Why Bernie vs Hillary Matters More Than People Think

  • metta

    Posts: 39143

    Feb 09, 2016 7:36 AM GMT

    Why Bernie vs Hillary Matters More Than People Think

    "Many people think that it is the Republican Party alone that is responsible for this, but beginning in 1976 with Jimmy Carter, the Democratic Party was captured by this same ideology, which in academic circles is often referred to as neoliberalism. It is now largely forgotten that it was Carter, not Reagan, who began deregulating the market."


    "Bill Clinton took the party even further to the right. In 1992 he ran on the promise to “end welfare as we know it”, a total repudiation of the FDR/LBJ legacy. With the help of republicans, Clinton was eventually successful in drastically cutting the welfare program. Clinton also signed important deregulatory bills into law, like the Commodities Futures Modernization Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Most economists blame one or both of these pieces of legislation with directly facilitating the housing crisis in 2008"


    "So Bernie Sanders is not merely running to attempt to implement a set of idealistic policies that a republican-controlled congress is likely to block. He is running to take the Democratic Party back from an establishment that ignores the fundamental systemic economic problems that lead to wage stagnation and economic crisis."

    "This is not a contest to see who will lead the democrats, it’s a contest to see what kind of party the democrats are going to be in the coming decades, what ideology and what interests, causes, and issues the Democratic Party will prioritize. This makes it far more important than any other recent primary election. The last time a democratic primary was this important, it was 1976. Only this time, instead of Anybody But Carter or Anybody But Clinton, the left has Bernie Sanders–one representative candidate that it is really excited about. The chance may not come again for quite some time.

    Hillary Clinton is a neoliberal building on the legacy of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. She doesn’t understand the pivotal role inequality plays in creating economic crisis and reducing economic growth. She has been taken in by a fundamentally right wing paradigm, and if she is elected she will continue to lead the Democratic Party down that path.

    Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist building on the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. He understands that inequality is the core structural factor in economic crisis and that growth in real wages and incomes is required for robust, sustainable economic growth.

    It doesn’t matter which one is more experienced, or which one’s policies are more likely to pass congress, or which one is more likely to win a general election, or which one is a man and which one is a woman. This is not about just this election, or just the next four years. This is about whether the Democratic Party is going to care about inequality for the next decade. We are making a historical decision between two distinct ideological paradigms, not a choice between flavors of popcorn. This is important. Choose carefully."


    http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/02/05/why-bernie-vs-hillary-matters-more-than-people-think/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2016 3:34 PM GMT
    What is wrong with this is that we are supposed to be living in a Democracy. A president is not supposed to do much, it's the job of the people and congress " to make the laws" . I think I'll vote for Trump so that the power of the presidency is cut to shreds. A president like Obama who stated he would work without congress is really damaging to the democracy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2016 4:12 PM GMT
    Bernie's task may get easier.

    "People can and do go to jail for screwing up. Well, at least the little people do.
    When there is spillage of classified material into unclassified systems, all hell breaks loose. Well, at least it does when it’s not a friend of the administration doing the spilling."
    http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/25/how-hillary-got-classified-information-onto-her-private-email/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2016 6:26 PM GMT
    theantijock%20engage%20stalker%20reducti

    metta said
    Why Bernie vs Hillary Matters More Than People Think

    "Many people think that it is the Republican Party alone that is responsible for this, but beginning in 1976 with Jimmy Carter, the Democratic Party was captured by this same ideology, which in academic circles is often referred to as neoliberalism. It is now largely forgotten that it was Carter, not Reagan, who began deregulating the market."


    "Bill Clinton took the party even further to the right. In 1992 he ran on the promise to “end welfare as we know it”, a total repudiation of the FDR/LBJ legacy. With the help of republicans, Clinton was eventually successful in drastically cutting the welfare program. Clinton also signed important deregulatory bills into law, like the Commodities Futures Modernization Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Most economists blame one or both of these pieces of legislation with directly facilitating the housing crisis in 2008"


    "So Bernie Sanders is not merely running to attempt to implement a set of idealistic policies that a republican-controlled congress is likely to block. He is running to take the Democratic Party back from an establishment that ignores the fundamental systemic economic problems that lead to wage stagnation and economic crisis."

    "This is not a contest to see who will lead the democrats, it’s a contest to see what kind of party the democrats are going to be in the coming decades, what ideology and what interests, causes, and issues the Democratic Party will prioritize. This makes it far more important than any other recent primary election. The last time a democratic primary was this important, it was 1976. Only this time, instead of Anybody But Carter or Anybody But Clinton, the left has Bernie Sanders–one representative candidate that it is really excited about. The chance may not come again for quite some time.

    Hillary Clinton is a neoliberal building on the legacy of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. She doesn’t understand the pivotal role inequality plays in creating economic crisis and reducing economic growth. She has been taken in by a fundamentally right wing paradigm, and if she is elected she will continue to lead the Democratic Party down that path.

    Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist building on the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. He understands that inequality is the core structural factor in economic crisis and that growth in real wages and incomes is required for robust, sustainable economic growth.

