You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 02, 2016, 08:42:21 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Hillary for President??  (Read 27497 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #100 on: December 02, 2006, 09:01:23 AM »
Quote
Such an event cannot be attributed or blamed on the citizens who are raised in the country, but rests on the head of the government for not regulating and attempting to keep up with the economy.


 That depends on what level of regulation that occures. Too much and the economy is stiffled, too little and it tends to get sloppy and corrupt.

 
Quote
So now we have a forty year old mother of one who lives in poverty with no health insurance or ability to save to put her daughter through highschool.  This is all due to what, our economy switching from an industrial one to a servide industry where the wages are lower?  Or inability to attend classes due to working forty hours a week and raising her child?  Or is it due to her just being stupid and lazy cause that is what is so comfortable to believe?

 Unless she is putting her daughter thru a private school or home scholling her, then she does not have to pay for schooling since that is already taken out in taxes. Her daughter can go to public school.

 Minimum wage is not and never has been intended to be a living wage for a family. One bread winner cannot make enough to feed a family of 4 on it. That's not it's purpose.

 On a brighter note, it looks like Hillary is being undercut by people of her own party, so she might not run.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #101 on: December 26, 2006, 05:48:11 AM »
You are assuming that money is the only issue when putting a child through any form of schooling.  There is of course the idea of who will watch over the daughter when she comes home from school, who will pick her up from school if the bus service does not run at times or locations condusive to their living situation, and who cares for the child when she gets sick.  Few minimum wage jobs have sick time or paid vacation, so a woman making already little must now take off work in order to take their child to the hospital, or sit at home with them in the least.  Funny enough, higher paying jobs where people can afford to take off work offer those benefits. 

I agree, minimum wage is not for one person to support three...but one person should be able to support themselves and a dependent on it.  As it stands, one person cannot support themselves on minimum wage.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #102 on: December 26, 2006, 08:47:42 AM »
 *shrugs* Then find a roomie. After time(usually a few months) the pay increases as the person moves from the lower tiers to something a bit higher. It takes time and minimum wage is just a starting wage.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #103 on: December 30, 2006, 07:50:10 AM »
Well, that is very well and good to expect your twenty year old college buddy to take a roommate.  This becomes complicated when you are forty years old and working at a grocery store and have a child.  There are of course problems with finding people willing to share an apartment with someone who has a child, finding people who can be trusted with said child, and in general having to pay a larger portion of the rent because of the child.  There is also the issue that once they come of age, children are expected to have a room for themselves (note they can share with a same sex sibling or others of similiar age I believe). 

Also the idea that the minimum wage is considered a "starting" wage is kind of naive.  I remember working at a place where, with raises, the highest you could go was 6.50 an hour.  After that, you just had to hope you could find something else that paid more.  Why would an employer pay more for a worker that does the same task, expierence doesn't help you bag faster or flip burgers.  The cost of training new employees is almost nothing at the low end of these buisnesses.  What does it cost to train a 16 year old worker to flip burgers or work the cash register?  Now there is the off chance they can go onto manager, without getting a college degree.  Even then only one person can take that spot, out of how many workers still earning minimum wage or slightly above?

Offline Sugarman (hal)

  • Mind is the perfection of love making, the heart guides its course.
  • At Rest
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2006
  • Location: Iím lost! Iíve gone looking for myself.
  • Gender: Male
  • Free Tibet
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #104 on: December 30, 2006, 01:54:11 PM »
The problem is there not just using 16 year old. They use anyone willing to work part time to avoid paying medical benefits. Ya ya ya

Offline National Acrobat

  • Elliquiy's Resident Heavy Metallurgist
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2005
  • Location: Virginia, USA
  • Gender: Male
  • Black candles burn, all minds aligned
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #105 on: January 01, 2007, 03:05:20 PM »
The problem is there not just using 16 year old. They use anyone willing to work part time to avoid paying medical benefits. Ya ya ya

Perhaps so, but there are always people willing to work and if there is someone willing to take the job that pays 6.50 an hour without benefits, then you can't blame them. I can use my former employer, a hospital, as a great example. For every person that quit a job that paid 8.00 an hour because they thought they deserved more money, we had 100 applicants for the same job when it opened up. Granted, that was an above minimum wage job, but by no means was it a 30K a year position.

Minimum wage is indeed only intended to be a starting point, it is not intended to be a livable wage as it stands.

Offline Sugarman (hal)

  • Mind is the perfection of love making, the heart guides its course.
  • At Rest
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2006
  • Location: Iím lost! Iíve gone looking for myself.
  • Gender: Male
  • Free Tibet
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #106 on: January 01, 2007, 04:26:28 PM »
May I ask what you would be willing to pay for the care of you grandmother or your disabled sister? How about minimum wage there... because thats what is IHSS (In Home Supportive Services) pays.  How about you getting stranded in bed by your minimum wage attendant because she decided to not work anymore. It happens lots,  I know first hand.

