HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » I wish Hillary was trustw...

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:28 AM

 

I wish Hillary was trustworthy. I wish Hillary was a progressive.

Unfortunately, she's neither, and it's hurting the Democratic Party big time.

118 replies, 5159 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 118 replies Author Time Post
Reply I wish Hillary was trustworthy. I wish Hillary was a progressive. (Original post)
Scuba May 2016 OP
CaliforniaPeggy May 2016 #1
laserhaas May 2016 #57
merrily May 2016 #2
Enthusiast May 2016 #108
Tierra_y_Libertad May 2016 #3
CrowCityDem May 2016 #4
RKP5637 May 2016 #5
Baobab May 2016 #28
maxsolomon May 2016 #31
RKP5637 May 2016 #37
maxsolomon May 2016 #70
RKP5637 May 2016 #84
Baobab May 2016 #38
SCantiGOP May 2016 #66
immoderate May 2016 #75
maxsolomon May 2016 #92
maxsolomon May 2016 #69
Baobab May 2016 #74
maxsolomon May 2016 #85
Baobab May 2016 #86
maxsolomon May 2016 #90
Baobab May 2016 #97
tarheelsunc May 2016 #110
pinebox May 2016 #113
pinebox May 2016 #112
maxsolomon May 2016 #115
RKP5637 May 2016 #33
Baobab May 2016 #40
RKP5637 May 2016 #43
Fawke Em May 2016 #78
Jester Messiah May 2016 #61
RKP5637 May 2016 #64
Baobab May 2016 #98
Scuba May 2016 #6
CrowCityDem May 2016 #7
Scuba May 2016 #9
CrowCityDem May 2016 #11
Scuba May 2016 #12
CrowCityDem May 2016 #13
Scuba May 2016 #15
CrowCityDem May 2016 #23
Scuba May 2016 #29
maxsolomon May 2016 #36
VulgarPoet May 2016 #116
Nite Owl May 2016 #106
maxsolomon May 2016 #118
RKP5637 May 2016 #41
Baobab May 2016 #35
CrowCityDem May 2016 #39
Baobab May 2016 #44
CrowCityDem May 2016 #45
Scuba May 2016 #54
CrowCityDem May 2016 #62
forjusticethunders May 2016 #88
Scuba May 2016 #91
forjusticethunders May 2016 #95
Scuba May 2016 #100
Baobab May 2016 #72
CrowCityDem May 2016 #73
Scuba May 2016 #83
LiberalFighter May 2016 #55
Scuba May 2016 #67
Baobab May 2016 #76
Ferd Berfel May 2016 #46
BootinUp May 2016 #22
CrowCityDem May 2016 #25
Baobab May 2016 #79
BootinUp May 2016 #81
maxsolomon May 2016 #93
forjusticethunders May 2016 #94
progressoid May 2016 #56
Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #65
CrowCityDem May 2016 #68
hobbit709 May 2016 #71
jeff47 May 2016 #77
Donald Ian Rankin May 2016 #8
Scuba May 2016 #10
B Calm May 2016 #18
Electric Monk May 2016 #105
MisterP May 2016 #14
workinclasszero May 2016 #16
Scuba May 2016 #20
leeroysphitz May 2016 #24
workinclasszero May 2016 #47
leeroysphitz May 2016 #48
workinclasszero May 2016 #49
RKP5637 May 2016 #27
Mike__M May 2016 #50
progressoid May 2016 #52
leeroysphitz May 2016 #17
silvershadow May 2016 #19
RKP5637 May 2016 #21
BootinUp May 2016 #26
Zen Democrat May 2016 #30
laserhaas May 2016 #59
seabeyond May 2016 #32
PufPuf23 May 2016 #34
CrowCityDem May 2016 #42
PufPuf23 May 2016 #51
CrowCityDem May 2016 #53
Autumn May 2016 #58
Nay May 2016 #60
oldandhappy May 2016 #63
LenaBaby61 May 2016 #80
StevieM May 2016 #82
TheSarcastinator May 2016 #87
sadoldgirl May 2016 #89
Baobab May 2016 #99
NorthCarolina May 2016 #111
rock May 2016 #96
RBInMaine May 2016 #101
VOX May 2016 #102
glinda May 2016 #103
Logical May 2016 #104
Enthusiast May 2016 #107
me b zola May 2016 #109
Logical May 2016 #114
CharlotteVale May 2016 #117

Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:32 AM

1. I wish those things too, my dear Scuba. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #1)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:05 PM

