All this talk reminded me of this video...
All this talk reminded me of this video...
Also, this complaining that 'Hillary points out she does something better than the Republicans' as if it's somehow making excuses or unfair is pretty silly ^^ "You can't draw comparisons to the party that was in power less than 10 years ago, that's too long ago!" may work in some forum discussions, but it doesn't hope up too well in serious debates or the big campaign.
And here's a question- Do you think a lot of people here would give her the victory regardless?Sure, some people would give her the win before it began... but plenty do the same for Sanders, and a lot of people definitely won't give her credit. Note how the media message going in was that her campaign was in disarray- these weren't media people looking to crown her, these were media people looking to pounce on failure, who had to change their tune.
but she does handle herself quite tactically well in a debate and extensively talked about the issues and polices she'd do.
Originally posted by psmith81992
The silly notion is her derailing the debate and claiming she's either doing something better than the republicans (without showing proof), or blaming them for something.
Most of this stuff is also information released by the campaigns- because the format is not one for going point for point and explaining every number they did better. So it's easily checkable stuff.
Most of the stuff she talked about the Republicans doing, is... well, the very major stuff the Republicans have been doing that hardly needs checking.
But you want cites and, I shall give them to you! For your piece of mind, you shall know whether each and every comparison Hillary made with Republicans is factual or not. Start of each one in bold.
First Hillary mention of Republicans:
"CLINTON: Well, I think that President Obama has been a great moral leader on these issues, and has laid out an agenda that has been obstructed by the Republicans at every turn, so..."
I have posted here in this forum extensively about how obstructionism has reached historic levels and there's half or less as many laws getting through each year now than there was under GWB. So, you know this one's confirmed because I've cited it tons of times.
Second mention:
"It's absolutely right. It hasn't been this bad since the 1920s. But if you look at the Republicans versus the Democrats when it comes to economic policy, there is no comparison. The economy does better when you have a Democrat in the White House and that's why we need to have a Democrat in the White House in January 2017."
Here's an old article, Factcheck.org's "Our Clinton Nightmare" when they checked all the numbers Bill Clinton dropped at a keynote speech back then.
"Plenty of other Clinton statistics checked out as accurate. For example, he said that since 1961, when John F. Kennedy took office, 42 million private-sector jobs had been added while Democrats held the White House, compared with 24 million while Republicans were in office. "
So again, true by some of the most major measurements. This isn't just leaning on old presidents, mind you, Obama has cut unemployment in half.
Also I think one I've shared with you.
Third Hillary mention!
"CLINTON: ...that -- I think Dodd-Frank was a very...
CLINTON: ...good start, and I think that we have to implement it. We have to prevent the Republicans from ripping it apart. We have to save the Consumer Financial Protection board, which is finally beginning to act to protect consumers. "
Republicans attacking Dodd-Frank?
Yep, here's an article from January about them trying to do an attempt on that
Fourth!
"CLINTON: Well, I fully support Social Security. And the most important fight we're going to have is defending it against continuing Republican efforts to privatize it. "
Privatizing Social Security is part of the Paul Ryan plan.
Fifth!
"I'm campaigning because I think I have the right combination of what the country needs, at this point, and I think I can take the fight to the Republicans, because we cannot afford a Republican to succeed Barack Obama as president of the United States. "
Ok, this is just her saying she'd do a better job- or rather, the Republicans would do a poor job. Nothing to fact check here.
Sixth, a question about paid family leave by Fiorina:
"BASH: Carly Fiorina, the first female CEO of a Fortune 50 company, argues, if the government requires paid leave, it will force small businesses to, quote, "hire fewer people and create fewer jobs." What do you say not only to Carly Fiorina, but also a small-business owner out there who says, you know, I like this idea, but I just can't afford it?
CLINTON: Well, I'm surprised she says that, because California has had a paid leave program for a number of years. And it's...
CLINTON: Well, but all -- well, on a state level, a state as big as many countries in the world. And it has not had the ill effects that the Republicans are always saying it will have. And I think this is -- this is typical Republican scare tactics. We can design a system and pay for it that does not put the burden on small businesses. "
So this is in response to claimed by one of the Republican candidates.
"Economists have found that with paid leave, more people take time off, particularly low-income parents who may have taken no leave or dropped out of the work force after the birth. Paid leave raises the probability that mothers return to employment later, and then work more hours and earn higher wages. Paid leave does not necessarily help businesses — but it does not seem to hurt them, either."
So that agrees with Hillary too.
