hillary clinton: 'DANGEROUS'

[mockerbird]

What, exactly, is to be rewarded? Is it hard work, cleaverness, luck, aggressiveness, or what? Shouldn't there be a system in place or a concept to guide the process, or is that the idea, lack of restraint? What tactics are appropriate, cleaver coniving, monopolies, bribery, what else?

I was the first person to come up with the idea and a system for having flat TV screens. This was approximately in 1964. I tried to do the patent work myself, but was unable to get the patent. Not fair.

[mockerbird]

Someone admitted that they didn't buy anything with their tax refund, which proves my original point. Tax rebates for well to do persons doesn't stimulate the economy, at least in any way that would benefit regular folks.

Rewarding the rich just because they are rich is a ridiculous idea. And being rich is no indication of virtue or accomplishment.

Why reward someone for playing games? How greatly does that improve society? Maybe they should pay for the honor. How about drug dealers?

[killstrumpet]

Miat1111:

Where did you get the clinton audio quote "I always ask the same question for 8 years; Can we kill him tomorrow?" Is this quote taken from a legitimate context? Where can I find it. This would be boldface proof of clinton's workshy dereliction of duty toward national defense. Many more people should be exposed to this. Can you show me the source reference?

[mockerbird]

Bullshit, indeed. The fact is that things were right, the budget was balanced, the national debt was righted. Bush ruined everything, plain as day. You can not wipe that out with your rationalizations. The Bush give back to the rich thing caused the deficit, along with the war. You are lying to yourselves as well as to me. Though out anything Bush or Bush-like and keep it out.

[killstrumpet]

Do you know what the debt is? So, the national debt being 5 TRILLION Dollars under the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION means the national debt was "righted." Clinton's "surplus" was a what: 200 Million dollars. What a "surplus!" Do the math and understand the difference between the US deficit and debt. The debt has been increasing continuously since the end of WW2. Read some history while your at it.

[mockerbird]

The idea that a big national debt has been increasing since WWII is likely true, generally speaking, but was considerably less than when Bush came in with the war and the big tax give away to the rich. The Debt went up with Reagan and the first Bush, as well. Money raised by bonds purchased by Americans is a different sort of thing, but this borrowing from foreign nations causes initial debt and compounded debt, which is bad.

[killstrumpet]

Bush's tax cuts only benefiting the "rich" is without merit. Actually the top 1% of income earners in the country paid more INCOME TAX under Bush's tax cuts. Without getting into big business conspiracy theories, the fact is when big companies benefit from tax cuts, they have more money to invest. This in turn causes the co. to grow and create more jobs. Data can confirm this.

[killstrumpet]

Bear with me. I just want to finish my two cents worth(maybe four). Yes, the war has cost a ton of money. However, Clinton spent the lowest percent of GDP of any president since WWII, on defense. If Clinton had realized at the very least that the attack on the Cole was indeed an act of war and took action, we may not be fighting the war at the level that we are now.

[mockerbird]

Purely speculative. Going to war then probably would have been equally disasterous, though I do agree that appeasment is not a good policy. Diplomacy and political and economic pressure might have had some effect. How much defense is worth the effort, and what are the priorities? Who is benefiting? To heck with trickle down, we need osmosis up. Let the rich pay for the war and fight it, if that's what they want.

[killstrumpet]

I won't convince you of anything. You can respond but this is my last comment to you. If the majority in congress want to stop the Iraq war theater, then cut-off the funds. You can't have diplomacy with terrorists or terrorist regimes. Yes, its not a comfortable reality but you have to keep killing the enemy until they give in. You have diplomacy when you defeat the enemy and you dictate what peace will be. You cannot manage an enemy in war. It's impossible.

[TheNemiShow]

I'm not rich & I got a refund check in the mail in Bush's 1st yr in office AND I get a marriage tax credit & my child tax credit went up too. I have gotten bigger tax credits since Bush took office for 7 yrs now. But it expires in 2011 & the Democrats will definitely do away w/ it all. U said the tax cuts were 4 the rich & that's simply not true.

