Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ross Perot complained about the national debt back in 1992. The country elected a Democrat for president and the national debt got taken care of. So vote for a Democrat for president in 2008.
Per your argument.. We should vote communist because Cuba is run by a communist and their government is financially sound, they have a decent run school system, and national medical care.
Nothing can stop debt from continuing to build outside a complete overhaul of government. Which is where people can do something: VOTE OUT THE CROOKS!
What can you do about illegal immigration besides worry? Are you going to the border to stop them? No. You can only do the exact thing we can do about the debt: DEMAND CHANGE FROM OUR GOVERNMENT ON ITS CURRENT POLICIES.
Also, while the dollar amount of my retirement fund has gone up a bit, its net value after inflation adjustment is not on par at all with what it should be.
We keep seeing things going up in value, like a gallon of milk, a gallon of gas, electricity, etc. While not all of it, some of this is directly related to inflation which is related to our national debt.
You are correct. While our retirement fund value may have gone up, inflation seems to have increased a lot more. We are being turned into serfs.
1) You cant use voting for clinton as a valid reason because you dont like or support what someone else did.
Doesn't address the point. Hillary's proposed plan will cost us nothing. It's all talk at this point. Talk is cheap. Bush's already implemented plan will most definitely cost us some $125 billion by January 2009...and we'll be lucky to keep it to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
2) Last I checked.. Hillary voted for the war.. and Hillary is in Congress.. ITS HER JOB to stop, or hell, even attempt to stop Bush from "destroying" the government. You can not soley blame "Bush" when Clinton helped to spend the money just as well.
Let's just be clear on the fact that the resolution was going to pass regardless. It was a fait accompli. The Republicans had the votes. [Keep in mind that in those days, you only needed 51 votes to pass something, not 60.] For Democrats, the issue then was whether to take the President at his word when he said he would faithfully carry out all the steps short of war that were called for in the resolution, and give him a Yes vote as he was heading off to the UN to plead his case for a credible threat of force in their own resolutions, or on the other hand, to recognize the fact that the President is a serial liar who can't be trusted on anything, and cast a No vote that would potentially humiliate him on the world stage that he was about to enter onto. Some went one way, and some went the other. It was a tough call, but it had no effect on adoption of the resolution at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
3) Clintons proposals very easily will cost us money, so blaming Bush, does not mean that Clintons proposals are Free.
How do the unenacted proposals of anyone easily cost anybody money? Can you show me one $5K bond so far given to a newborn?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
4) Since Clinton is voting for the spending, saying that she cost us nothing is a total lie...
The Democrats, including Clinton, have long said that they would continue to fund the troops, and they have done so despite the President's continued rejection of any effort to implement the sense of the people expressed on 11-07-06 that we need to change course in Iraq. As a Senator, meanwhile, it is part of Hillary's JOB to vote for or against spending bills.
Doesn't address the point. Hillary's proposed plan will cost us nothing. It's all talk at this point. Talk is cheap. Bush's already implemented plan will most definitely cost us some $125 billion by January 2009...and we'll be lucky to keep it to that.
Let's just be clear on the fact that the resolution was going to pass regardless. It was a fait accompli. Doesnt change the argument that HILLARY voted FOR IT..
For Democrats, the issue then was whether to take the President at his word when he said he would faithfully carry out all the steps short of war that were called for in the resolution, and give him a Yes vote as he was heading off to the UN to plead his case for a credible threat of force in their own resolutions, or on the other hand, to recognize the fact that the President is a serial liar who can't be trusted on anything, and cast a No vote that would potentially humiliate him on the world stage that he was about to enter onto.
Perhapse some of the democratic issue was, that since Hillary, the former first lady, who spoke with Bill on a continuous basis (sorry, I'm assuming this, fact not in evidence) voted for the bill.. that Bill also had similiar inteligence. The evidence does show that Bill had similar intelligence. A fact that is conveniently ignored. Clinton gets a pass for voting for it, but Bush doesnt, even though they both based their facts on the same evidence? Sorry.. dont buy it.
