Yes, there's great disparity between the 99% and the 1% but what we need to also look at is the chasm between the 99.9% and the 0.1% which is truly enormous. The 0.1% and the .01% need to be considered separately to really grasp the magnitude of what's happened.
13
it can be the kiss of death for an organization to have such a puff piece written about it. Turn the page in a month and someone at the Institute will be politically compromised.
The media gives themselves a bad name when so little investigation is done. This has Hillary campaign stamped all over it.
A Progressive movement is essential to the country's future but Clinton would not know a progressive idea if it stepped on her foot and neither would her closest advisers.
Even if she did, the majority of voters have been trained by the Republicans to think any progressive policies is socialism. She wouldn't dare be bold. Helping people so they can participate in a free-ish market economy is not an easy message to sell in our present political climate.
The New York Times wants to push a safe progressive agenda, partly to make up for rejecting it so soundly over the last year, to retrieve some of their disappointed readers. Fine, but do it honestly. Progress will not come from a policy think tank and a proven middle of the road candidate but from citizens who are active and participate. Such activism is scary for sure but when has any change not been fraught with uncertainty.
I will vote Clinton despite the NYT coverage of her. at least she tolerates people with progressive ideas. Trump would actively repress people with any idea that contradicts him.
The media gives themselves a bad name when so little investigation is done. This has Hillary campaign stamped all over it.
A Progressive movement is essential to the country's future but Clinton would not know a progressive idea if it stepped on her foot and neither would her closest advisers.
Even if she did, the majority of voters have been trained by the Republicans to think any progressive policies is socialism. She wouldn't dare be bold. Helping people so they can participate in a free-ish market economy is not an easy message to sell in our present political climate.
The New York Times wants to push a safe progressive agenda, partly to make up for rejecting it so soundly over the last year, to retrieve some of their disappointed readers. Fine, but do it honestly. Progress will not come from a policy think tank and a proven middle of the road candidate but from citizens who are active and participate. Such activism is scary for sure but when has any change not been fraught with uncertainty.
I will vote Clinton despite the NYT coverage of her. at least she tolerates people with progressive ideas. Trump would actively repress people with any idea that contradicts him.
13
My last comments raised a new issue on state monopoly capitalism. The following further expands it.
As Elizabeth Warren pointed out: “Four airlines control 80 percent of American airline seats, three chains own 99 percent of drugstores and four companies sell 85 percent of the beef,” capital has indefatigably abandoned competitions in favoring monopoly to boost the (apparent) profits through monopoly market prices. An economy based on state monopoly of both the means of production and the fictitious capital or financial “industry” is much more efficient and fair to the masses than private monopoly of enterprises. Andy Haldane, chief economist at the Bank of England, considered the fictitious capital as something that: “The finance sector in capitalism adds ‘no value’ whatsoever and can be even negative for the global economy.”
Is state monopoly capitalism a progress of mankind or a regression taken place in the course of history of capitalism? The answer has to be the former. Capital as a power of motion cannot be endless; when it has exhausted its driving force as it now, a higher level of development stages must have arrived when it sets a precedent for motion. Capitalism takes up a self- transformation process with the help of the nation-state to renew its strength through state control, supervision and accounting and regulation to satisfy the employment and growth demands of masses.
It's a concrete realization of Bernie Sanders’ democratic socialism and a guide too.
As Elizabeth Warren pointed out: “Four airlines control 80 percent of American airline seats, three chains own 99 percent of drugstores and four companies sell 85 percent of the beef,” capital has indefatigably abandoned competitions in favoring monopoly to boost the (apparent) profits through monopoly market prices. An economy based on state monopoly of both the means of production and the fictitious capital or financial “industry” is much more efficient and fair to the masses than private monopoly of enterprises. Andy Haldane, chief economist at the Bank of England, considered the fictitious capital as something that: “The finance sector in capitalism adds ‘no value’ whatsoever and can be even negative for the global economy.”
Is state monopoly capitalism a progress of mankind or a regression taken place in the course of history of capitalism? The answer has to be the former. Capital as a power of motion cannot be endless; when it has exhausted its driving force as it now, a higher level of development stages must have arrived when it sets a precedent for motion. Capitalism takes up a self- transformation process with the help of the nation-state to renew its strength through state control, supervision and accounting and regulation to satisfy the employment and growth demands of masses.
It's a concrete realization of Bernie Sanders’ democratic socialism and a guide too.
5
It is so interesting this piece came out- I too have been wondering if HRC could be the FDR of our times. I'm reminded of a quote supposedly attributed to FDR, ("I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it") and a time HRC met with BLM activists on video- she wasn't interested in dwelling on their argument- she wanted specific policy proposals. At first I felt she seemed dismissive to the activists who came to speak with her- but I now think she didn't need to hear the argument. She was ready to hear specific policy proposals- and they just weren't prepared (not too surprising if they have to spend the majority of their time explaining why not "all lives..." blah blah).
She could be truly transformative- FDR was quite conservative when he entered office. Could this be the perfect storm of circumstances and woman to make history?
She could be truly transformative- FDR was quite conservative when he entered office. Could this be the perfect storm of circumstances and woman to make history?
6
I think Hillary will do as much as she can with the Congress we give her. A bunch of negative comments here are just based on the old talking points and prejudices against her. Those posters have boxed themselves in. Wong seems to understand that to move forward you influence people more by your positive ideas and expectations about them. Wong has a very wise approach. If we could all replicate that more, the world might move actually improve.
6
Well written op-ed with a heroine Felicia Joy Womg.
We already know what Hillary Clinton is going to do
A continuation of what she and Bill have already done.
Whitewater, Benghazi, Exposing Classified emails, lies and more lies, Goldman Sachs contributions $675k,
Neither Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are liked or trusted by the over 50% of the USA electorate.
It's better to trust in the Lord than to trust in people and princes (leaders) Psalm os David
We already know what Hillary Clinton is going to do
A continuation of what she and Bill have already done.
Whitewater, Benghazi, Exposing Classified emails, lies and more lies, Goldman Sachs contributions $675k,
Neither Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are liked or trusted by the over 50% of the USA electorate.
It's better to trust in the Lord than to trust in people and princes (leaders) Psalm os David
2
Radical thinking? The Roosevelt Institute?!? Is this feature the author's idea of some kind of JOKE?
These are long-time policy wonks. All of them. They are not radical. They are part of the problem. There is no radical idea even mentioned here.
What on earth is going on with this newspaper?
These are long-time policy wonks. All of them. They are not radical. They are part of the problem. There is no radical idea even mentioned here.
What on earth is going on with this newspaper?
12
I was really encouraged by this article and by the work that Dr. Wong and the Roosevelt Institute is doing. It's inspiring to think the DNA of Occupy Wall Street marches (that I participated in as a mild middle-aged person, rather than a young firebrand) has gotten into the bloodstream of the nation, and that even though it sometimes seems like the political system can't change, it IS changing in a gradualist way. I share Dr. Wong's optimism about Hillary getting these things done.
2
This is a brilliant, fascinating article. I did not know about this organization. I believe Ms. Wong is correct to be optimistic about Hillary. Supporting the election of Democrats to the House and Senate is crucial, as well as keeping the pressure on Hillary and her administration. Continuous pressure gives her the path she needs to do it, but not if Congress is impenetrable.
2
Yes, Mrs Clinton, if she wins, will definitely become the champion of the 99%. She has an excellent partner, Tim Kaine. He worked for the right causes all his life, so have Mr & Mrs Clinton.
Of course they aren't perfect. They are human. They've had their share of mistakes & "sins." But their hearts, of all 3 have been in the right place all their lives! That's what's important.
On illegal immigration: Don't push for citizenship. Just make their stay legal. And give them opportunity to come out of the shadows. And let them go home & return. Make future illegal immigration far more difficult. However, building a wall on the southern border is too humiliating to Hispanics, when Canadians can come & go as they please.
On foreign policy, have a no-fly zone in Syria and create a WELL- PROTECTED SAFE SPACE for the Syrians where all displaced Syrians anywhere can return to. It is quite possible to create that. Fight ISIS/Daesh in all possible ways with a determination to ELIMINATE Daesh.
Of course they aren't perfect. They are human. They've had their share of mistakes & "sins." But their hearts, of all 3 have been in the right place all their lives! That's what's important.
On illegal immigration: Don't push for citizenship. Just make their stay legal. And give them opportunity to come out of the shadows. And let them go home & return. Make future illegal immigration far more difficult. However, building a wall on the southern border is too humiliating to Hispanics, when Canadians can come & go as they please.
On foreign policy, have a no-fly zone in Syria and create a WELL- PROTECTED SAFE SPACE for the Syrians where all displaced Syrians anywhere can return to. It is quite possible to create that. Fight ISIS/Daesh in all possible ways with a determination to ELIMINATE Daesh.
4
Has the author considered the possibility that the Clinton campaign found that the Roosevelt Institute's ideas test well and decide to co-opt them?
Not being mean or unkind here, simply being rational. Bill Clinton (and Hillary by association) is famous for adopting other people's ideas as his own, even his opponents popular stances, as a way of getting all the popular stuff together to build a bigger support base.
All of the eulogizing and lionizing of Ms. Wong seems very distracting from the fundamental question of why Mrs. Clinton suddenly picked these folks as her guiding lights.
Not being mean or unkind here, simply being rational. Bill Clinton (and Hillary by association) is famous for adopting other people's ideas as his own, even his opponents popular stances, as a way of getting all the popular stuff together to build a bigger support base.
All of the eulogizing and lionizing of Ms. Wong seems very distracting from the fundamental question of why Mrs. Clinton suddenly picked these folks as her guiding lights.
2
Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute wrote immediately debunking the press's ubiquitous negative campaigning against Bernie Sanders, that Bernie doesn't know what he's talking about re: Wall Street regulation was completely wrong. Peter Eavis of this newspaper also wrote a blog post (said the wide spread reporting was not completely true).
Unfortunately, the Clinton campaign, surrogates and press simply ignored Mike Konczal and have never corrected this negative campaigning on their part. It was one of the more successful ways that the Clinton campaign, surrogates, and press affected the number of votes that Bernie Sanders got, like misrepresenting single payer health care.
In fact, if this reporter had run his misrepresentation of some economic proposals past some good economists like Mike Konczal, this otherwise good reporting might not have falsely smeared Bernie Sanders, been less obsfucating, (Clinton's moved toward Bernie/Warren regulation of Wall Street) and its potted history might not have spent so much time convincing readers that $$ have nothing to do with past and current economic policy choices.
Unfortunately, the Clinton campaign, surrogates and press simply ignored Mike Konczal and have never corrected this negative campaigning on their part. It was one of the more successful ways that the Clinton campaign, surrogates, and press affected the number of votes that Bernie Sanders got, like misrepresenting single payer health care.
In fact, if this reporter had run his misrepresentation of some economic proposals past some good economists like Mike Konczal, this otherwise good reporting might not have falsely smeared Bernie Sanders, been less obsfucating, (Clinton's moved toward Bernie/Warren regulation of Wall Street) and its potted history might not have spent so much time convincing readers that $$ have nothing to do with past and current economic policy choices.
4
Extreme income and wealth inequality is not the norm under capitalism, because recessions and financial failures NORMALLY act to rebalance the system. It is only when cronies use the power of government and the printing press to preserve the status quo that extremes develop. There is a very simple solution to inequality: LET RICH PEOPLE FAIL.
3
Interesting article. Still, the Wong-Roosevelt Institute plan proposes a revolution, a wholesale change in economic and social structures. For most Americans that is scary. We want pragmatic gradualism. By "shooting for the moon" this plan will inevitably fail. And leave disillusion with leaders like Wong. Too much, too soon.
She would much rather attend the parties of the one percent, such as the next Trump wedding. There is a damning editorial of in today's Times of the blatant racism of Trump going back to the 1970s. That blatant racism didn't stop the TV networks from giving him his show and platform to launch his candidacy, but more importantly it didn't stop the "first black president" from playing lots of golf with him and Guiliani or the both Clintons from attending his wedding and having a photo taken in which they are both looking up at him adoringly. If you don't want racists to be president don't fawn over their money and celebrity to sate your ego. If want a champion of the 99 percent don't expect it from somebody who does.
1
The latest polling out of Fort Hays State University shows that Gov. Sam Brownback's approval rating is down to 15%. I point this out because Kansas has been ground zero for the last 5 1/2 years for every bad Republican/libertarian economic idea out there. Tax cuts for the rich have resulted in an effective state tax rate of 11.4% for those in the bottom 20% of income distribution and 3.6% for those in the top 20%. Good schools, good roads and care for the mentally ill and needy are being flushed down the drain while pensions for teachers and civil servants are put at risk, all for bad ideology and bad economics.
A look at Donald Trump's and Paul Ryan's economic plans show exactly the same plan as what's been going on in Kansas, i. e. more tax cuts for rich people.
It will be at least 2 1/2 more years before Brownback and his Koch financed buddies leave Topeka. It may take another generation to put our economic house in order, presuming we can get rid of politicians with the economic philosophy that got us into this mess.
Yes, there's plenty of data to show the failure of Republican/libertarian economics, starting with the state of Kansas.
(Personally, I'm waiting for Sam's approval ratings to get down to the margin of error.)
A look at Donald Trump's and Paul Ryan's economic plans show exactly the same plan as what's been going on in Kansas, i. e. more tax cuts for rich people.
It will be at least 2 1/2 more years before Brownback and his Koch financed buddies leave Topeka. It may take another generation to put our economic house in order, presuming we can get rid of politicians with the economic philosophy that got us into this mess.
Yes, there's plenty of data to show the failure of Republican/libertarian economics, starting with the state of Kansas.
(Personally, I'm waiting for Sam's approval ratings to get down to the margin of error.)
31
"No."
