Republican Candidates
- Thread starter stdreb27
- Start date
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us...gewanted=print
You have to love this, I thought keynesian economics was dead. This is a truely scary economic philosophy and comming from a leading presidential candidate.
I guess I need to quit referring to her as a Socialist and update my description to Communist
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us...gewanted=print
You have to love this, I thought keynesian economics was dead. This is a truely scary economic philosophy and comming from a leading presidential candidate.
I guess I need to quit referring to her as a Socialist and update my description to Communist
scubadoo
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
One of the most compelling reasons I am anti-Democrat is their whole attitude about fiscal matters. How many times do you hear them saying something along the lines of "tax giveaways for the rich"? You aren't giving away a single thing, it was their money to begin with! If someone is so stupid they have 3 or 4 kids but don't have the job skills to land a job with health care benefits why is that my problem? Give them a tax break for the 2nd job they need to have to pay the health care for the kids they decided to have but don't force me to pay for their lifestyle choices.
If a company wants to pay a person 250 million a year its none of the governments friggin business. If they want to limit the the amount of money a company can pay an employee and still claim it as a business expense fine, I am all for it. But lets not just limit it to CEO's. I just dont want to see the money raised spent on people who are too lazy to make their own way in life.
Perhaps she should start with regulating what ex-presidents can make when given paid speeches/apperarances. Personally , I don't care what he makes or any ex-president makes regarding speaking fees, etc...but if you are gonna go after folks for salaries paid....LEAD BY EXAMPLE and reduce your speaking fees!!! How about doing it for free or for some nominal fee or REASONABLE cost....start there first.
Clinton's Golden Voice
Bill Clinton earned $31 million in speaking fees between 2001 and 2005, as disclosed in his wife's Senate ethics reports
One of the most compelling reasons I am anti-Democrat is their whole attitude about fiscal matters. How many times do you hear them saying something along the lines of "tax giveaways for the rich"? You aren't giving away a single thing, it was their money to begin with! If someone is so stupid they have 3 or 4 kids but don't have the job skills to land a job with health care benefits why is that my problem? Give them a tax break for the 2nd job they need to have to pay the health care for the kids they decided to have but don't force me to pay for their lifestyle choices.
If a company wants to pay a person 250 million a year its none of the governments friggin business. If they want to limit the the amount of money a company can pay an employee and still claim it as a business expense fine, I am all for it. But lets not just limit it to CEO's. I just dont want to see the money raised spent on people who are too lazy to make their own way in life.
Perhaps she should start with regulating what ex-presidents can make when given paid speeches/apperarances. Personally , I don't care what he makes or any ex-president makes regarding speaking fees, etc...but if you are gonna go after folks for salaries paid....LEAD BY EXAMPLE and reduce your speaking fees!!! How about doing it for free or for some nominal fee or REASONABLE cost....start there first.
Clinton's Golden Voice
Bill Clinton earned $31 million in speaking fees between 2001 and 2005, as disclosed in his wife's Senate ethics reports
1journeyman
Active Member
And didn't Hillary get a huge sum for her book deal? I wonder how much of that she'll give back...
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
I guess I need to quit referring to her as a Socialist and update my description to Communist
Isn't that one of the scariest articles you've ever read. she really does this, it will be the end of us economic power as we know it. It is beyond me as to how short lived peoples memory is. This "control" policy that she is advocating, hasn't worked in Russia, China, Post WWII German, Japan, south america. You know those massive bouts with hyper-inflation in Post WWII germany, in the 80's and 90's they are from policies of trying to control the economy. I'm just speechless.
I guess I need to quit referring to her as a Socialist and update my description to Communist
Isn't that one of the scariest articles you've ever read. she really does this, it will be the end of us economic power as we know it. It is beyond me as to how short lived peoples memory is. This "control" policy that she is advocating, hasn't worked in Russia, China, Post WWII German, Japan, south america. You know those massive bouts with hyper-inflation in Post WWII germany, in the 80's and 90's they are from policies of trying to control the economy. I'm just speechless.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
Perhaps she should start with regulating what ex-presidents can make when given paid speeches/apperarances. Personally , I don't care what he makes or any ex-president makes regarding speaking fees, etc...but if you are gonna go after folks for salaries paid....LEAD BY EXAMPLE and reduce your speaking fees!!! How about doing it for free or for some nominal fee or REASONABLE cost....start there first.
