H. Clinton

[jaeksmith]

lsdima said:

Note that Gates & other rich people were the ones pushing the ideas.

i am not sure what you are referring to

I can't find the main article I listened to (I think it was from the New York Times)... It discussed how some extremely wealthy people were pushing for a more fair economy lately - something that would be seemingly more adverse to their wealth.

The article mentioned that this has occurred in the past (again, with extremely wealthy people) and reasoned that these people understand that their own wealth depends on economic stability.

It should be noted that the article was somewhat interpretive

On the other hand, I did find the Remarks of Bill Gates at the Harvard Commencement - which was one part of the spark for the article.

Here's a small, somewhat relational quote:

"We can make market forces work better for the poor if we can develop a more creative capitalism – if we can stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or at least make a living, serving people who are suffering from the worst inequities. We also can press governments around the world to spend taxpayer money in ways that better reflect the values of the people who pay the taxes."

lsdima said:

i am just not a socialist fan
it just makes sense to me that people manage money better when its their own, rather then managing someone else's money for common good

You keep applying strong labels (communism, socialism) that I think are far beyond (and in a different direction from) what Hillary was pushing - at least as represented by that particular article. (Note again that I don't know Hillary's stance and maybe you have some other general information that shows she's pushing the notions you suggest she is).

Far as I can tell her main point is to promote "opportunity for all and special privileges for none", "promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed".

In the article you linked to, she continuously talks about supporting fairness and opportunity in the free market. (Alternately we could allow pirates to be legal in a free market - yarr! ;D ).

[Sweet Pea]

lsdima said:

it just makes sense to me that people manage money better when its their own, rather then managing someone else's money for common good

yeah, i agree...and i'd like to keep more of my own money and manage it myself rather than having the government take it from me and give it to multinational corporations as 'incentives'.

[jaeksmith]

sweetpea said:

yeah, i agree...and i'd like to keep more of my own money and manage it myself rather than having the government take it from me and give it to multinational corporations as 'incentives'.

Nice one.

[MrNice]

yeah, i agree...and i'd like to keep more of my own money and manage it myself rather than having the government take it from me and give it to multinational corporations as 'incentives'.

a tax incentive is a reduced tax

[Sweet Pea]

lsdima said:

yeah, i agree...and i'd like to keep more of my own money and manage it myself rather than having the government take it from me and give it to multinational corporations as 'incentives'.

a tax incentive is a reduced tax

and where do you think they get the money to make up the shortfall?

[MrNice]

she talk about fairness and opportunity, but this nation has huge economical problems and she plans to solve them by taking money away from the areas that have money and spending them in some way. You may believe that what she will do with the money will help the economy but I don't. Government sponsored enterprises are not as productive as privet enterprises and often their policies just hurt the economy.

I don't know about socialism or communism, but her rethoric is very populist -

opportunity for all and special privileges for none", "promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed
and especially something like this -

create new jobs by pursuing energy independence; and ensure that every American has affordable health insurance.

For example, no one can argue about ensuring every American with health care
but what exactly is she planning to do?

her "fairness to all special priveleges to none statement may sound good in theory but what are Hilary standards of fairness? If the government caters to the belief that being 'rich' is unfair and just starts taking money and redistributing it the way it sees fit, well thats communism and socialism for you.

[MrNice]

and where do you think they get the money to make up the shortfall?

so far they have been borrowing it and printing it
if Hillary comes to power they may increase taxes (and I have a strong suspicion that the middle class will be hurt the most, not the rich)
if not they will probably continue borrowing and printing

this country is in a lot of financial trouble due to bad policies over a very long period of time - but its now starting to become too hot - and so people want reform - but government redistributing the money thats still being earned won't help. I am not comparing Hillary to George Bush. I just don't think that she will make the situation any better.

[Sweet Pea]

the major point is priorities, and who's setting them. have you ever asked yourself why we are spending money we don't have on a war that is unnecessary? whose priority was that? could it be, perhaps, the priority of the military industrial complex that dominates the corporate agenda which in turn dominates our government? i believe any time you see something occurring, you have to ask youself - who profits from this action? that's the only way to understand the real motives behind every decision. take a look at what has been spent in your community or state on this pointless war.

Cost of War

you could be right. depending on how HC 'changes' the situation, she might not help. but a good first step is to elect someone who will not pursue the warmongering route. another eight years of this is definitely not going to benefit anyone but the chosen (very) few.

[MrNice]

the major point is priorities, and who's setting them. have you ever asked yourself why we are spending money we don't have on a war that is unnecessary? whose priority was that? could it be, perhaps, the priority of the military industrial complex that dominates the corporate agenda which in turn dominates our government? i believe any time you see something occurring, you have to ask youself - who profits from this action? that's the only way to understand the real motives behind every decision. take a look at what has been spent in your community or state on this pointless war.

