# Clinton on track to win....



## AZ Jim (Feb 20, 2015)

or not....

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/20/ter...linton_bill_kristol_thinks_shes_going_to_win/


----------



## Josiah (Feb 20, 2015)

Regarding Hillary, without going into any details now about reservations I have, I will of course support her. I have reluctantly accepted Elizabeth Warren's statement that she will not run. What worries me now is the prospect that Hillary will not have any competition for the nomination and this is really scary uncharted water. No non incumbent candidate has ever gone unopposed to the nomination. This means HRC will not have the benefit of the political excitement a real primary campaign creates. And sad to say getting the political juices flowing in the Democratic constituency takes a lot of doing. Witness the recent off year elections.


----------



## Jackie22 (Feb 20, 2015)

[h=1]Hillary Clinton And Elizabeth Warren Had A Secret Meeting In December[/h]Source: *TPM/NYT*

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a private one-on-one meeting in December at the former secretary and likely presidential candidate's home in Washington, DC, The New York Times reported. 

Clinton heard policy ideas and suggestions from Warren, according to an unnamed Democrat briefed on the meeting and quoted in the Times. 

The meeting was a rare direct interaction between Clinton and Warren, who supporters hope will run for president as a liberal and populist alternative to Clinton. Warren has repeatedly said she is not running for president but the Run Warren Run movement has persisted (albeit without posing much of a threat to Clinton's potential campaign). 

The meeting in December between Clinton and Warren came a few months after they ran into each other during a rally for Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley. At that run-in, Clinton praised Warren for fighting Wall Street special interests and big banks. 

###

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren-secret-meeting 


hummm.......now that would be a dream team.

I too will support Hillary.


----------



## drifter (Feb 20, 2015)

I've been reading the political tea leaves a long time and I agree this time around it is Hillary's to lose. More than eighteen months out from the election, I agree Hillary is likely to be the next President. I'm a life long democrat.The Republicans are too fractionalized to win an election, I think. I don't know how Bush will do but the rest of their line up, as it was last time, are a bunch of dipsticks, lacking leadership. With Romney out there is no leadership, no one of a national character who can step into the void and make something happen, unless Bush comes on strong. Bush has the financial support lined up to run a good race if he can attract enough independents and a few democrats. Republicans on their own can't elect a president. They run off too many people. They will need help and i don't know who would want to help these present dipsticks.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 20, 2015)

Ok!  First Hillary Clinton is head and shoulders above any of her potential opponents.  I would have loved to see Elizabeth Warren run but she apparently isn't going to.  I will not only support Hillary I will back it up with some money (not a huge amount but it will help) and I will offer to work for her.  She has NO chance in Arizona nor would any Democrat, but I will be trying.


----------



## drifter (Feb 20, 2015)

I will support Hillary, too, although, I would rather support Warren. And neither of them have any chance in Oklahoma.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 20, 2015)

It's gonna be up to the blue states and tossups to win it.  But winning is a necessity.


----------



## Josiah (Feb 20, 2015)

drifter said:


> I've been reading the political tea leaves a long time and I agree this time around it is Hillary's to lose. More than eighteen months out from the election, I agree Hillary is likely to be the next President. I'm a life long democrat.The Republicans are too fractionalized to win an election, I think. I don't know how Bush will do but the rest of their line up, as it was last time, are a bunch of dipsticks, lacking leadership. With Romney out there is no leadership, no one of a national character who can step into the void and make something happen, unless Bush comes on strong. Bush has the financial support lined up to run a good race if he can attract enough independents and a few democrats. Republicans on their own can't elect a president. They run off too many people. They will need help and i don't know who would want to help these present dipsticks.



I think you're selling GOP short. They're going to spend a ton of money repeating the insane stupid things they always say, and they're going to say it over and over again and a significant percentage of the electorate above and beyond the right wing base will eventually come to accept their stuff as true. It took a really major effort to put together the the coalition that elected Obama twice and as soon as the election is over that Democratic coalition falls apart and has to be reassembled at great effort for the next presidential election. Having the right ideas doesn't make it happen. Motivating the Democratic coalition takes next to a miracle.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 20, 2015)

Josiah, you are being pessimistic....I hope it goes differently!  If Joe Average or Irene Elder have a chance  it will take Democrats to deliver it.


----------



## tnthomas (Feb 20, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> I think you're selling GOP short. They're going to spend a ton of money repeating the insane stupid things they always say, and they're going to say it over and over again and a significant percentage of the electorate above and beyond the right wing base will eventually come to accept their stuff as true.



