tv Caught on Camera MSNBC February 7, 2016 12:00pm-1:01pm PST
press." i am a progressive who gets things done. >> when she announces, she is not a progressive. >> i am excited about really getting into the debate with senator sanders. >> it is great to be against the war after you vote for the war. >> 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 is so much at stake in this election. >> so you guys ready for a radical idea? >> the democraticen candidates debate. here now, rachel maddow and chuck todd. >> good evening. and welcome to the msnbc democratic candidates debate. >> we are super excited to be here at university of new hampshire. tonight the first time that hillary clinton and bernie sanders have squared off exactly like this -- 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 he could go about the job of being president. our job tonight to draw out differences so you, the voters, can understand them and be fully informed. we do hope that the candidates
will take this opportunity to show us the distinctions, 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. welcoming secretary hillary clinton and senator bernie sanders. [ applause ] first, i between say a special thanks to the new hampshire union leader for
helping make this debate possible and their readers who helped provide some of the questions and topics that will be addressed tonight. the rules are simple. 90 seconds for answers, 30 seconds for follow-ups and rebuttals. >> and with that, that's it. we're going to begin with 60 second opening statements from each of the candidates. and as agreed to in advance by the two campaigns we are going to begin tonight with senator sanderses. >> rachel, thank you very much. millions of americans are giving up on the political process. and they are 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. and then sustaining that rigged economy is a corrupt campaign finance system undermining american democracy where billionaires, 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 american 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 if americans can succeed. and 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. but 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 wherever 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. >> all right. let's get started. secretary clinton, last night you cited the concord monitor
when you said of senator sanders that, quote it's very hard to see how any of his proposals could ever be achievable. please tell us why you think if he's elected president, on a platform of promising things like prepublic college and universal health care, that he cannot achieve those things. >> well, let me start by saying that senator sanders and i share some very big, progressive goals. i've been fighting for universal health care for many years, and 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 contentious debate about whether we should have and what kind of system we should have for health care. i want to bill on the progress we've made, go from 90% coverage to 100% coverage. and i don't want to rip away the security that people finally have. 18 million people now have health care. preexisting conditions are no longer a bar.
so 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, manufacture, infrastructure, clean energy jobs that will make us the 21st century clean energy superpower. 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. but the numbers just don't add up from what senator sanders has been proposing. that's why all of the independent experts, all of 0 the editorial boards that have vetted both of us concluded it is just not achievable. let's go down a path where we can actually tell people what we
will do, a progressive is someone who makes progress, that's what i intend to do. >> thank you, secretary, senator sanders, just explain how you spent nearly two decades in congress and haven't gotten any of these things passed. why do you think as president you'll be able to achieve big new programs. >> i haven't quite run for president before. you know -- [ 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 have known secretary clen fin 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. so i do not accept the belief
that the united states of america can't do that. i 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 prices in the world for prescription drugs. number two, in the economy today, everybody understands that we need a well-educated workforce. 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 should substantially lower student debt in this country which is crushing millions of people. we pay for it in my view, by attacks on wall street speculation, the middle class bailed out wall street in their time of need. now it is wall street's time to
help the middle clasp. >> if i could just follow up on that. [ applause ] there is no disagreement between us on universal coverage on health care. the disagreement is, where do we start from and where do we end up? republicans want to repeal the affordable care ability. i want to improve on it get the costs down, senator sanders wants us to start all over in. >>. this was a major achievement of president obama of our country, it is helping people right now. i am not going to wait and have this plunge back into a contentious, national debate that has very little chance ie succeeding. let's make the affordable care act work for everybody. >> let me -- this is a good discussion. >> yes. >> let me just say this, as secretary clinton may know, i'm on the health education labor
committee. that committee wrote the affordable care act. the idea that 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 clear clearly, asecretary clinton made the point, done a lot of good things about you what has not done is we have 29 million people today who have zero health insurance, more who are underinsured with large deductibles and co-payments, and prescription drug prices are off the wall. so i do believe that 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 in the
