San Fransisco Rolls Out the Red Carpet for the Clintons
Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters — some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend — to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.
“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,” Sen. Clinton said. “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
Well off enough??
Ohh, I get it – - Sen. Clinton is subscribed to the belief that the tax cuts benefit only the very top 1% of the nations rich. I don’t know about you, but I noticed a big difference in my taxes and don’t want the tax cut taken away from me, ‘for the common good’. I’m not so well off that I didn’t notice, and didn’t benefit, from Bush’s tax cut program….and I can easily state that I’m not a member of the top 1% of this nations rich.
Ahh soddom(or gamorah)by the sea in the bay welcome the draft-dodging adulterer and traitor and of course LIAR and what ever be dose makes him popular this these San Francisco jerks
Yes- if it weren’t for the tax cuts of President Bush it would have been much more difficult to survive Clinton’s slaughtering of the economy.
This was the “swing” factor as to whether President Bush was going to get my vote or not- the economy. It may not have been his doing, but he was responsible for it none the less. He took action, and it worked so he’ll get my vote.
Besides, everyone knows that if Kerry is elected the economy will go down the toilet- that prospect is frightening enough.
Ted
we have heard this stuff before… from Lenin, Stalin, Carl Marx, pol pot, Muselinni (sp?) and all those other communists and socialist dictators… so what makes hillary any different? (remember Hillarycare?)
This proves my point that Hillary does NOT want Kerry to win so she can run in 2008.
“Clinton’s slaughtering of the economy”???
Come on now, do you really think that? You just don’t like Clinton so you bend events around and make things his fault.
I’m no fan of Senator Clinton, but she is no Lenin, Stalin, or Pol Pot. Nowhere close. Comparing Senator Clinton to them makes as much sense as comparing President Bush to Hitler.
A few years ago a merchant od CHINA TOWN who showd support for this country by showing the U.S. flag(old glory)was forced by those wretches in BAGHDAD BY THE BAY to pay a $5000 fine and this is that same wretched hole that allows gays to show their stupid rainbow flag and hold those stupid gay pride parades and where their jerk mayor marries gays. What they need there is another earthquake like the one from 1906 to shake the fear of god into them
Zelda,
I completely beleive this. Any economist will tell you that it takes 2-4 years for any policy change a President makes to fully take effect. This means the first 2-4 years of Clinton’s “sucess” can be attributed to the former administration. The second term of his Presidency there was definate growth, but this was based on a bubble economy that began to collapse his last year in office.
While President Bush inherited these problems, that makes him no less responsible for correcting them. His reforms have had a definate positive impact on the economy-
If it didn’t, he wouldn’t be receiving my vote.
Ted
come on Zelda, think for yourself and quit taking things so literal… I was not saying the Hillary was Lenin, or pol pot… etc. (which really wouldn’t be much of a stretch) I was comparing what she said about “…take these things away from you, for the greater good” to them… her statement echoes theirs and is a communist/Socialist philosophy. Prove me wrong…
here is the Dictionary definition of Communism:
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. (Hillary Clinton said it as “…for the COMMON good”)
2. Communism
a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.
So I don’t see a difference between Lenin’s, Stalin’s, and other communist/socialist leaders views and Hillary’s… and after reading its very definition; do you?
tedintheshed;
I think you’re putting too much credit for improvements in the economy on President Bush, and too much blame on President Clinton for what was really a mild recession. I never credited President Clinton for how well things seemed to be in the late 1990’s. Likewise, I never blamed him for the recent stock market/economic decline.
While I agree that President Bush’s tax cuts helped to hasten the economic recovery, I also worry about the effect of such a large increase in the Federal deficit, and Federal debt.
I just think the economy is much bigger than what the predsident does or doesn’t do.
madbarr;
“I was not saying the Hillary was Lenin, or pol pot… etc. (which really wouldn’t be much of a stretch)”
Um, no. That would be a very big stretch.
Socialized Healthcare isn’t the same a communist state under a pol pot or a Lenin. Don’t forget that many or America’s close allies have socialized systems for healthcare. It doesn’t make them communist.
who said anything about just healthcare??? I was talking about her philosophy in general
Zelda,
I completely diagree with you- what policies tha are put in place by the President and Cingress effect the economy tremendously.