I think that the GOP is running out of issues to be against,  Roe v. Wade has no chance of being reversed, gender issues are a mine field- being against any human issues in general can make a politician look bad in a hurry.      The 47% are still alive, and hanging chads won't deliver another GOP victory.

Making noises about economic issues or foreign policy is dangerous for republicans as well, neither arena is their strong suite.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 20, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> I think you're selling GOP short. They're going to spend a ton of money repeating the insane stupid things they always say, and they're going to say it over and over again and a significant percentage of the electorate above and beyond the right wing base will eventually come to accept their stuff as true. It took a really major effort to put together the the coalition that elected Obama twice and as soon as the election is over that Democratic coalition falls apart and has to be reassembled at great effort for the next presidential election. Having the right ideas doesn't make it happen. Motivating the Democratic coalition takes next to a miracle.



But aren't you forgetting that this may be our first woman president....  That will generate HUGE interest..  People wanting to get on the right side of history and this historic election..


----------



## Josiah (Feb 20, 2015)

tnthomas, the Republicans don't need to have any fresh ideas to win. They know how to go negative. That's all they've been doing for the past 7 years and what did it get them in 2014? They won handily. I predict that is 2016 they'll beat the war drums and convince a majority of the American electorate that what we need is to unleash the American military to solve once and for all the problem of Islamic terrorism in the middle east. I know I'm describing the American electorate as a bunch of know nothings, but in the hands of the Republican propaganda apparatus fueled with unlimited financial resources, I've seen it happen over and over again.

QS, I wish I could share your confidence about the excitement a woman running for president will ignite, but there have been so many consequential woman in so many important jobs that I feel that the novelty has worn off. People now know that woman can handle any job. There have been scores of female heads of state. Here in the US we're just a little bit behind. No big deal.

So far none of you has lessened my fear of a Republican nominating the next three Supreme Court justices and taking us into another stupid stupid war. Please keep trying.


----------



## Butterfly (Feb 20, 2015)

I do not like Hillary Clinton at all.  But I will vote for her if she is the Dem candidate.  God help us if the GOP gets into the presidency.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 20, 2015)

Man I understand your fears there.  I hope we can protect Social Security, Medicare, ACA with a Democrat in office to protect us.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Feb 20, 2015)

I was listening to an intuitive on the Coast radio show last night, who also was into reading tarot cards.  She said she saw Hillary taking the presidency in 2016, and saw her in a blue suit and hat.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 20, 2015)

I hope it's "in the cards".


----------



## Josiah (Feb 21, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> I was listening to an intuitive on the Coast radio show last night, who also was into reading tarot cards.  She said she saw Hillary taking the presidency in 2016, and saw her in a blue suit and hat.



I'm sorry but a tarot card reading does nothing to quell my angst about the upcoming campaign. Nobody has commented on the glaring fact that it is during the primary season that people become interested and committed to a candidate and faced with no competitive opponents Hillary's primary season will have all the motivational impact of a piece of wet cardboard.


----------



## Sunny (Feb 21, 2015)




----------



## BobF (Feb 21, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Man I understand your fears there.  I hope we can protect Social Security, Medicare, ACA with a Democrat in office to protect us.



There have been Democrats in power for many years and not one effort has been made to protect Social Security and their shrinking funds.   For many years there have been programs funded with what was considered to be SS surplus funds held by the government.   Same problem with the Republicans not doing anything to end the raids.    So how are we to expect any corrections, no matter which party is in charge.   Too bad we can't just eliminate this 'Party' running our government and go back to the way our Constitution was designed and have the ones we elect act as the elected people running this country.   Makes more sense than this off side non government group decided what we should do.


----------



## Josiah (Feb 21, 2015)

BobF said:


> There have been Democrats in power for many years and not one effort has been made to protect Social Security and their shrinking funds.   For many years there have been programs funded with what was considered to be SS surplus funds held by the government.   Same problem with the Republicans not doing anything to end the raids.    So how are we to expect any corrections, no matter which party is in charge.   Too bad we can't just eliminate this 'Party' running our government and go back to the way our Constitution was designed and have the ones we elect act as the elected people running this country.   Makes more sense than this off side non government group decided what we should do.



Under the present law the Social Security Trust fund isn't shrinking and will continue increasing until 2021. This gives the country time to adopt any of a number to not very drastic changes to increase the revenues. What AZ Jim is worried about is a Republican administration that radically tries to privatize a program which has been the backbone of our safety net. And I share that concern.


----------



## BobF (Feb 21, 2015)

And some of what you say is missing that a lot of the SS reserves have already been taken for other projects.  If needed they will have to come from other government sources to replace them.