[mockerbird]

How do you define rich? One good point of reference would be $87,000 or more.

Do think a few hundred dollars tax return can compensate for big inflation, sending jobs overseas, reduced benefits, high banking charges and the likes?

Even if you did get a tax rebate, remember that the rich got millions, which should have gone to such things as infrastucture, for example

[TheNemiShow]

Mocker:it wasn't a "few 100 $'s" it was more than that. What makes U think jobs will suddenly stay here or bank fees will go down or benefits will go up just b/c Hill. is in office?

If U were rich, U wouldn't care a/b tax breaks 4 the wealthy. The great thing a/b America is that any1 can become rich w/ hard work & a good idea. Y punish them? Y not reward them?

[TheNemiShow]

Mocker cont..poor & middle class don't spend as much money- the economy doesn't benefit by giving them tax breaks. The check that Bush wants 2 send 2 people in June-I'm not buying anything w/ it. I'll pay an extra house payment. If he mailed checks 2 the wealthy-they'd buy stuff b/c they don't need the money- My point. Rich people keep the economy strong-not poor & m.c. so if U want 2 keep jobs we have here & keep t/ rich spending money & NOT TAKING JOBS OVERSEAS; cut them a deal on taxes!

[mockerbird]

Rewarding workers and families would be a good thing, rewarding people who have more than they can possibly use personally and are unwilling to invest in the economy or even pay taxes, is not. The economy is the people, all the people, not just the top controllers and owners. People buy cars and houses, electronics, food, etc. Workers and manufacturers don't just manufacture for a few rich people, unless they are making big yhahts or luxury items. This is my idea of a good economy, everybody

[TheNemiShow]

mocker:I didn't say it wasn't a good thing 2 reward them, but it won't jumpstart the economy. Let's not forget that the wealthy give billions of dollars a year 2 charities in this country. Talk a/b an American story-what a/b Bill Gates? he was just an average guy who started a company in his basement. He went on 2 become rich & gives 100's of millions 2 charity, but by your standards we should punish him & drive his business down so he can take his jobs overseas, right?

[TheNemiShow]

mocker-u might want 2 research "why" there was a surplus. Clinton raised spending 29%, HOWEVER, fed. income taxes (& other taxes) increased by 80% of what they were the years previous 2 his term, SO-U & I paid 2 balance the budget & Clinton spent 30% more. Go read the budget for his years in office. U can access it online. Everyone knows Dems raise taxes.

[mockerbird]

The economy was good because of Clinton, at least, in part. Otherwise, people had jobs and taxation was fair, and programs were working. The rich people were making a contribution, tax loop holes and special deals for big business were under control, etc. Everybody was getting a better deal, jobs weren't being exported as much, Money was spent on education and other good things, and banking was better regulated.

And we didn't have a debilitating war.

[Lfksx999]

Bullshit

[miat1111]

Mockerbird:

This video + the argument are fact-based, much of it from the clintons' own mouths.

Clinton's "effort to get bin Laden" wasn't "SELECTIVE." It was illusory, nonexistent.

Listen to Michael Scheuer, CIA bin Laden division chief under clinton (VIRTUAL KILL-YouTube):

"Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, + Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That's the bottom line."

Do the research. Uninformed, misinformed, disinformed people like you imperil us all.

[miat1111]

Bin Laden declared war on Amer+committed acts of war against Amer thruout the clintons' tenure+the clintons did nothing.

Bin Laden began planning 9/11 in 1998, ironically, the yr we cld have done something abt these 2 defectives.

The clintons failed to understand-or were too self-serving + cowardly to acknowledge-that a terrorist war requires only 1 consenting player.

When a terrorist declares war on you, you are perforce at war: Either you fight, or you surrender. The clintons surrendered.

[mockerbird]

That's a bunch of something. How do you know these things? Were you in the state department? Do you have signed, legal papers or saw it for yourself? Claiming rediculous statements as factual don't mean that they are, and the sites on youtube are mostly unverifed propoganda, as far as I can tell, in many cases. I remember when the events happened, and I don't remember anything suspicious having been reported, or any law suits, or whatever.

