Why is Hillary Clinton the devil incarnate?

[KazooSkinsFan]

is like Reagan that small government

"Small Government" as in overseeing the largest increase in National Debt in

Um...we've covered this. The brief version

- Tax revenue doubled under Reagan
- Spending is controlled by Congress (then Democratic) not the President
- To have any meaning debt needs to be measured as a percent of the economy not in nominal dollars.

Glad I could help out with that.

Other then that, pretty convincing arguments, like the endless left obsession with the vastly overblown Iran Contra. An end of Presidency poll is certainly more compelling then actual elections where Bill never got half the voters and Reagan never got less. Thanks.

[ATV]

Spending is controlled by Congress (then Democratic) not the President

A) LOL. First two years of Clinton? Democratic Congress. Carter's, Johnson's, Kennedy's? - All Democratic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... f_congress

The only common denominator has been Reagan (and the Bushes).



Besides,

B) The President's Budget is basically a series of goals with price tags attached. It allows the President to provide a suggested spending framework to Congress for use in deciding (1) how much money to spend, (2) what to spend it on, and (3) how to raise the money they have decided to spend. According to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, the President must annually submit a budget to Congress by the first Monday in February. In addition to the proposed spending plan, the President's Budget must show:

The condition of the Treasury at the end of the last completed fiscal year.
The estimated condition of the Treasury at the end of the current fiscal year.
The estimated condition of the Treasury at the end of the next fiscal year if the budget proposals are carried out.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) assists the President in the creation of the President's Budget by gathering data from agencies and compiling it into the final plan to be approved by the President. As part of this process, OMB also studies Government services in detail and then recommends changes to the President intended to increase the economy and efficiency of Government operations.

The process of creating the President's Budget starts about a year before it is due to be submitted to Congress. It begins with the development of the President's an overall budget strategy in the spring and by summer Federal agencies submit their budget estimates based on that strategy. During the fall, the estimates provided by the agencies are reviewed by OMB and by the winter, the President's budget is reviewed, finalized, and submitted to Congress as required.

(duh)

[KazooSkinsFan]

The only common denominator has been Reagan (and the Bushes).

The Bush's are not fiscal Conservatives, I only defended Reagan. The President only proposes a budget and signs or vetoes it.

Again tax receipts under Reagan doubled. He increased defense spending by roughly 1% of GNP, but most of the increase was domestic spending and appropriations bills must be introduced in the House, which was always Democratic controlled under him.

He realized that 1% of our GNP was 10% of the USSR GNP and this hastened the collapse of the USSR. I would have liked him to fight more for cuts in domestic spending, but defense was the priority, and the result shows how right he was.

Your conclusion is not supportable from the data presented. Other then Reagan no fiscal conservative has been President in a long time and defense was his priority, so neither party is really much better or worse then the other. I'm not interested in debating where the objective is to advocate Democrats rather then discuss the true drivers and meaning of deficit spending.

The whole deficit calculations are bogus anyway. Theoretically we had surpluses under Clinton, yet every year under Clinton the National Debt went up. The Federal government uses cash accounting rather then accrual accounting as any corporation must do because cash accounting ignores future liabilities which went up greatly under Clinton. The deficit chart is cooked and manipulated numbers with more correlation to the President preceding the deficits then the current President anyway.

[ATV]

The President only proposes a budget and signs or vetoes it.

Only?!

Reagan no fiscal conservative has been President in a long time

Very simply, the charts demonstrate that Clinton, Carter, and all Republican and Democratic Presidents before, were more fiscally conservative. That's like saying the Redskins didn't suck last year because, as we all know, the Redskins are awesome.

The deficit chart is cooked, blah blah blah, excuses excuses excuses

Fine, show some "uncooked" charts.

[thaiphoon]

ATV -

One chart without context doesn't make your point..

Reagan and Bush inherited economies sliding into recession from their predecessors. Clinton inherited an economy that had already been out of recession for 20 straight months. Additionally the big point you overlook is that the biggest drop in the deficit during the 90's was a result of the GOP leadership in Congress back then forcing Clinton to sign the Welfare reform bill and cap gains cut as well as forcing him to submit a balanced budget. Clinton didn't want to do any of those and was brought kicking and screaming but he still claimed 100% credit for it (and the media let him). The result of the cap gains cut was a 5-7 fold increase in money coming into the federal treasury and thus the deficit decreased.

Think it was Clinton's policies that did it?

Think again - clinton's own forecasted budget that was released the same month that the GOP took control of Congress in the 90's had deficits over 200M as far as the eye could see. These forecasts were BASED upon clinton's policies and assumed that nothing would change in terms of economic policy. Sorry - can't credit Clinton for doing anything here except signing bills on his desk.