1
Delusional. What on this earth leads these people to think HRC would even attempt to do any of these things? Women's and children's issues, yes. Economic justice? Don't stand on one foot...
31
Wong answered that question quite clearly.
1
The basic problem is not who will take the office but what forestalls threats to the country, indeed to the world; it's clear that capital itself has derailed the working of the system. As H.R.C. and the entire establishment have “promised access to the current system rather than a wholly different one,” there is absolutely no chance for the dying system to revive itself.
Let’s take as an example "infrastructure." If the infrastructure projects were profitable, capital would have muscled in on all the important contracts. But because infrastructure repairs and constructions are highly automated, rate of profit is way down. Arms and weapon systems as investment outlets are notably so profitable due to monopoly that Pentagon’s budgets rarely become plateaued. Another related economic problem to automated production is universal commodity value declines that cause deflation of almost everything on free markets. Cheap money cannot help getting the Long Depression off the hook as the Japanese economy has shown.
A toll to taking emergency measures will have be transfer of the bottom line to the nation-state. Call it the state monopoly capitalism if you like - state-owned productive enterprises regardless of the going rate of profit. Capital that transforms itself into its opposite will unify the society. Of course, this transformation will risk a backlash from the establishment and the powers that be, its attractiveness to the 99% will overbear any resistance by the 1%.
Let’s take as an example "infrastructure." If the infrastructure projects were profitable, capital would have muscled in on all the important contracts. But because infrastructure repairs and constructions are highly automated, rate of profit is way down. Arms and weapon systems as investment outlets are notably so profitable due to monopoly that Pentagon’s budgets rarely become plateaued. Another related economic problem to automated production is universal commodity value declines that cause deflation of almost everything on free markets. Cheap money cannot help getting the Long Depression off the hook as the Japanese economy has shown.
A toll to taking emergency measures will have be transfer of the bottom line to the nation-state. Call it the state monopoly capitalism if you like - state-owned productive enterprises regardless of the going rate of profit. Capital that transforms itself into its opposite will unify the society. Of course, this transformation will risk a backlash from the establishment and the powers that be, its attractiveness to the 99% will overbear any resistance by the 1%.
7
Infrastructure projects ARE profitable, if we keep in mind land value. The Jubilee subway line in London, for example, increased the value of the land it served by more than the cost of the project.
The question is whether the community ought to be collecting more of that land value for public purposes, or whether it should generously keep giving that away to fortunate landholders and ask a pittance in property taxes in return.
And maintaining existing infrastructure is equally important for maintain current land values. Therefore, collecting the economic rent for public purposes is logical and just.
Milton Friedman called it the "least bad" tax. Joe Stiglitz knows it to be far better than "least bad."
Natural Public Revenue. Let's stop permitting its privatization by rent-seekers --- active or passive!
The question is whether the community ought to be collecting more of that land value for public purposes, or whether it should generously keep giving that away to fortunate landholders and ask a pittance in property taxes in return.
And maintaining existing infrastructure is equally important for maintain current land values. Therefore, collecting the economic rent for public purposes is logical and just.
Milton Friedman called it the "least bad" tax. Joe Stiglitz knows it to be far better than "least bad."
Natural Public Revenue. Let's stop permitting its privatization by rent-seekers --- active or passive!
18
I see a lot of truly ignorant comments here that consist of highly dubious assumptions about Hillary and a complete lack of political reality. Here's a thought for those of you so judgmental of her. What do you suppose it would be like with President Trump? In case you aren't up for the challenge, let me just inform you that it would make Hillary look like a political saint.
This is why Trump is even within 10 points of her in polls: ignorant voters who have highly exaggerated issues with Hillary. You want untrustworthy? Trump is a monument to dishonesty, a narcissist bully and someone who only pretends to care about anyone but himself. He wants to undermine everything you care about.
Relative to him, Hillary is a raving progressive, if you even know what that really is. Her track record for the average person is everything Trump's is not. Get off your misinformed backsides and vote for her...or he will be your president.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
This is why Trump is even within 10 points of her in polls: ignorant voters who have highly exaggerated issues with Hillary. You want untrustworthy? Trump is a monument to dishonesty, a narcissist bully and someone who only pretends to care about anyone but himself. He wants to undermine everything you care about.
Relative to him, Hillary is a raving progressive, if you even know what that really is. Her track record for the average person is everything Trump's is not. Get off your misinformed backsides and vote for her...or he will be your president.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
45
What are you worried about?
Us progressive voters are a tiny, insignificant minority that the Democratic Party can afford to ignore and insult (as they've been doing since 1992).
You don't need us. You can get more votes by moving to the "center," right?
Us progressive voters are a tiny, insignificant minority that the Democratic Party can afford to ignore and insult (as they've been doing since 1992).
You don't need us. You can get more votes by moving to the "center," right?
22
Norman, You should read Eduardo B's comment just before yours. Your comment sounds like the wail of someone who pays attention to real politics rarely. As you may understand the electorate is something like a bell curve, with the most liberal (like me) off on one end and the far right (seems like a lot these days) on the other end. Any party that aid too much attention to the extremes (as the Repubs did last two presidential races) would soon be out of business. Serious progressive like HIllary and Sanders are always looking for either the right issue to get a majority behind or in lieu of that a safe state to hail from (VT is safe even without gerrymandering). If you are indeed ready to make some contribution and not just whine you need to be pushing for the issue that progressives can win on. Minimum wage, progressive taxation, etc. seem ripe to succeed these days but need lots of help from highly vocal voters. If you have trouble picking a good project try looking at what Elizabeth Warren is working on.
1
Firstly, you fit in right with those you decry of "truly ignorant comments that consist of highly dubious assumptions", etc etc... But personal critiques aside, let us address your arguments:
Hillary is more progressive than Trump: That does not mean she will solve the long-term problems we have in our economy, does it? If one does not truly believe in what one is practicing, it shows in the results. Consider 8 years of Obama, who is clearly a lot more progressive than Hillary, has not produced the long-term changes we need in our economy. If anything, his dithering on economic issues has led to Donald Trump's populism and success. He had an FDR moment and he did not take it. (I sympathize with him since he faced so many simultaneous crises, but still he passed on the moment by deferring to Geithner and Summers and not Volker and Stiglitz.)
"Get off your misinformed backsides and vote for her." : that attitude is what has got us in this position where labor voters are going to vote for Trump bcos they think he will bring manufacturing jobs back, build a beautiful wall, keep the Mexicans out, work some voodoo with Muslims, etc etc...
If people had given more thought to Bernie's arguments, we would have had a REAL debate and not be in the horrible situation of arguing who is the worse candidate and who is voting for the worst candidate by voting for a lesser-know but honest candidate like Jill Stein or Gary Johnson.
Eclectic Pragmatist? No, Elitist polemicist is more apt.
Hillary is more progressive than Trump: That does not mean she will solve the long-term problems we have in our economy, does it? If one does not truly believe in what one is practicing, it shows in the results. Consider 8 years of Obama, who is clearly a lot more progressive than Hillary, has not produced the long-term changes we need in our economy. If anything, his dithering on economic issues has led to Donald Trump's populism and success. He had an FDR moment and he did not take it. (I sympathize with him since he faced so many simultaneous crises, but still he passed on the moment by deferring to Geithner and Summers and not Volker and Stiglitz.)
"Get off your misinformed backsides and vote for her." : that attitude is what has got us in this position where labor voters are going to vote for Trump bcos they think he will bring manufacturing jobs back, build a beautiful wall, keep the Mexicans out, work some voodoo with Muslims, etc etc...
If people had given more thought to Bernie's arguments, we would have had a REAL debate and not be in the horrible situation of arguing who is the worse candidate and who is voting for the worst candidate by voting for a lesser-know but honest candidate like Jill Stein or Gary Johnson.
Eclectic Pragmatist? No, Elitist polemicist is more apt.
3
Terrific article with insightful perspective into the economic and social issues hurting so many, and the progressives efforts to organize to effect real change.
I agree with Wong that it is hard to know how progressively Hillary will govern, although her history and current expressions offer hope on domestic issues. Things are so complicated and economically intertwined in foreign affairs that will be a murkier area that hopefully doesn't interfere with domestic progress.
But I do think that Hilary in campaigning is most influenced to be cautious because breaking the glass ceiling to give us a first woman President is her uppermost concern. Winning the nomination has already removed some of the pressures of that concern as well as Trump as the opponent.
I think that what Bernie Sanders has done in showing how much of the electorate has moved and energized behind progressive ideas has been very helpful in allowing Hillary to be more progressive, an inclination I think is in her political philosophy. And she will want to be, as the first woman President, a significant agent of progressive change.
Hopefully her experience and pragmatic side can work through the political resistance to move things along toward these progressive goals. How much the Republicans succeed in bogging her down as they have under Obama and Bill Clinton will be important. But she wants to have an administration of significant accomplishments as her legacy and that of the first woman President.
I agree with Wong that it is hard to know how progressively Hillary will govern, although her history and current expressions offer hope on domestic issues. Things are so complicated and economically intertwined in foreign affairs that will be a murkier area that hopefully doesn't interfere with domestic progress.
But I do think that Hilary in campaigning is most influenced to be cautious because breaking the glass ceiling to give us a first woman President is her uppermost concern. Winning the nomination has already removed some of the pressures of that concern as well as Trump as the opponent.
I think that what Bernie Sanders has done in showing how much of the electorate has moved and energized behind progressive ideas has been very helpful in allowing Hillary to be more progressive, an inclination I think is in her political philosophy. And she will want to be, as the first woman President, a significant agent of progressive change.
Hopefully her experience and pragmatic side can work through the political resistance to move things along toward these progressive goals. How much the Republicans succeed in bogging her down as they have under Obama and Bill Clinton will be important. But she wants to have an administration of significant accomplishments as her legacy and that of the first woman President.
12
To answer the question, no she will not.
Hillary Clinton's overall political policy positions make her the equivalent of a moderate republican, that is not a progressive bone in her body.
Hillary Clinton's overall political policy positions make her the equivalent of a moderate republican, that is not a progressive bone in her body.
22
Have you ever actually worked with her on progressive issues or is this what someone told you about her? Sad to have so many low information voters dislike Hillary.
1
Optimism will flourish within the 99 percenters as Hillary Clinton accepts a new economic wave sweeping over America. She is a pragmatic public figure who genuinely listens to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. The unfortunate system of electing a U.S. President reinforced by citizens united, gives little room for Secretary Clinton like President Obama to ignore big donations from banks and corporations. Once elected, striving to change the current system and turning toward economic equality will signify real systemic change. Secretary Clinton is in touch and recognizes the unfair advantage the wealthy have over the bottom 99 percent. I believe that this election is about inclusion, economic equality and the ability to show the world that the U.S can and will transition to become a revered symbol of compassion and fortitude. These qualities will bring our country together and help to keep our citizens safe.
10
At the crossroads the third great crisis in our nation's history comes into view. The ordinary citizen reflects how the loudest yelps for liberty may have been heard among the drivers of the African slave --- amid a similar call today for less government from he who would monopolize economic opportunity. In reclaiming a fair shot at the American Dream for future generations of the unborn, the stakes could not be higher. This great crisis may only signal the next important step forward --- progress in the pursuit of happiness. Or perhaps the task of completing our great unfinished business is destined to be mankind’s final stand.
http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2016/06/progress-in-pursuit-of-...
http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2016/06/progress-in-pursuit-of-...
1
Did Hillary not say she would put Bill in charge of the economy?
The question may not be can Hillary become the champion of the 99%, but has Bill become less of a champion of the 1%.
Another appropriate question might be, not if a Clinton administration might adopt the Roosevelt Institute's "Rewriting the Rules" plan or hire the people in the administration that the Institute endorses, but if the Clinton's themselves could be the Roosevelts, Franklin and Eleanor - and Theodor, for that matter.
The question may not be can Hillary become the champion of the 99%, but has Bill become less of a champion of the 1%.
Another appropriate question might be, not if a Clinton administration might adopt the Roosevelt Institute's "Rewriting the Rules" plan or hire the people in the administration that the Institute endorses, but if the Clinton's themselves could be the Roosevelts, Franklin and Eleanor - and Theodor, for that matter.
13
Hillary the progressive champion of the 99%?
hahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahaha
35
Hillary to Wall Street: "Cut it out!"
Boy that showed moral leadership and conviction.......
Then she tee'd up another 20$ million in speeches to Goldman Sachs.
Boy that showed moral leadership and conviction.......
Then she tee'd up another 20$ million in speeches to Goldman Sachs.
30
To my simple mind this election is convoluted.
I party wants the government to become a bigger and bigger business and their candidate is a politician.
The other party wants to shrink the role of government and their candidate is a businessman.
Government today is big business. The politicians have certainly messed it up. For better or worse give a businessman a try. His powers are limited but he see the world in a different light.
I party wants the government to become a bigger and bigger business and their candidate is a politician.
The other party wants to shrink the role of government and their candidate is a businessman.
Government today is big business. The politicians have certainly messed it up. For better or worse give a businessman a try. His powers are limited but he see the world in a different light.
7
No. Hillary cannot become a Progressive. SHe sold out long ago to the Military/
Industrial complex, and she owes them big time. She also is tone deaf and chose a pro- trade agreement vice presidential running mate. She has done
very little to address the real concerns of our country... income disparity, private
prisons, a military heavy budget, free education, etc., trade agreements that
cripple the workers, failing infrastructure,corrupt pharmaceuticals. No, Hillary is not a Progressive.
Industrial complex, and she owes them big time. She also is tone deaf and chose a pro- trade agreement vice presidential running mate. She has done
very little to address the real concerns of our country... income disparity, private
prisons, a military heavy budget, free education, etc., trade agreements that
cripple the workers, failing infrastructure,corrupt pharmaceuticals. No, Hillary is not a Progressive.
