tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC February 4, 2016 6:00pm-7:01pm PST
the press corps has come along and have been seated around the front of the audience. 600 people in attendance. a hot ticket in state of new hampshire tonight. next up, the democratic candidates debate from the university of new hampshire. i am a progressive who gets thing done. >> i guess she's not a progressive. >> i am excited about really getting into the debate with senator sanders. >> it's great to be against the wall after you vote for the wall. >> he has voted with the gun lobby. >> enough is enough. >> so, i hope we keep it on the issues. >> we were told that my opponent was the inevitable nominee. she doesn't appear quite so
inevitable today. >> there's so much at stake in this election. >> you guys ready for a radical idea? >> the democratic candidates debate live in the university of new hampshire. here now rachel maddow and chuck todd. [ applause ] >> good evening, and welcome to the msnbc democratic candidates debate. >> we're super excited to be here at the university of new hampshire. tonight, this is the first time that hillary clinton and bernie sanders have squared off exactly like there. face-to-face, just one-on-one, just the two of them. >> neither party has seen this yet. these candidates are both running for the democratic nomination but very different from each other when it comes to what matters most and how they could go about the job of being president. our job tonight is to draw out those differences so, you the voters, can understand them and be fully informed. >> we do hope the candidates
will take this opportunity to show us the differences between them. that's the whole reason that we're here tonight. we're not here for talking points. we're to learn about the difference between the candidates. with that, let's get going. please join us in welcoming secretary hillary clinton and senator bernie sanders. [ applause ] [ applause ] >> first, i want to say a special thanks to the new hampshire union leader for
helping make this debate possible, and the readers who helped provide some of the questions and topics that we'll be addressing tonight. the rules are simple. 90 seconds for answers, 30 seconds for follow ups and rebuttals. >> with that, that's it. we're going to begin with 60 second opening statements from each of the candidates. as agreed to in advance by the two campaigns, we're going to begin with senator sanders. >> rachel, thank you very much. millions of americans are giving up on the political process. their giving up on the political process because they understand the economy is rigged. they are working longer hours for low wages. they are worried about the future of their kids, and yet almost all new income and wealth is going to the top 1% not what america is supposed to be about. not the fairness that we grew up
believing that america was about. then sustaining that rigged economy is a corrupt campaign finance system undermining american democracy. where billionaire, wall street, corporate america can contribute unlimited sums of money into super pacs and into candidates. our job, together, is to end a rigged economy, create an economy that works for all, and absolutely, overturn citizens united one person, one vote. that's what america democracy is about. >> thank you, senator. secretary clinton. >> well, i'm happy to be here in new hampshire for this debate as we move toward the primary on tuesday. i believe that america has the opportunity to once again live by our values, live up to our values in the 21st century, but
i think that america can only do that in americans can succeed. there are lots of reasons why americans, today, are feeling left out and left behind. yes, of course, the economy has not been working for most americans. yes, of course, we have special interests that are unfortunately doing too much to rig the game. there's also the continuing challenges of racism, of sexism, of discrimination against the lgbt community, of the way we treat people as opposed to how we want to be treated. i believe that we can get back on the right track. that i want to imagine a country where people's wages reflect their hard work, where we have health care for everyone and where every child gets to live up to his or her potential. i'm fighting for people who cannot wait for those changes, and i'm not making promises that i cannot keep. >> let's get started. secretary clinton you said of
senator sanders that quote, it's very hard to see how any of his proposals could ever be achievable. tell us why you think if he's elected president on a platform of promising free public college and universal health care that he cannot achieve those things. >> senator sanders and our share some very big progressive goals. i've been fighting for universal health care for many years. we're now on the path to achieving it. i don't want us to start over again. i think that would be a great mistake to once again plunge our country into a debate about whether we should have and what kind of system we should have for health care. i want to build on the progress we've made. go from 90% coverage to 100% coverage opinion coverage. i don't want to rip away the security that people have. 18 million people now have health care. preexisting conditions are no longer a bar.
we have a difference. i also believe in affordable college, but i don't believe in free college because every expert that i have talked to says, look, how will you ever control the costs. what i want to do is make sure middle class kids, not donald trump's kids get to be able to afford college. i want to get the economy going again. it's not just enough about what we're against as important as that is. i have a plan to create new jobs, manufacturing, infrastructure, clean energy jobs that will make us the clean energy super power. i want to make sure small businesses can start and grow again. of course, i believe in raising the minimum wage and equal pay for work. the numbers just don't add up from what senator sanders has been proposing. that's why the independent experts and editorial boards that have vetted both of us have concluded it's just not achievable. let's go down path where we can tell people what we will do.
