Hillary Clinton Jumps in presidential race

[clevin]

as of now
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16720167/

[Dont Hurt Me]

I was wondering when someone would make a thread on this Woman running for President. She says she wants to undo everything George has Done. Thats a big undertaking and it needs to be done, George has screwed up almost everything he has touched.

[Thomas Veil]

I still think it's a mistake. Voters may be open to electing a woman, but it won't be this woman. She's reviled by too many morons, and has too much baggage (most of which is b.s., but it's still baggage) from her husband's presidency.

Even people who would vote for her admit they don't flock to her because of her charisma, the way they do with Obama.

If she should somehow win the nomination, I see really rough sledding in the future for the Democrats.

[Dont Hurt Me]

True, republicans seem to hate her though Im not even sure why. Fox continues to go after her everyday with the likes of Dick Morris. He hates her with every fiber of his body and he was Bill's campaign manager or something.

[Lord Blackadder]

Huuuuuuuuuuuge surprise. :D

I don't know, whatever happens the Democrats must win the '08 election - they simply cannot afford to lose it.

[mactastic]

I think the entire right-wing noise machine from Fox to Drudge to NRO to LGF just had a collective orgasm at the thought of her as the Democratic nominee...

But I think most people are going to be non-plussed with Hillary unless she quits triangulating and shows some vision and some true leadership. But that involves taking risks, and I don't think she's up to it. Her announcement had all the excitement of a sloth on valium. It was clearly a reaction to Obama's buzz, and she's hoping that she'll eat into some of the news cycle that favors Obama at the moment.

Problem is, all her enthusiasm seems canned, all of her responses carefully calibrated to win her an election, not to give you an idea of what she believes. She should learn from Al Gore's experience. Being a robot doesn't win you elections.

Oh, and what's with the Saturday announcement? I thought Saturday was considered the worst day to do a product roll-out?

[mrkramer]

There are enough people that hate her to make her lose the election. I think that if she got the nomination that is about the only way that the Democrats could lose the election.

[toontra]

Although I had a lot of time for Bill Clinton, Hillary wouldn't get my vote (if I could!) for two reasons - one, she voted for the war, and two, I really don't like this US fetish for political family dynasties.

[valdore]

hells bells, if Condoleezza Rice ran we'd get the first black and first female prez. though I don't believe anyone would vote for her however.

[MACDRIVE]

Put Hillary in a room full of male strippers; what would she do?

[takao]

i hope she wins just to see bill clinton as "first gentleman"

[miniConvert]

How bad could she be? I think I'd be comforted just knowing Bill was back in the White House :)

[spork183]

Put Hillary in a room full of male strippers; what would she do?

ok, ya got me, what's the punch line? Don't leave me hangin' here (metaphorically speaking...)

[archurban]

it's about time. George screw this country, damage a lot. he thinks that there are still tons of bugdet to support military? all of money we pay for. he uses totally stupid way. he sold ours. I really hope Hillary will be president as the first woman president. she will do much better than him. I am sick & tired of watching what George is doing nowadays. now I realize how many morons voted for him 2 years again. he was enough for one term or stayed as governor. he doesn't have any ability to control this country. Hillary will fix everything. I will vote for her if she will be nominated for candidate.

[BoyBach]

Oh, and what's with the Saturday announcement? I thought Saturday was considered the worst day to do a product roll-out?

It seems like a wise move to me.

I'd imagine (as I can't see from here in Wales!) that the Hilary Clinton announcement is on the front page of almost every Sunday newspaper (plus the lead story on the Sunday news/talk shows) in the US, and a lot more newspapers around the world.

Considering that this is the weekend before President Bush has his State of the Union address, I'd say it's the first of many smart 'political moves' by the Clinton camp.

[devman]

I'd say it's the first of many smart 'political moves' by the Clinton camp.

I agree.

But as an impartial observer, I think the best (only?) hope the repubs have of winning the next election is if Hilary is the alternative. Unfortunately for the dems, I think she is a shoe-in for their nomination.

It doesn't matter about her talent or abilities etc. She has too much baggage and too many people strongly dislike her. And I mean more than just the repubs. I have friends that are staunch dems (from MA no doubt!) and they loathe her.

[mactastic]

It seems like a wise move to me.

I'd imagine (as I can't see from here in Wales!) that the Hilary Clinton announcement is on the front page of almost every Sunday newspaper (plus the lead story on the Sunday news/talk shows) in the US, and a lot more newspapers around the world.

Considering that this is the weekend before President Bush has his State of the Union address, I'd say it's the first of many smart 'political moves' by the Clinton camp.
Well, I would say jumping out ahead of the SOTU is a bad idea, since come Tuesday all the news will be about the SOTU, not about Hillary. On top of which, Saturday is a slow news day. It's when the bulk of the newsies take a day off.

[Thomas Veil]

There are enough people that hate her to make her lose the election. I think that if she got the nomination that is about the only way that the Democrats could lose the election.Not the only way. Don't forget, Kerry wants to run again too. :rolleyes:

But then that's a theme: you don't want to run anyone whom the Republicans have already destroyed in the minds of much of the electorate. You're giving yourself a terrible handicap.

[obeygiant]

you don't want to run anyone whom the Republicans have already destroyed in the minds of much of the electorate. You're giving yourself a terrible handicap.

I think Kerry did a fine job of destroying himself. You are mis-overestimating the republican party and Rove, dont you think? :D;)

[Desertrat]

Hillary just doesn't come across as a likable person. She does come across as cold and calculating, which doesn't play well with a lot of voters.

A lot of pols spout BS in a folksy way; people know it's BS, but they go along with the game on a sort of, "Aw, he's no worse than the rest of them," or, "Well, he's an okay guy, himself." Hillary seems to change some positions in a rather obvious way, cold and calculated on the basis of, "Well this oughta play well with the unwashed."

And, I'm talking about the general voter's view of candidates, not the issues or political philosophy of any candidate.

Me, myself, I don't care for her politics, generally, nor for her attitude of, "I have THE answer, and you better agree with me or else!"

Then again, outside of Richardson I don't see anybody that particularly leads to any favorable view of them...

