world

Clinton slams unrealistic Sanders 'promises' in debate

27 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2016 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

27 Comments
Login to comment

"Clinton will be better positioned in Nevada and then South Carolina as she seeks to profit from the coalition of black and Latino voters who helped propel Obama into the White House in 2008."

Maybe that coalition will help propel Sanders into the nomination.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

SerranoFEB. 12, 2016 - 04:21PM JST Maybe that coalition will help propel Sanders into the nomination.

Maybe even the WH.

Heh, Serrano Feeling the Bern. Surely you jest after all these years....

0 ( +3 / -3 )

“We have a special obligation to make clear what we stand for, which is why I think we should not make promises we can’t keep,” Clinton said.

Hillary Clinton should change her campaign slogan to - "Lower your expectations. Vote Clinton."

Seriously though, are those things Sanders promises actually unrealistic? Because I was under the impression that most of the schemes such as single-payer healthcare were already tried and tested in western Europe and Canada. Or are those promises unrealistic because Clinton's donors will not make money from them and told her they are unrealistic?

Continuing her assault, Clinton embraced a typical Republican line of attack to demonize Sanders, saying his plans would likely increase the size of the federal government by about 40 percent.

Not surprising. By most standards, Hillary is more Republican than Democrat. It is due to Bernie that she is being forced to drift left.

May the force be with Bernie.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

I was pretty excited about following up our first black president with our first female president...until Sanders came along. He's just so much better at standing up for progressive ideals.

I kind of feel bad for Clinton, because I don't think she would be a terrible president. Maybe in another 8 years? With her luck though, Elizabeth Warren will run, and then she'll be beat again.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

FullM3taL FEB. 12, 2016 - 05:20PM JST Seriously though, are those things Sanders promises actually unrealistic?

Sanders idea so bizarre, about his plan to provide free public college tuition in U.S. Sure, Trump's "terrific" plan to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. But at least people are calling for a wall to curtail illegal immigration; before Sanders started promising "free" college, even students figured it was fair for them to at least pick up a portion of their tuition. Free merely means "someone else pays for it." Estimates put the price tab on Sanders' plan at $70 billion, per year, until campus costs rise, then the taxpayers' tab balloons.

What's particularly puzzling about Sanders' plan is that he wants to take a scarce resource, taxpayer money and spend it on people who can most afford to pay for college. For someone so concerned about income inequality, Sanders wants to hand the wealthy a huge college tuition subsidy. When you subsidize college costs across the board, you're paying just as much for the children of millionaires to attend college as you are for the truly needy. Why would we pay $70 billion a year for Donald Trump's kids to go to college while food shelters struggle to keep the homeless fed?

Free tuition also would structurally change the way colleges in America work. For one, the private university system would collapse; if given the choice between attending an expensive private college or a top-flight public university, many of the best students will opt for the taxpayer subsidy. That would squeeze middling students out of college altogether, as their slots would be taken up by those fleeing private colleges.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

I think Sanders clearly has a better record of supporting minority groups in America. In 1963 he was marching with Martin Luther King Jr. A year later Clinton was campaigning for the Presidential bid of Barry Goldwater, who's platform included re-segregation America.

And yet the minority groups in America, who ironically would benefit the most with Sanders as President, support Clinton. Why? Because they are generally poorer and less well educated and get more of their information from mainstream media instead of the internet. And until very recently the main TV news and newspapers have been doing their best to ignore Sanders.

As of this week they no longer have a choice and have to cover him. Hopefully the addition exposure will melt Clinton's lead in those groups and leave her with the backing of the people who should be supporting her, the .01%.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Sanders idea so bizarre, about his plan to provide free public college tuition in U.S.

Yeah. Never in the history of the world has free public college education been provided to the people.

Well, except in Argentina, Barbados, Brazil, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Iran, Ireland, Kuwait, Libya, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Norway, Poland, Scotland, Slovenia, Sweden and Trinidad & Tobago.

But yeah, it could never work. And who wants to live with a bunch of educated people anyways?