How do the unenacted proposals of anyone easily cost anybody money? Can you show me one $5K bond so far given to a newborn?
No but I can show you where Clinton WANTS to pass out $5K bonds, and numerous other spending that would put the cost of the war as peanuts in comparison. Sorry but I'm confused, you support her because she hasnt cost us any money (even though she has), and ignore all of the proposals as "just speak"? Then explain why your leaning Clinton, vs say.. Giuliani who cearly hasnt cost us anything..
The Democrats, including Clinton, have long said that they would continue to fund the troops, and they have done so despite the President's continued rejection of any effort to implement the sense of the people expressed on 11-07-06 that we need to change course in Iraq. As a Senator, meanwhile, it is part of Hillary's JOB to vote for or against spending bills
Completely agree.. and she still continues to vote for.. the spending bills, because she voted for.. the war.. How convenient that some people just ignore some of the facts that are known to be
Doesnt change the argument that HILLARY voted FOR IT..
The point was not at issue. The interpretation of her vote was. It's simply dishonest to say that Hillary voted for the war. She voted, for reasons which she set out on the floor of the Senate at the time, for a resolution that only could have passed regardless of how she voted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Perhapse some of the democratic issue was, that since Hillary, the former first lady, who spoke with Bill on a continuous basis (sorry, I'm assuming this, fact not in evidence) voted for the bill.. that Bill also had similiar inteligence. The evidence does show that Bill had similar intelligence. A fact that is conveniently ignored. Clinton gets a pass for voting for it, but Bush doesnt, even though they both based their facts on the same evidence? Sorry.. dont buy it.
If this is based on the 'he sees the same intelligence that I see' argument, it's entirely false. No one sees the same intelligence as the President, and as is now rather well known, Bush spent the run-up to the Invasion by pumping bogus manufactured evidence to Congress while withholding expert evidence that would not have supported his already-made decision to invade. Bill Clinton had on Iraq what intelligence had managed to scrounge up prior to 1995, plus the critical papers that Hussein Kamel (former director of WMD programs in Iraq) brought when he defected, and everything that the UN had managed to learn by late 1998. Bush had four more years worth of info, including a year's worth of stuff freed up from normally non-sympathetic sources after 9/11. Whole different ballpark, even allowing for the fact that UN inspectors didn't get back on the ground in Iraq until after the resolution vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
No but I can show you where Clinton WANTS to pass out $5K bonds, and numerous other spending that would put the cost of the war as peanuts in comparison.
Really? You're short of being as much as equal by about $100 billion per year at the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Sorry but I'm confused, you support her because she hasnt cost us any money (even though she has), and ignore all of the proposals as "just speak"? Then explain why your leaning Clinton, vs say.. Giuliani who cearly hasnt cost us anything..
I don't support Hillary. I'm just opposed to false claims and arguments being made about her. I don't support Giuliani either, and for even better reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Completely agree.. and she still continues to vote for.. the spending bills, because she voted for.. the war.. How convenient that some people just ignore some of the facts that are known to be.
Votes are a matter of record. There isn't much room for contention there. It's trying to connect those dots in a deceptive or dishonest or disinformed way that leads to contradiction.
The point was not at issue. The interpretation of her vote was. It's simply dishonest to say that Hillary voted for the war. She voted, for reasons which she set out on the floor of the Senate at the time, for a resolution that only could have passed regardless of how she voted.
If this is based on the 'he sees the same intelligence that I see' argument, it's entirely false. No one sees the same intelligence as the President, and as is now rather well known, Bush spent the run-up to the Invasion by pumping bogus manufactured evidence to Congress while withholding expert evidence that would not have supported his already-made decision to invade. Bill Clinton had on Iraq what intelligence had managed to scrounge up prior to 1995, plus the critical papers that Hussein Kamel (former director of WMD programs in Iraq) brought when he defected, and everything that the UN had managed to learn by late 1998. Bush had four more years worth of info, including a year's worth of stuff freed up from normally non-sympathetic sources after 9/11. Whole different ballpark, even allowing for the fact that UN inspectors didn't get back on the ground in Iraq until after the resolution vote.