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

California is about to move its primary election date from June to early February, making it one of the earliest in the nation. This change would probably favor Hillary Clinton and disfavor any candidate who doesn't already have a large war chest and troops already on the ground.

I'm going to be tempted to register as a Democrat just to vote for somebody else.

[MacNut]

I wish they would do away with the primary system. Just have an open vote and you pick from the 10 candidates on Election Day.

[Dont Hurt Me]

California is about to move its primary election date from June to early February, making it one of the earliest in the nation. This change would probably favor Hillary Clinton and disfavor any candidate who doesn't already have a large war chest and troops already on the ground.

I'm going to be tempted to register as a Democrat just to vote for somebody else.Like who?

[IJ Reilly]

Like who?

Nearly anybody?

[jessica.]

I'm personally pleased with this announcement.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Nearly anybody?
Thats not a very good answer, think about it like who? Richardson? Obama? Edwards? I think Richardson might be the best qualified of the bunch.

[IJ Reilly]

Thats not a very good answer, think about it like who? Richardson? Obama? Edwards? I think Richardson might be the best qualified of the bunch.

I like the look of Obama so far. He might turn out to be the real deal, but it's too early to know, and consequently too early for me to decide. The only thing that seems clear to me at this point is that nominating Hillary Clinton would be a disaster of the first order.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I like the look of Obama so far. He might turn out to be the real deal, but it's too early to know, and consequently too early for me to decide. The only thing that seems clear to me at this point is that nominating Hillary Clinton would be a disaster of the first order.
I kind of agree, I think its just what the republicans would like to see. Almost as good as having Kerry again perhaps better. I still dont understand why so many hate her? Why?

[Blue Velvet]

I still dont understand why so many hate her? Why?


Think it really started years ago with the 'baking cookies' comment... besides, women are just so much easier to hate by both men and women.

[DZ/015]

I still dont understand why so many hate her? Why?

Remember co-presidents, or universal health care, or Whitewater,or the travel office, or futures trading?

She is is despicable human being, period. A nomination of her will guarantee that the Republicans retain the White House in '08.

[swingerofbirch]

The only plus I can see of her winning would be having Bill Clinton back in the White House. She is just way too conservative for me. I wish I lived in a country where the Democrats were the conservative party. I of course prefer her to any Republican, but I have not heard any explanation from her as to why she voted for the war and what her plan for America's presence in Iraq now is.

Out of the Dems now running, I prefer Kucinich. Out of the front runners, Obama. We cannot take another election with a Democrat who voted FOR the war and has a nuanced explanation of that vote. Americans don't understand that and they shouldn't have to, because in my opinion, it doesn't make sense. Granted, it is the president's fault to have pushed the war and cherry-picked bad intelligence, but if I were in congress I would have been more skeptical of that intelligence and not written a blank check.

So my biggest hope is for Obama--but what about his limited experience? *I* don't care about that, but will it prevent him from winning a national election????

[zimv20]

universal health care [...] despicable
are you saying that supporting universal health care is a despicable proposition, or was that just an unfortunate parallel?

[DZ/015]

Would you willingly raise your taxes to pay for the health care expenses of others? I would not.

[Blue Velvet]

So my biggest hope is for Obama--but what about his limited experience? *I* don't care about that, but will it prevent him from winning a national election????

It didn't stop the current incumbent.


Would you willingly raise your taxes to pay for the health care expenses of others? I would not.

Imagine no health insurance payments... I guess many of you guys don't understand how it works in more progressive societies.

[DZ/015]

It didn't stop the current incumbent.

Neither did it inhibit Bill Clinton, Reagan or Carter. Experience does not count for much in US elections.

[MACDRIVE]

What is that ascent she has anyway, Idaho? It's certainly not Arkansas like Bill's.

[zimv20]

Would you willingly raise your taxes to pay for the health care expenses of others? I would not.
so, "despicable" then.

sigh. the inefficiencies and hidden costs of health care have been covered many, many times here. in short -- if providers spent as much money covering people as trying not to, there'd be plenty of money to go around and everyone's costs would drop. second, the uninsured end up costing everyone more in the long run. your simplistic "rock beats all" viewpoint in the rock/paper/scissors of healthcare costs would change if you looked at it with an open mind.

[zimv20]

What is that ascent she has
she grew up near chicago, fwiw.

(pun definitely intended)

[DZ/015]

so, "despicable" then.

sigh. the inefficiencies and hidden costs of health care have been covered many, many times here. in short -- if providers spent as much money covering people as trying not to, there'd be plenty of money to go around and everyone's costs would drop. second, the uninsured end up costing everyone more in the long run. your simplistic "rock beats all" viewpoint in the rock/paper/scissors of healthcare costs would change if you looked at it with an open mind.

This is your OPINION. Not a fact. These "inefficiencies and hidden costs" are only conjecture based on junk science. How much more would you be willing to pay? For me the answer is zero. I pay far too much already.

[MACDRIVE]

she grew up near chicago, fwiw.

(pun definitely intended)

Thanks for the info, but I don't get the pun. :confused:

[zimv20]

Thanks for the info, but I don't get the pun. :confused:
you wrote "ascent" instead of "accent", so i wrote "grew up".

[zimv20]

How much more would you be willing to pay? For me the answer is zero. I pay far too much already.

http://www.worldrps.com/images/rpsver3/gambits/avalanche2005web.jpg

[skunk]

Remember co-presidents, or universal health care, or Whitewater,or the travel office, or futures trading?

She is is despicable human being, period. A nomination of her will guarantee that the Republicans retain the White House in '08.Isn't it interesting how much sexual hatred/insecurity goes around dressed as political opinion?

[MACDRIVE]

you wrote "ascent" instead of "accent", so i wrote "grew up".

My spell check put a red underline under it; I then I right clicked on it, then ascent was on the suggestion list. Why I chose it is beyond me. :o :o :o

[DZ/015]

http://www.worldrps.com/images/rpsver3/gambits/avalanche2005web.jpg

I find this incomprehensible.

Isn't it interesting how much sexual hatred/insecurity goes around dressed as political opinion?

Horse manure.

