I think I was wrong...

[Danny White]

I've thought for a while that Hillary was going to win the nomination and election, but I think I was wrong.

I'm obviously not a Democrat, and I can't claim to know how y'all think, but just watching this video, she's just so patently phony, I'm beginning to understand how even hardcore Democrats are turned off by her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVlwH7-05Fk&eurl=http://redstate.com/


I guess that leaves Obama to run away with the nomination?

[arglebargle]

One can only hope. I definitely prefer an outsider at this point. Better the devil I don't know about than the same old devils....

Just finished re-reading Elizabeth Drew's 'The Corruption of American Politics', which, unfortunately, strikes a resonance with me. Don't know if McCain and Thompson are as good as portrayed there, but the corrosive partisanship of the present day is shown well. And the reasons campaign reform continually fails are well documented. Nothing in the book would make me want to vote for Hillary though.....

[Heisenberg]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y158/TimKreitz/humor/hillarywhereis.jpg

[BrAinPaiNt]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y158/TimKreitz/humor/hillarywhereis.jpg

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

[morieeel]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y158/TimKreitz/humor/hillarywhereis.jpg

So much for sleeping tonight!!:nolook:

[kmp77]

If you're gonna be President....don't be crying! There's no crying in bas....politicing!!!

[jterrell]

I've thought for a while that Hillary was going to win the nomination and election, but I think I was wrong.

I'm obviously not a Democrat, and I can't claim to know how y'all think, but just watching this video, she's just so patently phony, I'm beginning to understand how even hardcore Democrats are turned off by her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVlwH7-05Fk&eurl=http://redstate.com/


I guess that leaves Obama to run away with the nomination?

I am not so sure we can write her off yet.
Again, the southern states and California, NY will decide this nomination and those are yet to be written. Hillary is dominating in Florida and California currently.

All that said, Obama has more charisma by far, and as soon as he hits a state hard he clearly starts grabbing votes left and right. But in every state he hasn't hit hard he trails by as much as 20 percent. That's a lot to continually overcome.

I can live with either candidate but under Obama we will see much higher taxes.

[Rackat]

..... but under Obama we will see much higher taxes.
Actually, that will be true if any Democrat is elected. Which is why I won't vote for Democrats on the National Level. It's hard enough to make ends meet without those bastids taking more money out of my pocket. I swear, between FICA, Social Security, and and all the other taxes, plus medical insurance that comes out, I lose almost a $1,000 every two weeks in my check. And the only thing that is worth it is the fricking health insurance. Social Security won't be there when I am ready to retire and the bastids keep taking it out. GIVE ME AN OPTION! I would like to take that money and invest it for myself, not keep having it taken to prop up socialist programs that don't work.

:bang2:

[Rackat]

And charisma means crapola for a President. I don't care if s/he is charismatic, can they run the country? Then elect them.

[zrinkill]

I would like to take that money and invest it for myself, not keep having it taken to prop up socialist programs that don't work.

:bow: It feels good to hear someone else say that.

[PosterChild]

She's toast.

And that performance yesterday only served to remind and reinforce to many people the suspicion that's she is a fraud and will go to any lengths to gain power. Just in case anyone harbored any delusions to the contrary. Deception? Sure! Gender card? No problem!

Big picture looks like Obama vs Huck or Romney at this juncture. McCain will have some meltdown moment in the near future--I'm just waiting. Running a campaign against Obama is going to be tricky for the R's.

[arglebargle]

I would like to take that money and invest it for myself, not keep having it taken to prop up socialist programs that don't work.

:bang2:


Sorry Rack and Zrin, not so. Social security would be working fine if it weren't for our dear capitalist politicians robbing it for 40 years. With a few simple changes it can be back on track despite the pillaging.

I don't complain anyway, as my SS payments helped my grandmother and my parents.

And, in any case, taxing to pay for your spending is much better than borrowing to do it....

[Rackat]

Sorry Rack and Zrin, not so. Social security would be working fine if it weren't for our dear capitalist politicians robbing it for 40 years. With a few simple changes it can be back on track despite the pillaging.

Yep, politicians on both sides have been robbing Social Security for decades. It's like their rainy day fund.

I don't complain anyway, as my SS payments helped my grandmother and my parents.

I complain because the system is broken. It needs to be fixed or trashed.

And, in any case, taxing to pay for your spending is much better than borrowing to do it....