a progressive is someone who makes progress. that what's i intend to do. >> thank you. senator sanders, just explain how you spent two deck waades i congress and haven't gotten them passed. why do you think as president you'll be able to achieve? >> i haven't quite run for president before. [ applause ] let's deal with some of the comments that secretary clinton made. by the way, sometimes there's a lot of drama here. i've known secretary clinton for 25 years and respect her very much. here is the issue. every major country on earth, whether it's the uk, whether it's france, whether it's canada has managed to provide health care to all people as a right and they are spending significantly less per capita on health care than we are. i do not accept the belief that
the united states of america can't do that. i do not accept the belief that the united states of america and our government can't stand up to the rip offs of the pharmaceutical industry which charge us, by far, the highest price in the world for prescription drugs. number two, in the economy today everybody understands that we need a well educated work force. this is 2016. when we talk about public education, it can no longer be k through 12th grade. i do believe that public colleges and universities should be tuition free. how do we pay for that? it's an expensive proposition. i do believe we lower student debt in this country which is crushing millions of people. we pay for it in, in my view, by attacks on wall street speculation, the middle class bailed out wall street in their time of need. now it's wall street's time to
help the middle class. >> if i could just follow up on that. [ cheers and applause ] >> 30 seconds. >> there is no disagreement between us on universal coverage for health care. the disagreement is whether do we start from and where do we end up? the republicans want to repeal the affordable care act. i want to improve it. i want to build on it, get the costs down, get prescription drug costs down. senator sanders wants us to start all over again. this was major achievement of president obama, of our country. it's helping people right now. i'm not going to wait and have us plunge back into a national debate that has very little chance of succeeding. let's make the affordable care act work for everyone. >> let me -- >> go. >> let me say this, secretary clinton may know. i'm on the health education
labor committee. that committee wrote the affordable care act. the idea i would dismantle health care in america while we're waiting to pass a medicare for all is just not accurate. the affordable care act has done a lot of good things, but, what it has not done, is dealt with the fact we have 29 million people that have zero health insurance and even more underinsured and prescription drug prices are off the wall. i do believe in the future, not by dismantling what we have here. i helped write that bill, but by moving forward, rallying the american people. i do believe we should have health care for all. >> thank you both. rachel. >> secretary clinton, senator sanders is campaigning against
you now, at this point arguing you're not progressive enough to be the democratic nominee. he's said if you voted for the iraq war and in favor of the death penalty and wobbled on things like the keystone pipeline then you're too far to the right of the democratic party to be the party's standard bearer. given those policy positions, why should liberal democrats support you and not senator sanders? >> i am a progressive who gets things done. the root of that word, progressive, is progress. i've heard senator sanders comments. it's really caused me to wonder who's left in the progressive wing of the democratic party. under his definition, president obama is not progressive because he took donations from wall street. vice president biden is not progressive because she supported keystone. even the late, great senator
paul wellstone would not fit this definition because he voted for doma. we have differences, and, honestly, i think we should be talk about what we want to do for the country. if we're going to get into labels, i don't think it was particularly progressive to vote against the brady bill five times. i don't think it was progressive to give gun makers immunity. i don't think it was progressive to vote against ted kennedy's immigration reform. we can go back and forth like there. most people watching tonight want to know what we've done and what we will do. that's why i'm laying out a specific agenda that will make more progress and get more job, get us to universal health care coverage, get us to universal pre-k, paid family leave and the other elements that will build a strong economy and ensure americans will keep making
progress. that's what i'm offering and that's what i will do as president. >> how do you establish a list of what it means to be a progressive that's unrealistic? >> no, not at all. here's the reality of american economic life today. the reality is that we have one of lowest voter turn outs of any major country on earth because so many people have given up on the political process. the reality is there's been trillions of dollars of wealth going from the middle class in the last 30 years to the top 1/10th of 1%. the reality is we have a corrupt campaign finance system which separates the american people's needs and desires from what congress is doing. so, to my mind, what we have got to do is wage a april revolution where millions of people have given up on the political process, stand up and fight back.
