Why is Hillary Clinton so big?

[tankbug]

I find it amazing that a generation that has benefited immensely from a capitalistic society is so eager to complain about it. Capitalism builds nations and encourages success and personal responsibility. Socialism ruins them, and discourages success and breeds entitlement and dependence on the government.

You don't need to leave everything in the hands of the corporations to encourage growth. The most successful countries have a market economy, but also provide safety nets for the common man and keep the companies and billionaires from devouring the people in their insatiable greed. Keeping money out of politics and forcing the rich to pay a little extra for the benefit of the society is the way to go. What's the point of a company making a 100 million more a year, if most of it goes into the pockets of a few wealthy people? Also, support from the government isn't just handouts to the poor.For example, they can help you start a business if you lack the means.

[BuckSparkles]

You don't need to leave everything in the hands of the corporations to encourage growth. The most successful countries have a market economy, but also provide safety nets for the common man and keep the companies and billionaires from devouring the people in their insatiable greed. Keeping money out of politics and forcing the rich to pay a little extra for the benefit of the society is the way to go. What's the point of a company making a 100 million more a year, if most of it goes into the pockets of a few wealthy people? Also, support from the government isn't just handouts to the poor.For example, they can help you start a business if you lack the means.

I personally see no problem in the wealthy people benefiting from their companies. There will always be some with and some without. That won't change, even if you try to punish the wealthy for being successful.

I always see people say "Why should they get all the money?" Well, why not? Why don't they deserve to be rewarded for what they have done?

[TITAN308]

As a Swede, following the US election just a little bit, please explain to me why Hillary Clinton is so big. She strikes me as a liar, two-faced and dishonest, and I rarely read anything positive about her.

Could any Hillary Clinton voter elaborate and enlighten me?

Simply put; Because our elections are no longer about the will of the people.

[Ahovv]

Who would you have had instead?

How about a candidate who actually cares about the concepts of peace and liberty? Obama fits neither of those, since he's happy to intervene in foreign affairs such as Libya, or keeping our troops in Iraq on the bush timetable, or very eager to promote the Patriot Act. Libertarian or Green Party is the closest you can get for a general liberty platform. The Democrats and Republicans do not typically care about these things. They want to constantly police the world, have a huge military, and spy on us.

[Gsara]

I've rarely heard about the Bush lineage since George Jr's presidency, even with jeb running. I guess they aren't as popularized as the Clintons.

Bush jr killed that popularity while Bill Clinton is considered to be the best president the US has had in 50 years(JFK). Hillary also has had the opportunity to be a part of active political scenes since the 60s. But lets be honest, she would be no where near this popular if her husband wasnt the president in the 90s.

[Deleted]

I am not saying capitalism doesn't have flaws. But I still see it as a superior system.

If people want to support socialism, they need to know what is good about it as well as what is bad. I feel most Bernie supporters haven't fully analysed the idea of socialism and just look at it an initial glance, which again, sounds good on paper.

According to Chomsky, you don't have freemarket capitalism at all. If you look at the level of state interference even under Republican governments you can see there is some merit to that.

It is more a question of which form of socialism you want.

- - - Updated - - -

Bush jr killed that popularity while Bill Clinton is considered to be the best president the US has had in 50 years(JFK).

I don't believe that assessment is accurate. He was likeable and good with people. In terms of public acclaim I think Reagan was more popular though I find both of them fairly revolting, frankly.

Bill Clinton's governance was pretty abysmal apart from some successes in foreign policy.

[McFuu]

Bush jr killed that popularity while Bill Clinton is considered to be the best president the US has had in 50 years(JFK). Hillary also has had the opportunity to be a part of active political scenes since the 60s. But lets be honest, she would be no where near this popular if her husband wasnt the president in the 90s.

Many Clinton era policies directly lead to the housing bubble crash and the economy tanking. Bill Clinton was a popular president, but not a very good one.

[belfpala]

Damn it. The "magic" of "socialism" (a word used incorrectly in the US) is percolate up economics.

In short, your rich people can't make money if people can't buy their shit. Henry Ford knew this 100 years ago.

[Deleted]

Because the alternatives are batshit crazy

[Healing Rain]

Because Democrat voters have became sheeplecrats.

[-aiko-]

She likes to eat.

[Gsara]

Many Clinton era policies directly lead to the housing bubble crash and the economy tanking. Bill Clinton was a popular president, but not a very good one.