I disagree with your premise. Borrowing means there is a plan to pay for it because you have to get the money back. Taxing means that it doesn't matter what you "purchase" because you can just increase the amount you take from the people being governed. That is one of the main reasons why we are no longer a part of the England.

[Sasquatch]

:bow: It feels good to hear someone else say that.

I sympathize with this mentality to an extent but socialized medicine in most countries produces better outcomes by most objective measures than our own. The "you have to wait in long lines" argument, to the extent that it's even true, neglects the fact that EVERYONE is allowed a place in line in other countries whereas we kick several million to the curb.

Military personnel receive "socialized" medical care, don't they? Do you advocate privatizing that?

Um, what was the subject of this thread again? Oh yeah, Clinton isn't my favorite democrat, but I'll not celebrate her defeat until a few months from now. I'm not buying into the media hype that her campaign is finished although I'm hoping that Obama or Edwards or Kookie emerge with the nomination.

[arglebargle]

Yep, politicians on both sides have been robbing Social Security for decades. It's like their rainy day fund.



I complain because the system is broken. It needs to be fixed or trashed.



I disagree with your premise. Borrowing means there is a plan to pay for it because you have to get the money back. Taxing means that it doesn't matter what you "purchase" because you can just increase the amount you take from the people being governed. That is one of the main reasons why we are no longer a part of the England.

Your presumption that there is a plan to pay it back does not ring true to me. The "Starve the Beast" Norquist afficianados would be happy to bankrupt the government, IMO. While continuing the corporate welfare.

It is a reason that I tend to like Huckabee, Paul, Obama, even Edwards and McCain: Without campaign finance reform, this government is essentially for sale. I don't think that the Romneys and Clinton types will do anything about it. Clinton helped torpedo finance reform before. Partisan bickering and cheerful corruption are millstones around the neck of modern government. So I am all for a 'change' vote.

[Sasquatch]

Without campaign finance reform, this government is essentially for sale.

Election reform is the key issue that none of the candidates are talking about. It's my number #1 priority.

[Rackat]

Your presumption that there is a plan to pay it back does not ring true to me. The "Starve the Beast" Norquist afficianados would be happy to bankrupt the government, IMO. While continuing the corporate welfare.

OK, so when a government borrows money, you don't think they are going to pay it back? The US forgave a lot of debt after WWII and has forgave debt since then, but that doesn't mean that those governments who had their debt forgiven were free not to pay it back if it had not been forgiven. Conversely, the Tax and Spend group doesn't care what they spend because they just go back to their cash cows, us.

(It should be called Spend and Tax rather than Tax and Spend because that is what really occurs)

It is a reason that I tend to like Huckabee, Paul, Obama, even Edwards and McCain: Without campaign finance reform, this government is essentially for sale. I don't think that the Romneys and Clinton types will do anything about it. Clinton helped torpedo finance reform before. Partisan bickering and cheerful corruption are millstones around the neck of modern government. So I am all for a 'change' vote.

I am not for change for change sake, but I would be happy to vote for any person with a way to fix our government. But to ask those benefiting from keeping us from campaign reform to enact campaign reform is a little naive on our parts. If there is ever to be campaign reform it will have to come from the Judicial Branch because the legislators will not legislate themselves out of money.

[zrinkill]

Sorry Rack and Zrin, not so. Social security would be working fine if it weren't for our dear capitalist politicians robbing it for 40 years. With a few simple changes it can be back on track despite the pillaging.

I don't complain anyway, as my SS payments helped my grandmother and my parents.

And, in any case, taxing to pay for your spending is much better than borrowing to do it....

Surprise surprise ...... Socialism to the rescue!

:rolleyes:

[zrinkill]

I
Military personnel receive "socialized" medical care, don't they? Do you advocate privatizing that?

Military personal get medical care because of the job they do ..... not because they are merely here.

I do not think its even close ..... that would be like me saying the insurence I provide my workers is socialism.

The American people are paying those soldiers for the Job they are doing for the country .....

[arglebargle]

Surprise surprise ...... Socialism to the rescue!

:rolleyes:


If you can find a country with lower taxes and a better, more capitalist health system, you could move there, you know. ;)

[zrinkill]

If you can find a country with lower taxes and a better, more capitalist health system, you could move there, you know. ;)

Just as soon as you move to France lib. "Parley!"