demand the government that represents us and not just a handful of campaign contribution, contributors. now all the ideas that i'm talking about, they are not radical ideas. doing, making public colleges and universities tuition free, that exists in all countries all over the world. used to exist in the united states. we building our crumbling infrastructure and creating 13 million jobs by doing away with tax loopholes that large corporations now enjoy by putting their money into the cayman islands and other tax havens, that's not radical idea. what we need to do is to stand up to the big money interests and the campaign contributors. when we do that we can transform america. [ cheers and applause ] >> i want to follow up on a comment that secretary clinton
said. president obama has not called for abolishing the death penalty. just yesterday you said you can't be a moderate or a progressive but you can't be both. is president obama, in your judgment, based on these policy positions a progressive in. >> let me pick up on this point. this whole comment began because i commented. she was in ohio in september or november. she said i have been a criticized because people think i'm a moderate. well, i am a moderate. that's where this came from. all i said nothing is wrong with being a moderate. you can't be a moderate. you can't be a progressive. if we remember where this country was, 8,000 jobs being
lost every month. the financial system on the verge of collapse. i think vice president biden and the democratic leadership in the house and the senate have done a fantastic job. we are in much better shape today than we were seven years ago. although my republican colleagues seem to have forgotten where we were seven years ago. that's the fact. do i think president obama is a progressi progressive? i do. i disagree with him on a number of issues. i think he's done an excellent job. >> in the first debate i was asked if i'm a moderate or progressive. i said i'm a progressive that likes to get things done. cherry picking doesn't get things done.
it certainly didn't stop me from taking on the insurance companies before it was called hillary care. it was called obama -- before it was called obama care. it was called hillary care. we took them on but we weren't successful. we kept fighting and got the children's health insurance plan. every step along the way i have stood up and fought and have the scars to prove it in [ applause ] i understand senator sanders is really trying to distinguish himself. i understand that. that's what you do in campaigns. at the same time, let's not be, i think in an unfair way making an accusation or making an attack about where i stand and where i've always stood pop. it is fair to say in your
definition, as you being the self-proclaimed gate keeper for progressivism, i don't know anyone else who fits that definition. i know a lot of really hard fighting progressives in the democratic party who have stoods up time and time again against special interests and the powerful against those that are left behind and left out. let's talk about what we could do as president and commander in chief to make sure the progress continues into the future. >> one of the things we should do is not only talk the talk but walk the walk. i am very proud to be the only candidate up here who does not have a super pac, who's not raising huge sums of money from wall street and special interests. i'm enormously proud.
never believed it would happen. we have raised 3.5 million individual contributions averaging $27 a piece. that's what the political revolution means. [ applause ] >> as a vermonter, you have a long history of running against democrats back at home, as a third party for candidate. for governor, senate, for congress. in 1998 your candidacy arguably cost the democrats a congressional seat and sent a republican instead. how can you lead the party when you've not been a member recently. >> that wasn't accurately. the republicans did win by three points. i came in second.
in that race the democrat was the spoiler, not me. [ applause ] it is true. i am the longest serving independent in the history of the united states congress. people of vermont sent me to washington as an independent. that is true. on the other hand, i have -- when i was in the house for 16 years, i caucused with the democrats. in the senate for nine years caucused with the democrats, of course. i was elected by the democrats to be chair of the veterans committee three years ago which i'm very proud of and now in the rankings member on the budget committee, leaders of the democrats in opposition, the majority republicans. i'm running for president as a democrat. if elected, not only do i hope to bring forth a major change in national priorities but let me
be frank, i do want to see major changes in the democratic party. i want to see working people and young people come into the party in way that doesn't exist now. i want a 50-stage strategy so it's not just the party of 25 states. >> the person who first put out the idea of a 50-state party strategy is former governor howard dean who is with us tonight. >> that's right. >> i'm very proud and grateful to have the support of so many elected vermonters and former officials. two former governors, the current governor, the current other senator. i really appreciate that. i think it's because they've worked with me, they've seen what i do. they want me as their partner in the white house. that's exactly what i'll do.
