2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary on the issues
Some claim that Hillary supporters don't like to discuss her stands on the issues. I don't think there are dramatic differences between the two candidates, and that's why both sides try to make hay over their past mistakes and gotcha moments.
Fracking -- Fracking is about energy independence from foreign oil. It has doubled the amount of oil produced since 2008, created thousands of jobs, and explains why gas prices have dropped so much. So fracking is part of the way Obama has dealt with both our economic crisis and our energy independence. Clinton says that fracking should be decided by localities and that the chemicals used to frack should be disclosed. That seems to be a reasonable point of view.
Federal minimum wage -- Clinton supports a $12 federal minimum wage, with localities free to have higher wages, which makes sense given that different places have different costs of living. Minimum wage hikes are great, but complicated. Even Sanders favors raising the minimum wage to $15/hour over 4 years. In California, they just voted to raise it to $15/hour over 6 years, and already it's causing the Los Angeles apparel industry to increase outsourcing and reduce jobs. When minimum wag goes up, it has a short-term negative effect on jobs and prices before stabilizing. There is as good a case to make for $12 as there is for $15, but $15 is more politically attractive.
Israel/Palestinian conflict -- The Palestinians are victims of a very complex political dynamic between the various power brokers in the ME, including Israel, the US, the Russians, and the various Muslim countries. It's easy to support Israel, since relative to it's neighbors it is progressive in terms of women's rights, gay rights, and even minority rights. The Israeli legal system at least provides recourse for all its citizens, and there are left wing organizations in Israel who are active in that. Presidents at least since Carter have tried different ways to bring peace to the region. None have succeeded. Bernie's approach might be more like that of Carter or Obama, but those didn't work either.
Global Warming -- The Obama administration has done a good job on this, though it's difficult forming a world coalition when your own Congress won't back you. Obama used the stimulus bill in part to heavily invest in renewable energy. Bernie is proposing cutting out all sorts of energy sources without anything to replace them. Hillary is more sympathetic to nuclear power as part of the solution of addressing climate change, a position taken by many scientists. It's hard to see how Bernie actually implements his proposals -- cutting all sorts of energy sources without substitutes in place.
Wall Street regulation -- Bernie and Hillary are both pretty good on this, but rightly Bernie is trusted more on this issue. Bernie does not take donations from Wall Street, does not seem to be driven by money, and has been consistent in his approach to Wall Street throughout the years. One suspects that Hillary is more like her husband. But their actual proposals are not that far apart. Bernie wants to break up big banks, Hillary wants to assess fees that grow as banks get bigger, while still giving regulators the power to break them up. Bernie wants Wall Street to pay for free college; Hillary wants to tax day trading and go after hedge funds. Hillary's plan is more directed at shadow banking (secretive, nontraditional banking) than Bernie's. Both plans have their strengths.
Citizens United and getting money out of politics -- I think Democrats would certainly like to defeat Citizens United, but Hillary basically believes that if its the rule of the land, we must use it if we want to win. Bernie believes otherwise, though if he wins the nomination, I think he would have no choice but to come around or the Republicans would drown him in negative ads.
Education -- Both Bernie and Hillary want free community college. Hillary wants free 4 year college that is more needs based, while Bernie wants it to be free for all. Hillary's plan is much cheaper than Bernie's, so may be more realistic. Neither one is clear about what to do about current student debt, but Hillary has proposed restricting student debt payments to no more than 10% of their income and forgive any remaining debt after 20 years. It's a pretty good plan. Hillary's plan, unlike Bernie's, also addresses the needs of historically black college.
Poverty -- Neither one seems to have much a solution for poverty beyond the traditional democratic prescriptions of education, food assistance, increased investment in housing, etc.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... it doesn't really matter what Clinton's policies appear to be, the fact is most of us don't trust her to do what she says.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)... Hillary supporters see her as pragmatic and solution focused. Bernie supporters see her as a liar.
Bernie supporters see him as noble and courageous. Hillary supporters see him as manipulative and messianic.
But that wasn't the point of my post.
As far as fracking goes, Hillary addresses the groundwater issue saying that it should not be allowed where it contaminates ground water even though that may mean that fracking would no longer be allowed.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... understand the weasel words.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)Of course, you're operating under the assumption that she simply lies, since that's what the Sanders campaign or right wing has told you to believe. I'm operating under the assumption that like most politicians (Bernie and states rights -- on guns, gay marriage, and health care -- for instance) she can be swayed during an election. That's part of what elections are all about.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/03/hillary-clinton-debate-fracking
Hillary Clinton, though, needed more time to outline three conditions in a more nuanced answer on fracking. She's against it "when any locality or any state is against it," "when the release of methane or contamination of water is present," and "unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using."
