I'm ignoring it because I don't think it matters. Sure, Hillary is self-made to some extent. Being competent in her own right was table stakes for a power broker to help her get a senate seat or fund her presidential campaign or appoint her secretary of state, or even for voters to actually cast a ballot for her. She probably had a higher hurdle to clear than Bush did because she would face more skepticism as a woman and the wife of a politician. So she paid her table stakes. Bush paid his as well, though he didn't pay as much. After that though, they're the same. They're like NBA players, assets to make trades around. Here is Bush, a guy with good name recognition, good likability, good legacy, he's got some baggage in his history but he has a veneer of respectability and accomplishment and his resume does include a stable stint as governor to point at. And here is Clinton, a woman who also has good name recognition, smart and experienced, but her resume is a bit untraditional and she struggles with likability, oh and she's a woman which means she'll perform better in some demographics and poorly in some others, but will suffer a hard-to-quantify drag overall because of pervasive sexism in the culture. They are both useful players for their teams, regardless of how they got there, and they can both be very effective if you can put them in the right schemes where their weaknesses are covered and they are free to play to their strengths. Clinton probably should have remained Senator instead of quitting to chase the Presidency. She did a fine job as Senator and reflected New York well. But, to torture the analogy, she wanted to be a franchise player and her weaknesses were exploited in the new role when the defense wore her down with a game-long full-court press. The other team's rookie (who went undrafted and only managed to get an unguaranteed contract as an injured list backup), underestimated by the defense, got the hot hand and won the game. Now both teams are looking for their next franchise players.
I can't believe people here are busy arguing the 2016 election again. Those of you going back and forth about Bush Junior and Ms. Clinton are doing exactly that. What a waste of time, as if endless time wasting about that topic hasn't consumed folks here seemingly forever. It's boring. B o r i n g. OK, Oprah is sending feelers out about a possible 2020 run. Another celebrity assuming that she can be far better than the recently elected celebrity dude. One thing you can all count on is that she isn't the only one thinking it over. Hollywood celebrities, high tech billionaires and the like. Our neighborhood dog catcher would be an improvement over the guy currently in office, in my humble opinion, and we need not only a candidate capable of winning, but also a candidate who can govern if he/she gets elected. That did not happen when the current TV celebrity assumed office. The record speaks volumes. Me? I want someone that has real world political experience. Someone who is not only clearly intelligent, and not only has a genuine interest in the welfare of his or her fellow citizens, but also has the knowledge of how Congress operates and a knowledge of the law that is crucial, in my opinion, to actually getting things done. I'm not at all interested in a reality or talk show host. I want someone who can get things done and who cares Glynch mentioned Senator Warren. While I admire the senator and much of what she stands for, I am highly skeptical that she can win. Winning is a rather important thing in a candidate, in my opinion. She's 68 and has been around a long time, but she checks the boxes I mentioned. She's experienced, understands the law, knows how things get done in Congress. Like I said, I want some fresh faces on the Democratic ticket. She doesn't tick that box, not nationally. I have great admiration for Joe Biden. Immense experience. Truly cares about the public welfare. Rode public transportation to work during his decades in office as senator because he's not a pimped up blowhard billionaire egomaniac. Served in the armed forces during Vietnam, but spoke out against the war after he got out and was still in his 20's. I think he would be a great president. My problem with Joe? He's years older that the guy in office, a guy who may be suffering from dementia. He's not a fresh face. I want someone different. Bernie Sanders? A fascinating guy. Not a Democrat, but showed how to raise campaign funds a different way, something I like. Can he get anything done? His record as a longtime senator is pretty slim. He's a year older than Biden. Like Ms. Warren, I'm very skeptical that he can get elected. Who do I like? Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, "young" US Senators, both appointed by Democratic leadership to the Senate Judiciary Committee, considered a plum in that body. They didn't get that appointment because of their good looks. I like Governor Bullock of Montana, considered a "red state" by national media, but the guy knows how to connect to the people of his state. They like him. Considering Montana's political makeup, I think he translates well nationally. That's 3. Who does everyone else like on the 2020 Democratic ticket?
Well when Trump is involved you know for sure it'll be embarrassing no matter what we're talking about.
LOL Hillary was "self-made"? C'mon, the ONLY reason she even got a foot in the door when it comes to politics is because of who she married. She rode the name recognition of her husband the whole way.....and to his credit, it got her pretty far despite all of the scandals he faced while president. On top of that she proved completely incompetent when it comes to holding high office when she was Secretary of State on top of the fact that she has no natural charisma and her personality is off putting. Her personal shortcomings are what made her the worst modern day candidate for president, not sexism or any other BS excuse. If she was a halfway decent candidate, she'd have beat the embarrassment who turned out to only be the second worst modern day candidate for president. End of story.
The sidetracked argument about Hilary being more qualified but Trump and Bush being better campaigner is a microcosm of a Democrats problems. Democrats speak above the electorate but it's because the electorate should be more educated. Democrats can complain about the electorate's education level or they can try to close the communication gap
Hillary was a senator and sec of state. She had been in politics for her whole life. Is a Ivy league educated lawyer. She had close to 3 million more votes than Trump. Please don't pretend she wasn't qualified or nobody like her.
Communicating the benefits of healthcare reform in terms of streamlining the system is an education problem. People are stuck on things like keeping their doctor. Stream lining the system would allow other doctors to see your records. It would improve doctors abilities to diagnose and ultimately make the market competitive. Those are concepts not many get in 12 years of school regardless of party affiliation.
Before she ever married Bill, she accomplished things that 99% (including you) of the US population would dream of accomplishing.
The most educated candidate still has sell to himself in the interview Certainly someone educated like you can understand that
I just think you're very naive about what a leader of a very large and diverse organization does. He isn't deciding interest rate reductions, the details in laws for healthcare, taxes, commerce, regulation, military and otherwise. He is an organizational manager that brings in the right people to lead those divisions and then relies on the advisers as it is way, way too much for any individual. Warren Buffett doesn't run Dairy Queen, Fruit of the Loom, Brooks Shoes and Geico Insurance. He brings in the right people that run each division and implement the philosophy he sets at the top. Not sure what the questions about corporate debt has to do with anything but i'm sure there are classes you can take and books you can read that discuss efficient leverage ratios and the tradoffs of interest deductible debt acquisitions versus cash, versus stock etc.
I think the manager of the world's largest bureaucracy should understand that the limiting reagent to invest in growth for corporations that produce high skill level jobs isn't their cash reserves but rather demand in the market. If demand is there, corporations will take out the necessary investment loans to invest. I think you are very naive to assume that corporations lobbying for tax cuts are not using the 'job growth' line to pander to gullible people such as yourself. I think Donald is actually stupid enough to believe in the corporations' sincerity in 'job growth' in regards to tax cuts for them just as you are. These are basic macroeconomic and microeconomic principles that the chief executive of the executive branch should understand. Without this most basic understanding, how can you even set forth a direction for your administration as president?
When it comes to job growth the only thing that will really matter is demand for the product or service. If someone running a corporation and has extra cash, they aren't just going to use it to hire people unless there's actually work for them to do. Work for them to do depends on the demand for the product or service provided. If they are selling so much product or services that they have a need for more workers to increase their profit, they will then hire those people. The idea that having more money will inspire corporations to hire workers and pay them plus their benefits even if they don't actually need them is just silly.
Oprah gives a single rousing speech with a political style inflection in her voice and everyone loses their minds.
Guys, I'm running in 2020. Our campaign motto is.. "Straight up" And I'm willing to entertain questions here first. SIL
looking at the 'similar threads' at the bottom of the page and it appears this isn't oprah's first rodeo in the hangout&debate.
So what happens when a corporation gets a tax cut? Do consumers/employees benefit (employees are consumers of other businesses goods and services) or does it just go to shareholders/owners/executive management? 1.) If its a utility with regulated returns they must then pass those savings onto customers in the form of lower costs or higher wages. 2.) A highly competitive business will then reduce prices and pass those savings onto customers as other businesses will do so to gain market share. 3.) A brand that has higher margins will usually create gains for shareholders as its not as highly competitive and they can retain those earnings thereby benefitting owners/stockholders. The tradeoff of a 14% tax reduction does make the US a more attractive place to be domiciled which could also support jobs and businesses. Even if the gains all pass to stockholders then pensions of firemen and teachers and others are huge investors in many funds and public companies, and other businesses may invest the retained capital in new plants and equipment etc. with the rapid depreciation rules that go into effect. This tax cut doesn't help the professional doctor or lawyer but is more for businesses that can invest their funds and are C-corps which can benefit both jobs and drive down prices to consumers which is in effect a raise as those employees of all firms pay less for the same goods. Businesses investing capital creates more industry which has a multiplier affect that does benefit many areas. Just my .02.
