Hey, Middle Class: Hillary Gets It

[BainsBane]

Michael Tomasky

OK, we don’t have many details yet, and she could work on the populist anger. But Hillary Clinton has identified the main economic crisis of our time.

Here’s one thing I’m sure of about the economic speech Hillary Clinton gave Monday morning at the New School: If a relatively unknown Democratic governor of Illinois or Michigan were running for president, and he gave the speech Hillary Clinton gave Monday morning at the New School, rank-and-file liberals would be turning rapturous cartwheels. She correctly identified the central economic problem of our time; she talked very clearly about the kinds of solutions she’d pursue to address it; she even tossed a few threats in Wall Street’s direction.

The problem is the wages of middle-class workers. The solutions are varied but boil down to a range of policies that would do two things: one, give corporations incentives to share profits and think less about short-term profit-maximization; two, help middle-class families meet the life expenses (college tuition, day care, etc.) that have increased greatly over the last 20 years while wages have remained stagnant. And as to Wall Streeters who gamble with middle-class people’s money, she said, “We will prosecute individuals and firms” who do so. She used the word “criminal” in this context more than once.

My hypothetical governor giving exactly this speech would be showered with liberal praise. But Clinton says it, and it’s like so what. She faces too much distrust from liberals over her past centrism; and for the moment everybody’s all Bernie Bernie Bernie. And that’s all fine. Sanders is fun and sometimes exhilarating, and a primary contest needs a candidate who can speak the unvarnished truth.

But it’s the speakers of varnished truth who usually win presidential nominations, and Clinton is at least 90 percent likely to win this one. And as varnished truths go in Democratic presidential politics, Clinton’s are about as liberal as any liberal could reasonably hope for. There’s an art to taking it right up to line, but not an inch past, and she’s doing that.

more
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/14/hey-middle-class-hillary-gets-it.html

[JaneyVee]

1. Uh oh! Now you've done it!

[ismnotwasm]

2. Great article

Clinton is talking about growth too, but she’s emphasizing equitable growth. And she puts forward numerous proposals that no Republican would touch, from raising the minimum wage—remember, Bush wants no federal minimum wage—to strengthening unions to offering paid family leave to cracking down on employers who misclassify workers as contractors to expanding on Dodd-Frank to endorsing the Buffett Rule, which applies a minimum effective tax rate of 30 percent on earners north of $1 million.

Her campaign is unfolding exactly the way it should.

[BrotherIvan]

3. Did she give a specific number she will fight to raise the minimum wage to?

She needs to settle on a number.

[BainsBane]

4. I don't know. I didn't see the speech

but I would like to see it indexed to the cost of living, as the state legislature recently did in MN. Then we wouldn't have to wait decades for congress to raise it again.

[BrotherIvan]

10. I read it and there was no number

She has been asked and her only answer is that she supports raising the minimum wage. A nickel? A quarter? Ten dollars and ten cents? What? The article is correct, there were no details in the speech. And that is by design.

On Tuesday, The New York Times noted while Clinton has endorsed raising the minimum wage, she has been vague on how quickly she wants to raise it and exactly how high it should be.

[lewebley3]

21. No, she doesn't: She will have to nego with Congress; That s a long time away

[Sunlei]

75. over the next couple months Mrs Clinton could lead a public push to 'make Congress raise the minimum

direct thousands, millions perhaps of Americans to first phone, email fax Boehner first, make him bring the bill to Congress. tell American the phone number, email, fax.

Then direct thousands (millions?) of calls on Congress members to raise the Federal minimum wage.

She could start this today and even invite republican middle class, baggers and all to call Congress and "make Congress raise the Federal minimum wage".

They would do it if they got millions of calls to do it. Congress has to keep records of every single call and communication.

[BainsBane]

81. Yes, and whoever wants to raise the min wage

Or pass anything will have to negotiate with congress.

[jeff47]

72. I read somewhere it was $12, but can't find it now. (nt)

[Dawgs]

5. Profit sharing is the worst thing that's ever happened to the employees of my company.

Only a fool would think it's some grand idea that's going to fix the middle class.

[BainsBane]

6. How so?

Can you elaborate on how it's been bad for workers at your company?

[Dawgs]

17. Well, for one, they dumped employee matching of 401K from 4% to 1% to implement it.

We get the profit sharing every quarter based on the performance of previous quarter. There are some quarters where we don't make enough profit to get anything, so it's not something that can be counted on. The other quarters we get a small bonus in our paycheck, but it's not nearly enough to make up for the things we lost, like the employer matching of 401K.

