PDA

View Full Version : Hillary Clinton's Senate Accomplishments



anselmo1
October 24th, 2005, 06:28 AM
Sunday, Oct. 23, 2005 10:29 p.m. EDT
Dick Morris: Hillary's 'Paltry' Senate Record


New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has been a great Senator for New York - at least according to her fans in the media, who regularly note how hard she works while insisting she's done much for adopted home state.

Baloney, says Dick Morris and Eileen McGann. In their new book "Condi vs Hillary," they blow the lid off Hillary's pathetic Senate performance - a list of accomplishments that are so meager her supporters ought to be embarrassed.

Morris and McGann note: "Hillary has had a total of twenty bills passed since she entered the Senate. Of those, fifteen have been purely symbolic in nature."

Lest they be dismissed as Hillary-haters who don't want to give the former first lady the credit she deserves, "Condi vs Hillary" itemizes Mrs. Clinton's legislative "achievements" (such as they are).

In five years as the most influential Democrat in the Senate, Hillary has managed to get the following laws and resolutions enacted:

• Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site

• Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month

• Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor

• Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall

• Name courthouse after James L. Watson

• Name post office after John A. O'Shea

• Designate August 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day

• Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day

• Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death

• Congratulate the Syracuse University Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.

• Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship

• Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program

• Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda

• Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death

• Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.

Only five of Clinton's bills are, according to Morris, "substantive":

• Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11

• Pay for city projects in response to 9/11

• Assist landmine victims in other countries

• Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care

• Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the Wilderness Preservation System

Concludes Morris and McGann: "In the face of Hillary Clinton's reputation as an effective U.S. senator, this record of paltry accomplishment is sobering. As much as Alexander Hamilton, Harriet Tubman, and the American Revolution deserve our recognition, one thinks the voters of New York may have expected more of their junior senator."

Not to mention their soon-to-be presidential candidate.

ReformWNY
October 24th, 2005, 08:39 AM
Shameful.

ERIEMAN
October 24th, 2005, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by ReformWNY
Shameful.

If it's true, yeah, that is shameful...But like i said in another thread, people should stop concentrating on picking on Hillary's record. EVERYBODY'S record is downright shameful. I used to really like Hillary, until i realized that she's no different from everyone else.

ReformWNY
October 24th, 2005, 09:38 AM
I didn't see anything good from anyone else's record either.... so I'm not attacking anyone. They are hitting Byron Brown's record hard like this as well -they did it to Kerry as well.
Just hope there's more to it than this.

WestSideJohn
October 24th, 2005, 11:29 AM
I'm very disappointed that neither of our Senators voted yes for the Coburn amendment. The fact that this amendment only received 15 yes votes in the Senate is disgusting.

atotaltotalfan2001
October 24th, 2005, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by ERIEMAN
If it's true, yeah, that is shameful...But like i said in another thread, people should stop concentrating on picking on Hillary's record. EVERYBODY'S record is downright shameful. I used to really like Hillary, until i realized that she's no different from everyone else.

I'll always appreciate that she tried to put together a universal health care plan for this country. She was viciously attacked for it -- and, wouldn't you know it, all these years later more people than ever are without health care plans.

steven
October 24th, 2005, 02:57 PM
In five years as the most influential Democrat in the Senate, Hillary has managed to get the following laws and resolutions enacted:

Since the senate peeking order is based on seniority not popularity isn't this statement a bit disingenuous? She was a junior senator after all.

Shouldn't the comparison be done between her and another junior senator?

anselmo1
October 24th, 2005, 03:41 PM
Hillary campaigned on creating 50,000 jobs in WNY which she failed to even generate. As far as being a junior senator, Hillary is on various committees when she actually shows up!

Her main purpose was utilizing the New York State Senate as her stepping stone to the Presidential election of 2008. Hillary has spent more time out of the country on fact finding missions than in her own state.

Her greatest fear would be Rudy Guillani running for Senate in 2006 against her. Fortunately, Rudy doesn't have to prove anything and will pick and choose his spots.