57. ^^^^ this times 1000^^^^

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:34 AM

2. Maybe the script calls for a Republican win this time?

We do seem to be trading off after two terms lately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #2)

Sat May 28, 2016, 04:46 AM

108. "They" must maintain the illusion. It's wearing awful thin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:41 AM

3. But, she's evolving...into a coulda' been.

 

?t=51

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:41 AM

4. I wish people knew where 'the center' of American politics is, so they could see she's to the left.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #4)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:48 AM

5. I like Bernie, but I agree with you. In the big picture I too think she's to the left! And if Trump

gets the presidency, she'll be like a 60's radical left. I am so afraid the masses of this country well might vote in Trump. The US is known for often being totally stupid in how many vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #5)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:25 PM

28. She's a right winger.

Don't kid yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #28)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:29 PM

31. What was the stat I heard?

She voted with Sanders on 93% of their common votes in the Senate.

She's more of a Hawk, obviously, but she's not Right-Wing. Fucking Ted Cruz is Right-Wing. She's supported GUN CONTROL, for Christ's sake.

Be realistic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #31)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:32 PM

37. Ted Cruz is even more than RW IMO, I think he's unstable and also a religious wacko.

He's a scary individual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #37)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:38 PM

70. Look! Consensus!

There is hope for DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #70)

Fri May 27, 2016, 02:41 PM

84. Yep!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #31)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:33 PM

38. You'll see.

She is not "with us". Quite the opposite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #38)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:18 PM

66. So respond to the facts for once

If Clinton is a right-winger, and she and Sanders voted together 93% of the time, does that make Sanders 93% right wing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCantiGOP (Reply #66)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:53 PM

75. They agree on naming post offices.

 



--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCantiGOP (Reply #66)

Fri May 27, 2016, 03:09 PM

92. Can't respond when it doesn't fit the Anti-Clinton narrative.

the hyperbolic naivete regarding this election stuns me daily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #38)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:38 PM

69. Sounds scary. Like we'll all wind up in Concentration Camps?

Or Inequality will continue to grow (which is what I expect will happen no matter who is elected)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #69)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:51 PM

74. No, there is a very large difference between Clinton and Sanders.

Clinton is the wife of the man who is credited globally with starting the WTO.

Electing her is basically endorsing the WTO and its programme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #74)

Fri May 27, 2016, 02:49 PM

85. You didn't answer my questions

and you responded with a non-sequitur.

I'll check with my wife and see if she concurs that Women are responsible for their Husband's actions. I suspect she might not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #85)

Fri May 27, 2016, 03:00 PM

86. The middle class are being set up to 'pay' the wealthy's 'debt'

to the developing world. With their jobs!

As the very rich have been getting rich for 20 years while stringing the developing countries along on empty promises of 'services liberalisation'.

See the problem? the developing countries, just like us, have been conned by the same tricksters.

That is why they want Hillary to win SO much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #86)

Fri May 27, 2016, 03:07 PM

90. You know, I've heard this 1000x in my Facebook feed

and 10,000x on DU. Its been going on for decades now, so I think I've already seen the results.

Are you contending that Clinton leads in the Democratic Primary due to a conspiracy by International Trade "Tricksters"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #90)

Fri May 27, 2016, 03:46 PM

97. Millions of man hours over 15 years have been devoted to setting up "Disciplines on domestic regulat

"Disciplines on domestic regulation" in at least three separate FTA contexts- those negotiations are all still going on. When they are done, presumably all those regulations will be implemented.

- Would they spend all that money over more than 15 years, hold at least a half dozen international Ministerial events - etc, for nothing?

No.

Would hundreds of stories have been written in the news in other countries for nothing, no.

The US media hides these deals for some reason but those reasons are not holding back the media in other countries, you just need to learn about the negotiations from them.

Don't say I didn't warn you, inform yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #31)

Sat May 28, 2016, 08:33 AM

110. At least one of our party's two candidates supported gun control.

But hey, what else would you expect from "Right-Wing" Hillary...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tarheelsunc (Reply #110)

Sat May 28, 2016, 08:44 AM

113. A refresher on gun control & Hillary

 

Hillary ran to the right of Obama on guns and catered the NRA vote. Do you forget the whole Annie Oakley thing?
Hillary recently held a fundraiser which was co-hosted by an NRA lobbyist.