    It doesn’t matter which one is more experienced, or which one’s policies are more likely to pass congress, or which one is more likely to win a general election, or which one is a man and which one is a woman. This is not about just this election, or just the next four years. This is about whether the Democratic Party is going to care about inequality for the next decade. We are making a historical decision between two distinct ideological paradigms, not a choice between flavors of popcorn. This is important. Choose carefully."


    http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/02/05/why-bernie-vs-hillary-matters-more-than-people-think/


    To me that reads correct only I'd add that I think Sanders has a better chance over Trump than does Hillary. I'd certainly support Hillary over Trump but Sanders gets my blessing in the primary. I liked him from the first moment I heard him speak.

    Besides that the powers that be have been redistributing the wealth of this nation from the middle class to the 1% starting right around 1970 and continuing since, about which there is no denying, I feel what happened socially is that the Republicans moved so very far over to the right that the Democrats felt they had to step right just to stay in the picture. But what's happened is that the Republicans never stopped moving further right.

    The nature of Greed is to be never satisfied.

    Seeing they had the pussy whipped Democrats in tow, they stepped so far right that they've stepped off the edge, falling now into the abyss. To stop their descent and bring us all back to safe plateau, good Democrats must hold onto their balls while without letting go of that line jump to the left.

    To the left will be struggle. To the right is ruin. Vote accordingly.

    THE REBUILDING BY THE MIDDLE CLASS OF THIS NATION AFTER THE WEALTHY CRASHED IT LAST TIME
    1929-1969.jpg

    THE ROBBERY REDISTRIBUTION OF THE WEALTH TO THE WEALTHY WHO CRASHED IT AGAIN UNDER BUSH
    1969-2008.jpg

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2016 7:41 PM GMT
    What a total distortion.
    It's grossly inaccurate to describe FDR and LBJ as progressive ideologues.

    FDR was a centrist Democrat.
    FDR's running mate Henry Wallace was a true socialist, and FDR's wife Eleanor was extremely progressive too - but FDR was a centrist who was always willing to compromise.

    And so was LBJ.

    Anyone who has studied these two men and their careers knows that.

    The ONLY reason FDR and LBJ were able to achieve dramatic change as president is because they were in office at times when there were HUGE and very liberal Dem majorities in the Congress - so they didn't have to compromise or accommodate the Republicans.

    And sadly there's zero chance that the Dems will control the Congress after this election.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2016 7:42 PM GMT
    A fact that many Berniacs are clueless about is that the first thing Bill Clinton did after getting elected was pass legislation raising taxes on the rich.

    As a result, the only time in recent US history that income inequality has been controlled was during the Clinton economic boom of the 1990's.
    From 1995 through 2000, income inequality stopped increasing for the first time since the 1970's.

    So, unlike Bernie - the Clintons haven't just talked about tackling the problem of income inequality - they've taken action and have had success controlling it.

    Unfortunately, as soon as Bush got elected, he rammed through two rounds of big tax cuts for the rich and income inequality again began to soar.

    And because the Bush tax cuts for the rich were in place for all of President Obama's first term in office, income inequality continued to rise during the Obama presidency.

    Hillary's plan of raising taxes on the rich and giving middle class Americans a tax cut is clearly better than Bernie's plan of raising taxes on both the rich and the middle class.

    Raising taxes on the middle class as Bernie wants to do would obviously not help lift the middle class.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Feb 09, 2016 7:53 PM GMT
    The_Polaris saidWhat a total distortion.
    It's grossly inaccurate to describe FDR and LBJ as progressive ideologues.

    FDR was a centrist Democrat.
    FDR's running mate Henry Wallace was a true socialist, and FDR's wife Eleanor was extremely progressive too - but FDR was a centrist who was always willing to compromise.

    And so was LBJ.

    Anyone who has studied these two men and their careers knows that.

    The ONLY reason FDR and LBJ were able to achieve dramatic change as president is because they were in office at times when there were HUGE and very liberal Dem majorities in the Congress - so they didn't have to compromise or accommodate the Republicans.

    And sadly there's zero chance that the Dems will control the Congress after this election.

    That's very unfortunate for everyone, except for Paul Ryan and his porn career.icon_confused.gif
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Feb 09, 2016 8:33 PM GMT
    Sam27 said
    robbaker saidFuck them both only trump matters!icon_cool.gif


    Fuck Trump too. ;-)

    We can't all be his daughter.icon_neutral.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2016 8:56 PM GMT
    My read on the OP was that "center" would be drawn for the purposes of the opinion piece not referring to anything between Dem & Rep but between the L&R ends of just the Dems. And even then the perception of that would shift in time and by looking from one time to the other. So what might look like something on one scale might not be that on another though the thing itself remains of course itself.

    Here's the wealth distributions during presidencies which I'd imagine they might not have controlled outright but at least influenced to whatever degree:

    43gb_header_sm.jpg?1250888303
    2001-2008a.jpg

    42bc_header_sm.jpg?1250887359
    1993-2001.jpg

    41gb_header_sm.jpg?1250887249
    1989-1993.jpg

    40rr_header_sm.jpg?1250886929
    1981-1989.jpg

    39jc_header_sm.jpg?1250886567
    1977-1981.jpg

    38gf_header_sm.jpg?1250886356
    1974-1977.jpg

    37rn_header_sm.jpg?1250885880
    1969-1974.jpg

    36lj_header_sm.jpg?1250885677
    1963-1969.jpg

    35jk_header.jpg?1250885463
    1961-1963.jpg

    34de_header_sm.jpg?1250885267
    1953-1961.jpg

    33ht_header_sm.jpg?1250884801
    1945-1953.jpg

    32fr_header_sm.jpg?1250884571
    1933-1945.jpg

    31hh_header_sm.jpg?1250881969
    1929-1933.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2016 9:10 PM GMT
    The_Polaris saidA fact that many Berniacs are clueless about is that the first thing Bill Clinton did after getting elected was pass legislation raising taxes on the rich.