Seventh
"CLINTON: Well, look, you know, when people say that -- it's always the Republicans or their sympathizers who say, "You can't have paid leave, you can't provide health care." They don't mind having big government to interfere with a woman's right to choose and to try to take down Planned Parenthood. They're fine with big government when it comes to that. I'm sick of it. "
Again, the Republicans have, indeed, been trying to interfere with planned parenthood and attacking right-to-chose. Whether one likes that or not, agrees that it's good or not, it's factual that these are policies the Republicans have been doing.
Eight: Biggest enemy!
"Probably the Republicans. "
A second Republican congressperson has said the Benghazi probes are in large part political attacks. A Republican Major was dismissed from the committee last week claiming to have been pressured into partisan bullying as well.
So, yea, another point for Clinton.
Last
"I think what you did see is that, in this debate, we tried to deal with some of the very tough issues facing our country. That's in stark contrast to the Republicans who are currently running for president. "
Well, this one seem to be a matter of opinion. How does one define 'Stark'? Is there a notable difference? I'd say so, and so do a lot of other commentators.
9 mentions, 8 fact checks by me, and one opinion one. Every time she says the Republicans do something, they did. Every time she said the Democrats did something better, the numbers are in that direction.
And that wraps it up! If you were worried about Hillary Clinton's mentions of Republicans, worry not- they were on topic, on target, and accurate.
So if you feel that Hillary attacks on the Republicans are too much in the future, you'll be able to remember that this time, it turned out they are all factually accurate and fact-checked for you.
And as yourself, is it really reasonable to complain about someone mentioning the other party too much when their talking points are (1) all correct on stuff said party is either doing or doesn't compare favorable with her party on, and (2) they're doing this while also putting up with a partisan hitjob investigation?
I think you and I have different opinions of what constitutes as "extensively".
Ok, she did not bring cites and everything on a 2-hour debate with 5 people that covered a large number of different topics. Immigration, healthcare, economics, paid leave, gun control, etc.. It was talking a bunch of policies, not detailed overviews into each one, but still, policy talk- which, like I cited above, checks out.
Hillary and Sanders both did speak in concrete 'this is my approach to that,' throughout, though, with specific policies, that they generally have gone into more details on elsewhere.
Q99 so you believe that policy today = economy tomorrow(by tomorrow I mean literally the next day.) Which is so false and the way you assign blame/credit for the economy is baffling. If you need more explanation then I will write more but first look up the jobs in govt and their roles and decide if they REALLY are job makers etc.
IMO you WANT to believe something so your view skews in the view you want to see.
In a nutshell Clinton as you score points can become relevant IF she becomes honest and that won't happen. No matter how much you skew to show that side Clinton is a big bag of bs.
Originally posted by snowdragon
Q99 so you believe that policy today = economy tomorrow(by tomorrow I mean literally the next day.) Which is so false and the way you assign blame/credit for the economy is baffling. If you need more explanation then I will write more but first look up the jobs in govt and their roles and decide if they REALLY are job makers etc.
One, your grammar is horrible.
Two, I've studied the economics long term fairly extensively- whether from talking about the abstract understanding of how it works (the important thing is money flow, and a lot of attempts to 'save' money, ironically cut the flow and hurt the economy. In a lot of ways, it's like spending money to fuel and repair a car- yes, it costs money, but if it stalls in the road or breaks, it costs more), the technical numbers (did you know that as debt interest rates is lower than inflation, that making 'more debt' is basically having others pay us to keep their money safe? It's net profit if we take advantage of it), to historical and modern attempts at a variety of policies.
One of the biggest examples in the New Deal during the great depression. When it was happened, jobs went up, GDP went up, unemployment went down, debt went up. Then congress got enough power to stop it and go for austerity. Jobs went down, GDP went down, unemployment went up, debt still went up. When it was re-enacted, it never stopped, we got our way out, and the results were terrific, we never had a problem as the growth caused by the policy soon eclipsed the debt.
This is mirrored in the responses to the modern financial crisis- where we have examples of a variety of countries, countries that stopped spending or cut it ala the Republican's recommendations would often have double-dip recessions, while those who did stimulus, or at least avoided cutting spending, did better.
Then you also have cases like Japan's Lost Decade, which was a sputtering alternation of *small* spending increases, followed by cuts when things began to recover causing a stall and a rise in debt, repeat for a decade til they finally did spend their way out, and similar economic events.
And it's not just during periods of economic crisis- during the 50s and 60s, the most economically prosperous time for the US, it was also a time of higher taxes and higher services. As these service were cut, prosperity began to become more lopsided and total growth decreased some.
