Clinton's Economic Vision -- sounds good to me!

[Sparkly]

Clinton outlines broad economic vision

By HOLLY RAMER, Associated Press Writer Tue May 29, 8:14 PM ET

MANCHESTER, N.H. - Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.

"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070530/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_economy

She also spoke about increased support for alternative schools and community colleges, reducing special breaks for corporations, eliminating tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas, opening up CEO pay to greater public scrutiny, expanding and simplifying the earned income tax credit, creating new jobs by pursuing energy independence, and ensuring that every American has affordable health insurance.

Depending on the details (for example, the word "reducing," and "affordable health insurance"), it sounds good to me. No doubt the phrase "we're all in it together" will be met with shrieks of "Socialism!" from the right.

[Captain Hilts]

1. The squeeze on the lower 50% must be addressed.

She and Edwards and Kucinich are doing a good job on this. Here's hoping they stick to it.

This issue could easily be swallowed by the war, but, ultimately, they're related. The lower-middle income are the ones joining the military to get some form of economic mobility - at great cost these days.

[William769]

2. We haven't even scratched the surface of Hillary Clinton yet.

The best is yet to come.

K&R

[Warpy]

3. Unfortunately for us, Clinton's vision extended only to the few

and he oversaw more wealth concentration than either of his two predecessors. Wages didn't start to inch up until the last year and a half of his presidency. There was only one minimum wage increase, and it was far too little. Deregulation and privatisation both continued, as did offshoring.

See? Stupid didn't invent any of this stuff. Reagan did. However, both Clinton and Stupid have continued Reagan's economic policies and both have not been good for working people. The only superiority Clinton can claim is that we all had JOBS when he was in charge.

Still, I'd rather have Clinton than Stupid. At least the dollar hadn't lost 40% of its value internationally and gas prices were lower as a consequence.

Clinton was a conservative. Stupid is a catastrophe.

[OneBlueSky]

4. not nearly enough . . .

unless and until we enact strict corporate regulation, nothing is going to change . . . the oil industry, the "defense" industry, the healthcare industry, the banking industry, the agribusiness industry and all the rest must be forced, through legislation, to serve the best interests of the nation and the planet -- not just seek maximum profits regardless of consequences . . .

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Count]

6. "increased support for alternative schools and community colleges" - I like that

And I also remember everyone - even me - doing well during the Clinton administration. (disclaimer - she is far from being my candidate of choice - but I do like what she says on this subject)

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

7. *cough* NAFTA

*cough* Indian outsourcing.

Talk is cheap, yet we fall for it again and again and again.

[doggyboy]

9. *cough* 24 million new jobs

*cough* increased income for the middle-class

coughing is pretty cheap also

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

10. *cough* 24 million jobs because people got laid off from the plant and had to take up 3 shitter jobs

I'd rather have a nice old job with workers' representation than a new one.

But if you're on top, it doesn't matter too much as long as the numbers look nice.

[doggyboy]

13. Wrong

24 million new jobs

If you had even the slightest familiarity with economics, you'd know that jobs do not get created simply because other jobs have been eliminated.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

15. If you had the slightest familiarity with economic travails...

Then you would know that Clinton pursued a right-wing neoliberal economic policy.

[rinsd]

12. *cough* Hillary didn't vote for NAFTA *cough*

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=atUKcP4eSEvY&refer=politics

"Talk is cheap, yet we fall for it again and again and again"

Very cheap. From someone who just rolled into town.

[bedpanartist]

8. 24 years of either a Bush or Clinton in the WH

yeah, that's what we need.

[FatDave]

11. I'm not Hilary's biggest fan, but...

...it's nice to hear some democrat talking economic policy. I mean, we already know that any democrat president will get us out of Iraq, can we move on to other issues now?

So whether I agree, disagree, trust, or don't trust Hilary Clinton, kudos to her for at least bringing the topic up.

[Totally Committed]

14. I can't believe any of us would trust an officer of the DLC with this country's economic policy.....

The DLC is NOT pro-little guy. They are CORPORATISTS. Talk about more of the same and war forever and ever.

Just say NO to the DLC and the version of an economic vision that will last just long enough to get the candidate into office before they screw us over AGAIN.

TC