    As a result, the only time in recent US history that income inequality has been controlled was during the Clinton economic boom of the 1990's.
    From 1995 through 2000, income inequality stopped increasing for the first time since the 1970's.


    So then by that we wouldn't expect to see a spike in the redistribution of the wealth to the 1% during Clinton, would we?

    42bc_header_sm.jpg?1250887359
    1993-2001.jpg

    ooops

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2016 9:32 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    The_Polaris saidA fact that many Berniacs are clueless about is that the first thing Bill Clinton did after getting elected was pass legislation raising taxes on the rich.

    As a result, the only time in recent US history that income inequality has been controlled was during the Clinton economic boom of the 1990's.
    From 1995 through 2000, income inequality stopped increasing for the first time since the 1970's.


    So then by that we wouldn't expect to see a spike in the redistribution of the wealth to the 1% during Clinton, would we?

    42bc_header_sm.jpg?1250887359
    1993-2001.jpg

    ooops





    NOPE.

    From 1993 until 1995 - BEFORE the Clinton tax increase on the rich began to have an impact - income inequality did indeed rise during the Clinton presidency.
    But from 1995 until 2000 - AFTER the Clinton tax increase began to have an impact - income inequality stopped spiking.

    http://inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article58〈=en

    That was the first and only time in the past 35 years that income inequality stopped rising - and it was the result of President Clinton's tax increase on the rich.

    Bernie on the other hand has done ZERO to actually rein in income inequality.
    And his proposal to raise taxes on the middle class will only lock in the status quo on income inequality.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2016 10:27 PM GMT
    Your link just brings me to some home page, not to an article.

    Googling, I just found this:

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bill-clinton-defends-his-record
    Under Clinton, job growth was about 30 million – the most since the 1970s. The poorest quintile gained 24%, which was slightly more than the richest quintile gained under Reagan. And under Clinton the richest quintile gained 20% – slightly less than what the bottom quintile gained. Meanwhile, median income increased 17% – the most rapid increase since the 1960s. Under George W. Bush, median income would fall again – substantially more for the bottom quintile than the top quintile....

    ...With its Medicaid expansion, Obamacare may turn out to be the most equality-promoting policy enacted in a generation. But even if the 23 states currently refusing to participate change their minds, the gains for lower-income people won’t show up in income or employment data....

    ...Where did Clinton fall down when it came to inequality? And why is it wrong to say that income inequality didn’t increase on Clinton’s watch?

    To answer that, it’s necessary to explain that there are two kinds of inequality. What Clinton discussed in his Georgetown speech was the broad-based kind of inequality, measured in quintiles. He did not discuss a second kind of inequality, attributable mainly to the deregulation of Wall Street and out-of-control pay for top executives: the famous 1% versus the 99%.

    It is this “upper-tail” inequality that has grown fastest during the past two decades. And while income share for the 1% started growing in the late 1970s, it grew almost as fast under Clinton as it did under Reagan. During Reagan’s two terms, the 1%’s share of the nation’s income grew by half, from 10% to 15%. Under George H.W. Bush, the 1%’s income share stayed about the same. Under Clinton’s two terms, it grew by about one-third, to 21%.


  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14360

    Feb 09, 2016 10:52 PM GMT
    Anyone who is naive enough to think that Hillary is going to help the middle class is very horribly deluded. This power hungry bitch is only interested in helping Wall Street which would greatly help further her own self aggrandizement. She doesn't give a rats ass about the middle class or the poor. She will say anything to get her corrupt, incompetent ass into the White House.
  • buddycat

    Posts: 1874

    Feb 10, 2016 10:08 AM GMT
    Alpha13 saidWhat is wrong with this is that we are supposed to be living in a Democracy. A president is not supposed to do much, it's the job of the people and congress " to make the laws" . I think I'll vote for Trump so that the power of the presidency is cut to shreds. A president like Obama who stated he would work without congress is really damaging to the democracy.


    I suggest you go to a country where they have a Parliamentary government like most. In a Parliamentary government, most of the power is in the legislature. Of course you may want to not have the right to marry and thrown in jail for gay sex if you support the right-wing causes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 10, 2016 12:23 PM GMT
    The_Polaris saidA fact that many Berniacs are clueless about is that the first thing Bill Clinton did after getting elected was pass legislation raising taxes on the rich.

    As a result, the only time in recent US history that income inequality has been controlled was during the Clinton economic boom of the 1990's.
    From 1995 through 2000, income inequality stopped increasing for the first time since the 1970's.

    So, unlike Bernie - the Clintons haven't just talked about tackling the problem of income inequality - they've taken action and have had success controlling it.

