Hillary proposes a $5,000 "baby bond"

[preservanation]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.
Clinton, her party's front-runner in the 2008 race, made the suggestion during a forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus.

"I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home," she said.

The New York senator did not offer any estimate of the total cost of such a program or how she would pay for it. Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RUJEL00&show_article=1

She trusts the taxpayers and children to privatisation of the market, but screamed bloody murder when Bush proposed the choice to let citizens invest 5% of Their own money from the social security fund.
This is NUTS!
4 mil babies times $5,000 a year????
Can you imagine the tax hike we would have to endure to make this possible???
Yikes and this is just one of her insane, socialist proposals.
We haven't even gotten to tax payer funded health care yet.
Hoooo boy!

[Saigio]

Oh, no!
The evil libs are trying to fund our childrens futures!
Oh the horror!

[Elrathin]

Again, it is hard for me to sympathize with the conservatives crying foul given the amount of money spent on the Iraq war. I would rather bring the troops home, take that money and invest in America.

This IMO is a good thing, America looking after its future. I agree with it fully. I'd rather have tax money spent going back to Americans than on foreign soil.

[ViolaLee]

If we weren't spending $500,000 per minute on the Iraq war, $5,000 per baby would be easy.

Hmmmm.....which is better, to spend $500,000 per minute to kill and destroy, or $5,000 for the children to have a better future?

Such a hard question. How will we ever come up with the right answer?

[Truth_and_Power]

Why don't we give them a $50,000 debt which grows at 7% annually and ask them to pay it off before they die? That would be more in line with reality.

NEWSFLASH -- We don't have a surplus, we don't have savings, we have DEBT.

[bobbylien]

Interesting idea, I definitely think its worth a study but the fact that she didn't go into it any further makes it seem as if she was just telling people what they want to hear.

[preservanation]

The libs cannot have a simple discussion on any issue with out tying it to the Iraq war. It is lazy.

Also, incongruous to the nth degree.
Following your logic either all federal funding should be stopped, or all federal funding should increased, due to the war.
??
Is this spite?
Whatever it is it sure makes it difficult to discuss issues intelligently.

One thing I know is that the Iraq war is not forever, this sort of gov give aways with my tax money never go away, they just grow in expense and shrink in efficiency Forever!

[ViolaLee]

The Iraq war is not forever but it is costing our children their standard of living. We can't pay the debt we owe for the war.

It's not lazy and incongruous to discuss where $500,000 a minute is going when we are discussing where our tax dollars should go. It's logical.

Like T&P said, we are giving the children a $50,000 debt EACH. Our parents didn't give us a debt. Clinton gave us a surplus. I look forward to a Hillary win in 08....perhaps the Clintons can give us a surplus again, or at least attack this debt so our children don't have to suffer with a lower standard of living than we've had.

We will be known as the selfish generation if we leave that much debt behind.

[Elrathin]

The libs cannot have a simple discussion on any issue with out tying it to the Iraq war. It is lazy.

No it is the truth. You were complaining about the cost, yet you have NO PROBLEM footing out 10 times that amount for the Iraq war.


Also, incongruous to the nth degree.
Following your logic either all federal funding should be stopped, or all federal funding should increased, due to the war.
??
Is this spite?
Whatever it is it sure makes it difficult to discuss issues intelligently.

No, it just goes to show that when conservatives say "We can't because that's too much", but then turn around and give a blank check to the Iraq war, that "cost" really isn't the reason.


One thing I know is that the Iraq war is not forever, this sort of gov give aways with my tax money never go away, they just grow in expense and shrink in efficiency Forever!


Not forever? Each year the amount of spending increases. Just when do you expect it to decline? And also, are you saying you wouldn't want to help fund for America's future?

I would rather something like this go for a child's education rather than have it go to fund multiple generations on welfare.

I can agree that welfare needs to be reformed, but education is a key thing and for once, this idea would go in the right direction.

[micfranklin]

I like the idea behind a $5000 baby bond, but there's something about it I don't like. I mean won't you have to pay back the $5000 eventually?

[Elrathin]

I like the idea behind a $5000 baby bond, but there's something about it I don't like. I mean won't you have to pay back the $5000 eventually?


If I am understanding it correctly, no. A bond, in this case, just means that it will grow over time.

