Why I'm Supporting Hillary Clinton For President 2008

[Fern]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Plus the same people now scaring us that tax hikes will kill the economy have to acknowledge that it's absolute BS based on what happened in the 90s.

A broad tax hike now is not reccomended by anybody, economists etc.

It's a diferent time with different economic conditions, that 90's model is inapplicable to current times.

IMO, anything but a slight raise on the very wealthy is gonna cause problems. We're said to be entering a recession because consumers are slowing their spending. Higher taxes are hardly a way to fix that.

If Pelosi and Reid (the Dem party) agreed with you they wouldn't have decided to send gov checks to everyone, they wouldv'e suggested raising taxes.

Oh, I don't suport tax cuts now either, at least not for individuals.

Fern

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: senseamp
Plus the same people now scaring us that tax hikes will kill the economy have to acknowledge that it's absolute BS based on what happened in the 90s.

A broad tax hike now is not reccomended by anybody, economists etc.

It's a diferent time with different economic conditions, that 90's model is inapplicable to current times.

IMO, anything but a slight raise on the very wealthy is gonna cause problems. We're said to be entering a recession because consumers are slowing their spending. Higher taxes are hardly a way to fix that.

If Pelosi and Reid (the Dem party) agreed with you they wouldn't have decided to send gov checks to everyone, they wouldv'e suggested raising taxes.

Oh, I don't suport tax cuts now either, at least not for individuals.

Fern

Here you go with your scare tactics. But we don't have to be afraid, because the Clintons have done what you are trying to scare us of, and it worked to the opposite effect of what you are predicting. Nothing succeeds like success, and Reaganomics is a bankrupt theory thanks to the counterexample of Bill Clinton.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
Do you not understand how deficit spending leads to inflation, and how the government competing with the private sector for borrowing leads to higher interest rates? You make it sound as if the fiscal policy of the US government have nothing to do with the economy.

Likewise, you make it sound like it has everything to with the economy.

Hey, look, I can argue like you do, too! Pal, I work everyday in finance.

The fact remains that most of the Clinton years were in deficit (only the last 2 weren't, and that was solely due to economic expansion causing an unexpected rise in revenues, not a decrease in government spending or borrowing, for that matter), and that the economy was poised for expansion during the 90s REGARDLESS.
I wish I could go back and buy, buy, buy like crazy. Stocks, bond, real estate, commodities, you name it. I'd be retired already (in my 30s). Do you think, years from now, that people will ever be saying the same thing about the economy to be inherited from this election?

Let's not forget the fact that Clinton cut the defense budget by over $100 billion a year, take away that cut and we would have only had ONE balanced budget instead of the 4 that we had.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Fern

A broad tax hike now is not reccomended by anybody, economists etc.

There's no need to raise taxes, just cut the defense spending down to a reasonable level. For gods sake, we have no real enemies in the world today, except for terrorists. Do we need to spend over a TRILLION (yes, that's 1000 BILLION) dollars a year to fight off some terrorists?

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I don't like Hill and I don't like Bill, but there is no denying that the best, most recent years in our economy were under the Bill Clinton administration.

That said, I believe this is really a 3rd term for Bill, IF Hillary gets elected, BUT, there really are not any good options on the table, are there?

I mean, Ron Who is a joke. McCain will never make it. Romney is a Mormon and on that premise alone will not get elected. Huckabye baby is too irrelevant and Obama is a good candidate, but he's still black, and that is going to be an issue at the polls, sadly to say.

So, what "real" choices do we really have?

I believe, as much as I dislike the Clinton clan, that Hill will be our next President.

need I remind you of the DOT COM BUBBLE that happened on his watch?

I mean it was not really his fault things got out of control, but all you guys wanna remember the good old days of bill and you forget the bad shit that happened.

the fact is, in this ever changing economy people have to be willing to change with it....if you don't well, that is your problem not the president no matter who is in office.

 

[Moonbeam]

A vote for Hillary is a vote for partisanship and political division.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A vote for Hillary is a vote for partisanship and political division.

The sad thing is, even if Obama does get the nod, just wait, I'm sure the political division will crank back up.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp
That's where you are wrong. Again. It had a lot to do with Clinton. Clinton is the one who made GOP fiscally responsible. Notice how they went back to their deficit spending ways as soon as he left? When government competes with the private sector for credit, we all suffer. That money that the Chinese and foreigners lend to US government to finance our huge deficit could be lent to US businesses to grow and hire people instead.
Clinton's raising taxes to balance the budget before the GOP Congress came in, and then holding them in check for 6 years brought about the prosperity of the 90s when every rightwing thinktank has been telling us that the only way to achieve economic growth was to cut taxes. That's one reason why Republicans like you feel the need to make baseless claims that 93-2001 prosperity had nothing to do with Clinton, because it had everything to do with him, and he proved Reaganomics wrong once and for all.