[Blue Velvet]

Isn't it interesting how much sexual hatred/insecurity goes around dressed as political opinion?


Reminds me of this (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-21-clinton-cover_x.htm) article I was reading about an hour ago.


Ossoff says Clinton's "baggage, the issues she's had with her husband," are part of the reason people say she can't win. However, she says the idea that Clinton can't win is also a mask for people who don't want to confront the gender question. "They are looking for a way of avoiding saying that because she's a woman, it won't play."

About 85%-90% of Americans tell pollsters they would vote for a woman for president. Matthew Streb, a political scientist at Northern Illinois University, says new research to be published this year suggests the real level of resistance is 25%-30% and applies equally across all demographic groups.

"That's not a finding that would stop a woman from getting elected," Penn says. On the plus side, he and others say, Clinton's candidacy will energize some voters, particularly young women.

[mactastic]

These "inefficiencies and hidden costs" are only conjecture based on junk science.
This is your OPINION. Not a fact.

How much more would you be willing to pay? For me the answer is zero. I pay far too much already.I pay far too much already too. See, the thing is, our health care system is so inefficient (I know you think that's "junk science" but have a look at what most other progressive societies get per health care dollar) and you'll find that for about the same amount you pay now, we could cover everyone in this country. Then factor in savings from the uninsured who go to the emergency room rather than a doctor because they know the ER can't turn them away.

I know, I know, those other countries have waiting lists. Speaking of which, I have to schedule appointments 2 months in advance with out pediatrician if I want to see him. My wife has recently been turned away from one hospital that she needed to be in because there were no beds available, ie. a waiting list. And we have what Bush would call "gold-plated" health insurance.

You're paying for the uninsured now, you're just getting ripped off for it. Fix the system, save the money.

[Peterkro]

I also don't understand the feeling against H.Clinton aside from straight out misogyny I can see no reason for it.Granted she is not a very pleasant human being but as a politician that's a given.I also don't understand the constant wrangling about who should be the candidate for the Democrats as they all have essentially the same policies.Unless the political establishment is behind a candidate for POTUS it's no go and if they are they would ensure even a chimp would be elected........hold on,oh

[it5five]

I'd prefer Obama over Hillary for one reason only: Obama has been against the war from the start. Hillary hasn't. The right-wing media has more smear material against Hillary because of it. If she wins the Democratic primary, expect to see a lot of "She was for it before she was against it" type things.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Would you willingly raise your taxes to pay for the health care expenses of others? I would not.Our medical cost would go down when you figure in all the extra costs in the medical system, I have worked years in a hospital setting and seen it first hand. Insurance companys for one making millions off of sickness thats immoral in my view, then throw in the 10 - 20 million illegals who dont pay for those ER visits or look at how the republicans have locked in high prices on drugs for the govt? To say all our cost would go up in just the republican party selling fear and talking points with lots of spin because they are paid off by Insurance lobbiest. This doesnt make the system very effective at reducing costs, it adds to the costs. I myself think there should be a basic healthcare package for everyone with some extra options or packages available. The ones who loose in this are the middleman who dont contribute at all to healthcare. INSURANCE COMPANIES. Eliminating this middleman would save billions.

[Swarmlord]

You guys probably loved seeing Hillary skewered by SNL on Saturday then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH49pKxKWes

I laughed my *ss off when I watched it.

[skunk]

Horse manure.Horse manure can be very beneficial.

[Lyle]

Oops. Delete this, please, mods. I somehow overlooked the entire second page of this thread.

[IJ Reilly]

Oops. Delete this, please, mods. I somehow overlooked the entire second page of this thread.

Too late! ;)

[IJ Reilly]

This is good, I think... and actually on topic!

Anyone but a Bush or a Clinton

The U.S. needs a leader in 2008 who doesn't inherit the office because of a last name.

By James Burkee

JAMES BURKEE, an assistant professor of history at Concordia University Wisconsin, is co-founder of the bipartisan political action committee Americans for Responsibility in Washington.

HAVING REFUSED a third term as president, George Washington offered the nation a farewell address in 1796, urging Americans to cherish the Union and to avoid the "baneful effects" of political partisanship. Successors such as Thomas Jefferson warned against the formation of an "unnatural" aristocracy of men who inherited great fortunes and political office.

Both of these warnings have been overlooked in the debate over Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2008 presidential run. But if she secures the Democratic nomination, wins and serves two terms, by 2017 the United States will have been governed by either a Bush or a Clinton for 28 years. That's three decades governed not just by the same two families but much of the same supporting staff. As Dick Cheney is a name familiar to both Bush presidencies (as George H.W. Bush's secretary of Defense and his son's vice president), so too may a Hillary Clinton presidency resuscitate familiar names such as Harold Ickes, Paul Begala and James Carville.

And it might not end there. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, encouraged by Republican leaders and the current president (who said, "I would like to see Jeb run at some point"), has not ruled out a White House bid or a vice presidential slot on the ticket in 2012 or 2016.

If Washington's caustic, partisan atmosphere is to change, the era of Bushes and Clintons needs to end in 2008.

Three times in American history have close relatives of former presidents won the office. John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, lost the popular vote to Andrew Jackson in 1824 but won in the electoral college amid charges of a "corrupt bargain." Benjamin Harrison, grandson of William Henry Harrison, lost the popular vote to Grover Cleveland in 1888 and also suffered as a "minority president" and mere figurehead. George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore in 2000.

Recent polls suggest that a significant body of Americans, perhaps 40%, will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances — so it is unlikely that she could enter the Oval Office with a strong electoral mandate. The ironic upshot is that such a Hillary Clinton presidency — weakened by low approval and beset by partisan sniping — would mirror George W. Bush's presidency.

That the Bush's administration has been consumed by political partisanship comes as no surprise to students of history. From the time of John Quincy Adams — whose term in office marked the end of the Era of Good Feelings — the children, grandchildren and spouses of presidents engender exceptional hostility when they seek office themselves. For all their personal capacities, the latter Adams, Harrison and Bush — like Hillary Clinton — inherited their claims to the presidency. George W. Bush would not be president today were his name not George Bush, nor Hillary a senator from New York absent the Clinton name. This nation's traditional commitment to meritocracy inclines many to reject these "unnatural" aristocrats, who never garner widespread popularity.

