Support NeoGAF

[And_Gignac]

Clinton almost ran on UBI: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...-basic-income-alaska-for-america-peter-barnes




She ultimately didn't go with it because they couldn't get the math to work right w/ the expectation that they'd have a GOP-controlled congress preventing most tax code changes.

Journalism is always going to have the eternal problem where your best and brightest...tend to be doing actual stuff, rather than reporting on other people doing stuff.

So, she was in the selling ponies business too? Lol

 

[JustenP88]

At what point does a policy proposal become a "promise?" Is that just a political cliche you go to when you want to make your opponent look like a dick?

If you're going to limit your policy proposals to things that you think you can convince Republicans to get on board with, then what's the point of your existence as a counter to Republicans?

 

[kirblar]

So, she was in the selling ponies business too? Lol

Man, do a lot of you just really not understand that analogy?

Didn't prevent her from promising loads of stuff like criminal justice reform that she knew would never clear congress tho, or would only clear it if completely corrupted by the republicans, such as whatever version of tax reform democrats could envision.

See the candidate's issues page for more.

There's a lot of stuff you can do purely from the executive office when it comes to policy implementation. That was their expected route of how to accomplish things - use executive actions.

 

[Suikoguy]

So, she was in the selling ponies business too? Lol

I was wondering how the Bernie Tinted glasses would interpret that.

Thanks

 

[Coriolanus]

There's a lot of stuff you can do purely from the executive office when it comes to policy implementation. That was their expected route of how to accomplish things - use executive actions.

And there's a lot of stuff you can't do, which is why the gop managed to prevent Bams from reaching his full potential. Either way, you ain't getting legislation passed without the legislative. As you well know.

This, however, prevented her not one bit from promising things in that page that she clearly knew would need legislative action.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

Well I should clarify that I am happy that she supported basic income. I think that's a good thing, even if she ultimately decided to drop it from her campaign. But the whole "promising ponies" thing is insulting when she, at least at some point, supported the same things Bernie has: universal healthcare, higher minimum wage, etc.

Maybe unfeasible is the wrong word, but she clearly didn't think it would work.

Because it would have required raising taxes at a time when lowering taxes (for the middle and lower class) was what most candidates were running on. I have no doubt she seriously considered most of the "socialist" policies people thought she was against, some of which Bernie was platforming on, and found a number of them wouldn't work out without raising taxes or diverting it from other programs (ie. the military, aka a death sentence, even though the amount spent on it is absurd)

 

[Conciliator]

I can't agree with the idea that something like universal healthcare is completely unfeasible, but that she was seriously considering basic income.

Keep in mind that the alaskan permanent fund is like $1k per person a year, and it ain't like every state's got alaskan oil, so maybe not what people typically think when they hear 'universal basic income.' But yes, it would have been an insane platform and I agree it's really really difficult to believe they 'almost' ran with it.

 

[FiggyCal]

You know the 'promising ponies' part had to do with no actual road map on how to accomplish those goals in the current political climate, and not the overall agenda item correct?

Yes, in the context of the book, but throughout the campaign she made some odd criticisms of his policy ideas also. Like the idea that Bernie's proposal of universal health care would dismantle medicare and make millions lose health care coverage.

 

[airmangataosenai]

The way in which people blame the media feels lazy to me, in that it is easy to do because everyone hates them across the political spectrum so it is not a controversial thing to say.

The general media did try to hold Trump accountable with fact checking, it just didnt matter because he was successful in framing them as an enemy to his followers.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

Yes, in the context of the book, but throughout the campaign she made some odd criticisms of his policy ideas also. Like the idea that Bernie's proposal of universal health care would dismantle medicare and make millions lose health care coverage.

Post some proof she said that, because that sounds unlikely, but I'm open to being proven wrong

Tye way in which people blame the media feels lazy to me, in that it is easy to do because everyone hates them across the political spectrum so it is not a controversial thing to say.

The general media did try to hold Trump accountable with fact checking, it just didnt matter because he was successful in framing them as an enemy to his followers.

Not really. Pre-election that was only done post debates, when it really should have been done every time he opened his mouth

 

[kirblar]

Keep in mind that the alaskan permanent fund is like $1k per person a year, so maybe not what people typically think when they hear 'universal basic income.' But yes, it would have been an insane platform and I agree it's really really difficult to believe they 'almost' ran with it.

You can frame it in a similar fashion to George W. Bush's 2001 tax rebate checks, which were around that range for a number of people.