WNYresident
October 24th, 2005, 05:05 PM
Most of the stuff she has done seems rather useless when it comes to NYS economy. Would our livelyhood be a little bit more important at it's current situation than what a buildling is named? etc?

steven
October 24th, 2005, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by anselmo1
Hillary campaigned on creating 50,000 jobs in WNY which she failed to even generate.

LOL, you say that like its an easy tasks. Can you name one state pol who has accomplished generating 50 k jobs for western NY?


Originally posted by anselmo1
Her main purpose was utilizing the New York State Senate as her stepping stone to the Presidential election of 2008.

That remains to be seen, I still think she will make a run at the governors mansion


Originally posted by anselmo1
Her greatest fear would be Rudy Guillani running for Senate in 2006 against her.

On this I have to disagree with you 1000%, Guillani has no political future, cheating on your wife and hiring illegals is no way to endear yourself to the republican party base, much less the conservitive party. The warm glow he had from 9/11 is gone now and any election he would choose to enter would be rife with the tales of his infidelity to his wife and he is aware of that. Common sence should tell him to leave 9/11 as his legacy and the only way he can do that is not to run again for public office.

LHardy
October 24th, 2005, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by steven
..... Guillani has no political future, cheating on your wife and hiring illegals is no way to endear yourself to the republican party base, much less the conservitive party. The warm glow he had from 9/11 is gone now and any election he would choose to enter would be rife with the tales of his infidelity to his wife and he is aware of that. Common sence should tell him to leave 9/11 as his legacy and the only way he can do that is not to run again for public office. [/B]

As the Dems pray! Please don't run for Pres, Please don't run for Pres!

All the qualities of a centrist Democrat and a Fiscal conservative for the Republicans.
Not all Republicans are Christian right. In fact they are such a small part of the base that the Dems have yet to figure that out.
How they hate it when the get beat by thier own rules.

WestSideJohn
October 24th, 2005, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by LHardy
How they hate it when the get beat by thier own rules. Nonsense. Nothing would make me happier than a Republican President who was moderate (my code word for "sane") on social issues and a fiscal conservative.

Federal spending is up almost 35% since President Bush took office. It's up over 25% if you factor out the cost of the War on Terror that is going so well. This President, who promised us "smaller, leaner government" has yet to veto a single spending bill.

So go ahead, Republicans... put your money where your mouth is and nominate a fiscal conservative... then maybe we'd all win.

Now, I realize this thread is about Hillary Clinton, and not George W. Bush. But here's a question: are you also outraged that Mr. Bush has yet to fulfill his campaign promises:

1. smaller, leaner government (yet spending is up 35%)
2. uniter, not a divider
3. reduce national debt by $100,000,000,000 per year

Or does it only annoy you when a Democrat fails to deliver?

citymouse
October 24th, 2005, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by LHardy
As the Dems pray! Please don't run for Pres, Please don't run for Pres!

All the qualities of a centrist Democrat and a Fiscal conservative for the Republicans.
Not all Republicans are Christian right. In fact they are such a small part of the base that the Dems have yet to figure that out.
How they hate it when the get beat by thier own rules.

Rudy is a moderate republican from (shudder) NEW YORK CITY.
He won't sell well in Texas, Oklahoma and the other bastions of redneck stability. He won't be a candidate for president.

citymouse
October 24th, 2005, 08:43 PM
Does this record consider bill's she may have co-authored with Republicans. Or ones she loaned her support to that were authored by others. Remeber, she is in the minority in the senate.
More important than how many bills she promoted is her voting recored and how it pertains to the views of the voters that supported her and sent her there in the first place.

When you consider these points I think she has done a decent job of representing the interests of her constituants.

therising
October 24th, 2005, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by citymouse
Rudy is a moderate republican from (shudder) NEW YORK CITY.
He won't sell well in Texas, Oklahoma and the other bastions of redneck stability.

I find great irony in the fact that you shudder at the thought of NYC; then you call people in other States rednecks.

LHardy
October 24th, 2005, 10:05 PM
Nonsense. Nothing would make me happier than a Republican President who was moderate (my code word for "sane") on social issues and a fiscal conservative.

Westside, you may be an exception to the rule, for you may be outside what seems to be the Dean dems.