It's made the people in Accounting very bitter and angry towards the rest of the company. They put pressure on everyone to be cheap when buying stuff (fewer expenses equals more profit), which is hard for someone like me that in's IT. My fellow employees don't like it when there computer's are slow and I can't help like it in the past. We get by without the stuff, but it means we have to work harder.

Profit sharing is definitely not worth it. A higher minimum wage and new infrastructure bill would be the difference for my company.

[BainsBane]

19. That sucks

but it sounds like it's more of a problem of reducing your 401k contributions than the profit sharing itself.
Your company sounds like cheapskates.

I work for a non-profit. There are no profits to share, but I get good benefits including a 10 percent 403b contribution that doesn't even need to be matched.

[Dawgs]

30. It does suck. And, I would argue that most companies would drop something to pay for profit sharing.

They all aren't suddenly going to do it because Hillary wants them to, they have some incentive, or because they all of a sudden got a conscience. They would use whatever tricks necessary to make sure it didn't cost them a thing.

[BainsBane]

31. Oh, yeah

The suggestion was some sort of governmental incentive, taxes I suppose.
Though you raise a crucial point. They can't be allowed to drop other benefits to pay for it.

[Dawgs]

33. And that's why it's ridiculous. You can't make companies do anything when it comes to their money.

Other than pay taxes or pay a higher minimum wage.

[BainsBane]

34. You can link taxes incentives to certain practices

that is what she is talking about, not compelling them.

[Dawgs]

38. I think you're missing my point.

You can link tax incentives to profit sharing, but you can't make a company NOT hide things with accounting to make up for the loss in paying for profit sharing.

[BainsBane]

43. Oh, I see

Yes. I'm sure you're right. We really are well and truly fucked, aren't we?

[BrotherIvan]

24. In the company I worked for, it was how they could pit employees against

each other. The idea is just more nonsense to shovel money to the "job creators".

And the tax cuts and tax incentives have been tried by every Republican governor to attract business to their state. It has been succesful NOWHERE and in some cases has bankrupted the state and resulted in near zero jobs. Why in the hell are we still talking trickle down economics and calling it liberal?

[JaneyVee]

9. Isn't profit sharing socialism?

[BrotherIvan]

11. No!

[JaneyVee]

12. Not unless its forced.

[BrotherIvan]

14. Please inform yourself

We are entering rw territory now and it's not good. Social Security, Medicare, public education, these are all "socialist" ideas and they are the cornerstone of this country. Ever been to a Democratic Socialist country? Guess not, because "forcing" capital or taking over private businesses is not how it works. I am so shocked by the misinformation that is purposely spread around here.

[JaneyVee]

22. Mmm hmm. I'll take the Nobel winners word.

Not to mention I hold 2 economic degrees myself.

[BrotherIvan]

26. Well, I'm speechless

[Rosa Luxemburg]

36. forced?

are you thinking of communism maybe?

[BainsBane]

13. We've been told on this site that traffic lights and the military are socialism

from folks who have decided to strip the term of all meaning in an effort to sanitize it. (Sanders may know Marx, but its clear many of his DU supporters do not). In light of that, her question is not so strange.

[BrotherIvan]

15. NO!

[BainsBane]

16. I agree, and said so at the time

but it fell on deaf ears. I myself don't understand how anyone can start to discuss socialism without reading Marx. Yes, there are different versions of it, but he is the preeminent socialist philosopher/historian and it is therefore essential to have familiarity with his writings.

[BrotherIvan]

27. This thread gave me a headache

[Snotcicles]

44. Heres the socialists take on profit sharing.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/02/06/prof-f06.html

It gets to the real meat in the third paragraph.

[BrotherIvan]

76. Please post this as an OP because obviously people are very ignorant

about "profit-sharing" and the benefit to workers.

In recent days executives from General Motors and the United Auto Workers union have hailed the $9,000 “profit-sharing” check GM is sending to each of its 48,000 hourly workers as proof of success of labor-management collaboration, and that the subordination of workers to the profit drive of big business can indeed lead to “rewards.”

“That really is recognizing the hard work that the entire team did in 2014 to support our core underlying performance,” said GM Chief Financial Officer Chuck Stevens. Not to be outdone, UAW President Dennis Williams gushed, “General Motors’ announcement today leaves no doubt about the strong, stable environment the GM/UAW collective bargaining agreement created. GM has demonstrated that the company can profit, shareholders can have value and our members can be rewarded for their hard work.”