13
"Could Hillary Clinton Become the Champion of the 99 Percent?"
That's the silliest question I've ever heard. The whole purpose of the Clintonist wing of the "Democratic" Party is to insure that the 99% are kept safely away from power, so that the corporate thefts committed by the Clintons' bankster and war-thief overlords can continue undisturbed. This "coalition of progressives" is really a cabal of propagandists aiming at fooling the unwary into falling in line behind the same tired corporatist agenda that has wrecked our economy and beggared the middle and working classes. Sheepdogs, in other words. But the arrogant DNC/Clintonistas don't get it; the populist surge, having been denied by the Democrats, is likely to break through with the Republicans, and may well result in President Donald Trump.
As for me: There is only one honest candidate left in the race, and I will support her:
JILL STEIN '16
That's the silliest question I've ever heard. The whole purpose of the Clintonist wing of the "Democratic" Party is to insure that the 99% are kept safely away from power, so that the corporate thefts committed by the Clintons' bankster and war-thief overlords can continue undisturbed. This "coalition of progressives" is really a cabal of propagandists aiming at fooling the unwary into falling in line behind the same tired corporatist agenda that has wrecked our economy and beggared the middle and working classes. Sheepdogs, in other words. But the arrogant DNC/Clintonistas don't get it; the populist surge, having been denied by the Democrats, is likely to break through with the Republicans, and may well result in President Donald Trump.
As for me: There is only one honest candidate left in the race, and I will support her:
JILL STEIN '16
14
Thank you for this long and thoughtful article. It's reassuring to know that progressive thinkers like Wong are organized and influential in official Democratic circles. This gives me hope that Clinton will move in the right direction, at least to some extent, whereas we know her GOP opponent never will.
12
Let's see:
- Bill repealed Glass Steagall
- Bill pushed the 1994 Crime Bill through
- Bill signed the 1996 welfare reform bill
- Hillary got paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, to deliver speeches to Goldman Sachs (transcripts not available).
- The Clintons have made hundreds of millions of dollars, through speeches and appearances, since they left the White House.
- Neither have ever held any sort of middle-class jobs.
Yeah, she's primed to be the champion of the 99%....
- Bill repealed Glass Steagall
- Bill pushed the 1994 Crime Bill through
- Bill signed the 1996 welfare reform bill
- Hillary got paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, to deliver speeches to Goldman Sachs (transcripts not available).
- The Clintons have made hundreds of millions of dollars, through speeches and appearances, since they left the White House.
- Neither have ever held any sort of middle-class jobs.
Yeah, she's primed to be the champion of the 99%....
30
And, if indeed Bill Clinton has any responsibility for the US economy again, what then?
It appears that the author and the NYTs has decided to anoint the Roosevelt Institute as a "legitimate" voice of the 'left' as they continue the myth that the neoliberal Center for American Progress - started by Clinton protégée Podesta - is also a left think tank'. Furthermore, suggesting that CAP's proposals are in line with those of FDR and the New Deal is nonsense, given CAP's bias for private sector fixes to social and economic problems and it's opposition to significantly expanding the government funded social programs. More neoliberal 'tricle down lite' to insure that the current structure supporting social and economic inequality isn't threatened.
There are other organizations researching economic and social policy from a left-liberal and socialist perspective, like the well known Economic Policy Institute and lesser known Hampton Institute. While they may not have the support of a Stiglitz, they and others have a long record of producing quality research and policy proposals.
Finally, the author and the NYT needs to be more careful in how they identify the people they speak with. David Rolf is the president of the SEIU Local 775 in Washington State, not the SEIU as stated in the article.
There are other organizations researching economic and social policy from a left-liberal and socialist perspective, like the well known Economic Policy Institute and lesser known Hampton Institute. While they may not have the support of a Stiglitz, they and others have a long record of producing quality research and policy proposals.
Finally, the author and the NYT needs to be more careful in how they identify the people they speak with. David Rolf is the president of the SEIU Local 775 in Washington State, not the SEIU as stated in the article.
10
Only the American public has the ability to hold HRC's feet to the fire during the campaign and after she, hopefully, wins.
She will never "surprise on the upside" and do one iota more than is politically necessary. It's important to remember that.
Another thing to remember is that we wouldn't even be having this discussion if it weren't for Bernie Sanders. Thank goodness he stayed in it as long as was humanly possible!
BTW, is it de rigeur for NYT reporters to take a swipe at Bernie in every article that mentions him?
10:28AM
She will never "surprise on the upside" and do one iota more than is politically necessary. It's important to remember that.
Another thing to remember is that we wouldn't even be having this discussion if it weren't for Bernie Sanders. Thank goodness he stayed in it as long as was humanly possible!
BTW, is it de rigeur for NYT reporters to take a swipe at Bernie in every article that mentions him?
10:28AM
15
Hillary, a millionaire, can become the champion of the 99 percent however Trump cannot become the champion of the 99 percent because he is a millionaire. Love the "logic" in that thinking!
15
All I can say is I am in love with Felicia Wong and sincerely wish she had run for president. Now there's a woman who is, unlike Hillary, an ideal model for the women's movement!
14
The problem, however, is that she doesn't for a moment consider that some of her proposals will not work or even may harm the economy. The fake "think tanks" of the left (like Wong's) are no less in bubbles--thus insulated from healthy discussion-- than Cato and American Enterprise Institute.
1
Ha. Ha. Ha. There will be some minor changes, social issues mostly, sop for the masses but the money and power will keep getting sucked up to the top. Historically, massive social unrest will be the only way to change this equation.
19
One wonders why the Times printed this piece.
The chance that Ms. Clinton will "become the champion of the 99 percent" asymptotically approaches zero. One might as well wait in expectation that a messiah will take the presidential oath next 20th of January to lead the meek and the humble to the promised land. This article is pure wishful thinking that requires ignoring the history of the Clinton wing of American politics. Ms. Clinton will be the champion of the Clintons and of those rich and powerful allies who will help her be the champion the Clintons. To hope for something more benign than this goes beyond the wildest pipe dream. One might as well ask whether Caligula or Nero would have championed the poor in Rome if they had been elected.
The chance that Ms. Clinton will "become the champion of the 99 percent" asymptotically approaches zero. One might as well wait in expectation that a messiah will take the presidential oath next 20th of January to lead the meek and the humble to the promised land. This article is pure wishful thinking that requires ignoring the history of the Clinton wing of American politics. Ms. Clinton will be the champion of the Clintons and of those rich and powerful allies who will help her be the champion the Clintons. To hope for something more benign than this goes beyond the wildest pipe dream. One might as well ask whether Caligula or Nero would have championed the poor in Rome if they had been elected.
25
But of course Roman emperors were responsive to the clamor of the poor: they gave 'em "bread and circuses" after all. We can expect similar gestures from Hillary.
2
"Could" is not the correct word. She is part of the 1 %
14
Actually Hillary Clinton is all about the 100%...
100 % for Hillary Clinton and all others are just pawns
100 % for Hillary Clinton and all others are just pawns
22
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are both running for president and Donald Trump is by almost every measure disqualifyingly unacceptable. This organization, and to an extent this article, with no other practical alternative available, seeks to attach lofty and detailed progressive thinking and remedies to the politics of Hillary Clinton. But the American political system is a pig. The group is vainly trying to put lipstick where it belongs, on the lips of the pig, with Donald Trump making so many unacceptable noises over at the other end of the pig. But the pig is still a pig. When Tim Kaine was announced as Hillary's running mate, he was at a fundraiser in Newport Rhode Island speaking to the 1 percent.
14
H-Rod will talk 99% and act 1%. With Killer Kaine at her side, international capita will be safe and offshoring of well-paying American jobs will continue. The minimum wage, that is, the wage paid to those who finally found work in the low-wage fast food and health care industries, will remain too low to support a family. The very people that H-Rod claims to support,e.g., Black and female Americans, are over-represented in these industries, but when Sanders mentioned a $15 minimum, H-Rod looked like he was talking a language she didn't understand - and it was a language she didn't understand!
H-Rod is supported by well-educated White females and establishment Black "leaders;" she is on record that Chelsea, her passion in life (besides the presidency) should be on the same pedestal as her erstwhile friends, the Trump girls. Why not write an article that is honest about H-Rod and the Democratic Party - its elected officials and the DNC? We don't need willful. self-deluded nonsense from a nobody who wants to believe she knows an "unknowable person." Anyone who is as famous as H-Rod, and who has been in the public eye for a quarter century, and has managed to hide her true personna from the world is someone who cannot be trusted. Period!
H-Rod is supported by well-educated White females and establishment Black "leaders;" she is on record that Chelsea, her passion in life (besides the presidency) should be on the same pedestal as her erstwhile friends, the Trump girls. Why not write an article that is honest about H-Rod and the Democratic Party - its elected officials and the DNC? We don't need willful. self-deluded nonsense from a nobody who wants to believe she knows an "unknowable person." Anyone who is as famous as H-Rod, and who has been in the public eye for a quarter century, and has managed to hide her true personna from the world is someone who cannot be trusted. Period!
19
The Senator from Goldman Sachs champion the 99 percent? Dream on.
27
No! That would undermine the whole Democratic party strategy for completely subduing the majority that they despise and fear - the middle class no matter what its racial or ethnic makeup. Remember Marx said world communism would not be able to control all of humanity until the self sufficient middle class was destroyed. The democrats need to import ever more illiterate bound to be poor immigrants and shove ever more citizens into poverty via off shoring trade deals and on shoring mass immigration in order to keep the masses desperately dependent on the democratic political brand of doling out just enough social services crumbs to keep them alive to vote for democrats in the next election. Please note Obama's anemic support for a trivial minimum wage rise to ~$10 phased in over so many years its value would have been eaten by inflation. The Democrats need to maintain the status quo of many 10's of millions stuck in a "low wage economy" that makes ever more people into powerless submissive beggars and simultaneously maintains the "jobs magnet" for illiterate illegal immigrants that make the best exploitable victims, pawns and mercenaries of all - that can be used against whats left of the American citizen middle class.
14
It's the math stupid.
Or rather, it's the lack thereof. If you are going to have this conversation, look at the actual numbers, and understand that it isn't 1% v 99% by any stretch of the imagination.
A substantial part of the population benefits from one monopoly or another. There is no unified constituency for change, rather there are interest groups that will fight (and vote) to maintain their privilege. I've asked the following many times, as an example, and never had an answer:
Do you really expect a candidate for President or Congress to run on this "Medicare for All" platform:
-If you have employer-based health insurance, we will take it away.
-We will raise your taxes.
-We will reduce your effective compensation.
-And if you are in the healthcare business-- doctors, nurses, and so on, you will probably take a substantial pay cut as well.
?? Anyone??
And this applies to more than one constituency, obviously. It's easy to say "politicians are bought and paid for", but the reality is, it's the public that votes. Add up the percentages who will see their ricebowl reduced or broken by change, and their status (relative to the adjacent deciles) diminished, and "populism" works both ways.
In the end, it will be a slow process of accommodating and compromising and doing distasteful things to make progress. Let's stop with the magical thinking.
Or rather, it's the lack thereof. If you are going to have this conversation, look at the actual numbers, and understand that it isn't 1% v 99% by any stretch of the imagination.
A substantial part of the population benefits from one monopoly or another. There is no unified constituency for change, rather there are interest groups that will fight (and vote) to maintain their privilege. I've asked the following many times, as an example, and never had an answer:
Do you really expect a candidate for President or Congress to run on this "Medicare for All" platform:
-If you have employer-based health insurance, we will take it away.
-We will raise your taxes.
-We will reduce your effective compensation.
-And if you are in the healthcare business-- doctors, nurses, and so on, you will probably take a substantial pay cut as well.
?? Anyone??
And this applies to more than one constituency, obviously. It's easy to say "politicians are bought and paid for", but the reality is, it's the public that votes. Add up the percentages who will see their ricebowl reduced or broken by change, and their status (relative to the adjacent deciles) diminished, and "populism" works both ways.
In the end, it will be a slow process of accommodating and compromising and doing distasteful things to make progress. Let's stop with the magical thinking.
15
"-If you have employer-based health insurance, we will take it away.
-We will raise your taxes.
-We will reduce your effective compensation.
-And if you are in the healthcare business-- doctors, nurses, and so on, you will probably take a substantial pay cut as well."
----All of which is not the whole picture...and most of which is just rubbish.
-We will raise your taxes.
-We will reduce your effective compensation.
-And if you are in the healthcare business-- doctors, nurses, and so on, you will probably take a substantial pay cut as well."
----All of which is not the whole picture...and most of which is just rubbish.
Other health care policy experts, whom you can read on the Physicians for a National Health Program web site http://pnhp.org have pointed out that a Medicre for All program will lower the total costs of health care.
Canada for example spends roughly half as much for health care as we do, in round numbers $5,000 Canada vs. $10,000 US per year.
If people can't understand that it's cheaper to pay $5,000 in taxes vs. $10,000 in private insurance premiums, then they need an education.
And they're certainly not competent to go shopping for the best deals as medical "consumers."
Canada for example spends roughly half as much for health care as we do, in round numbers $5,000 Canada vs. $10,000 US per year.
If people can't understand that it's cheaper to pay $5,000 in taxes vs. $10,000 in private insurance premiums, then they need an education.
And they're certainly not competent to go shopping for the best deals as medical "consumers."
1
Your point is really only that the status quo is the status quo because it has support by those who feel they are beneficiaries of the status quo. And in our system of winner take all, a bare majority is all that's necessary to claim authority to create the status quo. The political history of the US has been rapid changes that occur infrequently and seemingly out of nowhere. The argument for gradualism is essentially an argument for the status quo because actual change occurs suddenly and sharply.