Minority and bare-majority presidents are weak leaders because nothing undergirds presidential power like an election mandate. The strongest post-World War II presidents — Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan — were also its most popular. (Eisenhower and Johnson won at least 55% of the vote; Reagan polled just over 50% in 1980 with independent John Anderson in the race, then 59% in 1984.) Presidencies enveloped by partisanship — Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton — were made of men who won office on the barest of majorities or pluralities (Truman won 49.6% of the popular vote in 1948; Carter won 50.1% in 1976; Clinton won 43% and 50% in 1992 and 1996).

Pundits compare 2006 to the late Nixon years, with a country disillusioned by war and a deep distrust of its political leadership. In one of his last interviews, former President Ford lamented the "extreme partisanship that exists in the nation's capital today," suggesting that partisanship is even worse than in the post-Watergate era he inherited.

The nation needs today, as it got in Ford then, a president respected by both Republicans and Democrats who can restore trust in politics. It needs new faces and new ideas if it is to confront advancing crises of war, debt and entitlement reform. And it needs a president who can assume office in 2009 swimming in the political capital that only a mandate can bring. The nation needs a candidate who can win 55% or more.

And that will not happen with a Bush or Clinton on the ballot.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-burkee22jan22,0,7673503.story

[Lyle]

Very illuminating editorial. Thanks for posting a response even though I had retracted my question, IJ! ;)

As I've said before, even though I tend to vote Republican, I like Obama a lot and I think he's definitely the Democrats' best candidate at the moment. I just have this hunch, however, that the next president of the United States is going to be someone we aren't hearing anyone (from either political party) talk about yet. Probably wishful thinking on my part.

[IJ Reilly]

Very illuminating editorial. Thanks for posting a response even though I had retracted my question, IJ! ;)

Retract a question? Who gave you permission to retract a question? :p

The primary process has elevated relative unknowns to prominence, but my gut feeling is that those days are effectively behind us. Successful nominees in recent years tend to be the already anointed within their respective parties. Hillary Clinton has a big lead in the party polls (or among the party pols, if you prefer) because party leadership sees 2008 as "her turn" -- just as it was Al Gore's turn in 2000. George W. Bush was also effectively preselected by his party in 2000. The editorial refers to this process as it involves people with familiar and established political family names, but I think it applies equally to politicians who've firmly established themselves within the upper ranks of their party's hierarchy.

[skunk]

I tend to vote RepublicanExcuse me for butting in here, but since the Republicans have made such a pig's ear of just about everything they have touched lately, and have allowed GWB to get away with the most outrageous and egregious abuses, why on earth would you still "tend to vote" for them? :confused:

[Swarmlord]

<snip>why on earth would you still "tend to vote" for them? :confused:

Because as a Libertarian, the alternative is even worse. Removing the war from the equation, I certainly am pleased with the economic conditions over the past six years. Neither of the big two parties have any interest in changing anything else that's important to me.

[skunk]

Because as a Libertarian, the alternative is even worse. Removing the war from the equation, I certainly am pleased with the economic conditions over the past six years. Neither of the big two parties have any interest in changing anything else that's important to me.Leaving aside your membership of the ***** You, I'm All Right Party, how can you possibly remove the needless expenditure of one trillion dollars from any equation?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Bush has created more debt in our nations history then all presidents combined and this guy is pleased? Bush had agreed to every dollar the republican congress wanted to blow and this guy is pleased. Just goes to show you the mentality of Republicans, If Republicans are for something it has to be good:rolleyes: Swarmlord you may be doing great yourself, Im happy for you but you & your kids & grandkids will be paying for Bush & the republicans policys for decades.

[Thanatoast]

You know it's gonna be Hillary + somebody in '08. She's too smart and has too much cash. I would take some major strategy mistakes or a major shakeup for her not to win the nomination. The big question, I think, is who would be her running mate? Hillary/Obama? Hillary/Al Gore? (lol) Hillary/minor dem? (Minor meaning anyone not mentioned above)

[leekohler]

Because as a Libertarian, the alternative is even worse. Removing the war from the equation, I certainly am pleased with the economic conditions over the past six years.

Are you joking? With borrow and spend Republicans? Hey, we won't tax you, we'll just borrow til you can never pay off the debt. Yeah, great. Fantastic job they did. Way better than Clinton. :rolleyes:

And as far as the government meddling in people's lives, the Republicans should absolutely horrify you. What about the Federal Marriage Amendment, Terry Schiavo and domestic spying? Or are you only Libertarian when it comes to money, and only when it applies to your own situation?

[takao]

The big question, I think, is who would be her running mate? Hillary/Obama?

actually i think something like that would be a good idea for the democrats .. no matter in what order ( Hillary/Obama, Obama/Hillary)

[Swarmlord]

Are you joking? With borrow and spend Republicans? Hey, we won't tax you, we'll just borrow til you can never pay off the debt. Yeah, great. Fantastic job they did. Way better than Clinton. :rolleyes:

Are YOU joking? First, it's the Congress that spends the money, not the President. Last I checked the Dems have had both hands and their faces in the till as much as the Republicans. (We're still paying off the debts that Tip O'Neal ran up). What were the name of those fiscally conservative Dems again?

As for Clinton, there's a myth about the deficit. Having a revenue neutral budget doesn't do a damned thing about "the debt." No one has reduced "the debt". They've only affected how quickly it grows.

As for taxes, they can do what they want now. I've embraced the Theresa Hines Kerry method of investing after I read about what she pays on her wealth and moved a lot of my investments into tax free instruments. It's the one thing I've been grateful to John Kerry for from the last election.

[leekohler]

Are YOU joking? First, it's the Congress that spends the money, not the President. Last I checked the Dems have had both hands and their faces in the till as much as the Republicans. (We're still paying off the debts that Tip O'Neal ran up). What were the name of those fiscally conservative Dems again?

Never claimed the Dems were fiscally conservative, but I seriously fail to see how Republicans are better, especially this last bunch. Bush never saw a spending bill he didn't like either.