9 ( +10 / -1 )

"He's just so much better at standing up for progressive ideals."

I get the sense the difference between Sanders and Clinton is he actually believes in progressive ideals.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Hahahah the two party dictatorship!

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

sfjp330,

What's particularly puzzling about Sanders' plan is that he wants to take a scarce resource, taxpayer money...

He also plans to increase tax revenues by closing loop holes that allow Wall Street to not pay its air share.

and spend it on people who can most afford to pay for college.

Free tuition for public colleges used to be available in some states like California up to the 1980s. The rich who already pay more for prestigious private schools will probably continue to do so.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Would any other non-Japanese elections get this much coverage?

For the college fees they should have a system of assessing the income and below a certain threshold those students should go free. It's fair so that those who CAN pay WILL pay.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

In other election news, it's good to see that none other than George Dubya will be hitting the campaign trail for brother Jeb!...

I think that's spelt desperate!

Or is it DESPERATE! ?

My oh my....

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I was pretty excited about following up our first black president with our first female president...until Sanders came along. He's just so much better at standing up for progressive ideals.

Meaning: income redistribution

I kind of feel bad for Clinton, because I don't think she would be a terrible president.

She would be an untrustworthy president at best, devoid of all morals and ethics. At least Bernie is honest, flawed his ideas greatly are at what liberals call restorative justice.

Maybe in another 8 years? With her luck though, Elizabeth Warren will run, and then she'll be beat again.

Good Lord, then we can just exchange the Stars and Stripes and replace it with the hammer and sickle.

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

I'm afraid Hillay is right on this one. Where is the money comming from? Higher taxes on the wealthy won't work. Closing loopholes will raise some cash just not enough.

We're already on track at nearly $20T in debt when Obama leaves office. Shouldn't paying down the debt be a priority?

As far as both candidates Bernie is by far the more likable and the honorable one. He seems genuine and unafraid to pursue his cause without pandering daily. He has a history of his stance. Hillary on the other hand has serious trust and integrity issues.

To vote for Hillay for the novelty of the first female president is silly. Vote the best fit! It's about getting the job done and done well. It should have never been about race or gender.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

"free public college tuition"

Are the teachers and staff going to volunteer their services? How are the colleges going to pay their property taxes/rent without any income from students? Oh, right, they'll get the money from the taxpayers, lol. Feel the Bern!

"Continuing her assault, Clinton embraced a typical Republican line of attack to demonize Sanders"

Leave the Republcans out of this one, sheesh.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

We're already on track at nearly $20T in debt when Obama leaves office. Shouldn't paying down the debt be a priority?

Not necessarily, but some people feel that it is. If you are one of them, you'd best not support Trump, Bush or Rubio. Their respective tax plans would raise the deficit over the next decade increase the deficit by $9.5 trillion http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=2000560 $6.8 trillion http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=2000547 and, well, $6.8 trillion again. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=2000606 The only fiscal conservative in this race is Hillary.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

One of Sanders's "unrealistic" goals is universal health care. We have that.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"universal health care. We have that."

We do?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

GWBush thought so. He said in 2007, "People have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room."

How effective and efficient. Coincidentally, that is by default the GOP replacement for the ACA.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Because I was under the impression that most of the schemes such as single-payer healthcare were already tried and tested in western Europe and Canada.

They work better in socialist economies than capitalist ones because in the socialist economy the government exerts more control over prices. While the U.S. is not a pure capitalist economy, it's still the majority economic model in the country.

He's just so much better at standing up for progressive ideals.

No matter WHO the President is, they quickly find out the more "progressive" a plan is, the more likely it will never happen. That's because the President is not a dictator, and any proposals must first be approved by Congress. The President needs at least 51 Senators (out of 100) and 218 (out of 435) Representatives to agree with any "progressive" plan. This is next to impossible if your "progressive" plan rocks the boat too much.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The effects that Sanders brand of 'progressive' socialist economic business model will have to lives of ordinary working class Americans?

EU has few examples to choose from...

