Hillary Clinton isn't that bad (global warming, employment, gas price, gallon)

[Linson]

i will not vote for Hillary Clinton. mind you, if i were going to vote i would vote Democrat or maybe Independent. but of all the candidates, Hillary above all comes off as the biggest politician (i.e. not genuine). literally, she changes her dialect according to what part of the country she's in and to whom she is pandering. it appears to me that she will say anything - or not say anything for the sake of votes. like her every stand is based on what is likely to get her the most votes. i hope that women (52% of the population) don't vote her in because she is a woman.

i dont care what a persons religion is, (i would prefer an athiest, or some sort of humanist), how many people they've slept with, or if they've ever been stoned. what do Dems and Republicans disagree on? abortion. nothing more. i can only see this debate as a distraction from the real problems that neither side has any intention of fixing.

[Fleet]

[quote]=saganista;1073460]I know she said that.[quote]

The problem is we can't believe anything she says! I mean, you don't actually take her seriously, do you?

And I'll tell you what Sean Hannity didn't -- that she was talking about not renewing the expiring Bushie tax cuts,

Of course she doesn't. Because she wants to raise taxes, like most liberals do.

because, just as Ronald Reagan realized after the disastrous turns of events that ensued upon enactment of his supply side tax cuts, Ms. Clinton has realized that what we are now in need of are revenue enhancements and loophole closings. Here is the actual text per the AP transcript of 7/2/04

Tax cuts increase government revenue. John F. Kennedy (a fiscal conservative) knew it, Ronald Reagan knew it and G.W. Bush knows it. The government has been getting more revenue now than it did a few years ago.
"Disastrous" turn of events? Lol. The Reagan economy did very well. Government revenues almost doubled:
Taxpayers earning over $200,000
-------------------- 1980----------- 1988
Tax rate------------ 70%------------ 28%
Dollars paid--------- $19.5 billion----- $100.3 billion
Percent of income--- 7.5%----------- 25.3%
Total taxes--------- $250.3 billion---- $412.9 billion

Percent of taxes paid by group:
-------------------- 1980----------- 1988
$0-$20 k----------- 19.5%---------- 7.0%
20-50 k------------ 49.4%---------- 30.4%
50-200 k----------- 23.6%---------- 38.3%
200+k-------------- 7.5%----------- 24.3%
Source: Internal Revenue Service Statistics published in Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Oct. 12, 1992

There you have it. The "evil rich" went from paying less than 8% of the total taxes to paying almost 1/4 of them. This destroys the myth that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer under Reagan. That would more apply to the Carter years!

We're not coming to you, many of whom are well enough off that actually the tax cuts may have helped you, and say "we're going to give you more." We're saying, "You know what, for America to get back on track and be fiscally responsible, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.
-- Hillary Clinton, 6/28/04, Speech at fundraiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer

Spoken like the true socialist that she is. Taxing the wealthy even more will not "get America back on track." It will hurt the economy.

I must retract and aplogize for the assertion that the second quote -- there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets -- came from the same Clinton speech. It did not.

Doesn't matter. We still can't believe most of what she says... unless it's taking more of our money.

It comes from a different Clinton speech that Sean Hannity distorted during the same show, that of 7/1/07.

Yeah, Hannity "distorted." Hillary is the queen of distorting! And she rarely answers the hard questions put to her.

The full transcript of that second speech is currently on Hillary's website. You can (and of course should) read it in full here...

HillaryClinton.com - Speech (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=1839 - broken link)

Yeah, like I would waste time on Hillary's website. Even a Homer Simpson website would be more rational.

I realize that it doesn't matter. Why would facts matter?

Facts DO matter. And it's a fact that every time a tax cut goes into effect, government revenue is increased. It happened in the '60s, it happened in the '80s and it's happening now.

Thank you. I work with the SOI tables all the time and so am familiar with these general numbers, and as well with the fact that they aren't necesarily the pertinent numbers. Why don't you go back to your source and then tell us what has happened to the average (effective) tax rate falling upon the top 1%? That would give you a better picture of how an actual rich individual was making out. Bzzt! Oops, time is up. Here's what happened: Over seven years the average tax rate for the top 1% fell from 26 cents on the dollar to 21.5 cents on the dollar. That's an 18% rebate for the rich. I believe you got $300

Do you have a source of that data. Do you think the wealthy are undertaxed? Do you think the wealthy should be able to keep more of their own money?

[Amaznjohn]

Good post, Fleet. Thanks for those numbers. If one actually believes that Hillary believes in free markets when she proposes Clinton Healthcare, a raise in the minimum wage, and expiration of the tax cuts, amongst other socialistic policies, they are delusional and naive.

[GregW]

I will probably not vote for HC in the Primary but if she is nominated I will support her candidacy as best I can because I will never vote for a Republican.

HC may be a closet elitist but I know all the Republicans are out of that closet or are fascist bible thumping hypocrites completely owned by their corporate masters.

