Hillary Uncensored Parts 1 and 2
WOW!! This looks bad for Hillary!
Part 2
-
Your ad here.
Control Congress is a multi-partisan, issue-oriented political forum that brings together the Left, Right, and everyone in between.
15 Responses to “Hillary Uncensored Parts 1 and 2”
|
I am not a fan of the elite of either party and believe Hillary is just as much a pawn of the power brokers in the world as is George Bush.
Both are allowed their “differences,” as long as they support globalist goals of the international community they both belong to.
I would much rather have Bill Richardson than Hillary at the head of the democratic party but, there are probably many that would do a better job of representing the American middle-class than Hillary or any democrat, for that matter.
Of course, there are probably many that would represent middle-class Americans better than most running for the GOP except Ron Paul, whom I have some issues with as well, but I don’t “fear” his policies nearly as much as I “fear” those that toe the “party line.” The GOP is too much in bed with the people moving us to that “sudden loss of our standard of living” the GAO says will happen with the “unsustainable” course this nation is on.
Bush was on TV again saying the GOP is the party of tax cuts. Good, but, they seek the wrong ones. They try to “compromise” on tax cuts and make things (fiscal soundness) worse, not better in the long run. The “boom,” he claims to have created with tax cuts is petering out. That is because the wrong tax cuts meant even more loss of business, more imports, more debt, more interest payments, more inflation, and fewer private sector jobs not dependent on government spending (education, healthcare, and government employment are all drains on tax revenues, not contributors to them).
Supply side works but ——-
quote:
Tax Evasion
The great lie of supply-side economics.
by James Surowiecki October 29, 2007
Text Size:
Small Text
Medium Text
Large Text
Print E-Mail Feeds
Keywords
Supply-Side Economics;
Tax Cuts;
Deficits;
Republicans, Republican Party;
“The Big Con”;
Chait, Jonathan;
McArdle, Megan
In American politics, supply-side economics is the monster that will not die. The supply-side argument that, in the United States, tax-rate cuts pay for themselves—that, after cutting taxes, the government actually ends up with more revenue—has little or no support within the mainstream economic profession, and no hard empirical data to back it up. Myriad studies have demonstrated that both the Reagan tax cuts of the nineteen-eighties and the tax cuts put through under the current Administration shrank government revenues and led to bigger budget deficits.
Yet the absence of proof for supply-side theory has not dimmed Republicans’ devotion to it. Last month, President Bush told Fox News that his tax cuts had “yielded more tax revenues, which allows us to shrink the deficit.” Dick Cheney insists that “sensible tax cuts increase economic growth and add to the federal treasury.” Every major Republican Presidential candidate—including John McCain, who actually voted against Bush’s 2001 tax bill—is on the record as saying that tax cuts pay for themselves. And, just last week, a New York Sun editorial published a list of what “the Republican Party stands for.” First on the list? “Reductions in top marginal tax rates . . . lead to greater government revenues in the long run.”
This supply-side orthodoxy is striking in a couple of ways. First, it requires Republican politicians to commit themselves publicly to a position that is wrong—and wrong not as a matter of ideology or faith but as a matter of fact
ttp://tinyurl.com/2mohx8
===========================
Before the supply-siders get too mad with this article, it does point out that supply side does work.
quote:
But the supply-side orthodoxy has flourished for other reasons, too. To begin with, the absurd idea that tax cuts pay for themselves is based on an idea that is not at all absurd, which is that tax rates can have an impact on people’s behavior. Increase taxes too much, and people may work less (since they get to keep less of the income they earn) and invest less (since their gains will be taxed more heavily), and so the economy will grow more slowly. The opposite can happen if you cut taxes. (How much of an impact tax rates have—and how high taxes have to get before they have an impact—is a subject of much debate in economics, but it’s inarguable that they do matter.) What supply-siders have done is start with that reasonable idea and extrapolate it to unreasonable lengths.
=======================
It is that fact, that you have a reasonable idea and then create policies that you claim are based on it, but actually increase the problem, that I believe is what this administration has done. And, bottom line, if the American people demand a social program, they need to pay for it and taxes are how you pay for.
If the American people want a war, they must pay for it.
If the American people want jobs in manufacturing then they need to buy American products. Yet, the Bush policies, whether his fault or Congress’s fault, actually create tax cuts that encourage buying imports.
That’s a shocker…Clinton’s participating in quid pro quo illegal fundraising then stabbing the fundraiser in the back…just shocking!
Does this mean you will not vote for her now John?
It might be something if it didn’t come from a conspiracy site with a bunch of separate incidents spliced together.
This kind of stuff is why she keeps getting stronger and stronger. And the GOP starts to look whackier and whackier.