we'll get things together. democrats, republicans, inspe s independents, we're going to make progress together when i'm president. >> to this point, secretary clinton is raising the issue of endorsements by your home state democrats. she's implying that says something about the people who know you best. >> i don't see it quite like that. >> how do you see it? >> i will absolutely admit that secretary clinton has the support of far more governors, majyor mayors, members of the house. she has the entire establishment or almost the entire establishment behind her. that's fact. i don't deny it. i'm pretty proud that we have over a million people who have contributed to our campaign averaging 27 bucks a piece. we've had meetings where 25, 30,000 people have come out. that our campaign is a campaign of the people, by the people and
for the people. so, rachel, yes, secretary clinton does represent the establishment. i represent, i hope, ordinary americans who are not that enamored with the establishment but i am very proud to have people like keith ellison in the house. >> i've got to just jump in here because, honestly, senator sanders is the only person who would characterize me a woman running to be the first woman president as exemplifying the establishment. i've got to tell you that it is -- [ applause ] it's really quite amusing to me. people support me was a they know me. they know my life's work. they have worked with me and many have worked with senator sanders.
at the end of the day they endorse me because they know i can get things done. i am not going to make promises i can't keep. i am not going to talk about big ideas like single payer and then not level with people about how much it will cost. a respected health economist said these plans would cost a trillion dollars more a year. i'm not going to tell people that i will raise your incomes and not your taxes, and not mean it. i don't want to see the kind of struggle that the middle class is going through exemplified by these promises that would raise taxes and make it much more difficult for many, many americans to get ahead and stay ahead. that is not my agenda. [ applause ] >> senator sanders, 30 seconds to respond to that. >> what being part of the establishment is is in the last quarter having a super pac that
raised $15 million from wall street, that raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests. to my mind, if we do not get a handle on money in politics and the degree to which big money controls the political process in this country, nobody is going to bring about the changes that is needed in this country for the middle class and working families. >> yeah, i think it's fair to really ask what's behind that excelle comment. senator sanders says he wants to run a positive campaign. i've tried to keep my disagreements over issues, as it should be. time and time again, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth, which really comes down to, you
know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought. i just absolutely reject that, senator. i really don't think these kinds of attacks by insinuation are worthy of you. enough is enough. if you've got something to say, say it directly. you will not find that i ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that i ever received. i have stood up and i have represented my constituents to the best of my abilities, and i'm very proud of that. i think it's time to end the artful smear that you and your campaign have been carrying out in recent weeks and let's talk about the issues that divide us. >> let's talk about issues.
>> we don't agree with campaign finance reform. i want to reverse citizens younitis yo united. >> let's talk about issues. let's talk about why in the 1990s wall street got deregulated. did it have anything to do with the fact that wall street provided -- spent billions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions? well, some people might think that had some influence. let's ask why it is that we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs and your medicine can with doubled tomorrow and there's nothing the government can do to stop it. you think it has anything to do with the huge amount of campaign contributions and lobbying for the fossil fuel industry. let's talk about climate change. do you think there's a reason why not one republican has the guts to recognize that climate change is real, and we need to
transform our energy system? do you think it has anything to do with the koch brothers and exxon mobile pouring huge amounts of money into the political system? that's what goes on in america. [ cheers and applause ] there is a reason. there is a reason why these people are putting huge amounts of money into our political system. in my view, it's undermining american democracy and allowing congress to represent wealthy campaign con tributributers and the working families of this country. >> i don't think you can find any person in political life today who has been subjected to more attacks and had more money
spent against her by special interests, among whom you have named a few, than i. i'm proud of that. when i took on the drug companies and the insurance companies for universal health care coverage, they went after me with a vengeance. today you have hedge fund billionaires aligned with carl rove running ads against me to try to get democrats to vote for you. i know this game. i'm going stop this game. while we're talking about votes, you're the one who voted to deregulate swaps and derivatives in 2000, which contributed to the overleveraging of lehman brothers which was one of the culprits that brought down the economy. i'm not impugning your motive because you voted to deregulate dw swaps and derivatives. i'm in the saying you did it for any financial advantage. what we've got to do as democrats is to be united to actually solve these problems and what i believe is i have a better track record and a better
opportunity to actually get that job done. that's what this election should be about. [ cheers and applause ] >> 30 seconds and then we're going to move on. >> i think as secretary clinton knows, there's nobody who fought harder -- i was on the house financial committee at that point -- i heard the arguments coming from democrats and republicans. robert ruben, alan greenspan about how great an idea would be if we did away with glass steelgal and allowed investor banks to merge. go to you tutube today. look up greenspan-sanders. i helped lead the effort against deregulation. unfortunately, we lost that. the result is, was, the worst financial disaster since the great depression. >> thank you, both.
