bill Clinton's signing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act:


"�The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company."

So, as a result of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a commercial bank would be able to buy an insurance company, or a commercial bank would be able to buy an investment bank, etc.

"The Story Behind Clinton and the Glass-Steagall Act"
Source



I'm no Bernie-ite but don't believe he'd stand for what Hillary is doing, at least on the surface.

edit on 30-9-2015 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: dreamingawake




I'm no Bernie-ite but don't believe he'd stand for what Hillary is doing, at least on the surface.


He's prolly thinking 'damn why didn't I think of it'.

$1 Trillion on infrastrcuture.

Hell they could BOTH use it as an excuse to rob from the evil rich.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

The fact that she has the audacity to propose such an idea shows what a psychopath she is. Absolutely no concern for the wellbeing of this country or its citizens, so long as she is there behind the curtains to sift money from the hard working people into her donors hands


edit on 30-9-2015 by FamCore because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: dreamingawake




I'm no Bernie-ite but don't believe he'd stand for what Hillary is doing, at least on the surface.


He's prolly thinking 'damn why didn't I think of it'.

$1 Trillion on infrastrcuture.


Hell they could BOTH use it as an excuse to rob from the evil rich.


What's wrong with improving our Infrastructure?
edit on 30-9-2015 by amicktd because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: amicktd




What's wrong with improving our Infrastructure?


Local and STATE issues.

Paid for by the people that ACTUALLY use them instead of other people that will never.

Want it paid for ?

Use that lottery income,property taxes, the GAS TAX, and BONDS to pay for it.

Not by creating a BANK and ROB from one state to pay for another state that gets NO direct benefit.
edit on 30-9-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
OMG! This thing is Clinton Cronyism on steroids! Taking 'Pay to Play' to a whole new level.
Gee whiz...I wonder who gets to decide who gets access...and how much they have to donate to the Clintons to get considered?


Clinton’s plan could also be a windfall for some of her top financial supporters.

One likely beneficiary would be Robert Wolf, a Clinton donor and former bundler for the Obama campaign who previously chaired UBS Americas. Wolf runs the consulting firm 32 Advisors, which has contributed between $10,000 and $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

The firm announced the formation of a new infrastructure practice in April to help clients obtain funding for infrastructure projects. It brought on Michael Likosky, an expert in infrastructure financing and government planning, to lead the practice. Likosky has also advised CGI on infrastructure projects, and billed himself in July as “an Expert to the Clinton Initiative.”

Another donor that could benefit from a national infrastructure bank is Mary Scott Nabers, head of the consulting firm Strategic Partnerships, Inc. The firm helps clients to procure government contracts for public-private infrastructure projects. Nabers has contributed between $10,000 and $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

freebeacon.com...

edit on 30-9-2015 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Jimmy Hoffa's got nothing on Bill and Hilary.

They have corruption down to a science.
edit on 2015/9/30 by Metallicus because: Spelling Correction



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
The power behind Unions, like communities, is dangerous to the PTB, that why Reagan attacked them as soon as he got into office.

Any other organization is dangerous to The Organization. She may be paying lip service to garner support, but they won't be returning power to Unions anytime soon. The power of the Unions is only a shadow of its former self.


Well UNIONS used to be good but they later became corrupt as the businesses themselves. Regan attacked th e unions because they had become just as bad as everyone else.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You are so devoted to memes that you aren't paying attention. the poster you replied to did not say he was in favor of a bank. He said what is wrong with improving our infrastructure.

Also your fright of the Federal Government is not without foundation but it paralyzes your thinking. Look at a map, I know you can, then report back when you can find a state without US Routes or an Interstate (Even Hawaii has Interstates!).

These are part of the transportation system and who should pay for them? Your heart felt mandates for only the local consumer to pay for safe roads is untenable. Although you crashing and dying because you NEED the money for your own ends is OK with me, I do not feel that my friends, family and fellow citizens should support your 'feelings' about how things should be done. It's contrary to social good.

I am not for a Bank. I think that the Transportation Trust Fund is quite adequate if the funds generated are used for transportation. Keeping the Pols from dipping into it would be nice.