Clinton's Golden Voice
Bill Clinton earned $31 million in speaking fees between 2001 and 2005, as disclosed in his wife's Senate ethics reports
I don't like Bill Clinton, I think he is a phoney but I don't begrudge him making bucks. Being president isn't exactly a cake walk. The thing that gets me is these people are quick to point out others making big $$$ when they ain't living a modest lifestyle by any means. I will give Obama (who I think lost any chance of winning his party's nomination last night IMO) credit for the fact he did pass on the chance to cash in to help poor folk. The one who really makes me gag is Edwards. That ambulance chasing punk wouldn't understand the concept of sacrifice is it slapped him up side his head and mussed his 400.00 do. What's with that anyway? He could spend a grand and it would still look like he walked out of a supercuts
Perhaps she should start with regulating what ex-presidents can make when given paid speeches/apperarances. Personally , I don't care what he makes or any ex-president makes regarding speaking fees, etc...but if you are gonna go after folks for salaries paid....LEAD BY EXAMPLE and reduce your speaking fees!!! How about doing it for free or for some nominal fee or REASONABLE cost....start there first.
Clinton's Golden Voice
Bill Clinton earned $31 million in speaking fees between 2001 and 2005, as disclosed in his wife's Senate ethics reports
I don't like Bill Clinton, I think he is a phoney but I don't begrudge him making bucks. Being president isn't exactly a cake walk. The thing that gets me is these people are quick to point out others making big $$$ when they ain't living a modest lifestyle by any means. I will give Obama (who I think lost any chance of winning his party's nomination last night IMO) credit for the fact he did pass on the chance to cash in to help poor folk. The one who really makes me gag is Edwards. That ambulance chasing punk wouldn't understand the concept of sacrifice is it slapped him up side his head and mussed his 400.00 do. What's with that anyway? He could spend a grand and it would still look like he walked out of a supercuts
darthtang aw
Active Member
anyone that spends 400 dollars on a haircut is disconnected from the majority of society.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
One of the most compelling reasons I am anti-Democrat is their whole attitude about fiscal matters. How many times do you hear them saying something along the lines of "tax giveaways for the rich"? You aren't giving away a single thing, it was their money to begin with! If someone is so stupid they have 3 or 4 kids but don't have the job skills to land a job with health care benefits why is that my problem? Give them a tax break for the 2nd job they need to have to pay the health care for the kids they decided to have but don't force me to pay for their lifestyle choices.
If a company wants to pay a person 250 million a year its none of the governments friggin business. If they want to limit the the amount of money a company can pay an employee and still claim it as a business expense fine, I am all for it. But lets not just limit it to CEO's. I just dont want to see the money raised spent on people who are too lazy to make their own way in life.
Obama clearly has the best plan for Healthcare. Did you all watch the debates lastnight. He stated the difference b/w his policy and Edwards and Clinton's policy... which are mandates...his is not.
One of the most compelling reasons I am anti-Democrat is their whole attitude about fiscal matters. How many times do you hear them saying something along the lines of "tax giveaways for the rich"? You aren't giving away a single thing, it was their money to begin with! If someone is so stupid they have 3 or 4 kids but don't have the job skills to land a job with health care benefits why is that my problem? Give them a tax break for the 2nd job they need to have to pay the health care for the kids they decided to have but don't force me to pay for their lifestyle choices.
If a company wants to pay a person 250 million a year its none of the governments friggin business. If they want to limit the the amount of money a company can pay an employee and still claim it as a business expense fine, I am all for it. But lets not just limit it to CEO's. I just dont want to see the money raised spent on people who are too lazy to make their own way in life.
Obama clearly has the best plan for Healthcare. Did you all watch the debates lastnight. He stated the difference b/w his policy and Edwards and Clinton's policy... which are mandates...his is not.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
Perhaps she should start with regulating what ex-presidents can make when given paid speeches/apperarances. Personally , I don't care what he makes or any ex-president makes regarding speaking fees, etc...but if you are gonna go after folks for salaries paid....LEAD BY EXAMPLE and reduce your speaking fees!!! How about doing it for free or for some nominal fee or REASONABLE cost....start there first.
Clinton's Golden Voice
Bill Clinton earned $31 million in speaking fees between 2001 and 2005, as disclosed in his wife's Senate ethics reports
He is a former president. If people are willing to pay that much than he deserves it. The question is ... what is Bush going to do after his term is up? I don't think he'll be able to command as much... But I wonder what type of role he'll play in politics and international affairs.
Perhaps she should start with regulating what ex-presidents can make when given paid speeches/apperarances. Personally , I don't care what he makes or any ex-president makes regarding speaking fees, etc...but if you are gonna go after folks for salaries paid....LEAD BY EXAMPLE and reduce your speaking fees!!! How about doing it for free or for some nominal fee or REASONABLE cost....start there first.