[gentlearts]

Originally Posted by mbuszu

#1 - the Clinton's were cleared of any wrong doing regarding Whitewater. People should thus stop harping on this. A team of investigators worked on this case and indeed they had and still have access to information you and I never will have. Their conclusion should be respected as it was final - yours if it contradicts is based upon much less information and a lot of hearsay.

#2 Hillary would have been damned today if she had been divorced, and instead is damned for standing by her man. What a ridiculous notion that she stayed married just for political reasons. Regardless of potential validity of this point - it has no bearing on how well she could do as president. In fact, her husband's experience as president makes him an ideal first-husband if she was president.

#3 Universal healthcare is not evil, nor socialist. People who say such things don't get it, are independently wealthy, already retired, or must not be US citizens. Why - because the current state of health insurance stinks.

Our personal contributions for those of us who work at Corporations have increased each year beyond inflationary costs. Meanwhile our coverage has actually been decreasing and copays increasing. For those of you lucky enough not to have been experiencing this - then your company must be paying the difference out of their own budgets. Have any of you tried to use the Health Savings Accounts or the federal tax-free health care reimbursement accounts you can set up? - I have and the truth is that they stink as well - ridiculous paperwork you need to mail and file, and a ridiculous use-it or lose it policy in which you need to estimate how much health care cost you will have for the upcoming year and anything you undershoot the government keeps, and anything you overshoot you pay yourself. Those aren't good alternatives! They're insane and make us, who happen to be insured each have to work much harder to get the money and care due us.

For those who own their own business or who work for small companies - you must realize that the cost of health insurance for workers has gone up so significantly the last few years that indeed most small companies cannot even afford to provide health coverage for their employees. Many small business owners pay a thousand dollars or more a month to cover their families.

Then lastly, there's millions of uninsured US citizens in the US today. It's undisputed. Is it right that these folks cannot get health care services they need when they need it? If you think so then you have not thought this out or you have no heart.

#4 regarding Clinton's previous vs current stance on Iraq. She is not alone in that she (as with many politicians) initially supported the war, and now she thinks we ought to get out. Why is this a problem? Heck, I know many non-politicians who have changed their mind on Iraq as well. As information and the truth as come out over time anyone in their right mind would see that something bad is happening right now in Iraq and it doesn't appear to be solved with loss of US soldier lives.

That's a good reason to vote for somebody.. She's "not that bad". If the biggest thing this country had to worry about is Take Your Daughter to Work Day, or Save the Whales, she would be great.
The fate of the country is in grave danger by those who are truely evil. Do you really think she is the one who will make you feel safe at night?

[belovenow]

Originally Posted by gentlearts

That's a good reason to vote for somebody.. She's "not that bad". If the biggest thing this country had to worry about is Take Your Daughter to Work Day, or Save the Whales, she would be great.
The fate of the country is in grave danger by those who are truely evil. Do you really think she is the one who will make you feel safe at night?

I just wanted to continue conjecture about Hillary since the last thread was shut down and sidetracked what I considered prematurely. Of course I would never vote for someone because "they aren't that bad" - but I wanted to begin the thread defending against the most frequent and what I would consider irrational arguments against her so that we could read ones which matter.

To answer your question - I'd feel safer with her in office than the current president - which does mean something since we're talking about 8 years of his influence by the time she would enter the scene. During our current president's term I've seen international relationships go down the tubes. I've seen many of my peers lose jobs due to US white collar outsourcing to India. I've also personally seen terrorists strike us in NYC. I also know about the over 3200 US soldiers that have lost their lives in a war which appears to be creating more and more hatred of the US by others (and the war hasn't done anything positive for the US to the best of my knowledge). I've also seen our national debt and trade deficit go down the tubes after previously having surplus. I've also seen the premature expenditure of my future social security earnings. I've also seen my taxes stay the same while those who have more than enough money to live very well the rest of their lives without any additional income, have had their annual taxes cut. I've also seen the prices of my food and gas go up exponentially over the past 7 years while income has not kept pace. I've seen the cost of my healthcare, and my family's healthcare go up in cost to about 10-times what I used to pay. I've also seen multiple school shootings. I've also seen a presidential candidate who won by about 500k popular votes actually lose the national election. Lastly, I've seen evidence which suggests that the government can now and does spy on US citizens without just cause.

How could I not feel safe with any of the new candidates if they are willing address just a handful of these things which have affected me and my family (or will affect us in the future)? In the 80s when everyone was living in fear due to the cold war - well I thought we couldn't get much lower. Then in the 90s we had a crazy and expensive witchhunt to impeach a president who outside of his personal life seemed to be doing a fine job. But now in the 2000s, things are much easier to discern than ever before and with this "information age" we live within, never before in human history have all of us had access to so much current information. We now have constant reminders of potential terrorist attacks, justified fears of globalization of the economy and businesses, fears of no-longer-secret societies that actually appear to be running the show, and data which also backs up the idea that: yeap we're scre*ing up our environment pretty bad!