 

[JustenP88]

Post some proof she said that, because that sounds unlikely, but I'm open to being proven wrong

He might be thinking of Chelsea: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/265601-chelsea-clinton-sanders-wants-to-scrap-obamacare

"He wants to dismantle Obamacare, Medicare, private insurance and take away coverage from millions."

I don't remember much from Hillary aside from "haha it'll never happen."

EDIT: Ah, I see Hillary was on some bullshit too per the below

 

[FiggyCal]

Post some proof she said that, because that sounds unlikely, but I'm open to being proven wrong

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/clintons-attack-on-sanders-health-plan/

 

[Henchmen21]

Post some proof she said that, because that sounds unlikely, but I'm open to being proven wrong



Not really. Pre-election that was only done post debates, when it really should have been done every time he opened his mouth

Edit: Lol late. What Figgy & JustinP88 posted

 

[And_Gignac]

Man, do a lot of you just really not understand that analogy?

There's a lot of stuff you can do purely from the executive office when it comes to policy implementation. That was their expected route of how to accomplish things - use executive actions.

I understand it. I still see nothing but tone deafness by comparing an important health/economic/social issue to a ponie to put her point across. All of this while she was thinking on running with UBI...I mean, that's not even surprising tbh. That's so Clinton.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/clintons-attack-on-sanders-health-plan/

I don't think you even read what you posted. Chelsea Clinton stated what you attributed to Hillary. What she did was somewhat sneaky, but not the same

The day before, on Jan. 11, Hillary Clinton said at a campaign stop in Iowa that Sanders’ plan would “take Medicare and Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Affordable Care Act health-care insurance and private employer health insurance and he would take that all together and send health insurance to the states, turning over your and my health insurance to governors.” Sanders has proposed having the states implement the single-payer plan, but Clinton gives the impression that governors would be free to do whatever they wanted. That’s not the case.

 

[Clockwork]

*looks at clock*

Her 15 minutes can be up at any moment now...

Seriously.

 

[kirblar]

I understand it. I still see nothing but tone deafness by comparing an important health/economic/social issue to a ponie to put her point across. All of this while she was thinking on running with UBI...I mean, that's not even surprising tbh. That's so Clinton.

She was thinking of running on UBI if she thought she could accomplish it.

Single Payer is a "pony" because there's about 0 chance of getting it through congress even with a Dem majority.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

She was thinking of running on UBI if she thought she could accomplish it.

Honestly sounds like that poster just wants a reason to be mad, regardless of whether it makes any sense or not.

I LOVE how Clinton's very existence gets so many people mad on here. I wish someone would do a sentiment analysis of GAF posts. I swear some people react more negatively to any time she says something than they do to Trump, and it's embarrassing

 

[Tranqueris]

I don't know, why would Mrs. "Sniper Fire in Bosnia" lie?

I love that this specific example gets trotted out to prove that she's a filthy liar who never tells the truth. I don't know if it was you but during the election there was a gaffer who brought this up nonstop. You'd think she was caught lying about running that person's dog over or something.

Hmm but I wonder why that specific lie is a favorite though? It's almost like there's not that many examples of her telling flat out lies.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/hillary-clinton-one-americas-most-honest-politicians/

 

[Clockwork]

Honestly sounds like that poster just wants a reason to be mad, regardless of whether it makes any sense or not.

I LOVE how Clinton's very existence gets so many people mad on here

She's not the future of the party and has barely any relevance to the present these days.

Her time came and went. That's how it works.

 

[JustenP88]

I LOVE how Clinton's very existence gets so many people mad on here

Lol cucks get triggered by the Yas Queen.

Nobody is going to thank her for coming out almost a year later to cynically try and grab some lefty cred by telling us about a policy she once thought of maybe pushing for a minute.

This is like the "but I have a black friend" of this whole "centrist v progressive" shit.

 

[Hubbl3]

I thought it was a very good interview. I kind of wish this was this animated and open during the election, but it is what it is.

 

[Extollere]

Its crazy that Trump got the gig instead of Hillary.

No one looked at Hillary Clinton and saw the smart, calculated, and pragmatic woman that she is. They saw an untrustworthy person behind a manufactured facade. It's a fucking shame... I really think people respond to honesty the most, or at least their perception of honesty. Trump could say whatever the fuck he wanted "cuz he says it like it is!" Whereas people just looked at Hillary and sensed she wasn't telling the truth for one reason or another. I mean, there were many other factors. Russia's meddling, Comey, the EC, Hillary's piss poor campaign and messaging, Trump's populist movement... and maybe even just fucking bad luck... but I really do think we would have had a better chance with any other candidate - even though I think we'd be far better off with Clinton than we are with Trump.