The effort you speak of was just a *choice* for people to take.   Have their SS investment put into a different fund if they choose.   Hopefully for a better outcome.   It was not to just remove SS at all.   To me, that choice would be a foolish thing to do so I would not have done that option had they gotten permission to do so.   

I believe our joint congress was able to block that motion so no damage done.   Just the way our government is supposed to work.


----------



## Davey Jones (Feb 21, 2015)

We the people got rid of most of the Democrats in Congress ,all we have left now is the one in the White House.

HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN .


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 21, 2015)

First of all SS is no longer a trust fund.  It hasn't been for years.  If it was a trust fund it would have always remained solvent.  When I said "protect" I referred to the never ending assaults on it and Medicare and now ACA.  If George Bush had his way we would all have gone without our EARNED benefit when the last stock market crash occurred.  Republicans have whittled away at these programs every chance and any fool can see there intentions should they have unfettered ability to have their way.  All seniors better begin thinking their own security when they vote Republican and depend upon there social programs.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 21, 2015)

Wait and see about those "Happy Days", Davey Jones!


----------



## Josiah (Feb 21, 2015)

We're a little off the topic of HRC in '16 but since Social Security seems to have garnered some interest, I'll offer this portion of an article in TPM

The definitive Democratic counterproposal in the fledgling fight over Social Security is starting to emerge, and it has a familiar ring in the era of income inequality politics: tax the rich.

More specifically, Democrats are proposing to raise or eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes. Those taxes are currently collected up to $118,500 of a person's income, and any income above that is Social Security tax-free. The liberal Center for American Progress said in a new report last week that the program had lost $1.1 trillion over the last 30 years because of it.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) announced last week that he would propose eliminating the cap for income above $250,000. His office estimated that that would keep Social Security solvent until 2060; the program is currently projected to start running out of money in 2033.

“If Republicans are serious about extending the solvency of Social Security beyond 2033," Sanders said, "I hope they will join me in scrapping the cap that allows multi-millionaires to pay a much smaller percentage of their income into Social Security than the middle class."


----------



## Butterfly (Feb 21, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Man I understand your fears there.  I hope we can protect Social Security, Medicare, ACA with a Democrat in office to protect us.



If we lose SS and Medicare, I am road kill.


----------



## BobF (Feb 21, 2015)

Not so sure it will be a Democrat saving SS or a Republican destroying SS.   Over many years our government, federal, has dipped into those SS fund to build things like TVA and other major government projects.   I have no idea if they ever paid those borrowed funds back.   Too much of our government spending has happened during periods of Democrat control so no need to blame the Republicans as being the cause.   Republicans may have also spent some of the SS money and they too should have paid back.   But have they?

Some folks just think the national sport is attempting to destroy the Republicans.   Instead, if we just elected people into the House and Senate by district as our Constitution and laws tell us to do.    Maybe the peoples choices would then be more accurate in doing the peoples will, rather than just some political parties will.    Which leads to many of our voters not knowing what or why they are voting one way or the other.    They just blindly vote for their parties wishes.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 21, 2015)

Bob,  Go find out which party over the years has made the bills that would negatively affect our Social Security program.  Show me where any Democrat presented any such bill.  The latest major threats were Bush's attempted raid to pile money into his on Wall St. buddies and Paul Ryan's attempt at a Medicare voucher plan.  It has been Republicans who have whittled away at that programs.  As to using SS funds, yes they all do it, I agree.


----------



## BobF (Feb 21, 2015)

Well, for your attempt to avoid doing the digging, I say not me.   You attempt to move the blame onto Republicans but have no proof of that either.    What ifs and maybe's don't count.   I mentioned one big government operation that might have been guilty.   Look that up yourself to prove me wrong. 

SS has been a good place for feds to get money for projects.   What I don't know is if they have ever paid it back or just allowed to fade into the distance.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 21, 2015)

BobF said:


> Well, for your attempt to avoid doing the digging, I say not me.   You attempt to move the blame onto Republicans but have no proof of that either.    What ifs and maybe's don't count.   I mentioned one big government operation that might have been guilty.   Look that up yourself to prove me wrong.
> 
> SS has been a good place for feds to get money for projects.   What I don't know is if they have ever paid it back or just allowed to fade into the distance.



No response regarding Bush or Ryans efforts to gut both programs?  Just that alone such make you think.  You depend on those programs personally, how can you support those who would destroy them?


----------



## BobF (Feb 21, 2015)

Something that many do not know about.   Too bad it is true, and has been for years.

http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/05/23/government-owes-2-7-trillion-to-social-security/


The government has embezzled all surplus Social Security  revenue, generated by the 1983 payroll tax hike, and spent the money on  wars and other government programs. None of the money was saved or  invested in anything.

