That's right, because, after all, we need more taxes and restrictions on trade to stimulate an economy. :rolleyes:

Double J, being a "Upstate" New Yorker,

Do you trust Hillary Clinton?

Personally, I don't think either of them could win, mainly because I don't think that the US is ready to elect a woman President. I honestly don't see ANY front-runner from the Democratic party for 2008, or from the Republicans either at this point. If they were to jump into the primary, I don't think either of them would even get the nomination, much less win an election.

I don't trust polls from CNN or FOX NEWS. Sorry, but those viewerships are likely to be biased in the first place, and with those polls, they aren't exactly legit in my books.

Thing is, why would Hillary get the Democratic Nod? Because FOX NEWS believes it? Because some Democratic Party activists wish it?

Why?

That's right, because, after all, we need more taxes and restrictions on trade to stimulate an economy. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]No need to exxagerate however, just enough to create a good social security.

Funny tough, in America the liberals are less liberal on economics then the conservatives.

Well like you Snake I don't put too much stock in polls either. After all if you word them right, you can practically get any kind of result the particular pollster is aiming for.

But polls aside I'm just afraid this nation will be so dumb that the people(not all mind you, but just enough for her to win) will believe anything she says.

With this same intelligent thinking, has it occurred to you that that may be why Bush was voted back in?

It wasn't, in case I've confused you.

Or maybe it was.

Now that's both of us confused.

What got Bush back in? This?

What got Bush back in? This?

Quote:

I'm just afraid this nation will be so dumb that the people(not all mind you, but just enough for him to win) will believe anything he says.

[/QUOTE]


Good grief the least you can do is be original and come up with your own words, instead of stealing someone elses, and rewording it a bit. :rolleyes:

Will someone reply to my question?

Great, I got the effect. It was just a joke, you know. That's why I put the after my post.

But now, back to RRA's question.

Define "enough for good social security." Because even with Democrats in control of the White House or Congress, Social Security has been spinning down the tubes for well over 3 decades. No longer is it an old age pension as designed by President Roosevelt. It has turned into a corrupt honeypot for a variety of Americans, who receive full benefits with little or no contribution.

President Bush hasn't wrecked social security, it has been eaten away by cancer for some time now. Even the official SSI website states that it is going to essentially be bankrupt in the not-so-distant future (which means that working people my age will never, ever see benefits, despite contributing for most of our adult lives).

And excessive or even increased taxation isn't going to help, since the majority of Americans already pay more than their fair share in taxes. The middle class in the country will continue to be worse off unless changes are made, none of which will help if Senator Clinton is elected. People need to have more of their money in their hands. Social Security needs to be brought back to what it was intended to be - an old age pension to support retired seniors.

First of all, I agree totally with most of the problems you say, but not with all of your solutions.
America is not alone in this, here in Belgium we have the exact same problem. The only difference is that our pensions are higher, and our health care is one of the best of the world. We have the best social security system of the world. The downside is, we are the highest taxed people of the world, we have to give back somewhere around 50% of our paycheck.

Yeah, that's what you get with those libbies. I agree, there needs to be more control of who gives what, and who gets what. Too often normal people have to pay too much taxes, because of corruption. In my country, only the communists want that higher control, the other parties don't really want it, regardless their ideology.
Again, the same here. I will work a lot harder and longer than the generation before me, and so will you. People are getting older and older, and less kids are being born. That situation (which we call grey-ing - because old people have grey hair) isn't so dramatical in the USA as it is in Europe, but still.
But anyway, here there are things done, the government highened the lowest age people can retire with 2 years. Only the socialist union was against it, the fockers.


And this is were my socialist and your liberal view on the thing differ.

Isn't it also for healthcare?

But then, you go on to disagree with me and still say that higher taxation will help.

How is taxing already over-taxed people going to help? Throwing more money into a fire isn't going to make the fire die down. Nor is throwing more money into the current social security system going to fix the problem. Yet, this is what President Clinton did (and what his wife has supported), and what other Democrats want now - keep Social Security as it is (to quote Patrick).

I don't necessarily favor President Bush's privitization because most people won't know how to properly manage it and could end up losing benefits altogether. However, we're reaching a crisis point where our generation and possibly the one before won't see any Social Security benefits, let alone our children or children's children.

---

No, originally, FDR designed Social Security as a program to provide income for senior Americans who were retired and had contributed to the program during the years they were working. A novel idea, but over the years, it has become corrupt and overstretched (i.e. for healthcare and other things).