 

[And_Gignac]

She was thinking of running on UBI if she thought she could accomplish it.

Single Payer is a "pony" because there's about 0 chance of getting it through congress even with a Dem majority.

Okay you are explaining semantics that do not need to be explained. What she said is very clear. She considered running on a position that could be said to be unachievable due to politics.

And yet here we are in 2017 with all the Democrats that matter supporting a bill in favor of Medicare for all / Single payer. I guess the Pokemans became real after all.

 

[Sweeney Tom]

I LOVE how Clinton's very existence gets so many people mad on here.

Agreed completely

Been 3 threads now. Still waiting for Certain People to say why Bernie's allowed to lose and write a book, and why Romney's allowed to lose and get a goddamn documentary on Netflix, but Hillary loses and does a book and suddenly she's the only one that has to fuck off to a forest and leave the rest of the population alone forever

 

[UnemployedVillain]

She's not the future of the party and has barely any relevance to the present these days.

Her time came and went. That's how it works.

Lol cucks get triggered by the Yas Queen.

Nobody is going to thank her for coming out almost a year later to cynically try and grab some lefty cred by telling us about a policy she once thought of maybe pushing for a minute.

This is like the "but I have a black friend" of this whole "centrist v progressive" shit.

Thanks for proving my point. She's not trying to lead the party nor is she looking for thanks or brownie points/cred. You guys are so desperate to pick apart everything she says and find some fault in her even saying them

 

[kirblar]

Okay you are explaining semantics that do not need to be explained. What she said is very clear. She considered running on a position that could be said to be unachievable due to politics.

And yet here we are in 2017 with all the Democrats that matter supporting a bill in favor of Medicare for all / Single payer. I guess the Pokemans became real after all.

No, she considered running on a position if it were achievable despite politics.

You very much need to have this explained because you clearly do not understand the distinction.

 

[JustenP88]

No, she considered running on a position if it were achievable despite politics.

You very much need to have this explained because you clearly do not understand the distinction.

Are you saying it's impossible for revenue in this country to be raised to a point where UBI could be funded?

You can't say "despite politics" when the reason she didn't run on it was revenue which means taxes (or budget shifts) which means the unfortunate reality of left politics that liberals have to deal with.

She didn't run on UBI because politics.

 

[nomis]

if UHC doesn’t work it’s because her and like-minded people don’t want it to work, because they aren’t invested in it’s success. it’s a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Monocle]

It's so painful to contrast this woman of intelligence and poise with the bleating orangutan that lied his way into the White House by exploiting dumb people's feelings. Stupid fucking voters. What a disaster.

Honestly sounds like that poster just wants a reason to be mad, regardless of whether it makes any sense or not.

I LOVE how Clinton's very existence gets so many people mad on here. I wish someone would do a sentiment analysis of GAF posts. I swear some people react more negatively to any time she says something than they do to Trump, and it's embarrassing

Yep, extremely embarrassing.

 

[FiggyCal]

Honestly sounds like that poster just wants a reason to be mad, regardless of whether it makes any sense or not.

I LOVE how Clinton's very existence gets so many people mad on here. I wish someone would do a sentiment analysis of GAF posts. I swear some people react more negatively to any time she says something than they do to Trump, and it's embarrassing

Yeah. I think that's something I have to work on tbqhwy. But the idea that people react more negatively to her than Trump on here is pure fantasy.

And I don't think there's a huge difference between what Chelsea said and what Clinton said. It's not like Chelsea went rogue or that the same criticism wasn't already implicit in Hillary's comments. One is just more explicit than the other.

 

[ZeoVGM]

It is 100% fair to criticize the media during the election. Every damn Trump press conference, the nonsense email scandal, playing the video of her having trouble getting into a car over and over.

They were implicit in this.

 

[kirblar]

Are you saying it's impossible for revenue in this country to be raised to a point where UBI could be funded?

You can't say "despite politics" when the reason she didn't run on it was revenue which means taxes (or budget shifts) which means the unfortunate reality of left politics that liberals have to deal with.

She didn't run on UBI because politics.

Have you bothered to read the specifics of what she was proposing? That this is "UBI" but it's also not enough to be sustainable- it's a baseline supplement, but it's enough to get a foot in the door for further expansion down the line, and its the type of policy that immediately becomes a third rail.

Are you also aware that in the early 2000s Bush effectively did this multiple times? First in 2001 w/ the Tax Rebate checks, then in 2008 w/ the Stimulus.