But here's a question: are you also outraged that Mr. Bush has yet to fulfill his campaign promises:


Yep! Done right pissed at times.
I support his foriegn policy but domestic policy is abismal.

steven
October 24th, 2005, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by LHardy
All the qualities of a centrist Democrat and a Fiscal conservative for the Republicans.


A republican that has a record of not only cheating on his wife but openly running around with his mistress and a conservitive that supports abortion might play with the NY republican party but out side of NY that is sufficent to keep him from getting support from the average republican or conservitive.

I dont consider myself a christian conservitive but his actions definatly turned me off. Hell, even Clinton did it on the side Guiliani did it openly and brazenly.

I think (and this is just my opinion) that Guiliani realizes that any attempt at running for public office would bring the whole sleezy thing back up, just as I belive Hillary is to smart to really belive she could be elected president.

Give this a thought, If there was no 9/11 how would Rudy be remebered? The only thing I remeber just before his term was done (except for 9/11) was pictures of him walking around with his mistress on his arm and his wife moving out of the governors mansion. 9/11 saved his reputation he wont have that if he runs again.

Sorry man but I disagree, Rudy running would be a gift for the dems, they wouldnt even have to sling mud the conservitives would do it for them.

LHardy
October 24th, 2005, 11:02 PM
You know the worst thing about these two. We know them because we are from NY.
The rest of the country really has no idea. Hillary has more of a national past then Guli does, but the infidelity can easily be brushed aside. All he has to do is say something like "My affair at the time was wrong and I regret having persude it in such a manner." Or some BS like that.
I do not know who will run for Pres in 08' But for now these two really are the stand outs. It is a long time off but fun to talk about.

steven
October 25th, 2005, 12:30 AM
It goes deeper then just saying, "I'm sorry it was wrong", there is also the issue of the annulment he got from the church for his first wife (who was also his 2nd cousin which is beyond bizarre to me). It was just 5 yrs ago, while still married, he walked in the st paddys day parade with his girlfriend on his arm (where the city's mayor traditionally walks with his wife)........10 yrs from now maybe, but I believe the incidents would be to recent for most conservatives tastes. The guys personal life is a wreck.

IMHO neither is electable at a national level and I think both of them are smart enough to figure it out.

I hope our next president is more interested in what's going on in our country then everyone else's country. I am interested in seeing how the whole "out sourcing" thing is going to affect us as a nation and since I see it taking away more and more white collar jobs It is becoming more of a national issue then just one of states with high levels of manufacturing.

IMHO if this isn't addressed our dominance of the world market will end so thats what I will be looking for next election.

ERIEMAN
October 25th, 2005, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by LHardy
As the Dems pray! Please don't run for Pres, Please don't run for Pres!

All the qualities of a centrist Democrat and a Fiscal conservative for the Republicans.
Not all Republicans are Christian right. In fact they are such a small part of the base that the Dems have yet to figure that out.
How they hate it when the get beat by thier own rules.

Stop overgeneralizing! I'm a lifelong democrat, and nothing would make me happier than to see a moderate republican run for president. If Hillary and Rudy run, it would be a major shift on the extreme right and left policies of Bush and Kerry, respectively. I think the country needs a break from it, and no matter who gets elected in a race between two moderates, we'll be better off.

Although, Giuliani gets my vote. NOT because of 9/11 either. It's because you just can't -gate him. He's already cheated on his wife, he has had ties to the mob, and is friends with Bernard Kerik. All of this scandal, and people will STILL vote for him because he is effective.

anselmo1
October 25th, 2005, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by citymouse
Rudy is a moderate republican from (shudder) NEW YORK CITY.
He won't sell well in Texas, Oklahoma and the other bastions of redneck stability. He won't be a candidate for president.

Say that all you want, Rudy would thrash Hillary in any election whether it be in the State of New York or the Presidency.

steven
October 25th, 2005, 12:49 PM
The most conservative NY republican is considered a moderate down south.