As for Clinton, there's a myth about the deficit. Having a revenue neutral budget doesn't do a damned thing about "the debt." No one has reduced "the debt". They've only affected how quickly it grows.

Ah- so we should just spend like maniacs then and make it larger even faster? Sorry, you're failing to convince me here.

And I guess since you ignored the rest of my post, I can assume you're only Libertarian when it comes to economics.

[IJ Reilly]

Are YOU joking? First, it's the Congress that spends the money, not the President.

Are you joking? The president submits a budget to Congress.

[Swarmlord]

Never claimed the Dems were fiscally conservative, but I seriously fail to see how Republicans are better, especially this last bunch. Bush never saw a spending bill he didn't like either.



Ah- so we should just spend like maniacs then and make it larger even faster? Sorry, you're failing to convince me here.

And I guess since you ignored the rest of my post, I can assume you're only Libertarian when it comes to economics.

I never said I was pleased that Bush hasn't figured out how to use the veto pen. No, I don't want spending like crazy. I don't want spending like crazy on any programs any more than you might on the war.

As for the other issues:

1. I don't believe that the government should be in the business of marriage, period, but it's not a hot button topic for me.

2. The one role that the government has that is Constitutionally required is the protection of its citizens. I don't know the details of the Schivo case, so I can't comment on that one specifically. I think that people should be able to make whatever medical arrangements they want and in lieu of doing it, then good luck getting what you want. I do think that if ones parents want to take care of you and your husband wants you to die that I would choose to give someone back to her parents.

3. You only have a reasonable expectation of privacy and the courts have been ruling on this since the early 1900's. Do I care whether phone calls to foreign locations are monitored? No, not in the least.

As for horror, only a handful of things have horrified me in the past 15 years. One of them involved Islamic terrorists and two of them involved Janet Reno.

[Swarmlord]

Are you joking? The president submits a budget to Congress.

You meant that document they crumple up and pitch into the fire at their first Ways and Means committe meeting? I forgot about that.

[TequilaBoobs]

i wouldnt mind if 'cankles clinton' ran for president, but frankly i dont think she has the wherewithal to win. a lot of women ive spoken to wont vote for her for various reasons, mostly stemming from her husband's infidelity and her handling of the situation.

[leekohler]

I never said I was pleased that Bush hasn't figured out how to use the veto pen. No, I don't want spending like crazy. I don't want spending like crazy on any programs any more than you might on the war.

This still hasn't illustrated why you feel Republicans are more fiscally conservative than Democrats. You claim they are, but I've seen no evidence of that claim, especially from the last congress.

As for the other issues:

1. I don't believe that the government should be in the business of marriage, period, but it's not a hot button topic for me.

Good.

2. The one role that the government has that is Constitutionally required is the protection of its citizens. I don't know the details of the Schivo case, so I can't comment on that one specifically. I think that people should be able to make whatever medical arrangements they want and in lieu of doing it, then good luck getting what you want. I do think that if ones parents want to take care of you and your husband wants you to die that I would choose to give someone back to her parents.

Her spouse made a legal decision regarding her healthcare to which he was legally entitled. There was nothing left of that woman, but Jeb decided to make an issue of it. It was absolutely wrong to do what he did. It was family matter.

3. You only have a reasonable expectation of privacy and the courts have been ruling on this since the early 1900's. Do I care whether phone calls to foreign locations are monitored? No, not in the least.

Wow- OK. What makes you think that all they're doing? You're telling me you trust the government?

[zimv20]

(We're still paying off the debts that Tip O'Neal ran up).
i'm confused. o'neall left the house in 1987. between now and then, we've had several years of budget surplus, during which we paid down a decent chunk of the national debt. what exactly are we still paying off, and how do you attribute (blame) that to (on) o'neall?

btw, i'm going to agree with you about the state of investments for those who have them. but it's borne on the backs of the disappearing middle class. the increasing class disparity isn't going to provide for a comfortable future, imo, even if you did make (say) and extra $50k last year.

[Music_Producer]

Because as a Libertarian, the alternative is even worse. Removing the war from the equation, I certainly am pleased with the economic conditions over the past six years. Neither of the big two parties have any interest in changing anything else that's important to me.

As a currency trader I think the entire world knows what the state of the US economy is, and you are pleased with our economic conditions? Are you on crack? You probably don't have a clue as to what our economic situation is.. I would think most people in this country don't have a clue about anything anyway.. sheesh.

[Swarmlord]

As a currency trader I think the entire world knows what the state of the US economy is, and you are pleased with our economic conditions? Are you on crack? You probably don't have a clue as to what our economic situation is.. I would think most people in this country don't have a clue about anything anyway.. sheesh.

Then why does everyone want to invest in it? I guess that everyone that purchases those Treasury Notes are throwing good money after bad. Sux to be them.

My perspective of the economy is what purchasing power I have and how it improves from year to year. My investments far exceed inflation. What exactly am I supposed to be bummed about? If our economy is so bad, what exactly is priced out of my range that's provided by all these countries with good economies?

Remember, this whole conversation started (as far as my comments at least) with why as a Libertarian I voted Republican. I think that people forget the choice was down to two people. I didn't vote for either of them in the primaries. The reason I comment in these threads is because it drives me nuts to read some oversimplified statement that somehow everything wrong in the world is due to one person or on the other hand that everything right in the world will happen if the other person was just in charge.

[mactastic]

My perspective of the economy is what purchasing power I have and how it improves from year to year. My investments far exceed inflation. What exactly am I supposed to be bummed about? If our economy is so bad, what exactly is priced out of my range that's provided by all these countries with good economies?
Libertarians in a nutshell folks. The party of "I-got-mine-the-rest-of-you-****-off-and-die." :rolleyes:

[TequilaBoobs]

Libertarians in a nutshell folks. The party of "I-got-mine-the-rest-of-you-****-off-and-die." :rolleyes:

stereotyping is a shortcut to thinking.

[IJ Reilly]

You meant that document they crumple up and pitch into the fire at their first Ways and Means committe meeting? I forgot about that.

