Hilary Clinton



Wurm said:
Pretty much where we're at right now, or will be in a few months, eh? Or you could listen to Man-Ape's claims that there is no recession. Same lie his old man peddled in 1991, but the reality will be much worse this time.


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


bush_rose_colored.jpg

No that is not where we are right now. Inflation is low, mortgage rates are around 6% for a 30 fixed rate, unemployment nationwide is about 5%. There are definitely differences in the dynamics of the economy today vs. the late 1970's but having lived with both I'll take this anyday. By the way this is not an endorsement current economic policy just a view at real numbers and experience.
 
I turned 18 in 1979, so I've lived through both as well.

The REAL unemployment rate is much higher than some 5% that the fascist gubmint is spewing. Their figures do not include those out of work beyond 6 months, the under-employed (those that were "downsized" and now work lower-paying or part-time jobs), or those that have gotten fed up and stopped looking for work. Whatever numbers they put up for public consumption, the fact is that the real rate is at least twice that.

Mortgage loan % rates don't really matter when 2x to 3x as many households are being foreclosed on than the year previous. Peeps can't afford their house payments (and credit cards) for several reasons, not just due to ARM's. See above.

Yeah, "real numbers and experience" indeed.
 
stevebaby said:
That's the top tax rate, Bill.
Won't affect y'all. :D
I will be there this year as was I last, but will not likely be there in 09........Wurms back. extremist out
 
I'm "back"? Never really left, just haven't had much to say on so many of the lame posts here lately.

If you're calling me an "extremist" Bill, sorry, but I try only to state the truth. Nothing extreme about that unless you're a habitual liar/purveyor of ********.
 
I have a problem with understanding some concepts that will be central to the presidential campaign. If anyone can answers these questions, I would be greatful.

Why am I, or should I be responsible for anyone elses medical expenses?

If the government is really trying to encourage health care, why has it not removed all taxation on any and all medical transactions?

If I choose to have only 2 children (they are what I can responsibly afford), why then should I be forced to raise/support someone else's children?

If I purchase a house I can afford to live in and pay for, why am I forced to pay off someone's mortgage when they did not make a responsible decision in home choice/financing? Same for banking institution.

Why is it that those of us who make responsible decisions are forced by our government to pay for the decisions of our irresponsible neighbors?

Why is it that my neighbor can steal my car, then when he is caught by the authorites, I must pay for his defense? Then pay to house and feed him.

Just think if you could donate the fortune of someone else and take credit for the gift. You would be a congressman or senator.

None of these scoundrels are for the people paying the bills. They will continue to write checks our asses can no longer cash, all to the demise of a once great nation.
 
stilesiii said:
Why am I, or should I be responsible for anyone elses medical expenses?

What happens when YOU are seriously ill or hurt and can't work anymore, and perhaps have no family or others to help you, or those around you won't or can't help financially? When your insurance won't pay for treatments or you can no longer pay the premiums because you can't work? Once you've spent through your assets and lost your house, savings, IRA, etc., where do you go then?

It's all OK to be selfish/greedy and ***** about paying through taxes "anyone elses medical expenses" until it's YOUR ass in the sling. I guarantee should YOU or YOUR loved ones find yourselves in this situation, you'll be gladly filling out the Medicaid forms.

stilesiii said:
If the government is really trying to encourage health care, why has it not removed all taxation on any and all medical transactions?

Because like any other transaction, it's seen as a business profit and therefore should be taxed. Ask the HMO's and Big Pharma.

stilesiii said:
If I choose to have only 2 children (they are what I can responsibly afford), why then should I be forced to raise/support someone else's children?

Exactly how are you being "forced to raise/support someone else's children"?

stilesiii said:
If I purchase a house I can afford to live in and pay for, why am I forced to pay off someone's mortgage when they did not make a responsible decision in home choice/financing? Same for banking institution.

Where were you while the entire financial/banking industry was being deregulated and given little to no oversight? Why haven't you complained to the Federal Reserve for the huge socialistic bailouts they've already provided to various banks/lenders, and the cutting of interest rates to them?

stilesiii said:
Why is it that those of us who make responsible decisions are forced by our government to pay for the decisions of our irresponsible neighbors?

Exactly what "irresponsible neighbors" decisions are you being "forced by our government" to pay for?

stilesiii said:
Why is it that my neighbor can steal my car, then when he is caught by the authorites, I must pay for his defense? Then pay to house and feed him.

Well, you want "law & order", don't you? Or is your alternative to either slaughter all of the criminals or let them run loose in the streets? What happens when YOU or someone you know can't afford a (very expensive) legal defense? I know! Let's just label you a "terrist" and rendition you to Gitmo or Egypt or Poland.

stilesiii said:
Just think if you could donate the fortune of someone else and take credit for the gift. You would be a congressman or senator.

None of these scoundrels are for the people paying the bills. They will continue to write checks our asses can no longer cash, all to the demise of a once great nation.