[Sasquatch]

Military personal get medical care because of the job they do ..... not because they are merely here.

The American people are paying those soldiers for the Job they are doing for the country .....

So if you work, contribute to our country's GDP, pay taxes, would that entitle you to health care? All for one and one for all? What about kids and the infirm?

Apart from whether or not people "deserve" health care, which itself is a morally dubious position, does the military system provide adequate care at reasonable costs overall in your opinion?

[jterrell]

Military personal get medical care because of the job they do ..... not because they are merely here.

I do not think its even close ..... that would be like me saying the insurence I provide my workers is socialism.

The American people are paying those soldiers for the Job they are doing for the country .....

You are stepping all over your own toes in this argument.

The military is employed by the federal government and thus the medical care they receive applies and is afforded by the tax payers, not by doctors who are unregulated and paid separately via insurance but by a huge infrastructure of bureaucracy.

That system is what you despise.

The funny thing about all those "socialism" haters is they seldom want to end most "Socialistic" programs.

Our military is socialism. Our national highways, socialism, our national budget... anything with national is the name basically. That is what socialism means.

Too many people assume that it means merely social programs such as welfare, it does not.

And regardless of what President we elect there will be new taxes. Huckabee would raise taxes more than Hillary IMHO. Hillary is against raising the FICA levels which affects me greatly. It affects anyone over 94K-100K greatly.

Rudy, Mitt, Huckabee these are all high tax guys. For goodness sakes just look at their records. Rudy spend sit on security, Mitt spent it on health care, and Huckabee spent it on education for illegal aliens amongst others. But they all spend it.

Hillary's failure thus far is she has run a national presidential campaign instead of lying and pandering to leftists Democrats. She would fair better against a Repub than she will against a more compassionate and well-spoken Dem.

[jterrell]

Just as soon as you move to France lib. "Parley!"

technically it is Parlez-Vous!
or Parles-Toi!
lol.

[zrinkill]

technically it is Parlez-Vous!
or Parles-Toi!
lol.

I don't speak coward ...... just heard it from the Pirates movie.

;)

[Sasquatch]

I don't speak coward ...... just heard it from the Pirates movie.

;)

New Rules: Conservatives can't make fun of France. LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKS0yISz6xQ&feature=related)

:laugh2: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKS0yISz6xQ&feature=related)

[zrinkill]

New Rules: Conservatives can't make fun of France. LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKS0yISz6xQ&feature=related)

When I saw the word "Bill Maher" in the title ...... I decided to not waste my time.

[Sasquatch]

When I saw the word "Bill Maher" in the title ...... I decided to not waste my time.

Even you may have got a chuckle or two out of it. Then again maybe not.

Oh well, I thought it was hilarious and spot on, of course.

[trickblue]

New Rules: Conservatives can't make fun of France. LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKS0yISz6xQ&feature=related)

:laugh2: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKS0yISz6xQ&feature=related)

From a comment...

I live in France and it's indeed a fact that our welfare system is falling part. I work in a small company. When my boss pay my salary (1500 Euros), he simply has to pas another 1500€ to be divised between all our different welfcare organisms (retirement, medical care, unemployement, family tickets or so....) and to get a proper medical attention, we also need a private insurance to complete paying the fees... So really if I were from the US, I won't steal it....

;)

[Sasquatch]

From a comment...
I live in France and it's indeed a fact that our welfare system is falling part. I work in a small company. When my boss pay my salary (1500 Euros), he simply has to pas another 1500€ to be divised between all our different welfcare organisms (retirement, medical care, unemployement, family tickets or so....) and to get a proper medical attention, we also need a private insurance to complete paying the fees... So really if I were from the US, I won't steal it....

;)

In response to this anonymous, possibly fabricated, comment advancing a recently outed crypto-conservatrian agenda :D, I would simply say that no system is perfect. But by most objective standards (total cost, number of people covered, health care outcomes, etc.), the French health care system is vastly superior to our own. There is a reason that even with all the support for reforming social security, loosening the labor market, and liberalizing the economy in general that health care reform is not a major issue in French politics as it is here.

[jterrell]

From a comment...

I live in France and it's indeed a fact that our welfare system is falling part. I work in a small company. When my boss pay my salary (1500 Euros), he simply has to pas another 1500€ to be divised between all our different welfcare organisms (retirement, medical care, unemployement, family tickets or so....) and to get a proper medical attention, we also need a private insurance to complete paying the fees... So really if I were from the US, I won't steal it....

