The Official Hillary Clinton support thread

[Bill3000]

Well, not really, someone cited all those quotes in a previous thread, and a discussion ensued about whether they were really out of context or not.

By the usual suspects who consider anyone supporting a system that is not inherently laissez-faire as communist...

I'm not even remotely a fan of Hillary's support of infringement of civil liberties, but come on.

 

[Murky]

I know I was utterly "pwned" on a joke.

And Snoopes doesn't say that Hillery didn't actually say those things. They are also indicative of her stance and voting record. She is a socialist in liberals clothing.

I think you're wrong there. Hillary is not wanting to radically change course like what Ron Paul is advocating. If she becomes President, don't expect a radical departure from current policy. The primary differences will be on the domestic side of things but it won't amount to becoming a socialist state.

 

[skadistic]

I think you're wrong there. Hillary is not wanting to radically change course like what Ron Paul is advocating. If she becomes President, don't expect a radical departure from current policy. The primary differences will be on the domestic side of things but it won't amount to becoming a socialist state.

Right because because all her socialist ideas that she has and admits to but also admits can't afford are just like it is today. All those social programmes she knows she can't afford but will push through any and all she can. No nothing majorly different there. God forbid she has a dem. congress who share here "the government needs to take care of you" attitude. She will bail out every idiot who can't afford their mortgage. ( at the expense of the tax payer), She will push through universal health care ( at the expense of the tax payer), she will raise taxes ( on the "rich") to pay for any thing else she wants to to put the "greater good" in effect. Even if that means taking from others. Her platform is social programmes paid by the "rich" that is socialism.

 

[Murky]

Right because because all her socialist ideas that she has and admits to but also admits can't afford are just like it is today. All those social programmes she knows she can't afford but will push through any and all she can. No nothing majorly different there. God forbid she has a dem. congress who share here "the government needs to take care of you" attitude. She will bail out every idiot who can't afford their mortgage. ( at the expense of the tax payer), She will push through universal health care ( at the expense of the tax payer), she will raise taxes ( on the "rich") to pay for any thing else she wants to to put the "greater good" in effect. Even if that means taking from others. Her platform is social programmes paid by the "rich" that is socialism.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from but it sounds a lot like the type of right-wing propaganda you hear from idiots like O'Reilly and Limbaugh. I've not heard her saying anything about the mortage crisis that would suggest that she would bail out everyone that got in too deep.

 

[skadistic]

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from but it sounds a lot like the type of right-wing propaganda you hear from idiots like O'Reilly and Limbaugh. I've not heard her saying anything about the mortage crisis that would suggest that she would bail out everyone that got in too deep.

Then you haven't been listening. Given you compunction to name call people who you disagree with it doesn't surprise me you wouldn't hear those things. But it must be right wing propaganda from Hillery when she says it too, right?

 

[Ecofarm]

I've not heard her saying anything about the mortage crisis that would suggest that she would bail out everyone that got in too deep.

Listen.

If you thought Hillary Clinton’s health care takeover plan was bad, wait ’til you see what she has in store for the housing sector. As always with the Clintons, the market is the problem and Big Nanny (and Big Fannie and Big Freddie) are the solution. Last week, she unveiled her “four-point plan” to protect the American Dream of homeownership. She’s wildly waving around $1 billion promises here and $1 billion promises there.

Spoiler :

In her address to about 250 people in a Derry elementary school gymnasium, Clinton criticized unscrupulous mortgage brokers who push customers into borrowing more to pad their commission or are dishonest about the true cost of the loan. To help curb the number of foreclosures, Clinton proposed setting up a $1 billion fund to assist homeowners in making arrangements with lending companies to stay in their home.

She also discussed the lack of affordable housing, an issue that is particularly a problem in New England. To promote more affordable housing construction, Clinton proposed another $1 billion fund which would be distributed to state, county and local affordable housing programs.

Hillary appeared on CNBC last week to pimp her plan. Unsurprisingly, she’s demonizing lenders and brokers the way she demonized the pharmaceutical industry:

Spoiler :

“I think a lot of the lenders have really taken advantage of what is a really tough economic situation for many Americans,” Clinton told CNBC’s Dylan Ratigan during the live interview. “Although many of us have done well in the last six-and-half years, the median income in America has dropped $1,300, while healthcare costs, tuition and other costs that are really part of a middle class and working family’s budget have increased.”

In order to ensure mortgage brokers are qualified, she also thinks there should be more screening and a national registry of brokers as well as greater disclosure of the terms of broker compensation.

Clinton also proposed a $1 billion federal fund for local and state programs that help at-risk homeowners avoid foreclosures. She said those programs could help the “unsuspecting families” linked to unfair mortgages.

She also proposed that lenders remove early payment penalties attached to some mortgages.

“A lot of buyers think the brokers are actually representing them, when we know the brokers get paid depending upon the size of the mortgage they are able to sell,” she said.

The full plan is at her campaign blog, where she’s soliciting personal stories of homeowners “at risk.”

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/14/hillarys-socialist-housing-bailout-plan/

Michelle goes on to provide criticisms of the plan.

 

[Murky]

Listen.

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/14/hillarys-socialist-housing-bailout-plan/

Michelle goes on to provide criticisms of the plan.

Hm. This is interesting. I haven't been keeping up with Hillary's promises as much as you have.

I don't see a bailout for everyone here. It would take a lot more than 2 billion to bailout everyone who was trying to get rich off of buying and selling real-estate that ended up in over their heads.

It looks like to me that she wants to protect the home ownership of families against unscrupulous lending practices, which do exist, she’s not making that up.

She is also right that we do need to make more affordable housing available to people in need. I suppose your alternative is to just throw everyone who loses their home out in the street?

 

[skadistic]

If you can't afford your house you should loose it. No one made then sign. All they had to do was read and understand the terms. But they didn't and now Hillery wants me to pay for those people's mistake. Its not my fault why should I have to shoulder the burden? Thats what happens in socialist programmes. I'm not a socialist. This isn't the USSA. Hillery will try to turn it into one. One socialist programme at a time.

 

[Ecofarm]

First, I must give all the credit for having information to Michelle - all I did was google the topic

Second,

To the streets, serfs! The revolution will not be televised.

 

[EdwardTking]

If you can't afford your house you should loose it. No one made then sign. All they had to do was read and understand the terms. But they didn't and now Hillery wants me to pay for those people's mistake. Its not my fault why should I have to shoulder the burden? Thats what happens in socialist programmes. I'm not a socialist. This isn't the USSA. Hillery will try to turn it into one. One socialist programme at a time.

Your doctrine of short term self interest.

While clearly some out and out chancers in oversize luxurious
MacMansions must go, and find more modest accommodation;
what about those who have merely fallen on hard times?

But if the banks evict all who can not pay, they end up with a stock of
properties. If they try to sell them, the properties nose dive.

And what happens to the families? You'd have families freezing while
sleeping in their cars while their former homes are empty and deteriorating?

 

[skadistic]

Your doctrine of short term self interest.

While clearly some out and out chancers in oversize luxurious
MacMansions must go, and find more modest accommodation;
what about those who have merely fallen on hard times?

But if the banks evict all who can not pay, they end up with a stock of
properties. If they try to sell them, the properties nose dive.

And what happens to the families? You'd have families freezing while
sleeping in their cars while their former homes are empty and deteriorating?

Or they could rent more modest abodes. People fall on hard time often. So what. Its part of life. Its up to them to plan ahead and/or pick them selves up. They could always move south instead of freezing. Its not my problem or my responsibility. Nor is it the governments. Especially at the cost to me.

 

[EdwardTking]

Or they could rent more modest abodes. People fall on hard time often. So what. Its part of life. Its up to them to plan ahead and/or pick them selves up. They could always move south instead of freezing. Its not my problem or my responsibility. Nor is it the governments. Especially at the cost to me.

In the Great Depression, farmers let crops rot because they could not sell them, while people who could not find work went hungry in the cities.

But I suppose that was all their fault for not planning ahead or picking themselves up.

 

[Murky]

It's obvious the cry of the right wingers is to let the peasants freeze & starve so long as it's not costing them anything.

 

[skadistic]

In the Great Depression, farmers let crops rot because they could not sell them, while people who could not find work went hungry in the cities.

But I suppose that was all their fault for not planning ahead or picking themselves up.

It sure was. Did every one starve? No. Some came out smelling like roses.

It's obvious the cry of the right wingers is to let the peasants freeze & starve so long as it's not costing them anything.

No its that people are responsible for them selves. The "right wingers" will gladly help out those if they want to. Studies show the "right wingers" give more each year in charity. They just don't thing the government should play mommy to everyone. If I want to help some poor person thats up to me. I don't like the nanny state taking my money and giving it to others.

You know what I do when I see a person down and out on the street? I offer them a job. Its my choice. I like choice.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Right because because all her socialist ideas that she has and admits to but also admits can't afford are just like it is today. All those social programmes she knows she can't afford but will push through any and all she can. No nothing majorly different there. God forbid she has a dem. congress who share here "the government needs to take care of you" attitude. She will bail out every idiot who can't afford their mortgage. ( at the expense of the tax payer), She will push through universal health care ( at the expense of the tax payer), she will raise taxes ( on the "rich") to pay for any thing else she wants to to put the "greater good" in effect. Even if that means taking from others. Her platform is social programmes paid by the "rich" that is socialism.

Social program doesn't not equal socialist. Hillary is not even close to being a socialist. Most countries that claim to embraces socialism can barely fit the bill unless you are talking about the imaginary idea of socialism that conservatives have created so they call liberals commies.

I'm not saying all her programs are good or responsible but they are not socialist. Social programs, corporate subsidies and protectionism are both forms of welfare that are a part of the balance in any republic.

Stop being overly dramatic and trying to exxagerate things into a different idealogy. You could use the same logic call republicans socialist or even communist. In regards to privacy and social freedoms there are similarities between republicans and Castro but that doesn't make them communists. Socialist and communist countries also tend to be more in favor and powerfull armed forces but that also does not make a republican equal a socialist or communist.

Or they could rent more modest abodes. People fall on hard time often. So what. Its part of life. Its up to them to plan ahead and/or pick them selves up. They could always move south instead of freezing. Its not my problem or my responsibility. Nor is it the governments. Especially at the cost to me.

You may not feel its your responsibility but it could be your problem. The result could have an impact on your life, your environment and the econonmy. For someone who cares about costs to them its an irresponsible statement because your income depends on stability which cannot be maintained without helping citizens on some level.

 

[skadistic]

Social program doesn't not equal socialist. Hillary is not even close to being a socialist. Most countries that claim to embraces socialism can barely fit the bill unless you are talking about the imaginary idea of socialism that conservatives have created so they call liberals commies.

I'm not saying all her programs are good or responsible but they are not socialist. Social programs, corporate subsidies and protectionism are both forms of welfare that are a part of the balance in any republic.

Stop being overly dramatic and trying to exxagerate things into a different idealogy. You could use the same logic call republicans socialist or even communist. In regards to privacy and social freedoms there are similarities between republicans and Castro but that doesn't make them communists. Socialist and communist countries also tend to be more in favor and powerfull armed forces but that also does not make a republican equal a socialist or communist. Overly dramatic? Social programmes aren't socialist?



You may not feel its your responsibility but it could be your problem. The result could have an impact on your life, your environment and the econonmy. For someone who cares about costs to them its an irresponsible statement because your income depends on stability which cannot be maintained without helping citizens on some level.

If you weren't talking about less then 1% of the population you might have a point. The numbers are insignificant. And so is the over all impact.

 

[Murky]

If you weren't talking about less then 1% of the population you might have a point. The numbers are insignificant. And so is the over all impact.

If the numbers are insignificant then why is it such a big deal to help them?

 

[GrandAdmiral]

If you weren't talking about less then 1% of the population you might have a point. The numbers are insignificant. And so is the over all impact.

Before I reply further, what is this 1% and where are you getting it from?

 

[skadistic]

If the numbers are insignificant then why is it such a big deal to help them?

Because it should be up to me as to weather not I help, not up to the government to take my money and help them.

Before I reply further, what is this 1% and where are you getting it from?

1% is the number of people who are in financing trouble right now and going to lose their homes. The 1% Hillery wants to take my money and pay off their mistake. Me being a person who didn't sign on the line a contract I didn't understand. Me a person that didn't buy a house much bigger then I needed or could afford. Why should I under Hillery's plan be punished for doing it the right way while others are rewarded for not? Its part of Hillery's socialist agenda. Take from the hard workers who do well and give it to those who don't work hard. Its as bad as giving trophies to little Johnny because he showed up and lost. After she bails out these people who does she want to bail out next at my expense?

 

[Murky]

Because it should be up to me as to weather not I help, not up to the government to take my money and help them.

I think you have some misconceptions about the people in need. It isn't all their fault. Some of them fell victim to loan scams and other's lost income due to circumstances beyond their control. To say that it is just their own stupid fault isn't entirely accurate. I would wager than in most cases, isn't true at all.

As someone who has spent a lot of time trying to help eliminate poverty, I can tell you than a concerted effort by the entire community makes a much bigger difference than just individuals giving when they choose. Charity does help and there's nothing wrong with giving money directly. It has shown to be less effective than a community based project. Also, with a project approach you can have a system of checks & balances to figure out the what is working and what isn't, then make adjustments. One of the methods used today is ROMA or results oriented management. You can go to their website for more information.