Several things need to be said about these comments. First, the “stable environment the GM/UAW collective bargaining agreement created” included the abandonment of annual wage improvements, cost of living adjustments, paid holidays, the eight-hour day, current and future health and pension benefits and countless other hard-won gains. Compared to the tens of thousands of dollars each worker lost through these concessions, the $9,000 check at GM—or the $6,900 Ford or $2,700 Fiat-Chrysler Automotive checks—are a mere pittance.

This has allowed some “team members” to do a hell of a lot better than others. The company’s $6.6 billion in North American profits, for example, will allow Stevens and GM CEO Mary Barra to pocket at least $18 million in compensation for 2014. This is 303 times the annual earnings of older GM workers; 543 times the yearly wage of a new second-tier worker and 972 times more then contract workers earning as little as $9 an hour.

[George II]

89. Worst thing? In what way? Profit sharing was the BEST thing that happened to the employees...

...of my last company. I worked there for 15 years and retired with a half-million dollars in my account.

[Dawgs]

90. See post #17

And, congratulations on working for a company that was very successful. Many aren't.

I'd rather our leaders focused on a higher minimum wage, more jobs through infrastructure spending, and higher taxes and more regulations on the banks and super rich.

[Thinkingabout]

91. I have participated in profit sharing and it wasn't tied to a 401 plan and we already had a 401

Separate. It is usually to the companies advantage to have profit sharing and normally employees work hard to get the profit sharing amount up in order to receive more funds. You have to admit it is more than lots of workers currently receive.

[Dawgs]

94. OK, but I didn't say that some companies wouldn't benefit from it.

You were one of the lucky ones.

And some companies, like mine, won't sell more just because the employees work harder. That's a BS republican talking point.

A higher minimum wage and infrastructure spending would guarantee that our ENTIRE economy would benefit. It's policies like these that make a Democrat a Democrat, not profit sharing.

[Thinkingabout]

95. OK, I am not against higher minimun wage, this isn't what Hillary is saying at all. She wants some

profit sharing with employees when the company makes a profit, if it is a public company dividends will be issued to shareholders and then give the employees some of the profit.

If a company isn't making profits they can not pay higher salaries or profit sharing. If the incentive of tax breaks gets the results of employees it will be a win-win situation. You ask how do we make up the tax breaks for the profits, employees are getting more money and we in turn we purchase goods and services, they pay more in income taxes which makes up some of the tax incentives given, financial recovery starts occurring and we are all better off.

[ibegurpard]

7. he is not wrong

People do not trust that she is authentic on these issues with her third way past and Wall Street backing.

[Thinkingabout]

92. She has lots of supporters who trust her and in fact if you checked on where the

Third Way was on issue of wages. Healthcare, Social Security and other issues they will help middle class incomes.

[cascadiance]

8. Give me a holler again when she explicitly reverses her stance on programs like H-1b and H-2B

... that serve to lower wages for American workers and in effect "legalize" employers hiring them in instead of hiring undocumented workers to accomplish the same goal of hiring indentured servants.

[Sunlei]

53. visa foreign workers are paid the federal minimum wage. Plus workers pay the 'contract batchers'...

sometimes thousands of dollars for the opportunity to have a job in the USA.

If the minimum wage is raised significantly that will probably price out the visa workers in favor of more jobs for Americans.

Though I wouldn't put it past Corporations to try for more 'workers' from the "for Profit" prisons.

20 cents an hour- captive workers (prisoners don't get any minimum wage protection) is very attractive to our American Corps. and nice kick-back profits to the 'for profit prison stock'.

That prison stock has increased 100s of percent in the past decade.

[AOR]

18. Business as usual...

and bullshit sloganeering that appeals to the staus quo and the comfortable. It's bullshit when Clinton does it and it's bullshit when Sanders does. They need drop the "middle class" garbage and start speaking in the language of ALL workers. Nearly 50% of Americans earn less and exist on less than $27,000 a year while close to 40% of Americans have zero retirement savings and 1 out of every 7 Americans over 65 lives in poverty. When the working poor and those dispossessed hear this "middle class" economic pablum it does not resonate with the plight of those who have never been "middle class." Clinton and Sanders should be speaking to ALL workers and of economic justice for ALL workers (past, present, and future). That means talking about the working class, and those dispossessed by Capitalism -as a whole - and not some illusionary "middle class" who "bear all the burden."

Time to expand the tent and the message.

" We got to face some facts. That the masses ARE POOR, that the masses
belong to what you call the LOWER CLASS, and when I talk about the
masses, I'm talking about the white masses, I'm talking about the black
masses, and the brown masses, and the yellow masses, too...

