http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070529/clinton_economy.html?.v=1

Everyone's predicting a Hillary victory. Here's what she stands for. Lots of luck, America.

AWESOME! I can't WAIT to be a SOCIALIST!

This is great news. I'm so happy.

CJ, no need to wait. You can move to Cuba and get it right now.

Oh no - I want it HERE though. It's my greatest wish. It's going to be awesome. Everyone knows it, Deane. It's part of the secret plan. You found it out ahead of time - but that's ok.

It's going to be awesome to have a Socialist America.

This is why the two party system has to be destroyed. I don't want politicians that promise "free" stuff that isn't really free. On the other hand, I don't want Messianic wackos, either.

If Hilary won and started implementing things that America didn't want, don't you think that there would be reprecussions for that?

I know that Republicans are used to having a President that holds all the cards on important issues and therefore should be supported at all costs - but that mindset has been eroded to a degree that people will fight it harder now.

Hilary winning FEELS like a long-shot to me - but even if she did win, implementing a slightly more socialist program like the one cited is not going to kill me. I don't want it - but if the majority of Americans do - I'll just have to live with that and live to fight another day.

I know you have " slippery slope " all ready to go. That's fine - that's why I took the time to register " www.itsaslipperyslope.com " - I have a GREAT idea for that domain name.

The only people who want socialism are those who feel they are too inadequate to succeed themselves. They need a government to do everything for them. Trouble is, it has never worked.

"The only people who want socialism are those who feel they are too inadequate to succeed themselves."

I don't know if I'd agree with " only " but your point is not lost on me. I believe it can be more complex than that.

We also have nurtured a culture of " get lucky " instead of " work hard " and that may be contributing to some of our social ills.

Like I said, I believe it to be kind of complex. I have been VERY lucky - but I have also worked to garner some good resources on my own. So I feel like a complete hypocrite saying that " the only way to get what you want is to work your ass off for it." It's not the only way.

I have my own issues though. So maybe I'd best bow out on this one. I'll just be a complete hypocrite and end up feeling shitty.

None of the crap you are saying, Deane, is contained in the article you reference. She is not advocating "Socialism." Basically, it talks about reducing the huge gap between the "halves" and the "have nots". What specifically is wrong with that concept?

You really should go hunting with Dick Cheney. You both practice the "ready, fire, aim" style.

I think that regardless of who wins the next Presidential election, that person is going to be under very intense scrutiny because of the highly polarized political climate that exists today. I think that the presence of only two viable political parties causes people to think of politics in simplistic "right vs. left" "us vs. them" terms, and this augments the polarization problem because it puts voters into a frame of mind wherein politics is focused on party allegiances rather than policies.

I'm not a fan of policies that are blatantly designed to build up the public sector, especially in areas could be or have traditionally been served by private entities. I assume that the charged term "socialism," when used in the context of the original post, incorporates this concept. However, I would rather not see the "S-word" used in this way because I think that it is an emotionally charged word that causes the people who use it to be marginalized.

>>>"What specifically is wrong with that concept?"

Actually nothing, but it's not the governments job to redistribute the wealth. It's up to individuals to become successful on their own.

Don't tell me it can't be done. Many Vietnamese came here after the war, couldn't speak the language, had nothing, and yet have flourished. Yet we have many people born in this country who never get out of poverty.

I recently had some work done on my dishwasher. The technician was a young Vietnamese lad. He worked daytimes for the appliance service company, and then went to his night job as an electrician. When I asked him why he worked so hard, he said "too get wealthy". To me, that's how the wealth should be redistributed, not by the government.

If it is not the governments job to redistribute wealth, how come it is working it's ass off overtime doing exactly that, right now, today?

I strongly agree with that last part of your comment though. Been there done that actually. Not wealthy yet, but that's not the point. My own life experience started from dirt ass poor and working my way up. Not an easy task, that included the public library serving as college more than once! (had the Internet arrived just a bit sooner...)

We are well into 2000's now. Where working hard and building wealth is concerned, it's a far more difficult proposition now than during the 90's. My gains personally now, are actually more per year than during the 90's. However, it's no longer getting ahead. More like treading water.

I'm not for handouts. The balance being struck right now is not a good one in this regard. Too much of the social burden is being carried by the average American. Our middle class is shrinking and that's not good for the nation in general.

It's not hard to miss either. This administration has been very aggressive about doing this and it's really starting to show.

We could swing this back more toward where it was and be a whole lot better off as a nation.

This is not intended to be critical, but rather an observation of time application.

Think about your own situation. You have enough time on your hands to post on this forum night and day, and lengthy posts at that. What if you concentrated on work. Would you have enough time left over to start your own business on the side?

"It's up to individuals to become successful on their own."

Great idea...let eliminate all rights to inheritance. Everyone should be expected to prove themselves on their own merits, not with the financial helping hand of others.

People's inheritance should then be made available as part of a lottery drawing, so everyone has a chance at it. There is no reason, except tradition, why any heirs should be coddled by the inheritance of a wealthy benefactor.

One of the primary motivators for people, is to provide for their children.

Most people willing to work, do ok. Many do very well.

There is a small minority, that actually needs assistance,the handicapped.

People that dont want to work, or who make themselves incapable of working (drug users and alcoholics) are on their own as far as I'm concerned.

I happen to have the skill to knock out a lengthly post while waiting for a task to complete, work flex hours, etc...? A lot of what I do ends up happening off hours. So life, work, play end up being mixed together.

There is more time for work, sure. That's nearly always true. I could devote more time to it, could engage in a business on the side, etc (actually do plenty of consulting as it is, BTW.)

All totally valid, but it does not change the current state of things. For what it's worth, my general level of Internet involvement is roughly the same overall between 90's and 2000's.

Frankly, I'll be working quite a bit harder here in the near future. Gonna have to endure a career transition and it's not gonna be pretty. That will cut into some time, but will also move me where it's far more difficult to outsource and permit better working in my later years. Alas, the only constant these days it seems is change.

Bottom line is that the burden the average American is experiencing is not diminishing, but growing at a pretty solid clip. Responding with additional work is not a bad idea, depending on what ones life value judgements are, but that is addressing a symptom, not working on a cure.

If we continue as we are right now, America --in particular the middle class of it, is in serious trouble. That needs to be addressed, which was my point.

I'm not complaining so much about what I don't have, or that I don't have enough. On that score, I'll actually scale down after the kids have left the nest. Don't need it, don't want it, have things I want to do and experience. So I'll make tradeoffs and go from there.

Edselehr: Hilarious!

BTW, that is exactly what I will be doing. I really won't be leaving the kids much in the end. They get a good solid start now, but in the end, their adult life is theirs, not mine.

Building for them, in addition to taking care of myself is not worth the hassle.

Again, I didn't see where the article said the government would "redistribute the wealth." The government can HELP people do for themselves. Not everyone can work 18 hours a day at 3 jobs just to make ends meet. Surely you must agree that the gap between rich and poor is too wide now. Plus, the greed that has resulted in CEO's getting millions of dollars of bonus when thier companies are struggling, or failing, or laying off workers, is just plain wrong, and helps to create the poorer class that you think should just work harder.

DJ said>>>>
CJ, no need to wait. You can move to Cuba and get it right now.

Or stay here and watch an idiot run the country....

There goes the neighborhood.

Well, he is ruining the country, with the help of a significant number of rubber stamp members of the GOP. Seems to me, the last time we hashed this out, we ended up with him either being an idiot or an ass.

Advocating for the latter Deane?

Funny how Republicans run on the idea that government can't really work, so it needs to be small --so small as to allow the wealthy to handle things. When they actually get power, it all goes to crap!

Why?

Because they just can't govern when they don't trust the means. Call it an elemental conflict of interest. --or just stupid, I don't care.

At least the Democrats believe in government working for the people. They don't get it right as often as we all would like, but at least they don't reject anything that might actually work well because it would actually be governing!

No wonder they are all hosed up. Who wouldn't be given those conflicts?

"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn.

The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

P. J. O'Rourke

Republicans believe everyday is the 4th of July.

Democrats believe every day is April 15th.

Ronald Reagan

If this is true, how come the current body of Republicans are working their asses off overtime diminishing that which the 4th of July stands for?

Warner,
Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. The redistibution of wealth is a socialist idea. Now, we have facets of socialism in society today, such as welfare. I'm not saying it's all bad. But when Clinton advocates a "we're all in it together" society, well... the sugar coating is rather thin on that. It implies that any problem you have is also my problem. That's not the America I want.

One thing for sure, hillary is gonna have all the secret meetings she wants and cram all the things she believes in down our throats because, well, because George W Bush paved the way. She can lie and make up BS reasons and get away with it because she's gonna be The Decider -- answers to no one.

Skeptical,
you found a way to blame a President Hillary's potential "drunk with power" attitude on Bush. I'm actually impressed.

He's right too.

That is the big damage done to us, via this administration. We've not felt the implications of that fully.

"But when Clinton advocates a "we're all in it together" society, well... the sugar coating is rather thin on that. It implies that any problem you have is also my problem. That's not the America I want."

It's interesting that you are describing possibly the most patriotic era in American history - the homefront during WWII. When in a dire conflict with a ruthless enemy as we were in the '40s, and as we are today (as Bush reminds us constantly) what exactly wrong with saying "we're all in this together?" We are, aren't we?

Ronald Reagan, and every other conservative (or heck, any President who was Republican!) ... they must be rolling in their grave right now by the actions of the current regime. Is there a President in history who has done more to sully the image of his position and political party? Even Nixon, with all his issues and paranoia, had some strong suits.

Clinton and Carter were much worse, President Bush will go down as one of the top 0 presidents in history.

Hes restored the economy after the dpt.com fiasco of Clinton, he restored the respect of the Military, he has created more jobs than any president in history, teh stock market has reaqched Hes turned the supreme court back to its true role, intreperting the constitution, not making it.

"President Bush will go down as one of the top 0 presidents in history."

You've got that right. Bush is President Zero, hands down.

Nwokie.....I want some of whatever you are smoking.

If the GOP were smart, they would legalize it! Whatever it takes to win right?

Just think of the leftie, swing votes! It would be huge!

(and a whole bunch more of us would feel good about it!)

"Hes restored the economy after the dpt.com fiasco of Clinton, he restored the respect of the Military, he has created more jobs than any president in history, teh stock market has reaqched Hes turned the supreme court back to its true role, intreperting the constitution, not making it."

Friends shouldn't let friends type drunk.