campaign. basically arguing you're not progressive enough to be the democratic nominee. he had said if you vote for the iraq war, favor of the death penalty be wobbled on the keystone pipeline, tpp, you're into tar to right of the democratic party to be the party's stand ard bearer. given those policy positions, why should liberal democrats support you and not senator sanders? >> well, because i have a progressive who gets things done and route of that word, progressive, is progress. but i have heard senator sanders' comments and it's really caused me to wonder, who i left in the progressive wing of the democratic party? under his definition, president obama's not progressive because he took donations from wall street. vice president biden is not progressive because he supported keystone. senator shaheen is not progressive because she supports
the trade pac. even the late great senator wellstone would not fit this position because he voted for doma. we have differences and honest will i i think she would be talking about what we want to do for the country. but if we get into labels i don't think it was progressive to vote against the brady bill five times. i don't think it was progressive to give gun makers and sellers immunit immunity. i don't think it was progressive to vote against ted kennedy's immigration reform. we can go back and forth like this. but the fact is most people watching tonight want to know what we've done and what we will do, that's why i am laying out a specific agenda that will make progress, get more jobs with rising incomes, get us to universal health care coverage, get us to universal pre-k, paid family leave, and the other elements of what i think will build a strong economy that will ensure that americans keep making progress. that's what i'm offering and
that's when i will do as he president. >> senator sanders, have you established a list of what it means to be a progressive that is unrealistic. >> no, not at all. here's the reality of american economic life today. the reality is that we have one of the lowest voting turnouts of any major country on earth because so many people have given up on the political process. the reality is there has been trillions of dollars of wealth going for the middle class in the last 30 years to the top .1%. the reality is that 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 political revolution where millions of people have given up on the political process, stand up and
fight back, demand a government that represents us and not just a handful of campaign contributions, contributors. now, all of the ideas that i'm talking about, they are not radical ideas. doing, making public colleges and universities tuition-free, that exists in countries all over the world. used to exist in the united states. rebuilding 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 is not a radical idea. what we need to do is stand up to the big money interests and the campaign contributors when we do that, we can in fact transform america. >> thank you, senator. >> i want to follow up on a comment that secretary clinton said, senator. president obama has not call for
abolishing the death penalty. president obama is for the big asian trade deal, known as tpp and yesterday you said you can't be both a moderate or progressive but you can't be both. is president obama, in your judgment based on these policy positions a progressive? >> will the me pick up on this point. this whole discussion began because i commented not making overall evaluation about the secretary, she was in ohio, i think, in september and november, and she got up and said something like, i have been a -- i'm paraphrasing -- i have been criticized because people think i'm a moderate. welling i am a moderate. that's where this came from. it's not from me paraphrasing her. all i said there's nothing wrong with being a moderate. you can't be a moderate, you can't ab-i progressive. in terms of president obama, if we remember where this country was seven, eight years ago,
800,000 jobs lost every month, $1.4 trillion deficit, the world's financial system on the verge of collapse, i think that president obama, 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 seven years ago, although my republican colleagues seem to have forgotten where we were seven years ago. that's the fact. but we still have a very long way to go. do i think president obama's a progressive? yeah. i do. i disagreed with him on a number of issues including trade agreement. but, yes, i think he has done an excellent job. >> chuck, if i could, in the very first debate i was asked am i moderate or progressive if i said i'm a progressive who likes to go things done. cherry picking a quote here or there doesn't change my record of having fought for racial justice, having fought for kids' rights, having fought against the kind of inequities that
fueled my interests in service in the nurse place going back to my days in the children's defense fund. didn't top me taking on drug companies. before obamacare it was called hillary care, we took them on. we got the children's health insurance program. every step along the way i have stood up and fought and have the scars to prove it. again, i think it's important that, look, i understand senator sanders is really trying to distinguish himself. i understand that. that's what you do in campaigns. but 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. and it is fair to say, senator,
that in your definition, as you being the self-proclaimed gate keeper for progressivism, i don't know anyone else who fits that definition. but i know lot of hard-fighting progressives in the democratic party who have stood up time and time again again special interests, powerful on behalf of those left behind and left out. that's what we ought to be celebrating. talk about what we would do as president and commander in chief to make sure progress continues into the future. >> look -- >> 30 seconds, then we'll move on. >> that's right. i mean instead of arguing about definitions, let's talk about did. >> you began it yesterday with your comments. >> -- that's what we should do. 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 is not raising huge sums of money by wall street or special interests. i'm enormously proud.