Your railing against Unions is superfluous and is the knee jerk response we progressives love. Thanks for completely missing the objective of Unions which is to bully back the corpserations (sic). While not a fan of Unions, I at least understand their purpose. How you are offended by this is just another short term thought process which hopefully you would avoid in the future.

There's a lots of machinery, temporal and mental mass out there. To get it to become a different form requires diligence and study. Stop trying to shoe horn the world into your conceptions and accept what is in front of you. Unions are entwined inextricably with our history. Perhaps you need to familiarize yourself and understand the utility (even if not to you) of these devices in a 'Free Market'.

The Elite hate Unions. That's enough for me to support them but there are plenty of legitimate reasons to do so. This is despite their shenanigans, which I do hate. I know of these because, by golly, I learned abut them. I made an informed judgement and arrived at this stance. Unions should not become too big but I feel the same way about everything.

Except love. Love can be freaking huge.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: largo




Your railing against Unions is superfluous and is the knee jerk response we progressives love.


Well now I earned that opinion with a decade of blood, and sweat, and fees just for having the 'privilege' of a job.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

This is wrong. Reagan was just a conservative douche. Literally.

Also the conservative apprehensions about Unions are as overplayed as all of their emotional turmoil, hate and vindictiveness must pour from their slop sweated pores. I know that's what they do but it is exceedingly loud, repetitive, groundless and purposeless.

Why?

Because the 'intellectuals' in their possession are always lying sacks of poop or really not that smart. Nothing said by a conservative has to be fact based. Factoid is quite sufficient.

So here, for your edification is a non-conservative view of Union corruption.

www.quora.com...

That's right! No more dishonest than your corpserate officials and a lot more easily revealed to prying eyes with tons of laws to permit this and to charge them with when caught.

If you want to see what corruption looks like see Congressman Buchanan. His union is really good at covering up corruption or failing to do anything about it.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: largo



Reagan was just a conservative douche.


Only someone too young to remember how great the Reagan years were would say something so ignorant. The man carried 48 of 50 states for a reason. You will never see that happen again.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Don't worry.

You know if she's "selected" she'll just be another pushing the status quo for our evil overlords.

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton/or Bush ...

A few different names ...

same agenda.

Personally, I think it will be Jeb. But it really doesn't matter.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

The Reagan years.

Gas was .89 cents a gallon.

Money-markets, and savings account actually returned a decent rate.

The value of the dollar was more than it is today.

The Reagan years were good to me.
edit on 30-9-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: amicktd




What's wrong with improving our Infrastructure?


Local and STATE issues.

Paid for by the people that ACTUALLY use them instead of other people that will never.

Want it paid for ?

Use that lottery income,property taxes, the GAS TAX, and BONDS to pay for it.

Not by creating a BANK and ROB from one state to pay for another state that gets NO direct benefit.


Or the bail out monies, remember infrastructure and shovel ready jobs?



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: StoutBroux




Or the bail out monies, remember infrastructure and shovel ready jobs?


Yeah I do remember over a trillion dollars being spent with nothing to show for it.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: largo
a reply to: yuppa

This is wrong. Reagan was just a conservative douche. Literally.

Also the conservative apprehensions about Unions are as overplayed as all of their emotional turmoil, hate and vindictiveness must pour from their slop sweated pores. I know that's what they do but it is exceedingly loud, repetitive, groundless and purposeless.

Why?

Because the 'intellectuals' in their possession are always lying sacks of poop or really not that smart. Nothing said by a conservative has to be fact based. Factoid is quite sufficient.

So here, for your edification is a non-conservative view of Union corruption.

www.quora.com...

That's right! No more dishonest than your corpserate officials and a lot more easily revealed to prying eyes with tons of laws to permit this and to charge them with when caught.

If you want to see what corruption looks like see Congressman Buchanan. His union is really good at covering up corruption or failing to do anything about it.


I was aapproached by a union rep once,and we had a talk. I asked him what are the dues used for specifically. Most of it is used for buying influence and donating to democratic funds. the rest went toward retirement and pay. I told him sorry i only like getting my pay deducted once instead of twice by the government and union.

i dislike ALL UNIONS. all of them are scum and always do something i dont like. They used to be good originally but are now as bad as th e corporations.




top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join