Actually, no -- the document they generally pass with few major changes.

[IJ Reilly]

i'm confused. o'neall left the house in 1987. between now and then, we've had several years of budget surplus, during which we paid down a decent chunk of the national debt. what exactly are we still paying off, and how do you attribute (blame) that to (on) o'neall?

More to the point, it might fashionable is some circles to blame Congress for the deficits during the 1980s, but in fact the nation was operating under the Reagan "smoke and mirrors" budgets, which Congress passed essentially intact.

[skunk]

Libertarians in a nutshell folks. The party of "I-got-mine-the-rest-of-you-****-off-and-die." :rolleyes:I thought my version was slightly more succinct. :)

[mactastic]

stereotyping is a shortcut to thinking.
Do you deny it's the truth? Or are you just being pissy for pissy's sake?

[QuarterSwede]

Problem is, all her enthusiasm seems canned, all of her responses carefully calibrated to win her an election, not to give you an idea of what she believes. She should learn from Al Gore's experience. Being a robot doesn't win you elections.
Al Gore I could vote for simply because he is sincere. Hilary? Not a chance. I get the feeling she is in politics simply for self gain. I prefer people to actually be honest and sincerely want to change things for the better.

[TequilaBoobs]

Do you deny it's the truth? Or are you just being pissy for pissy's sake?

it's mostly about civil liberties and telling the government to calm the **** down.

[Peterkro]

I could I prefer people to actually be honest and sincerely want to change things for the better.

This being the case I've found a very good shortcut just remove politicians from the equation,in my experience none are either honest or want to change anything (for the better or not).

Just a little plea do not think "Libertarians" have anything to do with libertarians or liberty for that matter( I speak as a libertarian socialist or Anarchist for those who don't consume the mainstream media)

[MacNut]

Al Gore I could vote for simply because he is sincere. Hilary? Not a chance. I get the feeling she is in politics simply for self gain. I prefer people to actually be honest and sincerely want to change things for the better.Isn't that the only reason she stayed married to Bill for all these years. She wants to be president and she needs Bill's help.

[mactastic]

it's mostly about civil liberties and telling the government to calm the **** down.
Sad that they allied so closely with conservatism. Both have become entirely too self-centered.

Liberal libertarianism is where it's at. Telling both the government AND the private sector to calm the **** down.

[hulugu]

I never said I was pleased that Bush hasn't figured out how to use the veto pen. No, I don't want spending like crazy. I don't want spending like crazy on any programs any more than you might on the war.

Somehow I can't wrap my head around the idea that spending money on something like school-lunches is directly comparable to the invasion of a country and the resulting internicine war, but whatever...

...
You only have a reasonable expectation of privacy and the courts have been ruling on this since the early 1900's. Do I care whether phone calls to foreign locations are monitored? No, not in the least.

Then, please submit the rest of your documents to your nearest NSA agent, including your investments, tax records, and your latest sexual fantasy. Good for you to be such a free-thinking person. As for the rest of us, I was more bothered by the lack of judicial oversight, which was required by law. The end-run around both the Constitution and the warrant sytem, a necessary rubber-stamp, was an overreach by the executive branch and thus should be blunted. I believe in the separation and balance of powers. But, that's just me.

As for horror, only a handful of things have horrified me in the past 15 years. One of them involved Islamic terrorists and two of them involved Janet Reno.

This is an interesting logical manuever. By attacking say Gonzalez, can't I also hold in my head the idea that Reno was also a complete idiot, or do I have to choose between one or the other?

Then why does everyone want to invest in it? I guess that everyone that purchases those Treasury Notes are throwing good money after bad. Sux to be them.

The Chinese, who are floating our economy so we can continue to buy cheap goods while maintaining a massive trade deficit. This is bad, and indicative of an weakening economy.

My perspective of the economy is what purchasing power I have and how it improves from year to year. My investments far exceed inflation. What exactly am I supposed to be bummed about? If our economy is so bad, what exactly is priced out of my range that's provided by all these countries with good economies?

If the economy was better you might have made more money. I'm in the same boat, I'm making more money, and my investments (Go Apple! Go!) are also doing well, and yet, I'm cautious about a future run by men like Bush. I think we can do better, I always think we can do better, and I'm especially concerned that we're ignoring other problems while missing real opportunities. The dollar you missed can be a dollar spent.

Remember, this whole conversation started (as far as my comments at least) with why as a Libertarian I voted Republican. I think that people forget the choice was down to two people. I didn't vote for either of them in the primaries. The reason I comment in these threads is because it drives me nuts to read some oversimplified statement that somehow everything wrong in the world is due to one person or on the other hand that everything right in the world will happen if the other person was just in charge.

This is a good point. While Bush exists as a kind of anti-Midas, he is not the only one responsible, however he does deserve to have a legacy of scandal, misteps, and utterly asinine decisions. He's a lightning rod for every inept step his cartel of miscreants has made. Sux to be him. But, he's not the only one, and inept Congress and a sleeping populace deserve some blame as well. This isn't to ignore the various nutjobs we deal with, but every president has to deal with an insane and dangerous world, Bush shouldn't get a free pass because one of those bastards got in a shot.

[hulugu]

Would you willingly raise your taxes to pay for the health care expenses of others? I would not.

This is your OPINION. Not a fact. These "inefficiencies and hidden costs" are only conjecture based on junk science. How much more would you be willing to pay? For me the answer is zero. I pay far too much already.

JFK once said, "A rising tide lifts all boats." With this in mind, could a universal health care approach work? It does so for much of the EU, Japan, and Canada. And the idea is now being put to the test with Mass. and California both introducing state-wide plans.
Now, the important question would be, if a universal health care actually lowered, or even kept stable, your premiums, would you still object to insuring everyone else. Furthermore, have you considered the closing of local trauma centers—obstensibly because of financial pressures owing to people using the ER as their local doctor—, or the smart finances of paying for prenatal care and vaccinations as a way to prevent disease, that could come because of universal health care?
Or, do you just dismiss the proposal entirely because it might cost you two more nickles?

