Lucinda
Lucinda's JournalHillary and the Is She a Progressive or a Moderate? question...
I have posted this in another thread and am OP'ing it here.Hillary Clinton Was Liberal. Hillary Clinton Is Liberal.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/
"...Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members — he was not more liberal than Clinton.
Clinton also has a history of very liberal public statements. Clinton rates as a “hard core liberal” per the OnTheIssues.org scale. She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders. And while Obama is also a “hard core liberal,” Clinton again was rated as more liberal than Obama..."
There is quite a bit more at the link. She has always advocated for universal health care, and the flip flop talking points have to do with what she is saying NOW about the political climate.
That said, she talks about the business of governing from the center, which she does, while advocating liberal issues. And it is necessary in a representative democracy like ours, to work with the other side, from the middle, in order to make any lasting progress at all. It is pretty much designed to work that way, so one faction cannot pass policy that doesn't represent the majority of the people. Each side has voters expecting their congress people to support the policies they campaigned on. The only way we have to counter it, is to outnumber the Reps in congress, and maintain those numbers, or it would all flip back again when more Reps were elected. Right now, as the election stands, experts say we may be able to retake the Senate, but not the House because it would take apx 30 seats to turn over, and there only appear to be about 10 that are competitive.
I think the only way to a permanent progressive country, is to move moderate right voters leftward. Then we would have a clear majority. Not an easy talk with 20+ years of people like Rush and Glenn Beck scaring the crap out of people. But I think Trump's popularity shows that they are beginning to get the fact that their elected politicians are actually making things much worse.
There may be other ways, but I cannot think of any which would give us a solid majority not subject to constant election changes.
Hillary Clinton Was Liberal. Hillary Clinton Is Liberal.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/"...Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members — he was not more liberal than Clinton.
Clinton also has a history of very liberal public statements. Clinton rates as a “hard core liberal” per the OnTheIssues.org scale. She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders. And while Obama is also a “hard core liberal,” Clinton again was rated as more liberal than Obama..."
That said, she talks about the business of governing from the center. Which is necessary in a representative democracy to make any progress at all. It is pretty much designed to work that way, so one faction cannot pass policy that doesn't represent the majority of the people. The only way we have to counter it, is to outnumber the Reps in congress and maintain those numbers, or it would all flip back again when more Reps were elected.
I think the only way to a permanent progressive country, is to move moderate right voters leftward. Then we would have a clear majority. Not an easy talk with 20+ years of people like Rush and Glenn Beck scaring the crap out of people. But I think Trump's popularity shows that they are beginning to get the fact that their elected politicians are actually making things much worse.
Not quite. You are linking to an overview not specifics.
A bit more detail here for all the candidates:https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_healthcare
Out of pocket cost reduction plans:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/09/23/clinton-plan-to-lower-out-of-pocket-health-care-costs/
And you can do more indepth searching by using drop down or the search function at the second link.
Health care is a biggie for me too. I am fairly lucky that my only real issue
is that one of my prescriptions isn't covered via disability. And it's pretty expensive. I know people with ACA coverage that wont seek medical help because the copays are too high. I'm glad that both of those issues are things she is advocating for. I'm so sorry to hear that you've lost people because of lack of care. To me there is no acceptable reason that anyone should have to go without food, shelter, or medical care. We waste billions of dollars that could make such a difference in peoples lives.
I'm not sure where she is on the specifics for consumer protection regarding the health care mergers. I know in the finance industry she talks about oversight and penalties being applied to help prohibit too much consolidation. There also may be things already on the books that may need to be enforced that could provide protection. It's an area I am definitely not up to speed on.
Riversedge gave me this link after I replied to you earlier and it's pretty good. It is searchable, but you can also use the drop down menu just above the video to find fact sheets, videos, and all sorts of info - there are health care related items , as well as other policy positions:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/
Lucinda
edited to credited riversedge for giving me the link
This one was handy, but not the one I was thinking of:
https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_healthcareHits all the candidates, has quite a few of the proposals she released in 2015, with supporting links.
I'd like to know why you feel Hillary favors Wall Street and Corporate America (VERY LONG POST)
I mean that. I really want to know why you have come to that conclusion.
But first, I want to address a few comments that I've seen here on DU since I've returned, and provide a little information that I found while looking for answers. For the record, I support Clinton, I like a Bernie a lot, and have been sharing his Face Book posts for a very long time, and will be voting for the Dem candidate in November.
I've heard lots of complaints about Hillary and Wall Street money, and I honestly haven't run across any real support for that point of view yet. If you have some, I truly would like to see it.
I've seen this graphic from the Sanders campaign floating around Pre and Post debate and I think it needs to be addressed.
The Sanders team posted this graphic on January 17th on Face Book with a comment that said
"I don't get personal speaking fees from Goldman Sachs #DemDebate " which implies that this supported Bernie's comment about Hillary accepting 600k in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. This was the first time that I have ever been disappointed in Sanders.
The graphic, has NOTHING to do with speaking fees. It represents the career donations to Hillary from these companies and covers a period from 1999 to August 2015. You can find the information here:
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000019&type=I
You can use the drop down to look at the figures in two year increments. And if you'd like to see the graphic on Sanders page it is here:
https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/photos/a.324119347643076.89553.124955570892789/963633427024995/?type=3&theater
If you recall, Clinton ran for public office from the state of New York which is pretty much the financial hub of this country, and many, many, people work in those companies. Fortunately, some of those people are Dems, and they contributed to Clinton's campaigns for public office. If you look across the row at the link, you will see the breakdown for each company listed. As you can see the bulk of each listing come from individuals - not some big corporate dude smoking a cigar handing Clinton a big fat check.
