What “electoral choices”? What are you talking about? I prefer Hillary to all the Republicans, because I believe her presidency would result in fewer bombs and (even more importantly) fewer invasions abroad. I haven’t decided yet which Democratic candidate I prefer. Their stance on potential wars is a big part of that, but so is their likelihood of beating the Republican. My decision-making process is entirely rational, logical, and morally consistent.
So what? Even if this is true, she’s still far, far superior to the Republican candidates.
Not all of them are. Some of them like him for other reasons. But I think his main appeal is those set of populist policies.
Perhaps we should discuss this in a different thread. I don’t think any of those ideas holds up to any serious scrutiny. The whole notion that Citizens United radically changed the law and fundamentally increased corporate influence is poppycock. Corporate influence is a problem, but Citizens United has almost nothing to do with it. It’s an effective political slogan, but nothing more.
How Citizens United Has Changed Politics in 5 Years
How Citizens United changed politics, in 7 charts
Even without that, perception is reality, especially in politics. People want it overturned, Sanders the only one voters are hearing talk about doing it and it’s resonating.
Of course, Donald Trump could also cite listicles and perception about his wall plan. Doesn’t make it smart.
Some government jobs create wealth. Most do not. Government jobs aren’t justified by whether they serve customers who want to buy products and services. Government jobs don’t actually even have to accomplish anything at all to justify their existence.
Hillary is so out of touch and stupid, she thinks that you use a cloth to wipe a server’s data
Also, given that this is President Obama’s FBI that’s doing this investigation, I’d love to know how and when President Obama joined the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.
Didn’t you get the memo? Obama is pulling a super-secret double-agent-style thingamajig. By ordering an in-depth investigation, it will look like Hillary’s in big trouble… but when the investigation finds absolutely nothing, right at the perfect moment, she’ll leave her opponents in the dust.
Historically, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson were there long before her, and Johnson accomplished more. ETA: As in, anything constructive at all.
And “Hillarycare” was not socialized medicine. It was a complex muddle of subsidies and sanctions involving private insurers, a bit like “Obamacare.”
I’m for socialized medicine.
Further, taking government jobs out of the economy creates deadweight loss, as you are removing a particular service that a free-market private sector cannot replicate at the same cost.
Does that mean we should keep every government job? No. In some cases (building warplanes we’ll never use, spying on literally everybody) that’s actually OK, because those jobs are stupid, may be wasteful of resources, may excite hostility to the “authoritarian warmongers”, and add little real improvement to people’s lives.
In other cases, though, government jobs both increase GDP and add real services to citizens’ lives that the free market cannot replicate. And there is a science to deciding which government jobs are useful and which are wasteful excess.
But arguing from the poor beleaguered taxpayer and pretending that government spending shrinks the economy is a false argument; because government spending actually grows the economy.
ETA: If you want to talk about the Clintons personally taking absurd amounts of money from private donors rather than, I don’t know, doing something else, maybe that’s a thing. 
In some cases, yes. But if you reduce school administrators by half, then all you’ve done is eliminate deadweight, period. The money not paying them would go to better uses.
It’s amazing how clearly liberals think when it’s defense. You’re right of course. And I’m also right about bureaucratic bloat in nearly every government function.
A very inexact science. Yes, government spending increases GDP, mainly because they just add it to GDP. They also subtract imports from GDP, which is just as suspect.
It can grow the economy. There are also examples of cutting spending growing economies. Such as our own during the Clinton years. I guess some Keynesians argue that we would have had even more growth if we’d spent more, but I think that even the most ardent Keynesians would argue that at some point you don’t gain any more benefit from spending more. Otherwise, why not print and spend $20 trillion? It’s the same reason we can’t just get rich raising the minimum wage to $50.
While Sanders, by comparison, has done … ? You think he’s clearly superior on the subject, in fact you use it as a reason to *oppose *Clinton.
And it was all that was achievable at the time, just like Obamacare.
So how do you think you’re going to get it?
Cutting spending can’t grow the economy any more than raising taxes can (this seems to be the same sort of article-of-faith among some conservatives that “cutting taxes increases revenue” is). Putting more money into the economy, whether by spending more or taxing less, will always “add” to the economy – in fact, it’s almost tautological… put more money into something and it is bigger in financial/economic terms (but bigger is not always better, and not always worth the expense). Cutting spending and raising taxes will always “take away” from the economy (again, it’s almost a tautology), not that these policies are always negative. That doesn’t mean that economies will shrink when spending is cut (or taxes raised), but in the immediate sense, that spending cut/tax increase does indeed remove money from the economy that otherwise would have been there – even if such a spending cut/tax increase might be good for the economy in the long run due to other effects (interest rates, investments, etc.).
This doesn’t mean that increasing spending or reducing taxes is always good for the economy in the long run, but both things will necessarily always “grow” the economy in the immediate sense. Just like dropping money from helicopters or building pyramids would grow the economy always in the immediate sense (and these would be spending increases). Not that these policies are necessarily good.
By running Congressional candidates who are for it, not by some weird backroom deal with insurance companies (which they then turned on, as they have every other time, and which was not “achievable” in fact) made by the President’s wife.
iiandyiiii, you’re tilting pretty far toward the, “But we need deficits!” fallacy. That’s not really how it works.
More spending money in the hands of the poor or illiquid means more more liquidity, higher demand, and higher GDP. But just printing money doesn’t grow the real economy, which is comprised of actual services performed.
Wait - you think public school administration is bloated? Do you have any kids in public school?
foosguinea: You’re really stretching there, friend. Hillarycare, which was much better than what we had and essentially was Obamacare many years earlier, was defeated only by methods we had not experienced in recent times and had no reason to expect. Even so, the same thing years later passed only barely, and could have been much better and still barely passed if not for Obama’s soft backbone and naivete about the implacability of Republican oppositionism, a problem Clinton did not and does not share.
But you’re denouncing her anyway and supporting a guy who has made some nice speeches but has *done *pretty much exactly squat, on the one issue you say underlies your choice of who to support. Perhaps you should devote your energies to getting pro-socialized-medicine Congresspersons elected, as you say is the way to do it, along with a Presidential candidate who has experience in getting it done?
I believe that Hillary Clinton is opposed to socialized medicine. Hillarycare was not socialized medicine.
Wait, am I remembering wrong? Was she the one whose 2008 health care reform plan had no public option, or was that Obama?
ETA: Oh, and everything Hillary Clinton has done amounts to, “married well, stayed with the bozo, grubbed all the money she could.”
ETA2: And despite all that, the Clintonian ethic of “triangulation” would make her an acceptable POTUS with a leftward Congress, and a moderate Republican in effect with a rightward Congress. She can (maybe) do the administrative job, she can follow the polls. She just can’t lead the party where it needs to go.
It’s only putting more money into the economy if you’re borrowing. otherwise you’re just moving money around. And you can’t borrow forever. Plus money that goes for interest on the debt is almost completely useless.
Just follow the Keynesian model: deficits in recessions and surpluses in good times. And don’t spend a dime on something that gives little value to the taxpayers. Private companies have to clear out the middle management bloat when times get tough. Governments rarely do that. They just let it grow and grow and then when times get tough, if they have no choice, they’ll cut services to taxpayers first before reducing the size of the bureaucratic staff.