Exactly what the Borrow & Spend GOP has been doing for decades now.
 
Wurm said:
What happens when YOU are seriously ill or hurt and can't work anymore, and perhaps have no family or others to help you, or those around you won't or can't help financially? When your insurance won't pay for treatments or you can no longer pay the premiums because you can't work? Once you've spent through your assets and lost your house, savings, IRA, etc., where do you go then?

Into the graveyard. People die. That is how life works, you are born, than at some time you die. Sometimes tragically. Sometimes through no fault of your own. Sometimes through your own fault. Uncle Sam cannot prevent that.

Do we all want to live as long as possible, yes. But at what cost? What recources? Do you think life and death will be any less arbitrary when government is dolling out health care. What happens when the nation goes bankrupt paying for these expenses. Then who will care for you?

It's all OK to be selfish/greedy and ***** about paying through taxes "anyone elses medical expenses" until it's YOUR ass in the sling. I guarantee should YOU or YOUR loved ones find yourselves in this situation, you'll be gladly filling out the Medicaid forms.

Its not selfish to burden others with your problems? Is it not self interest that motivates the person in the sling? Should it not be my decision to help who I choose, does the person I choose to help owe me anything for the help I provided?


Because like any other transaction, it's seen as a business profit and therefore should be taxed. Ask the HMO's and Big Pharma.

There is no such thing as business taxes. Corporations are in business to create profit, tax liabilies are passed on to the consumer. An increase in taxes on a corporation only increases the price of the service or product provided by it.

What difference is in Big HMO making decisions or Big Government making decisions. HMO is interested in profit, Big government is interested in cost. Both have bean counters determining who gets what services.

Removing taxation of medical services and transactions would encourage more services and transactions. Which is better for consumers of services and transactions.



Exactly how are you being "forced to raise/support someone else's children"?

Millions of children or born without stable family and are receiving assistance from taxpayers. These children are born because of poor planning and irresponsible behavior. The taxpayers are burdened with the cost of educating, feeding, ect. Doesn't everyone know the cause of children? It is a fact that children born out of wedlock and on government assistance has skyrocketed since the War on Poverty began in the 60's. Trillions of dollars later and millions of lives ruined and the problems have increased. Why does our government continue policies that encourage this type of behavior?


Where were you while the entire financial/banking industry was being deregulated and given little to no oversight? Why haven't you complained to the Federal Reserve for the huge socialistic bailouts they've already provided to various banks/lenders, and the cutting of interest rates to them? I agree that financial instititions should die in the streets for irresponsible lending.



Exactly what "irresponsible neighbors" decisions are you being "forced by our government" to pay for?

Having children you cannot afford to house, feed or educate!
Living beyond your means!
Being financially irresponsible!
Commiting crimes!
Becoming addicted to drugs!
Using ten times the recources you need to live comfotably!
Supporting corrupt practices of business!
You get the point.


Well, you want "law & order", don't you? Or is your alternative to either slaughter all of the criminals or let them run loose in the streets? What happens when YOU or someone you know can't afford a (very expensive) legal defense? I know! Let's just label you a "terrist" and rendition you to Gitmo or Egypt or Poland.

I am just suggesting to you that there are and should be consequenses for irresponsible behavior. I am suggesting to you that those consequenses have become the burden of responsible citizens. Therefore, we are punishing responsible behavior and rewarding negative behavior. At some point in time, the responsible may decide to join the irresponsible, then what? You cannot kill the goose that is laying the golden eggs.

You throw venom at corporations, business and us greedy bastards paying the bills. Yet, your security and well being are a product of those very institutions.

Corruption, Greed and all the vices of man are not products of capitalism. They exist in all forms of human endeavors. Government is just another of those endeavors, although the most powerful of all. Go ask a Jew living in 1945 Germany. Go ask citizens of the eastern bloc during Soviet reign. History is littered with the slaughtered millions who entrusted their government, king, furer with their well being.

Less government equals more liberty.

Go ahead fool, give control of your life to your government.

Exactly what the Borrow & Spend GOP has been doing for decades now.
Your point is? What has either party done?
 
stilesiii said:
Your point is? What has either party done?

Besides shitting on each other, not much.

There's no good politician except a dead politician.
 
gemship said:
Besides shitting on each other, not much.
Isn't there a saying that the Republicans represent the top 1% of society. The Democrats represent the top 10%. :eek::eek:
 
Okay..its time the troll, Crank, entered the thread to ruin it.

I think Obama could give Hillary a run for her money... :rolleyes:
Contrary to most on this thread, I think McCain will probably win the Republican nomination... :D
If you want to see everything good that the US has over the rest of the world dismantled within two elections, introduce compulsory voting like Australia has... :(
I will say though, that the preferential voting system has merit IMO.
 
stilesiii said:
Your point is?

Well, NOW my point is that your responses above are nothing more than Social Darwinism and/or corporatist libertarianism...which borders on fascism, and I'd really not enjoy wasting hours of keyboard time in an endless, circular debate with that type of viewpoint.

