Reply With Quote
Reck, you are assuming that everyone thinks these are good things. I don't.
I doubt it, she just wouldn't cut them like Trump would.
I don't see it, nothing about how she or her husband has governed has been progressive.Appoint (at the very least) a progressive supreme court justice
Maybe. The best thing she could do here would be to subsidize R&D in solar in the hope that it can eventually be done cheaply.Acknowledge and take steps to combat climate change
Not a shot in . She is pretending to be Santa Claus to the Bernie voters but how can anyone believe that proposal she made? No way Queen Center-Right turns into FDR overnight.To a certain degree, provide tuition free college
Reck, you are assuming that everyone thinks these are good things. I don't.
You guys need to remember that with the Clinton's words really matter. When Hillary promises free "tuition" that may not really mean free school. I've paid enough college bills to know the tuition was just a small part of the whole bill.
Yep, it's those "fees" and room and board.
So she'll goverm as a republican would?
She's already laid out plans to put something like half billion solar panels by the end of her first term.
Those are drastic efforts. As far as tuition free college, it can be done by raising taxes on the rich.
Besides, its not a blanket plan. Only those making less the 125k will be eligeble.
It's not a Bernie plan but it's half way there. If she wants to win re-election or even think about getting there she's going to appease the hardcore liberals and what better way to do that with doing the most basic things which is appointing a liberal judge, throw the millenials a bone and pretend she cares about climate change.
Those are things that can be done, easily. Or at least show the efforts.
True, it's ridiculously easy to make a case against Trump
Just how much money do you think can be gotten by raising taxes on the rich. And do you think they got rich by being stupid - they will find ways around it or leave.
I'm not talking policy. But you have a point. The Super Rich have really gotten soaked by Obama...and the poor have really made great gains! Hillary (who has traditionally been to O's right), I'm sure will correct that.
Enjoy your blue kool aid.
This. My kids get free tuition (wife being a professor). Just wrote a check for $6800 for this semester for my daughter.
Books, parking, housing, food, car, auto insurance, clothing, mandatory studies abroad, medical $ $ $...I thank The Good Lord everyday for remaining gainfully employed…
Yes, I think she'd govern as a pre-Gingrich Republican would, just like her husband did.
The only thing I know for SURE is that it will be lucrative for the Clinton's. I don't think the country will be particularly screwed by her policies; it's just a shame the Dems gave her the le, when there were others more deserving. 24 years later, it's 1992 all over again. Progress. Regan/Bush 12, Clinton 8, Bush 8, Obama/Clinton 12. It's a ing palindrome.
Sorry, I wasn't completely clear in my post.
I was merely curious about what you made of it, since you are one of the moderates here, whose opinion I respect. My intent was merely to see how you perceived it, rather than trying to make a case FOR anyone.
I had thought it was a bit sloppy too, but the auditor side of me wondered at how that particular mistake could be made, in a business sense. That kind of thing is a "red flag".
Turns out, after they did a bit more digging, the Trump Foundation really was treated like a private piggybank and extension of his business. Trump himself never donated much, if anything, to it, and the donations into it almost were entirely of his business partners and the money out tended to benefit those business partners in amounts that corresponded to the money they put in. (there is an NPR story on it somewhere with details about all this)
The Trump Foundation is pretty much not a charity in any meaningful sense, and borders on an abuse of the tax law in most things, aside from the blatant breaking of the law in a few cases.
What is does do, is paints another brush stroke in a picture of a greedy vain person. Not that we didn't know that about Trump already, but the thing we did learn is the lengths of dishonesty the man goes to, in furtherance of that.
Again, not making a case for or against here, just offering some thoughts.
The laffer curve argument.
Given that most of the wealth in this country is concentrated in very few hands, the only people who have money to spare are those wealthy who benefitted from the system we have.
Let's shift tacks here.
Do you think people who benefit from any given economic system have any ethical imperative to give back to that system?
Very good point.
Also a good point:
Anything helps when you are looking at rising student debt loads, and the corresponding drag on the economy.
Here is a question for you:
Does student debt help or hinder the ability of a college graduate who wants to be an entrepreneur to raise needed capital?
Well, Taxes have gone up on the wealthy under Obama. There's no denying that. And the economy didn't come to a grinding halt like so many Republicans warned.
Also, according to the latest US Census report, median household income gains were up 5%, the largest increase in 50 years.
LOL - ethical imperative to give back - people are gonna do what's in their self-interest - not sit there wondering about some mythical "ethical imperative.". Maybe if one is a Bill Gates and has loads of extra money but not normal people like me - I've got to worry about my old age (since SS and Medicare will be in serious trouble by then), I've got to worry about whether there'll be jobs for my kids or I'll have to be putting them up in my non-basement. I he, give generously of my time and pay enough taxes - I don't feel any "ethical imperative" to contribute to anyone's college tuition but my own kids'. When the government gets its irresponsible waste and overspending under control and starts working on that $20trillion debt is when I'll think that they should have more of my money in taxes - meaning NEVER.
Honestly? If it were my business, and I wrote a check to a charity for any reason whatsoever? I'm writing that off. I don't have a foundation, but it's basically the same thing. Technically not right, but I can't imagine it's not something anyone wouldn't do in a similar situation. It's also, in the relative Trumpian scheme of things, small potatoes. A check written by a foundation to a charity is not a red flag. That's kind of the point. You have to connect the dots, but the government, with it's differing regulatory bodies with various agendas and practices are not good at connecting dots. You don't get to be a billionaire without being greedy and vain, in my opinion. The Clinton's are at $80 Million. I, for one, can't identify what money making enterprise or product they are associated with to have gone from "Dead Broke" in 2000, to that now. Hillary was a Senator and SOC for most of those years. I know they got paid for some speeches, but damn. That's a lot of money. To ac ulate that wealth that quickly is not an accident. It doesn't point towards anything illegal, but I think "greed" can pretty well be assumed.
Is there really anyone out there that is thinking free room and board too?Books, parking, housing, food, car, auto insurance, clothing, mandatory studies abroad, medical $ $ $...I thank The Good Lord everyday for remaining gainfully employed…
The gubmint didn't pay your kids room and board during their high school years, did they?
I hope I didn't imply that I WANTED a free ride. In fact it is a nice benefit of my wife being a prof that we get to take advantage of. But she has earned that for our kids/ourselves. I don't want, or expect, a handout. I just replied because the memory of writing the check was so fresh.
Ever seen a college bill?
Ever realized that tuition is hardly the only cost?
Ever seen a post #78?
LOL thanks. Fuzzy just automatically ankle bites without reading.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