    Unfortunately, as soon as Bush got elected, he rammed through two rounds of big tax cuts for the rich and income inequality again began to soar.

    And because the Bush tax cuts for the rich were in place for all of President Obama's first term in office, income inequality continued to rise during the Obama presidency.

    Hillary's plan of raising taxes on the rich and giving middle class Americans a tax cut is clearly better than Bernie's plan of raising taxes on both the rich and the middle class.

    Raising taxes on the middle class as Bernie wants to do would obviously not help lift the middle class.


    "A fact that many Berniacs are clueless about is that the first thing Bill Clinton did after getting elected was pass legislation raising taxes on the rich."

    First thing Bill Clinton did at the beginning of his 2nd term is reduce capital gains taxes from 28% to 20%. Now that is truly the rich man's tax.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 10, 2016 6:21 PM GMT
    theantijock saidYour link just brings me to some home page, not to an article.

    Googling, I just found this:

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bill-clinton-defends-his-record
    Under Clinton, job growth was about 30 million – the most since the 1970s. The poorest quintile gained 24%, which was slightly more than the richest quintile gained under Reagan. And under Clinton the richest quintile gained 20% – slightly less than what the bottom quintile gained. Meanwhile, median income increased 17% – the most rapid increase since the 1960s. Under George W. Bush, median income would fall again – substantially more for the bottom quintile than the top quintile....

    ...With its Medicaid expansion, Obamacare may turn out to be the most equality-promoting policy enacted in a generation. But even if the 23 states currently refusing to participate change their minds, the gains for lower-income people won’t show up in income or employment data....

    ...Where did Clinton fall down when it came to inequality? And why is it wrong to say that income inequality didn’t increase on Clinton’s watch?

    To answer that, it’s necessary to explain that there are two kinds of inequality. What Clinton discussed in his Georgetown speech was the broad-based kind of inequality, measured in quintiles. He did not discuss a second kind of inequality, attributable mainly to the deregulation of Wall Street and out-of-control pay for top executives: the famous 1% versus the 99%.

    It is this “upper-tail” inequality that has grown fastest during the past two decades. And while income share for the 1% started growing in the late 1970s, it grew almost as fast under Clinton as it did under Reagan. During Reagan’s two terms, the 1%’s share of the nation’s income grew by half, from 10% to 15%. Under George H.W. Bush, the 1%’s income share stayed about the same. Under Clinton’s two terms, it grew by about one-third, to 21%.





    Instead of clicking on the link - copy it and paste it into a Google search and it will take you to the article.

    http://inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article58〈=en

    The article shows that income inequality did increase during the first two years of the Clinton presidency - BEFORE the benefits of Clinton's 1993 tax hike on the rich took effect.
    But the article also shows that income inequality stopped increasing from 1995 through the end of the Clinton presidency.

    That was the only time that income inequality has been controlled in the last 35 years and it was thanks to Bill Clinton raising taxes on the rich in 1993.

    Unfortunately, Bush Jr. was elected in 2000 and he immediately rammed through two rounds of tax cuts for the rich that caused income inequality to spike again.

    The Clintons have a record of actual success at controlling income inequality.

    Bernie has nothing but words.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14360

    Feb 10, 2016 6:58 PM GMT
    The_Polaris said
    theantijock saidYour link just brings me to some home page, not to an article.

    Googling, I just found this:

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bill-clinton-defends-his-record
    Under Clinton, job growth was about 30 million – the most since the 1970s. The poorest quintile gained 24%, which was slightly more than the richest quintile gained under Reagan. And under Clinton the richest quintile gained 20% – slightly less than what the bottom quintile gained. Meanwhile, median income increased 17% – the most rapid increase since the 1960s. Under George W. Bush, median income would fall again – substantially more for the bottom quintile than the top quintile....

    ...With its Medicaid expansion, Obamacare may turn out to be the most equality-promoting policy enacted in a generation. But even if the 23 states currently refusing to participate change their minds, the gains for lower-income people won’t show up in income or employment data....

    ...Where did Clinton fall down when it came to inequality? And why is it wrong to say that income inequality didn’t increase on Clinton’s watch?

    To answer that, it’s necessary to explain that there are two kinds of inequality. What Clinton discussed in his Georgetown speech was the broad-based kind of inequality, measured in quintiles. He did not discuss a second kind of inequality, attributable mainly to the deregulation of Wall Street and out-of-control pay for top executives: the famous 1% versus the 99%.

    It is this “upper-tail” inequality that has grown fastest during the past two decades. And while income share for the 1% started growing in the late 1970s, it grew almost as fast under Clinton as it did under Reagan. During Reagan’s two terms, the 1%’s share of the nation’s income grew by half, from 10% to 15%. Under George H.W. Bush, the 1%’s income share stayed about the same. Under Clinton’s two terms, it grew by about one-third, to 21%.





    Instead of clicking on the link - copy it and paste it into a Google search and it will take you to the article.

    http://inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article58〈=en

    The article shows that income inequality did increase during the first two years of the Clinton presidency - BEFORE the benefits of Clinton's 1993 tax hike on the rich took effect.
    But the article also shows that income inequality stopped increasing from 1995 through the end of the Clinton presidency.