This is why people distrust Hillary.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #31)

Sat May 28, 2016, 08:40 AM

112. Ted Cruz is far RW

 

and as far as that 93% thing, it's that 7% which makes the world of difference and some of those are huge liberal issues.
Here, check out the senate votes which divide Bernie and Hillary from when they both served. You might be rather shocked.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/upshot/the-senate-votes-that-divided-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders.html

As far as gun control goes, she also ran to the right of Obama and chased the NRA vote. Hell, she just recently held a fundraiser which included NRA lobbyists. https://theintercept.com/2016/03/01/nra-lobbyist-will-co-host-clinton-fundraiser/

Is it any wonder why people don't trust Hillary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinebox (Reply #112)

Tue May 31, 2016, 11:01 AM

115. "Trust" is not my voting criteria for President

Trump/Not Trump is how I'm choosing. We're about to put a Used Car Salesman in charge with this internecine sniping.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #28)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:30 PM

33. ... but in comparison to Trump?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #33)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:34 PM

40. Her hand picked opponent?

Ivanka and Chelsea are best friends, literally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #40)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:36 PM

43. Interesting! Thanks! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #40)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:59 PM

78. Wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #33)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:09 PM

61. She's more subtle about it

 

But not materially different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #61)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:14 PM

64. I think that's what it is, she uses anesthesia, Trump doesn't. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #33)

Fri May 27, 2016, 03:48 PM

98. They both are neoliberals, they both are supporters of guest worker programs that are

frequently compared to slavery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #4)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:49 AM

6. Pro-war, pro-private prison, pro-fracking, pro-H1B Visas, pro-TPP does not equate to "left."

 

Neither does vacationing with Kissinger.




Try to think of it this way: If Republicans really believed America was a center-right country, they'd want everyone to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #6)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:52 AM

7. No one is far left on every issue. Even Bernie is to the right on a few.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #7)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:55 AM

9. Hillary is middle-right to far-right on matters of the economy and foreign affairs.

 

She's also untrustworthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #9)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:58 AM

11. Supporting Dodd/Frank, raising taxes on the rich, wanting higher minimum wage. Far right?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #11)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:02 PM

12. Pro-war, pro-private prison, pro-fracking, pro-H1B Visas, pro-TPP. She's right, alright.

 

Your wishing it otherwise doesn't change the facts.

She supports Dodd/Frank, the emasculated version of Glass-Steagall.

She supports health coverage for all, not health care for all.

She supports a minimum wage that is $3.00 / hour below a living wage.

She supports the death penalty.

She supports military adventures whenever she gets the chance.



She's untrustworthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #12)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:04 PM

13. I see, you're one of those who thinks Bernie is the center, not the far left.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #13)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:10 PM

15. America largely agrees that Bernie is the mainstream candidate ...

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/senator-bernie-sanders-policy-platform-presidential-campaign

America's Views Align Surprisingly Well With Those of "Socialist" Bernie Sanders

Sanders: Famously filibustered the 2010 extension of Bush tax cuts for wealthy Americans.

His fellow Americans: In a February poll, 68 percent of likely voters said wealthy households pay too little in federal taxes.

...

Sanders: The big banks "are too powerful to be reformed," Sanders says on his website. "They must be broken up."

His fellow Americans: A recent poll by the Progressive Change Institute found that 58 percent of likely voters support "breaking up big banks like Citigroup."


...

Sanders: Supports raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour "over the next few years."

His fellow Americans: Sixty-three percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $15 by 2020.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #15)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:20 PM

23. Hillary supports those goals too, just in different policies.

 

Besides, the left being more popular doesn't shift the center. The center is the ground between the left and the right. Bernie is out on the left. That's fine. But it doesn't mean anyone to his right is right of center. There is room to be left of center and still right of Bernie.

Besides,

[Sanders' supporters]were less likely than Mrs. Clinton’s supporters to favor concrete policies that Mr. Sanders has offered as remedies for these ills, including a higher minimum wage, increasing government spending on health care and an expansion of government services financed by higher taxes. It is quite a stretch to view these people as the vanguard of a new, social-democratic-trending Democratic Party.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/opinion/campaign-stops/do-sanders-supporters-favor-his-policies.html

Statistics can prove anything you want them to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #23)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:26 PM

29. No she doesn't.

 

And she's not trustworthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #29)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:30 PM

36. why do you think that's a criteria for the Presidency?

are you going to loan her your bike or something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #36)

Tue May 31, 2016, 12:04 PM

116. Because with no trust, how in the bloody blue fuck can we trust what she says her policies are? eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #29)

Sat May 28, 2016, 01:34 AM

106. That's the thing

That bothers me most. You just can't believe she would actually be the slightest bit progressive.she can say some progressive things but once in office I can't believe anything would actually be implemented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nite Owl (Reply #106)

Tue May 31, 2016, 01:08 PM

118. if there is a GOP congress

nothing any democratic president wants will be implemented. "trust" is moot.

see: the current situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #15)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:35 PM

41. That's, is a good way of summing it up, "Bernie is the mainstream candidate" and that's

one of the reasons I've always liked him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #11)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:30 PM

35. WTO/RGFS will kick wages down, because they are a forbidden "market entry barrier" to foreign firms.

That's her plan, I am sure.