The link states:
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 1999-2016. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Bernie's numbers are also listed on the graphic, presumably to show how much less he had received, and from more benign donors. But the truth here is that Bernie wouldn't need to raise as much money to run for office as Hillary would from a huge state like New York. He also wouldn't have donors from Wall Street companies, because those people work in New York. The graphic is very misleading, but I think it is important because it may be what people have been using to make a lot the noise that gets airplay about Clinton receiving money from these companies.
The graphic that the Sanders campaign used to support their claim that she took big money from Wall Street wasn't for speeches. It was donations. Mostly from individuals. In support of her campaigns for public office. And I was sad to see this misinformation coming from the Sanders campaign. I haven't looked in to the people running his campaign, but I don't think this serves the man that I admire very much.
~~~
As for her speeches, that were given after she stepped down from state - which in total are for a LOT of money - but are in no way out of the ordinary. The only thing remarkable about the amount of fees, is that she is one of the few women in the world who make as much as her male peers on the speaking circuit. She was the First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, Senator from New York, and The SOS of the United States. I don't find it unusual that people would want to here what she had to say. Everyone from other politicians, to sports figures, authors, and motivational speakers get these big paydays. I agree with those of you that think it's a heck of a lot of money to pay someone to talk, but it is the standard for successful people making the circuit. The link below contains an incomplete, but pretty comprehensive list, of where she went, who she spoke to, what the event was about, and how much she was paid. (where available)
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-12/the-very-valuable-words-of-hillary-clinton
There is a wide range of groups that heard Hillary speak. Some look fascinating. Some look downright boring! 
~~~
In regards to her views on Glass-Stegall,I agree with her that reinstating something that was crafted in 1933 doesn't really solve the problems that exist in 2016. I know some of you believe that killing Glass-Stegall caused the crisis, but I agree with those that say it didn't. This article I am linking presents a point by point breakdown by Andrew Ross Sorkin - with quotes from Elizabeth Warren. I'm not trying to change your mind if you favor reinstatement, I'm just pointing out HRC's take on it in terms of those who think she would be soft on wall street.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/reinstating-an-old-rule-is-not-a-cure-for-crisis/?_r=0
The last link I'm going to bore you with is what Hillary's actual plans are in dealing with the serious issues of the financial industries.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-08/hillary-clinton-s-plan-to-prevent-the-next-crash
My purpose for this post is to provide and also receive information.
I find absolutely nothing in the areas above that leads me to believe that Hillary would in any way favor banks or corporations over the work of her lifetime, which has been in the pursuit of improving the lives of the people of this country.
For anyone reading this far I thank you for your time. If your view that she is beholden to the banks or corporations comes from some other source, I would really like you to share it with me. I've been ill for quite a while now, and have missed lots of stuff.
I did not deal with Bill Clinton's income from speeches, because I haven't finished my research. I know some of you feel there is a conflict of interest there, and I would appreciate any links you can share about it. All I know right now, is that the work he has been doing globally takes a lot of money.
If you do respond, it may take me a little while to answer. We've got a storm coming in, and that tends to make the pain from my health issues go into overdrive, but I will answer when I can. And I may edit a lot. I'm a bad typist, but I tried to be very careful! Thanks again for reading!
Lucinda
EDIT 3 to add - I over did it the night I posted, got a massive headache, and then couldn't get to sleep until this morning when it finally calmed down. I know how to tweak my usual health issues, but I don't usually have headaches. Then our weather changed, so I am dealing with that too, but didn't want to let this drop, so I will be back to finish my reading tomorow.
Editing to add that I am working my way through still - answering quick ones, and collecting links to read, to answer the others...Thank you all again for responding!
Editing again because I am too tired to keep reading and my head feels like it's cracking open! If I missed you, I'll be back!... and to those kind enough to add links for me to look at, and I haven't finished commenting, I'll be back for you too!
If you are serious here are a few links
Her overall position is that it wasn't the cause of the crisis and that a reinstatement of something crafted in 1933 isn't specific enough to solve the problems in 2016.
A little commentary about Glass-Stegall and why it didn't effect the crisis here:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/14/investing/democratic-debate-what-is-glass-steagall-act/
This one is a point by point explanation from Andrew Ross Sorkin - with comments from Elizabeth Warren:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/reinstating-an-old-rule-is-not-a-cure-for-crisis/?_r=0
And this is Hillary's specifics:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-08/hillary-clinton-s-plan-to-prevent-the-next-crash
No...it was nonsense to throw a Carter Center video up to counter my point
but I love Carter, so I was happy to see the video.
Here is an article about her speeches with lists of who, when, and how much.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-12/the-very-valuable-words-of-hillary-clinton
Only one of the videos is of any length...but I imagine more will be forthcoming. Check out the summary of what they were for... it's very informative!
You havent watched her speech before the Senate have you?
Or you can read the summmary here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/6/1445490/-Hillary-Clinton-did-not-vote-for-war-Listen-to-her-own-words-before-the-vote
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayMember since: Sat Jun 16, 2007, 01:28 AM
Number of posts: 31,170