Clinton's Proposal & my opinion.

Socialism at its finest in the US.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.p [...] _article=1


Now she's for a 401k for everyone, yet she was against Bush's private sector Social Security funding? A 401k still does not guarentee the money. Though this tactic she just threw out is ingenious. First, she rides on the success of the US Stock Market which houses 401ks. The stock market is doing exceptionally well because of the tax breaks on the wealthy that Bush put into effect.

She's proposing to ta the rich to death and hold the hands of those who are not self reliant. How so?

1) Roll back Bush's tax cuts - Which in effect will pull money out of the stock market due to the higher taxes on money made. Result: Stock market will drop.
2) Tax the rich on their estates - A 7 million dollar estate in NYC or the Hamptons isn't all that much. I know people living in DC, Long Island, and the likes with 1,000 sq ft houses that are worth well over a million dollars alone. Not even IN the high price areas. At this point they get higher taxes on their Income, higher taxes on their income from the Stock Market, and now higher taxes on their Property.

What incentive do they have to put their money into the stock market to boost the 401k accounts she proposing?

3) She will have the Gov't match up to $1,000 in the retirement fund, max $5,000 a year. That's a total match of up to 20% of the total you can put in. My employer matches up to 6% of my wages a year. 10% of what I make goes into a 401k, they match 6%. She's proposing 100% for the first $1,000 or 20% of $5,000.
That's $30,000 in 5 years if you put in $5,000 a year. That doesn't include the average of 14% return in the stock market over the set course. Unfortunately, people will see a downfall with her taxing the same people who are making the stock market go up.

She's riding the wave though. Everyone is looking at the stock market and money is to be made. The rich are getting richer - so ride their coat tails instead of taking their money. Its a sheer fact that it takes money to make money. The rich have more to invest, thus they will have a greater amount of money with a smaller % return. But they also risk the higher loss of money with increased taxes.

Case in point, $100,000 a year is taxed at 40%. Making $80k a year is pretty much the same as making $100,000 a year because of the tax bracket increase. You make more, you get taxed more already. Now they're wanting to tax even higher? We can't keep taking their money away as they are the driving factors in the economy.

The housing market is crashing because the money was so freely available because of all the money in the market they could loan out. The problem was with the loaning practices, they gave money to anyone without doing an adequate job checking their financial situation.

Should Hillary Rodham-Clinton win the election you will see the following:

1) Heavy and fast stock market correct within short order of her becoming President.
2) Housing marketing drop again and interest rates spike (Currently talking about dropping rates again which is good for refinancing, paying off debt, etc.)
3) Increase in normal inflation due to the now Socialist Gov't handing money out.

Everyone knows I'm Conservative and believe in Self-Reliance. Unfortunately, I see Hillary is appealing to the people who would rather rely on others instead of getting up and doing it themselves. Financially, I believe giving money away has become the driving factor that may possibly win the Democrats the office.



On another note, I fully agree with the Veto on the SCHIP - Increase the health care coverage for another 4 million kids. The Democrats had so much crap in that Bill to buy the votes of Republicans. Corruption runs strong - Or maybe it was a rational decision? Give a little ground to at least gain something. By the veto, no one gains anything.

Please refer to this link about Chimps and rational decision making:
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Scien [...] mans/8872/

Instead of always going 50/50, maybe going 80/20 isn't as bad as opposed to nothing? We see this as corruption today. Unforunately, this statement does not change my stance: The veto was right. Pull out the buying and make the bill worthwhile. It was listed to add $35 billion to the health bill. Very true, very cheap against the war in Iraq. What wasn't listed is that there was about $35 billion or so tossed in (aka Pork) to get Democrats and Republicans to vote for it. It was a win-win for them if they voted it through. Those who voted against it are most likely believers in doing what is right. Most Democrats, some didn't, voted for this Bill. A good portion of Republicans did and didn't.

McCain said it himself - The Veto was right. The bill was crap with the money. He's a straight shooter and says what is fact. Typically, the American people don't like hearing the truth and want lied to. A Romney and Guiliani ticket or adding McCain to either ticket would surely beat a Hillary-Obama ticket.

/my rant.

I'd say you'd be a retard to read it.. but its not nice picking on mentally handicapped.

i don't care who gets in the yankee doodle circus that is american politics as long as it is the person who receives the most votes unlike the last two times where behind the scenes hand shakes decides things.

What are you doing in my ride?

But true. Frankly, I'd think you two would be more upset. Perhaps if your guy hadn't won?

'First, she rides on the success of the US Stock Market which houses 401ks. The stock market is doing exceptionally well because of the tax breaks on the wealthy that Bush put into effect.'

You do know that you can elect for your money to be solely in money markets, don't you?