1
That is the most turgid, over-long expose of nonsense signifying nothing that I have ever read. It aggrandizes Felicia Wong, a person of no apparent consequence, because she's got a list of people she wants Hillary Clinton to appoint but has no idea whether she will or will not appoint them. It writes Bernie Sanders out of history because he apparently doesn't have the list. And elevates this Roosevelt institute to national importance for no discernible reason whatsoever other than the fact that it has held a bunch of meetings. In the end there is no indication whatsoever of what Hillary Clinton will do, but somehow Felicia Wong has leapfrogged her way into a position of national economic prominence because the author has managed to wear down the reader's resistance with a prolix barrage of non-information. If this is what is supposed to change the world, don't hold you breath.
30
@Robert: I wish I had written your comment. The article, a lengthy one in the Magazine, indicates the extent to which the NYT has fallen.
9
Hillary is an advocate for hillary.
Has she really ever really met anyone in the 99%? Upper middle class parents, ivy league education, politically connected husband, six figure salary and then life in governors mansions and white houses. Book deals and speaking fees.
I'm not begrudging her her success, but its always interesting that the dilettantes from the left are always portrayed as being so knowledgeable about the people that always live on the other side of town from their gated communities. That why they throw their fundraisers full of rich white folks bidding on luxury items that cost real people a years salary to "help" the underprivileged. They've never actually had any experience with them.
Has she really ever really met anyone in the 99%? Upper middle class parents, ivy league education, politically connected husband, six figure salary and then life in governors mansions and white houses. Book deals and speaking fees.
I'm not begrudging her her success, but its always interesting that the dilettantes from the left are always portrayed as being so knowledgeable about the people that always live on the other side of town from their gated communities. That why they throw their fundraisers full of rich white folks bidding on luxury items that cost real people a years salary to "help" the underprivileged. They've never actually had any experience with them.
26
I am sure you're not suggesting that Trump has a closer connection to the blue-collar working classes! Especially while he does interviews sitting in (literally) a gold throne!!
5
Hillary's strategy has been brilliant! How else could she become a "traitor to her class" without first becoming one?
8
Inequality is a choice, not an inevitable byproduct of technology, globalization and the uneven distribution of personal virtue.
The longstanding notion of an economic trade-off between growth and equality is a fiction.
"Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy" is a concept even Bernie supporters could get behind as a "political revolution".
Do it Hillary and Tim, make it your centerpiece.
The longstanding notion of an economic trade-off between growth and equality is a fiction.
"Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy" is a concept even Bernie supporters could get behind as a "political revolution".
Do it Hillary and Tim, make it your centerpiece.
29
They won't - and you know it. The rules were re-written by Reagan and Slick Willy. Not even the Great recession had any effect on them; indeed, the bank bail out had the effect of reinforcing these rules. The fear of Trumpence seems to have created a plague of wishful thinking on the part of "progressives."
6
Inequality (and all accompanying ills) is a byproduct of CAPITALISM!!!
As long as it exists - where creating profit trumps all - peace, safety, health, environment etc etc - there will be greed and destruction.
And.. I had to re-read the line 3 times to see if I missed something really profound, re what Wong heard in the car!
"The middle class need more growth and fairness"
"Prosperity can't just be for CEOs "!!
Wow.
Hasn't Bernie (and many other socialists) been saying this for years!!?
HRC has had to tack way left to keep up with (and beat) him.
Wonder if and how she'll stay there if she wins.
As long as it exists - where creating profit trumps all - peace, safety, health, environment etc etc - there will be greed and destruction.
And.. I had to re-read the line 3 times to see if I missed something really profound, re what Wong heard in the car!
"The middle class need more growth and fairness"
"Prosperity can't just be for CEOs "!!
Wow.
Hasn't Bernie (and many other socialists) been saying this for years!!?
HRC has had to tack way left to keep up with (and beat) him.
Wonder if and how she'll stay there if she wins.
2
Tim Kaine is a Right To Work For Less advocate. I don't think the 1% will see anything they won't like while he's around.
14
@Maxwell: You have Killer Kaine right. As for H-Rod, what did she tell Wall Street in those alleged speeches? Were they speeches or Q/As in which she told them what she would do to maintains the status quo in the regime that Slick Willy gave them. The Klinton-Kaine ticket is as much a fraud as the Trumpence.
5
Clinton said she'd release her private sector speeches when DT releases his. You know the ones he made up to 1.5 million dollars each ??
As a fifty-eight year old life-long NYT reader two things occur to me:
The situation we find ourselves in was created by specific legislation, starting with Reagan's tax cuts for the well-off. If we simply un-do all of that mischief we're likely to improve our situation.
And also, all of our allies in the post-industrial parts of the world have been using, and perfecting by trial and error, just the sort of economic/social justice legislative programs that this article extols. We should do what they did. We don't need think-tanks. We need leadership.
(A good place to start might be the sort of rhetorical control that the Republicans are such experts at. You know, the "welfare queen" nonsense, or referring to the people who shipped all the jobs over-seas as "job creators"...
Individual Republicans don't get creative about expressing themselves. They all use the same words, over and over, 'til even the dimmest voter knows them by heart.)
The situation we find ourselves in was created by specific legislation, starting with Reagan's tax cuts for the well-off. If we simply un-do all of that mischief we're likely to improve our situation.
And also, all of our allies in the post-industrial parts of the world have been using, and perfecting by trial and error, just the sort of economic/social justice legislative programs that this article extols. We should do what they did. We don't need think-tanks. We need leadership.
(A good place to start might be the sort of rhetorical control that the Republicans are such experts at. You know, the "welfare queen" nonsense, or referring to the people who shipped all the jobs over-seas as "job creators"...
Individual Republicans don't get creative about expressing themselves. They all use the same words, over and over, 'til even the dimmest voter knows them by heart.)
41
LS - "Individual Republicans don't get creative about expressing themselves. They all use the same words, over and over, 'til even the dimmest voter knows them by heart.)"
You do realize that individual Democrats do exactly the same thing, proof of which exists in these comments day after day. I believe that's called politics as usual which is why it would be nice, for a change, to not have a politician in the White House.
You do realize that individual Democrats do exactly the same thing, proof of which exists in these comments day after day. I believe that's called politics as usual which is why it would be nice, for a change, to not have a politician in the White House.
3
If we could only get rid of Bill Clintons biggest blunders like Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation.
The Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. In 1995, Clinton loosened housing rules with Community Reinvestment Act, adding pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods.
The sitting Secretary of State and a Foundation ran by her husband collected millions from foreign governments, dictators.
The Clinton Foundation paid Sidney Blumenthal $200,000 a month to advise Hillary Clinton on State Department matters. According to The Hill, the FBI has yet to rule out the Clinton Foundation‘s influence on Hillary Clinton‘s State Department, as there have been multiple conflicts of interest between the two.
An investigation by Vox revealed at least 181 Clinton Foundation donors lobbied the State Department while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state. UBS, for example, paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million in speaking fees shortly after Hillary Clinton helped the Swiss bank settle a lawsuit with the IRS—for a fraction of what the IRS initially sought.
Lawrence White, an economist at New York University, points to the crisis’ biggest culprits and allies with the Clintons and Obama: firms such as Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs and AIG, to name a few. What most do not realize is they supported Bill Clinton, Obama now Hillary, all Democrats.
The Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. In 1995, Clinton loosened housing rules with Community Reinvestment Act, adding pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods.
The sitting Secretary of State and a Foundation ran by her husband collected millions from foreign governments, dictators.
The Clinton Foundation paid Sidney Blumenthal $200,000 a month to advise Hillary Clinton on State Department matters. According to The Hill, the FBI has yet to rule out the Clinton Foundation‘s influence on Hillary Clinton‘s State Department, as there have been multiple conflicts of interest between the two.
An investigation by Vox revealed at least 181 Clinton Foundation donors lobbied the State Department while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state. UBS, for example, paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million in speaking fees shortly after Hillary Clinton helped the Swiss bank settle a lawsuit with the IRS—for a fraction of what the IRS initially sought.
Lawrence White, an economist at New York University, points to the crisis’ biggest culprits and allies with the Clintons and Obama: firms such as Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs and AIG, to name a few. What most do not realize is they supported Bill Clinton, Obama now Hillary, all Democrats.
11
My concern is too many people will vote for Hillary blinded by two things.
First Hillary a women. It's like saying, I voted for Obama, because he is black.
Second, she is experienced. It's like saying, I voted for Al Capone, because he was smart, a crime boss who had experience in NY and Chicago.
Granted, Hillary is both experienced and a women, but neither qualifies her to be president. We need a president who represents all of America and not just corporations to get campaign money and entitlement programs that keep people asking for more just to get votes.
Many of those from Wall Street supporting Hillary have been involved with the Clintons since 1992 when a network of young bankers and investors mobilized to raise money for Bill Clinton’s first White House run, including some who went on to serve in his and Obama’s administrations.
We need a leader who at least knows American has serious problems needing fixed. Before you can begin to fix something you need to know it's broken and needs fixed or things will not change. I don't know if Trump can fix anything, or if he will be working for or with corporations, but at least he recognized the reality that we have problems. I don't know if Hillary or Trump is right for this country, but I do know America must change and that means changing how we vote.
First Hillary a women. It's like saying, I voted for Obama, because he is black.
Second, she is experienced. It's like saying, I voted for Al Capone, because he was smart, a crime boss who had experience in NY and Chicago.
Granted, Hillary is both experienced and a women, but neither qualifies her to be president. We need a president who represents all of America and not just corporations to get campaign money and entitlement programs that keep people asking for more just to get votes.
Many of those from Wall Street supporting Hillary have been involved with the Clintons since 1992 when a network of young bankers and investors mobilized to raise money for Bill Clinton’s first White House run, including some who went on to serve in his and Obama’s administrations.
We need a leader who at least knows American has serious problems needing fixed. Before you can begin to fix something you need to know it's broken and needs fixed or things will not change. I don't know if Trump can fix anything, or if he will be working for or with corporations, but at least he recognized the reality that we have problems. I don't know if Hillary or Trump is right for this country, but I do know America must change and that means changing how we vote.
22
I am a white male, retired, nearly 70 years old. I voted twice for Obama not because he was black, nor despite his being black - I voted for him because he was the best candidate. I will vote for Clinton because she is the best candidate.
This country is in need of reform, but reformation does not have to be chaotic revolution. The Republican Party's policies and platform are regressive, and they have chosen a disgraceful candidate to lead the party. The Democratic Party offers a progressive agenda albeit one that will take time and immense effort to achieve.
This country is in need of reform, but reformation does not have to be chaotic revolution. The Republican Party's policies and platform are regressive, and they have chosen a disgraceful candidate to lead the party. The Democratic Party offers a progressive agenda albeit one that will take time and immense effort to achieve.
20
Just look at how many people from Bill Clinton's Administration went afterwards to become high ranking senior officers at some of the banks and have made hundreds of millions of dollars...
Does the name Robert Rubin ring any bells? And look at his contribution and profiting from the 2008 Financial Crisis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rubin
Does the name Robert Rubin ring any bells? And look at his contribution and profiting from the 2008 Financial Crisis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rubin
16
If you need help in making up your mind, you should read the Republican Platform, adopted at the convention last week. Then, if you think DT is "...right for this country..." you are at least an informed voter. Also, anything that stops you from sitting on a one-man seesaw probably will also help.
.
.
The Clintons have come to epitomize the Cadillac Liberal wing of the party but it can be said that she has developed a lifetime skill set in the art of politicking. If she wins it is hopeful she can use some of that skill set for the people in the middle of the country.
10
Yes,Hillary Clinton will turn into Mother Teresa on midnight,of the day before becoming president,Wall Street will stop rigging the stock market and the Federal Reserve will stop printing monopoly dollars ,also pigs will fly in 2017!
9
Answering the headline question is easier when it is phrased as follows:
What is in it for her?
Next question please. Topics include Israeli-Palestinian peace re-re-re-renegotiation, NATO expansion eastward, cleaning up ISIS mess, and leaving the Middle East to grieve for the next century.
What is in it for her?
Next question please. Topics include Israeli-Palestinian peace re-re-re-renegotiation, NATO expansion eastward, cleaning up ISIS mess, and leaving the Middle East to grieve for the next century.
4
The entire 99% meme is quite idiotic. If you're in the 90-99 tranche should you rejoice? I don't think so. We already have the 47% who pay no income tax, and those are the people Wong and her allies need to concern themselves with. Creating jobs rather than redistributing wealth will be a better path forward.
And for the record, I was thrilled to read about Stiglitz's sartorial style. Whether he's in Clinton's WH staff plans is unclear, but my guess is he'll be ignored whether in or out.
And for the record, I was thrilled to read about Stiglitz's sartorial style. Whether he's in Clinton's WH staff plans is unclear, but my guess is he'll be ignored whether in or out.
10
Riiight. This article looked interesting in today's paper which called it "The Change Artists" and then said, "Bernie Sanders has argued that only a "political revolution" can empower the 99 percent in Washington, and a coalation of progressive operatives has been building a plan to bring Occupy-style ideas into the mainstream. Will Hillary Clinton get on board?" Then it's the same old tired stuff with inside DC people (including CAP a notable lightweight that got through a section on climate change at a recent annual conference without mentioning 1.5 or 2 degrees). Where are the real progressive organizations and movements -- labor, environmental, climate, food, anti-war, etc. and those who supported Sanders or have a record of pushing from the left? Just more "progressive who likes to get things done" meaning not progressive spin. Come to Philly (or read the #DNCLeaks) for some real insight on both where this country stands and how it's being manipulated. Thanks for being one of the few pro-Hillary articles that accept comments -- so used to being silenced and gaslighted by the DNC, media, Hillary surrogates and her.