Something small scale like that is very possible, but not w/ GOP control, because the Dems wouldn't have the levers necessary to raise enough tax revenue.

if UHC doesn't work it's because her and like-minded people don't want it to work, because they aren't invested in it's success. it's a self fulfilling prophecy.

UHC and Single Payer are not synonyms.

 

[ZeoVGM]

I LOVE how Clinton's very existence gets so many people mad on here. I wish someone would do a sentiment analysis of GAF posts. I swear some people react more negatively to any time she says something than they do to Trump, and it's embarrassing

Honestly, if she ran again in 2020, I would be fine with it. I still fully believe she is an incredibly intelligent woman who truthfully wants what is best for the country.

(I realize she won't. This is simply hypothetical.)

 

[pigeon]

if UHC doesn’t work it’s because her and like-minded people don’t want it to work, because they aren’t invested in it’s success. it’s a self fulfilling prophecy.

So is this post.

 

[KingV]

I actually don't think this would be true w/ an expected Dem majority. She was the one in '08 warning about compromise w/ the GOP during the primaries, and she was vindicated on that front. But w/ an expected GOP majority, floating pie in the sky proposals you know can't pass could potentially lead to a lot of issues w/ an unhappy base.

But none of what she ran on was politically feasible in that environment. So why even have a platform other than "veto foul shit republicans want to do"?

Congress wasn't going to support $12 minimum wage, or affordable college, or universal child care, or literally anything else Clinton wanted to do. With an expected Republican Congressional majority, all of those things were "ponies".

On a side note in the interview she says she doesn't support single payer, but supports UHC by expanding Medicaid and Medicare. Well... what's the difference, exactly? Presumably, you expand those programs to the oldest and sickest people first, because those are the people for who me healthcare is unaffordable. They are also the most expensive to insure by an order of magnitude. People who are 60 spend about 2x as much per capital people under 50. So by the time you lower Medicare to 55 or so, you probably already have the government paying like 60% of healthcare costs in the country. Even more so once we give baby boomers a few more years.

At some point, "I don't support expanding government healthcare but I do support expanding government healthcare for some people" doesn't make sense, because you're already paying for all the expensive people. The rest are a rounding error in comparison.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

Yeah. I think that's something I have to work on tbqhwy. But the idea that people react more negatively to her than Trump on here is pure fantasy.

And I don't think there's a huge difference between what Chelsea said and what Clinton said. It's not like Chelsea went rogue or that the same criticism wasn't already implicit in Hillary's comments. One is just more explicit than the other.

I dunno, I'd say they were decidedly different. Chelsea's was flat out false, claiming it would be like the pre-Obamacare days and would strip people of health insurance. Especially considering the whole point was for it to be universal and lower the barrier for everyone to have health coverage. Hillary's was more playing towards fears of big government and government ineptitude. Like I said, it was sneaky, but I wouldn't equate it to Chelseas flat out making shit up in an almost Trump-esque statement

 

[Suikoguy]

Honestly sounds like that poster just wants a reason to be mad, regardless of whether it makes any sense or not.

I LOVE how Clinton's very existence gets so many people mad on here. I wish someone would do a sentiment analysis of GAF posts. I swear some people react more negatively to any time she says something than they do to Trump, and it's embarrassing

I'm actually studying on how to do this, but I don't know if it's against the TOS.

 

[Jimothy]

Yas queen

vomit

 

[JustenP88]

Have you bothered to read the specifics of what she was proposing? That this is "UBI" but it's also not enough to be sustainable- it's a baseline supplement, but it's enough to get a foot in the door for further expansion down the line, and its the type of policy that immediately becomes a third rail.

Are you also aware that in the early 2000s Bush effectively did this multiple times? First in 2001 w/ the Tax Rebate checks, then in 2008 w/ the Stimulus.

Something small scale like that is very possible, but not w/ GOP control, because they didn't have the levers necessary to raise enough tax revenue.

I may have misunderstood what you meant with the "despite politics" bit...

I don't understand the point of putting something like that on the shelf because the GOP has control of Congress. Is the goal not to change that? It just reads like a complete and total lack of political courage and to see it extolled as a virtue is bizarre to me.

 

[kirblar]

But none of what she ran on was politically feasible in that environment. So why even have a platform other than "veto foul shit republicans want to do"?

Congress wasn't going to support $12 minimum wage, or affordable college, or universal child care, or literally anything else Clinton wanted to do. With an expected Republican Congressional majority, all of those things were "ponies".