Explain to me why people who haven't worked a day in their life are on social security (I know, I have at least two people in my neighborhood who claim to be invalids or handicaps, but can drive and perform other functions that normal people can) but my grandparents, my Grandfather a WWII veteran and my Grandmother a beautician, who both contributed to the program their entire working lives, never saw a dime of their money from SSI? Nor did any of their relatives after their deaths. This is the problem we are facing.

Add to this the fact that they continue to raise the minimum age for Social Security, so that by the time that you are old enough to collect (if you can) you're likely to be dead.

No, the government has to control the social security more. Everybody has to get their share, but according to what they gave. If balance is brought back, taxation will automatically lower. I'm okay with high taxes (if I get the good social security I have now), and a lot of money in hands of the government, but the system has to stay out of corruption, that's all. And the system has to be in balance with what the future will bring, realism towards the future is essential.

That being said, I also think soc. sec. has to be for health care, besides pensions. I think it's logic I give money to people who phyisically aren't able to work any longer. Just my view...

What is the average people are taxed today in the USA?

Okay, I take it that nobody knows the answer to my question, including me.

Which essentially sums up the difference in our ideologies - to paraphrase one of my personal heroes, the late President Ronald Reagan -

"Government isn't the solution; it is the problem."

Best,
Double-J

Who else is there besides John Edwards and Barack Obama, both of whom haven't proven themselves as leading men?

Are they going to pull out Wesley Clark or Howard Dean for excitement?

That is your argument DoubleJ?

Really, unless I've gotten brain damage lately, I seem to remember Howard Dean leading all the party polls...until the Iowa primary, of then that is when voters always put down the signs and hearts, and hopefully vote with their brains.

While Kerry did lose in 2004, imagine if Dean had been the nominee instead of Kerry. Dean would have lost to Bush by a landslide, which I'm sure of.

Besides DJ, you already forgotten about one key factor: Hillary is a polarizing figure, of which people either like or hate. Even I don't care for her.

Fact is, Hillary is far from a slam dunk for the party's nomination, despite what DJ is so certain to believe. I mean who knows...it could be Mark Warner in 2008, with Hillary as a powerless VP candidate.

Now Iceman or DonSmitty, one of the two did say somewhere that the American people would be "dumb" enough to vote Hillary into the Oval Office. Why? Hell, why she would get elected makes less certain sense than people that think Hillary is a shoe-in for the Dems in 2008.

Besides, I'm sure that if you paired a McCain or Guilliani against Hillary, she would totally lose.

BTW, my fellow Republicans, quit the Obama paranoia. He's not doing squat in 2008. Besides, if he did run, what does he have against guys like Clark, Edwards, Clinton, Richardson, etc.?

Maybe the Democrats can nominate some vanilla ice cream in 2008 then?

Hmmm... The title of this thread is "Hillary 2008" a better title would have been Hillary Never and Condoleeza when hell freezes over and my Maple Leafs win the Stanley Cup! :p

Not the way they've been letting goals in lately...according to ESPN, they've allowed 51 goals in their last 12 games...4.25 GAPG. Not too shabby

Sure you don't want to stick with Hillary?

Yeah man, it's sad. However there are some hopeful signs as Ed Belfour is playing better and a lot younger than his 40 yrs in the past three or so games. And we have one of the top 5 goalies of the future (imo) in our backup Mikael Tellqvist.

Belfour is, and always has been, a drunk, which is why Dallas got rid of him in the first place. My apologies to the Leafs fans everywhere.

As for Tellqvist, he's shown flashes of brilliance, except when we spanked him and Eddie Boy 8-4 recently.

Well you may think he's a drunk but he has a 455 - 299 W/L record, a career 2.47 G.A.A., 75 Shut Outs .907 Save Percentage and a 88 - 68 W/L, 2.17 G.A.A. and .920 S.P. with 14 SO in the Playoffs. Not to mention he's won the R.O.Y. trophy two Vezinas and a Stanley Cup! Even if he does like to take a drink every now and then, he's from Manitoba so you gotta let some things slide.. :p

That must be when the local bars for the cities his team was playing refused him admission to their establishments. :p

Ed Belfour made 33 saves from 34 shots (.971) and got the Win Tonight. Hey Eagle, the Molson Canadians are on me!

what would be the difference if hilary was elected she already ran the country for 8 years

Why is it okay to call Hillary a communist, but it is not alright to call Bush a Nazi?