Log in

View Full Version : Hillary Will Be A DISASTER !



Pages : 1 [2]

Madcap
11-12-2007, 06:50 AM
It'll be fun to watch Eric's coronary when she's elected president.

Eric Stoner
11-12-2007, 08:12 AM
LMAO, there's no answer that will be acceptable to you is there??? Truth be told you could make the same argument against just about every candidate.

That's right Richard. Every time your pants are down you just laugh and leave.
I respectfully challenged you to come up with an accomplishment ; something that
actually got done and you couldn't.

A number of the candidates in BOTH parties have EXECUTIVE experience and are more honest and genuine than Ms. Clinton.

Eric Stoner
11-12-2007, 08:15 AM
If I hated all things Democrat and loved all things Republican I wouldn't be supporting Obama but I am and haver been ever since he announced.

Eric Stoner
11-12-2007, 08:17 AM
It'll be fun to watch Eric's coronary when she's elected president.

We survived EIGHT years of her husband's mendacity and skirt chasing. We'll survive 4 or 8 years of her. We won't enjoy it, but we'll survive it.

Eric Stoner
11-12-2007, 08:39 AM
Let's TRY to return to the original premise of the thread which had NOTHING to do about me. For over seven months now I've been challenging the "Hillary-lovers" to post something they like about HER ; not Bill and/or something that she has actually accomplished - some meaningful result from her years of public service not just a policy she supports. If you think she is likeable or honest then please say so. To date, nobody has. If you think she has political courage- speak up ! But to date there's been total silence.

I would have found it surprising if a majority of Americans had elected a known adulterer but they didn't. Clinton never got a majority. So it won't surprise me if Hillary actaully gets elected despite her high negatives AND the fact that even a majority of HER supporters don't particularly like her. Supposedly it's "competence over likeability " after supposedly learning a lesson a la Mr. Bush. Fair enough BUT
just how did Hillary acquire this air of competence ? Based on what ? Where is her record of demonstrated competence ?

Obama on the other hand does have a solid track record of actual accomplishment as a community organizer and a state senator. So does Giuliani and a number of others excluding Mr. Paul tempting though his strict constructionistew of the Constitution may be. He's never actually accomplished anything in public service either.

Eric Stoner
11-12-2007, 09:39 AM
Richard , I hate to do this but according to the U.S. Treasury Dept:

Total Federal Revnues in 1961- $94 billion
In 1968 after JFK's tax cuts in INFATION ADJUSTED ( i.e. REAL dollars ) total Federal Revenue was $153 billion.

Total Federal Revenues in 1980- $517 billion.
In 1990 they were over $1 trillion in real dollars. Looks like they doubled to me.

Richard_Head
11-12-2007, 07:31 PM
If I hated all things Democrat and loved all things Republican I wouldn't be supporting Obama but I am and haver been ever since he announced.I'm not sure if I'm buying it, if anything all that tells me is that the quality of the republican candidates is sorely lacking.

Richard_Head
11-12-2007, 07:36 PM
Richard , I hate to do this but according to the U.S. Treasury Dept:

Total Federal Revnues in 1961- $94 billion
In 1968 after JFK's tax cuts in INFATION ADJUSTED ( i.e. REAL dollars ) total Federal Revenue was $153 billion.

Total Federal Revenues in 1980- $517 billion.
In 1990 they were over $1 trillion in real dollars. Looks like they doubled to me.....and your attributing it all to tax cuts??? That's rather simplistic isn't it? Here's some reading (http://www.swordscrossed.org/node/1671)for you, knock yourself out.

Eric Stoner
11-13-2007, 08:15 AM
I'm not sure if I'm buying it, if anything all that tells me is that the quality of the republican candidates is sorely lacking.

You can certainly do as you think best but for me it's POLICY and PERSON. I like some of Obama's policies and I think he's a decent , honorable person. He's also one of the brightest and articulate people running. The office combined with certain realities has a way of moderating both libs and conservatives.

If I liked every one of her policies and agreed with every one of her positions I don't know if I could pull a lever for Hillary. Her track record of enabling Bill's sexual misconduct plus her own phoniness and mendacity just totally turns me off.

The Republicans are so infected by the Christers that even Giuliani has kissed the ass of a hump like Pat Robertson. I know politics makes strange bedfellows but that is pushing the envelope and I question how relevant someone like Robertson really is.