never believed it would have happened we raised $3.5 million individual contributions averaging $27 apiece. that is what the political revolution means. [ applause ] >> thank you. >> senator sanders, as a vermonter, you have almost a home state advantage here in new hampshire. but back home across the border, you also have a long history of running against democrats as a third party candidate for governor, for senate, for congress. in 1988 your candidacy as a third party candidate arguably cost the democrats a congressional seat and sent a republican instead. how can you lead the democratic party nationally when you have not been a member of the democratic party until recently? >> rachel, that wasn't accurate. in 1988 the republican did win, i believe by three points. i came in second. it was 34-31, i think 19 for the democrat.
if that race the democrat was the spoiler, not me. and it is true -- [ applause ] -- it is true, it's not to be denied, 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. but 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, and i was elected by the democrats to be chair of the veterans committee a couple, two, three years ago which i'm proud of and now ranking member of the lead of democrats in opposition the majority republicans. i'm running for president as a democrat. and 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 a way that doesn't exist now. you know what? i want a 50-state strategy so the democratic party is not just the party of 25 states. >> senator clinton? secretary clinton. >> 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 am -- i'm very proud and grateful to have the support of so many electeders and former officials, three -- two former governors, the current governor, the current other senator. i really appreciate that. and i think it's because they've worked with me, they've seen what i do, they know what i kind of colleague i am, they want me as their partner in the white house. and that's exactly what i'll do.
we'll get things done together, democrats, republicans, independents, we'll make progress together when i'm president. >> senator sanders, to this point, secretary clinton is raising the issue offence dorsmentes by your home state democrats. is she -- she's implying that that's says something about the people who know you best. >> i don't see it quite like that. i am -- >> how do you see it? if. >> i am -- will absolutely admit that secretary clinton has the support of far more governors, mayors, members of the house, she has the entire establishment or almost the entire establishment behind her. that's a fact. i don't deny it. but i'm pretty proud we have over 1 million people who have contributed to our campaign, averaging 27 bucks apiece, that we have had meetings where 25,000, 30,000 people have come out, that our campaign is a c campaign of the people, by the
people, for the people. so, rachel, yes, secretary clinton does represent the establishment. i represent, i hope, ordinary americans. and, by the way, not all that enamored with the establishment but i'm very proud to have people like keith ellison in the house, cochairman of the house progressive caucus. >> look, i've got to jump in here because honestly, senator sanders is the only person who i think would characterize me a woman running to be the first woman president as exempt fiing the establishment. and i've got to tell you that it is -- it -- it is really quite -- it's really quite amusing to me. people support me because they know me, they know my life's work, they have worked with me and many have also 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'm not going to talk about big ideas like single payer and then not level with people 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. because 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 no the my agenda. >> senator sanders, 30 seconds to respond to that. >> being part of the establishment is, is in the last
quarter, having super pac that raised $15 million from wall street, that throughout one's life raises 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 breathe about the changes that is needed in this country for the middle class and working families. >> yeah, but i think it's fair to really ask what's behind that comment. you know, senator sanders has said he wants to run a positive campaign. i've tried to keep my disagreements over issues, as it should be. but time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth which really comes