Finally - I've not been happy with the domestic overspending under the recent GOP COngress and Bush and have said so. But remember that neither Clinton, nor his predecessors faced a "hot" war like we're having now. And none faced the economic result of a 9/11.

On a personal note - How have you been BTW? Hope all is well for you and your family.

[Countertrey]

thaiphoon... um... ATV is on... vacation, so to speak.

It'll be a while before he responds.

[thaiphoon]

Ok cool - its not like I had been here the last few months so I can wait.

How you been ?

[skinsfan#33]

I don't know about the Devil, but she is starting to look like Droopy Dog!

[KazooSkinsFan]

I don't know about the Devil, but she is starting to look like Droopy Dog!

Hillary's thighs are WAY thicker then that. Unlike Hillary, Droopy Dog would actually look OK in a skirt. Hillary did a great thing for her country by switching to pant suits. Now if she would just stop those hysterical, irrational, hypocritical, hate filled screeches.

BTW, she's a "moderate" now. No, her views are still radical left, but she won't make a decision or take any specific position, which her backers describe as "moderate." She can't even decide between paper and plastic. OK, her servants can't while she waits in the limo with the engine running and flies in a private jet to bash Republicans on global warming.

In the new version of Websters under limousine liberal is just a picture of Hillary. Man, I've never seen them do a better definition.

[Clark]

okay lets talk about just giving stuff away like medicare. our founding fathers never ever ever would have wanted our country to be this way americans were suposed to be self sufficient but instead we have found out how to vote our selves government benifits. in fact i beleive franklin said the republic would be successful until the people started to vote themselves benifits (im paraphrasing i cant remember the whole quote). the fact is i say let natural selection rule and this is where mrs. clinton and i part philisophical ways. oh and if we are talking about centrist canidates Rudy is a tun more centrist. in fact unfortunetly he may be too centrist to get the GOP nod

but hey its just opinion

you vote for yours

ill vote for mine
P.S the best canidate would be Neal Boortz

[skinsfan#33]

The best thing that could happen to America is for us to abolish the two party system!

They politicains would have to vote one of three ways:
- The way they think their consituants would want them to
- From their own heart
- For whatever lobby paided the most

[KazooSkinsFan]

The best thing that could happen to America is for us to abolish the two party system!

They politicains would have to vote one of three ways:
- The way they think their consituants would want them to
- From their own heart
- For whatever lobby paided the most

Amen to that. The Founding Fathers considered banning party affiliation. That would have been such an excellent move. Politics has become a team sport where almost everyone is content to pick a side and fight for them and accept all or most of their doctrine. It's sad.

[welch]

So far, the major grip against Clinton seems to be that she helped to create the health-care bill. Note that her team tried to compromise the demands of the labor movement for something like Canadian "single payer" health insurance and the big American insurance companies.

A more radical plan would have been to imitate Canada. She didn't cut right down the middle, as Crazy said. And failed with a compromise plan so complicated that I never quite understood it.

Meanwhile, yesterday the NY Post carried a full-page article attacking Senator Clinton because she has used different executive jets. Odd.

And, no, it was not a rhetorical question. I'm just curious.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I'm just curious.

OK, to provide a more complete answer, and this is in the spirit of "I'm just curious." Which means I'm not going to go document everything but I will say what I think actually think and not play it up (not that I'd ever do that )

- National health care I. I was offended that she was appointed by her husband with no authority, oversight or accountability. She had no legal basis to lead a commission and was not confirmed by congress. A Republican president would have been skewered by the liberal media for that (and rightly so).

- National health care II - She blew a chance to really address healthcare by going hard left. It was a unique chance in that people felt across the spectrum we needed to address the issue. She went left and most of the country decided what we had was better then what she proposed.

- National health care III - You can slice her actual statements anyway you want, but I saw (and most people did) her as advocating either national healthcare or a giant step towards it. Growing the government by 75% and providing worse care for all then we have now is insane.

- I'm offended by her complete hypocrisy - The joke about meeting Ghandi in a gas station, her recent speach to blacks imitating black talk, a prior speach telling blacks Republicans want to "keep them on the plantation," flying jets while talking about global warming, flip flopping on Iraq and changing her statements, pounding public schools and sending Celsea to endless private schools. She is in my view the definition of a limousine liberal wanting to make decisions for others she can just buy her way out of herself.

- I'm offended she thinks we are stupid. She won't make a decision on anything now, and that makes her a "moderate," sure. Or she speaks out of both sides of her mouth, you can't see her statements on Iraq any other way no matter your ideology. And there was the thing how she is now "moderate" on abortion. If you read her actual statement what she actually said was she was OK with pro-abortion people voting for her. That makes her "moderate?"

- She lies about stupid things. Like in her book how she "gasped" when finding out Monica was true. Please, don't say anything, we're not stupid. My favorite was saying she is named after Edmond Hillary, who wasn't known by anyone until she was 4.

- While playing the wife in the White House she was still the attack dog and a liar. Do you remember where the term "vast right wing Conspiracy" came from? Hillary, referring to Jennifer Flowers, which it turns out she knew was true.

- Any Democrat bashing Gonzales and demanding he resign cannot do so without either hypocrisy or criticizing Hillary for firing the travel office. In both cases they could fire them, in both cases they lied about their involvement and in both cases were caught in a shallow lie of "I don't remember."

- And similarly in White Water she was such a liar. Sure, shrewd investing turned $5K into $100K plus, not payola. Then she "couldn't find" her billing records for years which she was legally required to keep, and wow, they turned up in her white house office after the investigations were all over.

- At the end of the Clinton presidency the game of pardon for dollars involving both Clintons was the worst in our history of which I am aware. And taking all the stuff was trailor trash behavior. They said they were gifts to them, but they were gifts to the american people. Ironically while they were saying they were gifts to them they avoided gift taxes by saying they were gifts to the American people.

- Despite her "reinvention" as a moderate I see her as a scary dedicated socialist. Her screaming hysterical rages in her speeches and outrageous accusations are pathetic, and I think she's just an unpleasant woman. If she is the Democratic candidate, I am likely to vote Republican. Though I said that for Kerry and couldn't do it (went Libertarian) so we'll see if I can deliver on that this time.

And on Crazyhorse's comments supporting her, I have two daughters and I am so proud they are just as outraged at the idea anyone would think they need the bar lowered for them as that they would be descriminated against.

I'm not trying to argue with you here, Welch, just answer your question on my view. I do NOT consider this to be persuasive to someone who likes her. Only answering your question.

[crazyhorse1]

I assume you voted for Bush

I did.

He was the least offensive of the candidates in both elections. The Democrats, early on, had several candidates I could have voted for. They elected to run nincompoops instead.

What was it, other than things he "said" he was, that made you think he wouldn't turn out to be the worst President in history?

I rely on record, as I would hope any thinking voter would. Obama has none, though it appears that his agenda is not acceptable to me anyway. Just another "big government, save me from myself" liberal. Bush's was weak prior to the first election, stronger prior to the second (in my opinion), however, Gore's and Kerry's were atrocious, and gave me no reason to even consider them.

The worst President in history? Sorry... that man was elected in 1976, and shown the door ASAP.

Bush is a would-be dictator moron/religious fanatic who has devastated the country in a number of ways, as well as disgraced it, and will go down as the worse president in the history of the United States. If I had voted for him, I wouldn't trust myself to ever vote again.

[Countertrey]

Bush is a would-be dictator moron/religious fanatic who has devastated the country in a number of ways, as well as disgraced it, and will go down as the worse president in the history of the United States. If I had voted for him, I wouldn't trust myself to ever vote again.

My suspicion that you voted for the clearly marginal Carter raises a certain doubt about your veracity here. None the less...

It was not I who made the mistake, but the Dems, who chose to offer us John "Do you know who I am" Kerry rather than nominate a candidate.


BTW, a little slow on the uptake, aren't we, horsie? That was posted a month ago.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Bush is a would-be dictator moron/religious fanatic who has devastated the country in a number of ways, as well as disgraced it, and will go down as the worse president in the history of the United States. If I had voted for him, I wouldn't trust myself to ever vote again.

Isn't it fortunate that while the Democratic party gets to hysterically oppose Bush on strong grounds of truth and integrity, the solution is so self serving for them? The solution, elect Democrats.

And on the worst, please, just a few clearly worse then the inept Bush.

- Andrew Johnson - Couldn't stem retribution on the South
- Herbert Hoover - Clueless and inept leading into the depression
- FDR - started the real American drive toward socialism
- LBJ - Vietnam was his economic policy until it blew up in his face, and he's the one who took Kennedy's minimal involvement and filled the place with US troops while tying their hands to fight the war.
- Nixon - Paranoid and delusional even if you ignore Watergate
- Jimmy Carter - Inept micro-manager, economically clueless at a bad time to be economically clueless

[Fios]

You've lost your mind if you think FDR is worse than Bush

[KazooSkinsFan]

You've lost your mind if you think FDR is worse than Bush

Only if you love and trust government. Just two big ones, there are so many more.

#1: 13% of my pay is confiscated alone by Social Security alone for what purpose?

- Virtually no return (in real dollars)
- Propagating government dependency
- Democrats scaring the elderly

#2: He is the one who destroyed the 10th amendment by intimidating the supreme court. He told the court if they didn't allow him to grow the federal government ignoring constitutional authority he would have the congress add supreme court justices until they did. Nine is not in the constitution, it was a real threat from his Democratic dominated congress.



Iraq PALES in relation to either of these issues alone and there are so many more. If you love liberty, FDR was truly a socialist despot. Sorry.

[Clark]

- FDR - started the real American drive toward socialism
totally agree with you man but i think he did it by accedent he even said all those programs were for the short term. it was the latter congress, sente and presidents who droppped the ball. don't get me wrong i love truman and ike.

[Fios]

You've lost your mind if you think FDR is worse than Bush

Only if you love and trust government. Just two big ones, there are so many more.

#1: 13% of my pay is confiscated alone by Social Security alone for what purpose?

- Virtually no return (in real dollars)
- Propagating government dependency
- Democrats scaring the elderly

#2: He is the one who destroyed the 10th amendment by intimidating the supreme court. He told the court if they didn't allow him to grow the federal government ignoring constitutional authority he would have the congress add supreme court justices until they did. Nine is not in the constitution, it was a real threat from his Democratic dominated congress.



Iraq PALES in relation to either of these issues alone and there are so many more. If you love liberty, FDR was truly a socialist despot. Sorry.

Yes, spending almost a trillion dollars to make a situation much worse and waste tens of thousands of lives clearly pales in comparison to a government program that, to the best of my knowledge, has killed no one and some Supreme Court concerns. Good point.

[KazooSkinsFan]

You've lost your mind if you think FDR is worse than Bush

Only if you love and trust government. Just two big ones, there are so many more.

#1: 13% of my pay is confiscated alone by Social Security alone for what purpose?

- Virtually no return (in real dollars)
- Propagating government dependency
- Democrats scaring the elderly

#2: He is the one who destroyed the 10th amendment by intimidating the supreme court. He told the court if they didn't allow him to grow the federal government ignoring constitutional authority he would have the congress add supreme court justices until they did. Nine is not in the constitution, it was a real threat from his Democratic dominated congress.



Iraq PALES in relation to either of these issues alone and there are so many more. If you love liberty, FDR was truly a socialist despot. Sorry.

Yes, spending almost a trillion dollars to make a situation much worse and waste tens of thousands of lives clearly pales in comparison to a government program that, to the best of my knowledge, has killed no one and some Supreme Court concerns. Good point.

Sure, FDR hacked our liberty to shreds and grew government dependency in a massive way, but no one died.

Funny how in justifying liberal positions like actually targeting Muslims when it's Muslims that are trying to kill us suddenly no number of death are worth the sacrifice for liberal ends. Funny how we can't tap calls to foreign countries when there is no presumption of privacy (clearly the foreign governments can tap) no loss of life is sufficient to justify stopping it.

But when we're talking about a socialist program, like Social Security, or the erosion of state rights through court ordered dictatorship, then...

...hey, no one DIED.

[Fios]

Nice try on a subject change there (I support racial profiling in conjunction with a thorough screening system) and, yes, I think massive loss of innocent life trumps your concerns about those programs.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Nice try on a subject change there (I support racial profiling in conjunction with a thorough screening system) and, yes, I think massive loss of innocent life trumps your concerns about those programs.

OK, I was messing with you on the change of topic. But you were messing with me on death versus liberty. Liberty is in fact worth dying for, but on the other hand the Constitution wasn't a suicide pact. And fanatical Muslims are not trying to kill us because of George W Bush.

[KazooSkinsFan]

- FDR - started the real American drive toward socialism
totally agree with you man but i think he did it by accedent he even said all those programs were for the short term. it was the latter congress, sente and presidents who droppped the ball. don't get me wrong i love truman and ike.

I largely agree with your point, but some comments:

- Is it really unforeseeable that new government legislation is not going to go away? I can think of only one that went away ever, and that took 100 years. The US government recently ended the special tax on our phone bill..........to fund the Spanish American war. Which was in the 1890s.

- There are some things that were permanent, like the court ordered abolition of the 10th amendment.

- I was addressing effect, not intent. For example, I included Andrew Johnson. BTW, I should have put Buchannan on the list too, he's worse then most of the list. But Andrew Johnson was a good man, he was just such an ineffective leader he really hurt the effect of reconstruction as he could not keep the reparations part of out it that Lincoln was dedicated to preventing.

On the intent, that's also why I'm so hostile to Democrats now. It's NOT their policies, which are pretty equally bad to Republicans, it's the endless personal attacks and destruction in complete and utter lieu of any agenda that I think is seriously damaging this country right now. George Bush is a good man trying to do what's right. I disagree with him and want to block him. Democrats want to personally destroy him, there is just no reason for that and it's totally subverting any real debate in this country right now.