Sen. Clinton stakes socialist claim to profits

[tim huntzinger]

We all lose when our national debt is $7 TRILLION.  Keep printing that Monopoly money and see how it does against the Euro.

Why does Cheney have the majority of his investments in non-American hedge funds if'n our economic future is so rosey?

'Mangina'?  That is disgusting misogyny.  Guess someone is threatened by powerful women.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

We all lose when our national debt is $7 TRILLION.  Keep printing that Monopoly money and see how it does against the Euro.

Why does Cheney have the majority of his investments in non-American hedge funds if'n our economic future is so rosey?

'Mangina'?  That is disgusting misogyny.  Guess someone is threatened by powerful women.

You're a confused little man.  Thanks for not responding to a single point I made, fricken trolls...

[Conan71]

Bush ruin the Williams Cos?  I never knew he worked there.  Puh-leaze!

Williams is as robust as ever, hardly a ruined company.

The Wil-Tel debacle was symptomatic of the over-exuberance and overspending in the telecom industry during Clinton's second term.  It was a bad management decision by Williams executives, nothing more, nothing less.

[tim huntzinger]

I do not recall the GOP advocating the abolishment of all taxes.  Ergo they are socialists, right?  Right.  We agree?

The DOW can go crashing down in the first day of the Democratic president and you will blame the Dem.  No doubt if it is Hillary you will blame it on her being a woman.

The factors you (IPLAW) point to are bauble bubbles.  We are in a credit fantasy, leveraged up to our necks for generations in an endless cycle of debt and borrowing.

[cannon_fodder]

1)Socialist
I dont understand why branding a wealth redistribution program 'socialist' is somehow offensive?  

Taking property from one person and giving it to another is socialism, by definition.  Senator Clinton wants to take money away from corporations and give it to others.  Corporations are owned by people.  Therefor, Senator Clinton is a socialist.

2) Big government
I loath big government spending no matter who does it.  The Republican controlled Congress spent as egregiously as any democrat.  I dont care what color your lapel pin is if your policies arent in line with mine I disagree with them.

3) National Debt
The national debt is not out of line with world economics.  Most European counties and indeed all of the economic powers of the world, bar China, are within 10% of our debt load by GDP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Likewise, the vast majority of this debt is held by United States controlled interests.  Our government barrows money from its own people to fund itself.  

That's not to say it isnt a concern.  Clearly a government should operate in the confines of its ability to generate revenue.  Ie, spend less.

4) COMPLETE LIE ABOUT CHENEY'S INVESTMENTS

I dont care if you dont like people.  I am interested to read when our leaders do shady crap.  However, I hate it when people hear or read bullsh!t and then pass it off as fact.

As illustrated by required public disclosures, Cheney has 57% of his wealth in strictly US assets.  An additional 36% is in an international fund that buys assets globally, including in the US.  7% are in international bonds.  

Cheney takes heat for owning assets in US companies because people claim he attempts to benefit them, people called foul when he held high risk investments because he was set to make a killing off of them... now people ***** because he has spread his risk to international markets and taken less risk in his portfolio in general (as well a man of his age and health should). What the hell is he supposed to do?

Not to mention, according to all reports his investment manager handles everything.  He has no input on his portfolio to help insulate him from charges of corruption AND because it is unlikely he has time to keep up with it.

5) Euro
Of course the Euro is gaining in popularity.  It is an amazing tool to spread your financial risk and allows a huge portion of the world to trade without exchange.  If I was an industrialist in Russian, the Middle East, or North Africa the Euro would be very attractive for general operations.  Not to mention the 30 or so countries mandated by law to use it.

The dollar is sliding because it is no longer an US v. them atmosphere.  For 50 years you used Russian Rubbles or Dollars... there was no viable alternative.  If you think the dollar has slid... look at the Rubble. And the manipulation by China isnt helping (which pegs its currency to ours while buying as much of our debt load as they can).

If this concerns you, perhaps we should affirm NAFTA and CAFTA and create a trade zone like the EU in the America's.  A single median of exchange (make it digital though, countries can keep their paper money) and no trade barriers.  Such a zone would come to dominate the globe more so than the US currently does, or China or the EU hopes to.  But I'm guessing you're not concerned enough to actually want to mimic the success of the EU and encourage free trade.