Clinton's Golden Voice
Bill Clinton earned $31 million in speaking fees between 2001 and 2005, as disclosed in his wife's Senate ethics reports
He is a former president. If people are willing to pay that much than he deserves it. The question is ... what is Bush going to do after his term is up? I don't think he'll be able to command as much... But I wonder what type of role he'll play in politics and international affairs.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
I don't like Bill Clinton, I think he is a phoney but I don't begrudge him making bucks. Being president isn't exactly a cake walk. The thing that gets me is these people are quick to point out others making big $$$ when they ain't living a modest lifestyle by any means. I will give Obama (who I think lost any chance of winning his party's nomination last night IMO) credit for the fact he did pass on the chance to cash in to help poor folk. The one who really makes me gag is Edwards. That ambulance chasing punk wouldn't understand the concept of sacrifice is it slapped him up side his head and mussed his 400.00 do. What's with that anyway? He could spend a grand and it would still look like he walked out of a supercuts
I thought the debate was great lastnight. I think Obama did very well. I think that Edwards did well also in the beginning, but overall Obama did the best with Clinton having only a few good points. I think Obama was good at defending himself and showing that he can throw punches too, I think he showed his likablity and humor, and that he was clear on his positions and policies.
I think that Edwards may be too emotional and he continues to say the exact same things in debate after debate... I think his role would be best served as a possible VP and thats it.
As far as Clinton... I don't like some of her policies. As far as experience goes... I think people give her credit for being a first lady, which I don't think equals experience as president. I feel like Bill will have a large role... too large of a role in her potential presidency. I think she just says what will get her elected...Out of them all I think Obama is the most honest, has the most class, and has a greater majority if americans intrest at heart and in policy.
I don't like Bill Clinton, I think he is a phoney but I don't begrudge him making bucks. Being president isn't exactly a cake walk. The thing that gets me is these people are quick to point out others making big $$$ when they ain't living a modest lifestyle by any means. I will give Obama (who I think lost any chance of winning his party's nomination last night IMO) credit for the fact he did pass on the chance to cash in to help poor folk. The one who really makes me gag is Edwards. That ambulance chasing punk wouldn't understand the concept of sacrifice is it slapped him up side his head and mussed his 400.00 do. What's with that anyway? He could spend a grand and it would still look like he walked out of a supercuts
I thought the debate was great lastnight. I think Obama did very well. I think that Edwards did well also in the beginning, but overall Obama did the best with Clinton having only a few good points. I think Obama was good at defending himself and showing that he can throw punches too, I think he showed his likablity and humor, and that he was clear on his positions and policies.
I think that Edwards may be too emotional and he continues to say the exact same things in debate after debate... I think his role would be best served as a possible VP and thats it.
As far as Clinton... I don't like some of her policies. As far as experience goes... I think people give her credit for being a first lady, which I don't think equals experience as president. I feel like Bill will have a large role... too large of a role in her potential presidency. I think she just says what will get her elected...Out of them all I think Obama is the most honest, has the most class, and has a greater majority if americans intrest at heart and in policy.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Obama clearly has the best plan for Healthcare. Did you all watch the debates lastnight. He stated the difference b/w his policy and Edwards and Clinton's policy... which are mandates...his is not.
Your splitting hairs, they are all socialist policies.
Obama clearly has the best plan for Healthcare. Did you all watch the debates lastnight. He stated the difference b/w his policy and Edwards and Clinton's policy... which are mandates...his is not.
Your splitting hairs, they are all socialist policies.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
Your splitting hairs, they are all socialist policies.
I disagree. Clinton and Edwards are for a mandated healthcare plan which requires everyone to have it. My question if this were passed would be what happens to all the employees of these companies?
Obama's plan is not a mandate... it makes insurance more affordable for those who don't have it. This system would have the smallest impact on our current system because it would leave in place the current employer programs. It also costs a whole lot less. With Edwards/Clinton plan you will be forced to have it and it will come directly out of your check.. if you don't pay it than it's likely you'll be fined. But basically it takes out your right of choice, which is why any logical person would choose Obama out of the 3 democratic candidates.
Your splitting hairs, they are all socialist policies.
I disagree. Clinton and Edwards are for a mandated healthcare plan which requires everyone to have it. My question if this were passed would be what happens to all the employees of these companies?
Obama's plan is not a mandate... it makes insurance more affordable for those who don't have it. This system would have the smallest impact on our current system because it would leave in place the current employer programs. It also costs a whole lot less. With Edwards/Clinton plan you will be forced to have it and it will come directly out of your check.. if you don't pay it than it's likely you'll be fined. But basically it takes out your right of choice, which is why any logical person would choose Obama out of the 3 democratic candidates.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
I thought the debate was great lastnight. I think Obama did very well. I think that Edwards did well also in the beginning, but overall Obama did the best with Clinton having only a few good points. I think Obama was good at defending himself and showing that he can throw punches too, I think he showed his likablity and humor, and that he was clear on his positions and policies.