She's laughing at us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #35)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:33 PM

39. So now it's what you think, not what she's said? What a fair standard. Lol.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #11)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:38 PM

44. She wants wages in the US to fall to world average rates. She has advocated for that her whole life

And worked for it behind the scenes.

While Bernie wants wages elsewhere to rise.

That is a key difference to the 1%.

As you can imagine. Under Bernie's approach CEO pay and total concentration of wealth would slow somewhat. Under Hillary it would skyrocket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #44)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:40 PM

45. She's proposed a $12+ minimum wage. You don't get to make up your own facts.

 

Find me a statement from this cycle, where she's running for President, to 'prove' what you just allege. I know you can't. You're projecting your own hatred on her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Scuba (Reply #54)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:10 PM

62. So why did Bernie support $10.10 two years ago?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #54)

Fri May 27, 2016, 03:01 PM

88. As someone looking for an apartment in the DC area I know damn well the rent is too high

 

This chart is BS though - why would a single person, or even a couple, ever need to rent a 2 BR?

Imo, a baseline for fair housing prices should be "a single BR apartment should cost no more than 30% of the income of a minimum wage worker". And we can work from there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forjusticethunders (Reply #88)

Fri May 27, 2016, 03:08 PM

91. That single person might have a child.

 

If that's OK with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #91)

Fri May 27, 2016, 03:20 PM

95. In that case , the issue is not supporting single parents to the extent we should.

 

whether via child support or by subsidies or other programs.

In any case, the principle of '30% of the income of a minimum wage worker" as a starting point is not good enough for you? That would be a rent of somewhere in the neighborhood of 500-600 dollars a month for a person making 12 dollars an hour.

As much as I'd like to actually get wages to track with economic growth (because that is stolen wealth), it's just not going to happen with any degree of timeliness no matter how much we want it to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forjusticethunders (Reply #95)

Fri May 27, 2016, 03:53 PM

100. ... or through a living wage.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #45)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:42 PM

72. I'm just telling you that, you don't have to believe me.

This "globalism" goes back to her college days. Its an asserted goal of many of the advocates for the WTO, however, the role of the WTO has been shown to be more the continuation of extreme concentration of wealth -

They are doing this through liberalisation of the movement of natural persons to provide services within multinational corporations.

Like trade in goods, labor mobility can create losers as
well as winners. In the overall balance, gains usually
exceed losses by a wide margin, but political sensitivities
focus on those who lose. In simple theoretical terms,
migration can be modeled as an increase of supply in the
labor markets of developed countries and a decrease of
supply in developing countries. Here, we use that frame-
work to examine the effects of those supply changes on
the incomes of capitalists and workers, in both the send-
ing and the host countries, and on the incomes of the
migrants themselves.

Effect in developed countries. Given the restrictions on
labor mobility, the equilibrium in the labor market is at
point A in figure 13.2. After liberalization, the equilibrium
moves to point B, reflecting an increase in the number of
hours worked and a decrease in the wage per hour. The loss
for native workers is shown by area ACDE. The gain for
capitalists is shown by area EABD, with most of this gain
coming from the loss for native workers. Since the gain for
capitalists is larger than the loss for native workers, the lib-
eralization of mode 4 leads to an overall gain, shown by
area ABC.
Effect on developing countries. The effect of the liberal-
ization of mode 4 on developing countries is the exact
opposite to that for developed countries. With restrictions
on mode 4, the equilibrium in the labor market is at point
B in figure 13.3. After liberalization, the equilibrium point
moves to point A, reflecting an increase in the wage per
hour and a decrease in the number of hours worked.
As will be apparent later, the gains for migrants in
developed countries are much larger than the loss that
their departure inflicts on developing countries. Nonmi-
grant workers also experience gains, shown by area ACDE
in figure 13.3, since the wage rate has increased in devel-
oping countries. But nonmigrant capitalists experience a
very large loss, shown by area ABDE (most of the loss cor-
responds to the wage gain for nonmigrant workers).
Because the loss for nonmigrant capitalists is larger than
the gain for nonmigrant workers, the group of nonmi-
grants as a whole experiences an overall loss of income,
shown by area ABC. In other words, the effect on total
welfare of liberalizing mode 4 is negative for nonmigrants
in developing countries. Income per capita, however, is
likely (although not guaranteed) to rise as marginal pro-
ductivity increases.
Overall outcome. Migrants lose their erstwhile wages in
developing countries but enjoy larger wages in developed
countries. They therefore experience a gain, measured by
the wage difference between the destination and source
countries.