As an example, many experienced Wall Streeters are wringing their hands this election. The most common comment being that if Kerry is elected, the economy will go to pot.
Ted
Zelda,
“Don’t forget that many or America’s close allies have socialized systems for healthcare. It doesn’t make them communist.”
Like Canada? then why do they call it ‘Socialized Healthcare’?… it is a socialist policy that is why… and if you think Canada is 100% democratic look at some of their policies… not all are democratic, quite a few are socialistic… and that is where Hillary is coming from… that point of view… a socialistic, communistic point of view.
Not saying Canada is communist or socialist, so all you Canadians don’t have a conniption fit… just using you as an example. Hillary is not entitled to my money, it is not hers to control, I don’t work for my money just to give it all to her, so how can she say she is going to “not give those things to you… we are going to take them away from you… for the common good” Healthcare is not a right… regardless of what some politicians might think or want us to think, we are not guaranteed health care. Did you know that almost 47% of the Federal budget is used for entitlements??? Government funded programs like welfare and such??? So we spend more money on our poor, than we do on our military. Take Health and Human Services (social programs) we spent over $560 Billion dollars on it last year, while at the same time we only spent a little over $440 Billion on our Military… Not that it’s a bad thing, mind you, but we spend so much already on these social programs that, I believe it would be too much a burden on everyone who pays taxes (since those that don’t make money don’t pay taxes) to be expected to pay for everyone else’s healthcare… (this doesn’t even cover free-clinics, which are already being paid for by the tax payers).
For Clarifcation: Socialism is the range between Communism and Capitolism. Technically, America is also Socialist, just not as much as Canada. This is because of things like Social Security, the Welfare system, and free health care.
Ted
One of my comments above was a typo. Sorry. Of course the president affects the economy now and in the future. I just think they get too much blame when things go bad and too much credit when things go right.
I think socialized healthcare as the first lady proposed back in 1993 is a bad idea. But I would never put her in the same league as Pol pot or Stalin, or any Marxist communist.
Zelda,
n/p- it happens
Ted
Zelda,
When she makes blanket statements, such as she did, it’s hard not to…
Also Ted, there is a slight difference between our social programs (well supposed to be anyway) and Canada’s… take welfare for instance it was not created to be the only means of support, but to help a poor or disadvantaged family during their time of troubles until they could get a job… but people now a days are using it as a crutch, as their only means of income or source of food… (My great-Grandfather sat on the board that created Welfare) and he said that it wasn’t created for the function it has changed in to (thanks mostly on the part of Democratic Pols). Now I know that it is not a perfect world, but I believe that this is different than just out-and-out paying for someone else’s healthcare… I don’t like paying for welfare via my taxes because I know that as long as people are dependent on it (some) they won’t want to get a job… Why work when you can get your housing, food, and clothes for free??? I tell you, I wouldn’t… I’m by nature a lazy person; it’s just one of my faults, but I don’t want someone else paying for my food, housing, and clothing and as long as I can work I will. But you both have made some good points… and, as opposed to some people in this BB, they don’t fall on deaf ears…
madbarr,
By definition, when a government entity take money from the people and redistributes it that is socialism. Socialism can be measure by the amount of non-volunteer taxes within that society.
America is arounf 40% socialist- all you have to do is stop and think about how much money you earn verses how much taxes you pay. These taxes aren’t just income taxes eiether, but property taxes, gasoline tax, sales tax etc…
Ted
I agree except for this; there is a difference when a country takes your taxes and gives it to the disadvantaged in the form of certain entitlements, and when they tax you and keep it for themselves (i.e. for defense, government operations… etc…) now, please don’t get me wrong, I will never feel bad about making sure a family doesn’t starve, by all means, if my money will help a family eat, then go for it… but I take issue with Hillary’s statement that she is going to take away more money from me just for the “common good” and then doesn’t back it up with just who the common good is… it could be the common good for her bank account for all I know… just too arbitrary of a statement for me…