Eric Stoner
11-13-2007, 08:32 AM
....and your attributing it all to tax cuts??? That's rather simplistic isn't it? Here's some reading (http://www.swordscrossed.org/node/1671)for you, knock yourself out.

No it's not ALL attributable to tax cuts but a major part certainly is. Inter alia, tax cuts keep a large chunk of money in private hands where it can be spent, saved and INVESTED. Capital is the life blood of an economy.

Bush's tax cuts have caused capital gains tax revenues to double which is laudable but generally concentrated in the higher income brackets. Unlike Reagan's cuts; the full positive effect of Bush's have taken longer to "trickle down" to the middle and working classes as we are only now seeing real wages
increase significantly. Real wages are now increasing at 4% a year after lagging behind for some time. And there is more to come despite the sub-prime banking shake-out and decline in housing prices.

Let me ask you something Richard- what % of GDP ought the Federal government
to siphon off in taxes ? What do YOU think the top marginal tax rate ought to be ?
Why ? How do YOU propose we get Hedge Fund Mgrs. to pay more than 15% of their incomes in taxes ? How would you treat capital gains and dividends vis a vis taxes ? You apparently enjoy sniping at other people's ideas which is fine ; that's part of this forum afaic yet you play a cutesy game of hide and seek in presenting alternatives. So what are they ? How would YOU control spending ?

Richard_Head
11-13-2007, 07:40 PM
Let me ask you something Richard- what % of GDP ought the Federal government
to siphon off in taxes ? What do YOU think the top marginal tax rate ought to be ?
Why ? How do YOU propose we get Hedge Fund Mgrs. to pay more than 15% of their incomes in taxes ? How would you treat capital gains and dividends vis a vis taxes ? You apparently enjoy sniping at other people's ideas which is fine ; that's part of this forum afaic yet you play a cutesy game of hide and seek in presenting alternatives. So what are they ? How would YOU control spending ?I don't have all the answers, I wish I did. Believe it or not I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative, runaway spending drives me nuts, excessively high taxes drives me nuts. I do know the system needs revamping, I think that the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer)deserves more discussion. In the meantime, as I don't see any revamping on the horizon, I'd put the top rates back to where they were when Clinton was President, those weren't what I would consider to be excessive. Cutting taxes for the rich doesn't do anything for me, if you're going to cut taxes focus them on the middle class, they are the spenders. The recent bill (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/09/congress.taxes.ap/index.html)that was passed in the House seems a good attempt at ending some of the tax breaks given to the hedge funds and patches the AMT, I'm all for it (I'm really interested to see how that plays out in the Senate). As for controlling spending, Pay-As-You-Go seems reasonable.

Melonie
11-14-2007, 04:52 AM
In the meantime, as I don't see any revamping on the horizon, I'd put the top rates back to where they were when Clinton was President,

If memory serves, that would be a 39.6% top tax bracket ... which was increased to that level by Clinton versus the 28% top tax bracket of the Reagan / Bush 1 years. Arguably, this also resulted in all sorts of financial changes which allowed the 'rich' to escape paying anywhere near the 39.6% top tax rate.

Among these changes was the inception of partially 'paying' white collar workers with stock options instead of salary, a migration of investments and industries to foreign countries, a reallocation of corporate profits towards buying back the company's stock shares rather than paying dividends, and a host of others.

All of these changes allowed the 'rich' to actually avoid paying higher taxes despite the higher published tax rate on ordinary income. At the same time, all of these changes worked to the detriment of working class and middle class Americans in the long term. The primary reason for this was that, with very high tax rates on ordinary income, high value employees shunned higher paychecks in favor of 'other means' of compensation which would be taxed at lower rates. This caused paychecks to stagnate for all Americans. If that stagnant paycheck was supplemented by an expense account, by stock options, by other corporate perks - as it was for the 'rich' - then their de-facto standard of living improved greatly despite their stagnant paycheck income. However, if that stagnant paycheck was NOT supplemented by these other perks, as was the case for the working class and for most of the middle class, then their standard of living stagnated as well.