7
A vote for Ms. Clinton is also a vote for the 'first man' and a continuation of his legacy. The Clinton family is not part of the 99% . What makes anyone think they will change the inequality precipitated by the repel of the Glass-Steagall Act which in part caused the financial crises of 2008.
10
Umm, how about "No".
7
I'm retired 76 yr. old. I feel better about myself having read & understood this article. Once was a memeber of the Socialist Party USA & now an "Independent", formely Democrat.
What has my statement of self to do with this article?
That there are many former "liberals" hiding as "independents" due to the failures of both political parties. I hope the Rosevelt Forum is successful in
"change the rules" campaign. I will vote & contribute to Hillary campaign.
Maybe change will happen. Tks. for the article to balance the silliness of the RNC.
What has my statement of self to do with this article?
That there are many former "liberals" hiding as "independents" due to the failures of both political parties. I hope the Rosevelt Forum is successful in
"change the rules" campaign. I will vote & contribute to Hillary campaign.
Maybe change will happen. Tks. for the article to balance the silliness of the RNC.
24
Inequality IS the natural result of technology and globalization which is why it needs to be accepted and not tampered with, lest we find ourselves with unintended consequences. What is unnatural is the heavy hand of government artificially realigning the economy to force a leftist outcome.
Inequality is the natural result of predation and exploitation by magnifying small initial differences in power and random luck to huge ones by coercion and extraction of the benefits of others' labor.
5
But, I think you will agree that we maybe, might, could take some land nobody wants and let those less equal build favelas. Then, we just bus them in when we need them to clean toilets and change diapers. When done we bus them back out.
1
Tell me this is irony. Please.
1
So a group of left-leaning special interest groups with no experience in the private economy is going to reinvent the economy? To steal a phrase from Nassim Taleb, this a group of no skin in the game experts.
Whatever shortcomings there is in the US economy today, it is certainly outperforming that of most major democracies. We certainly do not have the unemployment rates of much of Europe. The troubles we have are global in nature, and not caused by rich people rigging the system.
Whatever shortcomings there is in the US economy today, it is certainly outperforming that of most major democracies. We certainly do not have the unemployment rates of much of Europe. The troubles we have are global in nature, and not caused by rich people rigging the system.
2
So by your logic criminals are the best people to hire for law enforcement because they have experience in understanding how criminals think and act. Experience in thievery isn't a good qualification to be in charge of managing the nation's economy.
3
Well she and Bill are 1 percenters themselves so they should have the inside track on the rich.
12
The people rule. If the public comes to support the "Stiglitz" point of view and maintains consistent pressure on the politicians, there will be changes. Otherwise, not. The notion that it all depends on the "right person" in charge is magical thinking, as well as undemocratic.
11
My mom is a liberal feminist who came of age in the 60's, not of the pot-smoking, bra-burning, woodstock-going variety but a truly serious intellectual. She has countless tales of the unabashed gender inequality thrust on women at every turn in those days, even a woman as undeniably intelligent and ambitious as she. She was told in no uncertain terms that many of her life's aspirations were not attainable for a woman and that she should set her sights on the lesser feminine alternative, i.e. you can't be a doctor but you'll make a great nurse someday. My mother has always felt a strong kinship with Hillary, going back to Bill Clinton's arrival on the national political scene in the early 90s, as they no doubt endured many of the same struggles growing up. My mother is convinced that there could not be a better candidate for president than Mrs. Clinton but she is completely blinded to her less admirable qualities as a candidate by the desire to see a woman in the oval office. My mother feels very sure of who Hillary is as a person and that she will lead this country in a bold new direction. I unfortunately share Ms. Wong's view that Hillary is unknowable(those outside our nuclear family likely feel the same way about my mother) but also like Ms. Wong I remain hopeful that once in office she will pursue a progessive economic and social policy agenda.
8
I'm 71, also came of age in the 60's, and also am a liberal feminist. I have watched Hillary's climb toward the presidency with dismay. This woman, acquired most of the "experience" she brags about solely as the spouse of a president. I'm saddened as I read her list of purported accomplishments at how few of them are really hers...what would have qualified her to be a senator except her national exposure as first lady? What did she actually DO at the Children's Legal Defense Fund (besides hobnob with black politicos in DC and write policy papers), why should traveling around the world as First Lady and giving speeches (probably written by others) make you an expert on women's issues? What part of the failed health care initiative qualifies her to be president? She became SOS as a concession by Obama to gain her support after she lost the primary to him-and even if you discount the ridiculous claims of the GOP about Benghazi, and the error of judgement with her email server, its still difficult to claim that she did even an adequate job in foreign affairs.
The feminist part of me bristles at the suggestion that Hillary has worked her way to the top. It just doesn't appear that way to me.
The feminist part of me bristles at the suggestion that Hillary has worked her way to the top. It just doesn't appear that way to me.
10
In a word, no.
14
Hopeful op-ed with all the data and facts and a heroine in Ms. Wong.
We already know what Hillary Clinton is going to do.
Goldman Sachs didn't give her $675k to betray their agenda.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the absolute worst choices the 2 major political parties have tried to ram down our throats yet!
We are going from worst to catastrophe!
This story could have been written in favor of Donald Trump as well not that it would make a difference.
It's better to trust in the Lord than to trust in human beings. Psalm of David
We already know what Hillary Clinton is going to do.
Goldman Sachs didn't give her $675k to betray their agenda.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the absolute worst choices the 2 major political parties have tried to ram down our throats yet!
We are going from worst to catastrophe!
This story could have been written in favor of Donald Trump as well not that it would make a difference.
It's better to trust in the Lord than to trust in human beings. Psalm of David
8
I have not doubt the Progressives quoted in the article are very smart, very well educated--and the current embodiment of the quote attributed to Pauline Kael after Richard Nixon won 49 states in 1972: "I can't believe Nixon won. I don't know anybody who voted for him."
Until they understand why so many people who are not rich cast votes that create a Republican majority in both the Senate and the House, and landslide wins for Nixon and Reagan, their pipedreams of "if only Obama or Clinton would speak the language of Occupy Wall Street, the Republicans and the 1% would be crushed" will remain as grandiose and absurd as "I will build a wall which will stop illegal immigration and Mexico will pay for it."
Until they understand why so many people who are not rich cast votes that create a Republican majority in both the Senate and the House, and landslide wins for Nixon and Reagan, their pipedreams of "if only Obama or Clinton would speak the language of Occupy Wall Street, the Republicans and the 1% would be crushed" will remain as grandiose and absurd as "I will build a wall which will stop illegal immigration and Mexico will pay for it."
14
The Republican majorities in Congress aren't indicative of broad public sentiment. In the House, jerrymandering by State legislatures is the only reason And in the Senate, State laws that selectively limit voting access by Democrat constituencies are a big factor as well as the fact that the President is Black. And yes, Republicans are more reliable voters because selfishness and greed are bigger motivators than despair and disempowerment.
4
She could and she is in good shape to make it. Bernie would also have made an excellent choice for vice-pres.
2
If Bernie or Elizabeth Warren were chosen as VP their Senate seats would in the short term go to Republicans. Both are more valuable in the Senate.
9
The most important long piece I've read this year. Clearly puts the superiority of progressive economic thinking in a crystal clear perspective. If a Hillary Clinton administration adopted a fraction of this agenda--but all of its sensibility--Clinton could be destined for the greatness on the economic front that has eluded President Obama.
51
"Could Hillary Clinton Become the Champion of the 99 Percent?"
No. The American people can't possibly be that dumb. Neither candidate is worth wasting a vote on.
No. The American people can't possibly be that dumb. Neither candidate is worth wasting a vote on.
26
Lighten up, light up and vote: Johnson-Weld.
1
A study by professors Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Benjamin I. Page (Northwestern University) found that public opinion has near zero impact on US law. This is the environment Ms. Clinton will have to work in. The 99% probably doesn't stand a chance. I am hoping that a President Clinton will be able to convince the country and the congress of the urgency of addressing climate change and also rebuilding our infrastructure. If she can do these things, she will have hit a home run for the country and its' citizens. It will be a Grand Slam if she is given a democratic congress.
22
I am incredulous at the people who have commented thus far saying how happy they are that Hillary feels this way about the "working classes".
What Angel brought The Light to Hillary all of a sudden?
I just recently posted how I will vote for Gary Johnson; not because i agree with everything he says. I believe he is an honest person (LIKE Bernie, but completely UNLIKE Trump OR Hillary!)
What Angel brought The Light to Hillary all of a sudden?
I just recently posted how I will vote for Gary Johnson; not because i agree with everything he says. I believe he is an honest person (LIKE Bernie, but completely UNLIKE Trump OR Hillary!)
11
You have no real idea of how honest he or Bill Weld are o would be when subject to the type of endless attacks and scrutiny Hillary especially has endured. And the investigations are done for the benefit of folks like you to swallow at l;least enough to be confused over what the problems are and the causes. And the investigations with their witch hunt style questions that do not even care about the answers, but just want to plant the seed of doubt and mistrust in their questions, have produced nothing except this effect among the gullible, especially when combined with relentless distorted attack ads. And while doing this they have hugely wasted time and taxpayer cost and Congressional resources.
And the Republicans are sadly rightly confident the media and extreme internet sites will will pick and advance their aims. These Republicans who believe they have nothing better to do, like finding solutions incredibly pressing problems, than obstruct the work of the government the admit they hate and want to fail. Any former Republican who now calls himself a Libertarian has that same anti government philosophy. and if you think less government corporate regulation, social, consumer and environment protections and isolationist foreign policies are what is needed to deal with the complicated problems we face then you are pat of the problem.
And the Republicans are sadly rightly confident the media and extreme internet sites will will pick and advance their aims. These Republicans who believe they have nothing better to do, like finding solutions incredibly pressing problems, than obstruct the work of the government the admit they hate and want to fail. Any former Republican who now calls himself a Libertarian has that same anti government philosophy. and if you think less government corporate regulation, social, consumer and environment protections and isolationist foreign policies are what is needed to deal with the complicated problems we face then you are pat of the problem.
9
I believe that Hillary will be a great President, a combination of FDR and Eleanor. It is discouraging to see so many naysayers here who have swallowed 30 years of propaganda and are seemingly rooting for her to fail, if only to prove their cynicism correct. Her years of passionate work on behalf of women and children AND NOT on behalf of the 1% demonstrate where her priorities lie, and when she and Tim Kaine get to the White House they will go full tilt on a progressive agenda.
131
Thirty years of propaganda? People did not complain about her favoring banks or war 30 years ago. What are you talking about? Conservatives claimed that she was a leftist in the 1990s due to her priorities at that time. She is not the same person that she was 30 years ago. Her policy priorities changed significantly when she went from being First Lady to Senator. Her work on behalf of women and children for the past 15 years has been only for those in the top 1% of income earners in this country.
8
It is axiomatic that the understanding of any complex system challenges each effected by it. The better understanding individual in any economic game will have an advantage.
For the Rooseveltian liberal, "Equality" is a mythology serving the idea of equivalence of opportunity, not a 1984 identity of outcome. The failure of our leaders to articulate this distinction has led to simplistic thinking that inflames people on the left and the right. For each side it creates a straw man ideal that is never realizable and appears to refrain from rewarding talent and insight differentially in a way that encourages growth of the system. Participants on the right and left who operate with the simplistic mythology can feel betrayed/
The winning candidate politician will govern successfully for the survival and growth of the system by being a sufficiently good teacher/preacher that s/he can evangelize the polity to have faith in the consequences of an action that the polity will support the temporal and financial costs of readjustment.
The prevailing wisdom here is that Trump cannot win. Especially in light of the narrowing polls and the analysis that there is only a 75% likelihood that Clinton will win, this smacks of hubris. I believe the exposition presented in this article illuminates a path forward, but a Robert Krullwich level teacher and speaker, with benefit of graphics may need to deliver the message in a digestible form for this new catechism to assure election/government.
For the Rooseveltian liberal, "Equality" is a mythology serving the idea of equivalence of opportunity, not a 1984 identity of outcome. The failure of our leaders to articulate this distinction has led to simplistic thinking that inflames people on the left and the right. For each side it creates a straw man ideal that is never realizable and appears to refrain from rewarding talent and insight differentially in a way that encourages growth of the system. Participants on the right and left who operate with the simplistic mythology can feel betrayed/
The winning candidate politician will govern successfully for the survival and growth of the system by being a sufficiently good teacher/preacher that s/he can evangelize the polity to have faith in the consequences of an action that the polity will support the temporal and financial costs of readjustment.
The prevailing wisdom here is that Trump cannot win. Especially in light of the narrowing polls and the analysis that there is only a 75% likelihood that Clinton will win, this smacks of hubris. I believe the exposition presented in this article illuminates a path forward, but a Robert Krullwich level teacher and speaker, with benefit of graphics may need to deliver the message in a digestible form for this new catechism to assure election/government.
6
I think you should be hopeful if Hillary Clinton wins since I think she has the capacity to understand problems in depth and nuance. I think she has good and decent intentions and is far more open to progressive ideas and goals than the conventional opinions put out there. And she has experience in herself and in others around her to get as much done toward those goals as can be expected given the level of Congressional support that she has as President. A Democratic Congress would be huge help, although Republicans will use any Machiavellian means they have to obstruct and delegitimize.
It will probably take at least 16 years to undo the much of the damage of the Bush administration. Eight yeas into it and I think recovered enough with support growing and intensifying out there for progressive ideas to get bolder and more proactive in government initiatives to address the economic inequality, social justice and the potentially catastrophic environmental issues we face.
It will probably take at least 16 years to undo the much of the damage of the Bush administration. Eight yeas into it and I think recovered enough with support growing and intensifying out there for progressive ideas to get bolder and more proactive in government initiatives to address the economic inequality, social justice and the potentially catastrophic environmental issues we face.
