I may rethink my stance on Hillary

[Ignatius J.]

For a long time I have felt that Hillary came from the wrong side of the democratic party. She has always seemed more progressive than her husband, but now I'm not so sure. The dearth of ideas from democrats has been a refrain from across the aisle for some time now. I think Hillary actually has some ideas, and I'm shocked to say, they aren't all bad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/24/AR2006072400172.html

"The American Dream Initiative includes proposals that DLC President Bruce Reed said would cost $450 billion to $500 billion over 10 years. He said the cost could be offset by eliminating corporate subsidies in the tax code, cutting out 100,000 unnecessary federal contractors and making a more aggressive effort to identify and collect taxes now going uncollected by the Internal Revenue Service. The initiative also calls for a return to pay-as-you-go budget rules in Washington, which means that all spending on new programs must be offset by cuts elsewhere."

I think it would be hard to argue against any of this. Pay as you go is kind of stupid, since deficits are useful if used correctly. I simply don't trust our government to make efficient use of the deficits. Pay as you go will force efficiency into the government, as lawmakers are forced to make painful cuts to popular, but unsuccesful programs. George Bush had a great list of programs that should be cut. He comes out with them every year when it comes time to do the budget. Then nothing happens. If we had pay as you go, we might actually cut those programs. Notice the lack of tax hikes, and my personal favorite, the cuts in corporate wellfare. How they escaped the welfare reform of the 90's is beyond me, but I bet it has to do with the fact that the republicans controlled congress.

You can also hear how upset the far left is with hillary. But they are upset on all the issues that liberals get wrong. Hillary has been unique among the liberals in standing up to the far left on issues like Free Trade and the War in Iraq. If these 6 years of bush have taught me anything it is that we need leaders who are not beholden to the fringe elements of their party. Hillary has problems, but if democrats across the nation stick to these talking points I think they could do some damage.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I'm sorry but the "American Dream Initiative" is simply a new packaging of the same old "Tax-em-to-death so we can spend money to make everything better" Democrat agenda that's been around for years and a huge lump of horsecrap.....

He said the cost could be offset by eliminating corporate subsidies in the tax code, cutting out 100,000 unnecessary federal contractors and making a more aggressive effort to identify and collect taxes now going uncollected by the Internal Revenue Service. The initiative also calls for a return to pay-as-you-go budget rules in Washington, which means that all spending on new programs must be offset by cuts elsewhere.

Come on folks, I thought we all gave up listening to carnival barkers pitching the bearded lady years ago. Democrats don't CUT TAXES. Democrats don't ENFORCE LAWS. That's been proven time and again. They'll put the PROGRAMS in place, then turn around and bend the tax payers over again with a huge tax INCREASE to pay for it. That's their MO. Has been for years.

The proposals themselves smack of Socialism in such obvious ways it isn't funny...

The centerpiece proposal would provide additional support for college costs, with the goal of increasing the number of college graduates by 1 million a year by 2015. The proposal includes $150 billion in block grants for states to ease rising tuition costs and a consolidated tax credit for students. To qualify, states and universities would have to limit tuition increases to the rate of inflation.

Excuse me? EDUCATION is not a Constitutionally mandated power of the Federal Government. Never has been. ALL Federal education spending is unConstitutional at its base. Yet these socialists want to take money out of my (and your) pockets to send other people's kids to school.

Other ideas include requirements for employers to establish retirement accounts for all workers and a refundable tax credit for savers; "baby bonds" that would create a government-funded savings account of $500 for every child born in the United States; a refundable tax credit to help provide the down payment on housing; universal health care for children; and benefits for small businesses to lower the cost of providing health insurance to workers.

Again, more socialism. It isn't the government's place to force employers to establish retirement accounts for employees. It isn't the place of any employer to require an employee to save for their retirement either. Whether a person saves money or not is THEIR CHOICE. The whole "baby bonds" thing is utterly disgusting to me. WHO THE **** TOLD THESE PEOPLE THEY'RE IN CHARGE OF HOW MUCH MONEY PEOPLE SAVE?!?!?!?!?!?! Universal health care is simply another socio-communist program.