    That was the only time that income inequality has been controlled in the last 35 years and it was thanks to Bill Clinton raising taxes on the rich in 1993.

    Unfortunately, Bush Jr. was elected in 2000 and he immediately rammed through two rounds of tax cuts for the rich that caused income inequality to spike again.

    The Clintons have a record of actual success at controlling income inequality.

    Bernie has nothing but words.
    The Mary Queen of Goldman Sachs will say anything to get her unqualified, corrupt ass elected. If anyone is all words, it is the hapless Hillary ho. She talks a good game but does absolutely nothing in the end. She only cares about Wall Street, period.

    Bernie 2016
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 10, 2016 8:12 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    The_Polaris said
    theantijock saidYour link just brings me to some home page, not to an article.

    Googling, I just found this:

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bill-clinton-defends-his-record
    Under Clinton, job growth was about 30 million – the most since the 1970s. The poorest quintile gained 24%, which was slightly more than the richest quintile gained under Reagan. And under Clinton the richest quintile gained 20% – slightly less than what the bottom quintile gained. Meanwhile, median income increased 17% – the most rapid increase since the 1960s. Under George W. Bush, median income would fall again – substantially more for the bottom quintile than the top quintile....

    ...With its Medicaid expansion, Obamacare may turn out to be the most equality-promoting policy enacted in a generation. But even if the 23 states currently refusing to participate change their minds, the gains for lower-income people won’t show up in income or employment data....

    ...Where did Clinton fall down when it came to inequality? And why is it wrong to say that income inequality didn’t increase on Clinton’s watch?

    To answer that, it’s necessary to explain that there are two kinds of inequality. What Clinton discussed in his Georgetown speech was the broad-based kind of inequality, measured in quintiles. He did not discuss a second kind of inequality, attributable mainly to the deregulation of Wall Street and out-of-control pay for top executives: the famous 1% versus the 99%.

    It is this “upper-tail” inequality that has grown fastest during the past two decades. And while income share for the 1% started growing in the late 1970s, it grew almost as fast under Clinton as it did under Reagan. During Reagan’s two terms, the 1%’s share of the nation’s income grew by half, from 10% to 15%. Under George H.W. Bush, the 1%’s income share stayed about the same. Under Clinton’s two terms, it grew by about one-third, to 21%.





    Instead of clicking on the link - copy it and paste it into a Google search and it will take you to the article.

    http://inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article58〈=en

    The article shows that income inequality did increase during the first two years of the Clinton presidency - BEFORE the benefits of Clinton's 1993 tax hike on the rich took effect.
    But the article also shows that income inequality stopped increasing from 1995 through the end of the Clinton presidency.

    That was the only time that income inequality has been controlled in the last 35 years and it was thanks to Bill Clinton raising taxes on the rich in 1993.

    Unfortunately, Bush Jr. was elected in 2000 and he immediately rammed through two rounds of tax cuts for the rich that caused income inequality to spike again.

    The Clintons have a record of actual success at controlling income inequality.

    Bernie has nothing but words.
    The Mary Queen of Goldman Sachs will say anything to get her unqualified, corrupt ass elected. If anyone is all words, it is the hapless Hillary ho. She talks a good game but does absolutely nothing in the end. She only cares about Wall Street, period.

    Bernie 2016




    FYI - millions of middle class Americans have their retirement nest egg invested in the stock market.

    Burning down Wall Street would cause a huge stock market crash that would wipe out those retirement nest eggs and force middle class Americans to work many years longer in order to be able to retire.

    The idea of destroying Wall Street may appeal to irrational extremists who are driven by anger and hate, but the cost to millions of Americans would be immense.

    And it's only middle class Americans who are the ones who would suffer.
    The Wall Street elite would just take their money and run - or move on to other lines of work.

    Wall Street needs to be carefully regulated policed and controlled - not destroyed.
    And that's what Clinton will do when she's elected president.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 10, 2016 8:27 PM GMT
    The_Polaris said
    roadbikeRob said
    The_Polaris said
    theantijock saidYour link just brings me to some home page, not to an article.

    Googling, I just found this:

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bill-clinton-defends-his-record
    Under Clinton, job growth was about 30 million – the most since the 1970s. The poorest quintile gained 24%, which was slightly more than the richest quintile gained under Reagan. And under Clinton the richest quintile gained 20% – slightly less than what the bottom quintile gained. Meanwhile, median income increased 17% – the most rapid increase since the 1960s. Under George W. Bush, median income would fall again – substantially more for the bottom quintile than the top quintile....

    ...With its Medicaid expansion, Obamacare may turn out to be the most equality-promoting policy enacted in a generation. But even if the 23 states currently refusing to participate change their minds, the gains for lower-income people won’t show up in income or employment data....

    ...Where did Clinton fall down when it came to inequality? And why is it wrong to say that income inequality didn’t increase on Clinton’s watch?

    To answer that, it’s necessary to explain that there are two kinds of inequality. What Clinton discussed in his Georgetown speech was the broad-based kind of inequality, measured in quintiles. He did not discuss a second kind of inequality, attributable mainly to the deregulation of Wall Street and out-of-control pay for top executives: the famous 1% versus the 99%.