France ...... Hollande says France in state of economic emergency....

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35343611

Italy, hats off to the government of Mr Renzi's battling to fend off Brussels Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive

Stagnating Italy poses new headache for stuttering eurozone.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12153577/Stagnating-Italy-poses-new-headache-for-embattled-eurozone.html

Greece debt crisis: Scuffles at pension reforms protest..free tuition fees, however 47% youth unemployment..

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35266799

One of Europe's brand of liberal socialism inescapable facts is that the average working American spends 1,976 hours a year on the job producing wealth, the average German works 1,535, 22 percent less. This is the reason that USA will thrive through adversity and EU will continue to stagnate.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Socialized medicine in Europe is rotten to the core because the system is abused, not because it is wrong. All the usual elites milking the cow from the behemoth pharmaceutical companies down to the doctors themselves in a ludicrous Ponzi scheme. Just like the pensions.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

By most standards, Hillary is more Republican than Democrat.

Riiiiight. I suppose if you aren't American, it may seem that way. When it comes to economic and social policies, the center in American politics has always been much more to the right than compared with Europe. SInce Reagan, its gotten progressively out of control: all about big money and big corporations at the expense of the worker. In the US, we have two pro-capitalist parties, the Democrats, who are for modest regulations of big money and corporations, and the Republicans, who are for little to none.

Like I've said before and will say again, I prefer Sanders brand of Democratic Socialism to Clinton's center-right (from a European perspective) approach to running the economy. Why?

Because I think its obvious that the current situation is hurting Americans. Big money and their bought politicians have made things unfair. Moreover, and just as importantly America, I believe in a strong America, one that can throw its weight around, promote stability and fairness (liberal democracy) in the world. I consider the America backed world order -- warts and all -- undeniably preferable to the kind of world we would see had Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany gotten what they wanted. The same goes for the Russians, who are perhaps only challenged in depravity by the Chinese.

For America to support American values, liberal democracy, America must be strong. Republicans fanaticism for concentration of wealth and the abandonment of the public good basic national funcitons like educating the people, providing health care and building roads, let alone science denial, and climate change, is destroying America. Most simply put, the Republican party must be destroyed.

HRC and Sanders will make good presidents compared to the Clown Car of Crazy being offered by the other guys. While that may not be the kind of thing that may turn you on to vote, it should.

Because, and I know this may surprise those who are familiar with my posts,,

The Republican party must be destroyed.

In the end, Americans will have a choice between a Republican and a Democrat this November. Pretending that HRC is no different that a Cruz or a Rubio is as dangerous a misunderstanding as it is wrong.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

'Lets not get our hopes up' doesn’t sound like a successful campaign message.

The title could also have read "Bernie paints Hillary as beholden to donors." That would be equally fair as your actual title.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Democrats, don't forget to wipe the slime off your hands after you pull la palanca for victim-shaming Hillary in the fall. Bring lots of hand sanitizer! And lots of Kool-Aid to wash the ashes from your mouths every time you praise her dedication to feminism.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

As far as both candidates Bernie is by far the more likable and the honorable one. He seems genuine and unafraid to pursue his cause without pandering daily. He has a history of his stance. Hillary on the other hand has serious trust and integrity issues.

There is no doubt, Sanders is a man of integrity and interesting ideas, but the harsh reality is that they will never work for the US, add to that the size of the population and the financial complexity of the country, it's just not possible, not to mention there aren't enough of the 1% to fulfill Sanders dream of snagging their rightful earned income, with the debt we have, the void of high skilled wage paying jobs. I have no doubt the man has good intentions for the country, but the implementation of these radical economic ideas will be like Howard Hughes-Spruce Goose, mega wonder, but a total flop. As for Hillary, you are right, she's sinking faster than the Titanic, seems ok for now, but when the hull is 1/3 capacity, people are going to jump ship.

Democrats, don't forget to wipe the slime off your hands after you pull la palanca for victim-shaming Hillary in the fall. Bring lots of hand sanitizer! And lots of Kool-Aid to wash the ashes from your mouths every time you praise her dedication to feminism.