When the Democrats actually find something that might be a Conservative position on an issue, let me know. Until then, whether the wacko Liberal Left wing of the party agrees or disagrees with the sligthly less Left wing of the party doesn't make any difference.

Hillary Clinton could have a revelation and become a Republican tonight and there's no way on this planet that I'd ever vote for her. Hell, I'd vote for her HUSBAND before I would vote for her. She lost any credibility she could have ever had with me (which was pretty little) when she didn't walk on on Slick Willie after he got caught getting a hummer from the Staypuff Marshmallow Woman in the Oval Office.

[Ignatius J.]

I would never in a million years expect you to say anything else, mass.

The only problem I have with your post is that you accuse hillary of adopting socialist ideals. You're right, she did. So does everyone else. The republican party is no different. I think she is choosing better aspects personally, but I can totally see why you would never vote for her. She is by no means a perfect candidate. And I DO have problems with her universal health care plan, I just don't think she'll ever get it passed.

[dreamingwolf]

so what is that you like about her then, that even though shes a democrat with a bad idea atleast she has an idea?

[Ignatius J.]

See, dreamingwolf, this is where the phrase lesser of two evils becomes REALLY useful.

[twa]

so what is that you like about her then, that even though shes a democrat with a bad idea atleast she has an idea?

That is spooky, it is almost like you read my mind :laugh:

[luckydevil]

She would be Bush on steroids. No, thank you

[dreamingwolf]

She would be Bush on steroids. No thank you

that is the funny

[dreamingwolf]

See, dreamingwolf, this is where the phrase lesser of two evils becomes REALLY useful.

you kinda have to have an evil to compare her to till you can make that escape

[Ignatius J.]

Yeah, but I had thought for a while that she was a progressive more than a liberal. Now she seems more like a liberal, and it is keeping me from closing the door on her entirely. It would be rediculous to think that I have made up my mind on any of this, but I am becoming much more open minded to her. Especially since I think that any of her more socialist ideas are unlikley to be implemented. There are several republicans I would vote for in front of her, but the chances of any of them getting the republican nomination are slim.

[The 12th Commandment]

Ig, we have to abandon these thoughts because she can't win. Policy, schmolicy she's unelectable due to the impact of the conspiratorial, left wing media. *turn on sarcasm meter*

As evenly divided as the country is, we've got to get a candidate who can take at least some of the right. No goper will ever vote for her, and in large part it has nothing to do with her ideas. If she had left Bill that might be different, but she didn't. I speak as someone in tune with the political mindset of the heartland. :cool: And he/she who takes the heartland will win. You urban guys are gonna have to eventually figure that out if we have a chance in hell.

Edit: I guess I have to be a little more involved in the political threads before I assign parties to posters.

[Sarge]

that is the funny

But true. ANd she might already have bigger balls

[DCRunner]

Of course we have socialized aspects to this country. We have publicly funded and controlled schools, libraries, highways, security forces (police), meat inspection, public health initiatives, medicare, medicaid, social security, subsidized this and subsidized that, and on and on and on. Our govt owns lots of things and controls lots of the economy. Lots of socialism. Everybody plays. Everybody wins. Even corporations. It's all good.

We live in a society. We pool our resources to fund services and initiatives that we as individuals cannot afford and/or that we as a society have decided its members should have - not just for the individual's benefit but for the society's benefit. Small points - we all benefit if the society as a whole is educated and if we are all innoculated against contagious diseases - so we as a society pay for those things. Or we should.

See, that's how it works. Don't like it? Go live on a deserted island.

And Hillary. She has never been a flaming liberal. She once was a republican. People who have a pathological dislike of her - for whatever rational or irrational reason - have tried to paint her as some real liberal and she just isn't. She would be a very tough and moderate president. She's no wussy.