Bill Clinton's 90s were more economically prosperous than the Reagan 80s or the Bush 00s as well.
This isn't 'policy today = economy tomorrow.' This is what economics work long-term, and produces the most prosperity a decade or decades down the road.
IMO you WANT to believe something so your view skews in the view you want to see.
I toss that back at you. Note how I did not have to simply take her on her word on it's own, but rather went and checked 3rd party sources and quotes and actions from Republicans. Similarly, I can do in-depth economics check with a wide variety of real world examples no problem.
In a nutshell Clinton as you score points can become relevant IF she becomes honest and that won't happen. No matter how much you skew to show that side Clinton is a big bag of bs.
Hey, snowdragon, I just literally went through every one of her claims about the Republicans and personally fact-check each of them. Claiming that she's full of BS doesn't make each of those claims not true.
And here's a factcheck site on Hillary, that lists how often she tells the truth, fudges things, and so on, (Rubio for comparison) with the whole fact-checking explanation and sources on every single listing, be it truth, half-truth, false statement, or clear lie... and it's not what you say. It's not the 'full of BS' you assume her to be.
Ironically, you're asking me to take it on faith that she's wrong, while I'm providing direct evidence that on these points, she was right.
What should I take about people who insist that someone is a liar, but when I fact-check the statements personally it turns out to be true?
Originally posted by Q99Bill Clinton's 90s were more economically prosperous than the Reagan 80s or the Bush 00s as well.
Bill Clinton had something happen that had never occured in the past. The internet phenom which had nothing to do with him being president and after the dot com burst we suffered a brief recession.
Clinton also had a republican controlled congress for a time that balanced the budget (not the president, congress.) During his presidency with the republican congress he signed into law grahm-leech-biley and comodity futures modernization act of 2k, the setup legislation for 2 big to fail.
Really people need to stop acting as though the president does it all and need to start mentioning congress when it comes to many economic pieces and success/failure of said policies.
Originally posted by snowdragon
Bill Clinton had something happen that had never occured in the past. The internet phenom which had nothing to do with him being president and after the dot com burst we suffered a brief recession.
That accounts for some of it, but even so, the bubble alone doesn't explain anyway everything.
Note how GWBush had the housing/subprime boom, which was even bigger, and lead to the even bigger crash at the end, and yet even so his numbers were not as good as Bill's for most of his term, even after the dot com recovery was done and the housing crash hadn't yet happened.
Booms and busts happen, usually outside the government's control, but during the booms, Democratic Presidents did better, and during the busts, Democratic Presidents did better.
Also note how one of my examples was the entire decades of the 50s-60s, which was not based on any boom, but rather the general shape of the policy for a significant time. When we had more taxes and more services for decades, it worked, and worked well. It didn't end due to anything that indicated there was a problem with that setup, but rather because an ideological push for a different policy approach. That's a pretty good sign a policy works, when it's successful for decades and it's stopped for ideological and not practical reasons.
The austerity focus and tax cut plan simply has not been as successful at causing growth than the alternatives, be it during boom, bust, or when things are just going along normally.
Really people need to stop acting as though the president does it all and need to start mentioning congress when it comes to many economic pieces and success/failure of said policies.
Congress does play a big role, but the president often plays a sizable role in pushing for an economic policy too, so one has to pay attention to who's actually doing what. Stuff like having enough taxes to pay for stuff was not a Republican idea.
I mean, just look at Obama- he pushed for a successful stimulus, which he got and saved millions of jobs, a couple other attempts at a second, which he didn't but almost certainly would've helped too, and did not go for austerity. The Republican congress was pushing for austerity, which they did not get, which when we look at what happened to everyone else who went for austerity turned out to be a good thing they didn't. Obama is more responsible for our recent very steady recovery than congress, because congress has done very little in terms of economic policy during this time, and what they have is usually attempts at stuff that we have significant evidence wouldn't work.
Originally posted by shalqdevoratf61
Whoa, hold on there. You can't make that statement without either context or something to back you up, because I disagree this is the case on any level. Maybe if you're going by Obama vs. Bush but I know you aren't.
Go back and read my post about factchecking, and my other statements. Also, read any of a dozen posts of mine on responses to economic crashes over the last year, this 'I forgot the last time it was gone over' wears thin. Especially as I note there's no reply or acknowledgement to, y'know, the big factcheck I did above that quashed a lot of prior complaints, which suggests to me it was just skipped because acknowledging it would be inconvenient to the other side.