Ultimately, this question comes down to two basic points. Point #1 - Hillary proposes to institute a host of new social welfare programs that will cost the gov't a s#!tload of extra money ... which will ultimately have to be paid for by extracting extra tax money from Americans. Point #2 - any attempt to significantly increase the REAL tax burden on the 'rich' (I'm not talking about published tax rates on ordinary income, but actual tax rates on earnings from all possible sources) will cause the 'rich' to restructure their finances in order to avoid as much of the higher tax burden as they possibly can - meaning that the lion's share of extra tax money must actually be extracted from the middle class (who don't have the income structure or the financial resources to avoid paying higher published tax rates on ordinary income).

Eric Stoner
11-14-2007, 10:29 AM
I don't have all the answers, I wish I did. Believe it or not I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative, runaway spending drives me nuts, excessively high taxes drives me nuts. I do know the system needs revamping, I think that the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer)deserves more discussion. In the meantime, as I don't see any revamping on the horizon, I'd put the top rates back to where they were when Clinton was President, those weren't what I would consider to be excessive. Cutting taxes for the rich doesn't do anything for me, if you're going to cut taxes focus them on the middle class, they are the spenders. The recent bill (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/09/congress.taxes.ap/index.html)that was passed in the House seems a good attempt at ending some of the tax breaks given to the hedge funds and patches the AMT, I'm all for it (I'm really interested to see how that plays out in the Senate). As for controlling spending, Pay-As-You-Go seems reasonable.

Like you, I am a fiscal conservative and have condemned the disgraceful excesses of the Tom DeLay Republicans and Bush's budget wimpery. Now, NOW he decides to get tough with an overspending Congress but when the GOP was in charge he merrily went along with every boondoggle and earmark.

I have already agreed with you on the pressing need for middle-class tax relief which is one of two laudable things about Rangel's plan; the other being AMT reform.

Melonie has done her usual superb job in addressing the nostalgia for the Clinton Tax policy and the serious problems presented by Rangel's proposal.

My problems with the FAIR Tax are multi-fold. First, despite a so-called exemption it is regressive as all sales taxes are. Second, it is easy to avoid and will increase the underground economy. Third, it dampens demand by penalizing consumption which is ultimately anti-growth.

Melonie
11-14-2007, 11:59 AM
My problems with the FAIR Tax are multi-fold. First, despite a so-called exemption it is regressive as all sales taxes are. Second, it is easy to avoid and will increase the underground economy. Third, it dampens demand by penalizing consumption which is ultimately anti-growth.

also, the 'Fair Tax' supporters have a dirty little secret up their sleeves. They forsee the demographic problem developing over the next 10 years as more and more baby-boomers change from being active taxpaying workers to non-taxpaying retirees. Institution of the 'Fair Tax' would provide a means to tax all of the money that has been saved up in IRA's, 401k's etc. by imposing a de-facto 21% (or whatever) federal sales tax on every dollar of IRA / 401k money to be spent by retirees in the future. This would create an even worse situation for ROTH retirement money / annuities etc. since income tax has already been paid on this money as it was being contributed annually under the existing tax system (i.e changing to the 'Fair Tax' would amount to double taxation).

~

Eric Stoner
11-14-2007, 02:04 PM
also, the 'Fair Tax' supporters have a dirty little secret up their sleeves. They forsee the demographic problem developing over the next 10 years as more and more baby-boomers change from being active taxpaying workers to non-taxpaying retirees. Institution of the 'Fair Tax' would provide a means to tax all of the money that has been saved up in IRA's, 401k's etc. by imposing a de-facto 21% (or whatever) federal sales tax on every dollar of IRA / 401k money to be spent by retirees in the future. This would create an even worse situation for ROTH retirement money / annuities etc. since income tax has already been paid on this money as it was being contributed annually under the existing tax system (i.e changing to the 'Fair Tax' would amount to double taxation).

~

Huckabee is a Trojan Horse Conservative. He's fine on all the busybody social issues ( from the Christer pov) but as Arkansas Governor he RAISED taxes.
He doesn't believe in evolution and believes ID should be taught. It should. In RELIGIOUS schools and Sunday schools ; NOT PUBLIC schools.

He's friendly and folksy and sounds good BUT just a little digging into his record and policy positions reveals a closet "Rockefeller Republican" with a Christer mind-set. The WORST of both worlds.

Deogol
11-14-2007, 10:37 PM
Socialist > fascist anyday. :D

They look pretty fascist when they come with guns and padlocks to take your money and property upon not paying.

erotictonic
11-15-2007, 05:00 AM
I appreciate your input, Richard Head & Melonie. I did learn something from it, if no one else did.