Hillary (Page 3)

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy

Originally posted by crusevegas

CD,  if Bernie was president, what laws do you think he would be able to get passed? 

Or

Do you think he would follow in the current potus footsteps and just do all of this by executive order? 

I think he's an honest person and I would rather have an honest incompetent person in there than a proven liar and corrupt person who is willing to lie, cheat, steal, bribe and take bribes. 

Last I remember, the Affordable Care Act was not handed down by executive order, right? Do I review the list of others that were not executive orders? Just because the Republicans in Congress have decided to become the most obstructionist in American history, hey that's not on the POTUS, that's on them. They could have worked out some deals to meet somewhere near the middle, but they refused. (and honestly, in the current system it's no wonder. You know that any Republican willing to talk compromise will be ousted the very next election by a further Right candidate who is NOT willing to compromise with a party they believe is equivalent to Satan's minions) So yes, where it is possible, even if it was Bernie Sanders miraculously being elected to potus, there would be executive orders issued...and I think you know, those orders would make Obama's look like Right-Center maneuvers.

What's funny is the Republicans have given Obama virtually everything he's wanted.  This is a huge reason for the revolt within the Republican party.

The ACA was an extremely partisan one sided vote that didn't get a single Republican vote of support.  The Dems loved how Democracy allowed them to force it through without any bipartisan support, so I'm guessing you and the others will equally support it if the Republicans decide to return the favor and repeal it entirely without a single Democratic vote of support.  What's good for one is good for the other.

Don't get me wrong, there are some good things in the ACA, but it doesn't in any way address the problem of Healthcare costs.  It makes them far worse.

Re: Laffer curve - we're doing it wrong

Our incentives are upside-down.  Through our effed up tax system, we incentivize corporations to keep their money offshore, which in turn depresses the job market at home along with wages for the average Joe.  You can give a few percent back to the rich (e.g. Bush's tax cuts) and those "job creators" will just pocket it or put more offshore.

So yes trickle down "works" and creates more jobs... they're just primarily not in the USA.  That in turn means we fail to build GDP and this sort of breaks the idea behind the Laffer curve.

How do you fix that?  Probably a combination of things.  1) tough love with our trading partners -- for example we're so desperate to get a foothold in Chinese business lately that they rake us over the coals on tariffs, regulations and their currency manipulation.  2) Some sort of temporary tax holiday to get big multinational corps to reinvest back home.  3) Create incentives to put big infrastructure on U.S. soil.  Make it worthwhile for companies to build things here.

Probably a lot more would help - that's just off the top of my head.  Sorry for going off on the tangent...

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy

Originally posted by crusevegas

The funniest thing I saw this week was Hillary being against Bernie's handouts because they would increase the size of the Federal Government. 

I think it was from the most recent Dem Debate. 

Hey cruse, it may surprise you to learn that under the Obama administration, the size of the federal government has decreased. Facts can get in the way of narratives though, I understand. At one point in 2014, the number of federally employed workers dropped to its lowest point since 1966. The number is still comparatively low. As for the Hillary vs. Bernie deal, I am surprised more Right of Center folks here aren't saying they'd prefer Hillary to Bernie. As a Left of Center guy I can say I'd honestly prefer Kasich or Bush over Trump, Cruz, or Rubio. Of course, I wouldn't want them as Prez, but if I had to choose an R, those are the two I'd settle for. btw, Hillary's significantly more moderate than Sanders...which is why I prefer her to Bernie.

She is one of the most corrupt and incompetent politicians i've seen in my life.  I don't care if she went Right of Cruz on the issues, I would never support her in any way.

 **edit**

Also, it doesn't have anything to do with the number of government employees.  Honestly I could care a less how many employees we have, what I care about is how much money the government is spending.  I blame everyone in Washington so it is not just Obama.  I honestly think stopping deficit spending is something we can all come together on because it effects us all.  I can come up with 20 stupid things Obama spends on and you can come up with 20 things that Bush did.  The simple fact is they both (and the rest of congress) are just as bad and it needs to stop.

