You say 'trapdoor', I say 'cliff'

You say trapdoor, I say cliff, and the Republicans say "the way things should be".

The Republicans believe that struggling families should loose everything they own if a tragedy strikes before they get any aid. Just look at how they treated the Frost family. The Republicans are willing to destroy the middle class to protect the upper class.

Even with full coverage, a catastrophic illness can wreak havoc on a family's budget. There is a lot that insurance does not cover and is not deductible on your taxes unless it falls within a certain percentage of a percentage of the dollar amount of tea in China. If you do not have any type of insurance then heaven help you. Just finding out one aspirin costs $5.00 in the hospital is enough to make you sick.

Yep, the Republican response reminds us of those terrible times during the Clinton era. Once again, that classic Onion headline, circa January 2001, comes to mind...

"Bush: Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity Has Finally Ended"

There is no question that John Edwards is leading on the issues and Obama and Hillary are simply re-stating Edwards' positions and using them as their own.

Two months after Clinton took office in 1993, the Dow was at 3469. When Clinton left office in January of 2001, the Dow was at 10,945.

This is an increase of 315%. Yes, that's Three Hundred Fifteen percent.

Bush's term thus far has seen an increase in the Dow from around 11,000 to around 14,000.

This is a 27% increase.
http://timelines.ws/subjects/DowJones.HTML

When Clinton took office, the unemployment rate was 7.3%, when he left office it was 4.2%.

The unemployment rate for September was around 4.7%, which no matter how you choose to spin it is still higher than when he took office.
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

This is very low unemployment indeed, but the economic prospective must be provided that Clinton nearly halved the high unemployment he inherited and handed President Bush an economy with very low unemployment. Furthermore, the Dow TRIPLED during his term in office, and the economic package that started it all in 1993 was passed without a single Republican voting in favor of it.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1365/is_n11_v23/ai_13812948

"The economic package contains a fusillade of ideas. During the campaign, Clinton sketched broad goals (see "New Prescriptions for an Ailing Economy," Board of Economists Report, January 1993). Now Clinton says that it is time for fine-tuning.

A key proposal is boosting the creation of new businesses. It includes:

* Giving tax credits for business investment spending.

* Offering corporate tax incentives to prime business prospects.

* Making research and development (R&D) tax credits permanent.

* Offering credits and loans for urban investment.

Clinton advocates more spending and new taxes to moderately boost gross domestic product (GDP). Suggestions include investing $20 billion annually through 1997 in construction, transportation, information and environmental protection systems, and $60 billion on education and job training. A new tax policy will also raise taxes on the wealthy and on foreign-owned companies doing business in the United States.

Where will the revenue go? The Administration says the new income, along with spending cuts, will be used to reduce the federal budget deficit 60% by fiscal year 1996. Brimmer, a former Federal Reserve Board governor, says Congress will grant Clinton most of his requests, and that the nation will benefit, primarily through GDP growth."

If Mrs. Clinton follows the economic example of her husband, we will all be better off, even the beloved Top 1%.

Thsi is the safety net vs hammock argument. The Dems want benefits and handouts that go from "the womb-to-the-tomb". This is how the dems measure caring. The republicans provide the invisible hand that allows people to climb to their potential, even if it means stumbling a little along the way.

KB,

The prosperity (via recession) did end 38 days after President Bush took office. If you want to blame that on President Bush, then that shows your lack of knwoledge of economics.

Peace ended on 9-11. A kettle that had been simmering and ignored for many years. Once again, if you want to put that on President Bush's shoulders, you are just showing your lack of foreign policy knowledge.

I totally agree with Senator Clinton.

Have you ever heard someone involved in a pyramid scheme try to rationalize their involvement? The only people who win such a scheme are a few at the top, and at the expense of the many below the top of the pyramid. And yet every single member of the scheme is willing to take the chance of loosing their money in the hopes that they can take someone else's. It's a dog eat dog game where only a few achieve success and at much cost to the rest of the group. That is why it is illegal.

It's easy to see the parallel between the pyramid schemers and republicans. The few at the top are the politically and financially connected, while the many at the bottom are the rank and file republicans, who, each believing that if he is willing to sell out the poor, give up civil rights, trade his children's inheritance, he might, just maybe, possibly get to the top.

A republican colleague of mine yesterday commented on how everyone just looks out for themselves and screws everyone they can get away with. He explained it to me this way: "It is the new American Way. It might not be right but you just have to accept it".
This is the problem with conservative policies, they are like pyramid schemes where only a few benefit greatly at the cost of the many.

I refuse to endorse their cynical view of our society, and I resist their temptation to give up our rights and liberties for the illusion of safety. I refuse to give up on the people I know who are struggling financially. I refuse to turn my back on my brothers and sisters in Iraq who are fighting a war that was lost before it started because of grossly negligent political leaders serving their own top of pyramid interests. Here's a tip for you conservatives: Try caring about the rest of the country for once. Try a little teamwork with liberals and others in this country trying to help those less fortunate. Quit waving your bibles around like you do the flag, and sit down and actually follow Jesus' teachings, try actually reading and understanding the bill of rights, the constitution. Stop expecting Americans to fight and sometimes die in Iraq just because you can't admit that your party and it's leaders were wrong. Try seeing yourself as part of the community, instead of against the community. You can't love America without being part of it, and you can't change it for the better while living in narcissism.

The sad truth is that we don't have a democracy any more. The government is controlled by money, money is controlled by the transnational corporations, these corporations do not care about people, the environment or quality of life. They do care about the economy, though less and less about the American economy.

The only candidate out there I think who understands how grave the situation is John Edwards.
Certainly Hillary Clinton is under the control of her corporate lobbyists. Obama is thin on actual policy and problem solving. Much of what he says seems to come from the Edwards camp and he chooses to *not* say a lot. Unforunately I think he is mostly glamour and also owes a lot of support to the 1% of the population which controls 95% of its resources just like Hillary.

Darin,

Funny you mention pyramid scheme and fail to mention democrats and the blind faith in the biggest pyramid scheme of all - Social Security.

Posted by: Distrust and Verify | October 19, 2007 6:02 PM

Thanks for posting FACTS, with supporting LINKS, that right wingbut dingbats like John D, Paulo, Jerry White and Bruce are unable to debate.

D & V,

"Giving tax credits for business investment spending.

* Offering corporate tax incentives to prime business prospects.

* Making research and development (R&D) tax credits permanent.

* Offering credits and loans for urban investment."

If enacted by a Republican, this would be called corporate welfare.

Not quite sure when this statement was made by President Clinton: "The Administration says the new income, along with spending cuts, will be used to reduce the federal budget deficit 60% by fiscal year 1996." However, I do know that he made the following statement:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v48/ai_18614099

I guess President Clinton didn't have that much faith in his deficits reduction plan.

As far as you unemployment facts - they are true. Please remember that unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. It will lag the groeth/reduction of an economy. Therefore, when President Clinton took over in 1993, he inherited an economy that was 18 months out of recession, but unemployment had not yet caught up with that economy. Likewise, when President Clinton left office, the economy was 38 days from recession, but unemployment was lagging the economic downturn.

BC - Its one thing to post facts, its another to know how to interpret them.