    It is this “upper-tail” inequality that has grown fastest during the past two decades. And while income share for the 1% started growing in the late 1970s, it grew almost as fast under Clinton as it did under Reagan. During Reagan’s two terms, the 1%’s share of the nation’s income grew by half, from 10% to 15%. Under George H.W. Bush, the 1%’s income share stayed about the same. Under Clinton’s two terms, it grew by about one-third, to 21%.





    Instead of clicking on the link - copy it and paste it into a Google search and it will take you to the article.

    http://inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article58〈=en

    The article shows that income inequality did increase during the first two years of the Clinton presidency - BEFORE the benefits of Clinton's 1993 tax hike on the rich took effect.
    But the article also shows that income inequality stopped increasing from 1995 through the end of the Clinton presidency.

    That was the only time that income inequality has been controlled in the last 35 years and it was thanks to Bill Clinton raising taxes on the rich in 1993.

    Unfortunately, Bush Jr. was elected in 2000 and he immediately rammed through two rounds of tax cuts for the rich that caused income inequality to spike again.

    The Clintons have a record of actual success at controlling income inequality.

    Bernie has nothing but words.
    The Mary Queen of Goldman Sachs will say anything to get her unqualified, corrupt ass elected. If anyone is all words, it is the hapless Hillary ho. She talks a good game but does absolutely nothing in the end. She only cares about Wall Street, period.

    Bernie 2016




    FYI - millions of middle class Americans have their retirement nest egg invested in the stock market.

    Burning down Wall Street would cause a huge stock market crash that would wipe out those retirement nest eggs and force middle class Americans to work many years longer in order to be able to retire.

    The idea of destroying Wall Street may appeal to irrational extremists who are driven by anger and hate, but the cost to millions of Americans would be immense.

    And it's only middle class Americans who are the ones who would suffer.
    The Wall Street elite would just take their money and run - or move on to other lines of work.

    Wall Street needs to be carefully regulated policed and controlled - not destroyed.
    And that's what Clinton will do when she's elected president.



    "Burning down Wall Street would cause a huge stock market crash that would wipe out those retirement nest eggs and force middle class Americans to work many years longer in order to be able to retire."

    I had it happen twice 1) DOT com crash of 2000 and 2) 2008 / 2009 so I'll be working until I croak.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 10, 2016 9:26 PM GMT
    The_Polaris said
    Instead of clicking on the link - copy it and paste it into a Google search and it will take you to the article.

    http://inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article58〈=en

    The article shows that income inequality did increase during the first two years of the Clinton presidency - BEFORE the benefits of Clinton's 1993 tax hike on the rich took effect.
    But the article also shows that income inequality stopped increasing from 1995 through the end of the Clinton presidency.

    That was the only time that income inequality has been controlled in the last 35 years and it was thanks to Bill Clinton raising taxes on the rich in 1993.

    Unfortunately, Bush Jr. was elected in 2000 and he immediately rammed through two rounds of tax cuts for the rich that caused income inequality to spike again.

    The Clintons have a record of actual success at controlling income inequality.

    Bernie has nothing but words.


    I had tried pasting address but just googled as instructed and found it. Right off I'd need more attributing data on this. It does show as you say a leveling but then again wasn't there by chance no recession during both his terms and also it shows a leveling during the crash though in both cases the EPI charts seem to show otherwise.

    So I can't judge that by this. And I'm certainly not anti Clinton. I liked Bill very much and I do like Hillary only that I feel Bernie says more things I more closely align with. Not about everything and thus on that other thread I agreed with him more than the others but only by 95%.

    As to your next post on crashing markets, I don't believe Bernie wants to do that nor that he'd be able. Certainly his presidency would be more of a struggle if even possible for him to accomplish his goals than Clinton's would be for her. But I do believe that his presidency would give rise to conversation this country has in fear avoided.

    The only danger to the party about his candidacy in my view is the possibility of Bloomberg coming in to hand the election to Trump, which I'm pretty sure is what these creepy ass Republican forum douchebags are counting on.

    I'd hope Bloomberg would have the decency to stay stepped aside. Certainly the electorate would not place him in the White House. Bernie's got a chance.

    Even though I'd not want to see Bloomberg run, if he did and if Sanders won anyway, then Bernie's got his mandate by the people to stop the redistribution of this nation's wealth into the hands of the 1% and the people would get to begin to take their country back. That might get ugly before it get's good again. I'd imagine many in the 1% would do just about anything to sabotage that. On the other hand, the planet has some good guys with a lot of money too so we'll see how that plays.

    Leveling is not fixing. That's just delaying the next spike up. You don't unbend a branch without bending it further back. Trump will further sell out the American people, Clinton will deal to keep the status quo. Neither selling out nor dealing in will fix this. The only thing that might change this trajectory is an idea. It is not just words.

    This world has lost its glory
    Let's start a brand new story

    You think that I don't even mean
    A single word I say
    It's only words, and words are all
    I have to take your heart away
  • carew28

    Posts: 661

    Feb 10, 2016 10:08 PM GMT
    metta said
    Why Bernie vs Hillary Matters More Than People Think

    "Many people think that it is the Republican Party alone that is responsible for this, but beginning in 1976 with Jimmy Carter, the Democratic Party was captured by this same ideology, which in academic circles is often referred to as neoliberalism. It is now largely forgotten that it was Carter, not Reagan, who began deregulating the market."