-- Fred Hampton

[BainsBane]

23. You know, I agree

There is an odd thing in America, however, where virtually everyone sees themselves as middle class, even the wealthy and some of the poor. Then there is the fact politicians rarely if ever speak to the poor.

[AOR]

28. And that's exactly part of our problem Bains...

[BlueJazz]

45. Exactly. I'm so fed up with these "Terms of Reality" as if they're set in concrete.

These are the exact types of people:
The poor are people without a single dime to their name.
The middle-class all drive new or decent cars and live in very nice houses.
The rich can do anything they want.

Only the last sentence has any validity at all.

[AOR]

57. Hi BlueJazz...

Most of it is sloganeering and of course you could drive truck through the divide between what politicians say and what they end up doing but there are some themes that can be developed. The only thing that caught my eye out of Clinton's speech was when she said -- "the workers don't need a lecture they need a raise."

Now that is a theme that can be developed because most of what we see as "solutions" are "personal responsibility" horseshit -- the workers need to be retrained, the workers need capitalist reeducation camps for the new economy, the workers need to relocate, and on and on and on. Always putting the blame on the workers rather than discussing what the real causes of the economic inequality are. It is all reactionary crap in defense of the owners and the ruling class.

The workers are just goddamn fine the way they are. The workers need a raise and much more than that. What the workers need is organization and some power to control their own destiny.

This is our rallying cry. Shout it from the rooftops.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed."

--Abraham Lincoln

[bobbobbins01]

20. Except she doesn't get it, at all.

She has repackaged trickle down economics and is trying to sell it to the middle class as profit sharing. Even with all the vagueness of her economic plan, she can't hide that. Reagan would be proud.

[BainsBane]

25. That is bullshit

She does not support trickle down economics, and you folks that say that show you don't even understand what it means.

[bobbobbins01]

32. I understand exactly what it means.

But I'll pull some exact info just to show you how dead on I am:

From wikipedia, the definition of trickle down: "The idea is that with a lower tax burden and increased investment, business can produce (or supply) more, increasing employment and worker pay."

A few exceprts from Clinton's speech: "And throughout this campaign, I’m going to be talking about how we empower entrepreneurs with less red tape, easier access to capital, tax relief and simplification.", "So, I will produce ways to encourage companies to share profits with their employees. That is good for workers and good businesses.", "I proposed a $1,500 tax credit for every worker they train and hire."

All supply-side economics.

[Dawgs]

35. Pretty much nailed it.

Bravo!

[BainsBane]

40. And INCREASING taxes on the wealthy

tax incentives are not in themselves trickle down economics. It is an incentive to get companies to hire workers in the US. You prefer they continue to export abroad? Because the current tax system incentivizes that. Additionally, she is referring to small business, start ups, not big corporations.

Supply side vs. Demand side. Democrats support demand side. You have no concept of what you're talking about.
But by all means, make sure the govt continues to use the tax code to incentivize corporate flight. That works out so well.

[bobbobbins01]

52. You're presenting a false dichotomy

Which you sort of have to accept for Hillary's economic plan to make any sense. She supports the TPP, which makes it easier to export abroad, then offers government handouts to the very same corporations to keep the jobs in the country? And she is not referring to small businesses, shes referring to business in general, as is apparent by the context(the first quote only applies to entrepreneurs and small business...but entrepreneurs is a very broad term). But those aren't the only two options, tax breaks for business or them running overseas.

But you are right about something. Democrats do support demand side, which is why I really shake my head at why Hillary calls herself one. Sure, socially shes a democrat, but her economic plan falls squarely in the republican camp. There is nothing demand side about it.

[Populist_Prole]

74. Bingo

Hoping for increased economic activity via tax breaks for corporations is putting faith in the old "build it, and they will come" meme....aka supply-side theory.

Demand-side means just that. A healthier working class ( that works ) produces demand that a company must expand for, or suffer the inability to take advantage of higher sales etc.

No company, but no company, big or small, would logically hire more people just because their taxes went down. You hire more if you cannot meet demand for more widgets with the existing resources. Demand, at present is lower due to lost jobs or downward pressure on wages. Lower costs just went right into their pockets as higher profits....and they're sitting on it, as they sneer at us and demand more placation.

[whatchamacallit]

50. Yes, because corporations have proven time and again

Given the opportunity, they will always do the right thing and share profits with their employees.

