When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@Thomas,

We all know that it is Congress who creates the budgets, the President signs them. Reagan had a Dem controlled Congress. Clinton had a GOP controlled Congress.

4 Replies

@RABEL222,

Yet he was able to become the Gov of CA and President of the US twice.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

We all know that it is Congress who creates the budgets, the President signs them. Reagan had a Dem controlled Congress. Clinton had a GOP controlled Congress.

No, it is a negotiation. Thing is over the years I have seen very few in Washington who seem to care about financial responsibility. I dont see any factual basis for blaming one party over the other.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

We all know that it is Congress who creates the budgets, the President signs them.

Not true. More often than not, the US budget process begins when the president proposes a budget, which Congress then modifies and eventually votes on. Moreover, when presidents don't like the budgets Congresses hand over to them, they can veto rather than sign them --- and have frequently done so in the past. So the president's role in the process is far less passive than you would have us believe, and the budgets they do end up signing tell us a lot about themselves and their parties.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

We all know that it is Congress who creates the budgets, the President signs them. Reagan had a Dem controlled Congress. Clinton had a GOP controlled Congress.

Reagan had a Republican majority in the Senate for 6 of his 8 years...and during the 2 where he did not have a majority...he had a veto protected majority.

He could have vetoed ANY bill...and it was done.

Don't give us that Dem controlled Congress, Baldimo...unless you tell the entire story.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

The President creates a budget. They can be found here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionGPO.action?collectionCode=BUDGET

Congress either does or doesn't create a budget. Look at the RWers whining about the lack of a budget the last few years. The President does NOT sign a budget Congress creates.
http://budget.house.gov/budgetprocess/stages.htm

Congress then writes the appropriation bills, passes them and the President signs them or vetoes them. These often don't follow a budget of the President or Congress.

Reagan to my knowledge never vetoed any appropriation bills. Reagan never submitted a single balanced budget.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Don't give us that Dem controlled Congress, Baldimo...unless you tell the entire story.

Which is that Congress has not worked in a long while, and it does not matter which individuals or what party runs the place.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Okay...if you want to think that, Hawk...I have no problem. That was not what I was addressing.

Baldimo was asserting that Reagan had a Dem controlled congress.

My point is that during the 8 years of Reagan's presidency...the Republicans had a majority in the Senate for 6 of those years...and at no point was there the numbers necessary to defeat a veto.

If Reagan did not want those budgets passed...he could have vetoed them...and the veto would have been sustained.

0 Replies

Quote:

When Hillary Clinton was America's top diplomat, she also appeared at times like a top salesperson for America's biggest airplane maker, Boeing.

Traveling abroad on official business as secretary of state, Clinton often visited Boeing facilities and made a pitch for the host country to buy Boeing jets. During one visit to Shanghai in May 2010, she boasted that "more than half the commercial jetliners operating in China are made by Boeing."

A sales plug in Russia in 2009, though, may have proved especially fruitful. While touring a Boeing plant, Secretary of State Clinton said, "We're delighted that a new Russian airline, Rossiya, is actively considering acquisition of Boeing aircraft, and this is a shameless pitch."

In 2010, Boeing landed the Russian deal, worth $3.7 billion. And two months later, the company donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/12/clinton-facing-new-ethics-questions-on-role-in-boeing-deal/

THat Hillary was trying to sell boeing was known and is fine since Washington has long ago enlisted as a Boeing salesman....THe foundation taking boeing money however is not.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

Quote:

If I may answer, such as my answer counts for anything. I think the reason Hillary so far is better than any other democratic candidate is because she has the most widely known name in the field. She has been in politics so long there is no dark horse mystery to her, anywhere. By this time, Obama had already had name recognition when he spoke at the democrat convention before 2008 election cycle really began. No one else so far has that name recognition or even appeal which Hillary enjoys right now for whatever reason.

It is not about how long you have been a recognized politician but about what have you done or accomplished in your years as a politician.

So far, I see nothing coming as successful from Hillary in her years as a politician but becoming more famous.

And, sorry but, fame is not what will make this country to run in the right path.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

One would study economics, not economy.

The last President to balance a budget was a Clinton.
The last President to reduce the deficit is named Obama. Prior to that the previous President to reduce the deficit was named Clinton.

Quote:

one of the main priorities of any administration is to balance the budget.

That is interesting but completely ignored by every GOP President since Nixon.

How quickly you forget Cheney saying "deficits don't matter."

So, tell us exactly why you support the party that has never balanced a budget since the 1950s and has done more to drive up the debt than the other party?

You still showing lack of knowledge in economy.

How Hillary Clinton plans to balance the budget?

Why she wants to legalized illegal immigrants when it is obvious that such measurement is negative for the nation?

By the way, your propaganda about Clinton and Obama sucks, the chart posted several times before shows them as failures to balance the budget, specially with Obama with a current 101% GDP.

Keep evading my simple questions made directly to you.

I'll hope these same questions to be asked to Hillary.

2 Replies

@carloslebaron,

So, we should vote for a GOP candidate because they have no valid plan to balance the budget and against Hillary because she has no valid plan to balance the budget.

That must make perfect sense in your mind.

