Hillary Announces

[GottaRebound]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didnt he lose the Popular vote but won the Electoral vote?

[scooterbob]

Maybe I am being too simplistic but isn't it likely a large percentage of those who would put someone like Hillary or Obama in office are also those who live on and depend on "entitlements" from the government for much of their livelihood? To be blunt, those on various and sundry welfare programs are the most likely people to put Hillary or Obama in office.

 

Since this is the case, is it realistic to think that spending will decrease under one of the liberals?

 

Therefore, it would appear that those of us who actually pay the bills will see the price for subsidizing our fellow citizens go up materially if we get Hillary and/or the lightweight, Obama. Am I wrong on this?

[Augger]

I am glad Hillary is running. I have been wanting to Vote AGIANST her, ever since the first person said that she was considering the run for the oval office.

[HHSDad]

Lets stay on the topic of Hillary.

[leatherneck]

I'm glad she's running and I hope that she wins the Democratic primary. Go Hillary!

[75center]

Maybe I am being too simplistic but isn't it likely a large percentage of those who would put someone like Hillary or Obama in office are also those who live on and depend on "entitlements" from the government for much of their livelihood? To be blunt, those on various and sundry welfare programs are the most likely people to put Hillary or Obama in office.

 

Since this is the case, is it realistic to think that spending will decrease under one of the liberals?

 

Therefore, it would appear that those of us who actually pay the bills will see the price for subsidizing our fellow citizens go up materially if we get Hillary and/or the lightweight, Obama. Am I wrong on this?

 

No, you're not wrong on this.

[75center]

I would like to ask this question since she now has announced her intentions. Does anyone think she might ask Barack Obama to be her running mate is she wins the nomination?

 

I have heard that and it seems plausible. She would have to weigh the votes and excitement he brings against him overshadowing her on the campaign trail.

[Frances Bavier]

Maybe I am being too simplistic but isn't it likely a large percentage of those who would put someone like Hillary or Obama in office are also those who live on and depend on "entitlements" from the government for much of their livelihood? To be blunt, those on various and sundry welfare programs are the most likely people to put Hillary or Obama in office.

 

Since this is the case, is it realistic to think that spending will decrease under one of the liberals?

 

Therefore, it would appear that those of us who actually pay the bills will see the price for subsidizing our fellow citizens go up materially if we get Hillary and/or the lightweight, Obama. Am I wrong on this?

 

I believe that you are being too simplistic. Entitlement programs are not limited to Welfare, and the programs which you do not directly benefit from. That category also includes programs such as Social Security. I highly doubt that many conservatives are refusing those checks, in spite of their strong sense of indignation that we are helping the poor of this country.

 

 

The truth is, for the last six years, we have ALL been receiving entitlements. Until we actually pay for the benefits that our government bestows upon us, we are simply lying to ourselves.

 

 

Frances

[scooterbob]

I would, of course, disagree with the contents of your post. I suppose you could say that, if one is admitted to a game without payment for his ticket and another pays $1,000.00 for his ticket, both received the "entitlement" of watching the game. However, I doubt the latter feels that he has been "subsidized" in any manner.

 

And, of course, if we use Social Security as an example, we must consider how it has been expanded far beyond its original purpose. Thus, the non-payer would also receive free food and drink and a nice ride home after the game.

[Frances Bavier]

I would, of course, disagree with the contents of your post. I suppose you could say that, if one is admitted to a game without payment for his ticket and another pays $1,000.00 for his ticket, both received the "entitlement" of watching the game. However, I doubt the latter feels that he has been "subsidized" in any manner.

 

And, of course, if we use Social Security as an example, we must consider how it has been expanded far beyond its original purpose. Thus, the non-payer would also receive free food and drink and a nice ride home after the game.

 

Regardless of analogies, Social Security is an entitlement program. If we are to bemoan entitlements, then let's at least be honest enough to admit that they are not limited to programs that we don't participate in. The fact that SS has been expanded beyond what it was originally intended for is immaterial. When you are old enough to receive SS payments, you either accept the checks or decline them.

 

I would submit that you are not against entitlements per se - rather, it would be more accurate to say that you are against entitlements for people that don't pay into the system at the same rate that you do.