8
Are you kidding ?
Asked by the Guardin whether she would represent the populist strain of her party, Clinton said, "They don't see me as part of the problem because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we've done it through dint of hard work."
With hundreds of millions, the Clintons are still not truly well off.
Asked by the Guardin whether she would represent the populist strain of her party, Clinton said, "They don't see me as part of the problem because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we've done it through dint of hard work."
With hundreds of millions, the Clintons are still not truly well off.
21
Those 45-min long speeches exhausted her and her speech writers. Such hard work.
2
This is the most supportive,comprehensive,and extensive article in the NYT,ever, promoting a " strong countervailing force"(The Roosevelt Institute) against politically institutionalized opportunistic corruption in America,obviously financed by the vested interests of corporate greed........... sources of much discord,inequality and economic injustice at home and pervasive unjust and un-American foreign policy abroad.
Fundamental economic and political reform(literally a revolutionary change) is an exceedingly difficult and complex undertaking.For Hillary Clinton to get a populist wave of support , for an honest commitment to bring America back to the revolutionary(1776)ideal of justice and equality for all,might be all Hillary needs to "fall off" her"power and influence" political posturing stand and realize SHE can be the American president who goes down in history for transforming the "best politicians that money can buy,into a "Roosevelt-Great Society"model group, truly representing all Americans.
The Roosevelt Institute might collaborate with the Diem25 movement in Europe .........political power (a narcissism enhancing opiate)is addicting and difficult to handle.............as the seasons come and go......hope springs eternal!
Fundamental economic and political reform(literally a revolutionary change) is an exceedingly difficult and complex undertaking.For Hillary Clinton to get a populist wave of support , for an honest commitment to bring America back to the revolutionary(1776)ideal of justice and equality for all,might be all Hillary needs to "fall off" her"power and influence" political posturing stand and realize SHE can be the American president who goes down in history for transforming the "best politicians that money can buy,into a "Roosevelt-Great Society"model group, truly representing all Americans.
The Roosevelt Institute might collaborate with the Diem25 movement in Europe .........political power (a narcissism enhancing opiate)is addicting and difficult to handle.............as the seasons come and go......hope springs eternal!
7
Too little, too late. Why is the NYT just now waking up to the Progressive and
Occupy and Bernie movements? Could it be that they now see that Hillary might
not win the Presidency.
Occupy and Bernie movements? Could it be that they now see that Hillary might
not win the Presidency.
5
Most unlikely:
The Clintons made $ 139 millions in personal income, giving speeches to the 1%, just in the last 7 years, as a legal way of selling access to political power.
The Clintons made $ 139 millions in personal income, giving speeches to the 1%, just in the last 7 years, as a legal way of selling access to political power.
92
The fundamental issue, as Mr. Stiglitz has noted, is the cost of military-enabled adventurism. Whether you justify the multi-trillion$ trickled into pockets + hundreds of thousands of casualties as a Cheney-1% probability insurance policy against a blowback-induced WMD attack with thousands of 'homeland' casualties, or by a Clintonesque 'bring democracy to the ME' via bombs+Twitter, the funds just disappear into Luxembourg numbered accounts and we hear about the need for more $$ to address our insecurities + pocket change to address social issues. Ms. Clinton has bellowed that she will pursue a 'forceful' foreign policy fixated on the consequences of US (including State Dept.) blunders around ME oil reserves. Fracking should allow us to disengage from that mess while restructuring our energy systems. However, it seems that too many careers inside the Beltway depend on the oh-so-tired/discredited 'ME playbook' that the President roles his eyes at. Ms. Clinton has shown no such insight, quite the contrary.
For all his crudeness, Mr. Trump gets that this colossal 'skim' has severely short changed domestic investments in infrastructure and human capital.
The US was once a beacon of hope. Our drones roam the skies. The US still inspires, but now for revenge. Spreading wealth in this society is simply spreading the blood of 'collateral casualties' onto more hands.
For all his crudeness, Mr. Trump gets that this colossal 'skim' has severely short changed domestic investments in infrastructure and human capital.
The US was once a beacon of hope. Our drones roam the skies. The US still inspires, but now for revenge. Spreading wealth in this society is simply spreading the blood of 'collateral casualties' onto more hands.
8
I hope the group that Ms. Wong oversees is equipped with more specifics than this article.
The main problem facing the U.S. and most of the West is de-industrialization. There is outsourcing and robotics to think about. In addition, we have to reconsider growth in light of climate change.
The reason why we have a 99% is that most of us are fungible, and manipulated by Wall Street financialization. Industrial overcapacity means mergers & acquisitions, leveraged buyouts, fees for financiers for the liquidization of industries, and a search for even more profits in the public sector.
On the other hand, with so much of the GDP dependent on consumer spending, we need the 99% to have equity to buy things and keep the economy moving.
Yes, surely we need a more level playing field where everyone has an opportunity. But what this portends is a deep structural change in our way of life.
Mankind has had different hierarchies. First there was the Church, then Industry, and now post-industrial Finance. What Lord are we now going to serve? God is dead; Industry has left town; and Finance has provided a good reaming.
If the Roosevelt Institute has any ideas, I'd like to hear them.
The main problem facing the U.S. and most of the West is de-industrialization. There is outsourcing and robotics to think about. In addition, we have to reconsider growth in light of climate change.
The reason why we have a 99% is that most of us are fungible, and manipulated by Wall Street financialization. Industrial overcapacity means mergers & acquisitions, leveraged buyouts, fees for financiers for the liquidization of industries, and a search for even more profits in the public sector.
On the other hand, with so much of the GDP dependent on consumer spending, we need the 99% to have equity to buy things and keep the economy moving.
Yes, surely we need a more level playing field where everyone has an opportunity. But what this portends is a deep structural change in our way of life.
Mankind has had different hierarchies. First there was the Church, then Industry, and now post-industrial Finance. What Lord are we now going to serve? God is dead; Industry has left town; and Finance has provided a good reaming.
If the Roosevelt Institute has any ideas, I'd like to hear them.
14
Best move for Hillary would be to leave Bill at home. We need to get to know HER, not watch her being overshadowed by her husband.
15
Fat chance.
2
Hillary is not the person for it. Untrustworthy, says whatever her handlers think the audience wants to hear or will get her votes.
Secondly, the best change is the kind the comes through evolution not revolution. We didn't get where we are overnight and we should reverse course slowly but surely. Neither Hillary or the Donald are up to it. Thankfully, Donald has brought the issues to the forefront.
Secondly, the best change is the kind the comes through evolution not revolution. We didn't get where we are overnight and we should reverse course slowly but surely. Neither Hillary or the Donald are up to it. Thankfully, Donald has brought the issues to the forefront.
10
"...Donald has brought the issues to the forefront."
Thank you for the funniest comment I've read in a long time.
Thank you for the funniest comment I've read in a long time.
8
Hillary panders and will say anything to get votes. Then she goes back to serving the oligarchy and not the people.
65
Correct!
1
I believe she means well, but neoliberal solutions to basic inequality will always leave many in poverty and want. She cannot change her skin on this (nor frankly could Obama). Is she the advocate of there 99%?: yes and no. Yes, she thinks she is; no, what she is likely to do and want to do will leave basic inequality and, therefore, racism, in place.
21
Perhaps optimistic, but I have a vision of this country after the election that includes a Democratic Senate with a strong progressive caucus and a House of Representatives that has a larger Democratic component and moderate Republicans who are pushed further left by the progressive element of their constituents. I hadn't heard of the Roosevelt Institute but rejoice to learn of a policy institute that can help put structure on the good intentions of our best people in office. I believe this aligns with Hillary's vision but also believe we can govern from the legislative as well as executive branch if we have strength and clear vision. In Oregon, after our Democratic governor resigned in a messy way, our Democratic legislature enacted significant progressive reforms in gun safety, birth control, voter access, and many other areas.
15
let me introduce your worst nightmare. An independent who voted for Obama twice and is an enthusiastic Trump Supporter. The numbers grow daily for Trump. This is political payback for 25 years of abuse from the Clintons. NAFTA, Child Care "Reform", Graham-Leach, ACA, KAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, H1B. I was an enthusiastic Bernie Supporter, I cannot stomach Clintons
11
To answer your question, no she can't.
Both Republicans and Democrats tell us we have to stand on our two feet, be independent. But then they foster dependence on an employer and minimal government benefits that they are always threatening to take away. So we write resumes, hope for interviews and beg to be employed. What is needed is to develop our own structures outside the system maybe cooperatives we own and manage ourselves - something like the Mondragan Corporation in Spain. The know how is there. We don't need handouts from Gates, Clinton, Zuckerberg, et al. Neither the Drumpf nor Hill and Bill gonna get up off it and do anything for us.
And another thing - this election cycle has gone on for years it seems. If I hear one more word about the candidates and this election cycle I will spit.
Both Republicans and Democrats tell us we have to stand on our two feet, be independent. But then they foster dependence on an employer and minimal government benefits that they are always threatening to take away. So we write resumes, hope for interviews and beg to be employed. What is needed is to develop our own structures outside the system maybe cooperatives we own and manage ourselves - something like the Mondragan Corporation in Spain. The know how is there. We don't need handouts from Gates, Clinton, Zuckerberg, et al. Neither the Drumpf nor Hill and Bill gonna get up off it and do anything for us.
And another thing - this election cycle has gone on for years it seems. If I hear one more word about the candidates and this election cycle I will spit.
6
I think its time for Clinton to lay out a thoughtful but exciting progressive agenda for her campaign. I believe that part of the reason many progressives are so nervous about her is that her well known caution makes her look like a status quo candidate. Picking Tim Kaine fits with this view of her. Given her understanding of US political history she is well aware that the pendulum swings strongly from progressive to conservative. If she pulls a big upset in the down ticket races cntrolling the Senate and House, she will have a brief time to get progressive legislation through before the midterms, when Democrats will almost certainly lose ground. If she pushes for steps that the resurgent populists in the country find attractive, she could pave the way for further progressive growth. Some such steps might be getting the $15 minimum wage, raising taxes on high incomes, renegotiating TPP with Elizabeth Warren in charge so that it boosts trade without trashing environmental progress, foreign worker protection or US jobs. Increased gas taxes to rebuild infrastructure and create better transport options might be effective. What about a push for federal regulations that insure that homeowners can sell solar power back to the PGEs of the country. If tens of thousands of homeowners got a break on electric rates she might do well in the feared mid term elections.
15
And why do Democrats lose power in the off-year election? Because all the placard wavers who get fueled in the every-four-year popularity contest yawn and stay home for the important stuff, especially the kids.
Democracy is a full time process. Know your candidates and vote, in EVERY election, right down to dog catcher.
Democracy is a full time process. Know your candidates and vote, in EVERY election, right down to dog catcher.
5
If you don't win elections, all the best ideas are meaningless. Ms. Wong's optimism is nice, but the politics must come first in a campaign battle. Mrs. Clinton or any other candidate must use or discard themes as tactically necessary to benefit their campaign. The white papers can be brought out after the votes are counted, and the opposition can be sized up accurately.
9
I enjoyed this articles information and the integrated story, but I'm still confused by the surprise. Hillary Clinton has written books, made speeches, and worked in federal government. All of this information shows her to be a liberal accepting a changing world. Two of my strong memories of Hillary during the Bill Clinton administration were health care failing and NAFTA.
NAFTA wasn't popular, but it was reality. As the economy became globally integrated, NAFTA preserved US rights while helping Mexico develop in a more sustained way. We gained an ability to influence environmental and labor policy. (yeah, I know it was Canada too)
In the mid 1990s, the health care crisis was still emerging. Unions were weakening meaning less coverage for workers, and new treatments and technologies meant increased costs for medical services. Hillary led the project for universal health care, and it failed because it was too progressive for the Democrats in Congress.
So, can someone explain the surprise? Why people belive the author "It Takes a Village" wanted to protect the rich? I'm not being bitter; I'm honestly curious.
NAFTA wasn't popular, but it was reality. As the economy became globally integrated, NAFTA preserved US rights while helping Mexico develop in a more sustained way. We gained an ability to influence environmental and labor policy. (yeah, I know it was Canada too)
In the mid 1990s, the health care crisis was still emerging. Unions were weakening meaning less coverage for workers, and new treatments and technologies meant increased costs for medical services. Hillary led the project for universal health care, and it failed because it was too progressive for the Democrats in Congress.
So, can someone explain the surprise? Why people belive the author "It Takes a Village" wanted to protect the rich? I'm not being bitter; I'm honestly curious.
91
Impossible for Hillary to be a champion of the 99% unless she completely betrays the 1% people that gave her money to get elected.
15
$139 million-$225 million is the figures I researched.
If you meet in the middle $160 million maybe?
If you meet in the middle $160 million maybe?
Never before have I ever read an article in the NYT, giving such comprehensive, broad,and supportive coverage to a "strong countervailing force" (The Roosevelt Institute) working to eliminate politically institutionalized, opportunistic corruption financed by corporate greed.
Fundamental economic and political reform is an extraordinarily complex and difficult (revolutionary in scope) process.But getting the support of most of the American people for an honest vision of governance on behalf of all, and not the powerful abd wealthy few to benefit all and n
Fundamental economic and political reform is an extraordinarily complex and difficult (revolutionary in scope) process.But getting the support of most of the American people for an honest vision of governance on behalf of all, and not the powerful abd wealthy few to benefit all and n
12
FDR is turning over in his grave. That those charged with taking care of his legacy could entertain supporting a person who is the bankers' best friend is nauseating. FDR welcomed the hate of the bankers. He did not become their lapdog.
62
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Perhaps some history?
At the time of FDR's inauguration, the banking system in America was one step from complete and total destruction, the outgrowth of all that brought the Great Depression. People were removing their money, in the form of gold and gold certificates. Banks by the hundreds had closed their doors.