let's get right to it. senator sanders, you were talking about all your contributions. you rail against big money and politics. do you realize there's one public financing system that we do have in place, and it is in place to run for president. why aren't you walking the walk on that? why aren't you participating in the presidential public financing system, which is designed to essentially keep big money out of presidential politics? >> we looked at it. it turns out to be a disaster. the way it's structured right now, if you make it all the way to california you can do pretty well. in terms of the early state, iowa and new hampshire, the other states, it just doesn't work. your point is well taken. i believe in public funding of elections, absolutely. this system is, i don't know if the secretary would agree, is currently very antiquated and no longer applies to modern day politics. >> going on that, then why criticize her on super pacs and
all this when it is, that's the system. you kulcould be participating i publicly financed system. >> it's a public financing system that everybody knows is a antiquated. nobody can become president based on that system. there are alternatives. should we do a super pac? i don't represent corporate america or billionaires. i didn't want it. the other alternative was to ask working families and the middle class to help out in a transformational campaign. we got millions of contributions, 27 bucks a piece. i think that's very good. >> secretary clinton, on the issue of issues. when our reporters go out and talk to people on the ground in the early states. what they tell us over and over again when they find voters who are learning toward senator sanders rather than yourself is that the most frequent area of
concern that they hear from those voters is the issue of wall street and whether or not you are too close to wall street. last night when you were asked about speaking fees and the amount of speaking fees you got from goldman sachs, you said that's what they offered. have you been too dismissive of voters concerns? >> i think i may not have done the job i should in explaining my record. i did when i left the secretary of state's office like so many former official, military leaders, journalist, others, i did go on the speaking circuit. i spoke to heart doctors. i spoke to the american camping association. aspo i spoke to auto dealers and firms on wall street. they wanted me to talk about my experience as secretary of state. what i want people to know is, i went to wall street before the crash. i was the one saying you're going to wreck the economy
because of these shenanigans with mortgages. i called to end the loopholes that hedge fund managers enjoy. i called for consumer protection financial bureau before it was created. i think the best evidence that the wall street people, at least know, where i stand and where i have always stood is because they are trying to beat me in this primary. they have collected as much as $6 million on these ads. hedge fund billionaire, carl rove, another billionaire jumped in. why are they doing that? these are guys that try to make smart investments. they know my record. they know me. they know what i say what i believe, and i will do it. i also have a pretty good understanding about how to stop them. i do want people to know that. i think it's important for everybody to understand i have a record. i have stood firm, and i will be
the person who prevents them from ever wrecking the economy again. >> senator sanders, you have been a critic of secretary clinton taking those speaking fees and having donations from wall street. what about her defense of her record? >> let me just say this. wall street is, perhaps, the most powerful economic and political force in this country. you have companies like goldman sachs who just recently paid a settlement fine with the federal government for $5 billion for defrauding investors. goldman sachs is one of those companies whose illegal activity helped destroy our economy and ruin the lives of millions of americans, but this is what a rigged economy and a corrupt
campaign finance system and a broken criminal justice system is about. these guys are so powerful that not one of the executives on wall street has been charged with anything after paying, in this case of goldman sachs, a $5 billion fine. kid gets caught with marijuana, that kid has a police record. a wall street executive destroys the economy, $5 billion settlement with the government, no criminal record. that is what power is about. that is what corruption is about, and that is what has to change in the united states of america. [ applause ] >> we're going to stick to this topic. >> let me just say that, of course, it has to change. it has to change and that's why i've put forward a plan to do just that. it's been judged to be the you
have e-- the toughest and most comprehensive one. i do not believe that that is enough. in fact, i don't believe it addresses a lot of biggest issues we have. we have power under the dodd frank legislation to break up banks. i said i will use that power if they pose a systemic risk. it was investment bank, insurance companies, mortgage company, all of which contributed. let's just not be narrowly focused on one part of the problem. we have a lot of issues with corporate power that have to be addressed. my plan takes us further and it would do the job. >> secretary clinton -- >> i would say that -- >> 30 seconds. >> that folks who have looked at this issue for a long time whether it's elizabeth warren or many other economists will tell you that right now, yes, we do need a 21st century
glass-stegall legislation. when you have three out of four largest banks in america today, bigger than they were, significantly bigger when we bailed them out because they were too big to fail. i think if teddy roosevelt were alive today, good republican, he would say break them up. they are too powerful economically. they are too powerful politically. that's what i believe and many economists believe. break them up. >> we have a law -- i appreciate the senator's advocacy. we have a law. it was passed. it was signed by president obama. it lays out a process that you go through to determine whether a systemic risk is posed. by the way, president obama signed that, pushed it through, even though he took donations from wall street because he's a responsible president. we have a law in place.