You wont find a lot of conservatives in Red states that will vote for anyone that openly supports abortion. You will find Zilch that would vote for a "conservative" that actually dressed in drag and walked in a gay pride parade. Guilinna is about as real a conservative as I am a an astronaut. Hillary on the other hand at least is a real liberal.

anselmo1
October 25th, 2005, 01:35 PM
Hillary is an outright "Stalinist" and she would even said so! She would utilize the "Stalinist" approach to Marxism which would make the people of the USA subservient to the government
in all phases of their respective lives.

CCRIDER
January 21st, 2007, 11:47 PM
On this I have to disagree with you 1000%, Guillani has no political future, cheating on your wife

This didn't hurt Bill Clinton at all. Do you think Guillani will be able to dance around this topic like slick Willie did? ;)

atotaltotalfan2001
January 22nd, 2007, 12:19 AM
This didn't hurt Bill Clinton at all. Do you think Guillani will be able to dance around this topic like slick Willie did? ;)

He also a health scare, right? Cancer, I think. That, combined with his personal issues, would be too to overcome, IMO.

a-new-voice
January 22nd, 2007, 01:12 AM
From what I know, Rednecks prefer Honesty and value Security... not of which Hillary can summons even in moments when she needs Satan's help...

It's WAY to early on the 2008 Election.... but Hillary is NOT the answer, and never will.

She actually many times referrred to the CANADIAN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM as a model to emulate. Fact is CANADA has no National Healthcare and it's in trouble in Ontario ( I know, family are physicians and nurses there)... so being the USA with 10x the populace, I can only image her HEALTH SYSTEM to be atleast 10X worse and a financial nightmare.

I doubt the DNC will win in 2008, especially once the Democrats in Washington raise your taxes and invoke the draft.

biker
January 22nd, 2007, 06:23 AM
I find it disturbing that the two Dems with the highest Presidential profiles---Obama and Clinton---have the slimmest record of accomplishments as compared to other Dem hopefuls.

Northshore
January 22nd, 2007, 04:05 PM
I find it disturbing that the two Dems with the highest Presidential profiles---Obama and Clinton---have the slimmest record of accomplishments as compared to other Dem hopefuls.


Yeah!!

He's been there a whole year!! Why isn't everything all better?????

Of course, there is no press on Bill Richardson. There is too much chance that he would win. Fourteen year Congressman, Ambassador to the UN, Governor for going on 4 years. Just waiting until the repugs ramp up their "swift boats" on him.

biker
January 22nd, 2007, 06:01 PM
Yeah!!

He's been there a whole year!! Why isn't everything all better?????

Of course, there is no press on Bill Richardson. There is too much chance that he would win. Fourteen year Congressman, Ambassador to the UN, Governor for going on 4 years. Just waiting until the repugs ramp up their "swift boats" on him.

I think Richardson deserves more press than he's getting.

As to Swifties, Kerry was a unique moron who deserved what he got. It's heartening that a group of average Americans could bump him off. It's fitting that the political coup de grace was his own stupid big mouth.

BTW-Did Kerry ever release his military records or Teresa her tax returns?

Timmy
January 22nd, 2007, 06:16 PM
I find it very difficult to think anyone outside NYC, LA & SF would vote for her

And Im always suprised at the people who want to root for a woman just because she is a woman just as I am suprised at the number of women who have been brainwashed into thinking that killing their unborn children is a god given right!

That should be her campaign slogan....Im Hillary Clinton and I will protect your right to poison, suffocate and dismember your children in utero regardless of term without any knowledge from the father, your parents or the government.

Im Senator Hillary Clinton and as senator and presidential candidate, I support and prefer illegal immigrants over american citizens

Im Senator Hillary Clinton and as senator and presidential candidate, I support and prefer foreign corporations and the importation of goods and services over american corporations and domestical goods and services

Im Senator Hillary Clinton and as senator and presidential candidate, I support gender equality, except when it means that my sisters would have the responsibility to serve and defend their country.

steven
January 22nd, 2007, 11:22 PM
Im truly sorry to see hillary and obama running. Call me cynical and hey I might have to eat my words on this one but I dont think either has a shot.