FDR stepped in and SAVED the banking system, leaving many happy bankers and the beginning of a firmer economic foundation for our Depression-ravaged country.
Best to have your facts together before spinning the latest meme or Roveism.
At the time of FDR's inauguration, the banking system in America was one step from complete and total destruction, the outgrowth of all that brought the Great Depression. People were removing their money, in the form of gold and gold certificates. Banks by the hundreds had closed their doors.
FDR stepped in and SAVED the banking system, leaving many happy bankers and the beginning of a firmer economic foundation for our Depression-ravaged country.
Best to have your facts together before spinning the latest meme or Roveism.
13
Pat: On Oct. 31, 1036 at Madison Square Garden FDR said:
"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred."
Maybe you are also wrong about HRC?
"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred."
Maybe you are also wrong about HRC?
6
Hillary becoming the champion of the 99 Percent is farfetched wishful thinking, considering the total capitalism is America's true ruler, with a stranglehold on economy.
Mancur Olson wrote an influential book entitled “The Rise and Decline of Nations”, on the impact that powerful interest groups can have in a society. Olson’s analysis focused on how stable, affluent societies like those in the West can spiral downwards when interest groups accumulate more and more power over time. Eventually the interest groups gain enough control and power to win favors from governments in the form of laws, tariffs and subsidies that are beneficial to their members. These favors enable powerful groups to benefit to the detriment of other weaker groups in society that lack the ability to influence government.
"Total capitalism has left American society in ruins and crippled the government. America's fate is not just an accident produced by the system. It is a consequence of that system" as Jakob Augstein a German commentator once remarked.
Democrats an Republicans are two faces of a political system that no longer has much to do with democracy as universally understood. Democracy is about choice, but Americans don't really have much of a choice.
How can one be optimistic when it is realized that American political system is in the hands of big business and its lobbyists?
The checks and balances are feeble. And a perverse mix of irresponsibility and greed dominate the public space.
Mancur Olson wrote an influential book entitled “The Rise and Decline of Nations”, on the impact that powerful interest groups can have in a society. Olson’s analysis focused on how stable, affluent societies like those in the West can spiral downwards when interest groups accumulate more and more power over time. Eventually the interest groups gain enough control and power to win favors from governments in the form of laws, tariffs and subsidies that are beneficial to their members. These favors enable powerful groups to benefit to the detriment of other weaker groups in society that lack the ability to influence government.
"Total capitalism has left American society in ruins and crippled the government. America's fate is not just an accident produced by the system. It is a consequence of that system" as Jakob Augstein a German commentator once remarked.
Democrats an Republicans are two faces of a political system that no longer has much to do with democracy as universally understood. Democracy is about choice, but Americans don't really have much of a choice.
How can one be optimistic when it is realized that American political system is in the hands of big business and its lobbyists?
The checks and balances are feeble. And a perverse mix of irresponsibility and greed dominate the public space.
42
This is a long and interesting article, one dealing with an important topic, and one that sadly ... few Americans will read, or really care about.
Our whole public dialog about the economy is driven by shibboleths, and there is very little willingness to look at facts. Big facts, the driving facts, are often ignored because they are too painful to contemplate:
* The American continent is populated coast-to-coast, the age of manifest destiny ended long ago. We cannot pretend we are fundamentally different from Europe.
* The world as a whole is threatened with resource exhaustion. We are nearing limits of population and resource consumption.
* All westernized countries are at or below ZPG in their domestic population, it is only immigration (including illegal immigration) that keeps population growing, in those that are
* zero-growth economies aren't fun.
* Empires die when the rich manage to shift the burden of taxation onto the poor.
* Read Jared Diamond's "Collapse." Think about it.
* Economics is a science, but only a branch of psychology, because it is about "money." Money has no intrinsic value, is not conserved, has no underlying physics. Ecology on the otherhand does: members of species are countable, elements and energy are conserved. When economics tries to argue against ecology, chemistry, physics ... economics always loses. Yet economists and business people always demand it have primacy.
Our whole public dialog about the economy is driven by shibboleths, and there is very little willingness to look at facts. Big facts, the driving facts, are often ignored because they are too painful to contemplate:
* The American continent is populated coast-to-coast, the age of manifest destiny ended long ago. We cannot pretend we are fundamentally different from Europe.
* The world as a whole is threatened with resource exhaustion. We are nearing limits of population and resource consumption.
* All westernized countries are at or below ZPG in their domestic population, it is only immigration (including illegal immigration) that keeps population growing, in those that are
* zero-growth economies aren't fun.
* Empires die when the rich manage to shift the burden of taxation onto the poor.
* Read Jared Diamond's "Collapse." Think about it.
* Economics is a science, but only a branch of psychology, because it is about "money." Money has no intrinsic value, is not conserved, has no underlying physics. Ecology on the otherhand does: members of species are countable, elements and energy are conserved. When economics tries to argue against ecology, chemistry, physics ... economics always loses. Yet economists and business people always demand it have primacy.
44
I kind of agree with Trump.. He has created jobs ... when did the Clintons creat jobs.. Whitewater failed. Clinton promised to get rid of coal mining in an area of the country where jobs have disappeared for the last 60 years. No more steel mills, no more shoe factories, almost no clothing, no cars, no nothing made in USA. Key word : globalization, which means... even our fish and chicken now come from China. If it's about the cost of labor going to 15$ an hour will in fact cut more people out of the job market.
What would bring jobs back to the USA would be rising costs for labor in distant parts of the globe. Otherwise, we supply the raw materials-- they supply the finished product. But much of America has become a grim place to live.. because of a failed transportation system BTW did you know that Greyhound is a privately held British Company?
What would bring jobs back to the USA would be rising costs for labor in distant parts of the globe. Otherwise, we supply the raw materials-- they supply the finished product. But much of America has become a grim place to live.. because of a failed transportation system BTW did you know that Greyhound is a privately held British Company?
8
Created jobs for who? Mostly white male construction workers.
Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders both seemed very happy when they left meetings with the future President. I think we can rest assured that she, along with the democrat/independent Senate and House we will elect, will take significant steps to counter the horrendous wealth inequality today.
Thanks to Ms. Wong for her excellent work to promote these fabulous economic idea and to find people capable of administering it. I would add only that I hope the plans also include supporting groups who want to start true employee-owned businesses that serve their communities - with NO outside investors to skim off the profits of their labor.
Any woman who has been mildly successful has probably experienced this, "Men of bulk in loosened ties have a way of talking at her for hours and then lifting her best notions, as if accidentally choosing a nicer umbrella on the way out of a restaurant." Women are going to change the world with thinking and work like that of Ms. Wong and the millions of women who are already doing the thinking and heavy lifting while men try to take the credit. It is time women are fully acknowledged and appreciated and this article by
Mr. Lewis-Kraus is a terrific start. Thanks to him.
Thanks to Ms. Wong for her excellent work to promote these fabulous economic idea and to find people capable of administering it. I would add only that I hope the plans also include supporting groups who want to start true employee-owned businesses that serve their communities - with NO outside investors to skim off the profits of their labor.
Any woman who has been mildly successful has probably experienced this, "Men of bulk in loosened ties have a way of talking at her for hours and then lifting her best notions, as if accidentally choosing a nicer umbrella on the way out of a restaurant." Women are going to change the world with thinking and work like that of Ms. Wong and the millions of women who are already doing the thinking and heavy lifting while men try to take the credit. It is time women are fully acknowledged and appreciated and this article by
Mr. Lewis-Kraus is a terrific start. Thanks to him.
82
No one knows what she will do
"the most opaque person you’ll ever meet in your life"
Charles E. Schumer, Senior Senator, NY, with whom Clinton served as Junior Senator from NYC.
Still refusing to release the content of her $ 675 000 speeches to Goldman Sachs that might shed light on the matter.
"the most opaque person you’ll ever meet in your life"
Charles E. Schumer, Senior Senator, NY, with whom Clinton served as Junior Senator from NYC.
Still refusing to release the content of her $ 675 000 speeches to Goldman Sachs that might shed light on the matter.
109
Yes indeed, the mystery of the $675 000 speeches persists, alongside area 51, Sasquatch, sinking of Atlantis and other preoccupations which absorb otherwise empty American minds.
19
Woof as a former speechwriter I can tell you, the person who writes the speech for an group, does not own. You can scream all you want, but it's up the the party that paid for it to release it. That said, I've heard from people in attendance, her speeches were motivational.
1
True, and while not defending her, I'd argue that this pales in comparison to Donald Trump's refusal to release his tax returns. Even if you support him, how can you let that egregious slight stand? We, the American people, have a right to know.
3
The fact that the arrow in the "H" logo points rightward is no accident. Follow it and you'll get to Wall Street. But if you're looking for Main Street, head in the opposite direction.
77
This represents the best news I have heard in a ( very dark) week. A fittingly named institute.
29
A very long, dense analysis of the current politics around "inequality".
I am more hopeful of Clinton as President.
I had to read it twice.
I am more hopeful of Clinton as President.
I had to read it twice.
44
Anyone who thinks Hillary is going to be some savior on this topic is deluding themselves. She and her family, awash in their millions, foundation, hedge funds, and the like, are not going to bite the hand that feeds them anymore than some of those evil Republicans. She is not an outsider, she is not someone who has been on the outs with the fat cat set. Oh she'll give some speeches and say she is going to "rein in Wall Street" but, as the old saying goes, talk is cheap. But sadly in our country visuals are more important than boring facts to many so our "need" for a woman president will out do other considerations.
137
I think the point of the article is that Hillary like most of us has been of two minds on Wong's deeply reasoned initiatives for restoring economic equality. It's way too soon to come your pessimistic conclusions (which I've often shared). Time will tell. Meanwhile, why not act -- as Wong clearly expresses it -- with hopefulness? This is an important article that introduces us to a visionary thinker, not just more of the same polarizing players.
7
Her policy track-record belies your claims. I'm not a fan of Clinton, but on balance she has put the lives of Americans well ahead of the welfare to the corporate "persons" and the obscenely rich.
If you read the article you will find a nuanced diagnosis for the structural inequality we are cursed with. You would also see the policy, political calculus, and strategic means for structural reform that would benefit us all.
I guess you can hate on Clinton and shill for Trump - but that's the fast-track to second-world status for America.
If you read the article you will find a nuanced diagnosis for the structural inequality we are cursed with. You would also see the policy, political calculus, and strategic means for structural reform that would benefit us all.
I guess you can hate on Clinton and shill for Trump - but that's the fast-track to second-world status for America.
4
Like most politicians, Hillary Clinton is skilled at listening to people and repeating back to them what they want to hear.
94
Yes, but that also involves listening and responding to your constituents. It seems overly cynical to assume ( as you seem to) that this is categorically "a bad thing." Would you prefer she ignore what constituents are saying?
6
I would prefer that instead of listening and replying, she listen and do something substantive.
I'm waiting for her to commit to some progressive policy that I can seize on as an excuse for voting for her.
I thought that her qualified approval of the public option would do it, but then I heard Marcia Angell explain why that would be useless. (Cream-skimming of healthy insureds for the corporations, leaving the government stuck with the people who are actually sick and expensive.)
I thought her qualified embrace of free state college tuition would do it, but then I found out that instead of 1960s CCNY- or California-style public schools, she would merely be giving federal vouchers for students to attend underfunded state schools which now have to "operate as a business."
I still haven't found a reason to prefer Clinton's *policies* to Jill Stein's.
Hillary can beat Donald Trump without me. I merely represent a tiny unimportant minority that the Democratic Party has ignored since 1992. They've decided to win elections is to tack to the right rather than the left.
I'm waiting for her to commit to some progressive policy that I can seize on as an excuse for voting for her.
I thought that her qualified approval of the public option would do it, but then I heard Marcia Angell explain why that would be useless. (Cream-skimming of healthy insureds for the corporations, leaving the government stuck with the people who are actually sick and expensive.)
I thought her qualified embrace of free state college tuition would do it, but then I found out that instead of 1960s CCNY- or California-style public schools, she would merely be giving federal vouchers for students to attend underfunded state schools which now have to "operate as a business."
I still haven't found a reason to prefer Clinton's *policies* to Jill Stein's.
Hillary can beat Donald Trump without me. I merely represent a tiny unimportant minority that the Democratic Party has ignored since 1992. They've decided to win elections is to tack to the right rather than the left.
4
Very insightful.
It's so rare to read or hear anything that credits Occupy with having done anything lasting or meaningful. The issue of income inequality would never have figured in this campaign if Occupy hadn't "changed the conversation" (sorry, I hate that phrase, too!). So, hurray for us!
102
Optimistic story at a time when optimism is needed for us Bernistas, especially after the Kaine selection. We will be following the themes and personnel of the transition team/shadow government for signs of the commitment to desperately needed deep structural reform as signals for enthusiastic mobilization (& small $ contributions) and not just hold-our-nose voting
44
If it were only true that Hillary was a closet Progressive and not a Conservative that likes to claim she is a Progressive at campaign events. The facts are that Hillary has been pretty much a doctrinaire Conservative except on Abortion Rights for most of her adult life. I write from Arkansas where we know Ms Clinton well and have been watching her for a very long time.
The Clintons- both of them- have been playing the same game for a very long time: pretend to be a Democratic populist long enough to secure a nomination and then run back to the right while waiving your middle finger at Progressives. In some quarters it is called kicking the hippie. Obama played essentially the same game.
Ms Clinton has picked Tim Kaine who is a younger clone in her mold. He is for the TPP and wnts to deregulate banks. I wonder how many speeches he has made at Goldman.
In the 1980s Hillary and Bill were in on the founding of the now defunct Demicrtic Leadership Council that intended and managed to make over the party into Republicn Lite. She has made speeces to the DLC, praised it and DLC membership is the antithesis of the Progressive movement.