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

Quote:

By the way, your propaganda about Clinton and Obama sucks, the chart posted several times before shows them as failures to balance the budget,

Reality shows that Clinton did have a surplus for 4 years of his Presidency.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

So, we should vote for a GOP candidate because they have no valid plan to balance the budget and against Hillary because she has no valid plan to balance the budget.

That must make perfect sense in your mind.

Your answer comes from the typical dualist.

But, here we are not talking about Republicans, this thread is about Hillary Clinton.

You are one of her fanatics, and you are trying to imply that you have knowledge in economy... sadly you can barely pass a multiple choice tests and surely you can't pass a performance test.

For this reason you are evading to respond the following: if you were Hillary Clinton, what you will do to balance the budget?

And this is the key question to put her out of the way, asking her how is she going to balance the budget.

She must respond with accuracy, and she must show the current miserable condition of the GDP that Obama has caused. She will have no other choice but to put Obama as the lowest in order to present herself as "the savior" Lol.

You can't respond to my questions because your ability to apply your acquired knowledge in the field is ZERO.

The Clinton era with surplus is nothing but a fantasy. Just rising taxes by 1.8% in his first year in power plus his improved programs should have caused a positive great impact lasting decades... but the idiot played the "popular president" and whatever he saved from one side was immediately wasted in another side... rob Peter to pay Paul: that was his "surplus". Lol.

And, unfortunately, people like you are the ones who are going to waste votes in favor of Hillary... what a shame...

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

A typical dualist? Obviously you don't understand what dualism is if you think it is applying the same standard to both parties.

Hillary Clinton will be running against one of the several Republicans running in their primary. Both party's candidates will be required to answer the same questions once we get to the general election. Your desire to dismiss one candidate for not providing an answer while not applying the same standard to the other side shows you are not being logical. Rather you are simply flailing about looking for things to use as an attack having made up your mind already.

The Clinton era surplus was not a fantasy. It is simple accounting. It's right there in the government accounting records, including the records published by GOP Presidents.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

A typical dualist? Obviously you don't understand what dualism is if you think it is applying the same standard to both parties.

Hillary Clinton will be running against one of the several Republicans running in their primary. Both party's candidates will be required to answer the same questions once we get to the general election. Your desire to dismiss one candidate for not providing an answer while not applying the same standard to the other side shows you are not being logical. Rather you are simply flailing about looking for things to use as an attack having made up your mind already.

The Clinton era surplus was not a fantasy. It is simple accounting. It's right there in the government accounting records, including the records published by GOP Presidents.

You still evading the question: if you were Hillary Clinton, how will you balance the budget?

This is the million dollars question, because politicians are imploring, demanding, and even paying the media, to avoid this question about balancing the budget.

Here we are discussing about Hillary Clinton, and if you want to discuss how Republicans will answer the same question, you must open a new thread.

With this question, people will find out that Hillary is a good for nothing candidate, so she must give up her candidacy.

Who cares if Republicans can't answer properly this same question.

Here, this is like several cars running way over the speed limit. Police catches one car and a penalty is given to the driver. The driver complains that "other cars were also running over the speed limit", and police will respond that such is not this driver business but his own breaking of the traffic law.

So, here we have caught Hillary Clinton in fault -this is to say "you" as her defender, because "you" playing the economist can't answer the question.

Here, we have found out that if Hillary responds to this question, she is obligated to show the current condition of the GDP caused by the Obama administration, which is over 100% ratio, meaning that it is a catastrophic economical situation.

You understand what I say, that Obama is the worst president ever, who have brought the nation to its lowest economic status. Numbers rule, and the chart -posted several times before- shows the Obama's 101% GDP ratio... no doubts about the source.

So, lets focus in Hillary here.

How is she going to balance the budget?

If you can't respond, then it is time for you to give up defending her.

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

Candidates are compared to other candidates. Your requirement that we ask only one candidate a question and then discard her based on her lack of answer is idiotic. The question would show every candidate is a good for nothing candidate. At which point other factors where they do differ become the deciding point.

If you simply define your numbers to match your conclusion then you will always find support for your conclusion. However, your argument about numbers is completely divorced from the actual meaning of the numbers and the trends in those numbers.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

The answer is: never. Sorry to disappoint you body, but she seriously counting on idiots like you can find on this site that will vote for her no matter what!! Remember Mr Gruber, and what he said about democratic voters? " ...they are stupid".
Did any of the die hard democrats got upset? NO! He pretty much spit in their face - they said it's raining. He said sraight up: we have lie to you just to pass the Obama care. Did anyone ask any questions? No! They will vote tomorrow for another Obama-like idiot, because they are programmed that way! Democrats have NO brain of their own. Their heads are linked through the left propaganda. That's why you look at Hilary's scandals thinking: " damn, any conservative would be out with only a small fraction of the baggage that she has..." Hilary hopes are in her constituents stupidity, and as you reed some posts here, you would easily give to her assumptions some validity.

2 Replies

@andy31,

Quote:

I'm enjoying the fact that everyone can express their opinion openly.

Why is this on your profile when you clearly dont believe it?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Okay hawkeye10, you have to invest here some more time, and explain yourself little better, what brought you to such of nonsensical conclusion.

1 Reply

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know