According to the theoretical model, the liberalization of
mode 4 has the following distributional consequences:
• In developed countries, most of the gains for capitalists
are balanced by losses to native workers.

• In developing countries, most of the losses to capitalists
are mirrored by gains to nonmigrant workers.
• In developed countries, the gains for capitalists are
larger than the losses for native workers. Therefore, total
income in developed countries rises.

• In developing countries, the losses for capitalists are
larger than the gains for nonmigrant workers. There-
fore, total income in developing countries falls.

Distributional Effects of Mode 4 Liberalization
The theoretical and empirical prediction of large gains
from full or partial liberalization of mode 4 outlined in
box 13.2 do not hide the fact that labor mobility will have
distributional consequences. Migrants are the main win-
ners; the results for natives in both the sending and the host
countries are mixed.
Gains for migrants. Walmsley and Winters (2002) calcu-
late that benefits to migrants (US$171 billion) actually
account for more than the total gain from increased labor
mobility (US$156 billion). Total gains are smaller than the
gains to migrants because of the losses to the sending
countries, discussed below.
Losses for developing countries, before remittances. The
departure of migrants reduces the number of workers in
the sending countries, which increases hourly wages of
nonmigrant workers but diminishes total output. Walms-
ley and Winters (2002) calculate that Brazil would see its
welfare reduced by US$7 billion if the workforce going to
developed countries increased by 3 percent, and China
would experience a decline of US$2 billion, notwith-
standing the compensation received from remittances.
The authors’ calculations suggest that unskilled workers
in India would see a wage increase of 0.7 percent and that
skilled workers in Mexico would enjoy an increase of
4.5 percent. Returns to capital would, however, decrease
by, for example, 0.4 percent in Mexico. Exploring a more
extreme scenario, Moses and Letnes (2004) arrive at simi-
lar results. In their calculations, a 10 percent elimination
of wage inequality leads to an 11.4 percent increase in the
wages of nonmigrant workers in the poorest countries in
1998, while the return to capital in those countries falls
like a stone, by 21 percent.
The importance of remittances for developing countries.
If the gains to migrants themselves are included in the
overall balance sheet for developing countries, the pic-
ture changes completely. (Pritchett 2006 makes this
point.) When the gains to migrants are combined with
the national income losses to the sending countries, the
developing countries experience a significant gain in
plausible scenarios—the equivalent of 1.8 percent of their
gross domestic product (GDP), according to the World
Bank’s Global Economic Prospects 2006, which explores
the “3 percent scenario.”
World Bank estimates of global remittances show that
globally, compensation and remittances increased sixfold

between 1990 and 2008, rising from US$69 billion to
US$397 billion (adjusted for inflation). In 2007, migrant
compensation and remittances accounted for around
0.7 percent of world GDP, but for developing countries,
the relative importance of remittances in GDP in 2007 was
much higher. Remittances were 2.1 percent of the GDP of
developing countries as a whole, but 1.9 percent of the
GDP of middle-income countries and 5.8 percent of the
GDP of the least-developed countries (a UN category).
An increasing share of remittances goes to developing
countries, which accounted for 46 percent of this flow in
1990 but for 76 percent by 2007. It is estimated that remit-
tances touch 1 in 10 people worldwide. Dependence on
remittances is especially high in certain countries. The
main receiving countries in absolute terms are India
(US$27 billion), China (US$26 billion), Mexico (US$25
billion), and the Philippines (US$17 billion). For many
smaller countries, remittances represent a very large frac-
tion of GDP, accounting for more than 36 percent of the
GDPs of Moldova and Tajikistan and about 25 percent of
the GDPs of Guyana, Honduras, and Lesotho.
Mixed picture in developed countries. Outcomes of
migration for the developed countries are mixed, although
slightly positive. Workers, especially unskilled ones, face
increased competition from migrants and see their wages
decline. For example, Hatton and Williamson (1998) esti-
mate that in 1910, American wages would have been 11 to
14 percent higher in the absence of the immigration wave
that set in after 1870. Borjas (1999) calculates that immi-
gration to the United States between 1980 and 1998
resulted in a decrease in native wages amounting to
1.9 percent of GDP and that the losses were concentrated
among low-skilled U.S. workers, whereas skilled workers
actually benefited from immigration. Immigration
reduced the wages of native high-school dropouts in the
United States by 8.9 percent between 1980 and 2000 but
increased the return to capital by 2 percent of GDP. The
net gain from the 1980–98 migration wave for all U.S.
natives is the difference between the decrease in wages
and the increase in returns to capital, or 0.1 percent of
U.S. GDP per year over the period. This net gain repre-
sents about US$10 billion a year, accounting for about
5 percent of U.S. economic growth over a 20-year period.
Moses and Letnes (2004) find the same pattern in the
case of a 10 percent elimination of wage inequality. They
calculate that liberalization of this magnitude would
reduce wages in developed countries by 3.1 percent,
while increasing the return to capital by 7.2 percent.
Walmsley and Winters (2002) reach similar results in the
case of a 3 percent increase in the workforce of devel-
oped countries: that scenario leads to a 0.8 percent