I doubt a women or a minority will be elected president in my lifetime

Timmy
January 23rd, 2007, 01:03 AM
I definitely wont elect McCain, that just asking for Bush policies to continue

perpetuations of Iraq, Afghanistan
expansions into Iran, North Korea, Syria

while ignoring currency manipulations and unfair trade by countries like China

while ignoring trade practices that support off-shoring, out-sourcing

while ignoring illegal immigration

nope, I would vote for Hillary before I vote for McCain

Mr. Lackawanna
January 23rd, 2007, 02:11 PM
I'll always appreciate that she tried to put together a universal health care plan for this country. She was viciously attacked for it -- and, wouldn't you know it, all these years later more people than ever are without health care plans.

If I remember correctly no one elected her to office at the time she had her "Secret Health Plan." The anti-health lobby and the secrecy of her health plan caused her health plan to fail.

How is the Canadian Health Care Plan working? Need I say more.

Northshore
January 23rd, 2007, 02:45 PM
If I remember correctly no one elected her to office at the time she had her "Secret Health Plan." The anti-health lobby and the secrecy of her health plan caused her health plan to fail.

How is the Canadian Health Care Plan working? Need I say more.


Not too bad, but not too good. But is sure as hell is better than nothing, and I would wager it is better than Medicaid.

WestSideJohn
January 23rd, 2007, 05:18 PM
Not too bad, but not too good. But it sure as hell is better than nothing, and I would wager it is better than Medicaid.

Isn't it cheaper than Medicaid as well?

atotaltotalfan2001
January 23rd, 2007, 05:28 PM
If I remember correctly no one elected her to office at the time she had her "Secret Health Plan." The anti-health lobby and the secrecy of her health plan caused her health plan to fail.

How is the Canadian Health Care Plan working? Need I say more.

Hmmmm. So, because she was not elected, that was a perfectly good reason to reject the universal health care plan she and her vast group of experts came up with?

Funny. All these years later, the number of people without health care are more numerous than Hillary probably every dreamed could be possible -- and yet she is still villified for trying to help.

The Candanian Health Care system has its problems, but not among them are people with life threatening illnesses who can't find an emergency room that will take them or a hospital that will keep them until they are stabilized.

Want elective surgery? You'll just have to wait for that nose job a while in Canada. Otherwise, your routine medical care is there for you.

biker
January 23rd, 2007, 05:45 PM
Hmmmm. So, because she was not elected, that was a perfectly good reason to reject the universal health care plan she and her vast group of experts came up with?.

Her vast group of secret "experts". A cabal that tried to keep itself hidden from public view.

Kind of like Volker and Tokascz holding secret budget meetings with the Democrats in the Erie County Legislature in the Winter of 2005.

Strange how the Dems instinctively resort to secretive, Stalinist tactics as soon as they grasp the reins of power. Becoming hostile to open and democratic processes.

BTW-It was that bastion of truth and liberty, The Wall Street Journal, which finally published the full list of the names of Ms. Rodham-Clinton's secretive co-conspirators.

atotaltotalfan2001
January 23rd, 2007, 06:00 PM
Her vast group of secret "experts". A cabal that tried to keep itself hidden from public view.

Kind of like Volker and Tokascz holding secret budget meetings with the Democrats in the Erie County Legislature in the Winter of 2005.

Strange how the Dems instinctively resort to secretive, Stalinist tactics as soon as they grasp the reins of power. Becoming hostile to open and democratic processes.

BTW-It was that bastion of truth and liberty, The Wall Street Journal, which finally published the full list of the names of Ms. Rodham-Clinton's secretive co-conspirators.

Ewwww....I hate to say this, but I agree with you about the way Hillary et al when about it.

But it cracks me up that you would think the Dems can even resort to being secretive about such things. Jeeze, that requires way too much of the Dems, who are a fractious lot. ONLY the GOP knows how to keep real secrets, which is what makes that political party so scary and such a danger to our country. In my opinion, of course, dear .

steven
January 23rd, 2007, 07:07 PM
This didn't hurt Bill Clinton at all. Do you think Guillani will be able to dance around this topic like slick Willie did? ;)

You miss my point, I have no axe to grind with Guillani, as far as I know he did a good job cleaning up NY, but then Im a moderate. Im talking about the support he would recieve from his own party.