Offline National Acrobat

  • Elliquiy's Resident Heavy Metallurgist
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2005
  • Location: Virginia, USA
  • Gender: Male
  • Black candles burn, all minds aligned
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #107 on: January 02, 2007, 07:58:23 AM »
May I ask what you would be willing to pay for the care of you grandmother or your disabled sister? How about minimum wage there... because thats what is IHSS (In Home Supportive Services) pays.  How about you getting stranded in bed by your minimum wage attendant because she decided to not work anymore. It happens lots,  I know first hand.

That's a loaded question, because I don't run an IHSS company. I'm pretty sure not every one of those companies pays shit for salaries. My wife's great uncle and grandmother both had in-home care for the last year of their respective lives, and my mother-in-law paid those folks roughly 12-13$ an hour. Granted, it was a private company that referred people to her.

Each scenario is different. I'd pay what I can afford. I'm not made of money, so I guess I'd be SOL in that case, now wouldn't I?

Offline LancisTopic starter

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #108 on: January 22, 2007, 05:12:58 AM »
So back to the original purpose here... lol

Hillary is actually running, any guesses on her Vegas odds? lol

Offline Sugarman (hal)

  • Mind is the perfection of love making, the heart guides its course.
  • At Rest
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2006
  • Location: Iím lost! Iíve gone looking for myself.
  • Gender: Male
  • Free Tibet
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #109 on: January 22, 2007, 02:31:03 PM »
So back to the original purpose here... lol

Hillary is actually running, any guesses on her Vegas odds? lol

1 in 5 to get the nomination and 1 in 3 chance to win the presidency. As vice president much better odds but she won't go that way. All my opinion though.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #110 on: January 22, 2007, 10:39:26 PM »
 After being second fiddle to Bill in the White House, she wouldn't settle for anything but President. So no VP for her. I'd say 1-3 against. She is hated by alot of people on the right side of the line, and by a good number of Democrates as well.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #111 on: January 23, 2007, 06:26:48 AM »
Ok this is going to sound bad and if she is the Democratic Candidate she will get my vote but I want Obama to be the candidate we put out there for the Presidency. I have several reasons he is moderate, he is progressive and fresh, he is not heavily into the system and his lack of experience doesn't bother me. Lincoln had little experience and he knew how to delegate authority t people that can do the job. So did another one with little experience from my party Roosevelt you must have heard of him.

The one reason I add is Hillary is a woman. I know I'm a lesbian and a woman but I strongly prefer to pick a MAN for the office. Face it that is in my opinion more important to many. I look at Hillary she is a fine legislator but we are more likely to get Obama in than a woman I think. I know its sexist and not progressive of me but Obama looks presidential, looks like a Kennedy, has no major skeletons yet to worry about and is a MAN. If we want the Presidency he is the most electable of the two with the least problems.

I did volunteer for his campaign in my area so let cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!

(Whatever happens though a Democrate must take the office so we end the stalemate and bring MY party into absolute control Bush is clearly not going along with OUR program. So Hillary or Obama as long as its not a Republican I'm fine with my vote for either.)

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #112 on: January 23, 2007, 09:25:10 AM »
(Whatever happens though a Democrate must take the office so we end the stalemate and bring MY party into absolute control Bush is clearly not going along with OUR program. So Hillary or Obama as long as its not a Republican I'm fine with my vote for either.)

 We just got finished with 12 years of total Republican rule in both the Presidency and Congress and you want to have total Democrate rule? I know for a fact they cannot rule any better than Republicans can in that way. Better to have the Houses split between parties, then one ruling both Houses of Congress and the Presidency.

 You are wrong on one thing, and I hope this does not offend you. SCREW the Democtate program! They are not the President. Bush is and until he leaves office HE sets the national agenda, and foreign policy. Until the Democrates get control of the White House, they have no say at all in national and foreign policies. The Presidency controls the Departments, not Congress.  The Democrates are a raise taxes party and will do so as soon as possible.
 The new House leader recently had the rules changed for raising taxes. The Republicans had changed the rules so it took a super magority (65-70%) Yes vote to raise taxes. One of the first things she did was to drop that to 51% magority. She just made it alot easier to raise taxes.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #113 on: January 23, 2007, 10:22:29 AM »
Excuse me BUSH lied to get us into this useless war in Iraq. BUSH is abusing his authority tossing out the Constitutionbal safeguards. BUSH was sent the message clearly by the American People and since the Congress determine legislation, control the money and have just as much right to determine national policy.

