mountainclmbr
New member
If Hillary becomes president: Cuba will become the 51st state. The Cuban citizens will see no increase in their personal liberty and freedoms as a result.
If Hillary Wins.
- Thread starter waynesan
- Start date
One of the intersting things about reading historical books about different times in America is you get some perspecitve on things. There are ALWAYS doom and gloom predictions about the opposition party taking over, EVERY election is the end of America as we know it should the wrong person win, and NEVER has there been a more important time to keep "X" out of the White House.
Strangely we are still here...
Strangely we are still here...
Slugthrower
New member
"Hillary's policies will be good for the economy, in the long run, excepting the healthcare sector of course."
She has plans to triple the capital gains tax or eliminate it and count any investing and the profits gained therein are to be counted as income. How is that good for the economy?
How is it that anybody can think that cutting taxes is bad? When taxes are cut it puts more money back into the economy, this money generates more taxable goods that in turn generate more revenues as well as business growth and more people to have their incomes taxed, as they are gainfully employed. Taxes remove money from the economy. Less money in the economy results in economic down turn or in the least a slowing of economic growth.
The logic of taxes being good should be as follows; If a little taxing is good, then a lot of taxes is better. If such is the case, I advocated a 99.5% tax rate on all incomes. That should benefit us real well.
If Hillary becomes president, she knows that her time is short and that she must get many things done in short order. In two years she can do massive damage to this country. We will see all to soon if this will be the case. Isn't this fun?
Here are a few words about taxation and it's goodness.
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=546
If you don't believe in the free market, there is no need to look into this link.
She has plans to triple the capital gains tax or eliminate it and count any investing and the profits gained therein are to be counted as income. How is that good for the economy?
How is it that anybody can think that cutting taxes is bad? When taxes are cut it puts more money back into the economy, this money generates more taxable goods that in turn generate more revenues as well as business growth and more people to have their incomes taxed, as they are gainfully employed. Taxes remove money from the economy. Less money in the economy results in economic down turn or in the least a slowing of economic growth.
The logic of taxes being good should be as follows; If a little taxing is good, then a lot of taxes is better. If such is the case, I advocated a 99.5% tax rate on all incomes. That should benefit us real well.
If Hillary becomes president, she knows that her time is short and that she must get many things done in short order. In two years she can do massive damage to this country. We will see all to soon if this will be the case. Isn't this fun?
Here are a few words about taxation and it's goodness.
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=546
If you don't believe in the free market, there is no need to look into this link.
It's not about cutting taxes or raising them, it's about getting them right. 95% tax would be about as helpful as 5% tax neither would balance the budget.
I have the von mises austrian school website on my bookmarks, have read pretty much everything on it at one point or another. It's a very good site. Have you tried the Posner and Becker blog? It's another good free market site. http://www.becker-posner-blog.com
Isn't it funny that people who have read and understand about economics, who probably agree on 98% of economic issues, might disagree about which candidate would be best for the economy? The fact is that Bill Clinton did a better job managing the economy than BushII has. Wierd huh?
Freedom_1st
Multiply registered, multiply banned troll.
Wow, some of these comments are a little overkill.
I'll have to agree with gvf that very little will be done to 2nd amendment rights and gun ownership. Its just not high up on the agenda of 99% of the Democrats and they know how hard it hurt them last time. We had more antigun policies go through by Republicans since then and Bush executive orders (both 1 and 2).
Taxes are going to have to go up and any candidate who tells you otherwise is a no good liar. We fallen into the same problem Ronald Reagon caused with his tax cuts, and thats why he dropped alot of them towards the end of his term. It sounds good on paper, but doesn't work in real life.
I see plenty of public works programmes. These have the added benefit of putting people to work.
I doubt a withdrawal from Iraq or Afghanistan will happen. I also doubt that an invasion of Iran will happen. The same is true with 95% of the candidates though.