Until those conditions are met, "we've got to regulate everything that is currently underway, and we have to have a system in place that prevents further fracking."
"By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place," she added.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)The article goes on to show how her statements in the debate are the opposite of what she's been promoting for years.
The unspecified "all my conditions" she mentioned in the debate are a great example of her use of weasel words.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)Bernie historically argued that health care should be up to the states, that gay marriage should be up to the states, that gun rights should be up to the states. That's actually the same argument the segregationists used. But, Bernie has shifted dramatically on that. I guess that makes him a liar. What are you going to do? Rationalize?
My view is that politicians change their views during elections, and then it's up to the people to hold them to it.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Clinton and the rest of the establishment, both Democratic and Republican are two faced liars regarding policy on global warming and policy on fossil fuel energy supplies. You cannot both "drill baby drill" and reduce carbon emissions to meet sustainability. Our establishment leaders are lying to us, and they think we are fucking stupid.
Federal minimum wage - Clinton's position on this was demonstrably all over the place in the debate on Thursday night. She both refused to acknowledge that she is opposed to 15, claiming instead that she has always supported it, and is against 15, because it seems shitty jobs in some parts of the country deserve even shittier wages than other parts. This from a woman who makes 250000/hr.
Israel: fuck Netanyahu and the despicable israeli hard-right and their horrible policies, and to hell with politicians like Clinton who are not only too timid to speak out against their murderous policies, but go overboard heaping praise on them.
Clinton and the Democratic establishment will do nothing at all to reform a political system that keeps them firmly in control of the political process.
Clinton has made it clear that k-16 is just too socialistic for her.
Health care: clear policy from Clinton - NOPE AND NO CHANGE. Shitty Obamacare - Bob Dole's healthcare reform - is all we deserve.
basselope
(2,565 posts)You've just set forth an outline as exactly what is WRONG with Clinton and many democrats.
"Fracking -- Fracking is about energy independence from foreign oil. It has doubled the amount of oil produced since 2008, created thousands of jobs, and explains why gas prices have dropped so much. So fracking is part of the way Obama has dealt with both our economic crisis and our energy independence. Clinton says that fracking should be decided by localities and that the chemicals used to frack should be disclosed. That seems to be a reasonable point of view. "
Not reasonable at all. This falls into the same category of being a little bit pregnant and/or "clean coal". While it is true that fracking has created jobs and reduced the cost of oil at the gas pump, you are just trading one horrible environmental action for another and SLOWS the production of renewables. We contaminate ground water, destabilize the ground and STILL wind up relying on a LIMITED resource. It's not like someone is feeding the earth beans to produce gas. This, just like oil, is a limited resource. There is "renewable" natural gas, but fracking isn't part of that equation.
Federal minimum wage -- Clinton supports a $12 federal minimum wage, with localities free to have higher wages, which makes sense given that different places have different costs of living. Minimum wage hikes are great, but complicated. Even Sanders favors raising the minimum wage to $15/hour over 4 years. In California, they just voted to raise it to $15/hour over 6 years, and already it's causing the Los Angeles apparel industry to increase outsourcing and reduce jobs. When minimum wag goes up, it has a short-term negative effect on jobs and prices before stabilizing. There is as good a case to make for $12 as there is for $15, but $15 is more politically attractive.
Los Angeles has been losing manufacturing jobs for YEARS.. there has been no dramatic increase since the announcement of a $15 minimum wage. The problem here is basic math. $12/hr is NOT a living wage. Its UNDER 25K per year. It may put you above the "poverty line", but it help build a middle class. $15 per hour gets us over 30K per year. Now we are moving into livable territory, where someone working full time can actually do more than just work for rent, food and transportation. Much like fracking, accepting $12 is a non-solution solution. It's the untenable compromise. It's taking single payer off the table before you start the debate. If you have a goal you actually need to start there.
Israel/Palestinian conflict -- The Palestinians are victims of a very complex political dynamic between the various power brokers in the ME, including Israel, the US, the Russians, and the various Muslim countries. It's easy to support Israel, since relative to it's neighbors it is progressive in terms of women's rights, gay rights, and even minority rights. The Israeli legal system at least provides recourse for all its citizens, and there are left wing organizations in Israel who are active in that. Presidents at least since Carter have tried different ways to bring peace to the region. None have succeeded. Bernie's approach might be more like that of Carter or Obama, but those didn't work either.
Carter actually had the most success of anyone, so emulating his approach may be the new way to go. Clinton has already proven disastrous in the middle east.. what are the odds that ANY Muslim nation is going to pay attention to her?
