Printable View
Way to go Rudy! Forward to time index 3:40
hAj6xRNpZlg
Rudy - "I don't know her experience, She's never run a city, never ran a state, never ran a busines, never met a payroll, never been responsible for the safety & security of millions of people much less hundreds of people, so I am (Rudy) trying to figure out what experience is she talking about. We don't need OJT (on the job training) for a President."
Ha. I'm no fan of Clinton, but if Giuliani thinks he can run this country the same way he ran this city, he'll be in for a very rude awakening. At our expense, most likely.
And I hope he doesn't try to use that as a campaign strategy when talking to impartial audiences, lest Clinton actually tries to campaign against him...
The way you run a city is different from the way you run a state, & different from the way you run a country....Quote:
Originally Posted by adam613
So, to answer your concern, no.....
The topic had to do with leadership & results, which Senator Clinton has not demostrated....
I remember the first 100 days when Rudy was Mayor, when he took over from Dinkins, he showed results.....
Rudy has a point, but it's not the strongest when he says that. She doesn't have the right experience for run the country, I think.
In addition, I honestly feel that she will make small adjustments which would be the beginning of the US moving to become the next socialist France. "Subtle Socialism" is a major disease on this planet.
Rudy's experience, though not on a national level, shows good leadership and the ability to manage through problems and make decisions.
Its not subtel Phil...She wants to turn us into a Socialized European state plain and simple. Her policy ideas and statements thus far are very clear that is the direction she wants to take us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
I need to do more research on her statements.
Granted, her healthcare plans ARE flat out socialist. However, healthcare is the only thing that I think does need a socialist twist to it.
The only other Socialist idea I heard of hers was when she said that we should take money away from the oil companies. But I don't know if that was just a spontaneous stupid statement of hers, or if she's said that repeatedly said and truly belives. I also don't know if she's said other things. Anyone?
Phil I've spent much of my year up here in Canada as you know and I haven't meet one Canadian that likes National Health care, it doesn't work. A growing trend here in Canada is private Doctors opening up practices that do not accept the National Healthcare program but charge customers for visits because people just can't wait months to see a doctor. There are very good reasons why people from around the world come to the U.S for their healthcare procedures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
Billary is probably the most Left wing person I have experinced during my life time but than again my life time in the span of things has not been as long as others (hear that Tommy, your old!) I have never liked her or agreed with her though. Something even before I was more intrested in politics rubbed me the wrong way about her attitude towards things and her thinking that she could just move in and be the chamillion and we would never notice. Than the reall Billary comes out and by that point you are stuck with her for minimum 4 years. She is eurocentric in that she is totally socialistic in her nature.
Just one more thing about "Hillarycare"...Ponder this, why do I want more money taken out of my check or pay higher taxes on goods to pay for health insurance on some dead beat low life who doesn't work? Also note that many young adults CHOOSE not to have healthcare for w/e reason, if someone chooses not to have healthcare then why force it on them? Although a National Healthcare program would greatly benefit my company because demand for healthcare supplies would jump and it would mean a ton more money in my pocket but if I have cancer I want to ensure I can get to a doctor to have it treated. National Healthcare is a death sentence for many here in Canada and Europe.
I can agree that there are problems with the Canadian system, but we need to figure out a way to take care of people that don't have insurance.
Deadbeat or not, I think that everyone should have a RIGHT to medical care. It should be in the Constitution. How to acheive that....well that's the tough part.
I disagree it’s not a right by any means and has no place in the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
We live in a Capital society; high quality healthcare is available to everyone in this country through quality employers. Why is it my problem or yours that someone doesn't have healthcare? I just don't understand why I should pay for a total strangers healthcare costs? My healthcare costs are already high enough and I have great insurance. The only way of giving our nation healthcare is to raise taxes to unacceptably high rates which would have a dramatic effect on the economy.
Phil if I didn't know you I'd say you probably have a picture of Hillary up at home... LOL ;)
Eh. I think if the government stopped wasting money on "briges to nowhere" that there'd be much more money for healthcare.
I certainly respect your opinion, but I don't see how fellow citizens being unhealthy is not our problem. Other people being sick affects all of us in many ways.
I think about 150 years ago and compare it to people saying "Why is it my problem that someone else has slaves?" (not implying your are for slavery, just a comparison of the times)
The problem is, it isn't just "deadbeats" who don't have can't get health insurance. If your employer doesn't subsidize your insurance, paying out-of-pocket for a family plan is VERY expensive. Very few small companies can afford to subsidize health care for their employees, and a growing number of large companies are trying to avoid subsidizing their employees' health care in order to cut costs (Wal-Mart makes the news for it fairly frequently). There are plenty of people who work full-time or more and don't have the option of getting medical insurance.
And the rest of us are going to end up paying for it one way or another. Not providing health care at all simply isn't an option, because we'd all die from the diseases they wouldn't be able to get treatment for. And already medical care costs are rising and quality of care is going down because people are getting treatment they can't pay for.
I don't particularly like the idea of an inept government running the health care system, but it may end up being the least evil option.
Also, back on the Hillary topic, plenty of senators announce their candidacy for president during every cycle. And they all have about the same level of experience that Clinton does. I don't believe we have ever elected a president whose last office was mayor, and we haven't elected a senator as president since Kennedy. So if we use the experience of past presidents as a barometer of required experience, the only major candidate who is qualified is Mitt Romney *shudder*.
(I'd be happy if someone with a shred of honesty would run for president. So, to paraphrase Tommy's avatar, I'm probably with Fred, even though I agree with very little of what he says. :) )
Phil a bridge to nowhere will pay for about a week of the Nation's healthcare costs. Even if the Gov't stops wasteful spending all together which won't happen taxes will sky rocket. I don't think too many of us can afford taxes to go up anymore then what we pay already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
Lincoln also felt that if he could keep the union preserved by simply keeping slavery legal he would have, but as we know slavery was only a small part of the South's reason to leave the union.
I'm not saying the Gov't should sit back and do nothing by all means companies like Walmart should be made to offer health insurance. Suffolk country recently passed a bill stating companies that do business in Suffolk must provide somekind of health coverage.
In theory, I really like this idea, because it forces private enterprise to come up with a solution. But in practice it ends up being a tax on businesses. And it's a heavily regressive tax, because the cost increases on a linear basis as the number of employees increases, but overall company revenues generally increase much more rapidly than that as the number of employees increases. So small businesses would see their costs, as a total percentage of revenue, increase much more than large businesses, and small companies are overtaxed as it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
Suffolk did it as a direct result of Walmart's practices, that's why companies like Walmart have to be held to higher standards because their decissions truly do impact the economy and culture of our soceity.Quote:
Originally Posted by adam613
15% - 20% of the people in the United States do not have health insurance, out of the people, there are a certain number that choose not to have health insurance....Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
Simple little things like giving tax cuts or tax rebates to cover the cost of purchasing health insurance on the market may be a simple solution....
I was a Contract worker for a while & my company paid me & said if you want to get your own health insurance here is the money, I was young & healthy guess what I did......
As to the rising cost of health care, blame those silly lawsuits that you read so much about & doctors that are overperscribing medication..... Tort reform would bring down costs...
Look at Ambulance chasers like John Edwards getting rich off of frivoulus lawsuits.....
Where is T-Bird, this is arena of knowledge? :D
Rudy did things no one could do as Mayor...people thought it was not possible. Not just the hopelessly incompetent Dinkins Administration, but the Kochatollah and previous adminsitrations as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight Mike
It was a "Rudy Awakening" as they said at the time. :D
Phil, she was an advocate for writing legislation to make presidential elections into a popular vote..which on the face of it sounds good to a grade school class, but it undermines our system of representative govt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
The creeping socialism is one thing, but the demagoguery is another..granted its become standard fare for just about all politicians these days, but she distinguishes herself in this category. She (her husband) was instrumental, I am sure, in getting the Feds to hammer the NYPD on bias issues, profiling etc. when per capita many cities run by Democrats had easily worse records of their police gunning down citizens etc.
She wanted Amnesty for terrorists involved in shooting up congress no less....
Thats not even factoring in the Cattle futures windfall, the Subpoenaed records "discovered" on her desk, the bar bouncer collecting Republican politicians FBI files (and no one knows who hired him?) ...its hard to keep track of it all.. and thats without factoring in obscure Whitewater issues, Vince Foster and the like...
She's a hard worker, no doubt..and pretty damn smart....but I can't tell you what she really believes in...except that it runs a high risk of being HARD LEFT once she is unfettered by voters...
Granted Guiliani is changing his positions to gain election and on those issues of particular concern to a given voter, thats disturbing/disappointing, but from my point of view, its fairly transparent why he's flipping, but once in office, he always spoke his mind, answered and explained positions with great candor..I cannot say the same for her.. nearly her entire public record in my opinion is one of political deception.
Tom
Yes, and I would hazard a guess that the city's budget is bigger and rather more complicated than that of Arkansas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
Locally, we've seen D'amato as Senator and Pataki as Governor... and you know, its all a joke.
Most people, if they never opened a newspaper or watched TV etc. wouldn't have known the difference than when their predecessors were in office...
The real deal was Rudy.
Tom
True..but we never elected a Catholic before Kennedy, an actor before Reagan and a woman before...well... you know... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by adam613
Sheesh..with what New York Senators have become...I just don't know. I watch Senator Schumer and my jaw drops to the floor.
If he wanted to spend all his time at the level of making sure the proper pricing was on tuna fish cans at the local bodega, he should have run for Mark Green's old job.
Tom
What amazes me about Schumer is that even the Republicans upstate voted for him last time around. I never understood the appeal of that man, other than that he's a good politician.
And what amazes me about Clinton is that she makes the Republicans nervous because she's too liberal, and she makes Democrats nervous because she's too conservative. I suspect that the Republicans are really nervous because they know their usual character assassination **** isn't going to go far with her (especially against Giuliani, who has plenty of his own skeletons in his closet). And are really nervous because they have no idea who she really is.