*paints smiley faces on Phucky's blinders*

The combined contributions to a 401k are millions. My point was it's not all about the stock market.

All money is play money.

All women play for money.

The money in a Money Market is used in the market anyhow, that's why it pays a higher return because they're already earning a 14% average on it, so they can pay you 5% to leave your cash there for them to make money on.

yes, you are right, quoting a fox news article does speak volumes.

As he said, no one will report it because its boring; the truth none-the-less.

It was more of a blanket statement, but it applies there too.

Ok. Stop right there.

That's not "socialism"; your reference to that word is inappropriate in this case. She's not a socialist; your near Laisez Faire capitalist economic system would not change under her government despite her policy implementations.

I know you were probably only using the term to deride Mrs Clinton, but I think it's ludicrous to misuse key terms in this case when you're obviously passionate about her not winning office, as the rest of your thread testifies.

Yeah mate, many "dirty" words in politics got that way through misuse and over-representation in discussions.

"Liberal" this; "communist" that; "neo-con" this, etc..

Apart from religion, I've not seen another topic that galvanizes people down hard core partisan lines as does politics.

Tragically, that says a great deal about the apathy associated with the subject; apathetic, that is, until one's senses are stirred and then all the pre-conceived injustices and biases come out on whatever the political subject may be.

In one of our study groups we had to survey 500 people regarding their political beliefs and how those beliefs came to shape their thinking regarding political discourse that they had within their respective communities. A staggering 84% of respondents stipulated a "high influence" rating for their political beliefs having been shaped by their parents and a further "high rating" for said beliefs not being questioned/analysed apart from the information that they gained from the mass media. That is to say, what mum and dad said was good enough for the individual respondent with regards to them not critically questioning their parents beliefs. They thought this way; I think this way. They voted this way; I vote this way, etc..

Now it's been adequately argued that this is not necessarily a bad thing as who is to say that your parents got it wrong? Or that their way of thinking is wrong on certain issues? But it does raise an interesting point when it comes to political beliefs and political involvement: many individuals in developed and mature electorates are apathetic until an emotional nerve is touched on with regards to their pre-conceived beliefs regarding an individual topic. Instead of reasoning and critically analysing an important topic/party perspective, the individual is more likely to simply vote down party lines, or, worse, not vote at all.

With the advent of the mass media, political discussion would forever be shaped by emotion filled/raw language that appealed to the emotional senses of the electorate. A clued-in politician knows, at best, he/she has a 10 second sound byte to work with so the more sensational and emotional he/she can be, the more likely that the sound byte is to be firstly used, and, secondly, the more likely an apathetic electorate is likely to listen.

I digress.

If the politicians, media representatives, and pollsters utilise this kind of approach, then it's inevitable that the electorate does too. That's when we see Joe Bloggs ranting and raving about "how he knows that this policy is just no good", and yet he's done no research and apart from the 10 second sound byte and heavily edited piece written in the paper, he's not critically thought about it any further. Yet by the water cooler at work he'll happily tell Nancy from HR just how ordinary the policy is by using jargon-loaded political speak that is often wrong and inappropriate.

Sorry, going on too long here.

...*trips Mugz as he runs by*...


...*mysteriously disappears*...

It's fun when he's not here to defend himself...


...*re-appears, farts in prone Mugz's face, re-disappears*...

Come on everybody! Have some fun!

(we are in such trouble)

You're a passionate man, Rise. Passionate indeed.

I can't adequately discuss domestic US politics, mate, as I'm not versed in those topics you mentioned.

And that is definitely a serious issue that is global and has global ramifications. A global credit crunch is surely inevitable. The liquidity of certain markets will be sorely tested over the next 2-3 years.

You've committed the cardinal sin of logic, in that you've presented two facts and assumed a causal link without any evidence. Whilst it may be true that the tax cuts are responsible for the reduced deficit, it is equally plausible that other factors are responsible - for example, the stimulation provided to the economy by two wars.

Of course, the most probably explanation is that it due to a variety of different causes. I fear that you are trivialising a very complex system to support your political agenda.

...*opens door*...


...*looks around*...


...*closes door*...

...*avoids inevitable Monty Python "One cross each, line on the left" gag*...

Nail 'em up I say, nail some sense into 'em.

As soon as this was annouced, I was going to buy it. I found it at $100, its up to $1,000 within 2 hours.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d [...] 0170172469

Nah. I'm Conservative. I've said too much to have anyone believe I support the fcuking moronic side of the Democrats.

You just think you are. What cracks me up is you, as a single guy with a condo, a bike, and a Dakota, the people in charge you so fervently defend would scoff at you. But that's OK. Just keep thinking those folks of yours will keep making decisions/laws that are meant to benefit you. Baa, sheep, baa. A shepherds only job is to keep you in line until the day of slaughter.