Here's a decent article that talks of the bigger problem:
http://crfb.org/document/fy-2015-deficit-falls-435-billion-debt-continues-rise

This is why I'm more into guys like Trump/Bloomberg (and even Sanders over Clinton) because they're actually talking about the spending and corruption.  Clinton will most definitely keep the status quo which most certainly isn't good.

The oddity here is that while many republicans will preach fiscal responsibility, they are also the first to expand our military reach around the world and sink us into more debt through that avenue.  I don't know where you stand on foreign policy but the "world policeman" title costs us a lot.

And then there's the whole issue of economic theory.  Having observed all the attempts at trickle-down economics since Reagan, I'm fairly convinced it doesn't work.  Every single time an administration has cut taxes on the rich, our deficit / debt have climbed, and the middle class wage earners saw little to no benefit.

Now go find me a republican candidate who's a) somewhat isolationist, and b) willing to balance spending cuts with (reasonable) taxation and I'm probably on board.

Ron Paul was the closest in recent years, I think.

The funny part is I'm in a lot closer agreement with you you than you might think.  I am pro military, but there's a ton of waste and abuse when it comes to the process.  We need to cut the budget and most certainly need to stop being the worlds policeman.

Economics is a subject that I've always enjoyed, and there are truths to both arguments really.  Trickle down economics does work in the sense that you give more money to the people then they spend more money so more businesses make more money and hire more people etc.  However, what you're describing is the amount of taxation income the government receives verses what they spend (the deficit increasing) which is completely different than money trickling down to poorer people.
The Laffer curve in economics describes a curve from 0% tax rate to 100% tax rate.  If we tax the people 100% then nobody will work and the government will get nothing.  If we tax the people at 0% everyone will work, but the government will still get nothing.  As you move the rate up and down the curve the entire economic environment changes for the people and that ultimately effects the governments revenues.  I've read some pretty good studies that suggest you can raise it fairly high and you can drop it fairly low and it doesn't have a huge effect on government revenues overall.
Anyways, Trickle up economics works, trickle down economics works, the simple fact of putting more money in the hands of the people is what works.
Where the deficits come in is when the federal government spends more money than they make.  I'm personally to the point that I honestly don't care what the tax rates are, what I care about is how our government spends the money.  If you forced me to take a stand I'd say I'm for a flat income tax because it truly is the most fair tax.

Really? I know we've talked about this before. You still think a flat income tax is the fairest tax? Again, the amount of money that has floated up to the top 1% in this country is massive. The disparity between those at the top, and the poor in this country (with a shrinking middle class in between) has never been greater (post Great Depression of course, and many scholars will tell you one of the main contributors of the Great Depression was horrible income inequality). A flat tax rate of 15% is peanuts when you're making several hundred thousand or millions per year...15% is quite a chunk of change though if you're squeaking by on minimum or just over minimum wage...which, by the way hasn't even risen at the rate of inflation since its inception. With a shrinking middle class and the worst income inequality of our time, going to a flat tax rate would be like firefighters arriving at a fire with hoses spraying out gasoline. edit: but don't worry Tony, if I'm ever out in Nebraska, I'd cover my portion of the lunch check! I handle restaurant checks differently than national budgets!

I'm not sure that we could ever come to an agreement on this, but by definition fair is for all of us to be treated equally no matter how much money we make.  That is fair.   What you're saying is that it's "fair" to take my money away from me and give it to somebody else who didn't earn it because that's "fair"?

Income inequality is not the problem.  Income inequality is the symptom of a greater problem.  We already have a progressive tax system in place and according to you (and me) it's not working.  So, you want to make it more progressive and take more from the rich, but the irony is that virtually none of the "tax the rich" money gets to the poor today, so what makes you think a higher progressive tax will be better?

If anything it redistributes money from the rich to the other rich who are more politically connected to the parties in power.

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy

Originally posted by crusevegas

The funniest thing I saw this week was Hillary being against Bernie's handouts because they would increase the size of the Federal Government. 