    "Bill Clinton took the party even further to the right. In 1992 he ran on the promise to “end welfare as we know it”, a total repudiation of the FDR/LBJ legacy. With the help of republicans, Clinton was eventually successful in drastically cutting the welfare program. Clinton also signed important deregulatory bills into law, like the Commodities Futures Modernization Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Most economists blame one or both of these pieces of legislation with directly facilitating the housing crisis in 2008"


    "So Bernie Sanders is not merely running to attempt to implement a set of idealistic policies that a republican-controlled congress is likely to block. He is running to take the Democratic Party back from an establishment that ignores the fundamental systemic economic problems that lead to wage stagnation and economic crisis."

    "This is not a contest to see who will lead the democrats, it’s a contest to see what kind of party the democrats are going to be in the coming decades, what ideology and what interests, causes, and issues the Democratic Party will prioritize. This makes it far more important than any other recent primary election. The last time a democratic primary was this important, it was 1976. Only this time, instead of Anybody But Carter or Anybody But Clinton, the left has Bernie Sanders–one representative candidate that it is really excited about. The chance may not come again for quite some time.

    Hillary Clinton is a neoliberal building on the legacy of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. She doesn’t understand the pivotal role inequality plays in creating economic crisis and reducing economic growth. She has been taken in by a fundamentally right wing paradigm, and if she is elected she will continue to lead the Democratic Party down that path.

    Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist building on the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. He understands that inequality is the core structural factor in economic crisis and that growth in real wages and incomes is required for robust, sustainable economic growth.

    It doesn’t matter which one is more experienced, or which one’s policies are more likely to pass congress, or which one is more likely to win a general election, or which one is a man and which one is a woman. This is not about just this election, or just the next four years. This is about whether the Democratic Party is going to care about inequality for the next decade. We are making a historical decision between two distinct ideological paradigms, not a choice between flavors of popcorn. This is important. Choose carefully."


    http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/02/05/why-bernie-vs-hillary-matters-more-than-people-think/



    Good analysis. I think Bill Clinton meant well, and the middleclass did prosper under him, but the workingclass fell even further behind economically. There needs to be some fundamental change, and that's more likely to come from Sanders than from Hillary. Companies are now more concerned about their stockholders than about their employees, and that hurts the workingclass.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14360

    Feb 10, 2016 10:43 PM GMT
    The_Polaris said
    roadbikeRob said
    The_Polaris said
    theantijock saidYour link just brings me to some home page, not to an article.

    Googling, I just found this:

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bill-clinton-defends-his-record
    Under Clinton, job growth was about 30 million – the most since the 1970s. The poorest quintile gained 24%, which was slightly more than the richest quintile gained under Reagan. And under Clinton the richest quintile gained 20% – slightly less than what the bottom quintile gained. Meanwhile, median income increased 17% – the most rapid increase since the 1960s. Under George W. Bush, median income would fall again – substantially more for the bottom quintile than the top quintile....

    ...With its Medicaid expansion, Obamacare may turn out to be the most equality-promoting policy enacted in a generation. But even if the 23 states currently refusing to participate change their minds, the gains for lower-income people won’t show up in income or employment data....

    ...Where did Clinton fall down when it came to inequality? And why is it wrong to say that income inequality didn’t increase on Clinton’s watch?

    To answer that, it’s necessary to explain that there are two kinds of inequality. What Clinton discussed in his Georgetown speech was the broad-based kind of inequality, measured in quintiles. He did not discuss a second kind of inequality, attributable mainly to the deregulation of Wall Street and out-of-control pay for top executives: the famous 1% versus the 99%.

    It is this “upper-tail” inequality that has grown fastest during the past two decades. And while income share for the 1% started growing in the late 1970s, it grew almost as fast under Clinton as it did under Reagan. During Reagan’s two terms, the 1%’s share of the nation’s income grew by half, from 10% to 15%. Under George H.W. Bush, the 1%’s income share stayed about the same. Under Clinton’s two terms, it grew by about one-third, to 21%.





    Instead of clicking on the link - copy it and paste it into a Google search and it will take you to the article.

    http://inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article58〈=en

    The article shows that income inequality did increase during the first two years of the Clinton presidency - BEFORE the benefits of Clinton's 1993 tax hike on the rich took effect.
    But the article also shows that income inequality stopped increasing from 1995 through the end of the Clinton presidency.

    That was the only time that income inequality has been controlled in the last 35 years and it was thanks to Bill Clinton raising taxes on the rich in 1993.

    Unfortunately, Bush Jr. was elected in 2000 and he immediately rammed through two rounds of tax cuts for the rich that caused income inequality to spike again.

    The Clintons have a record of actual success at controlling income inequality.

    Bernie has nothing but words.
    The Mary Queen of Goldman Sachs will say anything to get her unqualified, corrupt ass elected. If anyone is all words, it is the hapless Hillary ho. She talks a good game but does absolutely nothing in the end. She only cares about Wall Street, period.

    Bernie 2016




    FYI - millions of middle class Americans have their retirement nest egg invested in the stock market.