"Plenty of other [Bill] Clinton statistics checked out as accurate. For example, he said that since 1961, when John F. Kennedy took office, 42 million private-sector jobs had been added while Democrats held the White House, compared with 24 million while Republicans were in office. "
During crisises, we have the New Deal, which got us out of the Great Depression, and we have Obama. Both of these have strong performances. Reagan got a crisis too, and Obama's recovery outperformed his in several metrics- despite the '08 crash being *much* bigger than Reagans.
Bill Clinton's got the best run in healthy times since the 60s- better than Bush's second term (post-bubble recover, pre-crash).
The numbers aren't just the last two or three terms, but wider and overall, these more active policies have outperformed the 'cut spending and taxes' plans.
The Democratic economic policies have solidly outperformed Republican ones by a significant margin, over a period of time where both sided had roughly similar amount of time in control, and where both sides had periods of stability and periods of responding to crisis.
At what point does one have to get to before acknowledging, 'ok, these things that have consistently worked better for the last century, and which mirror the results other countries have trying similar policies, just work better.'?
The boom was the WWII/Post WWII boom that lasted up until the early 60s and hasn't been matched by anything since. That was a boom Q99..
And you think a 'boom' lasting 25 years wasn't based on the policies in place? At that point, it's not *only* a boom, it's one that was sustained good economics. And indeed, it hasn't been matched by anything since- since it ended with the policies that moved more in line with modern focusing on lowering taxes over providing services.
The fact that the long-boom ends when the policies change, should be a sign to reconsider moving back to those policies that sustained it.
It's not like the dot com boom, which was a bubble that overvalued it, or the one preceding the '08 crisis either, it was one based on solid fundamentals.
You can't make that statement either because he had full democratic backing, which is quite rare.
I can't make the statement that Republicans pushed for austerity, because Obama had full democratic backing...?
Think you language-failed there.
Sure, Obama had full democratic congressional backing when he passed the Stimulus, but it was his plan that congress adopted. Obama still shaped it, as is often the case for Presidents. Bush tax cuts, Reaganomics. The President often thinks of the plans that get implemented.
You know, it's interesting. I can show you facts on how she's right on this or that by fact-checking to outside sources that do not rely on her word, including a site that compiles information and fact-checked statements for most politicians, but based on her reputation you keep on insisting she must be lying, like, all the time.
E-mails? She had a private server that on it had e-mails that were *later* classified. Not the smartest thing, but not exactly a 'vacuum of ethics.' It's not even bad as, say, nepotism/cronyism would be, we've definitely had politicians promoting incompetent friends into poor positions resulting in significant problems before.
Her policies that she pushes work- better than Bernies IMO, but that's a different discussion, Bernie's a fine person in a lot of respects I just have issues with his approach to the Federal Reserve and foreign trade (Also he absolutely *needs* a majority, or preferably supermajority, in congress to do a lot of what he says- which he basically acknowledges in his calls for revolution, but still, without that he can't get his good stuff through)- and while she has changed positions on some things and engages in politician fudge-words often, she actually factchecks out pretty darn well as politicians go. Better than, literally, every Republican candidate, with Rubio being the closest. The reputation of Hillary as dishonest is more hype than substance- in truth, she's just average.
So, stop mumbling about, insisting I must be biased and that Hillary's reputation must be true, while simultaneously shrinking away from facts and data about exactly the things you're complaining about, measuring exactly how accurate she is.
No, I don't blindly accept what she, or any other politican, says- that's why I check factcheck places and many news organizations. I drew from over a half dozen different sources in factchecking her statements on Republicans, for example. You, on the other hand, do- Choosing to believe someone is always wrong is just as blind as choosing to accept someone as always right, especially when you have sources pointed to you that you could check but chose not to, and that is what you, and not just you, are doing.
If you say someone is lying all the time, and I check and discover you're incorrect on the vast majority of specifics, then who's really telling something that's not true here?
Stop trying to push, 'but if you'd just accept Hillary as lying on general principle without checking...'. That is fundamentally dishonest.
And we all know how much you hate dishonesty, don't we?
Do you have a link for that?
RealClear still has him a good 20 points behind her and down about 3 points from three weeks ago
Sanders is destroying Hilary right now. Its very interesting how in every single debate Hilary is allowed to go way over her time and the mods allow it, but then the mods cut Bernie off when his time is up.
Dog shit moderators of the DNC establishment stacked against Bernie, these people should be ashamed of their deception, lies and hypocrisy and double standard.
It basically looks like an angel vs devil right now, with Hilary being the devil.