WaPo: Why Hillary Clinton is more progressive than Bernie Sanders, in one sentence

[portlander23]

Stromberg: Why Hillary Clinton is more progressive than Bernie Sanders, in one sentence

Bernie Sanders attracted a 20,000-person crowd in Boston over the weekend with his uncreative wish list of a platform, in which college would be free for all, Social Security would be expanded for all and medical coverage would be highly subsidized for all — regardless of whether you actually need the help. Hillary Clinton finally pushed back Monday against “progressives” who propose shoveling public benefits at rich and poor alike. One sentence in particular drew a clear distinction between her campaign and Sanders’s:

“I am not in favor of making college free for Donald Trump’s kids,” she said, after explaining that “I’m a little different from those who say free college for everybody.”

She then pitched her college affordability proposal, which would allow students to graduate debt free but wouldn’t end tuition or work requirements. Clinton’s system would be means-tested: Those who can afford to invest in their educations would have to. Sanders’s wouldn’t be.

Not only is Mr. Stromberg incorrect, he's exposed one of the major differences between New Deal style Democrats and DLC Third Way Democrats.

Working in the New Deal vein, politicians propose sweeping programs that benefit all people directly. Social Security is a program in this mold. The program benefits everyone. We don't means test who gets benefits. It's also one of the reasons why it's been so successful. It's hard to attack a program that works well and benefits every single citizen.

The modern DLC technocratic approach is to try to pinpoint resources, generally by dispersing those resources via a private entity. It seems like this is a better system, but it's not. When benefits are not shared equally, it's easier to paint the program as something only for the undeserving poor, and more specifically (and more ugly), something for minorities. That's what makes these programs easier to attack.

Furthermore, while means testing seems like a way of better utilizing limited resources, it makes the administration of programs harder and it makes it harder for people to sign up for benefits. It also forces the government to decide where income cut off is for who is worthy to get benefits.

When Democrats start from an assumption of limited resources and means testing, they're operating within a Republican frame. It's a terrible mistake.

This sort of approach breeds contempt between people of fairly comparable incomes when compared to the income of the 1%.

The progressive approach is not about doling out the benefits of society based on wealth brackets, but rather to tax people according to how much wealth they're extracting from society so that we can have a good standard of living shared by everyone.

[demwing]

1. thats a pretty long "one sentence"

dontcha think?

[djean111]

2. Did not need to read this twice today, but here is my one sentence reply -

No, she is not more progressive than Bernie Sanders.

[NCjack]

3. If we get taxes on 1%ers to where they should be, The Donald's children will

qualify for free education from grade 1 to post-graduate.

[azmom]

4. I prefer Sander's vision of America

We need to fundamentally reshape the way we think about tuition at public colleges. For a number of years, public higher education was virtually free in many parts of this country. It was understood that we all benefited from living in a society where every young person with the ambition and the talent could obtain a higher education, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. It is important for us to return to that view of education as integral to America’s common wealth, and to our democracy.

In that regard, Secretary Clinton’s “New College Compact” is something of a disappointment. Instead of placing college “within reach” of every qualified American, it should be available to all people, as a public good—not contingent on individual family sacrifice, or student work requirements.

https://berniesanders.com/college-affordability-comparing-the-clinton-and-sanders-plans/

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. Completely ignoring

her support for:

Fracking
The TPP
CORPORATE Tax Loopholes
Prisons for Profits
Iraq War
Wall St. THIEVES
Big Corporations
Big Banks
Wars, wars, wars and more wars

She's not even close to being a Progressive. Though she must be worried about NOT being a TRUE PROGRESSIVE or she wouldn't be touting THIS stupid one-liner.

[99Forever]

6. Oh lookie! It's the Camp Weathervane Meme of the Day!

Isn't that special?





BTW, how many public schools did Chelsea Clinton attend?

[antigop]

7. and Donald Trump's kids would go to a public college? Yeah, right. nt

[Bread and Circus]

8. I totally agree with you portlander23 re your synopsis

I cant really add to your post as it really hits the nail on the head.

[restorefreedom]

9. willing to sell out the 99

to protect the 1.

what a shock.

[Armstead]

10. HIGHLY Recommended.....But misleading at first glance

You need to better seprate that awful linked article and your own excellent rebuttal.

You make an excellent point that has seldom been expressed so clearly and concisely. It clarifies what is at issue in the back-and-forth, beyind the cliches both sides use.

The article you referred to is an awful bit of crap filled with the 3rd War attempt to hijack the term "progressive" to make GOP Conservative policies seem more palatable to moderates and liberals.

The juxtaposition clearly outlines the problems many people have with the Third Way's stealth conservatiism -- and why.

You might to place a line between the excerpt and your own comments -- and maybe change the headline

[MoveIt]

11. Agree the rebuttal is worth a quick reformat

Portlander should reformat slightly using div class=excerpt tags around the article body.

Here is my quote

Here is my commentary.

[MisterP]

12. waaaait, is this *Clinton* *trying to exploit class resentment*?!!!