I think it was from the most recent Dem Debate. 

Hey cruse, it may surprise you to learn that under the Obama administration, the size of the federal government has decreased. Facts can get in the way of narratives though, I understand. At one point in 2014, the number of federally employed workers dropped to its lowest point since 1966. The number is still comparatively low. As for the Hillary vs. Bernie deal, I am surprised more Right of Center folks here aren't saying they'd prefer Hillary to Bernie. As a Left of Center guy I can say I'd honestly prefer Kasich or Bush over Trump, Cruz, or Rubio. Of course, I wouldn't want them as Prez, but if I had to choose an R, those are the two I'd settle for. btw, Hillary's significantly more moderate than Sanders...which is why I prefer her to Bernie.

She is one of the most corrupt and incompetent politicians i've seen in my life.  I don't care if she went Right of Cruz on the issues, I would never support her in any way.

 **edit**

Also, it doesn't have anything to do with the number of government employees.  Honestly I could care a less how many employees we have, what I care about is how much money the government is spending.  I blame everyone in Washington so it is not just Obama.  I honestly think stopping deficit spending is something we can all come together on because it effects us all.  I can come up with 20 stupid things Obama spends on and you can come up with 20 things that Bush did.  The simple fact is they both (and the rest of congress) are just as bad and it needs to stop.

Here's a decent article that talks of the bigger problem:
http://crfb.org/document/fy-2015-deficit-falls-435-billion-debt-continues-rise

This is why I'm more into guys like Trump/Bloomberg (and even Sanders over Clinton) because they're actually talking about the spending and corruption.  Clinton will most definitely keep the status quo which most certainly isn't good.

The oddity here is that while many republicans will preach fiscal responsibility, they are also the first to expand our military reach around the world and sink us into more debt through that avenue.  I don't know where you stand on foreign policy but the "world policeman" title costs us a lot.

And then there's the whole issue of economic theory.  Having observed all the attempts at trickle-down economics since Reagan, I'm fairly convinced it doesn't work.  Every single time an administration has cut taxes on the rich, our deficit / debt have climbed, and the middle class wage earners saw little to no benefit.

Now go find me a republican candidate who's a) somewhat isolationist, and b) willing to balance spending cuts with (reasonable) taxation and I'm probably on board.

Ron Paul was the closest in recent years, I think.

The funny part is I'm in a lot closer agreement with you you than you might think.  I am pro military, but there's a ton of waste and abuse when it comes to the process.  We need to cut the budget and most certainly need to stop being the worlds policeman.

Economics is a subject that I've always enjoyed, and there are truths to both arguments really.  Trickle down economics does work in the sense that you give more money to the people then they spend more money so more businesses make more money and hire more people etc.  However, what you're describing is the amount of taxation income the government receives verses what they spend (the deficit increasing) which is completely different than money trickling down to poorer people.
The Laffer curve in economics describes a curve from 0% tax rate to 100% tax rate.  If we tax the people 100% then nobody will work and the government will get nothing.  If we tax the people at 0% everyone will work, but the government will still get nothing.  As you move the rate up and down the curve the entire economic environment changes for the people and that ultimately effects the governments revenues.  I've read some pretty good studies that suggest you can raise it fairly high and you can drop it fairly low and it doesn't have a huge effect on government revenues overall.
Anyways, Trickle up economics works, trickle down economics works, the simple fact of putting more money in the hands of the people is what works.
Where the deficits come in is when the federal government spends more money than they make.  I'm personally to the point that I honestly don't care what the tax rates are, what I care about is how our government spends the money.  If you forced me to take a stand I'd say I'm for a flat income tax because it truly is the most fair tax.