down to, you know, anybody whoever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought. and i just absolutely reject that, senator. and i really don't think these kinds of attacks by insinuation are worthy of you. and enough is enough. if you've got something to say, say it directly. but you will not find that i ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that i ever received. and i have stood up and i have represented my constituents to the best of my ability and i'm very proud of that. so i think it's time to end the very artful smear that you and your campaign have been carrying out in recent weeks. >> oh! >> let's talk about the issues. let's talk about the issues that divide us. >> okay let's -- let us talk about issues. >> we agree with campaign
finance reform. i worked hard for mccain/feingold. i want to reverse citizens united. >> let's talk about issues. >> let's talk about issues. >> 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 providing -- spent billion of dollars of lobbying and campaign contributi contribution? some might think they had some fly un. why we pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs and your medicine can be doubled tomorrow and there's nothing that the government can do to stop it. you think it has anything to do with the huge amounts of campaign contributions and lobbying from the fossil fuel industry in let's talk about climate change, do you think there is a reason why not one republican has the guts to recognize that climate change is real and that we need to
transform our energy system? do you think it has anything to do with the koch brothers and exxon mobil pouring huge amounts of money into the political system? that is what goes on in america. i am not -- i like -- [ applause ] there is a reason. you know, there is a reason why these people are putting huge amounts of money into our political system. and in my view, it is undermining american democracy and it is allowing congress to represent wealthy campaign contributors and not the working families of this country. >> senator, i don't think -- >> madam secretary, madam secretary -- we're going to -- >> 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. and i'm proud of that. you know when i took on the drug companies and the insurance companies for universal health care coverage they went after with me a vengeance. today you've got hedge fund bill airs aligned with karl rove running ads against me to get democrats to vote for you. i'm going to stop this game. while talking about votes, you're the one who voted to deregulate swaps and derivatives in 2000 which contributed to overleveraging of lehman brothers which is one of the culprits that brought down the economy. i don't know, i'm not impugning your motive to because -- people mistakes and i'm not saying you did iter any financial advantage. what we've got to do as democrats, what we've got do do as democrats to be united to solve these problems and what i believe is that i have a better track record and a better
opportunity to actually get that job done. that's what this election should be about. >> 30 seconds and then we'll go to a break. >> i think as secretary clinton knows, there is nobody who fought harder -- i was on the house financial committee at that time -- i heard the arguments coming from democrats and republicans, robert rubin, alan greenspan, about how great an idea it would be if we did away with glass-steagall and if we allowed investor banks and commercial banks and big insurance companies to merge. go to youtube today, look at up greenspan/sanders. listen to what i told them then. 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. >> senator sanders, secretary
clinton we've touched a nerve. we'll be back with more on this subject and much more after this. stay with us. in new york state, we believe tomorrow starts today. all across the state the economy is growing, with creative new business incentives, the lowest taxes in decades, and university partnerships, attracting the talent and companies of tomorrow. like in utica, where a new kind of workforce is being trained. and in albany, the nanotechnology capital of the world. let us help grow your company's tomorrow, today at business.ny.gov at ally bank, no branches equals great rates. it's a fact. kind of like vacations equal getting carried away. more proactive selling. what do you think michal? i agree. let's get out there. let's meet these people. ♪
[screaming] ♪ ♪ the bold nissan rogue, with intuitive all wheel drive. because winter needs a hero. now get a $199 per month lease on the 2016 nissan rogue. nissan. innovation that excites. ugh! heartburn! no one burns on my watch! try alka-seltzer heartburn reliefchews. they work fast and don't taste chalky. mmm...amazing. i have heartburn. alka-seltzer heartburn reliefchews. enjoy the relief.