And MUST I point out out country is spending more than its taking in we either must cut programs and that is not going to be easy what do we cut? Social Security Disability, money to Medicare, military we are in a state of war right now- so where?

Or you generate more revenue for the government that means taxes mostly. And the Democrats are targeting corporate tax breaks are they not and are not likely to act stupidly but with a massive national debt and still a deficite we have to act intelligently. So businesses and people may have to pay more to pay for their government that is the way things are. What you don't want to pay any taxes then how do we pay for all the programs this nation now supports from support for the needy and disabled, to veterans to all the vital services that must be funded.


Offline National Acrobat

  • Elliquiy's Resident Heavy Metallurgist
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2005
  • Location: Virginia, USA
  • Gender: Male
  • Black candles burn, all minds aligned
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #114 on: January 23, 2007, 05:18:21 PM »
I would give Hillary a 50% of getting the nomination if she can manage to spell out a platform and speak about the issues. I think that will be the hardest sell for any candidate, regardless of party in '08. Spell out your position on the issues, and give candid answers to questions. Americans want change, but if the democrats don't provide it and the same old atmosphere prevails in DC around election time, all the goodwill they earned will have disappeared.

Hillary's biggest obstacle is her divisiveness. She's a polarizing figure that will mobilize many republicans to get out to vote.


As for the three branches of Government, I would prefer that the Congress and the President not belong to the same party. It's been proven that nothing gets done when that is the case, you can see that from Bush's first six years. Either you have a rubber stamp Congress, or you having in-fighting among the party in power. Checks and Balances are there for a reason.


Offline Sugarman (hal)

  • Mind is the perfection of love making, the heart guides its course.
  • At Rest
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2006
  • Location: Iím lost! Iíve gone looking for myself.
  • Gender: Male
  • Free Tibet
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #115 on: January 23, 2007, 05:40:16 PM »
The real issue is the war. Now because we are uping the anti.. money and men.

Well any candidate will be riding a thin rail. On one hand the majority want the thing over but on the other hand, can we get out without a true mess with mud all over our face and not letting our troops down. The democratic face a hard issue. If they freeze funds for the war they face a public backlash. If they support Bush's effects to sell his war then they may not be effective and offer a difference. Just part of the established order.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #116 on: January 23, 2007, 07:53:19 PM »
Quote
Excuse me BUSH lied to get us into this useless war in Iraq.

 Prove it.

 
Quote
BUSH is abusing his authority tossing out the Constitutionbal safeguards.


 Debatable. That is for the courts to decide.

 
Quote
BUSH was sent the message clearly by the American People and since the Congress determine legislation, control the money and have just as much right to determine national policy.

 He's still the President, and has a large say in what that national policy is because he can veto bills. Right now he's willing to sign into law the Illegal Amesty bill when it reaches his desk. in spite of every poll of the American people saying that they want the border sealed and illegal immigrants(alines) stopped from coming into the country.Foreign policy is completely his though.

  Don't forget that the President sends legislation into Congress to be debated and argued over as well. The margin of control of the Senate in Democrat hands is razor thin. That does NOT give them a mandate.
 
 
Quote
And MUST I point out out country is spending more than its taking in we either must cut programs and that is not going to be easy what do we cut? Social Security Disability, money to Medicare, military we are in a state of war right now- so where?

 Cut Social security then. At least for people who make opver a certain amount of money. Also cut ANY medicade/care/medical benefits for the wealthy. They don't need it. There are hundreds of earmarks, programs that can be cut or trimmed to find money.

 
Quote
Or you generate more revenue for the government that means taxes mostly. And the Democrats are targeting corporate tax breaks are they not and are not likely to act stupidly but with a massive national debt and still a deficite we have to act intelligently. So businesses and people may have to pay more to pay for their government that is the way things are. What you don't want to pay any taxes then how do we pay for all the programs this nation now supports from support for the needy and disabled, to veterans to all the vital services that must be funded.

 Raising taxes will harm the economy. The tax cuts helped it recover from the mild recession that hit in the beginning of Bush's Presidency, and after 9-11. The amount of money coming into the Treasury has increased well beyond what came in, in the 90's. Raise taxes and the amount of money flowing into the Treasury weill slow or decline. Higher taxes harm economic growth since there is LESS money in the hands of people and corporations.

 You're forgetting that currently there are more Americans in the stock market than ever before. The vast majority of senior citizens have stock.

 Democrates are targetting more than corporate breaks. They are targetting corporations and wealthy people. Stock earnings, death taxes, property taxes. And thgey use the money to pay you off. By giving you benefits that most do NOT need.