;)
ironically it is the same here.

you can generally assume twice the salary is the cost to a company to have a worker employed.

that is why contract work has taken off so.

[Danny White]

I can live with either candidate...

I think this thread has been pretty well hijacked by now, but this is the first time I've been able to revisit it since I made the original post.

I just wanted to highlight this closing remark from you, because I think it underlines how much trouble Hillary is in.

I realize I'm taking it somewhat out of context, but the underlying message is a very dangerous one for Hill in that her most ardent supporters are beginning to take stock of Obama as an alternative.

This wasn't happening when their candidate (Hillary) was the presumptive nominee. Obama could be dismissed then.

Dangerous times for Hillary.

[jterrell]

I think this thread has been pretty well hijacked by now, but this is the first time I've been able to revisit it since I made the original post.

I just wanted to highlight this closing remark from you, because I think it underlines how much trouble Hillary is in.

I realize I'm taking it somewhat out of context, but the underlying message is a very dangerous one for Hill in that her most ardent supporters are beginning to take stock of Obama as an alternative.

This wasn't happening when their candidate (Hillary) was the presumptive nominee. Obama could be dismissed then.

Dangerous times for Hillary.

I always expected Hillary to win then tab Obama as VP.

In fact I made the point it would be interesting to see if he even attempted to win at all.

I'll still vote Hillary but I have always "liked" Obama more. I have been pretty consistent there. Hillary is probably a better choice for our country but it's like deciding to marry the girl with the biggest guns or the one who will take care of the house and raise the kids the best....

I will readily admit I am surprised Obama has been able to garner all this support. His name is so similar to Osama, he is inexperienced and his biggest voting block has generally been young folks.

But, I certainly would consider him a huge upgrade over the current admin, and would hope he chose Hillary as VP.

Hillary's inevitability campaign is shot for the moment but not completely so until she loses in the south at someplace other than South Carolina where Oprah stumped so hard for Obama.

All this talk of momentum but right now Obama only has a 1 delegate lead on Hillary.

BTW, Dems are out in record numbers today in NH:)

[Sasquatch]

I think this thread has been pretty well hijacked by now, but this is the first time I've been able to revisit it since I made the original post.

I just wanted to highlight this closing remark from you, because I think it underlines how much trouble Hillary is in.

I realize I'm taking it somewhat out of context, but the underlying message is a very dangerous one for Hill in that her most ardent supporters are beginning to take stock of Obama as an alternative.

This wasn't happening when their candidate (Hillary) was the presumptive nominee. Obama could be dismissed then.

Dangerous times for Hillary.

So we've come full circle. Another difficulty for Hillary is that to counter Obama's surge she is going to have to resort to attacks which are only going to reinforce the public's negative perception of her.

[jterrell]

So we've come full circle. Another difficulty for Hillary is that to counter Obama's surge she is going to have to resort to attacks which are only going to reinforce the public's negative perception of her.

She'll get help there from Repubs now dialing up attacks against Obama.

If anything the race has been all Hillary all the time up until now.

Going forward Hillary has a 20 point lead in Nevada and trails by 10 points in South Carolina. If she can squeeze SC into a close finish she could very well have the most delegates going into Super Tuesday and has leads in virtually every one of those states as we sit now.

I think Obama's surge is very good for Democrats as he is carrying a lot of Independents. In NH the race is even amongst Dem voters but Obama carries a huge edge with Independents.

No one is going to acknowledge Hillary as nice so she may as well have been firing away the entire time imho. I think that was a mistake to pull back attacks. She could have done so with more humor of course but she needs to drive home that Obama is selling things he can't produce.

[Danny White]

BTW, Dems are out in record numbers today in NH:)

I fully expect a beat-down in November.

Republican voters are in a funk... Democrats are energized and mobilized.

My big hope was that they'd pick Hillary and give us a shot in the arm.

Not sure if Obama will have that same effect.

It's a long time till November, though, and things can change quickly. (Just ask Hillary :D)

[Doomsday]

The funny thing about all those "socialism" haters is they seldom want to end most "Socialistic" programs.

Our military is socialism. Our national highways, socialism, our national budget... anything with national is the name basically. That is what socialism means.

Too many people assume that it means merely social programs such as welfare, it does not.