[Sarge]

And Hillary. She has never been a flaming liberal.

:rotflmao:

[mjah]

In the long run, perhaps the most unfortunate thing (among many) about the Bush presidency is the fact that it makes people like Hillary look like reasonable candidates.

God help us all if this country takes her I-don't-ride-a-broom farce at face value. The things she would do under the guise of "righting the ship" post-Bush...

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Of course we have socialized aspects to this country. We have publicly funded and controlled schools, libraries, highways, security forces (police), meat inspection, public health initiatives, medicare, medicaid, social security, subsidized this and subsidized that, and on and on and on. Our govt owns lots of things and controls lots of the economy. Lots of socialism. Everybody plays. Everybody wins. Even corporations. It's all good.

We also have a Constitution that indicates the US Government is not supposed to be doing those things. The powers of the Government are well spelled out and EXTREMELY LIMITED. Unfortunately people on both sides of the aisle have lost their ability to read that part of the Constitution apparantly. Not everybody wins in this situation and it is anything but "all good".

We live in a society. We pool our resources to fund services and initiatives that we as individuals cannot afford and/or that we as a society have decided its members should have - not just for the individual's benefit but for the society's benefit. Small points - we all benefit if the society as a whole is educated and if we are all innoculated against contagious diseases - so we as a society pay for those things. Or we should.

See, that's how it works. Don't like it? Go live on a deserted island.

Yes, we live in a society. A society that was founded and based on a :Strong State/Local government - Weak Federal government" model where individuals, not the government were supposed to be in charge of their own fates. Unfortunately we've flipped that around now, and it's destroying this society and the country. It's people like Hillary who have helped do that flipping. The government was never intended to be the savior of the people by our Founding Fathers. Unless you consider Karl Marx or Chairman Mao to be among the founders, as people like Hillary apparantly do.

Believe me, if there was any country run in a manner closer to what I believe is the "Right" way to do things, I'd be there in a second. Unfortunately this wretched cesspool is as close as it gets and I'd say we're less than 30% of the way there at this point in time.

And Hillary. She has never been a flaming liberal. She once was a republican. People who have a pathological dislike of her - for whatever rational or irrational reason - have tried to paint her as some real liberal and she just isn't. She would be a very tough and moderate president. She's no wussy.

LOL. Thanks, I needed that this morning. Being a Liberal has nothing to do with which party you are a part of. Hell, I personally believe that pretty much every Republican in the US Senate is a Liberal. The House of Rep's is somewhat better, but not perfect either. If she had any amount of "Conservative" in her she'd have borrowed a shotgun from the Secret Service and blown Slick Willie's "willie" off for playing with the Staypuff Marshmallow Girl in the Oval Office. Her policies, when you look at them are entirely Liberal. They're big-government, government-first, type policies. They're the exact opposite of what the US Constitution intended for this country. If she's a moderate, I'd hate to see what you think the Far Left Wing of that party is.

[DeanCollins]

I'm sorry but the "American Dream Initiative" is simply a new packaging of the same old "Tax-em-to-death so we can spend money to make everything better" Democrat agenda that's been around for years and a huge lump of horsecrap.....

.

yea F that, let's just give all that money to the oil companies and halliburton

[Mass_SkinsFan]

yea F that, let's just give all that money to the oil companies and halliburton

I've got a better idea, Dean. How about we get the US Federal Government out of the hair of private business' and return to the LIMITED powers of the government that are given to them in the CONSTITUTION. At that point market forces will determine just how much $$$ Haliburton and the oil companies make. Or isn't that a Socialist/Communist enough concept for you?

[@DCGoldPants]

Dude, I liked Clinton as a President. But, I still think she's as fake as faux news. What she's saying and doing are carefully planned.

I also think she won't run for President though. She WANTS to take the heat for the next year and a half. Let the other guys attack her thinking she's running. Then at the last night, "choose" not to. Then all those who put all that time and energy into crafting an anti-Hilary message will look stupid. She's a behind the scenes power broker.

