Archive

Hillary Clinton

  • isadore
    jmog;1723377 wrote:George Soros owns The Open Society which funds Opensecrets.org.

    Do you have any other questions?
    wrong Soros is just one of many funders of open secret. he does not own it.

    Support for the Center comes from a combination of foundation grants, individual contributions and payments from custom research requests. Major donors include the Sunlight Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Open Society Institute, the Joyce Foundation, and the Ford Foundation. According to the organization's 2013 990 form, it had $1.56 million in revenue and $2.78 million in assets.[SUP][7
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Responsive_Politics    [/SUP]
  • jmog
    isadore;1723381 wrote:wrong Soros is just one of many funders of open secret. he does not own it.

    Support for the Center comes from a combination of foundation grants, individual contributions and payments from custom research requests. Major donors include the Sunlight Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Open Society Institute, the Joyce Foundation, and the Ford Foundation. According to the organization's 2013 990 form, it had $1.56 million in revenue and $2.78 million in assets.[SUP][7
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Responsive_Politics    [/SUP]
    Let me guess, then you would be of the opinion that the Cato Institute isn't owned/run by the Koch brothers then as well?
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1723390 wrote:Let me guess, then you would be of the opinion that the Cato Institute isn't owned/run by the Koch brothers then as well?
    This is off-topic but David Koch is on there is a bit of a difference between these organizations that you're trying to compare at least. David Koch is on the board of Cato. Soros is not on the board of the Center for Responsive Politics.


    But here is the bottom line with regard to this issue...Librulz don't believe in a world with Nuclear Weapons but they don't think the U.S. should give them up on their own. The same goes for political spending by the super rich. Conservatives are the ones who have argued in court for unlimited spending by the super rich on the grounds that it is their constitutional right.

    It is a cop out to say "well look at the big biz funding the democrats!!!" In a perfect world hardcore liberals like Bernie Sanders would have public financing for elections and a constitutional amendment against private spending that would apply to both George Soros and the Kochs. Until then, Democrats and Republicans are both whores for the deep pockets.
  • isadore
    jmog;1723390 wrote:Let me guess, then you would be of the opinion that the Cato Institute isn't owned/run by the Koch brothers then as well?
    you originally claimed Soros owned Open Secrets. He is one of many people and organizations that fund Open Secrets. The Cato Institute was started by Charles Koch
  • gut
    The Koch's are libertarian, which might as well be the devil to big-government liberals that want to run every part of our lives.
  • gut
    BoatShoes;1723393 wrote:...public financing for elections and a constitutional amendment against private spending that would apply to both George Soros and the Kochs.
    And the unions. Fair is fair. The unions don't represent my interests any more than Koch or Soros.
  • isadore
    gut;1723399 wrote:And the unions. Fair is fair. The unions don't represent my interests any more than Koch or Soros.
    the rich use their money to protect and further their interests. Unions work to protect and further the interests of their members.
  • isadore
    gut;1723398 wrote:The Koch's are libertarian, which might as well be the devil to big-government liberals that want to run every part of our lives.
    paranoia is not a pleasant trait, try to curb yours.
  • gut
    isadore;1723403 wrote:the rich use their money to protect and further their interests. Unions work to protect and further the interests of their members.
    Like I said, neither represent my interests....and the unions don't really represent all their members all that well, which is why the trend is moving away from organized labor (when workers are given the choice). Fair is fair.
  • gut
    isadore;1723407 wrote:paranoia is not a pleasant trait, try to curb yours.
    Tell that to Harry Reid and every other liberal/Democrat that demagogues the Koch brothers at every opportunity.
  • isadore
    gut;1723415 wrote:Like I said, neither represent my interests....and the unions don't really represent all their members all that well, which is why the trend is moving away from organized labor (when workers are given the choice). Fair is fair.
    5 day week, 8 hour day, no child workers, a livable wage are there because of unions. as unions loss power working conditions and pay worsen.
  • isadore
    gut;1723416 wrote:Tell that to Harry Reid and every other liberal/Democrat that demagogues the Koch brothers at every opportunity.
    it is not demagoguery. it is truth.
  • rydawg5
    isadore;1723418 wrote:5 day week, 8 hour day, no child workers, a livable wage are there because of unions. as unions loss power working conditions and pay worsen.
    I like this idea. I am trying to figure out how it is cheaper for the government to have to "Front the bill" of full-time employee's Healthcare, Food, Utility & Housing Assistance, while they work full time.

