DLC Democrat Bill Clinton explains difference between parties

"The truth is there is an ideological struggle between those who believe that the best way to grow the economy is to give more money to the wealthy, and the Democrats who believe that the wealthy will make more money if average people do better." -- Bill Clinton, Election Day, 2000

Full transcript here -
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-seattle/2000-November/000506.html

And the whole thing in streaming audio -
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0244240

people who should be most wealthy are the people who work the hardest, contribute the most to society, and help America progess toward a happiere, wealthier, and healthier society. The Republicans believe that the people who get wealthy should be the people who are wealthy now, and they shouldn't have to work so hard to get wealthier. And Clinton's right. In a society of the former type, the wealthier will be wealthier, and that's a good thing. The Republicans don't care if there's less overall wealth in America, so long as the top 100 or so Americans get the biggest slices of that smaller pie.

not the only difference, but a big one.

There is a distinction between people who work hard and take risks to get rich and people who are born lucky and get rich. We need to make people realize that most democrats want to help the first group.

Jobs are either being mechanized or shipped overseas.
I'd like to hear Clinton discuss NATO's role in our current situation with joblessness as well as the various strategies for globalization and the organizations that are supposedly the bridge for this change.

There are many ideas floating around about how to achieve this...and few as yet have been adequately articulated by any candidate, or leader. What's the PLAN Uncle Sam? That's why I hope debates are not strictly about the immediate problems which results in tunnel vision. How do the current situations fit into the BIG PLAN?

:shrug:

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

It's really amusing. Or are you serious?

I did want to say one thing. Republicans wage class warfare, not Democrats. Democrats economic policies are based on the principal that when all Americans are doing well economically, it creates more wealth for the wealthy. In fact that's the basic idea of world trade as well, when the people of third world countries make enough money to become consumers, they make the wealthy wealthier.

Republicans, on the other hand, seek to destroy the economic base of the laborer in order to make as much money as possible by selling to the bourgeois at higher rates while producing those goods at slave wages if possible. You can make more money selling 6 computers for $1000 than you can selling 10 computers at $500; even though it only costs about $250 to produce them. You do even better if you keep those 40% of workers so desperate they don't question anything you do. Waging war on the poor is good business for the Republicans. Raising wages for that 40% so business can sell 10 computers at $800 is the Democratic way.

You seem to be posting on the wrong board, maybe you need to check out the freak republic. :think:

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

I think what I'm trying to say went over most people's heads, which is kind of scary. I usually trust people's intelligence enough to have them connect the dots, but this may be a case where that's not possible. Let me parse this differently...

"THE TRUTH IS THERE IS AN IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE BETWEEN THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT THE BEST WAY (to grow the economy) IS TO GIVE MORE MONEY TO THE WEALTHY, AND THE DEMOCRATS WHO BELIEVE THAT THE WEALTHY WILL MAKE MORE MONEY IF (average people do better)." -- Bill Clinton, Election Day, 2000

Michael Kinsley once said that a flub is when a politician accidentally speaks the truth. I think this is such a situation. However nice of a guy or not Bill Clinton is, this is disconnected from the goals of his DLC power base, and in this instance I believe he has spoken the absolute truth about what is at the core of the Democratic party under DLC leadership. This sentence contains a profound truth, which I guess is easy to miss if you're looking at it from a certain type of perspective.

I dislike spelling this out, but - what he says here is that the core ideological struggle between the Republicans and DLC-controlled Democrats is HOW TO MAKE WEALTHY PEOPLE WEALTHIER. In fact his statement is even more Republican friendly, he says ideologically they're goal is to "grow the economy", while the DLC-controlled Democrats goal is to figure out what they can do so that "the wealthy will make money". I don't know why people don't see what's so profoundly wrong with this, that both parties main point of disagreement is which method to use to make the wealthy even wealthier! And I'm not the one who's saying that - HE is.