[Midnight Judges]

I would never in a million years expect you to say anything else, mass.

The only problem I have with your post is that you accuse hillary of adopting socialist ideals. You're right, she did. So does everyone else. The republican party is no different. I think she is choosing better aspects personally, but I can totally see why you would never vote for her. She is by no means a perfect candidate. And I DO have problems with her universal health care plan, I just don't think she'll ever get it passed.

The way I read the definition of socialism, we are nowhere close to it in this country.

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=socialism

[Mass_SkinsFan]

The only problem I have with your post is that you accuse hillary of adopting socialist ideals. You're right, she did. So does everyone else. The republican party is no different. I think she is choosing better aspects personally, but I can totally see why you would never vote for her. She is by no means a perfect candidate. And I DO have problems with her universal health care plan, I just don't think she'll ever get it passed.

Yes, she is a Socialist. She has advocated (through her positions) the concept that the government knows what's better for the people than the people do for themselves. She advocates the concept that the government is the only group that can provide safety, security and prosperity for the country; when in fact history shows us that the government is the LAST group that anyone should look to for those things.

I will agree to you that the Republican Party is no different than the Democrats. They're simply two different strains of the same fatal virus. One just kills you quicker and has no antidote. The other takes a little longer and may be able to be turned into something useful (similar to pennicilian) in the future if it can be properly tamed.

I'm not sure how it is that you can see Hillary as choosing the better aspects of anything. She's nothing more than a political hack, willing to say almost anything to get herself elected and advance her own power. She recently attacked the ongoing acquisition of Keyspan by the electric utility company I work for as the building of a potential monopoly. Keyspan has electric generation and distribution facilities on Long Island and provides transmission service into Brooklyn. Interestingly, she didn't comment too much about this until the NYC electric crisis happened (which Keyspan had nothing to do with) and never even commented when National Grid acquired Niagra Mohawk (another gas/electric company in Northern NY state) several years ago. It's all political grandstanding. Monopolies are BAD when they're private companies but good when they're the government. Interesting, ain't it?

Whether the health care plan will pass or not is irrelevant. It's a disgusting, nauseating and totally unConstitutional plan to begin with. That's what matters, not whether or not it would pass.

[DCRunner]

......Whether the health care plan will pass or not is irrelevant. It's a disgusting, nauseating and totally unConstitutional plan to begin with. That's what matters....

I don't know where you get the idea that the government providing for the common good is unconstitutional. There may be avenues of doing so that don't pass constitutional muster, but the actual concept is not unconstitutional.

Is this the U.S. Constitution you're referring to or the MassSkins Constitution?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I don't know where you get the idea that the government providing for the common good is unconstitutional. There may be avenues of doing so that don't pass constitutional muster, but the actual concept is not unconstitutional.

Is this the U.S. Constitution you're referring to or the MassSkins Constitution?

This is the United States Constitution I'm talking about. You know, the document whose First Article, Eighth Section SPECIFICALLY enumerates the Eighteen powers of the Federal Govenment. The document that continues on to indicate that any and/or all powers not SPECIFICALLY given to the Federal government belong to the States or the People. Maybe you've heard of it?

Well, I can't find medical care, education, social security, or welfare anywhere in that list of powers in Article I, Section 8. So, in fact, ANY socialized welfare program, regardless of its sponsors or language is absolutely unConstitutional on its basic principle.

You mention the "common good" so I'm going to guess you're indicating the policy would be legal under what is known as the "Generla Welfare" clause. That's horsecrap. The general reading of that clause is so wrong and has been for over 100 years that it's sickening. That clause deals with issues where the policy benefits EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN, not just a particular group of people. Unless her program would provide the EXACT SAME COVERAGE for the EXACT SAME PRICE to every American citizen it's unConstitutional right there. Even if you accept that a socialized welfare plan would be beneficial to the country, which I do not.