On a side note in the interview she says she doesn't support single payer, but supports UHC by expanding Medicaid and Medicare. Well... what's the difference, exactly? Presumably, you expand those programs to the oldest and sickest people first, because those are the people for who me healthcare is unaffordable. They are also the most expensive to insure by an order of magnitude. People who are 60 spend about 2x as much per capital people under 50. So by the time you lower Medicare to 55 or so, you probably already have the government paying like 60% of healthcare costs in the country. Even more so once we give baby boomers a few more years.

At some point, "I don't support expanding government healthcare but I do support expanding government healthcare for some people" doesn't make sense, because you're already paying for all the expensive people. The rest are a rounding error in comparison.

Achieving UHC via Single Payer means kicking everyone off of their employer-sponsored health care coverage and forcing them to buy into a government-run system, either directly via premiums or indirectly vs other types of taxes. (They can then purchase supplementary plans if they so choose.)

Achieving UHC via Medicare/Medicaid expansion means that you're allowing people access to government run programs that they were previously ineligible for and subsidizing their coverage for some of those people.

The latter is far, far more politically possible than the former for many reasons. One is that the vast majority of working people have employer-sponsored health coverage. Another is that those people are largely unaware of just how much money their employers spend on their health coverage behind-the-scenes (hence the sticker shock when they see premium costs on the open market.) And finally, those health insurers providing coverage to all those employers are not going to be happy with having a gigantic market of customers shut down and taken over by the government. It's a massive amount of destruction of private infrastructure.

I may have misunderstood what you meant with the "despite politics" bit...

I don't understand the point of putting something like that on the shelf because the GOP has control of Congress. Is the goal not to change that? It just reads like a complete and total lack of political courage and to see it extolled as a virtue is bizarre to me.

The goal is to avoid what just happened with the GOP and Obamacare repeal. They ran on it for nearly a decade. Got a RRR setup. Couldn't do it.

This happened to the Dems w/ Carter and UHC and many other progressive goals. His presidency was a trainwreck for the party.

 

[Byakuya769]

I thought it was a very good interview. I kind of wish this was this animated and open during the election, but it is what it is.

Same. She's always good in this context.

 

[Guevara]

Finally, Hillary can let her hair down and talk about why Bernie's universal healthcare is a bad idea, lol.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

I'm actually studying on how to do this, but I don't know if it's against the TOS.

All I know is whenever I see Trump threads, I know people will pretty much universally shit on him, and maybe mods will close it for being fairly useless or redundant. When I see a Clinton thread I pretty much count the days down for it to devolve into Clinton vs Bernie and for a mod to shut it down because it's long stopped containing any sort of reasonable discussion

 

[Maxim726X]

So you both want 4 more years of Trump?

I get this line of thinking, I really do... Strategically, she obviously should never run for office again.

BUT- part of the reason people didn't trust her was because she took that second before every response, measuring her every word in an attempt to placate everyone. I heard an interview with her today on NPR and it just felt so much more... Real. If this was the person we saw during the campaign, things may have very well ended differently. People could never trust her because she was never herself.

 

[kirblar]

I get this line of thinking, I really do... Strategically, she obviously should never run for office again.

BUT- part of the reason people didn't trust her was because she took that second before every response, measuring her every word in an attempt to placate everyone. I heard an interview with her today on NPR and it just felt so much more... Real. If this was the person we saw during the campaign, things may have very well ended differently. People could never trust her because she was never herself.

Hillary Clinton is a very bad liar.

This is a very bad trait for a candidate.

 

[FiggyCal]

I dunno, I'd say they were decidedly different. Chelsea's was flat out false, claiming it would be like the pre-Obamacare days and would strip people of health insurance. Especially considering the whole point was for it to be universal and lower the barrier for everyone to have health coverage. Hillary's was more playing towards fears of big government and government ineptitude. Like I said, it was sneaky, but I wouldn't equate it to Chelseas flat out making shit up in an almost Trump-esque statement

Well anyway, I probably should stay out of Hillary threads. I think there probably wasn't a good reason to bring Bernie talk in here in the first place.

 

[pigeon]

Well anyway, I probably should stay out of Hillary threads. I think there probably wasn't a good reason to bring Bernie talk in here in the first place.

And yet somehow I'm not too surprised it showed up

 

[excelsiorlef]

Lol cucks get triggered by the Yas Queen.

Nobody is going to thank her for coming out almost a year later to cynically try and grab some lefty cred by telling us about a policy she once thought of maybe pushing for a minute.

This is like the "but I have a black friend" of this whole "centrist v progressive" shit.

...

What the hell. Who actually uses cucks?