Clinton ridicules Sanders & say she is committed to build a winning Dem party

[JA]

Two things:

1. Left wing economics won't pull minorities out of poverty. It'll just push everyone else into poverty.

I really can't comprehend how we're supposed to be part of the same political party, honestly.

PS. Also, thanks for essentially proving the point of my other post.

[Sestak]

Two things:

1. Left wing economics won't pull minorities out of poverty. It'll just push everyone else into poverty.

I really can't comprehend how we're supposed to be part of the same political party, honestly.

PS. Also, thanks for essentially proving the point of my other post.

The Democrats have never been a socialist political party. They've supported civil rights and civil liberties and center to center-left economics.

Also, I don't see how I've proved the point of your other post. I was by no means a super enthusiastic Clinton supporter, either. And if you're going to claim that any non-socialists aren't "real Democrats", then there really arent that many real Democrats.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Apparently wanting to go back to New Deal era democrats is socialist.

[Sestak]

Apparently wanting to go back to New Deal era democrats is socialist.

Lol I never said that. "Left-wing economics" is socialism. New Deal/Great Society is more center-left I believe. And I have no problems with those programs.

[JA]

Apparently wanting to go back to New Deal era democrats is socialist.

Exactly. I'm not saying you have to be a Socialist, but New Deal Democratic politics was considerably more populist, labor, and working-class oriented. I don't think you'd see a lot of Democrats from that era talking about how Whites without a college education are deplorable, mocking "White trash," and saying how people should just move from their rural hometown or else suffer poverty.

[Sestak]

Apparently wanting to go back to New Deal era democrats is socialist.

Exactly. I'm not saying you have to be a Socialist, but New Deal Democratic politics was considerably more populist, labor, and working-class oriented. I don't think you'd see a lot of Democrats from that era talking about how Whites without a college education are deplorable, mocking "White trash," and saying how people should just move from their rural hometown or else suffer poverty.

Okay, I think I may have misunderstood what you were saying when you said "left-wing economics". I assumed you were on the European spectrum where Left wing economics ==> socialist.

[AtorBoltox]

Two things:

1. Left wing economics won't pull minorities out of poverty. It'll just push everyone else into poverty.

In what sense are you a democrat?

[JA]

Apparently wanting to go back to New Deal era democrats is socialist.

Exactly. I'm not saying you have to be a Socialist, but New Deal Democratic politics was considerably more populist, labor, and working-class oriented. I don't think you'd see a lot of Democrats from that era talking about how Whites without a college education are deplorable, mocking "White trash," and saying how people should just move from their rural hometown or else suffer poverty.

Okay, I think I may have misunderstood what you were saying when you said "left-wing economics". I assumed you were on the European spectrum where Left wing economics ==> socialist.

Personally, I am a Socialist, but I acknowledge that the Democratic Party is not, nor has it ever been, a Socialist political party. However, during its New Deal era it could be more accurately described as Social Democratic since it was willing to nationalize industries, strongly promote union and labor rights causes, and prioritized the poor and working classes. It was also during this time that, when dominated by Union-backed Democratic politicians in the North, great progress was made on Civil Rights. There's absolutely no reason it can't be a working-class oriented, pro-labor, pro-Civil Rights Social Democratic party again.

[Sestak]

Two things:

1. Left wing economics won't pull minorities out of poverty. It'll just push everyone else into poverty.

In what sense are you a democrat?

See above.

I support Medicare/Medicaid and am open to other government healthcare programs. I strongly support public education and think school vouchers are an awful idea.

I am a bit to the right of center on other economic issues, though I do support some environmental regs and basic consumer protection, etc. I think that competitive markets should be allowed to run (mostly) on their own, but the Republicans have spent a lot of effort making markets uncompetitive

Socially, though, I am very much in the Democratic column. Republican social policies force me to stay 20 feet away from them at all times.

I'm also opposing any GOP policy no matter what at the moment because I don't want Trump to get a political victory.

Is this position really such a lost cause that I should just pick up and join the Republicans? Because if it is, I don't know if we have much of a chance in 2020.

I'm not at all saying that the party should bend to my values or anything. I'm just saying that it should make sure not to alienate people with similar values by constantly going on with the "Wall Street is Satan" rhetoric and using Universal Healthcare as a litmus test. You can make the argument for regulating or reforming Wall Street without acting like it's the embodiment of Lucifer on Earth and blaming every single one of America's problems on it.

[Beet]

The Clintons really have nothing left to offer the Democratic Party. They've had their time and its really sad to see them constantly trying to make themselves relevant in it again. This idea that Clinton lost solely because of her personal issues and scandals is bunk. The Democratic Party needs a complete overhaul of its currently toxic image. The Democrats will not take the House in 2018, because as of right now we are still seen as the Clinton/DLC/Third Way party.

Hillary Clinton and her more fervent supporters need to understand that we aren't living in the 90s anymore. These kind of politics aren't as popular as they used to be.

Once again, Gothic is right. The Clinton days are over.

The DLC/Third Way started way before the Clintons burst onto the national scene. Bill Clinton was not even a founding member in 1985 when Al From started it in response to Walter Mondale's landslide defeat. And some of the economic policies it advocated stretch back to Jimmy Carter, who deregulated industries, including banking, and appointed Paul Volcker to head the Federal Reserve. And it continued even with the Clintons out of power, as Barack Obama had Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, and Larry Summers and Austan Goolsbee as prominent advisors.