 Social Security is not broken, but at the moment, it is broke. The  cost of paying full benefits in 2010 was $49 billion more than Social  Security tax revenue for the year.  So the government had to borrow $49  billion (probably from China) in order to pay full benefits.  And the  gap between the cost of benefits and Social Security tax revenue will  get bigger and bigger in the years ahead.

  The only reason the government has been able to keep the public from  finding out about “the great Social Security theft,” for all these  years, is because the AARP and the National Committee to Preserve Social  Security and Medicare (NCPSSM) have cooperated with the Social Security  Administration in their official talking points about Social  Security. The AARP has the following statement posted on its  website: —“Social Security will be able to pay 100 percent of benefits  for the next 20 years.” The NCPSSM has this statement on its  website:  “Social Security is projected to deliver full guaranteed  benefits until at least 2033.”

 But these statements are not even close to being true, and the  leadership of these organizations know that they are deliberately  misleading their members, and the public, with these false  statements. Social Security doesn’t even have enough money to pay this  year’s benefits without borrowing.

 The government IOUs in the trust fund are not like  the marketable U.S. Treasury bonds held by China and America’s other  creditors. Those marketable bonds can be converted into cash at any time  by selling them in the open market.   The IOUs in the trust fund are  like a handwritten note that a bank robber might leave behind in the  empty vault, stating how much money he has stolen.  The note tells the  bank how much money is missing, but it won’t help the bank get the money  back. Similarly, the IOUs in the trust fund are a record of how much  Social Security money was taken and spent on other programs. But the  IOUs are not marketable, and they cannot be converted into cash.  And  the interest income, that the SSA claims the government is paying, is  not cash interest.  It is in the form of more of the same worthless IOUs  that the trust fund already holds.

 The harsh fact is that Social Security does not have any cash  reserves. That is why President Obama said that he couldn’t guarantee  that Social Security checks would go out on time without a budget  agreement, because “There might not be enough money in the coffers to  cover them.”   The government owes Social Security $2.7 trillion, but  the government is both unable and unwilling to repay the stolen money,  at least in the short run.

 The good news is that the Social Security System is not broken. It  works well and has done so for the past 78 years.  The problem is that  the United States federal government is badly broken, and no “fix” is  upon the horizon. The only problem is that, Social Security does not  have enough revenue to pay full benefits, and the government has stolen  the cash reserves it is supposed to have in the trust fund.  If the  government would enact legislation requiring the repayment of the stolen  money, perhaps in installments over the next 30 years, Social  Security’s short-term problems would be fixed.

 Forget about that old propaganda statement the enemies of Social  Security have been repeating, over and over, since Social Security was  first created. It goes like this:  _Social Security, in its present form, is unsustainable over the long run. _That  is just a big lie that the enemies use as a weapon in their war against  Social Security.  There is nothing basically wrong with the Social  Security System, and it would not even be in the news today if crooked  politicians hadn’t stolen $2.7 trillion of its money.

                                                                          Ironwood Publications has just released Allen’s explosive new book, _The Impending Social Security Crisis: The Government’s Big Dirty Secret_.
_© 2015 Allen W. Smith. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent from Allen W. Smith._​


----------



## BobF (Feb 21, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> No response regarding Bush or Ryans efforts to gut both programs?  Just that alone such make you think.  You depend on those programs personally, how can you support those who would destroy them?



As I remember the Bush idea was a choice, not a program make over.   I posted this earlier but you apparently don't read all posts.

Just what was Ryan's efforts anyway.    Apparently did not get through the Congress or maybe even the committee.   That is not as scary as the Pelosi comment after she got Obama care passed.    We have to wait to see what it is---more or less.    What a deal that was.   Pass a bill and not know what was in it and expect all to be happy.   Look to both sides of our congress.   Some real jerks on both sides.   Which is why I think we should do away with the parties and just go back to the way the Congress was supposed to work.   Representing your state or people and forget all this distorting that the political parties are putting in to our leadership and law making.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 21, 2015)

Bob, no offense but rather than beat this poor dead horse I will just let it go.  I hope you never have to live with the sad prospects if Republicans regain the whitehouse and still have control of the Senate.


----------



## BobF (Feb 21, 2015)

I am fine with that.   Just would like to know if any of the government agencies ever paid back those big money piles they took from the SS reserve funds.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 21, 2015)

The answer is NO.  Did you expect them to?


----------



## BobF (Feb 21, 2015)

Was not expecting an answer from you.   More of a rhetorical question as I was signing off the topic.    And yes, I would expect them to pay back, but they are most all professional political folks.   No need for honesty or fairness in their careers apparently.


----------

