CDZ Clinton Econ Plan

[320 Years of History]

Nothing is more humerus, and yet dangerous, then a progressive socialist arguing how increased government regulations, control of the private sector, and increased taxes will stimulate the economy. The only problem with that song and dance is that it has been proven to be nothing more than hollow political rhetoric. America has and continues to suffer from the direct results attributed to such economic and political nonsense, and yet it still wins elections? Are people really that stupid?

It's hard to say just how stupid people are in general.....

​

Humorous

 

[BULLDOG]

Nothing is more humerus, and yet dangerous, then a progressive socialist arguing how increased government regulations, control of the private sector, and increased taxes will stimulate the economy. The only problem with that song and dance is that it has been proven to be nothing more than hollow political rhetoric. America has and continues to suffer from the direct results attributed to such economic and political nonsense, and yet it still wins elections? Are people really that stupid?

You might want to look up the Civilian Conservation Corps.

 

[oldsoul]

I disagree. I think there are way more people than you think that would vote third party. The problem is, too many of them think like you do. Simply resigning themselves to the false narrative that there simply is not enough of us. There is, and if we could just convince enough people of that reality, the rest will take care of it's self.

I wonder what would happen if the Libertarians, the Green party, and maybe one or two other "fringe" parties got together and said, "We will put aside that which we disagree on, in order to come together on what we do agree on." I wonder what would happen. I know, the ideological differences are far greater than that which would allow such a thing, but what if...

Sure, what if. What if grandma had balls? She would be grandpa. I prefer to accept reality. Saying what if if is just fine, and everybody should do it often, but saying that without also considering reality is just childish.

Agreed, it would be childish to not consider reality. The reality for me is, neither "major" candidate represents me or my views enough to get my vote. I think a lot of people would agree with me, from both "sides" of the aisle. Now I would disagree with many of them on what we would want, but that does not change the fact that there are far more people that detest the current two party system than you seem willing to accept.

Accepting the two party system is not the same as accepting everything that is done. It's a fact that the right has jumped the shark, and their platform is not good for the country, and it is a fact that the left has done things in response to that, The difference is that Democrats are still within the bounds of reason, and sanity, even if they aren't as close to perfect as I or you might wish.

I am unsure on all of what you are attempting to say. However, to say the Dems are still within the bounds of reason, is denial, at best.
Example: It's perfectly fine for a woman to kill her unborn child, but killing a convicted criminal is cruel/unusual punishment.

Referring to legal abortion as killing a child is beyond the bounds of reason and sanity. That's a perfect example of the hysterics that dragged the right beyond those bounds.

That would depend entirely on the point at which one considers a fetus "alive". I, for one believe, that ALL life, from conception onward, is sacred. I also, however, realize that I , nor anyone else, is in a position to tell another what to do with their body, that there are situations where a person must make horrible, life altering choices that I, God willing, will never fully understand. If a woman wants to have an abortion, that is her choice, but along with that comes the understanding that it is no different from taking the life of a convicted criminal, both end a life. If that makes me insane, and beyond the "bounds of reason" than so be it.

 

[oldsoul]

I disagree. I think there are way more people than you think that would vote third party. The problem is, too many of them think like you do. Simply resigning themselves to the false narrative that there simply is not enough of us. There is, and if we could just convince enough people of that reality, the rest will take care of it's self.

I wonder what would happen if the Libertarians, the Green party, and maybe one or two other "fringe" parties got together and said, "We will put aside that which we disagree on, in order to come together on what we do agree on." I wonder what would happen. I know, the ideological differences are far greater than that which would allow such a thing, but what if...

Sure, what if. What if grandma had balls? She would be grandpa. I prefer to accept reality. Saying what if if is just fine, and everybody should do it often, but saying that without also considering reality is just childish.

Agreed, it would be childish to not consider reality. The reality for me is, neither "major" candidate represents me or my views enough to get my vote. I think a lot of people would agree with me, from both "sides" of the aisle. Now I would disagree with many of them on what we would want, but that does not change the fact that there are far more people that detest the current two party system than you seem willing to accept.

Accepting the two party system is not the same as accepting everything that is done. It's a fact that the right has jumped the shark, and their platform is not good for the country, and it is a fact that the left has done things in response to that, The difference is that Democrats are still within the bounds of reason, and sanity, even if they aren't as close to perfect as I or you might wish.

I am unsure on all of what you are attempting to say. However, to say the Dems are still within the bounds of reason, is denial, at best.
Example: It's perfectly fine for a woman to kill her unborn child, but killing a convicted criminal is cruel/unusual punishment.