Global Warming -- The Obama administration has done a good job on this, though it's difficult forming a world coalition when your own Congress won't back you. Obama used the stimulus bill in part to heavily invest in renewable energy. Bernie is proposing cutting out all sorts of energy sources without anything to replace them. Hillary is more sympathetic to nuclear power as part of the solution of addressing climate change, a position taken by many scientists. It's hard to see how Bernie actually implements his proposals -- cutting all sorts of energy sources without substitutes in place.
Here we go back to the fracking thing. Obama hasn't really done a good job on this and often times the "solution" is to cut the cord. IF in 1992 we had elected Ross Perot instead of Clinton (who wanted to put a $2.50 per gallon tax on gasoline), we would have BEEN to renewables by now, because we would have been FORCED there. There is no soft landing here.. no baby steps. Moving from oil to natural gas is not a "solution" or even a step, it is just trading one bad things for another. The prices of renewables will not fall UNTIL we see REAL mass production and consumer demand, which can only happen when the cord is cut.
Wall Street regulation -- Bernie and Hillary are both pretty good on this, but rightly Bernie is trusted more on this issue. Bernie does not take donations from Wall Street, does not seem to be driven by money, and has been consistent in his approach to Wall Street throughout the years. One suspects that Hillary is more like her husband. But their actual proposals are not that far apart. Bernie wants to break up big banks, Hillary wants to assess fees that grow as banks get bigger, while still giving regulators the power to break them up. Bernie wants Wall Street to pay for free college; Hillary wants to tax day trading and go after hedge funds. Hillary's plan is more directed at shadow banking (secretive, nontraditional banking) than Bernie's. Both plans have their strengths.
I'm curious how Hillary is "pretty good on this". She lacks a basic understanding of Dodd Frank, or just keeps lying to us about its ability and effectiveness. In short, Dodd-Frank does almost nothing to protect us from a disaster and by the time you use the "tools" within it, it is too late. Reinstating glass steagal actually addresses shadow banking more than anything Clinton has proposed. Bernie similarly wants to go after hedge funds and get rid of the carried interest loophole, but the FTT Bernie is proposing (which is something that we had in the US from 1918-1966) would actually more than cover public college tuition. Clinton is more of the same on Wall Street.
Citizens United and getting money out of politics -- I think Democrats would certainly like to defeat Citizens United, but Hillary basically believes that if its the rule of the land, we must use it if we want to win. Bernie believes otherwise, though if he wins the nomination, I think he would have no choice but to come around or the Republicans would drown him in negative ads.
Bernie has proven something.. you don't NEED to go there. Obama "had to go there" and because of it we have no public option. Bernie doesn't ever have to go there and no amount of negative ads can drown out the truth. Democrats (the establishment) have no more interest of "getting money out of politics" than the GOP. Yeah, they'd rather get rid of citizens united and go back to restricting direct corporate involvement, but that still dances around the problem. It's not just corporations being people that is the problem, it is the concept of MONEY = SPEECH and not allowing exceptions to that rule in the name of campaign laws. No real campaign finance laws can pass until we undo the root cause, which is that "money = speech" (BUCKLEY v. VALEO) Citizens United is an offshoot of that nonsensical principle. I don't see Clinton going anywhere near there, b/c it is the only way she can compete.
Education -- Both Bernie and Hillary want free community college. Hillary wants free 4 year college that is more needs based, while Bernie wants it to be free for all. Hillary's plan is much cheaper than Bernie's, so may be more realistic. Neither one is clear about what to do about current student debt, but Hillary has proposed restricting student debt payments to no more than 10% of their income and forgive any remaining debt after 20 years. It's a pretty good plan. Hillary's plan, unlike Bernie's, also addresses the needs of historically black college.
Hillary's plan ultimately requires means testing. "debt free college" requires a means test. What can someone afford, what can't they afford. Bernie's plan is far simpler to implement. The money comes from an FTT (which we have had before) and studies have showed do not have a major impact on trading, since they exist in many major countries. This supplements money that states are ALREADY USING for public colleges and enables them to be tuition free. No means testing necessary. Public colleges become available to all.. the way it used to be in several cities around the country.
Poverty -- Neither one seems to have much a solution for poverty beyond the traditional democratic prescriptions of education, food assistance, increased investment in housing, etc.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/how-bernie-sanders-solutions-would-dramatically-improve-wages-poverty-and-inequality
The solutions are in how the plans impact the country. Medicare for all alone does MUCH to reduce poverty. Something the ACA can never accomplish.