This is one of the main reasons I rarely post on YBSB anymore.

stilesiii said:
What has either party done?

The Republican and Democratic parties of today are not real conservatives or true progressives. They're simply 2 sides of the same oligarchical, imperialist coin.
 
Wurm said:
Well, NOW my point is that your responses above are nothing more than Social Darwinism and/or corporatist libertarianism...which borders on fascism, and I'd really not enjoy wasting hours of keyboard time in an endless, circular debate with that type of viewpoint.

This is one of the main reasons I rarely post on YBSB anymore.



The Republican and Democratic parties of today are not real conservatives or true progressives. They're simply 2 sides of the same oligarchical, imperialist coin.
Well at least we agree on something.
 
Bro... you need to be on the Obama campaign... :p


I love the way he has answered the attacks in the past few weeks. I love the way he has put the McCain/Bush camp in their place.


I still think McCain has a BIG chance in the next election. Just my opinion. I think he captures a lot of the safety votes...and can be considered enough of an outsider to be different from Bush, despite his poltical backing to Bush's policies.

The unfortunate thing about democracy is that votes are not weighted by IQ.

Burn me.
 
TheDarkLord said:
These people cannot even spell Obama's middle name properly??? If they really mean some jab by the mispelling, it is over my head.


Hey, when you have incredible good looks, you don't need to be smart. :rolleyes:
 
Yesterdays Sunset Times reports that a large part of Obamas succession is due to the input of Tom Daschle (former senator).

How accurate is that?????
 
limerickman said:
Yesterdays Sunset Times reports that a large part of Obamas succession is due to the input of Tom Daschle (former senator).

How accurate is that?????
Obama's connection to Daschle goes back a few years. The Republicans made a huge effort to oust Daschle from his seat in 2004. Obama was winning his senate seat easily, so he gave a large amount of money to Daschle's campaign. Daschle lost but Obama undoubtedly was left with a large chip in the game.

If I remember right, Obama talked to a number of people about running for president. He has had presidential ambitions for a while. Some say that all senators have presidential ambitions, but Obama was recognized as someone who might actually succeed. Everyone expected that he would wait until 2008 or 2012. Daschle told him not to think he will have the chance to run in the future. Daschle may very well be the one who pursuaded Obama to give it a go for 2008.

Daschle provided Obama with an ally within the insider network of the Democratic party. This is extremely important for Obama because the Clintons own the DLC wing of the party. They have a huge amount of clout, and large numbers of the Dem power elite owe the Clintons in some way or another. Daschle is extremely respected in the Democratic establishment. Daschle support gave Obama legitimacy. Reportedly he has provided fundraising contacts, staffers, and ongoing advice.

I have also read that Daschle was intimately involved with Obama's campaign in Iowa, the success of which put Clinton on the defensive for the rest of the campaign. Obama was also very successful in raising money in 2007. This was before the general public was paying attention to the election and Obama's grass roots fund raising probably was not as effective as it was in 2008. It would not surprise me if that initial fund raising was due in part to Daschle.
 
Bro Deal said:
Obama's connection to Daschle goes back a few years. The Republicans made a huge effort to oust Daschle from his seat in 2004. Obama was winning his senate seat easily, so he gave a large amount of money to Daschle's campaign. Daschle lost but Obama undoubtedly was left with a large chip in the game.

If I remember right, Obama talked to a number of people about running for president. He has had presidential ambitions for a while. Some say that all senators have presidential ambitions, but Obama was recognized as someone who might actually succeed. Everyone expected that he would wait until 2008 or 2012. Daschle told him not to think he will have the chance to run in the future. Daschle may very well be the one who pursuaded Obama to give it a go for 2008.

Daschle provided Obama with an ally within the insider network of the Democratic party. This is extremely important for Obama because the Clintons own the DLC wing of the party. They have a huge amount of clout, and large numbers of the Dem power elite owe the Clintons in some way or another. Daschle is extremely respected in the Democratic establishment. Daschle support gave Obama legitimacy. Reportedly he has provided fundraising contacts, staffers, and ongoing advice.

I have also read that Daschle was intimately involved with Obama's campaign in Iowa, the success of which put Clinton on the defensive for the rest of the campaign. Obama was also very successful in raising money in 2007. This was before the general public was paying attention to the election and Obama's grass roots fund raising probably was not as effective as it was in 2008. It would not surprise me if that initial fund raising was due in part to Daschle.


Thanks for this reply.

We wouldn't get the minute details that you've given here, in our media coverage of the Dems race.
The Times also reported that Edwards endorsement of Obama means that Obama will have even more delegates going in to the final round of primaries.

Definitely Obama seems to have the prevailing momentum...........is it strong enough to win the DMc nomination and to beat McCain?
Again the Sunset Times reports that mcCain although polling well, is losing ground especially with public utterances of Bush.