The Democratic presidential campaign – unlike the Republican circus – has actually produced a debate in which each candidate’s economic agenda has gotten better and more populist. But as you can see at CandidateScorecard.net, there are also big differences.
Hillary is a protector of privatization, period. Privatization is at the root of many of the country's largest woes, involving correction, education, environmental, transportation, etc. The mechanism of privatization simply provides inferior services to the public while enriching a few who are able to bleed out profits from taxes collected from the public but distributed by the government through a crony system. Bernie gets this and needs to hammer hard on the point. The public is tired of being gamed. It's mad as hell and hopefully won't take it anymore...
The best thing that either of them could do to help the state of the economy is to stop the wars. Trillions and trillions... and for what? All that money could have gone into rebuilding infrastructure, education, clean energy, etc. I know Hillary is solidly into the neocon interventionist mindset, but Bernie? Step up, man.
If the Clintons had formed the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) in 1965 rather than 1985 and/or been in power during the 60s not only would there be no Medicare as the author notes, there would be no EPA, no OSHA, and none of LBJ's anti-poverty programs.
"But rather than argue the case on its merits, Clinton has chosen to use the anti-government framing of the right by pledging that she will never “raise taxes” on the middle class (a group which, by her definition, includes people making $250,000 per year.)"
While the pretense of protecting the "Middle Class" is a likely Luntz Talking Point, the real crux of the issue is protecting Big Insurance's Profits.
In Obama's billion dollar election run-up, it was FIRE: Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate that picked up most of the tab, and it's THAT tradition that the sold-out Dem. Hillary is arguing for. She needs THAT money, so she's shilling for Big Insurance.
It's obvious that the Insurance Middle Man (operating like an organized crime protection racket) takes 30% of incoming funds to pay its own exorbitant salaries, advertising, and such... whereas publicly run systems like Medicare cost less than 6% of the "take."
There's also the all too moral argument and it's that how DARE these apes claim so much personal profit while denying suffering souls any viable treatment options!
In this forum there's a lot of opposition to capitalism. Right wingers specify crony capitalism as Naomi Klein identifies Shock Doctrine style capitalism.
The bottom line is that for-profit entities may have a viable place in Democratic societies, but allotting health care in the raw form of who lives and who dies should NOT be part of that calculus.
Imagine if Mr. Sanders got to make THIS case--which touches just about every family's wellbeing--instead of Trump getting so much air time to push Fascism Lite onto lots of angry (justifiably so) Americans!
I think we need more than free tuition at public colleges. The cost of room and board at many schools is much more than tuition. I believe increasing Pell grants was mentioned during the last debate. That would seem to be very important. Also, even with free tuition at public colleges, many students will opt for schools with a religious affiliation such as Notre Dame, Boston College, and Geogetown. Many of these students would problably need help to avoid too much debt. Also, many of the best high school students will opt to go to the top private universities such as Harvard, Stamford, etc. Many of these students also need help. While our top public research universities are pretty much on par with the top private universities when it comes to graduate education and research, this isn't true for undergraduate education. Financial help for students should factor in this gap in quality undergraduate education.
If HRC gets the nomination, it will mean Wall Street and their stooges, the DNC and their fake opposition party has won again. Bernie, for all his foreign policy faults has more political assets than liabilities. #1, on that list of Bernie's assets is his sincerity. But the way I see it, where in 2008 Obama was the consummate con man that betrayed so many well meaning but sophomoric people; the con man in 2016 is the DNC.
Bernie Sanders has not been on strong on this as I would like. He could, and should, use data from the National Priorities Project, to show alternatives to US over-exaggerated military/espionage spending: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/
However, at least Bernie Sanders has spoken in favor of diplomacy as opposed to regime change.
If the undemocratic establishment Democrat Party leadership succeeds in getting Hillary Clinton elected President, funding for Drone killing, crowd killing, special operations attacks, and military base expansion is likely to increase. Given her bellicose rhetoric regarding the Islamic State, Syria, Russia, and Iran, a President Hillary Clinton is much more likely to entangle the US in larger scale military actions.
When discussing key economic topics, Hillary Clinton speaks in careful code while Senator Sanders is blasting forth critical empiric facts which represent the current uneasy truth about our growing poor and falling middle class. If we cap the stench pouring from the sewers of Wall Street executive offices and, through vast citizen participation; crash they're unpatriotic lobbies from lying us into more economic hell - we can turn this ship around. Wall Street has no fear of a Clinton presidency. But..they're wringing their hands at the thought of a President Sanders.
Support Senator Bernie Sanders for president of the United States. Make it happen people.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
I wish that could understand the free tuition plan better. There is a number of things I don't understand. If the federal government is going to pay tuition and public colleges what incentive would the states have to provide support for their colleges? What happens in states like Pennsylvania where they they have state-assisted schools including Penn State, Pitt and Temple, and the schools decide how much tuition to charge and the state doesn't even own the schools? And would out of state students also get free tuition? And what is to prevent a state or school from raising tuition to get more federal money? I don't really get how this would work in the US.
I really hope Bernie can stand up to the hundreds of Defense Contractors and Carlyle Investment type forces. A metastasizing behemoth the momentum of which is pretty unstoppable considering it enriches hundreds of thousands of career militarists from the earnest and benign technicians to the psychotic policy planners, not to mention the many military bases dispersed equitably through the 50 states so as to jam within congress any thought of its reduction. We might need to tell our neighbors to abandon any industry involved in the production of war machines and not wait for venal politicians to risk their skin to do so.