Linda_D
January 23rd, 2007, 08:14 PM
Her vast group of secret "experts". A cabal that tried to keep itself hidden from public view.

Kind of like Volker and Tokascz holding secret budget meetings with the Democrats in the Erie County Legislature in the Winter of 2005.

Strange how the Dems instinctively resort to secretive, Stalinist tactics as soon as they grasp the reins of power. Becoming hostile to open and democratic processes.

BTW-It was that bastion of truth and liberty, The Wall Street Journal, which finally published the full list of the names of Ms. Rodham-Clinton's secretive co-conspirators.

Hmmm ... just what "Stalinist tactics" are the Democrats resorting to, biker? Please define -- or are they so "secretive" you don't know what they are but since some Right Wingnut makes says they're resorting to them, it must be so?

It also seems to me a certain GOP POTUS and his cronies -- oops, I mean, appointees -- advocate the use of torture, the suspension of habeas corpus, and warrantless wire taps, which are far more "Stalinist" than anything the Dems propose.

BTW, how about a link -- or is that too secret?

mikewrona
January 23rd, 2007, 09:34 PM
If I remember correctly no one elected her to office at the time she had her "Secret Health Plan." The anti-health lobby and the secrecy of her health plan caused her health plan to fail.

How is the Canadian Health Care Plan working? Need I say more.

Actually American Business Executives like Canadian Health Care and are will to pay for it. It's a reason why U.S. companies have no problem relocating to Canada.

U.S. Business Execs: Like National Health IN Canada
By Phil Dowd, VP and Director, Royal Lepage Commercial

Still not convinced that Canada is one of the best places to do business? Ask the president of a U.S. subsidiary operating in Canada.

What do Rod Dobson of ADP Canada, Wendy Bocti of Mellon Bank of Canada, and Gary McMillan of AIG Canada have in common? They are all presidents of Canadian subsidiaries of U.S. companies and participants in Project Eagle, a unique private-sector initiative helping promote U.S. investment in Canada. They all view Canada as a hospitable environment in which to do business — not only to serve the Canadian market, but also as a base for global operations. And through Project Eagle, they are helping to spread the word about Canada's competitive advantages: from low business and R&D costs and availability of first-class knowledge workers to easy access to North American and global markets...

I
Canada's Advantages
In this highly competitive business environment, Canada is a strong contender. Canada was ranked by The Economist as the number-one country in which to do business in the next five years (see article on page 43). In addition, according to a recent study by A.T. Kearney on selecting a country for offshore business processing, Canada ranked second in the world — even compared to low-cost countries in Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America — because of its superior employee-retention rates, markedly superior infrastructure, low economic and political risk, business processing experience, and proximity to the United States. Accordingly, numerous global companies have selected Canada as an offshore location, including BP Amoco, Allmerica, Siemens, and HP Compaq.
In fact, HP Compaq is reported by Kearney to have realized up to 15 percent cost savings by locating five call centers in Canada. A factor in Compaq's decision was the highly specialized work force management technology of Canadian call centers, used by less than 12 percent of the call centers in the United States, which can automate scheduling and help drive sales.
Other benefits Canada offers include a culturally diverse population with the education and linguistic skills U.S. companies need to service global markets, high standards of business integrity and corporate conduct, and similar business and legal cultures — and all this in America's backyard. A Canadian location can meets the needs of U.S. corporations, without some of the drawbacks of more distant locations, such as political and economic instability, cultural and linguistic differences, and unreliable infrastructure. Putting it all together means, as it was succinctly put by a senior executive at Cendant Corp., "Canada is the sweet spot."

...Business leaders participating in the roundtable concluded that integration will continue, but also recognized that some differences will remain. It is illuminating that two major differences — Canada's public healthcare system and the smaller scale of Canada's economy — were perceived by many as advantages. Public stewardship of health in Canada results in significant cost savings for U.S. companies operating in Canada, whereas Canada's smaller scale can provide a broader range of experiences to business managers, which explains why many U.S. companies use Canada as a proving ground for senior executives.


.