My support of Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with supporting Third Way economics-- I've been railing against neoliberalism since before the 2008 financial crisis. It's the tidal wave of misogyny that she has endured and the left's problem with accepting sexism that makes Clinton's voice a valuable one on the national stage. When she speaks out against that, she is powerful. Neoliberal economics is trash.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

1. Left wing economics won't pull minorities out of poverty. It'll just push everyone else into poverty.

The idea that income equality causes poverty is absurd. Norway has the 3rd lowest Gini coefficient and the 3rd highest per capita income.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

[Sestak]

1. Left wing economics won't pull minorities out of poverty. It'll just push everyone else into poverty.

The idea that income equality causes poverty is absurd. Norway has the 3rd lowest Gini coefficient and the 3rd highest per capita income.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

Norway:

1. Has a TON of oil money
2. Gets another huge load of money by ripping off the US on pharmaceuticals.

[DrScholl]

It's also hard to compare the US to European countries since those countries are far smaller and have the budget to support their systems. Plus, there is some degree of public ownership of industry and even some on the left do not support such a thing. Government should be producing efficient energy as opposed to waiting for private industry to do it, but you don't hear self-described socialists even mention something like that.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

it was willing to nationalize industries.

Advocating for redistributionist policies

No! No! No! No! No!

[Strudelcutie4427]

1. Left wing economics won't pull minorities out of poverty. It'll just push everyone else into poverty.

The idea that income equality causes poverty is absurd. Norway has the 3rd lowest Gini coefficient and the 3rd highest per capita income.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

Norway:

1. Has a TON of oil money
2. Gets another huge load of money by ripping off the US on pharmaceuticals.

Not to mention the entire country has less people than the state of Minnesota

[Shadows]

Two things:

1. Left wing economics won't pull minorities out of poverty. It'll just push everyone else into poverty.

I really can't comprehend how we're supposed to be part of the same political party, honestly.

PS. Also, thanks for essentially proving the point of my other post.

The Democrats have never been a socialist political party. They've supported civil rights and civil liberties and center to center-left economics.

Also, I don't see how I've proved the point of your other post. I was by no means a super enthusiastic Clinton supporter, either. And if you're going to claim that any non-socialists aren't "real Democrats", then there really arent that many real Democrats.

The Democrats have always been largely socialistic within the free enterprise & have often waged a way against capitalism. The Minimum wage was a socialist & possibly the most anti-capitalistic idea which totally destroys the free market for wages. Social Security, Food Stamps, Meals of Wheels etc are all uber socialist ideas. Medicare & Medicaid are socialist ideas which have destroyed the capitalistic free market for health insurance.

FDR increased taxes from 25% to 90%+. The Democrats by & large have increased taxes compared t the GOP. LBJ expanded  federal government & started a war on poverty with huge government programs. Truman campaigned on socialist single payer healthcare. FDR, not only wanted free healthcare & education but wanted Universal Basic Income guaranteed to everyone.

That is who the Democrats have historically been. The 8 Hour Work-week is an anti-capitalistic idea. Glass Steagal & breaking of banks was an anti-capitalistic idea. Affirmative action is an anti-capitalistic idea. By & large Democrats have been a mixture  of socialism & capitalism to put it mildly.

[Shadows]

1. Left wing economics won't pull minorities out of poverty. It'll just push everyone else into poverty.

The idea that income equality causes poverty is absurd. Norway has the 3rd lowest Gini coefficient and the 3rd highest per capita income.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

Norway:

1. Has a TON of oil money
2. Gets another huge load of money by ripping off the US on pharmaceuticals.

Irrelevant. You have obviously never read economics. Inequality is fundamentally bad for GDP growth as middle class & lower income people have a much higher Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPC). MPC Determines the Consumption Function of GDP ( GDP = C + I + G + NX) & Consumption is the main fulcrum of the economy. MPC also determines the GDP multiplier.

Economic inequality will also lead more people to miss college (due to lack of resources) which means less people get into the 21st century educated labour force. Economic Inequality will lead to class warfare, social tensions & will lead to the rise of insane leaders like Trump who will come with terrible policies. Economic Inequality (or high inequality) means you have less money to spend, you will likely get federal welfare. That is a higher deficit, more debt, lower GDP Growth.  Ultimately you get into a trap of High Debt & Low GDP Growth.

This is pretty basic economics. You need some level of inequality to incentive people but too much & the economic system collapses.

[IceSpear]

It's time to move on from the 2016 primary. There are much bigger fish to fry.

[136or142]

1. Left wing economics won't pull minorities out of poverty. It'll just push everyone else into poverty.

The idea that income equality causes poverty is absurd. Norway has the 3rd lowest Gini coefficient and the 3rd highest per capita income.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

Norway:

1. Has a TON of oil money
2. Gets another huge load of money by ripping off the US on pharmaceuticals.

Not to mention the entire country has less people than the state of Minnesota

People put this out as an example of how 'socialism' can work in a small nation, but not in a large nation.  I've never seen any explanation of why, if 'socialism' works that it can't be scaled up.

This strikes me as one of those arguments that people who have no real argument throw out to make it seem as if they have an argument.

For what it's worth, neither of the other claims are correct either:
1.Norway greatly restricts spending its oil wealth
2.If the U.S agreed to pay for the pharmaceuticals, if the U.S overpaid, that's not Norway's fault.  (I have no idea what Norway ripping off the U.S on pharmaceuticals refers to specifically, but I don't have to know anything about it to know that the argument makes no sense.)

[136or142]

After reading all the comments here, I think the only person here with the right ideas is...me.