What we will get is a mixture of slightly to the left domestic, and slightly to the right foreign policies. Eitherside doesn't stray too far from the centre, though since its hard to say there has been a conservative US president since the 1950s thats not too surprising either.
About the only major change I see is the religious right will be upset, that after 20 years of pulling the strings, they been played and haven't got anything accomplished at all, but to isolate themselves. This is a good thing to keep politics and religion more seperated.
most accurate post in this thread
I'll have to agree with gvf that very little will be done to 2nd amendment rights and gun ownership. Its just not high up on the agenda of 99% of the Democrats and they know how hard it hurt them last time. We had more antigun policies go through by Republicans since then and Bush executive orders (both 1 and 2).
Taxes are going to have to go up and any candidate who tells you otherwise is a no good liar. We fallen into the same problem Ronald Reagon caused with his tax cuts, and thats why he dropped alot of them towards the end of his term. It sounds good on paper, but doesn't work in real life.
I see plenty of public works programmes. These have the added benefit of putting people to work.
I doubt a withdrawal from Iraq or Afghanistan will happen. I also doubt that an invasion of Iran will happen. The same is true with 95% of the candidates though.
What we will get is a mixture of slightly to the left domestic, and slightly to the right foreign policies. Eitherside doesn't stray too far from the centre, though since its hard to say there has been a conservative US president since the 1950s thats not too surprising either.
About the only major change I see is the religious right will be upset, that after 20 years of pulling the strings, they been played and haven't got anything accomplished at all, but to isolate themselves. This is a good thing to keep politics and religion more seperated.
most accurate post in this thread
Slugthrower
New member
When a person needs to balance their budget they must either cut spending or increase their income through more productivity. Taxes don't increase that individuals productivity. Since the government does not make profits, the answer to balancing the government budget isn't higher taxes it is reducing their spending and growth.
How about less hand outs, less agencies, less regulations, more freedom, less legal armed or coercive robbery(taxes). Gun control is nothing more than regulation, is it a good idea? If a person can be responsible with deadly weapons. Why is it that they cannot be trusted to do that which is right in regards to the environment and other similar things? That which is good for the goose is good for the gander. Instead of the government telling us to do with less, how about they take their own advice and do with less. The one thing that government never does well is conduct business.
They remind me of an irresponsible college student that is having daddy or mommy pay their way through. They live up to the root definition of sophomore. Having a lot of book knowledge and no wisdom to go with it, in regards to the private business sector.
How about less hand outs, less agencies, less regulations, more freedom, less legal armed or coercive robbery(taxes). Gun control is nothing more than regulation, is it a good idea? If a person can be responsible with deadly weapons. Why is it that they cannot be trusted to do that which is right in regards to the environment and other similar things? That which is good for the goose is good for the gander. Instead of the government telling us to do with less, how about they take their own advice and do with less. The one thing that government never does well is conduct business.
They remind me of an irresponsible college student that is having daddy or mommy pay their way through. They live up to the root definition of sophomore. Having a lot of book knowledge and no wisdom to go with it, in regards to the private business sector.
My balls told me to kiss them goodbye.
Seriously, I think Hillary will remember what pushing gun control did to her party in the past and probably keep quiet to keep her own butt safe politically. But I think the other party leadership will try to revive the AW ban and if they can get it to her desk, she of course will sign it.
Yeah, scary, what choice, what difference.
They both say what they think the majority of people want to hear. You have to dig to find the truth. If there is a truth to be found with either. What scares me about Rudy, I think he actually believes stricter gun control cured NYC problems when it was actually more police and cleaning up neighborhoods. Hillary knows the topic might be political suicide. OMG, I can't believe I'm even thinking anything positive about her. Help!
Exactly. And this is what exposes the "the Dem's remember '94" as a pipe dream or outright falsehood. Yes, the Dem's remember '94. They also remember campaign finance reform to hamper the NRA's ability to speak out against candidates, and they remember 2006, when all was forgiven and forgotten . . . despite the Dem's arguing for gun control from 1994 through 2006.
As for her being a "centrist," come on. The people who have known her for years state quite clearly she isn't a centrist. She's a leftist who will do what is needed to get elected and achieve power.
applesanity
New member
Well... we could always take back Fort Sumter.
Who's with me? C'mon....
Who's with me? C'mon....
Shane Tuttle
Staff
Yep, and none other than George Soros' huge bank account to further his agenda of Social Progressivism. The absolute worst and dangerous ideas that a country can adopt...
What I care about is that she's as ruthless as Stalin, as crooked as a dog's hind leg, and a committed Marxist.
Some politicians are in it for the money. Some are in it for power. Bill was pretty much in it for the women. Hillary is the worst of all--she's a True Believer and she has an Agenda that she is certain is the Only Right Path.
I totally agree. She was an integral part of the most corrupt administration in US history. She has the highest unfavorables of any major American politician. The only way she can be elected is if she steals the election. She knows this. Algore also knew this but he screwed up. He didn’t think he had to steal the reliable Democratic states of Arkansas, Tennessee, and West Virginia. They went republican and he lost. Don’t expect her to make the same mistake.
She is also responsible for the database of negative information on major politicians from FBI files. Remember Bob Livingston? He was all set to become Speaker of the House after they squeezed out Gingrich. All of a sudden, we find out about an affair that occurred in the ‘60s and Livingston is gone.
Some politicians are in it for the money. Some are in it for power. Bill was pretty much in it for the women. Hillary is the worst of all--she's a True Believer and she has an Agenda that she is certain is the Only Right Path.
I totally agree. She was an integral part of the most corrupt administration in US history. She has the highest unfavorables of any major American politician. The only way she can be elected is if she steals the election. She knows this. Algore also knew this but he screwed up. He didn’t think he had to steal the reliable Democratic states of Arkansas, Tennessee, and West Virginia. They went republican and he lost. Don’t expect her to make the same mistake.
She is also responsible for the database of negative information on major politicians from FBI files. Remember Bob Livingston? He was all set to become Speaker of the House after they squeezed out Gingrich. All of a sudden, we find out about an affair that occurred in the ‘60s and Livingston is gone.
Freedom_1st
Multiply registered, multiply banned troll.
Yeah, Gore had to "steal" the election despite the fact that he got more votes then W.
Treading into conspiracy theory land here.
CrazyIvan007
New member
I don't think Hillary has too big of a problem with gun ownership. It is all the people she puts into other offices of power that I am concerned with.
She does seem like someone who will hit back REALLY FRICKEN hard against anyone who attacks us in a terror-type way. She seems like a major Biatch! lol.
My problem with Hillary is her "All-For-One and One-For-None" campaign. Her way of making me feel like she believes an individual should not be responsible for their reality, but rather everyone should be responsible for the choices of that individual is a problem for me. Yea, this can bleed over into firearm legislation...but I just don't see her brain being on firearms too much. Her brain is on taxes, welfare and amnesty. Same reason I believe our guns have been not touched too much under Bush. He is thinking about other things: Amnesty, One-World Government, pleasing the Corporate Masses.
I could be wrong, but hmmm...
Anyone familiar with any New York State gun legislation Hillary took part in while Governor?
She does seem like someone who will hit back REALLY FRICKEN hard against anyone who attacks us in a terror-type way. She seems like a major Biatch! lol.
My problem with Hillary is her "All-For-One and One-For-None" campaign. Her way of making me feel like she believes an individual should not be responsible for their reality, but rather everyone should be responsible for the choices of that individual is a problem for me. Yea, this can bleed over into firearm legislation...but I just don't see her brain being on firearms too much. Her brain is on taxes, welfare and amnesty. Same reason I believe our guns have been not touched too much under Bush. He is thinking about other things: Amnesty, One-World Government, pleasing the Corporate Masses.
I could be wrong, but hmmm...
Anyone familiar with any New York State gun legislation Hillary took part in while Governor?