Talk about stretching things a bit, come on. Government jobs are different then socialistic programs. Government employees, including military personnel deserve the same health care benefits as anyone else. I would like to see more Government jobs become privitized like mail for instance.

As for Hillary, I just think it would be a sad, sad day for our country if a piece of crap like her were to go down in hisotry as the first female president of our great nation.

[jterrell]

Talk about stretching things a bit, come on. Government jobs are different then socialistic programs. Government employees, including military personnel deserve the same health care benefits as anyone else. I would like to see more Government jobs become privitized like mail for instance.

As for Hillary, I just think it would be a sad, sad day for our country if a piece of crap like her were to go down in hisotry as the first female president of our great nation.

Dooms, I think you miss my point.

Veterans are not getting insurance cards, they are going to the VHA. It is its own government entity just to provide health coverage for Veteran's.

That is pretty much the very definition of socialism.

And yes if you work for the government, then they are providing you a job thus that is also a very socialistic concept.

You are really reinforcing my point that those who like to bash Socialism like to to only discuss the parts they hate and ignore the parts they have grown accustomed to or rather like.

[Doomsday]

Dooms, I think you miss my point.

Veterans are not getting insurance cards, they are going to the VHA. It is its own government entity just to provide health coverage for Veteran's.

That is pretty much the very definition of socialism.

And yes if you work for the government, then they are providing you a job thus that is also a very socialistic concept.

You are really reinforcing my point that those who like to bash Socialism like to to only discuss the parts they hate and ignore the parts they have grown accustomed to or rather like.

I dont agree that veteran benefits are socialistic, in my opinion it is more similar to retirement as it is earned for service to your country in a military capacity.

[Sasquatch]

I dont agree that veteran benefits are socialistic, in my opinion it is more similar to retirement as it is earned for service to your country in a military capacity.

Of course it is. It's an insurance and health care program administered by a government bureaucracy. That's the definition of a SOCIAL PROGRAM. What I'm seeing in this thread is that socialized medicine is okay for military families because they are deserving but not for the rest of us because we are not. Why not, if we're willing to pay for it with our taxes?

[Jordan55]

She's toast.

And that performance yesterday only served to remind and reinforce to many people the suspicion that's she is a fraud and will go to any lengths to gain power. Just in case anyone harbored any delusions to the contrary. Deception? Sure! Gender card? No problem!

Big picture looks like Obama vs Huck or Romney at this juncture. McCain will have some meltdown moment in the near future--I'm just waiting. Running a campaign against Obama is going to be tricky for the R's.

I concur, but I don't see Huck or Romney in the big picture, McCain or Guliani,
if the Republicans really want the White House, not to far to the right. appealing more to the moderates.
Seal the Borders!

[burmafrd]

THE VA has been pretty much universally considered second rate at best for a long time. If that is your example of socialized medicine you can have it.

[Doomsday]

Of course it is. It's an insurance and health care program administered by a government bureaucracy. That's the definition of a SOCIAL PROGRAM. What I'm seeing in this thread is that socialized medicine is okay for military families because they are deserving but not for the rest of us because we are not. Why not, if we're willing to pay for it with our taxes?

No we arent deserving, we didnt spend our lives protecting the rest of the nation or defending our freedom. I just dont agree that it is a social program, it is a perk or incentive to serve.

[Danny White]

I don't know if a front-runner winning can be called an "upset" but Hillary is on the verge of a big upset here.

[theogt]

She's toast.Fantastic prediction.

[Danny White]

Fantastic prediction.

Even Hillary's shocked by her win! :D

This is going to be a wild and crazy campaign.

[jterrell]

Even Hillary's shocked by her win! :D

This is going to be a wild and crazy campaign.

She has solid leads in Michigan, Nevada and Florida.... if we can believe the polls that were only 12% off on NH, rofl.

If she wins Mich as expected then she'll have a real shot in SCarolina of putting Obama to bed early.

I think Obama is Jimmy Carteresque right now and I'd rather see him win in 8 years. But when you hear him speak it is easy to forget he lacks experience or a track record of actually getting any legislation passed.

[jterrell]

Even Hillary's shocked by her win! :D

This is going to be a wild and crazy campaign.

It was crazy to hear both speeches which clearly Obama had written up with an expected win and she had written up with an expected loss.

[Danny White]

It was crazy to hear both speeches which clearly Obama had written up with an expected win and she had written up with an expected loss.