[Snotcicles]

55. Check post #44. nt

[randys1]

51. Yuck, do not like the sound of that, if that is what she said, yuck

[kath]

84. Oh, God, reading those quotes it sounds EXACTLY like St. Ronny of Rayguns.

Absolutely barf- inducing.



Deja vu all over again.

[Sheepshank]

49. Maybe you should explain how profit sharing tax incentives

are the same thing as lowering tax rate to the wealthy and corporations?

I'd bet that you just didn't stop for a second to think it through. It seemed like it was more important for slam on anything Hillary.....with no real evidence at all. What's funny is that with your knee jerk reaction, you completely missed (in the same speech) where she called for increased taxes on that same wealthy crowd.

[bobbobbins01]

62. Its not a knee jerk reaction at all

I've had plenty of time to think about it since she said the exact same thing in her campaign kickoff speech.

And you seem to think that trickle down economics only applies to the tax rate, which is of course not true. In order for an incentive like the one Hillary proposed to work, it has to be of greater benefit to the corporation than the profit sharing is a burden to it, otherwise it would fail. Therefore it is nothing more than taxpayer funded corporate welfare.

And she never comes out and says she'll increase taxes on the wealthy, she says they'll pay their "fair share". Get her to pin down what that is, show its more than what the government is giving in handouts to the corporations and then maybe...and its still a very big maybe, everyone will break even...but until then, its overall a regressive economic plan.

[Thinkingabout]

93. Oh, my, let's jump out try to curtail working people from getting more money. Do you agree with

Wage disparity and want this to remain?

[99Forever]

29. Neoliberal snowjob. Version FU2016

[CharlotteVale]

42. +1

[HFRN]

48. +2

call it what it is

[PowerToThePeople]

85. +3

[azmom]

86. +4

[Rosa Luxemburg]

37. Varnish often cracks

[erronis]

68. Like that. So does hairdoes and facial foundations.

It's got to be a lot more than skin deep.

[RadiationTherapy]

39. Does anyone have a ballpark income range for what Clinton means by "middle class?"

I support policies that benefit what I think is middle class - roughly $30k-$120k household income - but I am unsure what Clinton's idea is.

[BainsBane]

46. No, I don't. I don't know what any politician

or American means when they use that term. Sanders uses it as well. Yesterday people were talking about incomes of $400k as middle class. Seems to me if you're much above the median income, you're upper middle class. Those folks don't see it that way, however.

[Sunlei]

47. Its all the Americans paid the crappy minimum (is it $7 now?) who need a higher Federal minimum.

[erronis]

67. And none of these lower-wage people will benefit from tax incentives

They will benefit from an increased minimum wage.
And close-to-free education.
And decent child care.
And guaranteed social benefits (healthcare, maternity leave, disability).
And a way to live in a decent home and be able to travel to work.

Infrastructure, social benefits, safety nets.

Almost anything that is anathema to big business and the candidates that are supported by said.

[PoliticAverse]

56. "middle class" is almost as nebulous as "working families". n/t

[Sunlei]

41. I think all of the D contenders and President Obama know its "wages of middle-class workers"

That is why President Obama and many others have been asking Congress for years and years,

To Raise The Federal Minimum Wage.

Then all the states have to at least match the Fed. wage.

[Maven]

54. People don't want "varnished truths" anymore.

That is the whole point.

[colsohlibgal]

58. Her Hubby And Obama Talked Vague Populism As Well

We quickly learned that was mostly cheap campaign talk.

And where was HRC during the fight to derail the TPP/TIS/ etc?

I'm sorry, she's taken over 2 million from Wall Street, she's going to go after the Banksters?

I cannot wait for her to debate Bernie.

[cantbeserious]

59. Words Are Cheap - Remember Hope And Change

eom

[BainsBane]

60. They are especially cheap

When the politician has no means or concept of how to implement his words. Yet oddly for some, their entire political decisions revolve around words alone. Hearing the words they want is more important than any policy or the absence of any discussion about how to turn the beliefs into policy.

[cantbeserious]

63. So True Of HRC

eom

[BainsBane]

70. I disagree

She has a record of getting legislation enacted, unlike your chosen candidate. Not to dispute the importance of naming post offices or anything. That's way cool, but it doesn't exactly constitute a reform agenda.

[cantbeserious]

79. I So Disagree

eom

[BainsBane]

80. Any evidence to base that disagreement on?

an example perhaps?