[mockerbird]

A very emotional and uncritical bit of thinking. In terms of policy, Bush's plans have been disasterous for the economy, lives lost, and any good results to speak of. Bill Clinton's effort to get Ben was selective and reasonable, no less effective than Bush's misguided and misdirected "war on terror" in Iraq. Luckily, things are changing. Let's build on it, and get back to the economy and a better life for all.

[Alexsered]

disasterous for the economy? everyone in congress even the democrates say that bush kept us out of a really heavy recession and kept our economy booming. Dude, please learn your facts, and I'm not even a crazy bush supporter.

[mockerbird]

I don't know any Democrat who thinks Bush improved the economy. In the first place, that is not true. Even Bush admits that regular people can't afford anything, are working two or four jobs, going broke, losing their houses, etc. Is this a good economy? It may be a good economy for the rich, but that is not the proper gauge, In my opinion. A good economy is one with jobs, good wages, and prosperity for the average guy in America, not somewhere else. A good economy is solvent.

[TheNemiShow]

mocker- I hate 2 break this 2 U since U seem 2 think our economy sucks simply b/c we don't make enough, but it's buying what U can't afford now (putting it on a credit card) & buying fancy stuff U don't need & can't afford is what puts a lot of people out of their homes. We almost lost our home & we sat down, decided to stop eating out everyday & start shopping for generic brands & guess what? We have our home AND money in savings & we don't make a lot.

[mockerbird]

Personally, I have always hated to be in debt, and have always tried to avoid it and pay it off as soon as possible. However, after buy a reasonably priced used car and investing in a good computer and some special software for a business venture (and artistic realization,) I found myself in a bind, not because I overspent, but because of banking practices. The system is set up for maximum profit for the banks, hook or crook.

[Bombtrack411]

Vote for Mitt Romney! If you saw the youtube debate, you'll agree!

[miat1111]

VOTE SMART: A WARNING TO ALL WOMEN ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON (YouTube, 351,418 views)

"The power of the harasser, the abuser, the rapist depends above all on the silence of women." (Ursula K. LeGuin)

[PGAJAMIE411]

America, WAKE UP! If you thought the Patriot Act was bad, well here is the next wave of attack on you - HR 1955... Fun Fun Fun for the New World Order! America is under attack! Americas are now labled as terrorists!

[starlucky6003]

Important video. Thank you.

Hillary Clinton can always be counted on to do what is best FOR HILLARY CLINTON... just as Bill Clinton can always be counted on to do what is best FOR BILL CLINTON.

We are plain CRAZY if we put them back in power.

[silversouris]

thank you for spreading this message.

vote kucinich.

[miat1111]

"I was shocked to see Senator Clintons's reaction when Bush was applauded for saying, 'We will not sit back and be hit again!'"--MLalah

And what did she do? Exactly that! Sit back (on her hands) in indifference.

Exactly what the clintons had always done. Exactly what the clintons will always do.

[MLalah]

I was shocked to see Senator Clintons's reaction when Bush was applauded for saying, "We will not sit back and be hit again!"

[miat1111]

The clintons cannot be trusted with national security.

For 8 years, for power and treasure, they methodically, seditiously and with impunity auctioned off our security, sovereignty and economy to the highest bidder, usually foreign.

We put these 2 miscreants back in power at our own peril. And that of our kids.

[miat1111]

hillary clinton is smug, but without apparent reason. She, and that husband of hers, are unqualified screw-ups.

The elephant in the room... actually there are a herd of elephants in the room when it comes to the clintons... but the BIGGEST elephant in the room... is the clintons' utter failure for their entire tenure to confront terrorism.

We would have to be NUTS to put these two corrupt, seditious fools in charge of the war.

[miat1111]

MLalah:

What you are seeing in missus clinton's smug response is the lethal indifference to the terrorism threat that existed throughout the clinton years and led inexorably to 9/11 and its sorry aftermath.

To quote Brad DeLong, a Berkeley professor and veteran of the clinton administration who worked on health care with hillary: "We must keep hillary rodham clinton far away from the White House for the rest of her life."