Clinton/Kaine is a ticket of wolves in sheep's clothing. Third Way all the way. They are the real Republicn ticket this fall.
The Clintons- both of them- have been playing the same game for a very long time: pretend to be a Democratic populist long enough to secure a nomination and then run back to the right while waiving your middle finger at Progressives. In some quarters it is called kicking the hippie. Obama played essentially the same game.
Ms Clinton has picked Tim Kaine who is a younger clone in her mold. He is for the TPP and wnts to deregulate banks. I wonder how many speeches he has made at Goldman.
In the 1980s Hillary and Bill were in on the founding of the now defunct Demicrtic Leadership Council that intended and managed to make over the party into Republicn Lite. She has made speeces to the DLC, praised it and DLC membership is the antithesis of the Progressive movement.
Clinton/Kaine is a ticket of wolves in sheep's clothing. Third Way all the way. They are the real Republicn ticket this fall.
147
One word for pessimists, wets, wobblies and 3rd partiers: SCOTUS
3
The final paragraph says it all: “After all,” Wong said to me more than once, “she [HRC] is unknowable. Nobody can know her. I certainly can’t know her. All I can go by is what is on the public record, and who she’s got around her..."
That's the whole problem with HRC and HRC's whole problem -- we can hear her [largely rhetorical and jingoistic] words, but do we have any idea what she might actually DO as President? When a person stands for everything, they stand for nothing. And that posture engenders distrust.
Perhaps we'll be pleasantly surprised with a clear platform for her candidacy coming out of Philadelphia next week. Perhaps we'll get a true vision of what she stands for and what her "real" priorities will be if elected. But, if her selection of a plain vanilla, politics-as-usual running mate is any indication, what is more likely is that her gibberish without real conviction will continue to rule the day.
When that happens, Ms. Wong will not only be "disappointed again" -- she'll be faced with the reality that under HRC nothing that suggests "Progressive" will actually happen.
That's the whole problem with HRC and HRC's whole problem -- we can hear her [largely rhetorical and jingoistic] words, but do we have any idea what she might actually DO as President? When a person stands for everything, they stand for nothing. And that posture engenders distrust.
Perhaps we'll be pleasantly surprised with a clear platform for her candidacy coming out of Philadelphia next week. Perhaps we'll get a true vision of what she stands for and what her "real" priorities will be if elected. But, if her selection of a plain vanilla, politics-as-usual running mate is any indication, what is more likely is that her gibberish without real conviction will continue to rule the day.
When that happens, Ms. Wong will not only be "disappointed again" -- she'll be faced with the reality that under HRC nothing that suggests "Progressive" will actually happen.
42
Could be. And maybe not. We'll soon know. Meanwhile, from the perspective of a committed and active liberal for more than 60 years I have to say that often the attitude you express is an excuse for giving up. No! Participate! Fight on!
2
Mike Konczal and Joe Stiglitz never bait and switch on public policy analyses and proposals, and have done great work for the Roosevelt Inst. and public.
But either this reporting, Felicia Wong, or both are garbled, on a few things that even I notice, undermining the stated aim of convincing voters that Hillary Clinton could become the champion of the 99 percent on economics policy.
First, this potted history of why "movement conservatism has consistently outperformed progressives in laying a talent conduit" and held the balance of power leaves out money in politics, blames economists losing the habit of talking about power, and then proposes that cultural change in the perception of government and its relationship to power is more useful than left/right or progressive/centrist. NoLabels style contortions are confusing at best.
Second, like a Clinton campaign strategist, this article misrepresents Bernie Sanders's (and Senator Warren's) original proposals and those of Hillary Clinton's. Clinton has dropped what you call her more sophisticated shadow bank regulation, to move far closer to Sanders', undermining your argument that Sanders is too crude, unsophisticated, sloppy, purist.
Senators like Carl Levin and Elizabeth Warren can do education, oversight and agenda setting (more than legislating). Since personnel can be policy, Roosevelt Inst. resources should improve any winning administration transition and team. But better if Konczal does your reporting.
10:32 AM EST
But either this reporting, Felicia Wong, or both are garbled, on a few things that even I notice, undermining the stated aim of convincing voters that Hillary Clinton could become the champion of the 99 percent on economics policy.
First, this potted history of why "movement conservatism has consistently outperformed progressives in laying a talent conduit" and held the balance of power leaves out money in politics, blames economists losing the habit of talking about power, and then proposes that cultural change in the perception of government and its relationship to power is more useful than left/right or progressive/centrist. NoLabels style contortions are confusing at best.
Second, like a Clinton campaign strategist, this article misrepresents Bernie Sanders's (and Senator Warren's) original proposals and those of Hillary Clinton's. Clinton has dropped what you call her more sophisticated shadow bank regulation, to move far closer to Sanders', undermining your argument that Sanders is too crude, unsophisticated, sloppy, purist.
Senators like Carl Levin and Elizabeth Warren can do education, oversight and agenda setting (more than legislating). Since personnel can be policy, Roosevelt Inst. resources should improve any winning administration transition and team. But better if Konczal does your reporting.
10:32 AM EST
21
I've been saying for some time that Mrs. Clinton may pleasantly surprise people if she's president. Whereas the great many see someone with steely, unfettered political ambition, I see someone who's spent decades in public service, unrelenting in her commitment to the U.S., and who is a deep policy wonk. Shes withstood years and years of accusations, investigations, ridicule, and more. Can't think of another politician who's been so attacked or vilified for so long, including her husband. (He gets his bright spots frequently enough.) Most other people would have eventually had enough and slipped into a quieter role.
I think the real reason Mrs Clinton has shown such grit and endurance is that she has always possessed a deep vision for justice and fair-playing. Perhaps she's had to play with the big boys and do some things she'd rather not ... and perhaps she's even gotten swept up into the system at times ... but I think once she's in office, she's going to take a deep breath, say "I'm finally here," and get to work on behalf of the poor and middle class. I see her as someone who's in large part held her cards close to her vest, tenaciously holding on to her inner vision. She's going to at last show those cards when she's in office, and most of us are going to be very pleased, and better off for it.
I think the real reason Mrs Clinton has shown such grit and endurance is that she has always possessed a deep vision for justice and fair-playing. Perhaps she's had to play with the big boys and do some things she'd rather not ... and perhaps she's even gotten swept up into the system at times ... but I think once she's in office, she's going to take a deep breath, say "I'm finally here," and get to work on behalf of the poor and middle class. I see her as someone who's in large part held her cards close to her vest, tenaciously holding on to her inner vision. She's going to at last show those cards when she's in office, and most of us are going to be very pleased, and better off for it.
216
Well that would be a wonderful surprise!
2
The people who recommended this comment are asleep at the wheel.
Whitewater, Benghazi, Exposing Classified emails, 675k from Goldman Sachs, and a myriad of lies.
This is not even the tip of the iceberg.
Hillary Clinton is the epitome of corruption and carelessness sanctioned by the DNC and ill-informed and a blind DNC electorate.
Donald Trump is a narcissistic buffoon and a mild fascist though he's just taking advantage of the RNC 's ineptitude and obvious taking for granted angry white male electorate. Psalms 75 : 4-7 ERV Bible
Whitewater, Benghazi, Exposing Classified emails, 675k from Goldman Sachs, and a myriad of lies.
This is not even the tip of the iceberg.
Hillary Clinton is the epitome of corruption and carelessness sanctioned by the DNC and ill-informed and a blind DNC electorate.
Donald Trump is a narcissistic buffoon and a mild fascist though he's just taking advantage of the RNC 's ineptitude and obvious taking for granted angry white male electorate. Psalms 75 : 4-7 ERV Bible
1
From your mouth to God's ears.
Hillary will only be for the 99% if it serves her grotesque ambition and lust for power. So far, it's the power of Wall Street and the crowd appeal of military aggression that has furthered her career. I suppose it will take a sustained and massive populist movement a la Sanders to make serving the 99% worth her while.
But I'm glad to learn about the Roosevelt Institute. Now I'm wondering what (if anything) the Institute did to support Sanders, the most prominent spokesperson for the ideals of the Institute.
But I'm glad to learn about the Roosevelt Institute. Now I'm wondering what (if anything) the Institute did to support Sanders, the most prominent spokesperson for the ideals of the Institute.
61
Along with "Rewriting the Rules of American Inequality", we must face the challenge of a "skills gap" rather than an "income inequality gap". Employees starting out in jobs that have been globalized or mechanized need some concrete help now, while we shift from short-term to long-term business goals. FDR's massive public works projects would be seen as "large government" redux by Americans who want a "small" government that helps themselves (FEMA, transportation infrastructure) rather than someone else (Medicaid, Affordable Care Act, food programs). Yet businesses complain that they have open jobs but an inadequate supply of trained applicants.
Corporate America spends hundreds or thousands of dollars onboarding employees who leave jobs before there is a decent ROI from their training.
Why not think about public-private partnerships that are a win-win-win for our country, private sector and its citizens? Let's reduce the skills gap now to get people working. Redirect the lost training dollars to skills rather than employee orientation. Start with reading, writing and computer skills at a bare minimum, advancing to specialty areas once the basics are mastered. These basics are needed in any job and are transportable.
Corporate America spends hundreds or thousands of dollars onboarding employees who leave jobs before there is a decent ROI from their training.
Why not think about public-private partnerships that are a win-win-win for our country, private sector and its citizens? Let's reduce the skills gap now to get people working. Redirect the lost training dollars to skills rather than employee orientation. Start with reading, writing and computer skills at a bare minimum, advancing to specialty areas once the basics are mastered. These basics are needed in any job and are transportable.
5
Any article that doesn't mention how the Clinton's have moved the Democratic Party to the right, the party's tepid response to climate change, or overlooks Hillary Clinton's support for the TPP and her connection to financial and corporate elite runs cover for a capitalistic system that needs drastic systemic change and not a mere tinkering at the edges. Hillary Clinton is not, and will not be, a champion for the 99%. She is a backer of the 1%. But this is what to be expected. The liberal elite fully support a system that benefits it, and as been historically true since at least the revolutions in Europe in 1848, when push comes to shove it will never demand the changes needed when it threatens its position ins society. A "mandate for economic overhaul" does exist, not "might" exist, and if those problems are not addressed in bold, structural overhaul built on a rethinking of the capitalism model, the many problems facing our world due to economic inequality will only get worse, along with the heating up of our fragile planet to degrees that will change everything, exposing the paucity of vision of the liberal elite.
56
In 1964 the SDS slogan was PART OF THE WAY WITH LBJ. maybe the new slogan should be I'M WITH HER part of the way.
Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton is already an advocate for 99% of us - she has been her whole life. I just watched her speech introducing her running mate - Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, who is equally socially conscious. He is 100% for reasonable gun control and, although a devout Catholic, believes in a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. I am EXCITED today for America's future. They are a socially conscious team who will Move America Ahead. They have my grateful vote.
179
I believe in the deregulation of big banks and expansion of offshore drilling. I also believe in the re-criminalizing of marijuana. That said, the Clinton Kaine fully represents myself and my constituates. I've never voted Democrat, but I'll make an exception for HRC.
Are you Hillary, the panderer who will say anything to get votes? Hillary supported NAFTA, Panama Trade Deal, TPP, etc. That is not for the 99%.
10
Your comment does not touch on any economic themes, which is the entire point of this article. Did you read it, even?
4
"The report lays out a stark narrative about the American economy as it exists today. Inequality, it maintains, is a function not of economic laws but of the preferences awarded to the powerful to extract rents — to exploit people who have little choice — especially on necessary goods like housing and health care."
This is certainly true. Large corporations and powerful interests have captured the regulatory process, and used it to put competitors out of business.
But how can the answer be more laws and regulations? The rich and powerful are rich and powerful, they can capture and pervert any movement. The majority of people do not understand the complex laws and regulations, while those who use them to extract monopoly rents understand them very well. They will be the winners when new laws and regulations are written.
The correct answer is to remove regulations and get more actual competition. For example, if everyone had to pay doctors with actual cash money, doctors would advertise their prices and offer good deals. This is of course an exaggerated example that would not necessarily be feasible, but indicates the direction to go in - the opposite of paying huge premiums to an 'insurance' company for vague and complicated benefits.
This is certainly true. Large corporations and powerful interests have captured the regulatory process, and used it to put competitors out of business.
But how can the answer be more laws and regulations? The rich and powerful are rich and powerful, they can capture and pervert any movement. The majority of people do not understand the complex laws and regulations, while those who use them to extract monopoly rents understand them very well. They will be the winners when new laws and regulations are written.
The correct answer is to remove regulations and get more actual competition. For example, if everyone had to pay doctors with actual cash money, doctors would advertise their prices and offer good deals. This is of course an exaggerated example that would not necessarily be feasible, but indicates the direction to go in - the opposite of paying huge premiums to an 'insurance' company for vague and complicated benefits.
13
We MUST regulate greed. Unregulated greed, and unregulated anti-trust laws, have moved America back to the 1920s of democracy-destroying governance by the greediest, who are also the wealthiest, in the world. I'm all for Social Capitalism that improves society while private enterprise makes money. I am not for the corruption and theft that has taken place since Ronald Reagan reigned. We do not have kings or aristocracy in America. We do not want them. The vast majority of us want social and economic equity. Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton and VP Tim Kaine will not destroy Wall Street - they will rein it in. That is the way to restore democracy in America.
65
You make a very good point. Unfortunately, the wealthy and powerful are even more adept at taking advantage of lower income classes when there are fewer regulations. In addition, they evade their tax and civil responsibilities. So, the greater good is never a goal. We can't have that in the US.
19
Should we remove anti-monopoly regulations, for example, to have more competition?
1
I hope I'm wrong, but we shall see...