Tuesday, November 8, 2016

President of All?

Just assuming that the odds makers are correct and that Hillary wins, Laurie's comment from a previous post got me thinking. Hillary's says she wants to be a President for all American's, however how is she going to do this if "she has NO CHOICE but to CAVE to the FAR LEFT"?  It is not like Warren, Sanders and the Black Congressional Caucus are going away anytime soon.
"Hillary had no choice other than to lean farther left as this was needed to win the primary against Bernie.

About "With Hillary we know exactly what we get... More taxes and government control, less personal choice, more regulation, more poor unqualified immigrants (possible terrorists), stronger public employee unions / bureaucracy, etc... In short, a certain continuing of the warming water.."

GOP congress will not go along with a tax increase, any increase in regulation will be minor and mostly necessary, stronger unions are a good thing, I don't know the response to bureaucracy etc." Laurie
Of course I think she has always had a choice, and her decision was to pander to the Left.

As for "strong unions" are important...  If the Liberals truly believed strong unions were important they would be driving cars built in strong UAW plants...  Not cars built in foreign countries or weak union states.   


Sean said...

Considering the GOP's behavior the last eight years, lecturing any Democrat about whether or not they can serve all Americans is the height of hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

I certainly believe strong unions are important. I think the decline of unions has played a huge role in the decline of the middle class. But the fact that I genuinely believe those things doesn't dictate where I buy a car. Another reason for the declined of the middle class is that there members too often act against their own interests.


John said...

I think the GOP has done a wonderful job of serving all Americans during the last ~6 years.

- They stopped the Democrats from increasing spending even more.
- They limited the Democrat tax increases to the wealthy.
- They prevented further expansion of welfare health insurance.
- They prevented illegal aliens from getting amnesty.

Too bad they couldn't do more to make the public employees and bureaucrats more effective, efficient and accountable. Now that would be Great for all Americans !!! Well except for the ineffective public employees... :-)

Sean said...

Yes, you're clearly a "moderate".

John said...

I disagree. If you truly wanted to support strong Unions, I think you would buy products from companies in America who have them. (ie put your money where mouth is)

Saying that you think "Strong American Unions are Important!!!" And then trying to save some money, buy better quality, etc by not buying their product means you are...

Just like businesses who want to save some money, buy better quality, etc by setting up shop where Unions are not strong...

In other words your personal self centered choices do as much damage to the American Unions as any company ever did. Especially when there are 100's of millions of American consumers just like you out there.

John said...

So in your opinion a "moderate" should want to:

- keep spending more relative to GDP

- should support rewarding people who violated our border or over stayed their Visa with a path to citizenship

- support continuing raises, high job security and give more responsibility to public employees no matter their performance?

I have to ask:
- do you give an ever increasing percentage of your household budget to charity every year? Are you over 10% yet???

- if someone breaks into your house and becomes a squatter in your basement, do you offer them a home for their entire life? How many people you have living down there?

- do you continue to pay more for services from the same company even though they do a questionable job? I mean if your garbage truck did not show up 1 week each month, would you keep paying them? If they another company comes by offering to do it for less, do you stay with the expensive unreliable one?

Sean said...

A moderate should recognize reality. Your idiotic attempts to turn every complicated policy issue into some sort of simplistic parable can easily be swatted away and fundamentally represents immoderate behavior. For instance, the increasing spend of government as a percent of GDP doesn't really represent that we're spending more -- rather, it's a reflection of the changing demographics of our society. Non-defense discretionary spending (even with the sequester removed) is running below post-WWII averages.

I can easily eject one squatter from my basement. Deporting 11 million people (some of whom may be parents of American children) is quite another matter altogether. There's actually been broad bipartisan consensus on that point for years, but it's obscured in all the noise of the current campaign.

And your continued comments about the ineffectiveness and cost of unionized government employees isn't backed up with any data -- it's just an assertion of your own conservative ideology.

Sean said...

And, again, the notion that Hillary Clinton is being accused by you -- a member of the party that met on the evening of January 20, 2009 to plot their strategy of obstruction in the midst of the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression -- of not being concerned with the needs of all Americans is a cruel joke.

John said...

People can make topics as simple or as complicated as they choose.

The big question is do you have a different set of values for your own choices, money, sacrifices, etc from those you support when it is someone else's money and sacrifices?

More later... I have to go vote for the crazy guy who is directionally correct !!! :-)

John said...

As for the seeking to destroy the country... Please remember that those are the same idiots who passed the bail out bills...

Anonymous said...

If you truly wanted to support strong Unions, I think you would buy products from companies in America who have them. (ie put your money where mouth is)

that's a different issue than the original statement which had to do with the importance of unions. If unions weren't important, why did so many people work so hard to kill them?

When I talk to union types, what I tell them is that they have got to be competitive, that no one owes them a market or a living.


John said...

It is ironic that business bosses did not kill the unions... It took the penny pinching American Consumer to do that... Now if we can figure out how to let American tax payers choose between Union or Non-Union government services?

Remember when RDale schools outsourced the transportation function and it saved the district more than $1 million per year. That is saving the local tax payers a lot of money and/or moving the money into the classroom. Either way the community wins.

I always wonder how Unions could add value to consumers, tax payers and/or companies?

To me it seems they would need to be more demanding of the employees in the Union than the employer. Like a guild of old they would provide incredible experts and demand a premium for them. The idea that they demand more money and job security based only on degrees and years served is definitely not doing it.