Not to mention, in an international currency market a weak currency HELPS the country that backs it. With dollars trading at a 20% discount to the Euro, US goods cost 20% less to Europeans  and European goods cost that much more in the US.  Thus, helping US based manufacturing and discouraging the sale of European goods here.  There are, of course, downsides for US travelers, companies with exclusive stocks of dollars trying to invest in Europe, and corporate buyouts... but by and large the industry of the weaker (BUT STABLE) currency gains.

------
Odds of a response to any substantive point - 1 in 3.  Odds of a logical, researched response to them all - 1 in 50.

[iplaw]

quote:
The DOW can go crashing down in the first day of the Democratic president and you will blame the Dem. No doubt if it is Hillary you will blame it on her being a woman.

Yet when it was Clinton who was in office when the DOW was growing, it was all due to his presidency...you can't pick and choose.

quote:
The factors you (IPLAW) point to are bauble bubbles. We are in a credit fantasy, leveraged up to our necks for generations in an endless cycle of debt and borrowing.

Could you please point out how credit leverage applies to the DOW records or lower UNEMPLOYMENT, it's barely connectable to homeownership...











I'm still waiting for your proof that Bush destroyed Williams...

[iplaw]

quote:
Odds of a response to any substantive point - 1 in 3. Odds of a logical, researched response to them all - 1 in 50.

You're odds are WAY too generous, you haven't been here long enough.

BTW, more bad news about this s**tty economy.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0221/p01s03-usec.html

[iplaw]

[tim huntzinger]

CF presents a well-reasoned argument, IP just spews.  Who is the loyyah, again?

1. The GOP has yet to repeal all taxes. Ergo, they are socialists.

2. I agree.

3. We are a debtor nation to China.  That concerns me.  We have a $7 TRILLION national debt and ya'll want to congratulate the GOP for cutting the deficit in half in five years?  That is disconcerting.

4. Kipplinger's was the ultimate source of info re: Cheney's foreign investments, not the infallible wikipedia.  Yup: he should put his money where his mouth is and invest 100% in American funds and stocks, that is what he should do.  Kipplinger's is well-known for its liberal leanings.

5.  We are an economic power in decline, that is a fact.  The reasons may be unclear but the trend is not.

The DOW is nothing but a chimera, whose value is purely perceived.  I do not cotton up to all that phoney politicorporate cheerleading.  Attacking Clinton as a socialist is meaningless when you believe that any taxation is socialism.

[iplaw]

quote:
1. The GOP has yet to repeal all taxes. Ergo, they are socialists.

Are you really that thick little boy?  Can you really not understand the difference in paying for road repair and infrastructure and confiscatory financial policies, of course not... There is a world of difference between the two.

quote:
3. We are a debtor nation to China. That concerns me. We have a $7 TRILLION national debt and ya'll want to congratulate the GOP for cutting the deficit in half in five years? That is disconcerting.

Can you please restate this after removing the non-sequitors.

quote:
4. Kipplinger's was the ultimate source of info re: Cheney's foreign investments, not the infallible wikipedia. Yup: he should put his money where his mouth is and invest 100% in American funds and stocks, that is what he should do. Kipplinger's is well-known for its liberal leanings.

This post is so ignorant no response is appropriate.

quote:The DOW is nothing but a chimera, whose value is purely perceived. I do not cotton up to all that phoney politicorporate cheerleading. Attacking Clinton as a socialist is meaningless when you believe that any taxation is socialism.

Tell that to my fund manager...[xx(]  Again, it's clear you can't understand the simple difference between a tax and income redistribution.

[Conan71]

People who are obsessed with Cheney's investment holdings also ignore the plethora of of corporate and individual contributors to all 537 elected officials in D.C. who do so to gain favor and influence for their own interests and companies.

They also neglect to look into nor mention the investment portfolios of those other officials and their spouses.  You honestly don't think Thresa Heinz Kerry's holdings benefitted from time-to-time by issues promoted or voted on by John Kerry?  H.J. Heinz owns a boatload of Del Monte stock, and it's reputed that Paul Pelosi has a sizeable stake in Del Monte as well.  Why is that relevant?  How about leaving American Samoa out of the minimum wage hike since Star-Kist (a division of Del-Monte) is a major employer there.  

But you libs don't care about the living conditions of people on a remote Pacific island as long as you can still buy cheap tuna.  Pelosi and Heinz-Kerry don't care as long as profits stay healthy in their investments.

Paul Pelosi's occupation is listed as "investor".  How many of you believe there hasn't been some arm twisting asserted in his real estate dealings because of "who" his wife is?

You libs wish to step over the odd financial influences on Democrats in order to demonize Republicans.  Why not acknowledge the obvious:  much of what happens on either side of the isle has more to do with the personal benefit of the elected official than the benefit of his/her constituents.

[tim huntzinger]

1.  I can tell the diff.  But apparently some cannot.  Taxes are the premium we pay to live in a free, prosperous, equitable society.  I am not the one supposing that taking any taxes and using them is socialism.  Apparently you would love to know how thick I am!

3. Comparative economics are useful when they buttress your point, evidently.  CF rightly points out that our debt is in line with other nations so the amount may be troubling but only in a perceived sense.  IP clearly wants to ignore the 'great news' that our deficit is shrinking in the slightest.  Have you not been paying attention to Saint Coburn? We are in debt for generations and a five-year projected shrinkage of the deficit does not even begin to address that.

4.  I would want to attack the Kipplinger's report, too, in defense of a war profiteer.

5.  All taxes are redistributed, ergo we are already a socialist nation.  It is just a matter of code enforcement.

[Conan71]

FWIW, since someone will say the American Samoa issue is a red herring, for the most part anytime one politician accuses another of impropriety regarding financial influence, it's to deflect attention away from their own shenanigans.  

The connections I'm drawing are recent examples.  If I cared to waste the time to prove further what most rational people already know- that Congress is a corrupt institution, I could spend hours digging around and posting links to contributors and investments which would paint just about every member of Congress, President Bush and VP Cheney in an unflattering color.

[iplaw]

quote:
1.  I can tell the diff.  But apparently some cannot.  Taxes are the premium we pay to live in a free, prosperous, equitable society.  I am not the one supposing that taking any taxes and using them is socialism.  Apparently you would love to know how thick I am!

You have proven consistently on this thread that you haven't the slightest clue as to the difference...

3. Comparative economics are useful when they buttress your point, evidently.  CF rightly points out that our debt is in line with other nations so the amount may be troubling but only in a perceived sense.  IP clearly wants to ignore the 'great news' that our deficit is shrinking in the slightest.  Have you not been paying attention to Saint Coburn? We are in debt for generations and a five-year projected shrinkage of the deficit does not even begin to address that.

We will have NO budget deficit within the next 5 years if we keep on pace with the financial plan we have in place, it doesn't get much simpler than that.

4.  I would want to attack the Kipplinger's report, too, in defense of a war profiteer.

Weak.  Try again.

5.  All taxes are redistributed, ergo we are already a socialist nation.  It is just a matter of code enforcement.

Distributing funds of the taxbase to infrastructure is not even in the same ball park as income redistribution...the taking of one's property to give to another who has none...

[Conan71]

Sorry, I had to peak under the curtain and see what Tim is blabbing about:

"I am not the one supposing that taking any taxes and using them is socialism."

Neither is IP.

You keep missing the point that what Ms. Clinton proposes is confiscating the legally earned after-tax profits of corporations and re-distributing them to less the less fortunate.  That is not simple taxation, that is a re-distribution of wealth over and beyond what is called for in the present tax code.

Let me aks you dis- what would you say to a gentleman that came to your door and said: "I heard you cleared $1200 last week.  You only needed $800 of that to live on, so I'm going to take the other $400 because four of your neighbors missed work last week and they are short on cash.  You obviously are making too much and that's unreasonible and unfair to your less ambitious neighbors."

That's not a tax, that's re-distribution and that's exactly the essence of what Ms. Clinton is saying.