Ouch and yet, so, so true.

Riiiiight. I suppose if you aren't American, it may seem that way. When it comes to economic and social policies, the center in American politics has always been much more to the right than compared with Europe. SInce Reagan, its gotten progressively out of control: all about big money and big corporations at the expense of the worker.

Then Hillary should be the last candidate liberals want to get close to.

In the US, we have two pro-capitalist parties, the Democrats, who are for modest regulations of big money and corporations, and the Republicans, who are for little to none.

When have this generation of liberals been pro-capitalist???? Maybe slightly during the Clinton era, but recently?

Like I've said before and will say again, I prefer Sanders brand of Democratic Socialism to Clinton's center-right (from a European perspective) approach to running the economy. Why?

I have to choose between broccoli and Goya, the broccoli, although a veggie will get my attention because at least with the broccoli, you can work with it, but with the Goya, no matter what you do, that thing will always be bitter and nasty and no matter what you slather on it, it's not going to mask that God awful taste. Clinton was a center LEFT president, not even close to the right, however he did reach a point of political harmony and understanding during his second term, he had basically NO choice, he had an all majority Republican congress and if he wanted a decent legacy and to get things done, he had to meet and govern down the middle which made him a decent president, quite different from the radical progressive nut job we have right now that won't budge on and for anything and because of his foolish stubborn pride, he didn't get much done, except for the causes, HE wanted to make sure his legacy would be intact and damn everyone else. Clinton was more for the country and Obama was straight-up for ideology.

Because I think its obvious that the current situation is hurting Americans. Big money and their bought politicians have made things unfair. Moreover, and just as importantly America, I believe in a strong America, one that can throw its weight around, promote stability and fairness (liberal democracy) in the world.

We want pretty much the same things, but to expand further on the point, I want a strong, very strong and powerful military, less BIG government, more economic opportunities, get rid of the unions, more growth in the private sector, tax cuts and lower the corporate tax rate.

.

For America to support American values, liberal democracy, America must be strong. Republicans fanaticism for concentration of wealth and the abandonment of the public good basic national funcitons like educating the people, providing health care and building roads, let alone science denial, and climate change, is destroying America. Most simply put, the Republican party must be destroyed.

I was with you up to that last garrulous rant. So what about Democratic fanaticism and liberal totalitarianism, forced on us, the intolerance and the ostracism of anything that is remotely conservative, in other words, a one party rule. Is that democracy? The so called party of BS democracy, freedom of speech and diversity is anything but. If you want to be fair (I've yet to meet a liberal that's fair) then you would be an advocate to have both parties destroyed. Because both are in bed with the corporations, big interest groups and both are looking out for their donors and less for their constituents.

HRC and Sanders will make good presidents compared to the Clown Car of Crazy being offered by the other guys.

I'm going to say this, whether it's Clinton (which I seriously doubt, she won't make it, Thank God) Sanders or Trump, none of these people are really that good, but having the option between a habitual liar, dull, devoid of any humanity or ethics, a 74 year old Bolshevik with unreal and impossible ideas that will never come to fruition and a guy that has an ego almost as bad as the current president, talks too much, bombastic, but with more money, funny hair

While that may not be the kind of thing that may turn you on to vote, it should.

I'll be there

Because, and I know this may surprise those who are familiar with my posts,,

I'm not.

The Republican party must be destroyed.

Please throw the Dems in as well and we have a deal.

In the end, Americans will have a choice between a Republican and a Democrat this November. Pretending that HRC is no different that a Cruz or a Rubio is as dangerous a misunderstanding as it is wrong.

Ohhhh, she's very different in a very negative way.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Dunno if its hillary whom I dislike more every day or sanders who is growing on me but clinton's negativity and repeated cheap shots at sanders have become quite embarrassing really.

She seems to have so much anger in her and that coupled with arrogance and self belief that all politicians have makes a pretty frightening candidate. She is scary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites