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

 

Hey! We do live in Kentucky. It is our birthright to support the candidate of our choosing, even after we've been in the grave for ten years.

 

 

Frances

Frances, we are in agreement that we either raise taxes or cut spending. I personally favor the latter.

 

However, the reality is that there are a substantial number of voters who, if honest, will admit that they prefer the former because their personal "standard of living" would be negatively effected by cutting spending. And, since the real objective of elected officials is to perpetrate their own power and since they must be reelected to do so, both sides will cater to the source of the most votes. Thus, the chances of my preferred cutting of programs are, at best, poor and, realistically, nonexistent.

 

It is always a popular stance to preach taxing the "rich". Of course, the definition of "rich" is evasive although most seem to believe that that designation only fits the "other guy" and certainly not them. After all, they are merely the "working man"- whatever that term really means.

 

In the end, I think you must admit that, although GW raised taxes and although W has lacked a backbone in using the veto (remember, congress spends the money and not the president), it is more likely that "entitlement programs" (ie: welfare programs) will expand under a Democrat administration than under a Republican administration. The political bases of the parties would seem to indicate that.

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

 

You do not even know what kind of president she might be and you've decided you're going to vote for her anyway? Twice? That is one of the problems in politics these days. Blindly voting party line. And yes, both sides have a large group of voters who vote this way.

Hey! We do live in Kentucky. It is our birthright to support the candidate of our choosing, even after we've been in the grave for ten years.

 

 

Frances

 

It's already in my will.

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

 

Yes, the oft-forgotten economic growth of the country as a whole thus expansion of existing tax bases.

So it looks like it's going to Obama vs Hillary...wow, a black man, and a woman...exciting no doubt...Obama could maybe earn my Presidential vote....Hillary never.

You do not even know what kind of president she might be and you've decided you're going to vote for her anyway? Twice? That is one of the problems in politics these days. Blindly voting party line. And yes, both sides have a large group of voters who vote this way.

I do know what kind of president she will be and that's why if she gets the nomination I will vote for her. I will also vote for her twice if she gets a second nomination. I have never blindly voted for anything in my life, so please don't assume that I do. I am old enough and smart enough to jump over to the other side to vote when I feel the jump is necessary. I think she is a very intelligent person and that's what scares so many people into saying, IMO, undeserved hurtful remarks about her. I'm one of those Dems who believes that a Rep might just have better ideas sometimes, not that I can say that about these past 6 years. I don't think that anyone has to go into a panic about this because I don't the the nation, as a whole, is smart enough to understand that a woman actually can be president.

I think Hillary has a vendetta she is yearning to emplore, I do not want her to be the most powerful person on Earth.

I think Hillary has a vendetta she is yearning to emplore, I do not want her to be the most powerful person on Earth.

 

How in the world can you make this statement with a straight face, after watching Bush take us into Iraq?

 

And please - spare me the line "The Democrats voted for it too". We all know what happened, we all know where we currently stand, and we all know that the outcome of this fiasco isn't going to be good.

 

 

Frances

Yes, the oft-forgotten economic growth of the country as a whole thus expansion of existing tax bases.

 

Okay - I'll bite.

 

How large does our tax base have to expand for us to pay off $8.6 TRILLION of national debt? How many more businesses have to start up, how many more people have to earn a paycheck, and just how far do we have to reduce taxes to reach these goals?

 

 

Frances

Frances, we are in agreement that we either raise taxes or cut spending. I personally favor the latter.

 

However, the reality is that there are a substantial number of voters who, if honest, will admit that they prefer the former because their personal "standard of living" would be negatively effected by cutting spending. And, since the real objective of elected officials is to perpetrate their own power and since they must be reelected to do so, both sides will cater to the source of the most votes. Thus, the chances of my preferred cutting of programs are, at best, poor and, realistically, nonexistent.

 

It is always a popular stance to preach taxing the "rich". Of course, the definition of "rich" is evasive although most seem to believe that that designation only fits the "other guy" and certainly not them. After all, they are merely the "working man"- whatever that term really means.

 

In the end, I think you must admit that, although GW raised taxes and although W has lacked a backbone in using the veto (remember, congress spends the money and not the president), it is more likely that "entitlement programs" (ie: welfare programs) will expand under a Democrat administration than under a Republican administration. The political bases of the parties would seem to indicate that.

 

Scooterbob -

 

Like you, I personally favor cutting spending as well. I am also smart enough to know that short of shutting down the federal government, our debt is not going to go away. The truth is that the only way out of this hole is a combination of raising taxes AND cutting spending.

 

I would disagree with your closing assumption - there is nothing that gives me any reason to expect that the Republican party will take the needed steps any more than the Democrats will. Back in the days of Proxmire and Goldwater, I would have agreed with you - but those days are gone.

 

 

Frances

How in the world can you make this statement with a straight face, after watching Bush take us into Iraq?

 

Frances

Because I support us being in this war. Plain and simple.

Because I support us being in this war. Plain and simple.

 

Well, I have to give you credit. Considering the current situation in Iraq, the cost, and the future of where it is going, it takes guts to admit that in a public forum.

 

I'm curious - what vendetta do you think Hillary Clinton is "yearning to emplore"?

 

 

Frances

Scooterbob -

 

Like you, I personally favor cutting spending as well. I am also smart enough to know that short of shutting down the federal government, our debt is not going to go away. The truth is that the only way out of this hole is a combination of raising taxes AND cutting spending.

 

I would disagree with your closing assumption - there is nothing that gives me any reason to expect that the Republican party will take the needed steps any more than the Democrats will. Back in the days of Proxmire and Goldwater, I would have agreed with you - but those days are gone.

 

 

Frances

 

What do you mean by saying that the days of Goldwater are gone forever? I still have my AUH2O bumpersticker and had hoped to put it back on the 1964 Pontiac GTO later this year.

 

Of course, those of my particular philosophy are always accused of living in the past. And the truth is the past was sure better.

What do you mean by saying that the days of Goldwater are gone forever? I still have my AUH2O bumpersticker and had hoped to put it back on the 1964 Pontiac GTO later this year.

 

Of course, those of my particular philosophy are always accused of living in the past. And the truth is the past was sure better.

 

LOL - I can remember asking my mom what the AUH2O bumpersticker meant. You're taking me back to the days of my youth now.

 

 

Frances