if the circumstances warranted, i will certainly use it and from what you say, i know you will as well. that is not enough. i keep going back to this because part of the reason the wall street guys are trying so hard to stop me, the hedge fund guys, the shadow banking guys is because i've got their number on all of that. my plan goes so much further to try to prevent the problems of the future. we can't just fight the last war. we've got to be prepared to stop these guys if they ever try to use their economic power once again to hurt the economy and to hurt so many americans. my plan, barney frank, a lot of experts who understand what the new challenges might be have said i am exactly on point, and the wall street guys actually know that. [ applause ] >> sherespond to the fact she'sd more people praise her plan than yours. >> we have a lot of people with
our legislation. the american people can judge. six largest financial institutions in america today have assets of roughly $10 trillion. equivalent to 58% of the gdp of america. that's a lot of money. they issue two-thirds of the credit cards. they are ripping off a whole lot of people with high interest rates on the credit cards. they write about one-third of the mortgages. that is a lot of power for six financial institutions. that's it. i think it's too much power. too much economic power. too much political power and the economists that i talk to say we should break them up. >> thank you both. let me move onto our new question. secretary clinton, it's addressed to you. it's about the issue of speeches to goldman sachs. this is what the questioner wrote. i'm concerned with the issues wall street has taken with the american taxpayer's money.
she asked would you release the transcripts of your speeches and added don't you think the voting public has a right to know what was said. are you willing to release the transcripts of your paid speeches? we know there were transcription services for all those paid speeches. in full disclosure, will you release all of them? >> i'll look into it. i don't know the status. i can only repeat what is the fact. i spoke to a lot of different groups with a lot constituents that had to do with world affairs. i probably described more times than i can remember how stressful it was advising the president about going after bin laden. my view on this is, look at my record. look another what i am proposing and we have a vigorous agreement here. we both want to reign in the
excesses of wall street. i also want to reign in the bas excesses of johnson control when they were an auto parts company and now they want to avoid paying taxes. i want to go after the pharmaceutical companies like valient that are increases prices without any regard to the impact on people's health. i have a broader view. if all we're going to talk about is one part of our economy and one street in our economy, we're missing the big oil companies. we're missing other big energy companies. we're missing the big picture. i have a record of trying to go at the problems that actually exist and i will continue to do that. >> senator, you sound like you want to respond. >> i do. i agree with much of what the secretary said. madame secretary, it's not one street. wall street is an entity of unbelievable economic and political power. that's fact. i want to say something and it may sound harsh, not to you, but
to the american people. in my view, the business model of wall street is fraud. it's fraud. i believe that corruption is rampant and the fact that major bank after major bank has reached multibillion dollar settlements with the united states government when we have a weak regulatory system tells me that not only did we have to bail them out once, if we don't start breaking them up, we'll have to bail them out again. i do not want to see that happen. >> senator, no one wants to see that happen. look, i care deeply about this because just like you, i have met so many people who had their life savings wiped out, who lost their homes. who are barely back with their heads above water. this was a disaster for our country, and we can never let
that happen again. we have no disagreement about this, but i think it's a broader target list than just wall street. >> sure. >> i believe that we have to be very focused on how we try to take back the power and increase the empowerment of the american people. i think i have that kind of experience, maybe because they beat me up for so many years. i know how to handle them because i've been in the arena with them time and time again. >> senator sanders, let me turn to where this direction is ledding a heading any way is the broader business and power. you have railed against companies like boeing and general electric and walmart. some big businesses have been part of advancing progressive goals like the nationwide initiative to expand employment opportunities for veterans. that was all about cooperation between the obama administration and some very big businesses. the affordable care act, some of
the thorniest problems in that bill were worked out in cooperation with big business in order to accomplish progressive goals. could you work with them or have you mad with the way you've approached them in this campaign? >> of course i can work with them, but let's be clear. when i talked about bowing and i talked about general electric, what i was referring to is an outreach. i suspect the secretary agrees request me. right now you have a loophole such that these guys are putting their profits multi-billion dollar corporations putting billions of dollars in tax havens in. in a given year after making billions of dollars in profit, do you know how much they're paying in taxes a year? zero. explain to me how that makes any sense at all. what i have said with regard to boeing and general electric, you
know what i said we're going do do we're going to end that loopho loophole. we're going to use that money to rebuild the infrastructure and create up to 13 million jobs. can i work with corporations, are there good koocorporations doing incredible work? absolutely and we should be proud of them, but there are many corporations who have turned their backs on the american worker who have said if i can make another nickle in profit by going to china, that's what i will do. i will do my best to transform our trade policy and take on these corporations who want to invest in low income countries around the world rather than in the united states of america. >> senator sanders, thank you. with that we're going to take a break. it's hard to find time to keep up on my shows.