A few links:

http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf (.PDF warning)

http://www.businessweek.com/ (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2006/nf20060123_1965_db013.htm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#Criticisms

One of the most interesting things is the chart at the bottom. Check it out.

Now, DZ I would appreciate your own links, in order to prove your argument is more than blustering and meaningless terms like 'junk science.'

[zimv20]

boston globe (http://www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/articles/2007/01/22/patients_piling_medical_costs_on_credit_cards/)

speaking of despicable...


Patients piling medical costs on credit cards

Some doctors and hospitals are teaming up with financial-services companies to market credit cards to patients, reducing healthcare providers' dependence on bill collection, and causing more low- and middle-income consumers to pay interest on their medical debts.

While hospitals in Massachusetts are not pushing such credit cards, they are attempting to get patients to pay up front for services not covered by insurance, and are routinely asking them to provide credit card information before they receive treatment.

Patients can be turned down for elective procedures if they don't pay in advance, but hospitals are required to treat emergency cases. The state doesn't keep statistics on the number of people denied elective procedures because of financial reasons.

In states such as Texas and North Carolina, financial-services companies have joined with healthcare providers in an effort to promote the use of charge cards for medical expenses. For instance, Citibank's Citi Health Card is offered to patients through participating healthcare providers.

The card features monthly payments as low as $10, and has a no-interest option for patients who agree to pay down their debts quickly by making higher monthly payments. But those who do not meet the terms of the payment plans pay annual interest on their balance of more than 20 percent.

According to the results of a national survey released last week , about one-fifth of low- and middle-income households with credit card balances cited significant medical expenses as a reason.

A survey analysis -- by Access Project , a nonprofit medical consumer advocacy group, and Demos , a public-policy research organization -- said the number of patients using credit cards to pay their medical bills is expected to rise as employers increasingly shift insurance expenses to workers who already face larger insurance co payments and higher deductibles for medicine and treatment.

"The healthcare safety net is made of plastic -- its called 'credit cards' for many people," said Mark Rukavina , director of Access Project, which is affiliated with Brandeis University. "It's a pretty frightening prospect."

The telephone survey of 1,150 people across the country also found that the 20 percent of households that owed medical bills had , on average, credit card balances of $3,700 higher than those without medical debt, or $11,623 compared with $7,964. Healthcare advocates said that while credit cards make it easier for healthcare providers to get paid, patients who use them to settle medical bills are exposed to hefty fees, penalties, and sometimes sky-high interest rates.

(more)

[skunk]

Just a little plea do not think "Libertarians" have anything to do with libertarians or liberty for that matter( I speak as a libertarian socialist or Anarchist for those who don't consume the mainstream media)Nobody would ever confuse you with a "Libertarian". :)

[solvs]

Her health care plan was a bureaucratic nightmare, but at least someone was talking about it. Being able to go to a doctor shouldn't be a privilege, and it already costs us. You could always buy more coverage too, so it's not like anything is taken away from you. I'm always shocked at the selfishness of people, especially since the same people who claim it will cost them too much financially have little problem with the government spending money on other things, like wars. And these same people have no problem using other gov paid for things when they need it.

On topic, I can't stand the woman. I'd love to vote for a woman, but not this one (Condi either though). Beyond the valid reasons I have for not liking her, unlike most of the people I know who don't like her, I actually don't like her for pretty much the same reasons they do. She's pro war, pro business, pro censorship, but other than that she's power hungry, bandwagons, stuck by her husband for political reasons (which actually showed weakness and has hurt, though to be fair, so would have leaving him), and she just comes off as cold and uncaring.

That being said, if the Dems are stupid enough to let her win the primary, I'm hoping people still vote for her (I know I will, but like with Kerry, begrudgingly) over another far righty, because as I've said, she did pretty well last time she was Pres. and we just can't survive another 4-8 years of what we have now.

[Music_Producer]

Then why does everyone want to invest in it? I guess that everyone that purchases those Treasury Notes are throwing good money after bad. Sux to be them.



Simple, because the US $ has always been the choice of currency reserves held by banks all over the world.. or a good trading currency. However, some countries are switching their reserves from $ to the Euro. Have you seen how the $ has been taking a beating recently against the Euro and the pound? No? Well, you should.

I'm just waiting to see what happens to the $ once China gets in. The Chinese hold a huge amount of dollar reserves, if they start unwinding them and switch to euros as reserves, I guarantee a recession. The Middle East also holds tons of $ as reserves, and there are rumors that they want to switch to Euros.

Sure, you might feel right now everything seems rosy .. it might not be that way in the future. Remember that the US keeps borrowing money, and it has to eventually pay that back later.. in one way or the other. It could be by hiking income taxes, or reducing social security payouts, or whatever.

Also, a currency's term is much, much longer than any idiotic president's term. So the $ shouldn't crash.. it should recover, but right now we are in a very dangerous situation. Just because you're getting paid, or you get a gallon of milk for $1.50 or whatever, doesn't mean the country's economic health is not in trouble.

The bottom line is that a country should never have a huge deficit.. and that is exactly what the US is doing.

Here is what you need to read (posted today by MSN):

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/StateOfTheNationBroke.aspx (and I predicted all this in 2003 :D )

[leekohler]

Simple, because the US $ has always been the choice of currency reserves held by banks all over the world.. or a good trading currency. However, some countries are switching their reserves from $ to the Euro. Have you seen how the $ has been taking a beating recently against the Euro and the pound? No? Well, you should.

I'm just waiting to see what happens to the $ once China gets in. The Chinese hold a huge amount of dollar reserves, if they start unwinding them and switch to euros as reserves, I guarantee a recession. The Middle East also holds tons of $ as reserves, and there are rumors that they want to switch to Euros.

Sure, you might feel right now everything seems rosy .. it might not be that way in the future. Remember that the US keeps borrowing money, and it has to eventually pay that back later.. in one way or the other. It could be by hiking income taxes, or reducing social security payouts, or whatever.

Also, a currency's term is much, much longer than any idiotic president's term. So the $ shouldn't crash.. it should recover, but right now we are in a very dangerous situation. Just because you're getting paid, or you get a gallon of milk for $1.50 or whatever, doesn't mean the country's economic health is not in trouble.