Again, I am not saying anything about the current government
and since we are not comparing candidates I am considering strictly what Hillary is going to do.
There are other candidates besides Hilary that will not pursue the warmongering route.

[Sweet Pea]

lsdima said:

the major point is priorities, and who's setting them. have you ever asked yourself why we are spending money we don't have on a war that is unnecessary? whose priority was that? could it be, perhaps, the priority of the military industrial complex that dominates the corporate agenda which in turn dominates our government? i believe any time you see something occurring, you have to ask youself - who profits from this action? that's the only way to understand the real motives behind every decision. take a look at what has been spent in your community or state on this pointless war.

Again, I am not saying anything about the current government
and since we are not comparing candidates I am considering strictly what Hillary is going to do.
There are other candidates besides Hilary that will not pursue the warmongering route.

have you identified any with the same level of knowledge and experience that you feel has a reasonable chance of winning?

[MrNice]

have you identified any with the same level of knowledge and experience that you feel has a reasonable chance of winning?

I'll vote for this guy
www.ronpaul.org/
even if I don't think there is a strong chance of winning

I refuse to make a choice between the most likely to win candidates by figuring out which one of them is worse.

[Sweet Pea]

lsdima said:

have you identified any with the same level of knowledge and experience that you feel has a reasonable chance of winning?

I'll vote for this guy
www.ronpaul.org/
even if I don't think there is a strong chance of winning

I refuse to make a choice between the most likely to win candidates by figuring out which one of them is worse.

i understand the sentiment...i supported an unelectable candidate during the last 2 presidential elections...but i can't handle the idea of 8 more years of what we have now.

[MrNice]

he major point is priorities, and who's setting them. have you ever asked yourself why we are spending money we don't have on a war that is unnecessary? whose priority was that? could it be, perhaps, the priority of the military industrial complex that dominates the corporate agenda which in turn dominates our government? i believe any time you see something occurring, you have to ask youself - who profits from this action? that's the only way to understand the real motives behind every decision.

I think things are more complicated then the profit of special interests
Its possible that we all profit from this from this action
here is an interesting article to start off with
financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/willie/2007/0419.html

[Astroruss]

pnoopiepnats said:

superruss said:

I can't believe i'm saying this, but i actually agree with Lsdima about that point.



About HC, i just don't agree with her on many key issues and various reasons, reasons which i'd prefer to keep private at the moment.

I can see a woman becoming President eventually, but i'd like to see one become President on her own merits, and not be attached to an already influential and powerful politician.

You mean like GW did?

You do realize that Hillary graduated from Yale and is an attorney and has been a senator since 2000? She was successful without her husband as an attorney and professor. I think she is plenty qualified.

Dubya Bush also went to Yale, didn't he?

Besides, HC became a senator years after BC was already in office, both as Govenor of Arkansas and President. one could make the case that she used his fame and influence to propel herself to the top. She also was elected Senator of New York without even really being of that state's citizenry.

I'd think that a populace would rather elect someone of their own pool of citizens, someone with experience and knowledge of that state's problems and difficulties, not the new, popular kid on the block.

Also, just look at all the elected politicians in US history; many of them were lawyers too, and judges. I'd like to see a candidate without a legal background get into office, to be honest. I don't particularly trust lawyers to begin with, nor do i trust war heroes or high officers of the military seeking public office.

Instead of electing thse, why don't we elect an already existing bureaucrat or public servant, someone with some real experience in the public role? I don't have any particular person in mind, just thinking out loud. Because being the President is all about managing people and money, not knowing law or hydraulic engineering.

Ah well, i can speculate all i want, hehehe. We'll see what happens, and who gets nominated in 2008. Because that's what's gonna matter. The persons nominated to the party ticket are the one's who will have the strong chance.

I can see HC or Obama getting on the D party ticket, and i can see either Guilani or McCain on the R Party ticket. But we're still quite a ways from all that at the moment.

[phoenixferret]

Let's remix this a little bit and give you another shot at thinking through an appropriate response, Russ.

superruss said:

HC became a senator years after BC was already in office, both as Govenor of Arkansas and President. one could make the case that she used his fame and influence to propel herself to the top.

pnoopiepnats said:

You mean like GW did [with regard to his father]?

superruss said:

Instead of electing thse, why don't we elect an already existing bureaucrat or public servant, someone with some real experience in the public role?

superruss said:

HC became a senator

To be a teensy little bit of a thread diva... disagreement on any point is good, but making logical sense--well I'd really appreciate it if you would. So, would you like to take a moment to reflect and give that response another go?