I think that Edwards may be too emotional and he continues to say the exact same things in debate after debate... I think his role would be best served as a possible VP and thats it.
As far as Clinton... I don't like some of her policies. As far as experience goes... I think people give her credit for being a first lady, which I don't think equals experience as president. I feel like Bill will have a large role... too large of a role in her potential presidency. I think she just says what will get her elected...Out of them all I think Obama is the most honest, has the most class, and has a greater majority if americans intrest at heart and in policy.
To me Obama came across like he was rattled several times. He had a couple of great shots but overall he just looked shakey to me. We'll see what happens. Seeing as how this debate wasn't on MSNBC there were actually some people watching
Edwards will not be the VP candidate. John Kerry blames a lot of the problems he had in his campaign on edwards and I think he is probably right to a point. If Clinton wins I think it will be Wesley Clark. If Obama wins,,,,,,,, Not sure but if they end up going against McCain they almost gotta have someone with military creds so maybe Clark as well. If Obama and Clinton were to get killed in a mid air plane crash I would say Edwards as a white male would do well to take Jane Harmon as a VP. She is excellent on intel and foriegn policy for a California Democrat
.
I thought the debate was great lastnight. I think Obama did very well. I think that Edwards did well also in the beginning, but overall Obama did the best with Clinton having only a few good points. I think Obama was good at defending himself and showing that he can throw punches too, I think he showed his likablity and humor, and that he was clear on his positions and policies.
I think that Edwards may be too emotional and he continues to say the exact same things in debate after debate... I think his role would be best served as a possible VP and thats it.
As far as Clinton... I don't like some of her policies. As far as experience goes... I think people give her credit for being a first lady, which I don't think equals experience as president. I feel like Bill will have a large role... too large of a role in her potential presidency. I think she just says what will get her elected...Out of them all I think Obama is the most honest, has the most class, and has a greater majority if americans intrest at heart and in policy.
To me Obama came across like he was rattled several times. He had a couple of great shots but overall he just looked shakey to me. We'll see what happens. Seeing as how this debate wasn't on MSNBC there were actually some people watching
Edwards will not be the VP candidate. John Kerry blames a lot of the problems he had in his campaign on edwards and I think he is probably right to a point. If Clinton wins I think it will be Wesley Clark. If Obama wins,,,,,,,, Not sure but if they end up going against McCain they almost gotta have someone with military creds so maybe Clark as well. If Obama and Clinton were to get killed in a mid air plane crash I would say Edwards as a white male would do well to take Jane Harmon as a VP. She is excellent on intel and foriegn policy for a California Democrat
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
I disagree. Clinton and Edwards are for a mandated healthcare plan which requires everyone to have it. My question if this were passed would be what happens to all the employees of these companies?
Obama's plan is not a mandate... it makes insurance more affordable for those who don't have it. This system would have the smallest impact on our current system because it would leave in place the current employer programs. It also costs a whole lot less. With Edwards/Clinton plan you will be forced to have it and it will come directly out of your check.. if you don't pay it than it's likely you'll be fined. But basically it takes out your right of choice, which is why any logical person would choose Obama out of the 3 democratic candidates.
Yeah but either healthcare plan is like having a hitman ask you "Head or chest?"
I disagree. Clinton and Edwards are for a mandated healthcare plan which requires everyone to have it. My question if this were passed would be what happens to all the employees of these companies?
Obama's plan is not a mandate... it makes insurance more affordable for those who don't have it. This system would have the smallest impact on our current system because it would leave in place the current employer programs. It also costs a whole lot less. With Edwards/Clinton plan you will be forced to have it and it will come directly out of your check.. if you don't pay it than it's likely you'll be fined. But basically it takes out your right of choice, which is why any logical person would choose Obama out of the 3 democratic candidates.
Yeah but either healthcare plan is like having a hitman ask you "Head or chest?"
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Obama's plan is not a mandate... it makes insurance more affordable for those who don't have it. ....
False... false, and false... Once again; Obama's plan is a "Universal Plan".
"… My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less. If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness" (Taken from Obama's webpage)
Rylan, have you even read his plan?
*"The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status..." (taken from same webpage)
He is for the Government's complete control of the private Insurance industry in health care.
Obama's plan is not a mandate... it makes insurance more affordable for those who don't have it. ....
False... false, and false... Once again; Obama's plan is a "Universal Plan".
"… My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less. If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness" (Taken from Obama's webpage)
Rylan, have you even read his plan?
*"The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status..." (taken from same webpage)
He is for the Government's complete control of the private Insurance industry in health care.