Caroline:
What do you care where the information came from? We know it is true. There have been so many documentations, court rulings (which were published) of the Clinton’s campaign violations, that trying to demonize the source, makes you look bad.
Surely you don’t support Hillary?
You can’t trust either party anymore so, why would you try to minimize Hillary’s problems?
Why aren’t you looking for somebody that can lead the nation out of the mess she, the rest of Congress, the last few Presidents in both parties and the parties themselves have gotten us into?
Hillary is terrible. She is so connected to the “elite” in her party that they were a duck, she’d be a duckling. Just as Bush and many other in the GOP are “Little Me’s” of their party’s elite.
There is no way you could support Hillary if you love this country any more than you can support another like Bush.
More excuses from the Clinton/Chinese News Network hosted by caroline, the blind leading the blind!
Jan Paul,
Don’t you think there are criticisms that don’t come from conspiracy sites?
bb,
Still stuck in past eh? I’m sure that the Clintons will thank you for all your help. Whackos like you have done nothing but help them. Perhaps she and Bill will write you a thank you note.
PS. Are you one of those people that were know as the “Clinton Crazies”? Sounds like it.
caroline,
When they write my thank you note, will it be funded by illegal chinese money, or even worse, from Hollywood??!!
bb,
Wow, what an original fundamentalist neocon post. It could have been written fifty years ago. It’s the 21st century whether you like it or not. Besides, you don’t seem to have a problem with China. You seem very supportive of their business interests.
Caroline, the contributions were illegal from China. That is the fact, not that they were from China or any other nation. But, the Chinese are in love with Bill (and as a result, with Hillary since they probably think she will be a clone of Bill on foreign policy).
You asked
quote:
Don’t you think there are criticisms that don’t come from conspiracy sites?
====================
By all means. Several sites that aren’t conspiracy sites criticize the Clinton’s all the time. The other democratic candidates criticize the Clintons, the liberal organizations criticize the Clintons as do members of Congress, the press, mainstream media. Who cares where the criticism comes from as long as it is accurate.
If Russia says “such and such” about the U.S., I know they are biased but, if it is the truth, I still pay attention. I may seek further support but, often the truth first comes from biased sources and then, when people investigate to find the “full truth” they find that even though coming from a biased source originally, it was true.
Let me ask you. Do you think there are never conspiracies? If you think that, then you are denying the very history of our founding and 235 years of existence. Conspiracies are how politics work at times. Nixon was pretty good at them. Reagan was, Clinton was, and Bush is. That is normal life in politics.
Take what David Rockefeller said
quote:
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
David Rockefeller Baden-Baden, Germany 1991
=======================
Doing many things in secret, i.e. a conspiracy, to accomplish steps to a goal, an adversary may not you to reach is how Washington operates.
Look how many “conspiracies” have been uncovered by the “Freedom of Information Act.”
A conspiracy site often is the very place to find people who use the “Freedom of Information Act,” to uncover what is going on or has gone on in both parties.
I am sure you will agree both parties are just as inclined as the other (just different agendas) to use “conspiracy” as a means to get what they want.
Yes, you have to take each thing a biased source says as suspect but, that doesn’t mean they aren’t very useful. Use the Liberal sites for the GOP and the “right wingers,” for what the Democrats are up to. Since neither party is worth a hoot, use both.
Jan Paul,
Think about what you’re saying:
“What do you care where the information came from?”
Credible sources are absolutely critica.
“We know it is true.”
How?
critical
Bart,
You are the one who agrees with Hillary on policy!
David, we know it is true because it is verified from other sources either near the same time, or after the fact when people start digging based on a search to prove the report true or not.
It doesn’t matter where the information came from. It has to be verified whether it comes from a “conspiracy site,” or the major media, or even the government.
Only verification will tell us whether we are being fed lies or not and all news needs verification. You certainly wouldn’t trust CBS or the Press Corp or the President or a Congressman until the information is verified but often there is “truth” in what they say. It may not be the whole truth any more than what any other biased site puts out, but usually, there is some truth behind what they say. Search for the bits that are truth and discard the rest.
John,
Hillary wants national government provided healthcare. Konop agrees.
Hillary wants to surrender in Iraq. Konop agrees.
Hillary wants to raise taxes on the “wealthy”. Konop agrees.
Hillary wants to expand government indoctrination centers aka public schools. Konop agrees.
John, which candidate will you finally support…Hillary, Dennis or John Edwards?
“Hillary wants to expand government indoctrination centers aka public schools.”
lol. They’s indoctrinating me with maths!
Yeah, this is a real dealbreaker for Hillary–a ten minute video with accusations from convicted felon. Yawn.