campaign contributions and campaign finance reform. you rail against campaign financing in politics. you realize there's one system in place, 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 a big money out of presidential politics? >> chuck, actually we looked at it but it turns out to be a disaster. the way it is structured now if you make it to california you can do pretty well. in terms of iowa and new hampshire, other states it just doesn't work. but your point is well taken. i believe in public funding of elections. absolutely. but this system -- i don't know if the secretary would agree -- is currently antiquated and no longer applies to modern day politics. >> why criticize her on super pac and you've got all of this when it is, you know, that's the
system? you could be participating in a publicly financing system and being able to set an example. >> public financing system everybody knows is antiquated, it no longer works. nobody can become president based on that system. what's the alternative? there are two. we looked at it, should we did a super pac? i ce concluded i don't represen corporate america or billionaires. the other al terptive ask working families and middle class to help out in a transf m transformational campaign. got $3.5 million, 27 bucks apiece. i think that's pretty good. >>en 0 the issue of wall street. >> on the issue of wall street. >> when reporters talk to people on the ground in early states what they tell us over and over, when they find voters leaning towards 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 sack speeches you say that's in what they offered have you been too dismissive of voters concerns about this in your own campaign and your own career? >> i think i may not have done the job in explaining my record. when i effoleft the secretary o state's office, like others i did go on the speaking scircuit. i spoke to heart doctors. i spoke to the american camping association. i spoke to auto dealers and, yes, firms of wall street. they wanted me to talk about the world, what my experience had been as secretary of state. but 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 loophole that hedge fund managers enjoy. i proposed changes in ceo compensation. i called for consumer protection financial bureau before it was created. and 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 and spent as much as $6 million on these ads. hedge fund billionaire, karl rove, another billionaire jumped. why are they doing that? these are guys who try to make smart investments. they know my record. they know me. they know i say what i believe and i will do it. i also have a pretty good understanding 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 was 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 caught with marijuana, that kid has a police record. a wall street executive destroys the economy $5 billion settlement, 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 ] >> if i could, if i could, let me just, let me just say of course it has to change. it has to change and that's why i put forward a plan to do just that. and it's been judged to be the toughest most effective
comprehensive one. i have great respect for senator sanders' commitment to try to restore glass-steagall. but i do not believe that is enough. i don't believe it addresses the biggest issues we have. you know we now have power under the dodd/frank legislation to break up banks and i said i will use that power if they pose a systemic risk. i want to go further, it was investment banks, insurance companies, mortgage companies all of which contributed. let's not just 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. >> well, i would say that folks who have looked at this issue for a long time, whether it's elizabeth warren or many other economists, will tell you right now, yes, we do need a 21st century glass-steagall legislation. i would tell you also that, when you have three out of the four
largest banks in america today, bigger than they were significantly bigger, than when we bailed them out because they were too big to fail, i think, if teddy roosevelt were alive today -- good republican, by the way -- what he would say is break them up. they're too powerful economically. they're too powerful politically. and that is what i believe and many economists believe. time to break them up. >> look, we have a law -- look, you know, 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. so we have a law in place. if the circumstances warranted i
will certainly use it, from what you say i know you will as well. but that is not enough. and 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, shadow banking guys, is because i've got their number on all of that. and my plan goes so much further to try to prevent the problems of the future. you know 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. and my plan, paul krugman, barney frank, experts who understand what the new challenges might be, have said, i am exactly on point and the wall street guys actually know that. >> but, senator, in response she has had more people praise her plan than yours. >> we have a number of economists supporting 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 the united states of america. that is a lot of money. the issue two-thirds of the credit cards and ripping off people with high interest rates on the credit cards and they write about one-third of 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 talked to say we should break them up. >> thank you both. let me move on to your next question. comes to us through new england cable news. secretary clinton it's addressed to you, the issues of the speeches, particularly goldman sacks. i am concerned, she asks whether you would release the transcripts of your goldman sachs speeches and added, don't
