<p>Hillary’s words “we will have to take more of your money for the common good” was a red flag for me. Are you saying that SHE, herself, is now part of the vast right wing conspiracy to make HRC look bad?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Imagine that? A politician emphasizing different themes depending on the audience. Why, I’ve never heard of such a thing.</p>
<p>Does the name Mitt Romney ring a bell?</p>
<p>Actually, Sen. Clinton’s positions are quite consistent with the themes (and policies) of Bill Clinton’s administration. Both largely cater to the centrist DLC positions. Progressive on social issues. Pro-business, pro-trade, fiscal responsibility on economic issues. Mainstream on foreign policy and defense (diplomacy oriented) as opposed to the radicalism of the neocons).</p>
<p>Sokkermom says….I think any valid poll information from NH is very premature</p>
<p>Not at all. Polling information from today will tell you were things are today…if you mean polling from today won’t tell you where things are going to be in 10 days or 10 weeeks you are right, but that does not make today’s polling premature. It just means you can’t use today’s polling for purposes it is not intended to be used for.</p>
<p>No tommybill. People–many in the Democrat party, including Daniel Patrick Moynihan–had problems with Hillary’s health care plan back in the '90’s–way before Bush and the war. Try giving the American public some credit for a change. Maybe some people honestly believe universal health care is not a good idea–for a variety of reasons. Wait 'til she gets her hands on education.</p>
<p>
<strong><em>ROFL</em></strong> Uh, yeah. A truly lovely euphemism for being dishonest! ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Could you provide a citation for that?</p>
<p>The only tax increase Clinton has endorsed is a rollback of the Bush tax cut for the highest income levels. She has specifically NOT endorsed additional tax hikes for health care, nor has she proposed a short-term implementation of “universal health care”, but rather an incremental approach. She has endorsed a return to the “pay as you go” fiscal policy that allowed the first Clinton administration to balance the federal budget.</p>
<p>hereshoping… so you are saying you have been scarring the American people with the creeping socialism argument all along.</p>
<p>You are correct tommybill. I mean that the current NH polls can and should not be used to call the election ! (Some democrats are trying to do just that.) They are trying to jump on the Hillary bandwagon by using limited poll information to project her as the only “electable” candidate… :eek:</p>
<p>(I haven’t spoken to a single person in NH who IS voting for Hillary, but that could change…)</p>
<p>I sometimes get the feeling that tommybill and ID are brothers. ;)</p>
<p>Universal health care equals socialism? Does universal eating, or universal education, or universal safety? Is it somehow anti-American to think everyone should get care for their health, or should just some people?</p>
<p>Now, if you want to say single payer national health care, I’m with you there. That’s more socialistic, and I’m totally in favor of it. But HC is not, and her health plan was just a sop to big insurance companies (my first disappointment in her.) Edwards, Obama, and especially Kucinich have much better ones.</p>
<p>I just don’t get this HC is far left stuff. As if!</p>
<p>Think Hillary can botch public education any more than Bush has managed to do? I doubt it.</p>
<p>on edit, after reading Garland: </p>
<p>Hillary is about as centrist as they come. They whole idea of someone describinh her as “far left” is really funny, actually.</p>
<p>How much have the Bush tax cuts helped America? See below.</p>
<p>Supply-side Spin</p>
<p>June 11, 2007</p>
<p>Sen. John McCain has said President Bush’s tax cuts have increased federal revenues. But revenues would have been even higher without them.</p>
<p>Summary</p>
<p>Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has said that the major tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 have “increased revenues.” He also said that tax cuts in general increase revenues. That’s highly misleading. </p>
<p>In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can’t have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding. The growth in the past three years that McCain refers to brings revenues back in line with the 40-year historical average as a percentage of gross domestic product.</p>
<p>Copyright © 2003 - 2007, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
FactCheck.org’s staff, not the Annenberg Center, is responsible for this material.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton is not proposing the same sweeping approach to health care today as she presented sixteen years ago.</p>
<p>One of the good things about a politician with real experience (and battle scars) is that they become much more realistic in understanding what is “doable” and “not-doable” politically. For example, it is John Edwards who is promising universal health care in his first term with a price tag of $120 billion. You don’t hear Clinton offering those kinds of promises. In fact, her stump speech on health care is all about incremental changes and concensus among the various players. She mostly gets attacked from the left for being too much in the pocket of corporate interests on health care and a range of issues. She enjoys a great deal of support from the corporate community, including (ironically) Rupert Murdoch who has been a consistent contributor to her campaigns.</p>
<p>I can’t even imagine why she would take the test in Arkansas. That’s so random. She must have just been trying to pass the easier test.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Single-payer would be the most efficient solution. One of the real problems with our health care is the overlapping systems: the VA systems, the private systems, the government systems, etc.</p>
<p>Be that as it may, “single-payer” is a political non-starter.</p>
<p>post 251 did not contain the whole report here is part of it</p>
<p>Read article for Cost/Benefit of the Bush tax cuts</p>
<p>Supply-side Spin</p>
<p>June 11, 2007
Sen. John McCain has said President Bush’s tax cuts have increased federal revenues. But revenues would have been even higher without them.
Summary
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has said that the major tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 have “increased revenues.” He also said that tax cuts in general increase revenues. That’s highly misleading. </p>
<p>In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can’t have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding. The growth in the past three years that McCain refers to brings revenues back in line with the 40-year historical average as a percentage of gross domestic product.
It’s unclear how much of the growth can be attributed to the tax cuts. Capital gains tax receipts did increase greatly from 2003 to 2006, but the CBO estimates that they will level off and decrease in the next few years. The growth overwhelmingly resulted from a sharp rise in corporate tax receipts, the cause of which is a topic of debate.
. . . . [copyrighted material removed – Moderator Amistad]</p>
<p>Copyright © 2003 - 2007, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
FactCheck.org’s staff, not the Annenberg Center, is responsible for this material.</p>
<p>I never quite understood how she could become a New York Senator when she lived in DC and Arkansas either. </p>
<p>What I really want to know is does she use the southern drawl when she cheers for the Yankees ? 
</p>
<p>Here’s one</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/29/politics/main2863118.shtml[/url]”>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/29/politics/main2863118.shtml</a></p>
<p>but here’s what I was thinking of (this is from the AP in 2004 and I couldn’t find the original, but here’s the scopes.com)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/hildabeast.asp[/url]”>http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/hildabeast.asp</a> references to that are all over the web.</p>
<p>The fact that this time it will be incremental is supposed to make any difference? “Consensus among various players.” LOL Sorry, that’s a joke. It’s the end result that is important. This is playing games.</p>
<p>No one is “scarring” anyone, tb. Get it? Some people are capable of reading her policy papers and drawing their own conclusions. Understand it now? :)</p>
<p>Thanks for the snopes link, Z. Amazing how stuff gets made up, twisted, or both!</p>
<p>And as far as fighting for the common good, well, duh, isn’t that what we want from a President? Or do just some folks (the uncommon ones, I suppose) get the good (like health care, I guess.)</p>
<p>Keep it up–you’re actually making me start to appreciate her!</p>
<p>zoosermom:</p>
<p>Oh, I see. You conveniently left out the beginning of the quote which made clear that she was talking specifically about the Bush tax cut for the highest income earners in the country.</p>
<p>BTW, here’s the full text of the speech two weeks ago the CBS newswire story was referencing. The speech outlines many of Clinton’s economic goals, including balanced budgets and tax cuts for the middle class:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=1839[/url]”>http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=1839</a></p>