Senseamp you are a total idiot. I don't know why anyone wastes their time with you.

Clinton did not make the Republicans responsible, it is the Republicans who made Clinton responsible and this is provable by looking back at the any Clinton budget prior to the Republicans taking over.

Here are links to the FY 1996 budget that Clinton put forth on February of 1995, right after the Republicans had taken over congress, but before they started to do anything about the budget.
link
The first link is Clinton budget message, read it and you will see that he says NOTHING at all about balancing the budget.
Right there on page 2 you can see that Clinton proposed budget deficits of $191 billion to $213 billion between 1996 and 2000. Over the five year period between 1996 to 2000 Clinton proposed that the US add another $996 billion in debt!!!!!!!!

Now let's look at the 1997 budget link here page 6
If you look at the table at the bottom of this page you will see Clinton's proposed deficits that dropped every year starting at $140 billion in 1997 and actually balancing the budget by 2000.

There is NO better proof that it was the Republicans in congress that balanced the budget than the numbers I just presented. However, if you have factual evidence from that time period that proves that this was all Clinton?s idea I would love to see it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Fern

A broad tax hike now is not reccomended by anybody, economists etc.

There's no need to raise taxes, just cut the defense spending down to a reasonable level. For gods sake, we have no real enemies in the world today, except for terrorists. Do we need to spend over a TRILLION (yes, that's 1000 BILLION) dollars a year to fight off some terrorists?

Did you pull that number out of your ass? The real number is closer to $500 billion.

And those terrorists you spoke of killed 3000 people on 9-11, more than died at Pearl Harbor.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A vote for Hillary is a vote for partisanship and political division.

And corporate lobbyists defining the agenda, cronyism, and corruption.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic
- Major technological advances for the mass market consumer.

You could have just said that, Vic.

Those technologies alone are what boosted the economy, and because consumers were buying them, it made them cheaper via mass production, and more available to smaller businesses as well as larger business. So, small and large businesses were producing their products and services more efficiently, as well as creating all kinds of new products and new services. That produces a domino effect which accounts for everything else you posted above. We should be thanking Microsoft, Intel, and the internet. Not Bill Clinton. A rock could have presided over that economy.

No, It was also the policies of the Clinton administration. Clinton actually appointed people with ability, from Yale, Stanford, UC Berkeley, etc. , not ideologues from Liberty University.

I seem to remember a big tax increase, that was opposed by all the Republicans, that put us on the path to a balanced budget. Republicans were all claiming that the sky would fall if Clinton's tax increase, mainly on the rich, were passed.
We then had the greatest post war expansion ever. Deficits dropped markedly.

Your hero Reagan was president during a time of great economic growth, and managed to saddle us with record deficits our grandchildren will be paying off.
Look up the deficits created under Republican administrations , versus Democratic administrations. There is no comparison.
Republicans believe in tax cuts and spending . Democrats believe in tax and spend.
Do the math.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Did you pull that number out of your ass? The real number is closer to $500 billion.

And those terrorists you spoke of killed 3000 people on 9-11, more than died at Pearl Harbor.

Here's one source: http://www.salon.com/opinion/f...2007/06/15/war_budget/

Are bombers and high-tech weapons systems going to defend us against another 9-11?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Did you pull that number out of your ass? The real number is closer to $500 billion.

And those terrorists you spoke of killed 3000 people on 9-11, more than died at Pearl Harbor.

Here's one source: http://www.salon.com/opinion/f...2007/06/15/war_budget/

Are bombers and high-tech weapons systems going to defend us against another 9-11?

You need to learn to read:

"for fiscal year 2008, the Pentagon will still spend $510 billion. "

EDIT:
Oh I get it now... you are falling for this line "In addition to the $650 billion the Pentagon will get in 2008, huge additional sums will be spent on veterans care and interest on the national debt accumulated from previous DOD spending that ballooned the deficit. In all, those two accounts add $263 billion to the Pentagon budget, for a grand total of $913 billion. "
How exactly do we decide how much of the debt belongs to defense spending and how much belongs to spending on social programs?
Libs have been trying this for years, they take the entire defense budget and pretend that the DOD is the ONLY reason we have a deficit and then claim that all spending on the debt management (aka interest) is part of DoD spending.

Doesn?t work like that, sorry.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic
- Major technological advances for the mass market consumer.

You could have just said that, Vic.