you think the voting public has a right to know what was said? but let's make that bigger, are you willing to release the transcripts of all paid speeches? we know through reporting there were transcription services in full disclosure, would you release all of them? >> i will look into it. i don't know the status but i will certainly look into. i can only repeat what is the fact i spoke to a lot of different groups with a lot of different constituents, a lot of different kinds of members about issues that had to do with world affa affairs. i probably described more times than i can remember how stressful it was advising the president going after bin laden. so my view on this is, look at my record. look at what i am proposing and we have a vigorous agreement here. we both want to rein in excesses of wall street. i also waalso wasn't to rein in
excesses of companies like johnson controls that we bailed out and we saved the auto industry and now they want to avoid paying taxes. i want to go after the pharmaceutical companies like valiant that are increasing prices without any regard to the impact on people's health. i have a broader view. now, if all we're going to talk about is one part of our economy and indeed 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. and i have a record of trying to go at the problems that actually exist and i will continue to do that. >> you sound like you want to respond. >> i do. i agree with much of what the secretary said. but madam secretary, it is no the one street. wall street is an entity of unbelievable economic and political power. that's a fact. and i want to say something, it may sound harsh -- not to you -- but to the american people in
this sense, in my view the business model of wall street is fraud. it is fraud. i believe that corruption is rampant and the fact that major bank after major bank has reached multi billion 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're going to have to bail them out again, and i do not want to see that happen. >> senator, no one wants to see that happen. i mean, look, i -- 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. >> and i believe that we have to be very focused on how we try to take back the power s er and ine the empowerment of the american people. i think i have that experience, maybe because they beat me up for so many years and i know how to handle them because i've been in the arena with them time and time again. >> let me turn to i think where this direct is heading which is the broader issue of big business and power in our political system. you on the campaign trail have railed against big named american corporations like boeing and general electric and walmart. some big businesses this country 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 afford able 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. >> sure. >> or have you made enemies of big business in the country with the way you've apreached them in this campaign. >> of course i can work with them. when i talked about boeing and general electric, what i was referring to is an outrage. i suspect the secretary agrees with me. right now you have a loophole such these guys are putting profits, multiple billion dollar profitable corporations putting million dollars into cayman islands and other tax havens. after making billions in profit you know how much they're paying in taxes to the united states government in a given year? zero. now explain to me how that makes any sense at all. what i have said with regard to boeing and g.e. and other multinationals that pay zero taxes you know what we're going to do? we're going to end that
loophole. they are going to pay their fair share of taxes. we're going to use that money to rebuild our infrastructure and create up to 13 million jobs. can i work with corporations? are there good corporations? doing incrediblecutting-edge research and development? absolutely there are, and we should be proud of them, but on the other hand, there are many corporations who have turned their backs on the american worker, who have said if i can make another nickel in profit by going to china and shutting down in the united states of america, that's what i will do. i will do my best to have 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. and with that we are going to take another break. >> we'll be right back, and we're going to get to trade and a lot of other issues. (man) hmm. what do you think?
♪ (stranger) good mornin'! ♪ (store p.a.) attention shoppers, there's a lost couple in the men's department. (vo) there's a great big un-khaki world out there. explore it in a subaru crosstrek. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. get fast-acting, long-lasting relief from heartburn with it neutralizes stomach acid and is the only product that forms a protective barrier that helps keep stomach acid in the stomach where it belongs. for fast-acting, long-lasting relief. try gaviscon®. her long day as anne. hair stylist starts for fast-acting, long-lasting relief. with shoulder pain when... hey joanne, want to trade the all day relief of 2 aleve with 6 tylenol? give up my 2 aleve for 6 tylenol? no thanks. for me... it's aleve.