Really? I know we've talked about this before. You still think a flat income tax is the fairest tax? Again, the amount of money that has floated up to the top 1% in this country is massive. The disparity between those at the top, and the poor in this country (with a shrinking middle class in between) has never been greater (post Great Depression of course, and many scholars will tell you one of the main contributors of the Great Depression was horrible income inequality). A flat tax rate of 15% is peanuts when you're making several hundred thousand or millions per year...15% is quite a chunk of change though if you're squeaking by on minimum or just over minimum wage...which, by the way hasn't even risen at the rate of inflation since its inception. With a shrinking middle class and the worst income inequality of our time, going to a flat tax rate would be like firefighters arriving at a fire with hoses spraying out gasoline. edit: but don't worry Tony, if I'm ever out in Nebraska, I'd cover my portion of the lunch check! I handle restaurant checks differently than national budgets!

I'm not sure that we could ever come to an agreement on this, but by definition fair is for all of us to be treated equally no matter how much money we make.  That is fair.   What you're saying is that it's "fair" to take my money away from me and give it to somebody else who didn't earn it because that's "fair"?

Income inequality is not the problem.  Income inequality is the symptom of a greater problem.  We already have a progressive tax system in place and according to you (and me) it's not working.  So, you want to make it more progressive and take more from the rich, but the irony is that virtually none of the "tax the rich" money gets to the poor today, so what makes you think a higher progressive tax will be better?

If anything it redistributes money from the rich to the other rich who are more politically connected to the parties in power.

Yes, I'd make it more progressive in a heartbeat, but not to the extreme Sanders would do it. Just think back to the doom and gloom put out in '08 proclaiming Obama would turn us into Cuba! Heck, not 4 years, but 7 years later! Taxes are still low. The top marginal rate went from 35% to 39.5% on the money top earners earned, and that was just on money made past an already high level. Bottom line, Obama wasn't the socialist bogeyman the GOP made him out to be, period. btw, I find it hard to believe that the redistribution in the form of food stamps or other social programs designed to help those at or near poverty level is "redistributed to the other rich more politically connected to the parties in power."

Obama very much is the boogieman, he just wasn't able to get done what he wanted to get done which is a great thing for America.

Food stamps have been there before all the tax hikes, and they were there after so increases in tax revenues didn't effect them in any way.
The part I'm primarily speaking of is the quantitive easing "QE" which has been the primary driver of debt the past 8 years.  It's primarily all going to the banks and big money fat cats and dwarfs any revenue increase through higher taxes.

As I've said before I really don't care what politicians spend money on because I already know it will be wasted no matter who is in office.  What I want is a balanced budget requirement so that they have to do it on a budget.  Want to give more entitlements, ok no problem then take it from something else (defense, nasa, green power).  The endless death spiral of debt has got to stop.

Wait, what? Let me see how good I can match up this to other Tuwood quotes. 

From the Hillary thread...

haha, as I was typing that I was wondering if somebody would put the two together.

The context I was referring to was that the republicans have given Obama everything he's wanted in his budget.  They caved on everything.

However, when it comes to creating new law they are not giving him everything he wants because obviously they're not going to push his progressive agenda in that way.

Seems kind of strange that they would give someone immunity in a case where nothing was done wrong or illegally.  just sayin

Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server

It's obviously a vast left wing conspiracy orchestrated by Obama's Justice Department.

The Republicans made the election crazy on the front end, but I think the Democrats are going to make up for it on the home stretch.

Holy Crap!   This is a Game Changer.......

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/security-logs-of-hillary-clinton%e2%80%99s-email-server-are-said-to-show-no-evidence-of-hacking/ar-BBqjfj1

To who??

Crap! I forgot to add a liberal dose of SNARK.  (fixed THAT)

Problem with the email situation is that it is a felony offense to improperly handle classified information.  Period.  It doesn't matter if she got hacked or not because that's not the issue.  It's a pretty cut and dry type of crime that's as simple as identifying if there was classified information or not on the server.  There's no question she used the server.

Now, politically speaking I don't expect Obama to actually uphold the law if she were to have put classified information on the system because he has shown over and over that politics are very much in play when it comes to the justice system.  It's really sad, if you think about it.  There are real lives on the line that have families to come home to that are jeopardized by careless handling of classified information.