I'm jealous that you have two candidates you like to choose from.

We elephants have half-a-dozen guys, none of which are worth a whole lot.

The idea of this coming down to McCain vs. Rudy makes me wanna :puke:

[trickblue]

She has solid leads in Michigan, Nevada and Florida.... if we can believe the polls that were only 12% off on NH, rofl.

The scary thing is that she will govern by polls much like her hubby...

She had all but conceded that race because of polls...

[jterrell]

The scary thing is that she will govern by polls much like her hubby...

She had all but conceded that race because of polls...

If she governs like Clinton instead of like Bush we are in for another 'great 8' Clinton years.

I'd rather base things on polls which is actually the popular thought in America than on the brain of a halfwit.

:p:

[jterrell]

I'm jealous that you have two candidates you like to choose from.

We elephants have half-a-dozen guys, none of which are worth a whole lot.

The idea of this coming down to McCain vs. Rudy makes me wanna :puke:

It will all turn around again soon enough, it always does.

We are the party that couldn't even beat jethro Bush twice./.....//// ughhghghghghghghg.

[trickblue]

If she governs like Clinton instead of like Bush we are in for another 'great 8' Clinton years.

I'd rather base things on polls which is actually the popular thought in America than on the brain of a halfwit.

:p:

I'd rather base parenting on the popular thought among my children...

Many times what you want and what you need are two different things...

[jterrell]

I'd rather base parenting on the popular thought among my children...

Many times what you want and what you need are two different things...

Ah, and therein lies the rub.
Republicans think the American people are all children to be dictated to. (even if the parent is dumb as dirt and the children are far more bright)
That only they know the true answer from on high and it must be dictated down upon us.

That in a nutshell is why this election is going to be won by a Democrat.

[Rackat]

Ah, and therein lies the rub.
Republicans think the American people are all children to be dictated to. (even if the parent is dumb as dirt and the children are far more bright)
That only they know the true answer from on high and it must be dictated down upon us.

That in a nutshell is why this election is going to be won by a Democrat.
Actually, I believe you have that backwards. Democrats are the party that believes we are all children and must be taken care of, which is why most programs are instituted and perpetuated by them. IMO

[jterrell]

Actually, I believe you have that backwards. Democrats are the party that believes we are all children and must be taken care of, which is why most programs are instituted and perpetuated by them. IMO

You mean like corporate welfare?

Repubs believe we have to prop up corporations which is nothing more than the least savory members of our society who are willing to lie, cheat and steal to make a buck. And they have been right. American Corporations do drive economies. It just happens to be the economy in India and China.

Republicans believe every person on welfare is some minority loser who refuses to work which is pretty comical when you actually look at the numbers. They are also completely ignorant of the system and rules set in place to insure people are not on welfare long term.

[jterrell]

And DW, I just wanted to say I think you were right all along:)

:bow:

[trickblue]

Ah, and therein lies the rub.
Republicans think the American people are all children to be dictated to. (even if the parent is dumb as dirt and the children are far more bright)
That only they know the true answer from on high and it must be dictated down upon us.

That in a nutshell is why this election is going to be won by a Democrat.

nope... THEREIN lies the rub...

Democrats think American people are all children that need to be taken care of via social programs. (even if the children are dumb and the parent is far more bright)

That only they know the true answer from on high and that is that they know what is better for us... ;)

[Rackat]

You mean like corporate welfare?
No, I mean like Welfare and other social programs designed to keep people on them rather than teaching them how to make a living on their own. While I don't agree with Corporate welfare either, I can at least argue that it benefits the employees by providing a job. What does social welfare benefit other than a lot of people subsisting off the government without giving back?


Repubs believe we have to prop up corporations which is nothing more than the least savory members of our society who are willing to lie, cheat and steal to make a buck. And they have been right. American Corporations do drive economies. It just happens to be the economy in India and China.
And I would agree to a certain extent. Which is why when I am elected, I promise to only assist by only giving corporate welfare to companies that will benefit the American People and I will redesign the social welfare system so that it is not used as a way of life, but as the stop-gap measure it was intended to be. My platform will be "No more BS Welfare programs for the individual or the corporations!"

