Discussion for article #244618
I like and respect both of these fine public servants. I am happy to see a healthy back-and-forth because I think that keeps everyone on their toes, as well as forces the candidates and their people to examine issues more closely so as to fine-tune their ideas for solutions to our problems and challenges we face.
That said, though I don’t believe there’s much of a chance of this not happening, I hope they keep the jabs and arguments on the policy ideas, where one stands on issues, etc., a opposed to slipping into the personal like on the GOP side of the aisle.
For very pragmatic and practical reasons, I want to see Hillary Clinton elected as our next POTUS – but I’d be just as (very) happy to see Sen. Sanders in the Oval Office. I like them each for somewhat different–but very similar–reasons. My highest priority is the Supreme Court and who gets to nominate the next few nominations. That is vitally important to me, my nieces, nephews and their great-grandchildren.
7 Likes
Sanders’ criticisms of Hillary are exceptionally vague–only one with discernible facts behind it–she voted to authorize military force in Iraq. One only. Everything else he says deploys much of the same style as GOPers --lots of “nudge, nudge, know what I mean?” implying she’s a corporate whore without ever showing where in her legislating record she has been such. I dislike him for this.
But the press automatically calls Hillary “a liar” when she says things that are actually true about Sanders–particularly on his supposed support for single payer for all Americans: Sanders is a hypocrite, claiming he wants “single payer” but in every bill he’s ever introduced, he wants “single payer” not at the federal level, but “state by state” using “federal guidelines.” That’s worked out really well in the case of Medicaid expansion, right? And his home state of Vermont tried it in a single state and it didn’t work–you need lots of people in the insurance pool.
As a matter of fact, old Bernie voted against every Democratic bill calling for single payer.
2 Likes
I guess Bernie Sanders’ status as an outsider is based on him not being a member of a political party. Because he has spent over 30 years in elected office and almost 25 of those have been in the U.S. Congress. That’s an awfully long time for an outsider.
1 Like
Hillary, a seat on Walmart’s board of directors for six years and speaking fees from investment banks are not scars. Example:
Clinton’s most lucrative year was 2013, right after stepping down as secretary of state. That year, she made $2.3 million for three speeches to Goldman Sachs and individual speeches to Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Fidelity Investments, Apollo Management Holdings, UBS, Bank of America, and Golden Tree Asset Managers.
Why do you say such stupid shit?
Some of your political scars are self inflicted. I have been in your camp for over a year, but you’re making this harder for me than it should be. If you win, the smartest thing you could ever do is make Bernie Sanders the Chairman of the Federal Reserve or Treasury Secretary. Eliot Spitzer would make a great SEC chief. Yeah, I know, I’m dreaming.
Do you have links for all that? (his plan and his record) I’m a Hillary supporter (though I love Bernie, and am basically with @BeattyCat overall), but I was disappointed in what I saw as mischaracterization of his single-payer proposal, which I assumed was what we all think of as Medicare for all, which would clearly be a Federally administered program. If what you describe is the case, then it’s Bernie I’d be very disappointed in, especially since he’s calling her a liar on this. I’m with you in resenting the implication and innuendo about her being a “corporate whore”; if your description of his health-care plan is true, I suddenly don’t love him so much. Don’t have time to look right now, so can you give us a few links?
@bonvivant: Well, I’d guess she’s still got the scars from the health-care industry, for starters. And wrt your personnel suggestions, look up “Gary Gensler” – he’s with her campaign, and would more than likely have a major role in her administration.
See – this is FANTASTIC that Sanders has given her a real challenge. It gives her the opportunity to make her case – and its hard to get people paying attention when you are unopposed. More please,
1 Like
If Bernie started looking like he’d win the nomination and had a shot at the presidency, the market would plunge until the investment banks got their point across, and they no longer felt threatened. People would put their IRA’s ahead of their conscience after a point.