Just out of curiosity, what is your source confirming that nothing was classified?  Reason I ask is that most conservative outlets state "as fact" that many were classified before they were sent and that her and her staff even removed the classification in order to send them.
Whereas the liberal outlets tend to speak as you are "as fact" that nothing was classified when it was sent.

Objectively, I admit that I have no idea so I'm letting the investigation play its course.  However, I do suspect that even if there is a blatant classified email that was sent the administration will protect her.  I'd like to think that our laws are above politics, but I think you and I both know that's not true (on either side). 

General Petraeus received 2 years probation. That's pretty much all you need to know about how this will play out if Hillary is ever charged with anything.

Petraeus was charged with a felony and it was pleaded down to a misdemeanor.  Yes, he received probation, a pretty common sentence for any misd. offense.

Do you think he could make a successful run for the Presidency with that hanging over him?  He resigned as head of CIA over it.......that's a bit down the food chain from President.

Hillary Clinton has no business being the President of this country.

Hate to be the one to break it to you, but this isn't hurting Hillary one bit. I honestly don't think Dems care at all about this. I think they view it as a big GOP witch hunt at the tax payers' expense.  Or maybe they do kind of care just a little bit, but they feel she has a better chance to beat the Donald than Bernie does and are just willing to overlook it. Either way, this is not a new story and yet it hasn't stopped her from racking up primary wins. 

But I can promise you this, if she ever is convicted of anything (which is a yuuuuge if), she'll get a slap on the wrist no different than Petraeus. Everyone in Washington acts like they're above the law because, well, they are. 

Was just watching the Fox townhall and Hillary's choice of words are interesting.

She said over and over that "Nothing she sent or received was marked classified".  She didn't say it wasn't classified information, just simply that it wasn't marked classified.  Even when pressed about if she sent information that was classified, she kept saying the same thing over and over.

Take it for what it is, but I found the very intentional wording kind of interesting.

Dems might not care, but Republicans do.  I saw a stat the other day that I think is the most interesting one so far........up to this point in the primary season 8,XXX,XXX Republicans have voted as opposed to 5,XXX,XXX Dems. (I can't remember the exact number other than the 8 and 5)  In the last Primary is was exactly opposite.

I think you will see a huge Republican turnout on election day........and many of them will be just like me,,,,,ANYBODY BUT HILLARY.

more large red states have voted.  how many dems do you think come out and vote in texas?

Here's an article discussing it.  
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/02/democratic-turnout-down-32-in-super-tuesday-states-compared-to-2008/

It was in comparison to Super Tuesday voter turnout this year compared to 2008.  5.8M Democrats voted this year compared to 8.56M in the same states in 2008.  It was Obama vs Hillary in 2008 and Hillary vs Sanders this time around.

In contrast the Republican turnout was up 61% compared to 2008 and 73% compared to 2012.  8.2 million voters cast a vote in 11 Super Tuesday states this year, compared to 5.1 million who showed up in 2008 and 4.7 million who voted in 2012.

Notice how the numbers are almost perfectly flipped between the two parties.

I haven't read anything anywhere that doesn't agree the republican voters are turning out in record numbers for the primaries.  It remains to be seen whether that trend holds over to the general election......but my money says it will.

So what is factually inaccurate?  

Different candidates?  Duh
Different States? You're really hanging your hat on that?  So, how does that explain 1.4M turnout this year vs. 2.87M in 2008 (51% drop) in Texas?  Alabama (down 28%), Arkansas (down 34%), Georgia (down 29%) and Tennessee (down 41%). 

Your source seems to be an idiot if he doesn't think Obama's 2008 primary turnout carried over into the election?  Based on his logic, the primary turnout was horrible in 2008 because if it was high then it would have correlated with Obama's win.

It’s important to note that not all 11 presidential cycles had competitive primary contests on both sides.

Primary turnout was low in five elections simply because one party’s nomination was locked up by incumbent presidents, and thus not predictive of general election results. In 1984, for example, the Democratic primary turned out about three times more voters than the Republican primary. Nonetheless, President Ronald Reagan won re-election with almost 60 percent of the popular vote.