Those technologies alone are what boosted the economy, and because consumers were buying them, it made them cheaper via mass production, and more available to smaller businesses as well as larger business. So, small and large businesses were producing their products and services more efficiently, as well as creating all kinds of new products and new services. That produces a domino effect which accounts for everything else you posted above. We should be thanking Microsoft, Intel, and the internet. Not Bill Clinton. A rock could have presided over that economy.

No, It was also the policies of the Clinton administration. Clinton actually appointed people with ability, from Yale, Stanford, UC Berkeley, etc. , not ideologues from Liberty University.

I seem to remember a big tax increase, that was opposed by all the Republicans, that put us on the path to a balanced budget. Republicans were all claiming that the sky would fall if Clinton's tax increase, mainly on the rich, were passed.
We then had the greatest post war expansion ever. Deficits dropped markedly.

Your hero Reagan was president during a time of great economic growth, and managed to saddle us with record deficits our grandchildren will be paying off.
Look up the deficits created under Republican administrations , versus Democratic administrations. There is no comparison.
Republicans believe in tax cuts and spending . Democrats believe in tax and spend.
Do the math.

I didn't know Reagan was my hero. Thanks for letting me know. Is there anything else about me that I should know?

And if you see my sig, you'd know I am not a spend-spend-spend Republican.

I don't know what policies of Clinton you're talking about, but I stand by my statement. A rock could have presided over that economy.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic
- Major technological advances for the mass market consumer.

You could have just said that, Vic.

Those technologies alone are what boosted the economy, and because consumers were buying them, it made them cheaper via mass production, and more available to smaller businesses as well as larger business. So, small and large businesses were producing their products and services more efficiently, as well as creating all kinds of new products and new services. That produces a domino effect which accounts for everything else you posted above. We should be thanking Microsoft, Intel, and the internet. Not Bill Clinton. A rock could have presided over that economy.

No, It was also the policies of the Clinton administration. Clinton actually appointed people with ability, from Yale, Stanford, UC Berkeley, etc. , not ideologues from Liberty University.

I seem to remember a big tax increase, that was opposed by all the Republicans, that put us on the path to a balanced budget. Republicans were all claiming that the sky would fall if Clinton's tax increase, mainly on the rich, were passed.
We then had the greatest post war expansion ever. Deficits dropped markedly.

Your hero Reagan was president during a time of great economic growth, and managed to saddle us with record deficits our grandchildren will be paying off.
Look up the deficits created under Republican administrations , versus Democratic administrations. There is no comparison.
Republicans believe in tax cuts and spending . Democrats believe in tax and spend.
Do the math.

I didn't know Reagan was my hero. Thanks for letting me know. Is there anything else about me that I should know?

And if you see my sig, you'd know I am not a spend-spend-spend Republican.

I don't know what policies of Clinton you're talking about, but I stand by my statement. A rock could have presided over that economy.

You're wrong. And we have a rock presiding over our economy now. How's that working out?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: BoberFett

And since you still don't understood, I'll repeat it again. The prosperity of 93-2001 had nothing to with Clinton. Electing Hillary will not bring that back.

Maybe the prosperity wasn't his doing but at least he didn't do anything to kill it, like starting an unnecessary war and ballooning the defense budget to record levels.

That's may be true but we already know Hillary wants to invade Iran.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Fern

A broad tax hike now is not reccomended by anybody, economists etc.

There's no need to raise taxes, just cut the defense spending down to a reasonable level. For gods sake, we have no real enemies in the world today, except for terrorists. Do we need to spend over a TRILLION (yes, that's 1000 BILLION) dollars a year to fight off some terrorists?

Did you pull that number out of your ass? The real number is closer to $500 billion.

And those terrorists you spoke of killed 3000 people on 9-11, more than died at Pearl Harbor.

But that's less than the number of Americans who have died in Iraq. So who's more dangerous, the terrorists or our government?

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
:thumbsup:

Hillary becoming president for a couple of terms is the best thing that could happen to you guys.:gift:

Actually, it's one of the worst things that could happen to us.

:thumbsup:

Now that's a man with a good head on his shoulders!

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: rudder
I will vote for Hillary because my neighbor is too stupid to know how to save college money for his soon to be new child. With Hillary in office at least he can get $5000 for his child's expenses.


(Disclaimer: I know this idea was shot down... but I gather this is more of what we could expect from Hillary)

Your neighbor must be from a Third World Country where people sell their votes for a mere 5 bucks! And then sought help from the US on how corrupt their govts are!

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: maverick44

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I don't like Hill and I don't like Bill, but there is no denying that the best, most recent years in our economy were under the Bill Clinton administration.

That said, I believe this is really a 3rd term for Bill, IF Hillary gets elected, BUT, there really are not any good options on the table, are there?

I mean, Ron Who is a joke. McCain will never make it. Romney is a Mormon and on that premise alone will not get elected. Huckabye baby is too irrelevant and Obama is a good candidate, but he's still black, and that is going to be an issue at the polls, sadly to say.

So, what "real" choices do we really have?

I believe, as much as I dislike the Clinton clan, that Hill will be our next President.

From an NBC news article,


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...2007/11/19/473397.aspx

At a press conference in Fort Dodge, IA, Obama was asked about Clinton's questioning of his economic experience, and he replied "My understanding is that she wasn't Treasury secretary in the Clinton Administration."

No president make decision by themselves, not even Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton will have access to Bill, and the network of people that worked and closely associated with Bill Clinton that made his term successful. Obama got his own machine and his own people, not sure how proven they are. I know some of them come from the Clinton admin but I doubt they are the majority in Obama camp.

We will know Hillary has access to Bill and so does Monica!

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic
- Major technological advances for the mass market consumer.

You could have just said that, Vic.

Those technologies alone are what boosted the economy, and because consumers were buying them, it made them cheaper via mass production, and more available to smaller businesses as well as larger business. So, small and large businesses were producing their products and services more efficiently, as well as creating all kinds of new products and new services. That produces a domino effect which accounts for everything else you posted above. We should be thanking Microsoft, Intel, and the internet. Not Bill Clinton. A rock could have presided over that economy.

No, It was also the policies of the Clinton administration. Clinton actually appointed people with ability, from Yale, Stanford, UC Berkeley, etc. , not ideologues from Liberty University.

I seem to remember a big tax increase, that was opposed by all the Republicans, that put us on the path to a balanced budget. Republicans were all claiming that the sky would fall if Clinton's tax increase, mainly on the rich, were passed.
We then had the greatest post war expansion ever. Deficits dropped markedly.

Your hero Reagan was president during a time of great economic growth, and managed to saddle us with record deficits our grandchildren will be paying off.
Look up the deficits created under Republican administrations , versus Democratic administrations. There is no comparison.
Republicans believe in tax cuts and spending . Democrats believe in tax and spend.
Do the math.

I didn't know Reagan was my hero. Thanks for letting me know. Is there anything else about me that I should know?

And if you see my sig, you'd know I am not a spend-spend-spend Republican.

I don't know what policies of Clinton you're talking about, but I stand by my statement. A rock could have presided over that economy.

You're wrong. And we have a rock presiding over our economy now. How's that working out?

I wish he were just a rock. How is it working out? It's fubar'd.

 

[OokiiNeko]

More re-writing of history.

Perot did a good job of steering the 92 debate in the economy`s direction. In a big way.
His infomercials were mostly about the economy.

So the economy was the mandate, Clinton rode it into office (how many here can remember early on when he had NO CHANCE of winning the democrat nomination.)

While he did not create the rather good economy during his tenure, he certainly did help it by getting the Dems and Repubs to jointly reduce deficit spending.

As to SS, that shit was already raided when he got into office, which was why the tax RAISE was fenced to bring some liquidity to the fund. Which it did.

Any way you look at it, America getting its spending under control was a good thing. And you cannot re-write that!

 

[Pabster]

The problem, OokiiNeko, is that the Clintons are always trying to rewrite history. In their favor.

I see no point in debating the economic point any further; the Kool-Aid sippers will always give Bill 100% credit (while ignoring the problems of his tenure), and the die-hard right will always blast him.

The fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton will be relegated to the history books as a rather inconsequential, scandal-ridden President who happened to govern in between a pair of War Presidents...Both named Bush -- IF Hillary goes down to defeat.

 

[OokiiNeko]

I see no point in debating the economic point any further; the Kool-Aid sippers will always give Bill 100% credit (while ignoring the problems of his tenure), and the die-hard right will always blast him.

One of the more sensible things you have said.

The fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton will be relegated to the history books as a rather inconsequential, scandal-ridden President who happened to govern in between a pair of War Presidents...Both named Bush -- IF Hillary goes down to defeat.

Followed by one of average non-sensicalness.

🙂

 

[ProfJohn]

If you want to give Clinton credit then give him credit for being smart enough to look at the Republican victory in 94 and change his direction (give some credit to Dick Morris who helped him come up with triangulation.)

Prior to the Republican take over Clinton proposed nearly one trillion in deficit spending over the five year period between 1996 and 2000. After their take over he proposed a budget that would end up being balanced around 2000.

The reason the budget was balanced prior to 2000 was due to good economic growth and drastic cuts in the defense budget.