Red:
The oxymoronic nature of that phrase is so patently evident it boggles my mind that people even use it in attempt to make a rational argument about "anything." It's so preposterous that it supercedes "negative growth" and "idiot savant." For humorous effect, it's fine; as something one attempting to lucidly make a point says, it's embarrassing.

Just because something is beyond your ability to comprehend, does not make it "oxymoronic", "preposterous", or anything other than what it is.
Oxymoron: a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.
Preposterous: contrary to reason or common sense; utterly absurd or ridiculous.
Are you sure, given the above definitions, those are the words you wish to use?

 

[320 Years of History]

Sure, what if. What if grandma had balls? She would be grandpa. I prefer to accept reality. Saying what if if is just fine, and everybody should do it often, but saying that without also considering reality is just childish.

Agreed, it would be childish to not consider reality. The reality for me is, neither "major" candidate represents me or my views enough to get my vote. I think a lot of people would agree with me, from both "sides" of the aisle. Now I would disagree with many of them on what we would want, but that does not change the fact that there are far more people that detest the current two party system than you seem willing to accept.

Accepting the two party system is not the same as accepting everything that is done. It's a fact that the right has jumped the shark, and their platform is not good for the country, and it is a fact that the left has done things in response to that, The difference is that Democrats are still within the bounds of reason, and sanity, even if they aren't as close to perfect as I or you might wish.

I am unsure on all of what you are attempting to say. However, to say the Dems are still within the bounds of reason, is denial, at best.
Example: It's perfectly fine for a woman to kill her unborn child, but killing a convicted criminal is cruel/unusual punishment.

Red:
The oxymoronic nature of that phrase is so patently evident it boggles my mind that people even use it in attempt to make a rational argument about "anything." It's so preposterous that it supercedes "negative growth" and "idiot savant." For humorous effect, it's fine; as something one attempting to lucidly make a point says, it's embarrassing.

Just because something is beyond your ability to comprehend, does not make it "oxymoronic", "preposterous", or anything other than what it is.
Oxymoron: a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.
Preposterous: contrary to reason or common sense; utterly absurd or ridiculous.
Are you sure, given the above definitions, those are the words you wish to use?

Blue:
With regard to the notion of "kill the unborn," yes.

 

[oldsoul]

Agreed, it would be childish to not consider reality. The reality for me is, neither "major" candidate represents me or my views enough to get my vote. I think a lot of people would agree with me, from both "sides" of the aisle. Now I would disagree with many of them on what we would want, but that does not change the fact that there are far more people that detest the current two party system than you seem willing to accept.

Accepting the two party system is not the same as accepting everything that is done. It's a fact that the right has jumped the shark, and their platform is not good for the country, and it is a fact that the left has done things in response to that, The difference is that Democrats are still within the bounds of reason, and sanity, even if they aren't as close to perfect as I or you might wish.

I am unsure on all of what you are attempting to say. However, to say the Dems are still within the bounds of reason, is denial, at best.
Example: It's perfectly fine for a woman to kill her unborn child, but killing a convicted criminal is cruel/unusual punishment.

Red:
The oxymoronic nature of that phrase is so patently evident it boggles my mind that people even use it in attempt to make a rational argument about "anything." It's so preposterous that it supercedes "negative growth" and "idiot savant." For humorous effect, it's fine; as something one attempting to lucidly make a point says, it's embarrassing.

Just because something is beyond your ability to comprehend, does not make it "oxymoronic", "preposterous", or anything other than what it is.
Oxymoron: a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.
Preposterous: contrary to reason or common sense; utterly absurd or ridiculous.
Are you sure, given the above definitions, those are the words you wish to use?

Blue:
With regard to the notion of "kill the unborn," yes.

So then you see an unborn child as nothing more than a lifeless piece of flesh that happens to have the potential for life. I disagree. There seems to be a few people at Princeton that would disagree with you as well:
Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception
Interesting that someone who portends to base their opinions on facts and scientific evidence would ignore/deny science on this matter.

 

[320 Years of History]

Accepting the two party system is not the same as accepting everything that is done. It's a fact that the right has jumped the shark, and their platform is not good for the country, and it is a fact that the left has done things in response to that, The difference is that Democrats are still within the bounds of reason, and sanity, even if they aren't as close to perfect as I or you might wish.

I am unsure on all of what you are attempting to say. However, to say the Dems are still within the bounds of reason, is denial, at best.
Example: It's perfectly fine for a woman to kill her unborn child, but killing a convicted criminal is cruel/unusual punishment.