decrease in U.S. and European wages and a 0.8 percent
increase in return to capital in the United States. The World
Bank’s Global Economic Prospects 2006 study shows that in
the 3 percent scenario, the incomes of all natives combined
in developed countries would rise by 0.4 percent (World
Bank 2006).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #72)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:50 PM

73. If we're going to ignore what they are actually saying, why do we have a campaign?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #73)

Fri May 27, 2016, 02:27 PM

83. So we can hear what they're saying, then compare to their past words and actions.

 

When one does that with unbiased criticality, Hillary is outed as a liar, Bernie as a truth-teller.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #9)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:04 PM

55. "Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy."

DailyKos

From Jill Abramson
For decades she’s been portrayed as a Lady Macbeth involved in nefarious plots, branded as “a congenital liar” and accused of covering up her husband’s misconduct, from Arkansas to Monica Lewinsky. Some of this is sexist caricature. Some is stoked by the “Hillary is a liar” videos that flood Facebook feeds. Some of it she brings on herself by insisting on a perimeter or “zone of privacy” that she protects too fiercely. It’s a natural impulse, given the level of scrutiny she’s attracted, more than any male politician I can think of.

I would be “dead rich”, to adapt an infamous Clinton phrase, if I could bill for all the hours I’ve spent covering just about every “scandal” that has enveloped the Clintons. As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising.

Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #55)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:18 PM

67. Your favorite band?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #55)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:56 PM

76. No, she's not, she hid something very important in 1994, do you even know that?

The services deal signed then basically successfully hijacked our world's - all the WTO members, ability to have any new services if they were non-compliant, the standstill began in 1998- which includes all state owned public services- blocking affordable health care. She concealed that with a healthcare scheme proposal that we now know could never have worked (however, it is WTO-compliant.) That led to the current impasse..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #6)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:42 PM

46. I agree completely

Problem is that here at DU (probably other places too) the definitions of "Progressive" and "Liberal" are being Orwellian-ized to fit her right wing corporatist conservative ideology.

I've had arguments here with Clinton people supporting ALL of those issues and pretending, some how that they were being progressing and liberal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #4)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:19 PM

22. She is running on the most progressive policies of a likely nominee

really since Mondale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #22)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:22 PM

25. Exactly.

 

A 40% increase in the minimum wage, tougher Wall Street regulations, expanding the ACA even further, demanding equal pay, etc.

In 2008, those positions would have been the cranky Bernie-style far left challenger's platform. Now they're going to be the actual policies of the nominee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #22)

Fri May 27, 2016, 02:13 PM

79. It wont matter, the WTO is out of her hands.

That was the whole point of the stuff they did back in the 1990s.

They don't even need the three new FTAs, they are just for "legitmacy's" sake.

Why do you think our health care and education are so screwed up, BTW?

Noticed how everything was privatized starting around 1995?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #79)

Fri May 27, 2016, 02:24 PM

81. Contrary to a lot of misinformation pumped by the far left

All of the bad things I see many Sanders supporters use as talking points are things that resulted from a shift in public opinion on economics in the 70's and 80's. Look at Bernie, while his message is timely even overdue, its his political strategy that doesn't work. You can't limit RW damage without political power. You can't move back reverse RW policies if you don't have political power. Its like Bill C tried to explain to the young Bernie supporter in NM. At the end all he could say was "I am on your side".

