Hillary Clinton thinks being a capitalist hurt her in the Dem primaries

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Rogifan, May 2, 2018.

  1. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #1
    Um, ok. But honestly she’s not wrong about Democrats being socialists. She’s just wrong not calling herself one.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/hilla...ats-are-socialists?source=twitter&via=desktop

    “Probably,” she said when asked by Time Inc. Brands CCO Alan Murray if the declaration hurt her. The pair appeared in conversation as part of the Shared Value Leadership Summit in New York City.

    “It’s hard to know but I mean if you’re in the Iowa caucuses and 41 percent of Democrats are socialists or self-described socialists, and I’m asked ‘Are you a capitalist?’ and I say, ‘Yes, but with appropriate regulation and appropriate accountability.’ You know, that probably gets lost in the ‘Oh my gosh, she’s a capitalist!’” Clinton concluded, partly referring to the popularity of her primary rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who ran as a self-declared democratic socialist.
     
  2. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #2
    I absolutely agree with this. This is common sense, I don't care if Hillary/Bernie/Trump/etc. said it. I get tired of being painted with a broad "SOCIALIST!" brush just because I believe there needs to be basic oversight while people are free to make as much money as they like/can, that is the American way after all.
     
  3. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #3
    The USA voter in general seems to have no clue what a socialist is as far as fiscal policy is concerned. At our most leftie the Democrats are still to the right of "social democrats" in Europe.

    I do find it difficult to scope out what the heck Americans including Hillary Clinton are talking about when they sling the term "socialist" around in our politics. Hillary Clinton is about as socialist as Bill Clinton, which, if you think back to his take on welfare reform and on policy towards the banking, insurance and energy sectors, translates to "not very socialist at all."

    Same with Barack Obama. He and the Clintons are what we once upon a time (correctly, to my mind) called "new Democrats" and the difference between them and the Dems of the 1960s and '70s was that the new Dems moved rightward to be able to attract once-reliable Democratic voters who had turned towards Reagan in the 1980s.

    We're barely holding onto our sketchy-enough social safety nets as it is, and even Obama's nod to the insurance middlemen in devising the exchange markets was acknowledgment that Medicare notwithstanding, we're not ready for single payer yet in the USA. So whatever the Dems of today are, socialist is not it and neither are US policies.

    Yet anything that sounds like a sop to the people from Treasury revenue (which is also from us, the people, after all) is greeted by Republicans today as "socialism".

    But... if it's a tax break to corporations having booked revenue overseas and now able to bring them home at lower rates, then that's a different story? Same with subsidies to oil and gas interests, and adjustments to laws now re-enabling them to pay off foreign governments for rights to negotiate resource extraction contracts?

    Huh? No. So I'm tired of the GOP's patter on this subject. It's misinforming and boring at this point. Waiting for the voters to catch up. The ACA reform debacle might have been a turning point, since Americans by a large majority did want that fixed and watched the Republicans decline to do so.

    Time will tell if there's a price to pay for that at the polls in November, or if we're still not done voting against our own interests. One of these days we'll realize the GOP yelling "socialism!!!" is like the GOP yelling "Crime!!!" is like GOP yelling "Terrorism"!!" is boy crying wolf and running out of scary descriptions of wolves.

    The wolf is completely unfettered capitalism. We already know that it leads to oligarchy and kleptocracy. Which is probably the point Clinton was trying to make. She may not be the best person to try to make that point. But the point itself is valid. LOL the Trump administration is trying as hard as it can to provide a demonstration.

    Anyway I'm not sure what Hillary's motive is now in still speaking to the 2016 elections. The proof of the fact that "no one is listening" is that whenever Clinton does speak in public now, both right and left and all media reporters trot out their favorite past takes on her, and I don't except myself from sharing in that reaction.
     
  4. Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #4
    Yep, unfettered Capitalism is not a good deal for average citizens, and notice how the Republicans are giddy about destroying oversight and regulations, all the more money to be made boys!! :oops:
     

Share This Page