Red:
The oxymoronic nature of that phrase is so patently evident it boggles my mind that people even use it in attempt to make a rational argument about "anything." It's so preposterous that it supercedes "negative growth" and "idiot savant." For humorous effect, it's fine; as something one attempting to lucidly make a point says, it's embarrassing.

Just because something is beyond your ability to comprehend, does not make it "oxymoronic", "preposterous", or anything other than what it is.
Oxymoron: a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.
Preposterous: contrary to reason or common sense; utterly absurd or ridiculous.
Are you sure, given the above definitions, those are the words you wish to use?

Blue:
With regard to the notion of "kill the unborn," yes.

So then you see an unborn child as nothing more than a lifeless piece of flesh that happens to have the potential for life. I disagree. There seems to be a few people at Princeton that would disagree with you as well:
Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception
Interesting that someone who portends to base their opinions on facts and scientific evidence would ignore/deny science on this matter.

Frankly, yes. I am not among the crowd that considers a fetus to be a person.

 

[oldsoul]

I am unsure on all of what you are attempting to say. However, to say the Dems are still within the bounds of reason, is denial, at best.
Example: It's perfectly fine for a woman to kill her unborn child, but killing a convicted criminal is cruel/unusual punishment.

Red:
The oxymoronic nature of that phrase is so patently evident it boggles my mind that people even use it in attempt to make a rational argument about "anything." It's so preposterous that it supercedes "negative growth" and "idiot savant." For humorous effect, it's fine; as something one attempting to lucidly make a point says, it's embarrassing.

Just because something is beyond your ability to comprehend, does not make it "oxymoronic", "preposterous", or anything other than what it is.
Oxymoron: a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.
Preposterous: contrary to reason or common sense; utterly absurd or ridiculous.
Are you sure, given the above definitions, those are the words you wish to use?

Blue:
With regard to the notion of "kill the unborn," yes.

So then you see an unborn child as nothing more than a lifeless piece of flesh that happens to have the potential for life. I disagree. There seems to be a few people at Princeton that would disagree with you as well:
Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception
Interesting that someone who portends to base their opinions on facts and scientific evidence would ignore/deny science on this matter.

Frankly, yes. I am not among the crowd that considers a fetus to be a person.

On that then we will disagree. However, I now understand why you would choose the phrasing you did, but stating as fact, not opinion, is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Your position is, after all, based on opinion, not fact.

 

[320 Years of History]

Red:
The oxymoronic nature of that phrase is so patently evident it boggles my mind that people even use it in attempt to make a rational argument about "anything." It's so preposterous that it supercedes "negative growth" and "idiot savant." For humorous effect, it's fine; as something one attempting to lucidly make a point says, it's embarrassing.

Just because something is beyond your ability to comprehend, does not make it "oxymoronic", "preposterous", or anything other than what it is.
Oxymoron: a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.
Preposterous: contrary to reason or common sense; utterly absurd or ridiculous.
Are you sure, given the above definitions, those are the words you wish to use?

Blue:
With regard to the notion of "kill the unborn," yes.

So then you see an unborn child as nothing more than a lifeless piece of flesh that happens to have the potential for life. I disagree. There seems to be a few people at Princeton that would disagree with you as well:
Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception
Interesting that someone who portends to base their opinions on facts and scientific evidence would ignore/deny science on this matter.

Frankly, yes. I am not among the crowd that considers a fetus to be a person.

On that then we will disagree. However, I now understand why you would choose the phrasing you did, but stating as fact, not opinion, is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Your position is, after all, based on opinion, not fact.

Which position?

• The one that says "kill the unborn" is an oxymoronic phrase?
• The one that says the unborn are not persons?

 

[hadit]

Granted this is USA today so they try to protect her, but her econ plan:

What Hillary Clinton Would Do to the Economy

1. $35 bil for ref and pay states to guarantee tuition. Lol, students can ref now but not to lower rates. Then guarantee tuition means college will collect fed money and increase the tuition rates also. This will be waste.
2. Paid family leave. Big business will adjust, but small business will go under. First they loss a key person. Second if they get a contractor they will have to pay double for the same work. Not small busy friendly.
3. Open infrastructure bank. Her husband expanded the powers of Fannie and Freddie to create the artificial secondary market which was a prime cause of the mortgage meltdown.
4. Expand gov preschool by $27. Bil. Good one I can support.
5. Expand IDEA by $27 bil. I support this move also.
6. $9 bil to repair oil pipelines and to coal family healthcare. To blatant trying to win coal miner votes in the important PA. My bet this would be so riddled with waste some pipes that don't need fixing get fixed an pennies goes to the coal miners.
7. $27 bil in infrastructure expansion. Didn't Obama do this. What was the effect again?
8. Raise minimum wage to $15. Again nailing he small business owner.
9. Increase work benefits. Sounds great right. All this will do is further put the boot on the neck of small business. Big business will push the cost onto the consumer, while wiping out their small business competition and making the barrier to enter the market that much harder.
10. Expand overtime. See 8
11. Encourage/force profit sharing. So Marxist of her.
12. Strengthen Unions and increase collective bargaining. Unions are a driving force for outsourcing. I guess Clinton needs to pay back her Chinese donors also.
13. Raise capital gains on short-term investment. 40% on <2 yr, 36% 2-3 yr, 32% on 3-5 and 20% (current level) on 6+ yrs.
14. Increase income tax on wealth (yea fat chance of it not trickling down). $5 mil a yr 10% increase. I support. $1 mil a year 30% minimum regardless of deductions, can't go under 30%. I support this. $15 mil a year then you get extra 5% increase (total of 15%). I agree also.
15. Expand the disaster known as Dodd-Frank. Why in the world anyone would want to expand it is beyond me.
16. And of course expan Obaminationcare. Admit that mistake and move on
17. No real change to free trade agreements. After all Mexicans are her base to placate and she can't get rid of her husband's bill NAFTA.


There are some things to like, but overall her plan is a disaster. It is build specifically to garner votes and placate the stupid!

facts are really important and dum dums probably shouldn't get their economic analysis from ask.com

"A Donald Trump presidency poses a top-10 risk event that could disrupt the world economy, lead to political chaos in the U.S. and heighten security risks for the United States, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit.

Electing Trump could also start a trade war, hurt trade with Mexico and be a godsend to terrorist recruiters in the Middle East, according to the latest EIU forecasts."

The Economist rates Trump presidency among its top 10 global risks

Mildly interesting, but totally irrelevant to the thread.

 

[oldsoul]

Just because something is beyond your ability to comprehend, does not make it "oxymoronic", "preposterous", or anything other than what it is.
Oxymoron: a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.
Preposterous: contrary to reason or common sense; utterly absurd or ridiculous.
Are you sure, given the above definitions, those are the words you wish to use?

Blue:
With regard to the notion of "kill the unborn," yes.

So then you see an unborn child as nothing more than a lifeless piece of flesh that happens to have the potential for life. I disagree. There seems to be a few people at Princeton that would disagree with you as well:
Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception
Interesting that someone who portends to base their opinions on facts and scientific evidence would ignore/deny science on this matter.

Frankly, yes. I am not among the crowd that considers a fetus to be a person.

On that then we will disagree. However, I now understand why you would choose the phrasing you did, but stating as fact, not opinion, is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Your position is, after all, based on opinion, not fact.

Which position?

• The one that says "kill the unborn" is an oxymoronic phrase?
• The one that says the unborn are not persons?

Um.. both.

 

[320 Years of History]

Blue:
With regard to the notion of "kill the unborn," yes.

So then you see an unborn child as nothing more than a lifeless piece of flesh that happens to have the potential for life. I disagree. There seems to be a few people at Princeton that would disagree with you as well:
Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception
Interesting that someone who portends to base their opinions on facts and scientific evidence would ignore/deny science on this matter.

Frankly, yes. I am not among the crowd that considers a fetus to be a person.

On that then we will disagree. However, I now understand why you would choose the phrasing you did, but stating as fact, not opinion, is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Your position is, after all, based on opinion, not fact.

Which position?

• The one that says "kill the unborn" is an oxymoronic phrase?
• The one that says the unborn are not persons?

Um.. both.

Okay, so....

• "Kill the unborn" as an oxymoronic phrase: You've looked up and cited the definition of oxymoron, so there's not much to say there. That which has yet to be born cannot be killed.
• Regardless of where one's loyalties and morals lie as goes the person status of fetuses, the status of personhood is a status and the rights appertaining to it, for better or worse, is, are, in the U.S., established by law, no matter how much one or many may agree or disagree with that being so. People on one side of the issue argue that personhood is as fundamental as is the wetness of water and disagree with the law as it stands. People on the other side assert that status is not nearly so immutable and that personhood is but a legal state of being and concur with the law as it stands.
  
  The central distinction between the two positions is whether viability equals personhood. Now it happens that I find all arguments I've seen (and I think I've seen them all) that assert there be no difference between viability and personhood suffer from several critical logical shortcoming. One way or another, they each derive from and require one to accept a hypothesis that is contrary to fact line of argumentation, and or one or several of that line's "relatives." (E.g., "what if," "just in case," etc.) Simply put, there is for no fetus any guarantee that it can or will, even absent "extraordinary" intervention such as abortion, ever be born and thus obtain person status.
  