EDIT: Although, that wouldn't be a bad idea. Once you take the bond out, you minus $5000 back into the system. Of course the only caveat I would say is that the government cannot dip into it like they have with SS.

[Truth_and_Power]

As for the iraq war not being forever, Korea is supposed to be the model of success for this kind of venture, no? Well we've still got plenty of troops there, how long has it been since we arrived there?

[preservanation]

As for the iraq war not being forever, Korea is supposed to be the model of success for this kind of venture, no? Well we've still got plenty of troops there, how long has it been since we arrived there?
Same with Bosnia, and Japan and Germany for that matter.
Again, nothing is forever except gov programs.
If you can cite me one that has gone away despite what a dismal failure it is, please do.
The only thing Washington is willing to do away with are tax cuts.
Hoooo boy!

[micfranklin]

I like the idea behind a $5000 baby bond, but there's something about it I don't like. I mean won't you have to pay back the $5000 eventually?


If I am understanding it correctly, no. A bond, in this case, just means that it will grow over time.

EDIT: Although, that wouldn't be a bad idea. Once you take the bond out, you minus $5000 back into the system. Of course the only caveat I would say is that the government cannot dip into it like they have with SS.


But shouldn't families be saving money for their kids' education, not the government?

[Buck Laser]

As for the iraq war not being forever, Korea is supposed to be the model of success for this kind of venture, no? Well we've still got plenty of troops there, how long has it been since we arrived there?
Same with Bosnia, and Japan and Germany for that matter.
Again, nothing is forever except gov programs.
If you can cite me one that has gone away despite what a dismal failure it is, please do.
The only thing Washington is willing to do away with are tax cuts.
Hoooo boy!

Way to go, boy--you can't rebut the original charge so you invent something even wilder. You might not have heard yet, but the war with Japan and Germany was finished a good bit more quickly than Iraq. So was Bosnia, and I don't think we lost very many troops there. But maybe you can make up something. You seem to be pretty good a that.

And so far as I've seen, we've had so many tax cuts that the national debt is at record levels. Again, way to go!!:clapper:

[Scorpion]

It's an interesting idea as long as the child isn't handed cash. The money should be earmarked for an investment account until the child reaches 18 years of age then it may be used to fund an IRA, pay for a college education or act as a start up for a business. No cash payout. And the account is taxable.

The big question in my mind is how to pay for the bureaucracy needed to oversee such an undertaking.

[Elrathin]

But shouldn't families be saving money for their kids' education, not the government?


Tell that to the people working several jobs to make ends meet with no savings because the economy is NOT doing as well as some people would like to think.[hr]
The big question in my mind is how to pay for the bureaucracy needed to oversee such an undertaking.


Why not a blank check? It's worked so well with the Iraq war.

[preservanation]

Tax cuts are not the problem spending is, that's a fact.
Revenue to the fed gov is at an all time high.

The same thing happened with JFK and Reagan when they cut taxes.
Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts—and the Facts

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm#_ftn6

I know this is counter-intuitive to libs, but it is the facts.
These are well established facts and for you not to know that Fed revenue to the Treasury is at an all time high is shocking to me.

[preservanation]

If the gov gets hold of this money, which of course they eventually will, by the time it is to be used for college the $5000 will be worth a cool $11.25.
An overt pandering for votes and covert money grab by Hillary.
$20 bil a year, triple that due to added costs and graft.
Ask yourself, do you really want this boondoggle?

[lily]

It sounds like a good idea...........but do you honestly think it will get off the ground?

[Marley]

Where's mine?

I was born, I paid for my school, so why cut me out?

It's a stupid idea, until all Americans are treated EQUALLY.

[Elrathin]

It's a stupid idea, until all Americans are treated EQUALLY.


That is like demanding that the U.S. military give the GI bill to everyone that served even though it wasn't around for some when it came out.

Silly argument. You are against it because you can't use it now.

Hey in 1985 I was in a position to use Bush's tax cuts that he instituted recently, so I guess its a stupid idea because I can't use it now.

[Marley]

Oh, okay, so who among us wasn't born?

It's a stupid idea. If born is the criteria, we were all born, so either we all get it, or none of us get it.

Get it?

"equality."

Liberals used to be all for it, until they found they could gin up more power playing men against women, blacks against whites, citizens agaisnt illegal immigrants, ect etc etc.

I'm conservative, so I'm for the staus quo -- the EQUALITY that is the fundamental principle of our constitution.

[Elrathin]

Oh, okay, so who among us wasn't born?

It's a stupid idea. If born is the criteria, we were all born, so either we all get it, or none of us get it.

Get it?

"equality."

Liberals used to be all for it, until they found they could gin up more power playing men against women, blacks against whites, citizens agaisnt illegal immigrants, ect etc etc.

I'm conservative, so I'm for the staus quo -- the EQUALITY that is the fundamental principle of our constitution.


The criteria is for those born AFTER it is done. Just like a tax cut is done AFTER it is enacted and not grandfathered to everyone before hand. Do you not understand that concept?

I love how conservatives get up in arms over helping children for the future, but have no problem sinking a blank check in the hold for Iraq. It's quite funny to see the inconsistencies.[hr]
I'm conservative, so I'm for the staus quo -- the EQUALITY that is the fundamental principle of our constitution.


If that were really true conservatives would have no problem with gay marriage, but they do have a problem with it so preach to some other choir that will buy that line of bologna.

[Marley]

Where did you come to the conclusion I have "a problem" with gay marriage?

I know I never posted it, so how did that notion get in your head?

I think ALL men should pay for a house they don't live in for some one they never did love.

EQUALITY!

[Truth_and_Power]

Where's mine?


Central theme of compassionate conservatism

[Marley]

Yep, not letting Liberals pick my pocket!

The "central theme" of liberals is taking some one ELSE's money to do with what they want but won't use their won money for.

[Elrathin]

The "central theme" of liberals is taking some one ELSE's money to do with what they want but won't use their won money for.


Isn't that the theme of government spending in general? I don't want my money going to the Iraq war, yet it is. Sounds like you just get pissed when the government spends it on something you don't like, but don't mind it when it spends it on something you do like.

Where is your outrage over the over spending your REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS spent?

Typical Compassionate Conservative logic "It's all about me, and what I can get"

[micfranklin]

Too much reliance on the federal government is never a good thing.

[Truth_and_Power]

The "central theme" of liberals is taking some one ELSE's money to do with what they want but won't use their won money for.


Isn't that the theme of government spending in general? I don't want my money going to the Iraq war, yet it is. Sounds like you just get pissed when the government spends it on something you don't like, but don't mind it when it spends it on something you do like.

Where is your outrage over the over spending your REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS spent?

Typical Compassionate Conservative logic "It's all about me, and what I can get"


<crickets>

[Elrathin]

Too much reliance on the federal government is never a good thing.


True, but at the same time I would like to see my tax dollars going for something other than a war machine. I think investing in the future of our children is a good thing.

As said, it should not be given out as cash, and the government should not be able to touch it other than investment purposes. No dipping into it to pay for line items.

If that cannot be guaranteed then yes I will agree it should be scrapped and relooked at. But so far as it has been shown, I like it. That may change in the future, but at least I am not scoffing at something from the beginning without getting all the facts first.

[micfranklin]

Too much reliance on the federal government is never a good thing.


True, but at the same time I would like to see my tax dollars going for something other than a war machine. I think investing in the future of our children is a good thing.

As said, it should not be given out as cash, and the government should not be able to touch it other than investment purposes. No dipping into it to pay for line items.

If that cannot be guaranteed then yes I will agree it should be scrapped and relooked at. But so far as it has been shown, I like it. That may change in the future, but at least I am not scoffing at something from the beginning without getting all the facts first.


I'd like to see our tax money going to stopping poverty and maybe ending welfare, but I think the federal government has no place in education, only state and local governments. Investing in your child's future is a good thing, but it's more realistic, soulful, and independent when the parents of the child actually do it.

[Elrathin]

I'd like to see our tax money going to stopping poverty and maybe ending welfare, but I think the federal government has no place in education, only state and local governments. Investing in your child's future is a good thing, but it's more realistic, soulful, and independent when the parents of the child actually do it.


Well that's your opinion, I however, find this to be a good thing. I see poverty and welfare directly linked to education so I can see the connection of the federal government in helping this way. I can also see the condition that the economy has put many families in. I think this is a good thing at first glance.

[Truth_and_Power]

I'd like to see our tax money going to stopping poverty and maybe ending welfare, but I think the federal government has no place in education, only state and local governments. Investing in your child's future is a good thing, but it's more realistic, soulful, and independent when the parents of the child actually do it.