It is frustrating to see the anti-whoever cra* posted all over these and other places. I have no problem with people who express an opinion and then back it up with supporting information. But what is with the the "oh my gawd, she or he is such a *enter a label such as socialist or elitist*!", or "I'm rich, I shouldn't have to pay more taxes as I already pay more than I receive services", or "I'm not ready for a woman or minority president", or "he or she is a liberal or conservative liar; but I have no interest in reading about the lies that the candidate I do support has been caught telling."

The reality is that everyone in politics has lied or changed their mind on a stance - everyone. Bush Senior - what did he say... something about "Read my lips?" Even under the spotlight people and politicians do this - sometimes intentionally, sometimes inadvertantly. The longer a politician's career - the more likely they will have one or more marks on their record.

[YapCity]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Good post, Fleet. Thanks for those numbers. If one actually believes that Hillary believes in free markets when she proposes Clinton Healthcare, a raise in the minimum wage, and expiration of the tax cuts, amongst other socialistic policies, they are delusional and naive.

Give it up John, the tax cuts didn't do squat. Corporations are flying high while the average Joe is wallowing in stagnant wages. CEO salaries are up over 300% in this presidency, while my wages have gone up 14% in the last 7 years. Markets be damned, we need more taxes on big business. Why? Because they're not "sharing well with others". The collusion between the corporate elite to keep wages lower is amazing. Companies are having their managers do annual reviews spouting off about "market rate" as an excuse to give lackluster raises. THAT is collusion. When you discuss how well your company does in the market compared to competitors, they come back at you with what their competitors are paying.

As for the minimum wage, that is the only incentive to get people off of welfare. People don't go straight from the welfare roles to a $50k plus white collar job. They usually start working at, or not much more than minimum wage. You can't keep minimum wage low, and then cry about folks getting a "stay at home check".

The healthcare thing is probably the only thing I'd like to see done away with. The answer is to offer tax credits to businesses footing 100% of health benefit costs, as well as a cap on malpractice awards to bring the cost of malpractice insurance down. Socialized medicine will only lower our quality of care.

By the way, howz it goin?

~T

[Nirvana-Guy]

Originally Posted by mbuszu

Hillary Clinton isn't that bad.

If you compare Hillary to Satan, yes, she isn't so bad.

If you take away the fact that she is in bed with and served in the Walmart Board of Directors in making plans to exploit US workers and hire illegals, drug companies, special interest groups, most bad lobbiests, the fact that Hillary is rehearsed and not original, that Hillary is willing to say and do anything to get elected, the fact that Hillary changes positions on issues depending on that week's poll numbers.... then yes, Hillary won't seem so bad.

I agree, specially if you compare her with Comrade Obama, who is a Communist and anti-American in many ways, yeah Hilalry doesn't seem so bad then.

So I guess Hillary is "not that bad" after all . I guess we can always compare Hillary to Osama Bin Laden or Satan and then, sure, she doesn't seem THAT bad, huh? You can always take Hillary and compare her to people like The President of Iran or Hugo Chavez and then you can think Hillary is not that bad.

One final thought: if not even BILL wants Hillary, so why should Americans want her too???

[UB50]

Regarding the healthcare debate:

I may be the only one that this has happened to on this board but -- about 10 years ago, I had a fantastic doctor who just stopped taking insurance period. He wouldn't take anyone's insurance. Everyone had to pay cash. He had a huge number of celebrity/wealthy clients and he didn't need to kowtow to the insurance companies so he just stopped taking insurance. This doctor was also one of the best surgeons in town, so you can imagine how this affected his middle/lower class/insurance patients. Surgery isn't exactly cheap.

That should thrill those of you that are against socialized medicine because what he did was a totally capitalistic thing. Insurance, in it's own way, is a socialized thing.

Unfortunately, I've noticed some other great doctors are following his example. One actually sent me a letter a couple of years ago that stated that he was going to start a new type of practice. Rather than seeing a "trainload" of patients each day, he would only see two every hour. Insurance companies do not cover this type of thing. This is something that may be unique among wealthy LA doctors but maybe it will be coming to your community too since trends tend to start here but spread elsewhere. (Think gangs, drive-by shootings and clothing and food styles, etc.)

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by YapCity

Give it up John, the tax cuts didn't do squat.

Lol. Yeah, the tax cuts didn't "do squat."

Just ended the recession Bush inherited when he took office.

And helped lower the unemployment figures to the point that they are now lower than they were on average during the '70s, '80s and '90s.

And helped produce a huge 8.3% GDP growth back in one quarter of 2004, the largest growth since the 9.7% growth in 1984 (under yet another Republican President).

Not to mention the Dow Jones reaching all-time record highs several times during the last year.

Yep, tax cuts do "nothing!"