Well it was unlikely that we had seen the last of her...
CNN Hillary Launches Resistance Group
Onward Together Mission Statement
CNN Hillary Launches Resistance Group
Onward Together Mission Statement
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
I think the CNN headline is misleading, labeling her new organization a resistance group.
I got the email from Hillary today and that is not how I thought of her new group at all. I went back to read it again to see why they labeled it a resistance group and it does not seem fitting. Anyway, it doesn't surprise me that Hillary wants to use her leadership skills to continue to have a positive impact on the country.
Fox News Clinton Org
"“Resist, insist, persist, enlist,” says a message on the organization's homepage."
USA Today Clinton Org
"The group is poised to help fund some of the organizations at the forefront of liberal efforts to push back on President Trump's agenda and to seize seats from Republicans in Congress. "
Kind of reminds me of the Tea Party...
It is interesting that now the DEMs are the obstructionist party after all their complaining about the GOP for the past 6 years. :-) It seems that now they want to stop government from functioning smoothly...
the GOP tried to obstruct the dems from moving towards universal healthcare.
the dems try to obstruct the GOP from kicking 20 million people off insurance.
doesn't seem very equivalent to me.
also, the majority voted for the dem candidate (the GOP has no mandate)
Even your friends at VOX are Calling it Resistance
"On Monday, Clinton made it official: She is joining the resistance against Trump with a Super PAC — Onward Together — which will be “an organization dedicated to advancing the progressive vision that earned nearly 66 million votes in the last election,” according to an email sent to Clinton supporters Monday.
According to Clinton, the PAC will support anti-Trump advocacy groups like Indivisible, Swing Left, Emerge America, and Color of Change — groups that have already had an active role in resisting the Republican administration’s policy efforts, from rallying against early attempts at a travel ban to staging protests in lawmakers’ town halls over the Obamacare repeal bill making its way through Congress."
Or...
The DEMs forcefully took a whole lot of money from one group of citizens to give to another group of citizens... And the GOP is working to stop this immoral use of government power....
As always, it is just a matter of perspective. There are few angels or devils walking among us... Just people with different views and beliefs.
"the majority voted for the dem candidate (the GOP has no mandate)"
Now I agree that the GOP and DEMs should work together... But I have to ask do you make up your own rules when you play board games?
The rules in the USA are pretty clear. And between the State and Fed governments it does seem many are tired of tax, spend and regulations.
It will be interesting to see what happens in 2018.
Why do you always describe collecting taxes as forcefully taking money from people. At my house we just calmly and willingly write out the check for the taxes we owe each year. Your word forcefully sounds like a mugging or armed robbery or something.
It seems many people support dem policies such as improve Obamacare - 61% vs those that want to repeal and replace - 37%
Why do you always describe collecting taxes as forcefully taking money from people.
It's a way of framing a policy debate in pejorative and emotional terms. If the facts don't work, the hope is, an appeal to emotion will.
--Hiram
Laurie,
Remember the different concepts of tax fairness:
1.Fair would be if we took the total cost of government, divided it by the number of adult able bodied citizens. And each adult then paid their fair share of the bill. (ie Dues concept)
2.Fair would be if total cost of government was divided by the total income of every adult able bodied citizen. And each citizen paid their fair share of the bill. (ie Percent of Winnings to the House Concept)
3.Fair would be if total cost of government was divided by the total income - some base living cost (~$25,000?) of every adult able bodied citizen. And each citizen paid their fair share of the bill for every $ they make above the base living. (ie Percent of Winnings above Base Cost to the House Concept)
4.Fair would be if taxes and credits/programs were set to reduce the net income and wealth gap between the adult able bodied citizens. This means high income and wealthy people pay significantly higher rates than other citizens in attempt to attain a fair society.(ie Equalization concept)
Now Liberals / Democratic Socialists see #4 as fair, that is why you see nothing wrong with forcing some citizens to pay huge sums yearly. As for the word forced... Do you think paying them is optional?
As for supporting ACA, I don't think it is that high yet... But it is getting more supportive.
And of course many people like it, they get extra free stuff at someone else's expense. Liberals and some other folks like to do that.
There are lots of ways to look at fairness. Here is my question:
Should we insist on a fair system of taxation even if it results in the collapse of our government, and opens us up to invasion from abroad?
--Hiram
I agree... That #4 option definitely weakens America.
All those unsuccessful undereducated people with more kids than they can afford getting free stuff with no effort required to improve their capabilities, choices, efforts, etc.
I mean how will America stay strong if all capable Americans are not contributing to our country?
I mean how will America stay strong if all capable Americans are not contributing to our country?
Only people who have money are capable of paying for government. Poor people just don't have enough money to pay for the government we would want, however fair that might be.