    It seems like a strong economy would provide working families enough salary to be able to provide for their families. That seems like the American Dream to me. I feel like when people realized their full time job included a livable wage, free of handouts, happiness would increase, pride in their jobs would increase, and less unemployment would happen due to apathy.


    My question is, would the people vote for "living wages" if it meant abolishing government handouts?

    If I was an owner, I'd be embarrassed to pay employees a wage that required my tax dollars to support them in other ways.
  • isadore
    rydawg5;1723433 wrote:I like this idea. I am trying to figure out how it is cheaper for the government to have to "Front the bill" of full-time employee's Healthcare, Food, Utility & Housing Assistance, while they work full time.

    It seems like a strong economy would provide working families enough salary to be able to provide for their families. That seems like the American Dream to me. I feel like when people realized their full time job included a livable wage, free of handouts, happiness would increase, pride in their jobs would increase, and less unemployment would happen due to apathy.


    My question is, would the people vote for "living wages" if it meant abolishing government handouts?

    If I was an owner, I'd be embarrassed to pay employees a wage that required my tax dollars to support them in other ways.
    Without strong unions to act as a counterbalance
    money will not go to the workers but for corporate profits
    Its what we have seen in America as unions decline
    average income drops
    corporate profits increase
  • Dr Winston O'Boogie
    isadore;1723438 wrote:Without strong unions to act as a counterbalance
    money will not go to the workers but for corporate profits
    Its what we have seen in America as unions decline
    average income drops
    corporate profits increase
    I agree. All the arguments about competitive dynamics can be thrown out there. Fact of the matter is wages today are not what they were 40 years ago and union membership has shriveled in the interim. Companies have successcully equated unionizing to being anti capitalistic and in some cases unpatriotic.
  • TedSheckler
    Hillary has some 'splainin' to do this morning.
  • Apple
    TedSheckler;1723532 wrote:Hillary has some 'splainin' to do this morning.
    Are you talking about donations to the Clinton Foundation and the approval by the State Dept. of sale of US uranium mining assets to the Russian state owned energy company?

    From the NY Times from all places!
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=1
  • fish82
    The hits keep coming. Any of you people going all in on Madame Secretary becoming POTUS are going to be sorely disappointed.
  • TedSheckler
    And went unreported on their taxes. But hey, who hasn't accidentally made a mistake on their taxes from time to time? What's a couple of million dollars?
  • Apple
    Then there is this little tidbit about the 2012 relationship of the country of Algeria, SoS Hillary Clinton, General Electric's CEO Jeffrey Immelt, and donations to the Clinton Foundation:

    This time from the conservative-leaning The Daily Caller:
    …"Secretary of State Clinton lobbied the Algerian president in 2012 to pick GE as a contractor for Algerian power plants. GE got the Algeria deal and quickly thereafter donated to the Clinton Foundation. Clinton also lobbied on behalf of Clinton Foundation donors including Boeing and Chevron."

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/22/ge-ceo-i-will-not-release-hillary-clinton-state-department-emails/
  • Pick6
    re: flat tax discussion

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-a-flat-tax-appeals-to-ted-cruz--rand-paul%E2%80%94and-russian-oligarchs-181504461.html
  • gut
    The liberal media is just trying to convince Warren to run...once they decide she won't or it gets to be too late for that to happen, then they'll fall in line.
  • BoatShoes
    Rubio's tax plan is way better. It is better because it creates a progressive consumption tax. By switching to a consumption tax, the marginal rate question matters much less. A 50% top marginal rate that reaches consumption only is way better than say a top marginal rate of 25% that reaches consumption and additions to saving.
  • HitsRus
    Wow...Boat and I agree.
  • jmog
    BoatShoes;1723817 wrote:Rubio's tax plan is way better. It is better because it creates a progressive consumption tax. By switching to a consumption tax, the marginal rate question matters much less. A 50% top marginal rate that reaches consumption only is way better than say a top marginal rate of 25% that reaches consumption and additions to saving.
    Can someone run down the basics of Rubio's plan? I don't want to read the 30 page document right now (might tonight).