 

Fair enough?

 

 

Frances

[scooterbob]

I suppose for those who pay more into the process than they will ever receive, you could use the term "entitlement" since they should be entitled to something for their investment. The term "entitlement" as used in today's politically correct world is a misnomer.

 

If you do not invest, you are not entitled to a return. Call it an "entitlement" if you choose but, in fact, it is "welfare". Now, I'm not opposing helping the truly needy and I think you know that. However, if I have my hand out, I am not really entitled to anything. I am merely asking for assistance from others. Somewhere along the line, if I am mentally and physically able, I should be required to close my hand, get out of bed, and contribute.

 

Of course, "dependency" is big business for many. Where would the Jesse Jacksons of the world be without it?

[RebelK]

I find all of the "doom and gloom" posts rather odd.

 

I don't know what you are looking for in a President, but if you fear that she can lead us into an unnecessary war that costs us close to a trillion dollars and a few thousand lives, I'm afraid she'll just be a big disappointment.

 

Maybe you're afraid that she'll run up the national debt, by spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave. Not to worry - that's already been done.

 

Oh, I know what it is - you fear that maybe she'll actually ask us to pay our own way, as we feed on the federal teat, rather than simply pass the debt on to the next ten generations.

 

Well, not to worry. At least it will be a pleasure seeing everyone on BGP rally behind OUR President - the elected leader of our country. I know that will happen, because I've been reading on this site for the last two years about what scalliwags most of us are for not blindly following our current fearless leader - the one that brought us to our present position in the Middle East. :thumb:

 

In all honesty, I don't care if it's a Democrat or a Republican in the White House next. I just want it to be someone that can actually see the middle of the road, and understands that compromise isn't a dirty word.

 

 

 

Frances

:thumb: :thumb: I can only hope that I get the chance to vote for her twice like I did for her husband.

[Frances Bavier]

I suppose for those who pay more into the process than they will ever receive, you could use the term "entitlement" since they should be entitled to something for their investment. The term "entitlement" as used in today's politically correct world is a misnomer.

 

If you do not invest, you are not entitled to a return. Call it an "entitlement" if you choose but, in fact, it is "welfare". Now, I'm not opposing helping the truly needy and I think you know that. However, if I have my hand out, I am not really entitled to anything. I am merely asking for assistance from others. Somewhere along the line, if I am mentally and physically able, I should be required to close my hand, get out of bed, and contribute.

 

Of course, "dependency" is big business for many. Where would the Jesse Jacksons of the world be without it?

 

Like you, I get major heartburn over people that are capable of working, but simply choose to live off Welfare. I was (and still am) a strong proponent of the "Welfare to Workfare" program.

 

On the other hand, I fully understand that some on this thread are trying to imply that if a Democrat sits in the White House, taxes will go up because we will give money to lazy people. THAT is an oversimplification of the situation. The truth is, regardless of who sits in the White House for the next 30 years, we will (at some point) have to pay back the money that we have already spent. There are only two ways to do that - raise taxes, or cut spending.

 

The idea that only Democrats raise taxes is ludicrous (remember Bush the Elder saying "Read My Lips"). The notion that Republicans are the party of "small government" has been laid to rest over the last six years.

 

Let's be honest - we have some hard choices staring us in the face. We are either going to have to forego some programs that we have come to rely on, or we are going to have to ante up.

 

If someone wishes to debate Hillary Clinton because of her stance on social issues, then that is fine. If someone wishes to claim that she will raise taxes, while implying that such an act will not occur as long as we have a Republican in the White House, then they are simply lying to themselves, and expecting the rest of us to be dumb enough to buy into the lie as well.

 

I would ask you (and not rhetorically), scooterbob, if you disagree with my main point - that we will either have to cut spending (drastically) or raise taxes? Is there a third option that I do not see?

 

 

Frances

[True blue (and gold)]

:thumb: :thumb: I can only hope that I get the chance to vote for her twice like I did for her husband.

 

I will second that notion! :thumb:

[scooterbob]

:thumb: :thumb: I can only hope that I get the chance to vote for her twice like I did for her husband.

 

 

Do you plan to do so in two different elections or will you be casting both ballots for her in 2008?