Republicans believe every person on welfare is some minority loser who refuses to work which is pretty comical when you actually look at the numbers. They are also completely ignorant of the system and rules set in place to insure people are not on welfare long term.
Whew!!!! It's a good thing I'm not a Republican! I may have been offended by that diatribe!! You see, most of us that lean towards conservatism believe that there should indeed be programs to assist those in need to better their lives. However, we also believe that we should not pay for them to stay on welfare as a way of life. It should be a hand up, not a hand out. But that is lost on a lot of Democrats and liberals because it is easier to see Conservatives/Republicans as evil people who don't give a damn about the "little person". What is funny is that I was once one of those "little persons". After I was discharged from the Navy, I started College and that very first semester I got divorced. I was granted full custody of my two sons and had to find a way to take care of them, work various jobs, and go to classes. Amazingly enough, I asked for government assistance through the state and through the Chickasaw Nation. I used that assistance to help feed my children through the four years I went to College. But once I graduated, I was off the assistance faster than you can shake a stick.

Most conservatives don't mind giving help to those that will use it to better themselves, but too often we see the system being taken advantage of with no repurcussions.

Generalizations about race, religion, or even political affiliation lead to bias and hatred. Is that where you want to be when comes back?

(that last line is from a movie :) )

[PosterChild]

http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/images/d/d3/Crow.jpg


I'm getting full, can somebody help me out with this?

[Danny White]

And DW, I just wanted to say I think you were right all along:)

:bow:

My early presumption of Hillary's unstoppability was based on three things:

1) Unprecedented money advantage

2) Unequaled name ID

3) Superior campaign organization



Now, looking back, I think this is what may have saved her in New Hampshire and may save her moving forward.

But she is at much less of an advantage in all three areas (respective to Obama) than she was several months ago.

1) He may have as much money now... not sure but he's gotta be close.

2) His name ID is growing incredibly fast right now. People aren't sure where he stands, but he also doesn't have Hillary's negatives.

3) Campaign organization... well the pundits have been speculating of a shakeup at the top of the Clinton campaign, but I still have to think that from state-to-state, no one can rival the infrastructure she has set up.



I still see her as in the driver's seat, but I see more and more Dems looking for an alternative and giving Obama a serious look.

[Sasquatch]

My early presumption of Hillary's unstoppability was based on three things:

1) Unprecedented money advantage

2) Unequaled name ID

3) Superior campaign organization



Now, looking back, I think this is what may have saved her in New Hampshire and may save her moving forward.

But she is at much less of an advantage in all three areas (respective to Obama) than she was several months ago.

1) He may have as much money now... not sure but he's gotta be close.

2) His name ID is growing incredibly fast right now. People aren't sure where he stands, but he also doesn't have Hillary's negatives.

3) Campaign organization... well the pundits have been speculating of a shakeup at the top of the Clinton campaign, but I still have to think that from state-to-state, no one can rival the infrastructure she has set up.



I still see her as in the driver's seat, but I see more and more Dems looking for an alternative and giving Obama a serious look.

To put it succinctly, it's the machine (Clinton) vs. the movement (Obama).

[Danny White]

To put it succinctly, it's the machine (Clinton) vs. the movement (Obama).

Exactly. And the machine usually wins.

[arglebargle]

Because the machine usually writes the rules to its advantage. Campaign reform fails mostly because the incumbents have gotten to where they are by successfully gaming the systems.

[Doomsday101]

I am not so sure we can write her off yet.
Again, the southern states and California, NY will decide this nomination and those are yet to be written. Hillary is dominating in Florida and California currently.

All that said, Obama has more charisma by far, and as soon as he hits a state hard he clearly starts grabbing votes left and right. But in every state he hasn't hit hard he trails by as much as 20 percent. That's a lot to continually overcome.

I can live with either candidate but under Obama we will see much higher taxes.

I agree we will see higher taxes should either one win, Obama's taxes may hit harder but I fully expect to be hit with taxes should the dems win.

[jterrell]

I agree we will see higher taxes should either one win, Obama's taxes may hit harder but I fully expect to be hit with taxes should the dems win.

Taxes will be raised regardless.

This Iraq situation and our national debt have left no choice there for any candidate. Even if we ignored healthcare, cut social programs and got out of iraq by 2010, we'd still have to raise taxes in order to qualify as fiscally conservative.

And as mentioned I fully expect HRC would raise taxes less than Huckabee and even less than Rudy Guiliani.

The tax rates under Obama will be significantly higher than under HRC.
HRC and BC have always been fiscally conservative except with regards to children's programs. There is 30 years of historical data there.