But every now and then someone like Bernie comes along who never before has shown the ability to build a political movement nationally before, he makes huge promises, attacks the Democrats and yeah gets some traction. More this time than we have seen in a long time. That says something good. That this IS a time to reverse RW policy. But he is not the politician to work the system. If he couldn't win a Democratic primary from the left, he can't win a GE. He was never enough of a threat that Clinton had to attack him from the right thank god.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #81)

Fri May 27, 2016, 03:11 PM

93. Stop Talking Sense and Facts!

This is GD-P for God's sake!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #81)

Fri May 27, 2016, 03:14 PM

94. t h i s.

 

Progressive political economy was Southern Strategied into lazy n***** welfare queen economics by Nixon and Reagan and the Clintons had to deal with that reality. People don't understand how powerful the RW propaganda is. Imo, the right-wing propaganda apparatus starting in the 70s is the most onerous, insidious propaganda campaign in modern history, excepting that of North Korea and certain periods like the Cultural Revolution. Even the Nazis couldn't fully brainwash the German population, many of them really were following orders, on pain of a bullet in the brain, but "obey or i shoot you in the head" isn't an example of the propaganda working. Stalinism only worked on a minority of hardcore tankies and bureaucrats. I'm not being hyperbolic, right-wing ideology is that mind-warping. And with so many of this country's voters warped by this, they had to make concessions or risk a total defeat.

Like you said, we are AT a point where we can finally put Reagan in his coffin and nail the lid shut forever. But it's not going to happen without a massive, grassroots, intersectional movement, and Bernie couldn't do it. I actually don't think he's *personally* unelectable (certainly not against Trump, I don't think he's stronger than Hillary but if Hillary has a 95% chance of beating Trump, Bernie has an 85% chance) but he's not the right guy to build the movement to push and cement that progressive change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #4)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:04 PM

56. I wish people knew that the center of American politics was moved to the right by people like her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #4)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:16 PM

65. the center has moved over the years

 

in the 1950-1970s she would be a mainstream Republican. Not even an exaggeration.

The problem is the right is so far off right now, it makes Hillary look left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Reply #65)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:24 PM

68. Yes, times change. The Democrats were a party of discrimination a century ago.

 

No one would use that label now, because the facts on the ground have changed. When you look at TODAY'S center, Hillary is clearly left of it. Ignoring history doesn't help make a point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #4)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:40 PM

71. She's to the right of Obama, she'd have to make a hard left turn to get to center.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #4)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:57 PM

77. I wish people would actually bother to look at polling before making statements like that.

Turns out, your intuition does not accurately measure where "the center" is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:54 AM

8. Poof! Your wishes are granted.

Personally, I wish you realised that, and stopped actively helping put Trump in the White House, but I suspect I'm unlikely to get mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #8)

Fri May 27, 2016, 11:57 AM

10. It's Hillary's blind obedience faithful who are helping Trump. He will crush her in the GE.

 

Her many lies will be repeated over and over and over again. She's killing us, figuratively and literally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #10)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:14 PM

18. Looks that way. No matter how much they try to spin, this

 


National Security problem is not going away. She is a flawed candidate and if she don't drop out now, I fear Trump may have a real chance of winning this election. This whole Democratic primary has been a sham from the get--go all thanks to Hillary and the DNC oligarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #10)

Fri May 27, 2016, 09:23 PM

105. Like Glenn Greenwald said recently (and he makes a hell of a point)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:09 PM

14. "but if we want her to be hard enough, she will be!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:12 PM

16. Lies, propaganda and republican talking points is all Berners got

 


Hillary Clinton is a Hard-Core Liberal.


http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #16)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:16 PM

20. Yeah, except for her policies.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #16)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:20 PM

24. Here. I fixed your chart. It needed some re-calibration.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leeroysphitz (Reply #24)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:42 PM

47. Thats fake and you know it.

 

Where is the link to the site claiming this bogus horseshit?

Nowhere but in your head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #47)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:45 PM

48. No, it absolutely is not. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leeroysphitz (Reply #48)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:46 PM

49. Where's the link then?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #16)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:25 PM

27. If Trump gets in we're all going to be in deep shit, including the damn fools

that will vote for him. For one example ... I was driving behind a guy in a beat up truck that looked like it was held together with duct tape, with Trump stickers all over the back, so this guy likely thinks Trump is going to give/help him to a better financial life. Hell, Trump will call him a loser, as well as the rest of the losers voting him in. He works them well, he's an artist at it. About half of this country is in the land of Idiocracy, and then they vote, generally for the wrong ones for all the wrong reasons. At this stage I just want a democrat in the WH 2016, I don't care who it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #16)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:47 PM

50. This looks reasonable

because it includes her stated positions since she started parroting Sanders last Fall. The recalibrated chart leeroysphitz shows below looks like it matches her actual record.

