Reply to Sanders is the real feminist in this race

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Sanders is the real feminist in this race"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Sanders is great at assigning blame for a lot of things, but he hasn't really done much about them and his proposals are sanctimonious ideals that ignore political feasibility.

If you define feminism as yelling about injustice while criticizing everyone who tries to work out practical remedies, then I guess he is a feminist. I don't think that is the way most feminists would define feminism, though. [/quote]

I think that most feminists would define feminism as: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

Sanders fits that definition. Clinton does not because of the damage she has done to women by advocating for welfare reform, NAFTA and TPP. Global trade agreements have hurt women disproportionately. Welfare reform has had dire effects on women. These are not just "mistakes." The Clintons have done a lot of harm. [/quote]

You have a Twitter-level understanding of public policy - cherry-picking and exaggerating two issues completely out of context.

You are way overstating the effects of welfare reform, absurdly assigning blame for it to Hillary, and ignoring everything else she has done. Even on your ridiculous terms, the 1996 welfare reform was a compromise on one benefit that enabled the Clinton Administration to take the Republicans to the cleaners on a much broader social program agenda. Creating CHIP, expanding Medicaid, expanding WIC, increasing EITC, increasing minimum wage - they got that stuff through a Republican Congress.

Mother Jones: 
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/heres-why-bernie-sanders-doesnt-say-much-about-welfare-reform
.[i]..maybe welfare reform has turned out not to be an especially big deal. After all, by 1996 the old AFDC program accounted for ...a tiny fraction of the total welfare budget—and the difference in spending between AFDC and the TANF program that took its place is even more minuscule. The truth is that it's barely noticeable compared to increases in social welfare spending during the 90s from changes to CHIP, EITC, the minimum wage, and so forth.

...Instead, we need to look at spending per person in poverty. This gives us a better idea of how policy has responded to poverty over the past few decades.

There are two obvious takeaways from this. First, overall spending on social welfare programs has increased by 3x since 1980. That's pretty substantial. Second, if the 1996 welfare reform act had any effect on this steady rise in spending, you'd need a chart the size of my house to make it out. [/i]

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics