Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Announces White House Bid

A few things friends.

I think it would be best for the quality of this conversation if we:

1. tried to keep the caps, profanity, and personal attacks to a minimum.

2. Dicussed the topic of this thread. Economic debate is welcome here to the extent that it is well connected to policies which Hillary can be reasonably expected to support. Calling Hillary a socialist and then going on and on about the fair tax thing without even discussing that issue in the context of Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency is not relevant.


Personally, I believe the disagreement between Rant and Ape about Hillary's socialism or lackthereof perfectly illustrates the problem she faces as a candidate.

There may be no such thing as bad publicity, but there's definately such a thing as being politically type-cast to your detriment. Hillary is too far to the right for partisans, who have a tendency to follow the big names in their party enough to discover that fact, and yet she is popularly percieved as being far to the left of center, a perception that may be taken at face value by swing voters. It may be too late for her to live up to her liberal reputation for the far left, so she has to shake that reputation a little bit to bring in disaffected Republicans- you've got to Remember that there are Republicans out there who were Democrats before 1980, who could be won by a guy with a moderate reputation who makes just the right subtle moves for the left fringe to get himself a balanced base of support in the primaries (Like Obama, who is working at getting to the left of Hillary early for the base, but will probably walk his moderate Audacity of Hope line as the elections near).

Based on the geographic areas involved, I beleive that Obama will grab an early lead in the Democratic primary, start to slip immediately in the public eye, but prove surprisingly strong on Super Tuesday. Hillary on the other hand will dominate up until a stumble on Mini-tuesday and lose a lot of thunder, and whoever grabs up the most from here between Obama and whoever comes out as the strongest of the for now "lesser" candidates will likely have the nomination ultimately.

In so many words, Hillary might be overrated as a candidate. Even if she does everything right, she might not be suited to the situation. She'd be a much stronger candidate coming in at the end of a more popular Republican's second term, as it would make her far left image more of an asset with moderates less in play, and her failure to actually walk that line in opposition to said president would be less of an issue. Unforunately for her, she'll be in her 80s before such a situation arises, so she'll have to play the cards she was dealt. In private, I expect that come November 08, Bill is going to tell her that she should have run in 2000 and just accepted the asterisk (the inevitable accusation that she had been elected largely as a referendum on her husband's two terms).

i posted little bits of hillarys history vagabond giving some insight about how much of a liar and a socialist she is, hillary care? enough said. haha even dick morris who was on hannity & colmes last night said hillary was a socialist putting on a fake front for the american people and he has worked with and known the clintons for 25 years.

going on about the fair tax thing without even discussing that issue in the context of Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency is not relevant

fairtax has everything to do with the presidency as hillary does not support it and has a regressive bigger government mindstate, i was very clear to link my opinions about hillary to her stance with the fairtax and her presidential run.

people smart people have the scoop on that reptile hillary, what we are seeing is the media hype machine which will always push the left and put them in the spotlight, and sometimes even lie to try and influence elections.

when it got out of hand is when vekar started posting ignorant comments that have no substance, you should know this vagabond as it's pretty obvious to anyone who can read that vekar threw this thread into chaos.





[edit on 24-1-2007 by ape]

I'm not responsible for enforcing the rules and that gives me the luxury of not caring who started it. I'm just a member with a shiney tag under his avatar, which means that my business is trying to promote good discussion, not sorting out these problems. I'm asking you, as one person who wants the best interests of this country thoughtfully debated to another, to be above the low tactics that have gone on so far, regardless of who is at fault. I think we can all broaden our horizons quite a bit without calling eachother ignorant or anything else of that nature.

Anyway, back to the discussion of what exactly Hillary's policy leanings are.

I am confused as to how Hillary Clinton can be both a socialist and a proponent of regressive measures. I would be very interested in some elaboration on that.

I would also be interested in any quotes and voting record from Clinton regarding fair tax. Although I am sure she does oppose it, I have not known that opposition to be a major theme in her politics. I don't claim to know her whole background though, so feel free to enlighten me.

At the end of the day though, that's only one facet of the debate over her policy leanings and I think that we should build upon fair tax discussion to also include detail of Hillary's socialist backgrounds, what specific actions we can expect her to take instead of implementing that, and then also some issues aside from economics.

Including the issue in discussion is absolutely worthwhile. Letting the issue overshadow the main topic is not.

Now, I happen to believe that Hillary has actually been painted as far more liberal than she actually is. She is a Democrat, and as such most certainly would be expected to have a more pro-social program record than a Republican. But as Democrats go, just how liberal is she?

"Hillary Care" failed in a Democrat-controlled congress because congressional Democrats put forward competing ideas. The fact that it wasn't far enough to the left (not single-payer, pure socialism, but a government regulated attempt to force the market into providing) was arguably as important to the bill failing as the way minority conservatives lined up to try and kill it outright. If it hadn't been for those further left than Hillary, Democrats to the right of her could have gained enough concessions to pass the bill without the Republicans. The fact that Hillary Care was in the middle of the Democratic spectrum of ideas doomed it, because it wasn't possible to compromise in two diametrically opposed directions at the same time.

It could even be argued that the far left kept the Clintons from being able to force moderate Republicans to cross the aisle and quite possibly blunt the effectiveness of the Contract with America in the election which closely followed, since they wouldn't have wanted to be left out of a success, but they couldn't afford to gamble on failure because the Republican party threatened to strip them of their seniority if they cooperated.

And that is the root of Hillary's problem. She was caught in the cross fire when Republicans formed the phalanx and started scaring the hell out of voters to beat her husband, and it put her, as well as Bill, a lot further to the left in the public eye than they actually were. The stigma lasts today, giving us a closet-hawk Hillary who could face some problems with the far left, and yet is hindered in any attempt to move to the middle.

These last 5 years I have been so fed up with the Repbulican agenda that I regret that I ever belonged to the party and helped them gain the power that they used against us for 5 long years. When I left the party, I ended up part of the Reform Party. Today that party has ceased to exist in my state so when I go to vote I am labelled NP...I like to think of it as National Party.

In the last few elections I have voted mostly for 3rd party candidates as a vote against the 2 party system. This last election I voted a straight Democrat ticket because I think we've all seen what Republican rule will do to us. I simply could not take a chance voting for a 3rd party this time around. We had to make a change.

In the 2008 election, I will almost certainly be voting a straight Dem ticket again with emphasis on the Presidency. I'm anxious to see what the Dem Party attempts to do these next 2 years. It will have a bearing on my vote in 2008 if they choose to run they're own agenda rather than looking out for the American People like the Rep Party did.

Some in this discussion have stated that Hilary won't make any decision without consulting the polls as if that is a bad thing. I always thought that politicians were elected to represent The People. What better way is there to represent the people than to listen to the polls and do what the majority wants?

If Hilary is one to lend an ear to the American People then she'll have my vote...even if some of the things that the American People want are averse to my own beliefs. At least I know that she'll represent the consensus of America rather than doing what she thinks regardless of what we think....as is the case today with Pres. Bush.

Honestly, I don't think that America is ready for a woman president yet, so I doubt that she'll get elected if she gets the Dem Nomination. However, since I have not cast a vote yet for a Clinton and today I long for the Clinton Days, I would be one who would jump to put a check next to the name regardless of which Clinton it is.

Whoever the Dem Party chooses to nominate, I hope they pick someone who can actually win the Presidency.

What can I say... three cheers for Davenman. Simple, to the point, and honest.

I agree that despite the fact that consulation of polls, when taken to excess, can be a weakness in that public opinion is sometimes fickle, it is generally a positive thing for our elected officials to yield to the will of the people when it is clear and consistent.

We do have leaders to streamline the decision making process and create a stability of course that direct democracy might lack, but those ends certainly do not preclude a concern for the will of the PEOPLE, who for those of you who can't speak Greek, RULE.

Although I'm not an across the board fan of Hillary Clinton I do think that the weather-vane reputation which she in part borrows from her husband is a weak criticism for the most part.


In particular, I have a problem with Clinton because I get a very vicious vibe from her... it may seem petty, but I distrust her fervor. True believers are often dangerous. I have a certain sympathy for more detatched, calculating sorts who will can take the mandate of the people and do what they were elected to do in the most advantageous way that presents itself, provided that they are not devoid of principle. If I could hybridize two recent presidents into a single leader, I think I'd want Nixon's shrewd, sometimes shameless penchant for getting things done, tempered by Bill Clinton's seeming concession to the judgement which he was destined to face in history.

Hillary Clinton though, seems like more of an opposite number to Ronald Reagan or Bush 41 when taken on her own, and I'd want to see her become a little more oriented towards "we're going to get things done, one way or another" as opposed to "we are going to dig in on these principles and die with them in our arms". Because ultimately, what I want from the government is not adherence to my particular ideology, or any ideology, but progress that benefits me and the society in which I am so fortunate to have a stake.

posted vagabond
I am confused as to how Hillary Clinton can be both a socialist and a proponent of regressive measures. I would be very interested in some elaboration on that.

so you dont consider socialism a regressive form of government? do you know anything about hillarycare? or what she is on the record for doing?

here is an example

'Hillary tried to implement a health care plan that would have made it a crime for you to use your own dollars to hire your own doctor. Now think about that for a moment. How much else do you need to know? She actually wanted to make it a crime for you to arrange for your own medical care outside of her great Hillarycare system using your own dollars. Picture this. You're sitting in a jail cell. Your cellmate is in there for bank robbery. He looks at you and says "So, what did you do?" You tell him "Oh ... I tried to hire a doctor with my own money to take care of a medical problem." That, my friends, is Hillary's America.


She is fundamentally dishonest ... almost pathologically dishonest. Perhaps the greatest example of her innate dishonesty would be the saga of the Rose Law Firm billing records. The congress served a subpoena on Hillary for those records. She said that she did not have them. For two years she denied that those records were in her possession, and in fact suggested that they may not exist at all. Then, two years after the subpoena was served, those very records were found in her private living quarters at the White House. Not only were they found, but they had her fingerprints and handwriting all over them. In other words .. she lied.


Hillary Clinton is anti-individual. When discussing her socialized medicine plan with a group of Republican congressmen in 1993 Hillary said "We have to stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." No .. she's wrong. We have to start thinking about what it would be like to have a president who put the common good above individual rights. Hillary Rodham is part and parcel of the war on individualism.
A bit more about Hillary Rodham and your health care:

Now that Hillary Clinton is officially in the race, she is choosing health care as her signature issue. What a great idea...it worked so well before....
So what is Hillary's health care proposal going to be this time? Things didn't work out so well 13 years ago when she proposed a government takeover of the medical industry. Says The Hildabeast: "I will be introducing legislation to make quality, affordable health care available to every child in America." What does that mean? just covering children? It would seem so. Well, according to Hillary...anyone would be able to buy into her program. And just how much is all of this going to cost? Naturally, no mention of the price tag. But suffice it to say that if Hillary Clinton becomes president of the United States, your earnings will be confiscated to pay for other people's health care. Just get used to the idea'

good ol neal.

if anyone thinks socialism is a progressive form of government then they dont belong in the states.


she is a proponent of bigger government control over the citizen and this is a socialist mindstate.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by ape]

Originally posted by ape
so you dont consider socialism a regressive form of government?

In practice it is almost inevitably progressive, sometimes to the point of absurdity.

do you know anything about hillarycare? or what she is on the record for doing?

Of course not. I just made up my explanation of how "Hillary Care" died; I plucked it out of thin air. You should inform me on it based on your uncanny ability to regurgitate 13 year old Republican propaganda. (/sarcasm)

The overview of Clinton's history that I have so far gained in looking to the candidates does not mesh with much of what you are saying, which has so far lacked any support. I continue to await an explanation of the regressive nature of Hillary's policies and some substantiation of your charges. Sure you can parrot the propaganda, but now let's see if you understand it. I'll be eagerly awaiting your answer... or, if past is truly prologue, your non-answer.


PS

here is an example

Your explanation is no more compelling than the last time you posted it. I'll thank you not to copy and paste the same statement repeatedly. It senselessly clutters the thread and seems contrary to the spirit of ATS' etiquette, which asks that you limit large, unnecessary quotes.

your condecsending tone does nothing for you vagabond, if you think socialism is a progressive form of government consider yourself ignored by me as america is not a socialist country, taking money away from people and giving it to another is hardly progressive and having government control over the citizen is very disturbing and regressive. I suggest moving to venezuela, vagabond.

i will copypaste whatever I want because it was obviously overlooked and it's not conservative propaganda, if you think for one minute hillary hasnt played politics for the past decade to come off more to the center of issues then you really need to educate yourself on that womans history. dick morris a man who has worked with that family for 25 years and is a democratic strategist and still has a relationship with them said she is a socialist. he also said he will fight tooth and nail to prevent her winning the presidency.

The overview of Clinton's history that I have so far gained in looking to the candidates does not mesh with much of what you are saying, which has so far lacked any support. I continue to await an explanation of the regressive nature of Hillary's policies and some substantiation of your charges. Sure you can parrot the propaganda, but now let's see if you understand it. I'll be eagerly awaiting your answer... or, if past is truly prologue, your non-answer.

what exactly do i need to explain about her policies? she called for government take over of the medical industry, what else do you need to know? hillarycare hardly died as she now proposed every child be covered and that will come directly out of my pocket, do you pay taxes in this country? i sure do. as I recall in another thread i remember you called for higher taxation to solve our current problems, a solution i picked apart piece by piece, you also called for government control of business revenues, very socialist.

she is against fairtax and so are you obviously ( without any good reason might I add ) which would tax consumption instead of income without driving prices up allowing people to keep all of their money among other things like bringing back our manufacturing base etc, and fairtax shrinks government and make it more transparent on what we pay in taxes. she is a proponent of big government, im curious now to where her and bill stash all of their money, if it's overseas like the kennedys to avoid US tax policy then you should be ashamed of yourself for not being informed.





[edit on 25-1-2007 by ape]

Ape, you have the right to post your views on Hillary, after all this, a Hillary geared thread.

However, the problem is that you are posting your personal ideology, views and opinions like if they were facts and in way, it sounds very much fanatical.

When you accused Hillary of been a socialist this nothing more than me telling that bush is a dictator the way he has gone with the war and our nation ignoring checks and balances.

Now Can you prove that Hillary is a socialist.?

No, no really you cannot because is all base on opinions.

The same way I cannot prove Bush to be a dictator.

Is not right to attack Vagabond for trying to show you how you have manipulated your opinion in this thread.

Is also very insulting the way you have told Vagabond to move to Venezuela, which is an attack because you cannot agree with his views.




[edit on 25-1-2007 by marg6043]

take a look at her policies, and what she has advocated for marge before calling me a fanatic? i go by her record how about doing a little research?

when people like dick morris call her a socialist on nation TV it's hard to ignore, her policies are big government and higher/expanded taxation which is socialist.

she advocates to take from one and give to another, this is apart of socialism, she advocates for government control of the civilian, on the record for saying " we need to stop thinking about whats best for the individual and more on whats best for society" like the individual isnt the building block of society? come on marge please give me a break.

everything I have said is true, look it up.

vagabond is anti-capitalism and he has displyed this in many other threads, like the thread titled " if you were president what would you do to make this country better", take a good look as i revived it. you also told me to lay off of vagabond before and im aware you two have a relationship so please, dont treat this like politics and jump behind party lines while ignoring actual fact. I will adress him accordingly and my opinion was hardly insulting, venezuela is a socialist country if he thinks its so progressive he should move and study there, just an opinion/suggestion not an insult, stop trying to bring negative attention to my name, you're setting me up to get warned and I dont like it.

anyone who says socialism is progressive is for bigger government control of the civilian and this is anti-american.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by ape]

Originally posted by ape

vagabond is anti-capitalism and he has displyed this in many other threads, like the thread titled " if you were president what would you do to make this country better

So you base your opinion on Vaganbond the same way that you interpret his views.

Well one thing is been anti-capitalism, something that I may fall in your interpretations like one, due to the fact that Capitalism has gone corrupted by corporate American and with not control.

Does that makes me a Socialist.

I also feel that everybody in our nation should have government sponsor or in the lines health care.

After all isn't the job of the government to find a way to protect their citizens.

Because it seems that our nation is run by corporate agenda.

Does that makes me an anti-capitalist.

Then guess what I have never say I am against Capitalism and Vagabond has not voiced his anti-Capitalist agenda yet.

So you basically are bringing your opinions on another member as you see them fit.

But like I say you have the right to voice your disappointment on Hillary but not attacking Vagabond that happens to disagree with you.

Understood.

capitalism is one of the features that makes this country great, the government does whatever it can to get it's hands in and slow down individual captialism such as keeping you from all of your wages that you earn and slowing investment which is a key aspect to capitalism. capitalism is not the cause of greed in this country marge, stupid individuals are. you have already expressed your lack of knowledge in this subject when u bashed corporate america in another thread, corporate america provides alot of services in this country, im not not sure what your husband does for a living but im sure he is under a medical plan with the company he is with? this is beneficial for both you and your children. take a good look at US tax policy before saying corporate america is wicked, understand? everyone has a right to make a profit in this country, dont crack down on the individual crack down on the system.

yeah you're a socialist if you embrace bigger government control over the citizen and if you want the government to dictate your medical treatment and the drugs your able to obtain along with the price, rememeber this country is what it is today because of capitalism. despite your own personal opinion about this country I actually thrive and have no problems in the system we currently live in, my rights have not been stripped and the only pressure I feel is when the government dips its hands into my check every two weeks. you are a stay home mom you dont even work in this country, go out and earn a buck and then come back to me with an opinion about how this country works. you act like this country is a dictatorship and it's poverty stricken so hard to survive enviroment when you yourself stated you live very 'comfortably'. well I can relate as i'm middle class and doing GREAT!, take a good look at the rest of the world and then rethink your situation here in america.

So you base your opinion on Vaganbond the same way that you interpret his views.

you're damn right !! how else am i supposed to interpret garbage like this..

by vagabond
Second thing, any business that illegaly sends American jobs overseas shall be taxed to the full extent as to what the law will allow. If these corporations still send the jobs overseas, they shall recieve fines in the tens of millions of dollars a day until they comply. If they do not comply on the third, and final, warning. The heads of that company from the CEO all the way down to the Public Relations director will be jailed for a period of twenty five years.

by vagabond
The logical solution is to tax our under-burdened upper class while maintaining the presence of their business by using those taxes to build infrastructure that make America fertile ground for industries in which other nations are not prepared to compete with us.

how else am i supposed to interpret this? this man advocates taxes on ' under burdened upper class' yet refused to acknowledge that small business owners fall under this category. also when i first met the kid he lectured me ( a working tax payer ) about how this country works and was condecsending to me in a fashion that was not needed, the kid is arrogant.

by marge
After all isn't the job of the government to find a way to protect their citizens.

of course it is, however it is not their job to involve themselves in certain aspects of my personal life which is what the IRS does, and is what would happen if they had control over my medical and the amount of drugs i receieve and the treatment i get making me totally dependant on them instead of myself and my right to a choice.

I dont want the government making business decisions for private companies, look at how the feds screw up everything right now yet u want them in control of every aspect of your health, income and business in this country? what in the hell is wrong with you?

this is a fun read, challenge the author if you can, anyone.
www.usasurvival.org...

i can get many more, once again do you know who dick morris is? are you aware of his history with the clintons? he called her a socialist on national TV HAHAHAH most truthfull statement I have ever seen on fox news

another
www.politicalgateway.com...

and for anyone who thinks she leans to the center have a good read on the below link which shows some of her voting records in the past and how she was graded by conservative and liberal groups, this is on record so dont attempt to challenge it with misinformation.

www.nationalreview.com...


also vagabond, go to fairtax.org under the congression score card and u will see hillary is against fairtax, so is obama. now you would know this if you actually visited the site and read the links provided in the beginning.







[edit on 25-1-2007 by ape]

[edit on 25-1-2007 by ape]

[edit on 25-1-2007 by ape]

[edit on 26-1-2007 by ape]

ape

I am starting to see where you coming from.

So anybody that attacks corporatism even if is corrupted and unrestricted, Profiteers that care less about the American citizens as long as they made their profits under the good old capitalistic way gone wrong and corrupted . . . the rich because they are burdened . . . but you seem to ignore how nice Bush cut in taxes has done for them, the needy and low income do not pay taxes anyway, so they are not saving anything really and still can not afford health care . . .they are all in your eyes Socialist.

Is that so Ape?

So anybody that attacks corporatism even if is corrupted and unrestricted, Profiteers that care less about the American citizens as long as they made their profits under the good old capitalistic way gone wrong and corrupted . . . the rich because they are burdened . . . but you seem to ignore how nice Bush cut in taxes has done for them, the needy and low income do not pay taxes anyway, so they are not saving anything really and still can not afford health care . . .they are all in your eyes Socialist.

way to totally disregard my entire post, marge. if you're not here to have an intelligent conversation please do me a favor and ignore me, as I dont want anything to do with ignorance. I dont agree with bush and you have to remember that, keep in mind though his tax cuts have helped keep this economy strong. basically you're against someone starting off at the bottom and working hard and eventually become successfull and all you want to do is take away from that person? how about supporting polices that would enable individuals to proser and invest and eventually becoming very wealthy?? I respect anyone who can succeed in our current system and rise above to rest to become wealthy and I certainly dont feel that person is obligated to give me money or fund my needs. marge you have alot to learn.

the needy and low income do not pay taxes anyway, so they are not saving anything really and still can not afford health care . . .they are all in your eyes Socialist.

no not at all, you're talking to someone who was at the poverty level and prolly below it who worked for petsmart for 4 years of my young life unloading trucks and stocking , I had medical and dental benefits that my job provided and i started up a 401k plan in which my company at the time matched me up to 6% the only problem was I didnt make enough money (8.55 and hour before i left for telecom ) and the government still taxed the hell out of me, so dont blame the corporations because they have to comply with federal tax policies which comes out of my check. anyone who gets payed a check in this country marge gets taxed, every worker pays taxes in this country. why are you so uninformed?


once again im talking to someone has no experience in the working world, you even said your just a 'stay home mom'. how many jobs have you worked marge? have you ever even worked in your life? have you ever felt the government dip their hands into your check and take your money that you worked hard for to earn just to provide some illegal immigrant with health care which is what arnold is proposing? or to provide liquor for some bum living off of the government?

I'm all for helping people who need help however I would rather fund these people in a more progressive manner instead of dipping into my earnings that I need to survive. fairtax would fund our medicare issues not only that it's a more stable source of revenue to fund such medicare issues because it expands the taxbase therefore more money would be brought in, this is our crisis right now.


I would like to notify my fellow peers here that vagabond deducted points from me and warned me in a u2u simply because he disagrees with my accurate opinion and information about hillary clinton.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by ape]

If you're not here to have an intelligent conversation please do me a favor and ignore me, as I don’twant anything to do with ignorance.

Ape, just because people disagree with your point of view that does not mean that they are not intelligent enough for your post.

That is wrong Ape.

I will not ignore your post because to tell you the truth I have something to say about our views, just as you have the right also.


Our economy is not as strong as Bush is trying to portrait, our economy is hanging on a thread and looking good because Bush is very sly, and As long as the markets keep making profits for corporate American, everything is peachy.

How about the rest of hard Working Americans?

Our economy is strong, you say, but you are disregarding the fact that the job grow is more of the minimum wage sector than in what use to be call Middle class range because American has lost the manufacturing power and has been substituted by wal-mart type of employers.

The bread and butter and most tax payer contributors to our nation is dying, the middle class America, putting a big distance between the very rich and the growing low-income class in our nation.

You want intelligent debate but you cannot avoid the realities of what really is going on with the labor force in our nation.

What do you think is a growing number of uninsured in our nation if Bush claims that we have more jobs than ever?

Think Ape, think,

Because the jobs created, is not enough income for people to pay the exorbitant premiums of the mega billion dollar industry that is the insurance business in our nation.

However, they go a job, right? Wrong people are getting low pay jobs.

You like any other hard working American are at the mercy of our weak economy and the changes that your job be outsource to china and India for pennies on the dollars.

Better start saving and saving good for that eventuality, my friend.

For you information I have the choice to stay at home and I am no longer a stay at home mom because my children are adults now.

I never say that I have not worked before, I have a degree in business administration for your information.

In addition, I was part of the work force for 15 years before health problems and having a husband with a great pay job allowed me to stay at home.

So do not question my knowledge of business and their practices

once again im talking to someone has no experience in the working world, you even said your just a 'stay home mom'.

You are assuming too much Ape and people that assume too much always end up looking like . . . you are looking like in this thread.

Deny ignorance do not pass judgment without know the cold facts.

So going back to Hillary health insurance idea, how do you Think that the poor, low income and needy in our nation can afford a health insurance?

Do you think that corporate America is going to give away their profits to cover them?

How can they pay for insurance on the low pay jobs, feed a family and pay for their essential needs?

Como Ape you brag about been so intelligent.






[edit on 26-1-2007 by marg6043]

this is why I ask you to ignore my posts marge, look at your response it's hardly worth responding to considering you totally disregarded my posts. 1 thing you need to understand is that the reason our manufacturing base is going off shores is because of our domestic tax policy, fairtax solves this by brining back industry and jobs and our manufacturing base, yet you're so quick to disagree with me and jump behind party lines, im advocating the same thing you are.

now to adress minimum wage earners, I agree that our jobs are being outsourced only to be replaced by low wage jobs but keep in mind i worked these low wage jobs and was easily able to afford the health insurance provided, if you take into consideration the health care coverage companies provide minimum wage earners they are actually making over 11 bucks an hour, you have no experience in this sector so you can't have an accurate comment. most companies in america offer health insurance. I would also like to add alot of companies offer lodging plans to help you out. i know petsmart offered lodging. I worked two jobs ebfore to make ends meet, people do what they gotta do in this country to survive, it builds character instead of being spoon fed by the government. I would also like to add alot of these so called low wage jobs offer advancment for higher wages.


last but not least our economy is the strongest it's been in decades, the only problem is federal spending which is out in the spotlight right now, our GDP constantly outgrows our debts yearly by a large margine. and when you look at debt/gdp ratios of other countries it's the complete opposite and take into consideration the sheer size of the US.

hey if anyone needs helth insurance they should sign up for medicaid, im more than ahppy to help legal citizens of the US but I not in a way that comes directly out of my pocket and hampers my survival, fairtax is a great way to fund the government and our medical issues while keeping the economy growing and not devestating the worker.

oh and about the 'middle class' , why are you constantly lecturing me about the middle class? I AM THE MIDDLE CLASS. my purchasing power is strong and I have alot of money because if fiscal responsibility. our middle class and poverty class is not being ripped apart by corporations they are being ripped apart by our federal taxation policy that retards individual growth.

once again please educate yourself on the subject matter as I really want nothing to do with ignorance, and thats fine you disagree with me and im not getting on you for that, i'm getting on you for constantly ignoring the information i provide and not having an open mind about our actual economic state.

You like any other hard working American are at the mercy of our weak economy and the changes that your job be outsource to china and India for pennies on the dollars.

please dont speak for me and my family, I thrive in this economy and have no problems what so ever.



[edit on 26-1-2007 by ape]

Actually Ape I see your point, I udnerstand your point.

The problem is that We disagree on that point, that is all.

But I do respect your point.

Make a thread explaining fairtax and said votes for and against. Should prove a valuable contribution.

PS - Explaining why you hate this economy so much you want to dismantle it and yet "thrive in it" should prove interesting too.

It just seems you're not quite sure where you stand.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by RANT]

oh please rant, please provide me some economic statistics on how installing fairtax and repealing the 16th amendment would 'dismantle' our economy? do you know anything about economics? your words have no substance please provide proof of your claim. also when did i say I hate this economy? I said i dislike income taxes, please dont manipulate what i said as you are a moderator.

the links I have provided give the congressional scorecard to see where she stands on the fairtax issue. I cannot wait until she is put in the spotlight in an unscripted debate again, so I can watch her get ripped apart.

there is also a fairtax thread, are you blind?





[edit on 26-1-2007 by ape]

Originally posted by ape
there is also a fairtax thread, are you blind?

Sorry, I've seen it and other references now. I just didn't realize how meaningless your monotone mantra was before I asked. I was seriously interested.

Now I'm not. Have a nice day.