welcome back. welcome back to the democratic debate. we're going to be talking about america in the world both in terms of some trade issues but also national security, and secretary clinton, we're going to start with you. there are more than 4,000 american troops back in iraq right now as part of the fight against isis. it has been 15 straight years of wars and multiple deployments for america's military families who have borne such a disproportionate burden. is president obama right to keep escalating the number of u.s. troops that's fighting isis right now? >> well, 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 have said myself we will not send american combat troops back to either syria or iraq. that is off the table, but we do
have special forces. we do have trainers. we do have military personnel who are helping with the air strikes that the united states is leading so that we can try to take out isis infrastructure, take out their leadership, and i think that 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 actually take back territory, to work with the sunni tribes in anbar province and elsewhere so 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, and i also think we've got to do more to stop foreign fighters, foreign funding, and take isis on online as well as doing everything necessary to keep us safe at home. so as i look at what the president is doing, it adds up to me. we just have to keep trying to
get more support for those people on the ground in syria and iraq who have to actually physically take the territory back. >> to be clear, to the specific question, if that strategic goal that you're describing requires considerably more americans, an ever-increasing number of americans in iraq and syria, are you okay with the numbers increasing? >> no. of course, that's a theoretical question and we don't gho whkno it would be for and how many numbers there would be. i'm against american combat troops being in syria and iraq. i support special forces, i support trainers, i support the air campaign, and i think we're making some progress. i want to continue to intensify that, and that's exactly what the president is doing. >> thank you, madam clinton. >> senator sanders. 30 seconds to respond. >> let me agree with much of what the secretary said, but where we have a different background on this issue is we differed on the war in iraq which created barbaric
organizations like isis. not only did i vote against that war, i help lead the opposition, and if you go to my website, berniesanders.com, you will see the statement that i made in 2002, and it gives me no pleasure to tell you that much of what i feared would happen the day after saddam hussein was overthrown, in fact, did happen. >> all right. senator -- >> if i -- >> go ahead 30shtion second hed. >> if i could respectfully differ. a vote in 2002 is not a plan to defeat isis. we have to look at the threats we face right now, and we have to be prepared to take them on and defeat them. [ applause ] >> we're staying basically on this topic. obviously you've been emphasizing the difference on the iraq war but one place you agree and one place you voted to authorize the use of force was in favor of the war in afghanistan. right now it's possible
president obama will be leaving the next president, perhaps 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 perpetual warfare, the quagmire of syria and iraq, and 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, and let me just mention what king abdullah of jordan said, and i think he hit the nail on the head, and what he said was 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.
so 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, the combat on the ground must be done by muslim troops with our support. we must not get involved in perpetual warfare in the middle east. >> can you address the question on afghanistan? >> that is the answer. >> how long are troops going to be there? if president obama leaves you 10,000 troops -- >> you can't simply withdraw tomorrow. i wish we could, and allow the taliban or anybody else to reclaim that country. but what we must do, and what we have seen in recent months is some progress in iraq where finally the iraqi army, which
has not been a particularly effective fighting force, retook ramadi. isis has lost i think 40% of the territory it held in the last year. hopefully, one can't predict the future, that maybe our training and their fighting capabilities are improving, and we are going to make some progress in destroying isis. >> secretary clinton, 30 seconds, how long are these troops going to be in afghanistan. we have more american troops in afghanistan right now than we were talking about in iraq. >> absolutely. the president decided to leave more troops than he had originally planned in afghanistan. we have a very cooperative government there with ashraf gahni and his top partner abdullah, and they are doing their very best, and the afghan army is actually fighting. the afghan army is taking heavy losses defending afghan territory, and i would have to make an evaluation based on the circumstances at the time i took
office as to how much help they continue to need because it's not just the taliban. we now are seeing outposts of fighters claiming to be affiliated with isis, so we've got this arc of instability from north africa to south asia, and with he have to pay close attention to it, and we have to build coalitions, something that i did to take on the iranian nuclear program and what i will do as president to make sure that we defeat these terrorist networks. >> senator sanders, nobody knows who your foreign policy advisers are. you haven't given a major foreign policy speech and it doesn't sound all the time that foreign policy is a priority. when you're asked about it you say you're going to crush isis as you said last night and earlier. you have not proactively laid out a foreign policy doctrine yet, why? >> that's not quite accurate. i did give a speech at georgetown where i talked about democratic socialism and foreign policy. maybe i shouldn't have combined the two in the same speech because the foreign policy part of it didn't get muc