  The problem with your denial that "kill the unborn" is an oxymoronic phrase is that your position relies on the potential to be born as being equivalent to being born. Well, the fact is that those two circumstances of existence are not equivalent, not in law and not in reality. So, no, I don't see any basis for your implication of my remark about "kill the unborn" being an oxymoronic phrase that also depends on disingenuousness to be so.

 

[GHook93]

I disagree. I think there are way more people than you think that would vote third party. The problem is, too many of them think like you do. Simply resigning themselves to the false narrative that there simply is not enough of us. There is, and if we could just convince enough people of that reality, the rest will take care of it's self.

I wonder what would happen if the Libertarians, the Green party, and maybe one or two other "fringe" parties got together and said, "We will put aside that which we disagree on, in order to come together on what we do agree on." I wonder what would happen. I know, the ideological differences are far greater than that which would allow such a thing, but what if...

Sure, what if. What if grandma had balls? She would be grandpa. I prefer to accept reality. Saying what if if is just fine, and everybody should do it often, but saying that without also considering reality is just childish.

Agreed, it would be childish to not consider reality. The reality for me is, neither "major" candidate represents me or my views enough to get my vote. I think a lot of people would agree with me, from both "sides" of the aisle. Now I would disagree with many of them on what we would want, but that does not change the fact that there are far more people that detest the current two party system than you seem willing to accept.

Accepting the two party system is not the same as accepting everything that is done. It's a fact that the right has jumped the shark, and their platform is not good for the country, and it is a fact that the left has done things in response to that, The difference is that Democrats are still within the bounds of reason, and sanity, even if they aren't as close to perfect as I or you might wish.

I am unsure on all of what you are attempting to say. However, to say the Dems are still within the bounds of reason, is denial, at best.
Example: It's perfectly fine for a woman to kill her unborn child, but killing a convicted criminal is cruel/unusual punishment.

Referring to legal abortion as killing a child is beyond the bounds of reason and sanity. That's a perfect example of the hysterics that dragged the right beyond those bounds.

It is absolutely not beyond reason or sanity. It is actually the truth. Abortion is killing a fetus which is a baby. Grow a sac and own up to what abortion is. It is killing a baby, esp in the later terms.

While I recognize this, I nevertheless, remain pro-choice in the 1st trimester. I think abortion is the better of 2 evils.

 

[jwoodie]

Well we know lowering taxes on corporations certainly does not create jobs.

That's right, only the government can create jobs.

 

[jwoodie]

I get it. If enough people wanted a third party, we would have a third party. The fact is there aren't enough people that do. You may think you are sending a message to the two parties that they better change, but the only message that is getting through is that you are having a tantrum and choose to throw your vote away. It's your vote,and you have every right to throw it away, but pretending you are accomplishing anything is just lying to yourself.

The fact is there aren't enough people that do.

I disagree. I think there are way more people than you think that would vote third party. The problem is, too many of them think like you do. Simply resigning themselves to the false narrative that there simply is not enough of us. There is, and if we could just convince enough people of that reality, the rest will take care of it's self.

I wonder what would happen if the Libertarians, the Green party, and maybe one or two other "fringe" parties got together and said, "We will put aside that which we disagree on, in order to come together on what we do agree on." I wonder what would happen. I know, the ideological differences are far greater than that which would allow such a thing, but what if...

Sure, what if. What if grandma had balls? She would be grandpa. I prefer to accept reality. Saying what if if is just fine, and everybody should do it often, but saying that without also considering reality is just childish.

Agreed, it would be childish to not consider reality. The reality for me is, neither "major" candidate represents me or my views enough to get my vote. I think a lot of people would agree with me, from both "sides" of the aisle. Now I would disagree with many of them on what we would want, but that does not change the fact that there are far more people that detest the current two party system than you seem willing to accept.

Accepting the two party system is not the same as accepting everything that is done. It's a fact that the right has jumped the shark, and their platform is not good for the country, and it is a fact that the left has done things in response to that, The difference is that Democrats are still within the bounds of reason, and sanity, even if they aren't as close to perfect as I or you might wish.

I am unsure on all of what you are attempting to say. However, to say the Dems are still within the bounds of reason, is denial, at best.
Example: It's perfectly fine for a woman to kill her unborn child, but killing a convicted criminal is cruel/unusual punishment.

Not only that, it is considered a double homicide if someone kills a pregnant woman on her way to have an abortion. Apparently, it all depends on who's doing the killing.