That 5000$$ a years savings under a Medicare for all proposal is surprisingly high. It means of course savings from having to pay Corporations for health insurance which of course while hugely profitable to that industry has nothing to do with health care.
As others have mentioned Military spending will also be a huge source of savings. There no way in the World any can convince me but given geographical location and lack of neighbours that are a threat that the USA could not get away with 60 billion a year military spending. Taking all of military spending into account that literally hundreds of billions a year in lower taxes or more revenues.
I don't see much difference among the three Democratic candidates on foreign policy. They all support Obama's strategy in the Middle East which means bombing, drone strikes, and special forces operations to defeat ISIS. They all support diplomacy to solve the political situation in Syria. One important area they might differ on is whether the US needs to build up naval forces in the Pacific to counteract the dramatic buildup of the Chinese navy in the South China Sea. There is a big push for more ships which would be very costly. So far I have heard nothing from the candidates on this issue.
Hillary Clinton continues to call for the removal of Assad and has called for a "no-flight" zone in Syria. Bernie Sanders has not.
Bernie Sanders has not come out as strong as he should against US over exaggerated militarism, however he is not as hawkish as Hillary Clinton. The sociopathic pleasure she displayed, when she laughed at and mocked the brutal murder of Ghaddafi ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y ), is reminiscent of Madeline Albright's callous comment that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children is a price we are willing to pay.
The do differ on the no-fly zone. O'Malley is also against it. I think you are wrong about Assad. I believe both Clinton and Sanders think there needs to be a diplomatic solution to remove Assad. I think even Putin is beginning to come to that conclusion. Clinton made the point that as long as Assad is in power ISIS will be able to recruit since ISIS is fighting against Assad. I think Sanders basically agrees but he says we should focus on defeating ISIS first which Clinton says you can't really do because you can't defeat ISIS with Assad in power. The question seems to be how do you remove Assad with Russia involved. Russia would want to keep its naval base in Syria so there would have to some way to replace Assad that Russia would go along with and that would be okay with the Sunnis who oppose Assad. And of course it gets more complicated as Iran supports Assad and Saudi Arabia supports the Sunnis. Bernie summed it up nicely at the debate saying there is no magical answer.
I disagree with both Clinton and Sanders regarding US militarism, in particular, the priority of using the military to defeat the Islamic State. Stating that the sole US policy is to kill leaders/supporters until the Islamic State falls only encourages people to fight for their lives. Why should the US not promote broader, non-violent, peace/justice processes for the region?
Hillary Clinton spoke of the need for Assad's ouster. Bernie Sanders was more reluctant to promote regime change. Their comments were somewhat ambiguous.
DAVID MUIR: We heard from the senator just this week that we must put aside the issue of how quickly we get rid of Assad, and come together with countries, including Russia and Iran, to destroy ISIS first. Is he wrong?
HILLARY CLINTON: I think we’re missing the point here. We are doing both at the same time.
DAVID MUIR: But that’s what he’s saying: We should put that aside for now and go after ISIS.
HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t agree with that, because we will not get the support on the ground in Syria to dislodge ISIS if the fighters there who are not associated with ISIS, but whose principal goal is getting rid of Assad, don’t believe there is a political, diplomatic channel that is ongoing. We now have that.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Secretary Clinton is right. This is a complicated issue. I don’t think anyone has a magical solution. But this is what I do believe. Yes, of course, Assad is a terrible dictator. But I think we have got to get our foreign policies and our priorities right. The immediate—it is not Assad who is attacking the United States. It is ISIS. And ISIS is attacking France and attacking Russian airliners. The major priority right now, in terms of our foreign and military policy, should be the destruction of ISIS.
Whenever I hear about how we had to engage in regime change in Libya, Ukraine, Syria, etc. to depose ruthless dictators I think of Saudi Arabia.
We have a bloated military budget that is bigger by far than many, many, many-did I say MANY? other countries combined. It will take "a political revolution" of citizens rising up to defeat that runaway obscene budget. There's Lockheed, Raytheon, General Electric, Westinghouse, to name the biggest pigs @ the public trough. To do something right now -u don't even have to get outta your chair-go to www.citizensagainstplutocracy.org and take the pledge to write in BERNIE SANDERS. Then talk to your best friend who is also crazy for BERNIE and ask her/him to join you. The more, the merrier-HuffPo has already written about this citizen endeavor. Numbers matter hugely-BERNIE supporters will give him more LEVERAGE @ the Dems Convention so that the corrupt Debbie Wasserman Schultz's heavy thumb on the scales WON'T tip them to Hillary. She has rigged the game from the gitgo w/her defective scheduling and limiting of debates-scheming that the less exposure BERNIE has, the better for her devious pal Hillary. For goodness' sake, people,if u wanna save what's left of our democracy from the greedy Wall St and MIC thugs, phone bank, knock on doors, donate, AND WRITE IN YOUR NAME @ www.citizensagainstcorporatocracy.org FEEL THE BERN and get busy promoting BERNIE!
I think Bernie realizes that if he picked up on Paul Wellstone's last legislative act, he would be Wellstoned.