Timmy
January 23rd, 2007, 10:18 PM
Ive read the same thing in many different venues & I concur

Mr. Lackawanna
January 24th, 2007, 07:31 AM
Actually American Business Executives like Canadian Health Care and are will to pay for it. It's a reason why U.S. companies have no problem relocating to Canada.

U.S. Business Execs: Like National Health IN Canada
By Phil Dowd, VP and Director, Royal Lepage Commercial

Still not convinced that Canada is one of the best places to do business? Ask the president of a U.S. subsidiary operating in Canada.

What do Rod Dobson of ADP Canada, Wendy Bocti of Mellon Bank of Canada, and Gary McMillan of AIG Canada have in common? They are all presidents of Canadian subsidiaries of U.S. companies and participants in Project Eagle, a unique private-sector initiative helping promote U.S. investment in Canada. They all view Canada as a hospitable environment in which to do business — not only to serve the Canadian market, but also as a base for global operations. And through Project Eagle, they are helping to spread the word about Canada's competitive advantages: from low business and R&D costs and availability of first-class knowledge workers to easy access to North American and global markets...

I
Canada's Advantages
In this highly competitive business environment, Canada is a strong contender. Canada was ranked by The Economist as the number-one country in which to do business in the next five years (see article on page 43). In addition, according to a recent study by A.T. Kearney on selecting a country for offshore business processing, Canada ranked second in the world — even compared to low-cost countries in Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America — because of its superior employee-retention rates, markedly superior infrastructure, low economic and political risk, business processing experience, and proximity to the United States. Accordingly, numerous global companies have selected Canada as an offshore location, including BP Amoco, Allmerica, Siemens, and HP Compaq.
In fact, HP Compaq is reported by Kearney to have realized up to 15 percent cost savings by locating five call centers in Canada. A factor in Compaq's decision was the highly specialized work force management technology of Canadian call centers, used by less than 12 percent of the call centers in the United States, which can automate scheduling and help drive sales.
Other benefits Canada offers include a culturally diverse population with the education and linguistic skills U.S. companies need to service global markets, high standards of business integrity and corporate conduct, and similar business and legal cultures — and all this in America's backyard. A Canadian location can meets the needs of U.S. corporations, without some of the drawbacks of more distant locations, such as political and economic instability, cultural and linguistic differences, and unreliable infrastructure. Putting it all together means, as it was succinctly put by a senior executive at Cendant Corp., "Canada is the sweet spot."

...Business leaders participating in the roundtable concluded that integration will continue, but also recognized that some differences will remain. It is illuminating that two major differences — Canada's public healthcare system and the smaller scale of Canada's economy — were perceived by many as advantages. Public stewardship of health in Canada results in significant cost savings for U.S. companies operating in Canada, whereas Canada's smaller scale can provide a broader range of experiences to business managers, which explains why many U.S. companies use Canada as a proving ground for senior executives.


.

The main reason companies locate in an another country is to make money.
If the health costs for the company is lower that is a plus for moving.
The question is the Canadian health plan may be good for Canadian companies but is it good for the Canadian citizen?

Micheal Joseph
January 24th, 2007, 01:00 PM
Actually American Business Executives like Canadian Health Care and are will to pay for it. It's a reason why U.S. companies have no problem relocating to Canada.

This statement is false. US companies are not relocating, but as they open up other branches (subsidiaries) in foriegn countries.


U.S. Business Execs: Like National Health IN Canada
By Phil Dowd, VP and Director, Royal Lepage Commercial

From a companies perspective, sure they would like it as it is cheaper for the company. They pay less for health benifits becasue the Canadian gov't takes care of it.

On the other hand, it is not as good for the workers, as they hav to wait for services for a lot of the services being offered.

That is why many canadians, who can afford it, come to the US to get certain procedures done. No waiting 6 to 12 months, etc.

Micehal

Timmy
January 24th, 2007, 01:13 PM
but mike, I dont think we would get a complete copy of the canadian system

Im guessing some sort of combination of universal coverage and private insurance. Universal coverage for basic care, emergency and disability, but private coverage for other areas.....and probably some sort of deductible based on income and mandatory coverage/participation......

republicans wont go for a canadian system
democrats wont go for the existing private system,

companies cant afford it and to many people un-insured so its going to have to be bi-partisan and a blend of universal coverage and private coverage.