Well that's your opinion, I however, find this to be a good thing. I see poverty and welfare directly linked to education so I can see the connection of the federal government in helping this way. I can also see the condition that the economy has put many families in. I think this is a good thing at first glance.


You know, it IS quite possible to work, pay your rent, pay your tuition, and attend class without any help whatsoever.

[Elrathin]

You know, it IS quite possible to work, pay your rent, pay your tuition, and attend class without any help whatsoever.


Depending on where you live, who your family is, etc. Yes

Not all those things come together for some folks. Also with families where both spouses work have 2 kids, that just isn't possible sometimes. I have seen situations (including myself) that could do that, however, I have also see it where it just doesn't work.

Not everyone can depending on their situation.

[Truth_and_Power]

You know, it IS quite possible to work, pay your rent, pay your tuition, and attend class without any help whatsoever.


Depending on where you live, who your family is, etc. Yes

Not all those things come together for some folks. Also with families where both spouses work have 2 kids, that just isn't possible sometimes. I have seen situations (including myself) that could do that, however, I have also see it where it just doesn't work.

Not everyone can depending on their situation.


If both spouses are working with multiple kids, how is the government paying for your tuition going to enable you to go to school? College is not something that every single person needs to go through.

[Elrathin]

If both spouses are working with multiple kids, how is the government paying for your tuition going to enable you to go to school? College is not something that every single person needs to go through.


It pays for their kids to go because they aren't able to save up enough.

College may not be for everyone, but take a look at education vs income and let me know if there isn't a correlation between the two. Then look at poverty vs. education. There is a link so obviously some college is indeed needed to fight poverty as a whole. Even trade schools are an option with this program.

Again, what I am seeing is the "Well I made it so everyone else can" mentality and that simply doesn't cut it with everyone. Not everyone is in the same situation nor are they able to rise above some things as others can.

I'd rather at least the government tried with this, than spending the money dropping bombs on some insignificant people.

[Truth_and_Power]

They really don't have to save up for their kids to go to college. The kids can put themselves through college, maybe the parents can just chip in a little bread money now and then. Understand that we're talking about 5k at birth, which will be 20k-ish by the time they are college age. That's more than tuition and books for a four year state-college experience, with the first 2 years at a junior college.

I'd rather the government stop spending more than it collects, and pay down the debts it has accumulated doing this. Adopting a new (atleast) 10-20 billion/year program is not going to help.

[micfranklin]

I'd like to see our tax money going to stopping poverty and maybe ending welfare, but I think the federal government has no place in education, only state and local governments. Investing in your child's future is a good thing, but it's more realistic, soulful, and independent when the parents of the child actually do it.


Well that's your opinion, I however, find this to be a good thing. I see poverty and welfare directly linked to education so I can see the connection of the federal government in helping this way. I can also see the condition that the economy has put many families in. I think this is a good thing at first glance.


That's why I also said we could maybe end welfare. Welfare has actually made blacks and other minorities poorer than before, so I think if the welfare state ceased then those poorer people would try to get jobs on their own, and thus rely on themselves.

And if not at least it'd be a step in the right direction.

[PatrickHenry]

Why don't we give them a $50,000 debt which grows at 7% annually and ask them to pay it off before they die? That would be more in line with reality.

NEWSFLASH -- We don't have a surplus, we don't have savings, we have DEBT.
Your cynicism is like water to my soul...

Snicker...Give 'em 5 grand in bonds while adding the cost


to the debt they are born owing, heh! :dizzy:

[Truth_and_Power]

Why don't we give them a $50,000 debt which grows at 7% annually and ask them to pay it off before they die? That would be more in line with reality.

NEWSFLASH -- We don't have a surplus, we don't have savings, we have DEBT.
Your cynicism is like water to my soul...

Snicker...Give 'em 5 grand in bonds while adding the cost


to the debt they are born owing, heh! :dizzy:


The classic saying.. Borrow from Chen to pay Lakisha..

[preservanation]

It sounds like a good idea...........but do you honestly think it will get off the ground?
In this wacky environment, who knows?

I once thoght American people would stand up to this sort of stuff and laugh it out of the room...
now I'm not so sure.

[exigent]

I've given this some thought and something occured to me when reading a couple pages back when social security was mentioned...

When the baby is born he is awarded a $5,000 bond. When 18 or 21 they have a choice to cash out or let it ride and continue growing. If they choose to let it ride then they pay no social security and also will never receive any social security because they cannot touch that bond until they turn 55 years old or so. What will $5000 grow into in 55 years?

[lily]

They really don't have to save up for their kids to go to college. The kids can put themselves through college, maybe the parents can just chip in a little bread money now and then. Understand that we're talking about 5k at birth, which will be 20k-ish by the time they are college age. That's more than tuition and books for a four year state-college experience, with the first 2 years at a junior college.


You're talking about today's price tag. If this thing ever gets off the ground, then evey baby born would recieve it once they hit the age of 18......college tuition by that time if inflation holds, this amount of money isn't going to be squat.

[preservanation]

Stop thinking about this logically, lily.
Can't you see the shiny, attractive object?
Concentrate on that, and you might go along with Hillary's boondoggle.

[Marley]

What will $5000 grow into in 55 years?

A good rule of thumb is doubling every 10 years, so about $150k.


FYI, a very powerful overlooked financial tool is income earning children and Roth IRAs.

As soon as your kid starts drawing his first W-2 wages, open up a Roth account for them for that amount and "let it ride." A measly few grand earned at the mall can turn into an education, a house, or a few years of retirement.

Ever notice those car dealer, or furniture store ads on TV where the grand kids are part of the commercial?

Guess what? Those kids are being paid a W-2 wage by Grand Dad for "modeling fees." and Guess what? By the end of the year they've earned $4,000 -- the maximum IRA contribution amount.

[preservanation]

These same people didn't want to do this same sort of thing with 5% of social security contributions, with an Individual's own money.
A gift to Wall St and too risky and the like. REMEMBER?
BUT now it's OK, with Taxpayer's money, in the form of a huge giveaway and another socialist entitlement program boondoggle.
What's going on here?

[AnnEsthesia]

The problem with allowing people to remove themselves from Social Security is ... can you guess?

So, how do you propose we pay for all the seniors who depend upon social security to survive?

[Marley]

The problem with allowing people to remove themselves from Social Security is ... can you guess?

They'll come out much better relying on themselves or a legitimate commercial insurance plan than the US federal government?


So, how do you propose we pay for all the seniors who depend upon social security to survive?

You mean these "Seniors" never had their earnings taken from them by the government in exchange for the promise to ppay them benefits?

They've already PAID FOR IT Ann!

Social Security is a legalized Ponzi scheme, this is not an exageration, it's the accurate, absolute truth.

Proposals have been made to veer away from this fraudulent scheme, but leftists are adamant the keep the scheme in place, growing bigger to only makle more damage when this Ponzi scheme, like all Ponzi schemes, crashes.

[Elrathin]

Proposals have been made to veer away from this fraudulent scheme, but leftists are adamant the keep the scheme in place, growing bigger to only makle more damage when this Ponzi scheme, like all Ponzi schemes, crashes.


It's funny that you say leftists are responsible for this when for years in the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED congress and administration, they never changed it either. Obviously not just the lefties on this one.

[preservanation]

The problem with allowing people to remove themselves from Social Security is ... can you guess?

So, how do you propose we pay for all the seniors who depend upon social security to survive?
Well is the gov for the last fifty years using ss as their own private slush fund, treating it like a petty cash drawer, signing vouchers which they never pay back nor had any intention of, the fund could sure afford the privatisation of only 5% of your own contributions.
This baby bond is classic redistribution of wealth.
Classic socialism from a classic socialist.
If Hillary wants to help children and their family's she would propose cuts to the capital gains tax, but she doesn't.
GET THIS. Hillary proposes to raise that tax from 15% to 40%!!!!
This will prompt a huge sell off as soon as she if elected to avoid that tax hike and the stock market will fall off the cliff.
I'm already planning on restructuring my retirement portfolio in case she is elected.
Remember the .com bust?
Think about that but across the board.
She is dangerous not only to our liberty but our economy.

[bobbylien]

What .com bust? I've head many people talk about it but I don't understand it. The internet is probably the best money making tool in history in that ordinary people with a little time and a couple hundred dollars can build massive companies from scratch but big companies don't like competition from small fish so they push against net neutrality.

[Marley]

LMAO

Sun Microsystems, Inc look it up, get a clue.

During the fraudulent CLinton 90s it was trading in the $60+/share range, what's it selling for now? Consistently, for the past few years?

No bust there huh?

[preservanation]

What .com bust? I've head many people talk about it but I don't understand it. The internet is probably the best money making tool in history in that ordinary people with a little time and a couple hundred dollars can build massive companies from scratch but big companies don't like competition from small fish so they push against net neutrality.
I think it was in 1999.
The NASDAQ was way overvalued.
People were making well over 20% on their investments without even trying. Kind of like real estate in the last 5 years.
When the market figured out that these stocks were overblown. a huge sell off ensued.
Most didn't see it coming and lost a lot of money.

[Truth_and_Power]

What .com bust? I've head many people talk about it but I don't understand it. The internet is probably the best money making tool in history in that ordinary people with a little time and a couple hundred dollars can build massive companies from scratch but big companies don't like competition from small fish so they push against net neutrality.


There were two sides to the bust. There was the stock market.. and the job market. People lost a lot of money in both of them. People were starting up companies that never really had any chance of making money. They would sign a 10K/mo hosting contract with some major firm, and a bunch of other expensive partnerships, etc just to make their infrastructure look big. The whole trick was to inflate your big fat nothing enough to bring in enough investment money to get listed on nasdaq. Then you inflate the stock a bit, exercise a bunch of options and sell it all, and then spend spend spend that expense account until the whole house of cards comes crashing to the ground along with all the hopes and dreams of the people who actually WORKED to try to make something happen. Meanwhile the greasy CEO/CFO/etc run off with their millions in stock money.

I was just 22 at the time and I lost a fair bit of savings from the stock market crash and also watched my blood sweat & tears go down the toilet as the CEO ran off with his millions. Myself and some other employees considered sending him on a dirt vacation but luckily got some perspective before it got that far.

[Elrathin]

She is dangerous not only to our liberty but our economy.


Right, so for the past 6 years with President Bush has been giving a blank check for the war on terror and THAT hasn't hurt our economy or world image to conservatives, but all of a sudden here comes Hillary and she is going to be dangerous. I'm sorry but that is hysteria to the highest degree.

I love it when conservatives say liberals just love to attack Bush for no reason, well there is proof that conservatives do the same thing with Hillary.

Fear is a strong smell and I smell the fear from Republicans for Hillary. It is sweet.

I wonder when we'll be seeing comments from conservatives that they will be leaving the country if Hillary is elected LOL.

[preservanation]

Bush got us out of the Clinton recession with his tax cuts.
Our economy has been white hot.
It amazes me that libs can't see that.
All the numbers and facts back this up

[Elrathin]

Bush got us out of nothing and into a worse mess than we were before. If our economy has been white hot, why has savings gone down for everyone and why is it many people have to work 2 jobs just to make ends meet? Also take a look at the U.S. dollar internationally it has gone down? Why, because we are selling ourselves to China, thanks to Bush.

The numbers don't add up to reality. The fear from many conservatives on Hillary is amazing, they will say or do anything.

[micfranklin]

Bush got us out of the Clinton recession with his tax cuts.
Our economy has been white hot.
It amazes me that libs can't see that.
All the numbers and facts back this up


Tax cuts for the rich? What about everyone else's tax cuts?

[preservanation]

Everyone got a tax cut.
Matter of fact the rich are actually paying a greater percentage than they did before the cuts.
Jeeeez, tax cuts for the rich!
Get a new mantra, especially when it has proved wrong.
"The earth is flat, the earth is flat..."

[Elrathin]

Everyone got a tax cut.
Matter of fact the rich are actually paying a greater percentage than they did before the cuts.


If they did then why do the Rich HAIL the tax cuts as the best thing that has ever happened to them?


Wait let's take a look a what you just said Pres. According to you they paid more than then they ever have been so the rich have hailed the tax cuts as being the best thing ever cause they pay more.

BS , you can claim they pay more but in reality they don't.

[preservanation]

No, the % of all taxes that the rich pay went up.
You can understand the difference between that and what you said, right?
This is another example of these bumper sticker phrases the left spews out because it sounds good, but has never been thought through and are false.
The media and prevaricating politicians never rely on the facts so theses myths persist.