A Foreshadowing???

[Colossus_500]

Symbolically speaking, might this be exactly what happens if Senator Clinton becomes our next president?   

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=7949 

[Dos Equis]

Symbolically speaking, might this be exactly what happens if Senator Clinton becomes our next president?   

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=7949 

Hahaha!  Yes.  Be afraid . . . .

Remember when she, as first lady/president, had secret meetings to discuss the federal takeover of the healthcare system?   

[Straw Man]

Hahaha!  Yes.  Be afraid . . . .

Remember when she, as first lady/president, had secret meetings to discuss the federal takeover of the healthcare system?   

yeah - kind of reminds me of Cheneys secret meetings with the oil companies in 2001.

Have you noticed the price of oil latetly?

What's the worst that Hilary would have done?  Given us all cheaper health care?

My premiums are up over 300% since Bush got in office and that's with no change in coverage and no major health issues

[Dos Equis]

yeah - kind of reminds me of Cheneys secret meetings with the oil companies in 2001.

Have you noticed the price of oil latetly?

What's the worst that Hilary would have done?  Given us all cheaper health care?

My premiums are up over 300% since Bush got in office and that's with no change in coverage and no major health issues

Cheney botched the whole Halliburton thing.  Definitely should have sold his stock and given up any interest before taking office.  That should have been a no brainer. 

I shudder to think of what Hillary will do to the country.  I really hope it doesn't happen.  She's a socialist. 

[Straw Man]

Cheney botched the whole Halliburton thing.  Definitely should have sold his stock and given up any interest before taking office.  That should have been a no brainer. 

I shudder to think of what Hillary will do to the country.  I really hope it doesn't happen.  She's a socialist. 

Bum - you have nothing to worry about.  Hilary loves corporate America and they love her right back.  She's hardly a socialist.  If anything - she's a moderate Republican.

[Dos Equis]

Bum - you have nothing to worry about.  Hilary loves corporate America and they love her right back.  She's hardly a socialist.  If anything - she's a moderate Republican.

Certainly doesn't appear to be a moderate Republican to me.  I put her in that traditional "tax and spend" category.  Also, unless you work for the government, we are all "corporate America."  Businesses come in all shapes and sizes and whatever we do to help the business community essentially benefits everyone.

[Straw Man]

Certainly doesn't appear to be a moderate Republican to me.  I put her in that traditional "tax and spend" category.  Also, unless you work for the government, we are all "corporate America."  Businesses come in all shapes and sizes and whatever we do to help the business community essentially benefits everyone.

Why would corporate America give so much money to a socialist or even someone who might raise their taxes?

Working for a corporation or a small business owner doesn't make you part of corporate america.  The majority of the population is paid on a w-2 and has an annual income of less than 100k.   Over the past 40 years the tax burden has been trasferred from wealth and assets to workers and wages.  Hilary might try to raise taxes a bit but it won't begin to fix the problem (and yes I think the top tax bracket at 91% is insane too)

btw - I'm no fan of Hilary but if she becomes the candidate I will hold my nose and vote for her (unless Bloomberg jumps into the race)

[Dos Equis]

Why would corporate America give so much money to a socialist or even someone who might raise their taxes?

Working for a corporation or a small business owner doesn't make you part of corporate america.   The majority of the population is paid on a w-2 and has an annual income of less than 100k.   Over the past 40 years the tax burden has been trasferred from wealth and assets to workers and wages.  Hilary might try to raise taxes a bit but it won't begin to fix the problem (and yes I think the top tax bracket at 91% is insane too)

btw - I'm no fan of Hilary but if she becomes the candidate I will hold my nose and vote for her (unless Bloomberg jumps into the race)

Sure it does.  Most people are owners, employees, or independent contractors.  Whatever affects businesses affects all of those people.  The results of increased costs of doing business could result in less income for an owner, loss of a job and/or inability to give a raise for an employee, and less opportunities for an independent contractor.     

[Straw Man]

Sure it does.  Most people are owners, employees, or independent contractors.  Whatever affects businesses affects all of those people.  The results of increased costs of doing business could result in less income for an owner, loss of a job and/or inability to give a raise for an employee, and less opportunities for an independent contractor.     

so you're saying in essence that the owners of large corporations have exactly the same interests as their employees with no divergence whatsoever?  Corporations and their employees have the exact same goals and use the commons of our country in exactly the same amount?   You and I have had this tax discussion before and frankly I don't have the patience for it at the moment and I might have gotten this thread off topic anyway so I'll try to get it back on track.

in the beginning of this thread you said that Hilary is socialist

I shudder to think of what Hillary will do to the country.  I really hope it doesn't happen.  She's a socialist. 