    Burning down Wall Street would cause a huge stock market crash that would wipe out those retirement nest eggs and force middle class Americans to work many years longer in order to be able to retire.

    The idea of destroying Wall Street may appeal to irrational extremists who are driven by anger and hate, but the cost to millions of Americans would be immense.

    And it's only middle class Americans who are the ones who would suffer.
    The Wall Street elite would just take their money and run - or move on to other lines of work.

    Wall Street needs to be carefully regulated policed and controlled - not destroyed.
    And that's what Clinton will do when she's elected president.

    Like hell she will regulate Wall Street. You need to stop being such a blind sycophant to this crooked, power hungry whore because she will only make Wall Street fat cats even wealthier at the expense of the middle class. She doesn't give a flying fuck about the middle class, she only cares about the Wall Street shysters along with her own self aggrandizement. What you want is the status quo and the status quo is the root cause of the country's serious problems. Bernie Sanders has the right idea, taking on Wall Street and forcing these crooks to pay their fair share in taxes. Hillary is unfit and unqualified for President. She will just be another powerful thief who would keep the mass majority of Americans struggling and suffering. Wake up and smell the coffee goddammiticon_exclaim.gif
  • wild_sky360

    Posts: 1492

    Feb 11, 2016 4:08 AM GMT
    I believe that once upon a time Hillary was a populist, but in these times you don't get within throwing distance of power without the establishment blessing. Both parties are hinting at brokered conventions should Trump or Bernie succeed with voters. Bring on the revolution.

    I've long advocated non participation as protest. Voting is futile if you don't get to choose the candidates. For the first time in decades there are two or three candidates that actually believe in something and aren't just pandering / auditioning to a vile establishment for blessing.

    Returning to the point of the original post, it's not about what Sanders could actually accomplish in one term....without driving a congressional revolution as well. It's about changing the paradigm, or at least chipping away at it, regardless of whether he wins the general. For people who think Trump and Sanders are too rough around the edges, a vice president candidate Elizabeth Warren would have a national platform to resonate with voters from both parties with a more articulate yet less strident message that mirrors Sanders appeal to basic fairness.

    To the essay in the OP, Hillary not only morphed into neoliberal economics, she's also adopted the neocon ideology of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld gang and taken it to the next level. Have we arrived at a place where it's not even necessary for bogus threats to start wars? What she did in Libya was revolting and if she still had her bloody hands in Syria now that crisis would be even worse. With world war 3 just a few miscalculations away, I'd never trust her with a completely free hand in foreign policy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2016 12:09 PM GMT
    From looking at all the pie charts up above it appears that Nixon was the populist for the common folks. Who woulda thunk?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2016 6:46 PM GMT
    wild_sky360 saidI believe that once upon a time Hillary was a populist, but in these times you don't get within throwing distance of power without the establishment blessing. Both parties are hinting at brokered conventions should Trump or Bernie succeed with voters. Bring on the revolution.

    I've long advocated non participation as protest. Voting is futile if you don't get to choose the candidates. For the first time in decades there are two or three candidates that actually believe in something and aren't just pandering / auditioning to a vile establishment for blessing.

    Returning to the point of the original post, it's not about what Sanders could actually accomplish in one term....without driving a congressional revolution as well. It's about changing the paradigm, or at least chipping away at it, regardless of whether he wins the general. For people who think Trump and Sanders are too rough around the edges, a vice president candidate Elizabeth Warren would have a national platform to resonate with voters from both parties with a more articulate yet less strident message that mirrors Sanders appeal to basic fairness.

    To the essay in the OP, Hillary not only morphed into neoliberal economics, she's also adopted the neocon ideology of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld gang and taken it to the next level. Have we arrived at a place where it's not even necessary for bogus threats to start wars? What she did in Libya was revolting and if she still had her bloody hands in Syria now that crisis would be even worse. With world war 3 just a few miscalculations away, I'd never trust her with a completely free hand in foreign policy.





    Your comments re: passive and defeatist "non participation" AKA, not voting - and this quote from the OP:

    "So Bernie Sanders is not merely running to attempt to implement a set of idealistic policies that a republican-controlled congress is likely to block. He is running to take the Democratic Party back from an establishment that ignores the fundamental systemic economic problems that lead to wage stagnation and economic crisis."

    are exactly the kind of off-course thinking that we heard from the far left Dems during the 2000 election.

    Clinton and Gore weren't far left enough in the opinion of the far left and in the 2000 election some far left Dems either sat on their asses on the sidelines and didn't vote (as you suggest) - or they voted for Ralph Nader instead of Al Gore, to "send a message" to the Dem establishment that the Dem establishment had to move to the far left "or else!".

    As a result, we got eight long years of the horrors of Bush/Cheney.
    The far left Dems failed in pushing anything to the far left and succeeded only in pushing the country to the far right.

    The far left are behaving in the same childish and stupid way in this election and are dreaming of nominating Bernie Sanders - a socialist, pacifist/conscientious objector, who wants to jack up taxes on the middle class to pay for 18 trillion dollars in new government programs.

    Fortunately, Hillary has comfortable leads in the upcoming primaries and in the nationwide polls and Sanders won't get the nomination, but it's disappointing to see that some on the far left are as irrational and out of touch with reality as the far right.