The bottom line is that a country should never have a huge deficit.. and that is exactly what the US is doing.

Here is what you need to read (posted today by MSN):

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/StateOfTheNationBroke.aspx (and I predicted all this in 2003 :D )

It should be obvious to you at this point, that Swarmlord only cares what happens to himself and not others. I have a lovely quote for you directly from him. So I guess as long as he is doing well, no one else figures into the equation. I don't know how much more clear this could be:

My perspective of the economy is what purchasing power I have and how it improves from year to year. My investments far exceed inflation. What exactly am I supposed to be bummed about? If our economy is so bad, what exactly is priced out of my range that's provided by all these countries with good economies?

[obeygiant]

All I know is that my business to doing very well, and others I know are doing very well. Stocks are up and unemployment is down. So if you say the economy is bad, well I guess thats good for me.

How else is an individual supposed to gauge the economy besides being professional economist. Would you guys expect me to believe that if you personally were doing well, that you would give that up so everyone else could do better.?

[pseudobrit]

All I know is that my business to doing very well, and others I know are doing very well. Stocks are up and unemployment is down. So if you say the economy is bad, well I guess thats good for me.

Ah, the "I got mine" syndrome.

I wish bankruptcy and illness on selfish people who lack empathy.

[IJ Reilly]

Now, now -- it's not like he's here to actually discuss anything.

[pseudobrit]

Now, now -- it's not like he's here to actually discuss anything.

Least of all his disgusting defence of the Obama smear.

[leekohler]

All I know is that my business to doing very well, and others I know are doing very well. Stocks are up and unemployment is down. So if you say the economy is bad, well I guess thats good for me.

Wow. So I guess I was right. BTW- the unemployment figures only apply to those who are still seeking employment, not those who have given up. And as long as obeygiant is doing well, gee we should all be sitting pretty. :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

I'm doing alright myself, as it happens -- and I suppose I'll continue to do alright so long as my health insurance company doesn't decide to cancel my policy.

[hulugu]

All I know is that my business to doing very well, and others I know are doing very well. Stocks are up and unemployment is down. So if you say the economy is bad, well I guess thats good for me.

How else is an individual supposed to gauge the economy besides being professional economist. Would you guys expect me to believe that if you personally were doing well, that you would give that up so everyone else could do better.?

While economics is essentially the study of scarcity, there is a growing number of thinkers who are realizing, and are now trying to quantify, that an economy is not a zero-sum game. Your wealth actually increases mine, and my neighbors' successes can actually reinforce my own. The economy isn't a poker match or Monopoly, rather it's a complex and reinforcing system. Stop thinking that you have to stand on someone's shoulders to keep your head above water.

[mactastic]

All I know is that my business to doing very well, and others I know are doing very well. Stocks are up and unemployment is down. So if you say the economy is bad, well I guess thats good for me.

How else is an individual supposed to gauge the economy besides being professional economist. Would you guys expect me to believe that if you personally were doing well, that you would give that up so everyone else could do better.?
The economy is doing well for the top 10% of wage earners or so. It's doing craptacularly for the bottom 10% and only middling to fair for the middle 80%. If you bothered to look at buying power or wage vs. inflation or wage vs. health care increases, you'd see that things aren't so good for everyone. Of course, if you stepped outside your ivory tower you might also notice the same thing.

Family debt levels are up, there's a significant risk of a housing crash, particularly locally in some spots, if interest rates go much higher (and it's not like they're all that high to start with). A good year is when my health insurance costs only go up by 12%. Where I work, lots of major big-dollar projects went on hold because people who manage money for a living were nervous about where things were headed. And not just in my firm, but industry-wide.

But hey, if you've got yours who cares about other people, right?

Actually, lets cut right to it: Do you believe the poor should be allowed to die for lack of medical care they cannot afford?

[solvs]

Actually, lets cut right to it: Do you believe the poor should be allowed to die for lack of medical care they cannot afford?

Everyone knows survival of the fittest is a main Christian tenet. :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

Everyone knows survival of the fittest is a main Christian tenet. :rolleyes:
Actually I don't think he's ever claimed to be a Christian. But, I keep asking and he keeps ignoring it. I can't imagine why...

[obeygiant]

Everyone knows survival of the fittest is a main Christian tenet. :rolleyes:

How is that true? That sounds more like something you'd hear on Nature.

[Thomas Veil]

Wow. So I guess I was right. BTW- the unemployment figures only apply to those who are still seeking employment, not those who have given up. And as long as obeygiant is doing well, gee we should all be sitting pretty. :rolleyes:Indeed. Add all the people who've been out of work so long that they've given up, and all the people who are underemployed (can only find part-time work), and the unemployment rate at least doubles. Add on top of that all the folks whose incomes have skidded because their union agreed to givebacks, or who were forced to take a job for lower pay (that's a lot of us), and the situation is not anywhere near rosy.

[sorryiwasdreami]

Hilary? Not a chance. I get the feeling she is in politics simply for self gain.

In looking at the big picture, do you realize what Hillary being president would do for the issue of gender inequality? I believe the US is ready for a female president; unfortunately, I believe we are sadly still some years away from a "minority" one.

Electing Clinton would be a huge step forward in progressing the country in terms of gender equality. I believe she can win based on the amount of women voters alone. I would vote for her and I'm not female.

If she had a running mate like Gore, I think the pair would be unstoppable.

[solvs]

How is that true? That sounds more like something you'd hear on Nature.

I was being sarcastic. :p Survival of the fittest is more Darwinian, and pretty much anti-Christian. Christian's are supposed to follow Jesus' teachings and care for their brothers, more than themselves. Yet for some reason, those who claim most to be Christian seem to believe in survival of the fittest if it impacts them at all. Ie national health care, welfare, social security, etc.

Not implying you're Christian, but saying something like "how Christian of you" would also prove my point. ;)

I believe she can win based on the amount of women voters alone.
Most of the women I know don't like her. Taking Bill back seems like a weakness, yet she also comes off too brash and power hungry. Men don't like her either. Some are threatened, some have valid reasons. Some just don't like her.