Can you tell me what makes you think that Hilary is a socialist?

It might also be helpful if you could define socialist just so I know we're working with the same basic premise

Thanks

[Dos Equis]

so you're saying in essence that the owners of large corporations have exactly the same interests as their employees with no divergence whatsoever?  Corporations and their employees have the exaxt same goals and use the commons of our country in exactly the same amount?   You and I have had this tax discussion before and frankly I don't have the patience for it at the moment and I might have gotten this thread off topic anyway so I'll try to get it back on track.

in the beginning of this thread you said that Hilary is socialist

Can you tell me what makes you think that Hilary is a socialist?

It might also be helpful if you could define socialist just so I know we're working with the same basic premise

Thanks

I didn't say everyone has the same interests.  I said, with the exception of government employees, we are all part of "corporate America."  I then specially talked about different ways that people in corporate America are affected by the increased costs of doing business.  Owners and employees may be affected in different ways.  The business owner may be concerned about, among other things, maximizing customer service and increasing profits.  The employee may be, among things, counting on a raise at the end of the year.  Those interests aren't necessarily synonymous, but the point was everyone feels the pain one way or another when businesses suffer.  Increased costs of doing business are also passed along to the consumer.  It's lose/lose anyway you look at it.

My definition of socialism is government control of the marketplace, including the redistribution of wealth.  If you want a sample of why I believe Hillary is a socialist, click the following link and take Ozmo's quiz:   http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=177125.0 

 

 

[240 is Back]

My definition of socialism is government control of the marketplace, including the redistribution of wealth.   

Our govt decided to spend $270 mil per day in Iraq.

Despite the fact that 70+% of Americans are against it.

How would you define that? 

[Straw Man]

I didn't say everyone has the same interests.  I said, with the exception of government employees, we are all part of "corporate America."  I then specially talked about different ways that people in corporate America are affected by the increased costs of doing business.  Owners and employees may be affected in different ways.  The business owner may be concerned about, among other things, maximizing customer service and increasing profits.  The employee may be, among things, counting on a raise at the end of the year.  Those interests aren't necessarily synonymous, but the point was everyone feels the pain one way or another when businesses suffer.  Increased costs of doing business are also passed along to the consumer.  It's lose/lose anyway you look at it.

My definition of socialism is government control of the marketplace, including the redistribution of wealth.  If you want a sample of why I believe Hillary is a socialist, click the following link and take Ozmo's quiz:   http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=177125.0 
 

Business will always charge what the market will bear (you should now this already being a business owner)  and increased costs are not always passed along to the consumer.  Certainly any business will try to do that but it's not always possible and often the business has to eat it.   Not necessarily a bad thing.  We the people create the rules under which corporation can exist.  We create the stable society in which they thrive.    I really don't want to get off on this topic tonight (just don't have the energy or patience).

I read Ozmo's thread when he posted it. Frankly, I can't make a judgement on statements taken out of context.  For example, the quote "I certainly think the free-market has failed."
I'd kind of like to know what came before and after that sentence.  Context is everything. 

Personally, I can't stand Hilary.  She talks and votes like a Republican most of the time.   She, like virtually all politicians will say what she think's her audience wants to hear at any given moment and has no problem talking out of both sides of her mouth.  When cornered she parses her words and won't give a definitive answer. 

Regarding your definition of socialism I hope you're aware that the government already controls the marketplace so I guess by your definition (or half of it) we're already living in a socialist state.   

[Dos Equis]

Business will always charge what the market will bear (you should now this already being a business owner)  and increased costs are not always passed along to the consumer.  Certainly any business will try to do that but it's not always possible and often the business has to eat it.   Not necessarily a bad thing.  We the people create the rules under which corporation can exist.  We create the stable society in which they thrive.    I really don't want to get off on this topic tonight (just don't have the energy or patience).

I read Ozmo's thread when he posted it. Frankly, I can't make a judgement on statements taken out of context.  For example, the quote "I certainly think the free-market has failed."
I'd kind of like to know what came before and after that sentence.  Context is everything. 

Personally, I can't stand Hilary.  She talks and votes like a Republican most of the time.   She, like virtually all politicians will say what she think's her audience wants to hear at any given moment and has no problem talking out of both sides of her mouth.  When cornered she parses her words and won't give a definitive answer. 

Regarding your definition of socialism I hope you're aware that the government already controls the marketplace so I guess by your definition (or half of it) we're already living in a socialist state.   

Increased costs of doing business aren't always directly passed along to the consumer.  I'd say that happens most of the time, but that someone feels the pinch in some way, whether it's less money provided to an employee's 401K plan at the end of the year, to having to eliminate a position. 

The government does not control the marketplace.  The government regulates the marketplace.  I have no problem with reasonable government regulation.   

[Straw Man]

Increased costs of doing business aren't always directly passed along to the consumer.  I'd say that happens most of the time, but that someone feels the pinch in some way, whether it's less money provided to an employee's 401K plan at the end of the year, to having to eliminate a position. 

The government does not control the marketplace.  The government regulates the marketplace.  I have no problem with reasonable government regulation.   

regulate/control - semantics.  All part of the same continuum.   

How would Hilary move from regulation to control?  What specifically are you talking about?  Is it health care or something else that you're worried about.

[Dos Equis]

regulate/control - semantics.  All part of the same continuum.   

How would Hilary move from regulation to control?  What specifically are you talking about?  Is it health care or something else that you're worried about.

Not semantics at all.  Regulation and control are clearly not the same.

Healthcare system is one.  The statements made in Ozmo's quiz should give you a pretty good idea of how she wants the government to control the marketplace.  If you're asking what specific things she will do to make this happen, my answer is "I don't know."  I don't want to find out either. 

[Straw Man]

Not semantics at all.  Regulation and control are clearly not the same.

Healthcare system is one.  The statements made in Ozmo's quiz should give you a pretty good idea of how she wants the government to control the marketplace.  If you're asking what specific things she will do to make this happen, my answer is "I don't know."  I don't want to find out either. 

yes it is sematics - isn't regulation a form of control?  Clearly you don't have to take physical control of something in order to control it.  You can regulate the shit out of it and effectively control it.  Anyway, don't want to get you off on a tangent about that. 

Ozmo's quiz was entertaining but it was all quotes taken out of context.  You already know my feelings about Hilary but I won't judge her (or you) based on quotes taken out of context.

You say she wants to control the marketplace but you also say you don't know what she intends to do but you're sure it's control and not regulation and you sure it will only be bad?

Mabye we'll get lucky and Edwards will become the Democratic candidate and then we won't have to worry about Hilary.  That's my hope anyway

[Dos Equis]

yes it is sematics - isn't regulation a form of control?  Clearly you don't have to take physical control of something in order to control it.  You can regulate the shit out of it and effectively control it.  Anyway, don't want to get you off on a tangent about that. 

Ozmo's quiz was entertaining but it was all quotes taken out of context.  You already know my feelings about Hilary but I won't judge her (or you) based on quotes taken out of context.

You say she wants to control the marketplace but you also say you don't know what she intends to do but you're sure it's control and not regulation and you sure it will only be bad?

Mabye we'll get lucky and Edwards will become the Democratic candidate and then we won't have to worry about Hilary.  That's my hope anyway

Yes regulation is a form of control.  The government sets certain parameters (e.g., antitrust, price gouging, registration and reporting requirements, etc.) but lets the market operate within those parameters.

Yes I'm sure Hillary will be bad.   

At this point, I have no idea who I'll be voting for, except I know it will not be a Democrat.  I actually thought Edwards wasn't so bad till he started talking about taxes.   

[Straw Man]

Yes regulation is a form of control.  The government sets certain parameters (e.g., antitrust, price gouging, registration and reporting requirements, etc.) but lets the market operate within those parameters.

Yes I'm sure Hillary will be bad.   

At this point, I have no idea who I'll be voting for, except I know it will not be a Democrat.  I actually thought Edwards wasn't so bad till he started talking about taxes.   

Your view of taxes is simplistic (sorry to be repetitive)

What if they only raised taxes on incomes > than 10,000,000 and lowered everyone else or some other variation where you personally would not be hurt.  Would you be for it then?  What if they could devise a tax increase where you were the beneficiary of the increase in revenue?    Again, we're off on a tangent here but your mantra of Dems will raise taxes is SIMPLISTIC at best.     

[Dos Equis]

Your view of taxes is simplistic (sorry to be repetitive)

What if they only raised taxes on incomes > than 10,000,000 and lowered everyone else or some other variation where you personally would not be hurt.  Would you be for it then?  What if they could devise a tax increase where you were the beneficiary of the increase in revenue?    Again, we're off on a tangent here but your mantra of Dems will raise taxes is SIMPLISTIC at best.     

It's not just about taxes.  It's about a mindset.  And I'm being repetitive, because I've said this before.  The mindset of the government should be this:  it's the people's money, let's continually figure out how everyone can keep more of their own money.  The government is irresponsible when it comes to money.