RE: Hillary Clinton campaign stiffs her high school $3,161

[Guest guest]

Is any of this really a surprise? Hillary hasn't held a real job in her life. I know she was a lawyer for a while, but I don't consider the kind of legal work that firm did as real work because they made their money suing honest businesses and such for no sound reason. That's not work, its being a parasite.

What I find so interesting about all of this is that she and Bill made around $100 million in the last 8 years or so. Where is all of that money to pay for these things? Then there is the matter of that unaccounted for $18 million. Wonder where that is?

I don't think either she or Obama will be good for this country because they are both socialists. It is sadly ironic that while much of the world is turning away from Socialism, we are heading right into it.

In a message dated 4/7/2008 3:12:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

Here is the latest scandal going on in Hillary's hometown where I live. Now think about this folks. If Hillary will stiff the town she grew up in, what is she capable of doing to you?AdminisrtatorPlanning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.

[Guest guest]

Huh? Socialism is bad? A good Democracy has support for the poor through

socialist programs.

Our country will not force employers to hire the disabled. 95% of lawsuits

under Title I of the ADA fail (I have contacts with top ADA people who have

stated that, I don't have links).

Without socialist programs I would have stayed homeless and without food

since January 2003. Medicare & Medicaid are socialist programs. People DIE

without any socialism.

With SERIOUS cutbacks to the very limited funding of programs America is

rapidly dumping socialism, not embracing it. The height of socialism in the

United States was around the 30's I believe at the start of Social Security,

etc.

Socialism programs (socialism by the way is an Economic principle, NOT

political like the often associated Communism) support persons with

disabilities to live and work. Killing off all those programs will be

saying that all persons with disabilities should just die or go somewhere

" else " .

I'm seriously offended by anti-socialism and extreme conservatism. Sorry.

Randy Garrett

Antioch, CA USA

-----<---{(@

Re: Hillary Clinton campaign stiffs her high

school $3,161

Is any of this really a surprise? Hillary hasn't held a real job in her

life. I know she was a lawyer for a while, but I don't consider the kind of

legal work that firm did as real work because they made their money suing

honest businesses and such for no sound reason. That's not work, its being a

parasite.

What I find so interesting about all of this is that she and Bill made

around $100 million in the last 8 years or so. Where is all of that money to

pay for these things? Then there is the matter of that unaccounted for $18

million. Wonder where that is?

I don't think either she or Obama will be good for this country because they

are both socialists. It is sadly ironic that while much of the world is

turning away from Socialism, we are heading right into it.

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.9/1364 - Release Date: 4/7/2008

6:38 PM

[Guest guest]

Huh? Socialism is bad? A good Democracy has support for the poor throughsocialist programs.

There is a difference between help for those who need it and maintaining a permanent class of the poor, largely for political purposes. A few programs for those people who truly need them is one thing, but our system supports millions who are otherwise able bodied, and has been since the Great Society was passed in the 1960's. Prior to that legislation, the poverty rate was declining. Since its passage, the poverty rate has remained froze around 10%.

"Without socialist programs I would have stayed homeless and without foodsince January 2003. Medicare & Medicaid are socialist programs. People DIEwithout any socialism."

As I said, there are some people who legitimately need help. However, our system supports a great many who do not need it: poor, middle class and even upper classes in some cases. "With SERIOUS cutbacks to the very limited funding of programs America israpidly dumping socialism, not embracing it. The height of socialism in theUnited States was around the 30's I believe at the start of Social Security,etc."

Actually, under Bush, social spending has been increasing even faster than it did under Clinton, something like 8% per year. The number of programs has also increase, such as the prescription drug coverage plan and others. Hillary and Obama want to add more programs such as free college and lots of free other things too.

The 1930's was the start of socialism in America, not its height. Many programs were established in the Great Depression and were intended to be short term. But of course, it is nearly impossible to end a government program, so they became permanent and expanded.

One example is the Social Security plan. Sure it sounded nice, guaranteed retirement when you got old. However, the retirement age was set at 65. Problem was that in the 1930's, life expectancy for men was 58 years and for women it was 61. In other words, the age was set so that less than half the people would ever reach the age where government would have to start paying out money, and when it did, it would be less than what it took in with the Social Security tax. Because of this, the Social Security money was put in the general fund and what little was needed to cover retirees was paid out as needed on a yearly basis while the politicians got to spend the rest. Medicare and Medicaid were set up on similar principles

Problem is that, life expectancy is well above 65 now, which means more than half of the people are going to live to draw benefits. In addition, Social Security has been expanded to pay out for non-retirement programs. By 2018, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will consume the entire federal budget if tax rates remain as they are. That means massive tax increases are coming, which will only hurt the economy. That will be bad because other nations are lowering their tax rates and we will be at a disadvantage as far as business goes and attracting investment for things like research and so on.

My main objection to Socialism is that once the politicians get involved, they don't know when to stop. The Ancient Greeks noticed this and they said that a Democracy will only last until the people realize that they can vote themselves all they want from the treasury, meaning that the people will bankrupt their own state for want of free things from the government. Average life expectancy for a Democracy has been about 200 years. We're a bit over that. Right now, the politicians are falling all over themselves to offer more and more from the government to more and more people. The economy will not be able to sustain that. The politicians know this and that is why we have such huge debt, they have been borrowing rather than taxing for these programs so the voters haven't felt the pain yet, but we are starting to.

A lot of this could be solved by preventing government from spending beyond what it takes in, keeping a single set of accounting books to standard business accounting rules, and no backdating payment for programs (this one is really going to hurt us when these programs who's payment was set years in the future come due shortly). There are other things too.

So, my objection to this unlimited socialism comes from an historical perspective. Socialism never knows when to quit and it drags down the society it was intended to help. The more extreme the socialism, the faster the fall.

Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.

[Guest guest]

" I'm seriously offended by anti-socialism and extreme conservatism.

Sorry. "

I don't think anyone here is in favor of cutting off all social

programs. What needs to be understood though is that most government

programs have become like thick trees which have gone unpruned for

decades. They are dying from within due to dead wood, multiple

leaders, cross over limbs, and poor ability for light to circulate

within them.

There are people claiming benefits who do not need them, and there

are others who are milking the system by having more kids to get more

money even though kids are more expensive one had (even with the

programs' reimbursements) than not having them and skipping the extra

money.

I think one remedy to the nation's economic woes is to make the

lotteries and gambling we have illegal. Demographically, the people

most likely to play the lottery and gamble are people who cannot

afford to play the lottery and gamble. Billions of dollars would go

unspent by these people on ticket and games that win them nothing.

Instead they could be buying food, or saving for a place to rent or

buy.

The various governments, without these extra sources of revenues,

would have to tax people more, and thanks to Democrats, it will be

the rich who will be taxed the most.

Thus you have a huge reshifting in finances that benefits all but the

wealthy. And if the government could reorganize its social programs,

then you also make things run more efficiently, thereby saving money

and having more money to dole out to those who need it.

Administrator