 Now before you blow a artery, listen for a moment. I am willing to give aid top those who truely deserve it. The elderly, disabled, vetrans, but NOT the damned healthy moochers that sit on their fat arses and hold out a hand for governmental assistance. Like the Katrina people. Any of them who are healthy and STILL living in FEMA money deserved to get kicked out on their butts or arrested. It's been over a f*cking year since Katrina. time for them to get off of their butts and do something.

 People should be accountable for themselves first and not use the government unless there is real need, and I mean real need. There are too many moochers on governmental assistance.

  The part in highlights is specially annoyingg. You want them to pay even more than they are because they have more? And give it to other people? They already pay more. Currently the top 25% of wealth earners pay over 88% of ALL federally collected income taxes. The top 5% pay 34% of that amont, so don't tell me that they aren't paying enough. Also. the amount of adult Americans paying income taxes is 51%. What happenes when that number drops below 50%? What's fair then? The majority voting in people who take even more money from the few who pay taxes so they can get some of the pie?

Offline National Acrobat

  • Elliquiy's Resident Heavy Metallurgist
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2005
  • Location: Virginia, USA
  • Gender: Male
  • Black candles burn, all minds aligned
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #117 on: January 24, 2007, 07:16:42 AM »
Virginia has finally woken up, and the legislature is debating a flat tax on all goods, fees and services, which I think is the way to go. Raising taxes on businesses even more will harm the economy, Virginia realizes that. Raising taxes on businesses more will prompt those businesses to move their operations to other states.

The key is to spend wisely, without raising taxes. I still think a flat tax is most likely the most fair and equitable solution. The percentage is equally applied across the board, those who can afford more expensive items end up paying more, those who spend little end up paying less.

Offline Celestial Goblin

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #118 on: January 26, 2007, 01:38:27 PM »
Can I inquire what do people think about the other, non-Hillary democrat possibles?
Obama, Gore and there was someone else mentioned (not Kerry though).
Especially people from the 'economic right' who seem angry with moves towards welfare states.

And on the same note, what of the possible republican candidates? And does anyone of them seem attractive to people considering themselves democrats or other kind of left?

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #119 on: January 26, 2007, 02:00:47 PM »
Well I feel Obama has the best chance if nothing else he is a man and has less baggage than Hillary. Plus I would rather she stay where she can do the most damage in the COngress where she is a fine member of that body.

As for the Republican pull out a nice sensible IKE-like moderate choice that will pick the best people of any party to do the work and puts the NATION first then I would consider them. I don't see any right now.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #120 on: January 28, 2007, 02:16:50 PM »
 Yeah. I'm not sure about any Democratic candidates. Hillary would be the worst choice possible. Unless the current DNC chairman, Howard Dean runs. As bad as Hillary is, he's worse.

  For Republicans, I'm not sure either. there are no true conservatives running for high office anymore. I don't know if there are any Ike types out in the field.

Offline Sugarman (hal)

  • Mind is the perfection of love making, the heart guides its course.
  • At Rest
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2006
  • Location: Iím lost! Iíve gone looking for myself.
  • Gender: Male
  • Free Tibet
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #121 on: January 28, 2007, 02:45:43 PM »
Obama, it seems, now has a monkey on his back. Someone passed out a rumor that he may have been educated as a radical Muslim as a kid. Maybe is a falsehood but shit sticks. So his chances are diminished.

Offline Moondazed

  • Hmm... plot or pleasure? Perhaps a bit of both...
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2006
  • Location: Virginia, US
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm a switch, name your pleasure...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #122 on: January 28, 2007, 03:23:24 PM »
I always wonder why everyone is so afraid of a politician who expresses emotion.  Howard Dean did a lot of his speeches without a script, without a pre-written, word-for-word speech-writer-created speech in hand, which I found incredibly refreshing.   I guess I shouldn't be surprised that he didn't make it... Gods forbid a politician not be "politically correct"!  I'm not sure our current system could cope with someone who believes what they say with enough conviction not to need a script. *sigh*

Offline Jefepato

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #123 on: January 28, 2007, 05:46:34 PM »
Obama, it seems, now has a monkey on his back. Someone passed out a rumor that he may have been educated as a radical Muslim as a kid. Maybe is a falsehood but shit sticks. So his chances are diminished.

The story got discredited really fast, though, so he might still have a shot.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #124 on: January 28, 2007, 08:09:02 PM »
I always wonder why everyone is so afraid of a politician who expresses emotion.  Howard Dean did a lot of his speeches without a script, without a pre-written, word-for-word speech-writer-created speech in hand, which I found incredibly refreshing.   I guess I shouldn't be surprised that he didn't make it... Gods forbid a politician not be "politically correct"!  I'm not sure our current system could cope with someone who believes what they say with enough conviction not to need a script. *sigh*

 That's not why I don't like him. He's a very leftist liberal. That's why I don't like him. I do not trust him further than I could throw him.