that's why i switched from u-verse to xfinity. now i can download my dvr recordings and take them anywhere. ready or not, here i come! (whispers) now hide-and-seek time can also be catch-up-on-my-shows time. here i come! can't find you anywhere! don't settle for u-verse. x1 from xfinity will change the way you experience tv. welcome back to the democratic debates. we're going to be talking about america and the world, both in terms of trade issues but also national security and secretary clinton we're going to start with you. there are more than 4,000 troops
back in iraq now. it's been 15 straight years of wars for america's military families who have borne such a burden. is president obama right to keep escalating the number of troops that's fighting isis right now? >> i think what the president understands and what he's trying to do is that we have to support the arab and kurdish fighters on the ground who are actually doing the fighting. i agree with the president. i've said myself we will not send american combat troops back to syria or iraq, but we do have special forces and trainers and military personnel who are helping with the air strikes that the united states is leading so we can try to take out isis infrastructure and take out their leadership and i think given the threat that isis poses to the region and beyond as we have sadly seen in our own country, it is important to keep the iraqi army on a path where
they can take back territory to work with the sunni tribes so that their fighters can be also deployed to work with the kurds to provide them the support, but they're doing the fighting. we're doing the support and enabling. i also think we've got to do more to stop foreign fighters, foreign funding and taking isis on online as well as doing everything necessary to keep us safe at home. so what i look at what the president it doing, it adds up to me. we have to try to keep getting more support for those people on the ground in syria and iraq who have to take the area back. >> if that strategic goal that you're describing requires a considerable more amount of americans, are you okay with the numbers increasing? >> no, of course that's a theoretical question and we
don't know what it would be for and how many numbers there are. i am against american combat troops being in syria and iraq. i support special forces and the air campaign. i think we're making some progress. i want to continue to intensify that's and that's what the president is doing. >> thank you. >> your response. >> let me agree with much of what the secretary said, but where we have a different background on this issue is we differ on the war in iraq, which created bar baric organizations like isis. not only did i vote against that war, i helped lead the opposition and if you go to my website bernie sanders.com, you will see the statement that i made in 2002. it gives me no pleasure to tell you that much of what i feared would happen the day after saddam hussein was overthrown.
>> go ahead. 30 seconds. >> if i could add, look we did differ. a vote in 2002 is not a plan to defeat isis. we have to look at the threats that we face right now and we have to be prepared to take them on and defeat them. >> we're staying basically on this topic. obviously you've been emphasizing this difference on the iraq war, but one place where you do agree and you voted to authorize the use of force was in favor of the war in afghanistan. right now it is it possible president obama is going to be leaving the next president, president sanders, at least 10,000 troops in afghanistan. how long will those troops be in afghanistan under president sanders? >> well, i think our great task is to make certain that our young men and women in the military do not get sucked into never ending warfare in syria and iraq.
i will do my very best to make sure that that doesn't happen. i agree with the secretary that i think what has to happen -- let me just mention what the king of jordan said. what he said is essentially the war against isis is a war for the soul of islam and it must be muslim troops on the ground that will destroy isis with the support of a coalition of major powers, u.s., uk, france, germany and russia. our job is to provide them the military equipment that they need, the air support they need, special forces when appropriate, but at the end of the day for a dozen different reasons, not the least of which is that isis would like american combat troops on the ground so they can reach out to the muslim world and say look we're taking on those terrible americans, but