We are talking about popularity, not if anyone was a good president or not. I mean Reagan was hugely popular but was complete shit at running the country and a criminal. More officials in his presidency were indicted and convicted of crimes than any other presidency yet he is a Republican hero.

- - - Updated - - -

According to Chomsky, you don't have freemarket capitalism at all. If you look at the level of state interference even under Republican governments you can see there is some merit to that.

It is more a question of which form of socialism you want.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't believe that assessment is accurate. He was likeable and good with people. In terms of public acclaim I think Reagan was more popular though I find both of them fairly revolting, frankly.

Bill Clinton's governance was pretty abysmal apart from some successes in foreign policy.

They are roughly the same on overall approval rating with Clinton being a bit higher.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/pr...cs-trends.aspx

I also dont care for either one. They both contributed greatly with their policies to the crash in '08 with Reagan also having bailouts during his term to the big banks.

[Spiffums]

As a Swede, following the US election just a little bit, please explain to me why Hillary Clinton is so big. She strikes me as a liar, two-faced and dishonest, and I rarely read anything positive about her.

Could any Hillary Clinton voter elaborate and enlighten me?

She's a woman and it's her turn. It always strikes me as funny that the party of Diversity has 2 old straight white people as the ones they pick to run.

[kail]

I am not saying capitalism doesn't have flaws. But I still see it as a superior system.

If people want to support socialism, they need to know what is good about it as well as what is bad. I feel most Bernie supporters haven't fully analysed the idea of socialism and just look at it an initial glance, which again, sounds good on paper.

It has gone beyond paper and into practice across the world. History and current times prove that some form of socialism actually works. Trickle down economics? Not so much. The irony when you tell others to open up a history book.

[Caolela]

I personally see no problem in the wealthy people benefiting from their companies. There will always be some with and some without. That won't change, even if you try to punish the wealthy for being successful.

I always see people say "Why should they get all the money?" Well, why not? Why don't they deserve to be rewarded for what they have done?

Bucky, you should get out of the bubble of the corporate echo chamber it seems you've fallen into, and try to educate yourself more broadly. alexw, advanta, and others have explained some of these things to you that are the reality, not the false definitions and memes you've been led to believe.

Like the thread where I asked you to start a poll to support your assertion that liberals/progressives on MMO-C would prefer authoritarian regimes, and so on. That kind of stuff is completely wrongheaded.

Corporations receiving massive tax breaks (that BTW they generally don't use for "creating jobs", and many don't pay taxes at all); forming shell companies in tax haven states and nations (Panama Papers); tax loopholes not available to average people; billions in various gov't subsidies (i.e., corporate welfare) -- all of that is off the radar for those who talk about poor corporations being "punished" for being "successful".

Which of course is totally disingenuous bullshit.

Progressive taxation is not punishment. In basic terms, it's taxation based on one's ability to pay. In simple terms, if I make $20k and you make $100k, you can afford to pay a higher rate than I can since most of my income must go to basic needs, where you'll have a much greater amount left, all else being equal.

And of course never mentioned is what advanta said - the trillions in giveaways and absorbing their garbage investments since '08, including the bailouts of GM & Chrysler, Obamacare which is a giveaway to the insurance industry and health care corporations, and so many more examples. That is all a form of socialism - but for the upper brackets that don't need it.

It's known as wealth redistribution - in this case it's distributed unfairly upward - and was the greatest redistribution of wealth in human history.

"Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it."

Lastly, don't forget that corporations that you think are so benign don't give a single rat's ass about you, they only want profit, and care not about any social or environmental damage they inflict to get it. They'll use any trick or lie they can to separate you and the taxpayer from their money.

[Varaben]

Name recognition. Same reason Trump is so popular.

[Deleted]

Because Beel was actually a good president and she has the right last name. Also the PC crown will probably vote for her regardless cause hey, first woman. And I guess shes the only dem who stands a chance other than that commie Sanders.

[kail]

Name recognition. Same reason Trump is so popular.

This + gender.

[zmp]

Well, she's a woman. Wouldn't you also want to see the first woman president of USA?

[Felya]

Again, nobody explains the costs of socialism. Nobody questions the "magic" of socialism.

Or y'know, flip open a history book and learn about it.

Combine your 'taxes are too' high rhetoric with your 'nobody questions' to solve the above issue...