And it's going to be an odd election if Giuliani and Clinton get the major-party nominations, because let's face it, people outside of New York don't really trust New Yorkers.
Good points Adam.
I think the interesting thing is I suspect both Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani anticipate *changing* the country and getting a mandate to do just that. [Don't be fooled by Billary's record previously..the goal before was always to get re-elected and that superceded everything]..but unless the winner really gets bold in anticipating lots of compromises to get a 2nd term..and its lame duck time anyway before you know it, they're going to go for it right away.
Well, it might be for better or worse, but change is coming. I think the Democrats would be happy just to win, and worry about Hillary later. Certainly the Senate treated Bill very poorly and if it were not for his brilliant political skills and "triangulating" seeming "republican" issues he would've evaporated into irrelevance.
The Republicans can certainly be worried about Guiliani, but they were never going to get their core social "conservative" prayers answered with even Ronald Reagan, much less the two Bushes... and not even Fred Thompson is going to turn back the clock for them (though he might make them feel better), but whatever happens big CHANGE is coming America's way. The Republicans are not going to win presidential elections with walking cadavers like Bob Dole taking their awaited turns... in terms of strategy one would think the Republicans are not going to be able to simply wave the flag and assume votes at Democrats' expense, and the Democrats won't simply imply "racism" and Class Warfare and automatically expect just enough folks to buy it either. But then again, both Hillary and Rudy are getting their feet wet along just those lines, so we'll see. I suspect when we get down to just two candidates some "new" (real) issues might just make the difference for one of them.
Tom
Tommy, I do enjoy these more "extreme" positions... My heart was bleeding liberal blood just like Phil's on this issue, but if I can just stop paying for public education and let parents pay for their own kids (strangers to me after all) maybe we can get something going here.... :borat:Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
Tom
Another terrifying Hillary fact: her campaign denies it, but Sandy Berger seems to have a role advising her on national security issues. I hope he brings the 9/11 docs he stole in his sock to those meetings.
How bad is it that I'm hoping Al Gore runs?
That is pretty bad wishing for Al Gore! :mrgreen:Quote:
Originally Posted by GothamSpotter
It's sorta like me wishing GWB could be more like his father... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by GothamSpotter
[quote=Tom_Turner]Tommy, I do enjoy these more "extreme" positions... My heart was bleeding liberal blood just like Phil's on this issue, but if I can just stop paying for public education and let parents pay for their own kids (strangers to me after all) maybe we can get something going here.... :borat:Quote:
Originally Posted by "T-Bird76":7931c
Tom[/quote:7931c]
Tom its apples and oranges when it comes to public healthcare for all and free education. Education is the path to success and prosperity which will better society far more then giving free health care to people who have no desire to better themselves. I'm far more supportive to raising taxes to better our education system then giving non deserving individuals free healthcare. Children should be given every opportunity to receive a high quality education that will help them choose their path in life. Chances are if they are educated members of society they'll take the right path, get a good job that will give them good health insurance and you and I will not have to pay for it.
Yeah, thats right, but it is a socialized system (and not as good as it once was). Lets at least have a voucher program then. As it stands now, there is not much reason to believe shoveling more money into public education is going to get better results. Unless I believe benefiting the Teachers Union is in some way helping children. Also, I am not really getting the benefit of fairly wealthy communities enjoying free education when I suspect they'd look after their kids best interests any way, and the areas more likely to produce criminal populations have the worst schools. (yeah, I know, lets increase the teachers pay and it will all go away...heh heh..right). [Seriously though, free education is fine with me...although I am not sure we sure we should pay for adults to spend years alternating basket weaving and remedial math and reading at "colleges" - at significant tax payer expense... we should expect good grades and relevant subjects]Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
Also, back on topic, we've had a good run of decades in terms of National Health issues. By many reports Super Bugs are just around the corner and at that pont, when someone gets sick with one it may very well be important to both you and I that they are treated as best as possible.
Tom
[quote=Tom_Turner]Yeah, thats right, but it is a socialized system (and not as good as it once was). Lets at least have a voucher program then. As it stands now, there is not much reason to believe shoveling more money into public education is going to get better results. Unless I believe benefiting the Teachers Union is in some way helping children. Also, I am not really getting the benefit of fairly wealthy communities enjoying free education when I suspect they'd look after their kids best interests any way, and the areas more likely to produce criminal populations have the worst schools. (yeah, I know, lets increase the teachers pay and it will all go away...heh heh..right). [Seriously though, free education is fine with me...although I am not sure we sure we should pay for adults to spend years alternating basket weaving and remedial math and reading at "colleges" - at significant tax payer expense... we should expect good grades and relevant subjects]Quote:
Originally Posted by "T-Bird76":00e3c
Also, back on topic, we've had a good run of decades in terms of National Health issues. By many reports Super Bugs are just around the corner and at that pont, when someone gets sick with one it may very well be important to both you and I that they are treated as best as possible.
Tom[/quote:00e3c]
All you have to do is dump tenue and put some real standars in place. What's wrong with a super bug or two? Its the Earth's way of keeping the population in check ;)