--Hiram
Please remember that the cost of the government itself is a relatively small part of the issue. And I don't know of anyone who does not want to pay for infrastructure, law, order, national defense, interstate regs, care for the truly disabled/old, etc...
It is the forced transfer of wealth portion of government that people balk at.
When government is used to transfer wealth from successful learners, workers, savers, investors, etc to people who are unsuccessful with pretty much no requirements that those individual improve / change.
And I don't know of anyone who does not want to pay for infrastructure, law, order, national defense, interstate regs, care for the truly disabled/old, etc...
People do want the things government pays for, they just don't want to pay for them.
If we decide to define taxation as a form of theft, and then continue define theft as a crime, then we have decided not to provide the things government has always provided through the ways we have always, throughout history, provided them. So how would we pay for stuff? Would we ask for contributions?
--Hiram
Hillary fund raising rhetoric is one of the most dispiriting things I know of in politics.
--Hiram
"People do want the things government pays for, they just don't want to pay for them. " Wrong...
See the frog.
"1. In 1916 citizens got to keep ~90% of the GDP to do with as they felt was best for their families. The government politicians and bureaucrats were given ~10% of the GDP to keep citizens safe and to run the country.
2. In 1966 citizens got to keep ~75% of the GDP to do with as they felt was best for their families. The government politicians and bureaucrats were given ~25% of the GDP to keep citizens safe, to run the country and to help the truly needy.
3. In 2016 citizens get to keep ~68% of the GDP to do with as they feel is best for their families. The government politicians and bureaucrats are given ~37% of the GDP to keep citizens safe, to run the country, to help the truly needy and to ???"
And yet in some ways you are correct.
Many people do want all the wealth transfer programs and services if they are the recipients of someone else's money, and they do not need to do anything different to get it.
I mean getting Welfare and Medicaid takes a lot less effort and self discipline than learning, working, saying no to one's self, saving and investing.
Many people do want all the wealth transfer programs and services if they are the recipients of someone else's money, and they do not need to do anything different to get it.
Sure. Let's bear in mind that Hillary got 2.8 million more votes than Donald Trump. And Trump himself, during his business career, was never averse to accepting public benefits. Let's not forget that it was government intervention, that resulted in the forgiveness of billions of dollars of debt Mr. Trump incurred from his gambling ventures. Without that action, Mr. Trump would never have been able to resume his business career.
--Hiram
Hiram,
I agree that there are people with their hands out in all economic classes. However the reality is that there are a lot more of them in the lower income population groups.
I do not know the details of Trump's bankruptcies but at least those huge construction and operating expenditures created a large number of jobs and tax revenues. Where as that is not the case with a welfare family... They just cost tax payers month after month after month after month after month after month after month after month after month after month after month after month after month after month after month after month after month after month...
"I agree that there are people with their hands out in all economic classes. However the reality is that there are a lot more of them in the lower income population groups.
I do not know the details of Trump's bankruptcies but at least those huge construction and operating expenditures created a large number of jobs and tax revenues."
You are no centrist.
Moose
Moose,
And you base those words of wisdom on what?
What exactly is a Centrist in your view?
Are you ever going to actually join the discussion / debate or just float around the edges tossing in pointless comments?
I mean if you enjoy that please feel free, however your comments will be ignored by most because they have no depth or support.
Au contraire...my comments are not pointless. They always to try to get you to look at yourself, which you are incapable of doing.
That you place business and corporate interests above people puts you far right of the center. You will never admit that, because in your head, you're a moderate. Your words say otherwise.
Moose
Actually I am just being pragmatic... As my very Conservative Parents like to remind me. "A poor dependent person does not employ anyone..."
What do you see as the payback to our society / country is of paying out ~$1 Trillion dollars per year to support the less fortunate citizens?
Now let's say that $800 Billion of that is used for the truly disabled who can not improve their situation due to age, health, mental disability, physical disability, etc... I understand spending that is a good necessary thing.
The question is the other $200 Billion per year that is being spent because:
- people are choosing to have more children than they can afford to raise
- people are choosing to not learn in school and after
- people are raising children to follow in their foot steps.
So how does Tax Payers enabling these choices / behaviors help our country?
And wouldn't a Centrist be asking these questions?
I am fine with raising taxes on the wealthy and actually support the estate tax.
However I also expect some positive return on the money that is supposed to end poverty in America. And if it actually did that the need for that money would go away.
So back to my question:
What exactly is a Centrist in your view?
"What do you see as the payback to our society / country..."
The payback is that we are who we say we are...Christian, Moral, Upright, A "Shining City on a Hill" rather than the hypocrites we currently are.
Moose
It seems we are back to this...
"I believe wholeheartedly that tax payer's funds should be used to take care of the truly disabled. And that tax payer funds should be used to support people in their short term times of need, and to train them to escape dependency. This is what the piece supported.
Please remember from your quote:
"Another moral principle is that everyone is responsible for his or her sustenance."
This seems to be the part that many people on the Left have forgotten. All citizens have the moral and societal responsibility to strive to learn, improve, live within their means, work, save and provide for their own sustenance.
I believe in safety trampolines and you seem to believe in safety hammocks." G2A"
Please remember that enabling dysfunctional and damaging behaviors that harm children is not necessarily a good thing. And I don't think it is healthy, moral or Christian to enable and propagate codependent relationships...
- people are choosing to have more children than they can afford to raise
- people are choosing to not learn in school and after
- people are raising children to follow in their foot steps.
I like this image / list...
"All citizens have the moral and societal responsibility to strive to learn, improve, live within their means, work, save and provide for their own sustenance."
Do you believe ALL of those things are required for a single person to be considered a citizen?
'Please remember from your quote:
"Another moral principle is that everyone is responsible for his or her sustenance."'
I'm sorry, you're going to have to show me where I said or quoted that. I don't see it in this thread or the one you linked.
Moose
Yes I think all citizen's should strive for those things...
- Am I wanting to with hold citizenship if they don't? No...
- Am I willing to with hold or use tax dollars to motivate them? Yes.
Do you disagree with this basic statement?
"All citizens have the moral and societal responsibility to strive to learn, improve, live within their means, work, save and provide for their own sustenance."
Sorry, I don't know why I said "your quote"... Work must have distracted me from quality blogging... :-) My mistake.
Actually it came from Neal's The Morality of Taxes link.
Maybe I should make sure I am consistent...
"All citizens (who are not seriously disabled) have the moral and societal responsibility to strive to learn, improve, live within their means, work, save and provide for their own sustenance."
"Why do you always describe collecting taxes as forcefully taking money from people." -- Laurie
So let me ask, do you ever write a huge check in /addition/ to what you owe? Have you ever, intentionally or unintentionally, written that check for less than what the IRS says you owe? What happened? Were you ever given a choice to NOT pay, or are those monies taken from you by FORCE of law?
I've long entertained a notion that, in this computerized age, we should turn the tax form into a referendum. The tax form would give everybody an itemized list (in subgroups) that said something like, "for every $1000 in taxes you pay, and unless you instruct otherwise, we will spend $80 on military wages and benefits, $1 on the new ACV carrier support, $12 on HUD Section 8 support, $200 on food stamps,..." and on and on for each significant line item of the federal budget. Then beside each one (or group) would be a line where you could enter YOUR allocation of the budget, so long as it totaled $1000. All these would be added up and THAT is what would constitute the budget (proposal, at least) for the following year. It would be REALLY interesting.
"The payback is that we are who we say we are...Christian, Moral, Upright,..."-- Moose
Well, you are correct that the current payback, then, is essentially zero. All the government spending in the world will not make even ONE of us more "Christian, Moral [or] Upright." Those are the desirable qualities of /individuals/. When you ask government to force money from others to fulfill YOUR idea of your charitable obligations, you are being un-Christian, Immoral, and Corrupt.
"All citizens (who are not seriously disabled) have the moral and societal responsibility to strive to learn, improve, live within their means, work, save and provide for their own sustenance."
Okay, so when does a fetus become a citizen? When it is capable of all of those things?
Moose
My view is that the Parents are responsible for the care and instruction of the child from ~16 weeks gestational until the young adult graduates from High School. The Parents chose to get pregnant and keep the fetus to that point, so they have accepted the responsibility.
The Parents should be modeling the following behaviors so the child will be more likely to adopt them as an adult.
"All citizens (who are not seriously disabled) have the moral and societal responsibility to strive to learn, improve, live within their means, work, save and provide for their own sustenance."
Excellent definition. The question isn't when the fetus becomes a citizen, but when they become a human being. That occurs when they can survive outside the womb (which is why I would have said 20 weeks. I love the "implicit contract" standard. Does that make me pro-choice?) The parents are nonetheless responsible for the child's care until the age of majority.
I disagree, however, with your continued insistence that everyone has the responsibility to provide for themselves. It is, rather, inherent to the human condition that if you don't work, you don't eat. Stating it as a responsibility implies that such could be foisted off on somebody else, simply by irresponsibility on the individual's part, and the very fact that such a societal "system" exists would actually promote that irresponsibility.
Sorry, I'm off topic. As for Hillary, I'm sure she's trying to revenge herself, or at least get back on the gravy train of money, power, or both. What her group is trying to accomplish is almost irrelevant, since there are already lots and lots of people willing to hate on Trump "for free." And "resist" is downtown Crazytown when you are just resisting "everything," no matter what. Even a blind hog finds an acorn sometimes.
Post a Comment