Where was Hillary When Bush Wanted This
Mar 25, 2008 Political
In an interview in Pittsburgh Hillary was asked about Social Security and here is what she said:
On Social Security:
“We need to have a bipartisan commission much like President Reagan and Tip O’Neill had in the ’80s where they worked together, and we have lived off of those efforts. But we need to do something now. One of the caveats that I would have is that people that are presently on Social Security or about to go on Social Security not be affected.”
George bush has said that Social Security is broken and that it needed to be fixed. He wanted to privatize it or at least part of it. His plan would not affect those already on SS or those about to go on SS. It would have allowed younger people to put away THEIR money instead of giving it to the government so it can be spent on everything but SS.
Hillary stated in the past that SS was on the way to being solvent until 2055 (not accurate) until Bush squandered that. Bush did not spend the SS money. Congress has been dipping into the money forcibly removed from workers for years. SS has been declining because of the growing number of people drawing it and the declining number of people paying in and because the members of Congress cannot keep their grubby little hands out of the till.
Bill Clinton wanted to privatize SS because he knew that it was in bad shape. Congress (all parties) cannot let this happen because they lose the cash cow. Most of them will be dead before the IOUs are ever paid back (as if they ever will be). Hillary wants to fix SS because it is always a problem and in bad shape when republicans run the place and it always needs Democrats to fix it. Hillary kind of suggests that the fix (privatization) would be OK if people on it or about to be were not affected.
If we had done this when Bill Clinton wanted to or when Bush wanted to then there would be a lot of people saving and earning more money for retirement and we would not be talking about running out of money. SS could be invested so that say 50% is invested for the worker and the other 50% pays for the benefits already being dispersed. As recipients under the old system die off the amount workers are allowed to invest would increase until it hit 100%. This would allow workers to start investing for themselves and eventually lead to them investing 100% of the money in their own accounts that no member of Congress could EVER touch.
The money would belong to the worker for retirement and could be passed on as part of the estate. No matter what liberal groups say the end result would be retirees with quite a bit of money. They would live better and not depend on the government to dole out a measly portion of money each month. people would not be tied to a political party for fear that something bad would happen to the money. people would actually be responsible for their own retirement.
The rate of return, even in down markets, would be better than the less than 1% the government gets and the maintenance costs would be less than what it costs to run the boondoggle that is SS today. I know that I have been working for 37 years and I have made more from my investments than i have accumulated in SS. Even a bad market outperforms the government.
Hillary is playing coy because she did not come out and say that privatization was best but she, as well as all members, know SS is in serious trouble and taking more money from higher wage earners to give it to retirees is not the solution to the problem. They just have trouble letting go of a cash supply that they do not have to account for and that they can tap into when they need money.
Our government is not good with money and we should never trust them with any. We are getting rebate checks (well i won’t but non taxpayers will). The government spent $43 million to send letters telling us about the program. That was a judicious use of our money…
Maybe Hillary can take credit for Bill’s idea about privatizing SS. Hell, what’s another lie? And did she invoke Reagan’s name? Let’s see if she catches hell like Obama did.
Tags: bush plan, Hillary, privatize, reagan, social security
Despite Campaign Claims Hillary Lied About Bosnia
Mar 24, 2008 Political
The Clinton campaign is in damage control mode because the queen herself has been caught in a big lie. Hillary discusses a trip she and her daughter went on accompanied by Cheryl Crow and Sinbad. She said they were shot at by snipers and that they had to run to awaiting cars. The biggest problem with all this is that it is fabricated. Sinbad recalls no such thing and there is video footage of Chelsea and the queen walking across the tarmac smiling and waving. Hillary lied to people about the experience and her campaign is now saying that she misspoke. Some advisers are saying that it is hard to remember all the details when there have been so many trips and it was so long ago. Bull crap! If you are shot at you will never forget it. If you have to take evasive maneuvers you will never forget it. If your child is in that kind of danger you will never forget it. Hillary Clinton lied and that is the plain truth.
Interestingly, the media is just now picking up on this as if Hillary only said it for the first time. Clinton has been telling this story for some time. Howard Wolfson says that Clinton has told the story many times but misspoke this once. Once again I must say bull crap! I wrote about this in December of last year and Newsday.com had the story which described her harrowing experience. I knew Hillary was lying then just as I know she is lying now.
They will say anything to get elected. Hillary is a liar and she got caught. The thing is, she believes that since she is a Clinton all she has to do is change the story and it will be OK. After all, that is what she and her lying husband did for years. Their supporters are a bunch of mush for brains liberals who do not have the ability to see through them. Most Clinton supporters would stand in line to do to Bill what Monica did and they would proudly boast about it.
The problem now is that Obama has a pretty big following and the media is in love with the guy. Clinton stock has been falling faster than Bill’s pants in a Hooters and she is not able to get away with some of the same crap as she did before. Bill is not even looked at as favorably as he once was. One can only hope that this campaign is the end of their prominence and we will not have to see them anymore. Of course, I hope they do not depart before the Democratic Party is destroyed by its primary.
Say it with me Clinton followers. “Hillary lied. Hillary lied. Hillary lied.” Now, read this aloud a few times; “I am wee Todd.”
Nothing new to the rest of us but you folks have been a little dense. Some still are as evidenced by how they are lying to help her out of this mess.
Don’t get me wrong, I definitely feel as if Hillary is the one in that relationship who would confront danger. Bill showed what he was made of when it came time to serve in the military. Hillary might hate the armed forces but she knows how to mix it up when she does not get her way. In any event, she flat out lied about her Bosnia mission.
If she had been shot at don’t you think we would have heard about it then?
If Bill had not attacked Bosnia without UN permission (unilaterally is how the left puts it) Hillary and Chelsea might not have been there in the first place. It is also interesting to note that Hillary said if it was too dangerous for the president they sent her. He visited there before she did…
What took the tired old media so long to get into this story?
UPDATE: Here is a You Tube video from CBS that debunks what Hillary said.
When the Photograph CoUNTs…
Mar 23, 2008 Political
Perhaps Hillary Clinton should have thought about what was behind her. I do not know if this is real or shopped but if it is real I am absolutely certain the photographer took this angle on purpose.
The amazing thing is that the photograph has a certain truth to it, like it was karma or something…
They say a picture is worth a thousand words (or a hundred grand depending on the picture).
Tags: bad picture, Hillary, karma, photo
Sexism in Campaign is Overrated
Mar 3, 2008 Political
Gloria Steinem, the aging feminazi, is on the campaign trail stumping for Hillary Clinton. While Steinem is out discussing the supposed qualifications of she who would be Queen, it boils down to one qualification and that is, Hillary is a woman. Steinem discusses the campaign and how Hillary is not given a fair chance or how the media is better to Obama or any of the other claims made by the Clinton apologists. She throws in a few of the references to male domination and all the other excuses that women use when they fail to achieve. Women have made quantum leaps with regard to equality in the workplace and in education. There are many women in institutes of higher learning and there are plenty in the workplace and they are protected under Equal Opportunity laws to such a great extent that they receive benefits of affirmative action. Women owned businesses receive special treatment so much so that contractors align with them in order to win competitive bids. This is not good enough for the feminist Steinem because, in her eyes, there must be sexism involved if Hillary is losing. Steinem goes so far as to indicate John McCain’s time as a POW was overrated and if he were a woman men would ask what she did wrong to get shot down and captured. I think we all remember this being the case with Jessica Lynch, who by the way, was rescued by a bunch of men.
Steinem, while claiming to be a feminist, is supporting a candidate who cried, who relied on a man (her husband), who debated by whining about getting questions first and who generally ran a poor campaign. Hillary Clinton had a double digit lead when this whole thing started and she was the presumptive nominee long before the contests began in earnest. The campaign process was a mere formality. Instead of sexism, isn’t it just possible that people do not think she would be a good president? Isn’t it possible that after the population had a chance to see Hillary on the campaign trail they were less enamored with her? Top this off with a candidate who has the ability to say absolutely nothing and still thrill people (especially women) and it spells disaster for any candidate regardless of that person’s sex.
The idea that Hillary is being rejected because of sexism is absolutely ludicrous but the mere suggestion shows that even staunch Democrats believe that their party is comprised of sexists. It is not the Republican Party that is giving the nod to Obama, it is the Democrats who are voting for him over the woman who has been dubbed the smartest woman in the world. The Democratic establishment has also recognized that it has racists in it because anyone who opposes Obama is tagged as a racist. Remember, this is all coming from the party of diversity and tolerance.
Hillary Clinton is being rejected because she is a polarizing person. She rubs people the wrong way and, when compared to Obama, her lack of personality is glaringly obvious. The suggestion that America rejects her because of her sex ignores the flaws of the person and lays blame on the voters who are obviously too stupid to see that she deserves to win. The fact that she is a woman does not qualify her for the job though Steinem would have us believe this. There are plenty of women in this country who would do an admirable job as President just as there are many blacks who would do an equally good job. Yes, America is ready for a black or a woman but we are not ready for this black or that woman, not because of those qualities but because of what they represent with regard to the issues.
Steinem believes that Hillary is the best candidate and that is her opinion. Just because people do not accept Hillary does not mean people are sexists any more than those who reject Obama are racists. Does this mean there is no racism or sexism? Certainly not. There are people who will not vote for either of these candidates based solely on their race or sex. I would bet though, there are more people who will vote FOR them based on these attributes than against and that is just as bad. Some however, will vote for a person based upon a perception of qualifications. In some cases it will be the lesser of two evils as it usually is in politics.
If Steinem wants a woman to win perhaps they should run one who can win. I would also wonder if Steinem would have the same feelings were the losing female candidate a Republican? BTW Gloria, I would vote for a Conservative woman or black person if I thought they would do the best job.
We have 300 million people in this country and these three are the best we can come up with? That, in and of itself, is depressing.
Related item:
Boston.com
Interesting Post:
Sonnabend
Tags: campaign, democrat, gloria steinem, Hillary, President, sexism
Early Hillary; Practice for Marriage to Bill
Feb 25, 2008 Political
There is a story about when Hillary was a young lawyer and her assignment to a case involving the rape of a 12 year old girl. Hillary was assigned as the defendant’s attorney so it is expected that she would do whatever it took (within the bounds of the legal system) to either get her client exonerated or get a deal favorable to him. I have never been a fan of plea bargains when they are used as an easy method to win a case or allow a criminal to serve less time for a serious offense. I have a friend in New Jersey who has been accused of something he did not do and they are continually offering him a deal to end the case. He refuses to capitulate because he is innocent, but that does not stop them from using the deal as a method to win a conviction, truth be damned.
Hillary is reported to have been very aggressive and to have badgered the 12 year old rape victim. She tried hard to question the integrity of the victim and insinuated that she sought out older men for sex. Hillary tried to indicate the girl was lying because she had told lies in the past. All of this has been deemed ethical by legal scholars and I am in no position to question that view. I figure a defense attorney has an obligation to do what it takes on behalf of the client.
The article indicates that Hillary approached that case in a manner that has been a reflection of her life indicating that she immerses herself in unpleasant tasks with a will to win. I don’t doubt that as it has been demonstrated time and again in her public life. She will do whatever it takes to win and she does not care what mess she leaves or who gets destroyed in her wake.
However, I believe that the badgering of a rape victim gave her the experience needed to confront the many women who have had sex, either consensually or against their will, with her husband. Bill Clinton has a long history of sleeping around and there have been accusations of rape. This was so prominent that Hillary had a group whose job was to handle the “bimbo eruptions.” Hillary, in addition to being the enabler of her husband’s sexual misdeeds, was the enforcer when it came to dealing with the women. She used intimidation to ensure they remained silent. Hillary approached every bimbo eruption with a desire to destroy the woman making the claims even if it meant that a victim of rape would be victimized again.
Hillary’s early life experiences molded her into the person she is today. One can make the argument that she immerses herself in any task with a desire to win and that is an admirable trait. However, when that desire to win is a driving force in destroying lives in the name of obtaining power then it becomes obsessive rather than admirable.
Both Clintons are obsessed with obtaining power and they will destroy anyone who gets in the way. There are still those who find themselves in the path or hurricane Hillary and her overbearing nature. The only difference, as far as we know, is that they are not 12 years old.
As an aside, Barack Obama seems to agree with what I wrote earlier.