So, which Hillary? And why should we believe it's that one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #16)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:01 PM

52. Oooh chart time!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:12 PM

17. If wishes were fishes... n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:16 PM

19. K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:17 PM

21. K&R !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:25 PM

26. Wes Clark backs her Scuba, but in a primary you got to go with your

Last edited Fri May 27, 2016, 12:56 PM - Edit history (1)

conscience, I get that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:27 PM

30. She wants to keep Glass-Steagall off the books. That's anti-progressive.

You can't be a real progressive and be on the side of Wall Street bankers, which she most definitely is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zen Democrat (Reply #30)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:07 PM

59. ^^^^^^this 10000 times + ^^^^^^^

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:29 PM

32. Clinton is progressive and only those with agenda feel otherwise.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:30 PM

34. I would gladly support Hillary Clinton if I considered her trustworthy and a progressive or liberal.

Hillary Clinton lies more than most politicians and there is abundant video clips as evidence.

In policy and act, I perceive Hillary Clinton as a DINO that resembles Nixon or Reagan or the neo-liberalism of Bill Clinton rather than a progressive liberal.

I am anti war / anti global military empire but not pacifist and am repelled by Clinton's time as SOS and those she considers valued advisors.

The DNC aided and abetted by Hillary Clinton have harmed and confused the Democratic brand. A major error was made in 2015 and 2016 to treat Hillary Clinton like and incumbent and presumptive Democratic nominee for POTUS. The DNC failed to provide a slate of viable candidates. If not for Sanders, discourse would have been very limited. At times I can believe that the neo-liberals want the anti-war liberals to quit the Democratic party. Never did I expect to see neo-conservatism to be the plan for USA foreign policy offered by the Democratic party. This is especially troubling as I still think that the Democratic party is more competent than the GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #34)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:35 PM

42. Does it bother you that Bernie...

 

voted for massively bloated military spending, intervention on Kosovo, and a Donal Rumsfeld written declaration that regime change in Iraq was the official stated policy of the Unites States? Bernie has plenty to answer for on that front too, but he seems to get a pass, now doesn't he?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #42)

Fri May 27, 2016, 12:56 PM

51. Relax your off topic fabrications.

Hillary Clinton has the votes after all.

Please ignore me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #51)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:01 PM

53. That response makes it obvious you don't actually care about those issues.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:07 PM

58. You know what they say about wishes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:08 PM

60. Yeah, I know. We've got no time for this incremental shit anymore. It's crunch

time and no one, least of all corporations or third wayers, are going to step up. We're done, folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 01:14 PM

63. I wish she were retired!

I think she is a right leaning centrist. I am a progressive. This election cycle has shown me that. Interesting. I thought I was a moderate Dem. What a hoot!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 02:15 PM

80. June 14th...

Can't come SOON enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 02:24 PM

82. Secretary Clinton is a progressive. And she is trustworthy. And she will be our next president.

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StevieM (Reply #82)

Fri May 27, 2016, 03:01 PM

87. keep whispering that to yourself

You'll believe it eventually. The rest of us, not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StevieM (Reply #82)

Fri May 27, 2016, 03:02 PM

89. Please, show a national and recent poll to

show me how trustworthy she is. 25%, 35%?
Certainly no more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StevieM (Reply #82)

Fri May 27, 2016, 03:49 PM

99. her healthcare program was a cover up of a really horrible thing..

the number one threat to public education and healthcare's very existence to this day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StevieM (Reply #82)

Sat May 28, 2016, 08:34 AM

111. That's more than a stretch right there. -nt-

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 03:28 PM

96. Wish granted

Just stop listening to the GOP and BSers who constantly spew that crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 03:57 PM

101. Another ridiculous Hillary Hater post from the planet Nonsense.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 05:58 PM

102. I wish Trump wasn't insane, or running for POTUS...

But he is. And he must be beaten; anything else is dangerously diverting.

HRC has the best chance of beating Trump. She's more progressive than is actually perceived in some corners.

I will not aid & abet a Trump candidacy by not voting for Hillary in the GE. And that's not a wish, it's actually occurring in measurable reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 08:09 PM

103. I was behind her last time she ran. I wish the same also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 09:15 PM

104. kick

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 04:43 AM

107. Kicked and recommended!

True, Scuba, true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 08:32 AM

109. Kickipoo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:22 PM

114. true

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue May 31, 2016, 12:10 PM

117. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread