<p>I agree with mini.</p>
<p>“You know, I said there may be a continuing counterterrorism mission, which, if it still exists, will be aimed at al Qaeda in Iraq. It may require combat, Special Operations Forces…” (Direct quote from Hillary)</p>
<p>Is that much different than what is going on now?</p>
<p>I think “continuing conterterrorism mission” is pretty vague, and could cover a multitude of decisions or indecisions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tell the truth, mini.</p>
<p>George Bush’s position is quite clear. He will bring home the 30,000 surge troops by next summer (because we don’t have any replacements for them). He has made no commitments or goals beyond that, leaving 130,000 troops in Iraq. He has stated, very clearly, that he intends to have a large, long-term military presence in Iraq beyond that, using Korea as an analogy.</p>
<p>The Democratic candidates in general, and Clinton specifically, have stated unambiguously that they will rapidly draw down the vast majority of our troops beginning with their inauguration and stated a clear goal of having ALL troops out of Iraq by the end of their first terms.</p>
<p>There is no way, unless you are just being disingenuous, that you can claim these two policies are similar in any way.</p>
<p>“No. Not also. Barack Obama was the only candidate who pledged to continue protecting US bases.”</p>
<p>Oh, so this Hillary’s counterterrorism mission has the troops running across the border from Syria, Jordan, and Iran, where of course they are welcomed with open arms, in order to chase down nasty guys in Iraq. ID - you are just being silly.</p>
<p>George B. says he is bringing troops home now, and, if conditions on the ground warrant, there will be further troop reductions as well. Hillary says that she will draw down troops, but cannot make any firm commitments because she has to examine conditions on the ground, but commits to a long-term military presence (in bases) in Iraq “for counterrorism missions” and to maintain long-term U.S. strategic interests in the region.</p>
<p>TweedleDee and TweedleDum, with a lot of talk in the middle.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. Much different. As you may be aware, we currently have US forces patrolling neighborhoods all over Bahgdad and the surrounding areas, conducting urban warfare missions, going house to house in clearing operations. ALL of the Democratic candidates want an immediate withdrawal of US forces from policing sectarian violence.</p>
<p>Hillary may talk about troop withdrawal, but when pressed, she refuses to provide any numbers. She will not commit. She did not define counterterrorism.</p>
<p>It was like her line last night when asked about increasing the social security tax limit. She will not put anything on the “proverbial table”. Of course she won’t. It avoids an answer to a direct question, and her avoidance is continually spun by her campaign to show that she is “thoughtful” and intelligent. I don’t see it that way. I see it simply as avoidance to a direct question. She has mastered that political tactic.</p>
<p>I know other posters in the Hillary camp will disagree. That is their prerogative.</p>
<p>From Post 214 …“There may still be some Democrats out there who feel that Hillary Clinton may not be the best candidate for the party.”</p>
<p>I don’t think there is any question but that that is true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. That’s actually John Edwards plan, as he outlined in a stump speech two weeks ago.</p>
<p>BTW, we currently have special forces counter-terrorism operations in Pakistan going after Al Qaeda. We have had for five years now. Should the next President promise Tim Russert that we would have zero US forces in Pakistan at the end of her first term?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hillary answered the Social Security question. There is one reason, and one reason alone, that Social Security is even an issue: the Republicans have been robbing the Social Security Trust fund blind to finance their deficit spending.</p>
<p>At the time Bill Clinton left office, the government was running a surplus and paying down the national debt (i.e. repaying the money borrowed from Social Security). Alan Greenspan said recently that Federal Reserve Board projections showed that, had Clinton’s fiscal policy been followed, the entire national debt would have been paid off by 2006. That means all the money borrowed from the Social Security trust fund would have been repaid and Social Security would have been solvent until 2055, when the baby boomers would be dead. The money spent on interest to carry the national debt would be ZERO. That money could have been used to bolster Social Security, provide universal health care, or finance tax cuts that are paid for.</p>
<p>What Clinton is saying is that she’s not about to consider bandaids like increased payroll taxes or reduced benefits until the underlying problem of fiscal responsibility and deficit spending is stopped. The bandaids make everyone feel good and move you farther from the leverage to address the real problem – out of control deficit spending and the resultant gutting of the Social Security trust fund (and massive borrowing from China).</p>
<p>Now, obviously increasing taxes is probably unavoidable to curtail the deficit spending. But, as long as you are borrowing from Social Security to finance deficit spending, it doesn’t matter if you increase Social Security payroll taxes or increase taxes some other way. In other words, you don’t get anywhere increasing Social Security payroll taxes if you are just going to continue spending the increased revenue to pay for out of control deficits. The deficits are the problem, no matter how you slice it. </p>
<p>The social security payroll tax is one of the most regressive taxes we have. It hits the very people who have lost ground economically over the last six years, just as cutting benefits would hit them disproportionately.</p>
<p>Post #226</p>
<p>Thanks tommykill. An opinion is an opinion. If an opinion happens to differ from your own, it doesn’t make it false.</p>
<p>If an opinion is made regarding a political candidate that you support that is contrary to your opinion it doesn’t make it untruthful or misleading either. Pretty simple concept.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you want to vote for a candidate who has “promised” Tim Russert to have zero US troops in Iraq at the end of his or her first term in office, you have four choices:</p>
<p>Ron Paul
Dennis Kucinich
Mike Gravel</p>
<p>Bill Richardson has also made that “promise”, but has also said that he would keep US troops in Iraq to guard the embassy. So I’ll leave that up to you to reconcile the contradiction and add him to your list if you feel that he is offering a credible promise.</p>
<p>I’ll also leave it up to you to determine whether you feel that Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel are credibly Presidential on a range of issues.</p>
<p>I can’t believe nobody challenges all this leftist economic propaganda on this thread, all of which is a bunch of hooey. The New York Times recently reported:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Democrats don’t like this because it doesn’t fit in with their theories about raising taxes to lower deficits. Oh and the idea that if we followed Bill Clinton’s fiscal policies, the budget would be balanced? that’s really funny.
What projections were those? It just so happens we had a recession starting in 2001… that’s one of the reasons the deficit ballooned, as it has throughout the last century whenever there is a recession. When the economy grows, the deficit disappears because tax revenues increase dramatically. That is what is happening now. </p>
<p>Don’t worry, I don’t plan on contributing to this Democrat love fest thread on a regular basis, so don’t flame me!</p>
<p>Three consecutive “big annual declines” in a row and we are down to a $200 billion deficit for 2007?</p>
<p>Yeah boy, those Republicans sure are fiscally responsible! I can’t wait to hear the Republicans on the campaign trail bragging to the conservative base that they “only” have a $200 billion deficit this year!</p>
<p>Tell me again about how it’s the Democrats who don’t like this news because it doesn’t fit with “their theories”. As if these unprecedented deficits somehow fit with conservative theories. Puhleeze.</p>
<p>
At least they don’t have deeds to houses in OZ where the Dems hang out. No credible person believes that the budget surplus in the late 90’s was brought about by government policy. Clinton was the beneficiary of a perfect storm of economic bubbles that will not be repeated in our lifetime. But, for a populace who thinks an outstanding interview performance is one in which the questions are evaded, I guess it is a bit much for them to understand the concepts of cause and effect.</p>
<p>Well, we certainly know the causes of George Bush’s massive deficit spending. The two major initiatives of his administration:</p>
<p>a) a never ending war in Iraq
b) tax cuts for the wealthy</p>
<p>Let’s talk about cause and effect.</p>
<p>I have to admit that I dozed off during some of the debate. I heard Hillary avoiding the social security question by using the term “fiscal responsibility” blah blah blah.
Did she provide any specifics at all as to how she would be fiscally responsible? If she did, I missed it.</p>
<p>You dozed off? You mean you missed it when Hillary interrupted herself to say that she wanted to give a shout out to one soccer mom in New Hampshire? Uh oh.</p>
<p>^ Darn. I missed it. However, I did hear the part about her having to talk to her husband about something… uh oh :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure I did hear her interrupt everyone else. I didn’t know you could interrupt yourself. She IS amazing!</p>
<p>HMM. let’s see, I’m still having trouble understanding this logic.</p>
<p>you cut taxes.
and you increase spending.
the deficit decreases for three consecutive years.</p>
<p>And the response to that is…“well, it’s still really big, so Uhh it doesn’t really matter that the deficit is going down and continuing to trend down after CUTTING TAXES, so let’s raise taxes again” The deficit is still big. really big. really, really big. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.</p>
<p>It’s staring Democrats in the face. Supply side economics works… it worked during the Reagan era, and it works now. Economists know it. But you will NEVER hear a Democrat admit that it could happen. I can’t wait to hear them debate this stuff and explain how they are going to fix the deficit by raising taxes, even though it went down when taxes were lowered. They are going to get skewered on this.</p>
<p>The truth is that the effects of tax policy are very complex and most economists know this. Every tax increase does not necessarily result in deficit reduction, especially if there is recession. The deficit is affected by many things, including the strength of the economy, not just tax policy, and economic growth totally trumps everything else when it comes to increasing tax revenues.<br>
To take away all the Bush tax cuts may sound like a great idea politically, but I doubt it is based on solid economic policy. That will be especially true if we are bordering on recession because of the effects of the present credit crunch. If you raise taxes during a recession, umm I think you risk deepening the recession, isn’t that right? What’s really laughable is the Democrats new supposed interest in fiscal restraint. From what I remember, classic Keynesian economics says that increasing government spending will spur the economy when there is recession. Isn’t that what Bush did in 2001? Didn’t this help to reduce the length and severity of the recession? If you look back at it, it’s pretty amazing that we were headed into recession, then 9/11 hit, and the economy recovered very nicely in a pretty short period of time.<br>
Oh wait, I understand, it’s only solid economic policy if a Democrat does it. If a Republican does it, it’s fiscal irresponsibility. Got it.</p>
<p>Keep repeating the mantra. Raise taxes, raise taxes, raise taxes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Worked in Reagan era? Are you kidding? He racked up massive federal deficits. Same thing George Bush is doing.</p>
<p>Here’s what works. Realism in the federal budgeting process. Pay as you go budgeting, whereby increases in spending have to be paid for by decreasing in spending or increases in revenues. You know, good ol’ fashioned fiscal responsibility that you get under Democratic administrations and you don’t get under Republican administrations.</p>
<p>Newsflash Reagan raised taxes (after lowering them):
from <a href=“http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp[/url]”>http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp</a></p>