The reason I made such outlandish suggestions is because President Bernie Sanders would be no threat to the big banks and the status quo, he would be fighting most Democrats and the Republicans to make any significant changes. However. if he was Fed Chairman Sanders, bankers would literally piss themselves. Eliot Spitzer would also scare the hell out of Wall Street as chief of the SEC. Mark Sanford is in Congress after an affair, why not Spitzer? They went after Spitzer for a reason, he scared the hell out of powerful interests.
4 Likes
Heh; I’ve literally been thinking Spitzer for something major, for real. And I think you’re right about the prospect of a Bernie candidacy and presidency: I said yesterday that I thought the danger of a 2010-style disillusionment when he couldn’t deliver on his promises made him a bigger long-term risk for the progressive project than the incrementalist Hillary. I was just noting, for the benefit those who buy her opposition’s corporatist caricature of her, that she’s got a truly great financial regulator, a lefty favorite, on her side.
2 Likes
It’s an empty word. Always has been always will be.
It’s irrelevant.
So, you acknowledge that Wall Street runs things but would rather that not change.
Perfect. America’s a smart place.
"Clinton added: “Don’t talk to me about standing up to corporate interests and big powers. I’ve got the scars to show for it.”
Why does she say stoopid stuff like this? Scars? She just makes it worse for herself. And Bernie doesn’t have to say anything as the press will now do it for him. It’s all there, 30 YEARS of fighting for WS and big banks. Move on lady, talk about your positives.
I’ll clarify from the beginning of this post I’m a Hillary supporter. That said I think all of us that support one of these two democrats should be easy on the one we don’t support, as should the candidates, and realize that the one we should want to win is the one most likely to win the general election. And if we get decent democratic voter turnout in the general election that should be either one of these two. I really just think that, being a woman, Hillary will pull in more votes from the right/middle women voters than Burnie will. And I don’t think either will pull in many, if any, right/middle men voters. And for all the Bernie voters that claim they won’t vote at all or for some third party candidate if Hillary is the democrat, I really just think that won’t help at all and if enough people do this, it’s probably the only way a republican will win. And none of us want that. So who ever you vote for in the primary, please vote for and encourage other democratic voting folks to get out and vote democratic during the presidential in Nov! Hell I might even do that some this year.
Okay, MyMy, had a little time tonight, and I did find an authoritative summary of Sanders’ 2013 bill, which definitely makes clear that the program would be administered by the states – which is not, as I understand it, like Medicare at all (though it is, as you note, sadly like Medicaid). Please do us all a favor, and whenever you mention this, use the link, and maybe the quotes (I’m obsessive about pre-empting “oh, yeah, where’s your proof?” challenges…). Here you go:
A seven-member national board (the Board) appointed by the President will establish a national health budget specifying the total federal and state expenditures to be made for covered health care services. The Board will work together with similar boards in each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia to administer the Program.
…
The federal government would collect and distribute all funds to the states for the operation of the state programs to pay for the covered services. Budget increases would be limited to the rate of growth of the gross domestic product. Each state’s budget for administrative expenses would be capped at three percent.
Each state would have the choice to administer its own program or have the federal Board administer it. The state program could negotiate with providers and consult with its advisory boards to allocate funds. The state program could also contract with private companies to provide administrative functions, as Medicare currently does through its administrative regions*. State programs could negotiate with providers to pay outpatient facilities and individual practitioners on a capitated, salaried, or other prospective basis or on a fee-for service basis according to a rate schedule…
http://pnhp.org/blog/2013/12/10/bernie-sanders-introduces-s-1782-the-american-health-security-act-of-2013/
So now, the Clinton team needs to chuck the tax angle, because it does feed right-wing framing (though it’s totally fair to point out, as Howard Dean did tonight on Chris Hayes’ show, that the Sanders tax plan is doing a lot of double-dipping on the same supposed tax receipts), and especially to get more precise in their criticism of the state-control angle, because it’s being widely misunderstood as simply a criticism of the idea of single-payer. And I’m sorry to say I just lost some respect for Bernie.
*FYI to other readers (if any at this point): Note that Medicare’s “administrative regions” aren’t controlled by the state governments; they’re basically just bureaucratic divisions to make administration more efficient.