Really? You're short of being as much as equal by about $100 billion per year at the moment.
I don't support Hillary. I'm just opposed to false claims and arguments being made about her. I don't support Giuliani either, and for even better reasons.
Votes are a matter of record. There isn't much room for contention there. It's trying to connect those dots in a deceptive or dishonest or disinformed way that leads to contradiction.
Boy... your going in circles.
One minute, Clinton hasnt cost us a dime.. next minute she did, but it was no where near the $100Billion... then she votes for the war, but you say she didnt have all the facts because she was lied to, which totally contradicts the fact that she was the former first lady, and that Bill supported the war, (not only supported the war, but Bill is the one who changed the US policy making the war possible), then Hillary continues to vote for the war, and your response is.. not much room for contention.. but you still say she's not costing us money.
What one is it.. does she continue to vote for the war, or is she not spending any money?
As you conceded earlier, not one newborn has yet been handed a $5K bond. Zero dollars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
...next minute she did, but it was no where near the $100Billion...
The claim was that if she was elected, Hillary would make Bush's war spending seem like peanuts. Even if she put her bond plan into effect, it would take another $100 billion to catch up to Bush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
then she votes for the war, but you say she didnt have all the facts because she was lied to...
She voted for the resolution. The rest of that you simply made up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
...which totally contradicts the fact that she was the former first lady, and that Bill supported the war...
When Bill was in office, there was no war. When there was a war, Bill was not in office. Bill has said that he opposed the war, but did not feel it was proper for a former President to question publicly the actions of the current President.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
...not only supported the war, but Bill is the one who changed the US policy making the war possible...
Bill was President when a policy to support regime change in Iraq was adopted. This does not either imply or justify war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
...then Hillary continues to vote for the war...
Hillary has voted to continue funding the troops. The war is the mission that Bozo-boy has sent the troops on. How did Hillary vote when the question of imposing a March 31, 2008 timetable for troop withdrawal came up in March 2007?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
...and your response is.. not much room for contention...
Correct. Senate votes are recorded. They are right there in black and white. It might say YEA or it might say NAY, but either way, there's not much room for contention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
...but you still say she's not costing us money...
I still say her proposal to give $5K bonds to newborns has cost nothing. I still say she votes, in her capacity as a US Senator, for and against various spending bills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
What one is it.. does she continue to vote for the war, or is she not spending any money?
As you conceded earlier, not one newborn has yet been handed a $5K bond. Zero dollars.
The claim was that if she was elected, Hillary would make Bush's war spending seem like peanuts. Even if she put her bond plan into effect, it would take another $100 billion to catch up to Bush.
She voted for the resolution. The rest of that you simply made up.
When Bill was in office, there was no war. When there was a war, Bill was not in office. Bill has said that he opposed the war, but did not feel it was proper for a former President to question publicly the actions of the current President.
Bill was President when a policy to support regime change in Iraq was adopted. This does not either imply or justify war.
Hillary has voted to continue funding the troops. The war is the mission that Bozo-boy has sent the troops on. How did Hillary vote when the question of imposing a March 31, 2008 timetable for troop withdrawal came up in March 2007?
Correct. Senate votes are recorded. They are right there in black and white. It might say YEA or it might say NAY, but either way, there's not much room for contention.
I still say her proposal to give $5K bonds to newborns has cost nothing. I still say she votes, in her capacity as a US Senator, for and against various spending bills.
See the above.
Continue to go in circles, provided you FEEL better at the end of the day, I guess I'm ok with you just ignoring the circle that your running in.
To say she hasnt cost us money, while voting to spend while a senator is laughable..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