I think the one caveat is when he said the Democratic party, he meant the party under DLC leadership as it is now, under him, and as it would be under Gore/Lieberman. There are 53 Democrats in Congress in the Progressive caucus (Kucinich is one of them) who I would say probably do not buy into this ideology, but they are a minority in the party.

I think it's important to keep in mind. I definitely believe him, the major ideological issue between the Republicans and (under current DLC control) Democrats is how to make the wealth wealthier. I didn't say it, he did, and I believe him, Amy Goodman grilled him and I think he flustered and accidentally told the truth. I keep these things in mind as I consider to vote for.

Kucinich I'd not only vote for, I'd campaign for him. Gephardt is not as progressive but he's always been there for unions over his decades of Congress so I'd vote for him and campaign for him as well. The corporate media treats Sharpton's camapign as a joke, but I think he might speak to a constiuency who is alienated from politics - the wealthiest 20% of Americans are half of the voters, the poorest 80% constitutes the other half. Al Gore is not going to light a fire under that base but Sharpton might, I take him more seriously than the pundits anyhow.

On the other hand are the others. Lieberman I definitely would not vote for, I'd actually prefer Bush winning, at least the conservative candidate would be called a Republican. Kerry is not bad as Lieberman but seems close enough, I'd probably vote Green in his case. Dean I am on the fence about. Everyone says he is a fiscal conservative, but there is a (slight) difference between him and Bush. I'm up in the air about Dean, I could conceivably vote for him, the ball would be in his court (and I'd also be watching who is supporting him, what his power base would be).

The difference between the Republicans and the DLC Democrats is how they want to make the rich richer - neo-cons vs. neo-libs.

The DLC, the Republicans, and Clinton, are all playing the same tune, only the words vary a little just so nobody notices.

The republicans: "We're not as bad you think we are."

The DLC: "We're not as bad as you think they are."

Clinton: "I'm not as bad as I was."

Something for everyone.

Democrats are for the people.

Repugs are for the elites.

Repugs are for the elites
Democrats are for the elites...but need the poor to vote for them.

:)

compare him to Bush. Clinton has so much to say he has to interrupt Goodman to finish. Bush repeats himself and pads his answers with nonsense, and gets snippy with reporters that violate the one-question rule.

that fattening the wealthy's bank accounts is a goal for all. All the fatcats and fatcat wannabees, that is. Screw the poor, the powerless, the environment, decency, the rest of the world, as long as the wealthy keep getting richer and the "moderates" can be bamboozled into thinking that they'll get there themselves. Corporatism is good for you, smile, be happy, you too may own a BMW some day.

A philosophy for the ages in a nutshell: "I got mine, you might get yours, screw everybody else."

I voted for Clinton twice, as the "not as bad" candidate. If he were running in 2004, I wouldn't.

The "New Democrats" are just old believers in cut throat capitalism with a "Not As Bad As The Republicans" label stuck on the smelly package.

the idea that the rich don't need much help getting richer and that the poor and middle class (you know, the ones that make all the wealth for the rich) deserve a chance at improving as well. Who supports this idea? Who should we be voting for if the DLC does not represent our views?

The one line that's quoted has been blown up too much. Notice what else he says, and notice how good the economy was for working people during his administration. Much more important, imo, than any rhetoric.

And for the first time in 30
years, the incomes of average people and lower income working
people have gone up 15 percent after inflation. The lowest
minority unemployment ever recorded. The highest minority home
ownership. The highest minority business ownership in history.
That's our record.

If you look at our proposals, what do we propose to do? We
propose a tax cut that helps average people, for child care, for
long term care. For paying for college tuition. For retirement
savings. We propose to invest large amounts of money in
education, health care, the environment, in our future. And we
propose to keep paying down the debt, because that keeps
interest rates lower.

What do the Republicans propose? A tax cut that's three times as
big. Most of it goes to very wealthy people. The top one percent
of the people get as much money as they would spend on health
care, education and the environment combined. They propose to
privatize Social Security, and if you add the two things
together, we'll be back in deficits which means the economy will
go down, you know, and interest rates will be higher for
ordinary people.