[Gothmog]

61. Joe Stiglitz Gives Thumbs Up To Clinton's Economic Plan

This is high praise
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/07/joe-stiglitz-gives-thumbs-clintons

[JDPriestly]

64. Hillary raised some important points, populist points.

But you are not going to raise middle class wages in America if the middle class jobs are shipped overseas or outsourced.

Where does Hillary stand on trade, specifically now on the TPP and the other trade agreements in the works.

That is key because I will repeat, we will not improve our middle class wages if the work that the middle class would be doing were it not for the trade agreements were being done in the US.

Why is it that the service representative work for credit card companies, telephone companies, computer companies, etc. is so often done overseas? Those service representative jobs (you know, the folks you call when you have a bogus charge on your bill or you need to change your plan, etc.) used to be middle class jobs here. The markets that generate the need for those jobs are here in the US. Why is that work done oversears?

One answer: it's cheaper. The wages are lower in dollar terms at least overseas. That's what is putting the downward pressure on American wages.

Hillary needs to come clean about whether she supports the outsourcing of American jobs that service the American economy and that produce consumer products that Americans buy. Because if she does, then her economic plan is just hot air. It will never, never work.

The labor market is a market. You have to have demand (that is more jobs to be filled than people to fill them) to push up wages.

I'm waiting for Hillary's statements on the TPP and the other trade agreements. Where are they? Did I miss them? Just vague statements about "fair trade" or let's see what the trade agreements say won't work for me. She needs to be explicit about the relationship between our trade deficit, our outsourcing of jobs when the work is generated by economic activity in our economy, the huge flood of imports from other countries, the H1-B visas, etc. That's where the downward wage pressure comes from. No way around it.

[Maedhros]

65. As Joseph Stiglitz pointed out:

http://www.businessinsider.com/nobel-laureate-joseph-stiglitz-2015-4#ixzz3ft821mS0

Bernie Sanders is the most progressive and has been most articulate over a longer period of time, laying out a pro-equality agenda. I think everybody hopes that the pressure is being put on Hillary to match.

Once again, Bernie leads the way.

[BainsBane]

69. Funny how all the people I thought had me on ignore

because they refused to address question after question I posed to them suddenly respond.

I disagree on the pro-equality part. He said specifically he is concerned with the middle-class and the working class, which alas is what virtually all politicians focus on.

[BainsBane]

78. Stiglitz praised Clinton's economic plan

New York—Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz released the following statement following Hillary Clinton’s economic address. Stiglitz and Roosevelt staff have held multiple briefings with Clinton campaign staff over the past several months on Roosevelt’s Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy agenda.

“This speech showed a clear understanding that our economy is no longer working for most Americans, that the rules of the economy matter, and that we need to fundamentally rewrite the rules to ensure our nation and its people can live up to their full potential. Growth is not achieved by pulling a number out of thin air but by focusing on and investing in our families and communities, ensuring Americans can earn enough to afford a middle-class life, and making our financial markets work for everyday Americans rather than the short-term interests of CEOs and speculators.

Today Hillary Clinton began to offer the kind of comprehensive approach we need to tackle the enormous economic challenges we face, one that is squarely in line with what we have called for at the Roosevelt Institute.”



http://crooksandliars.com/2015/07/joe-stiglitz-gives-thumbs-clintons

[jalan48]

66. Definately better than Scott Walker's ideas.

[hootinholler]

71. Varnishing truth

Sounds a lot like polishing turds.

[Roland99]

73. What Third Way/DLC shill/apologist wrote this crap???

" Clinton’s are about as liberal as any liberal could reasonably hope for."


WTF???


Screw that noise!


Bernie is viable and a true liberal/progressive. Not someone who'll say whatever thinks people want to hear.

[restorefreedom]

77. not from where i am standing

before her speech, I had posted a list of very specific questions that I wanted answered. So far, she has not answered a single one. Here they are again

what percentages should the different brackets pay in taxes?

what does she want the minimum wage to be?

how big (as in dollars of assets) is too big for a bank before it needs to be broken up?

tpp: yes or no?

what does she think is a fair ratio of ceo pay to worker pay?

will she ever support publicly funded elections?

[Fumesucker]

82. Hillary helps celebrate the ribbon cutting for the 22nd Tata outsourcing office opened in the USA

[mcar]

83. K&R

For truth

[Vattel]

87. So a problem with Sanders is that he is too truthful?

"Sanders is fun and sometimes exhilarating, and a primary contest needs a candidate who can speak the unvarnished truth.

But it’s the speakers of varnished truth who usually win presidential nominations, and Clinton is at least 90 percent likely to win this one."

[Cha]

88. Kick