WestSideJohn
January 24th, 2007, 07:16 PM
Why was it so bad that Hillary met secretly with health care experts to craft a health care proposal but perfectly fine that Dick Cheney met secretly with energy executives to craft an energy proposal?

If it's wrong, it's wrong for both sides.

Micheal Joseph
January 25th, 2007, 01:08 PM
Why was it so bad that Hillary met secretly with health care experts to craft a health care proposal but perfectly fine that Dick Cheney met secretly with energy executives to craft an energy proposal?

If it's wrong, it's wrong for both sides.

How about:

1. Hillary CLinton was not an elected politican at the time.
2. Cheney was an elected politican at the time

Micheal

WestSideJohn
January 25th, 2007, 01:22 PM
That's true. But Biker was criticizing the secrecy of the meetings, not the unelected status of who called them.

Micheal Joseph
January 25th, 2007, 05:31 PM
That's true. But Biker was criticizing the secrecy of the meetings, not the unelected status of who called them.

Yes, I thought I answered that by one being an elected official compared to one being a person without any political representative position in the government that could take this job to do.

Micheal

WestSideJohn
January 25th, 2007, 05:57 PM
I appreciate you taking the time to explain your answer to me but I understood it the first time.

colossus27
January 26th, 2007, 08:06 PM
I'll always appreciate that she tried to put together a universal health care plan for this country. She was viciously attacked for it -- and, wouldn't you know it, all these years later more people than ever are without health care plans.

If she put together something that would actually function in the real world, I'd agree this was a good thing.

After she dry-humped what, 18 vaccine manufacturers out of existence, do you really think she- of all people- could devise a plan that actually worked? I don't, and neither do most of her critics.

Yet, each time I see something on CNN whining about a vaccine shortage because some company in England can't meet production goals, nobody asks why there's no domestic vaccine companies anymore....

biker
January 26th, 2007, 08:29 PM
If she put together something that would actually function in the real world, I'd agree this was a good thing.

After she dry-humped what, 18 vaccine manufacturers out of existence, do you really think she- of all people- could devise a plan that actually worked? I don't, and neither do most of her critics.

Yet, each time I see something on CNN whining about a vaccine shortage because some company in England can't meet production goals, nobody asks why there's no domestic vaccine companies anymore....

That's because, as totaltotalfan instructed us, the MSM is an integral part of the Democratic Party process.

mikewrona
January 26th, 2007, 08:50 PM
If she put together something that would actually function in the real world, I'd agree this was a good thing.

After she dry-humped what, 18 vaccine manufacturers out of existence, do you really think she- of all people- could devise a plan that actually worked? I don't, and neither do most of her critics.

Yet, each time I see something on CNN whining about a vaccine shortage because some company in England can't meet production goals, nobody asks why there's no domestic vaccine companies anymore....

I too was wondering why vaccine manufacturers are able to stay in business in Socialist Health Europe but not in Capitalist Health U.S.

Do you think it's all the U.S. regulations?

Naw....can't be U.S. government regulations. There has got to be a lot more anti-business regulations in Europe.

biker
January 26th, 2007, 09:01 PM
I too was wondering why vaccine manufacturers are able to stay in business in Socialist Health Europe but not in Capitalist Health U.S.

Do you think it's all the U.S. regulations?

Naw....can't be U.S. government regulations. There has got to be a lot more anti-business regulations in Europe.

Production is mandated by government in Europe.

colossus27
January 27th, 2007, 09:05 AM
I too was wondering why vaccine manufacturers are able to stay in business in Socialist Health Europe but not in Capitalist Health U.S.

Do you think it's all the U.S. regulations?

Naw....can't be U.S. government regulations. There has got to be a lot more anti-business regulations in Europe.

You know, Mikey, just once it'd be refreshing to see you do some research before you embed your foot into your piehole....

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/2003/pd081803e.html

Everyone knows America's vaccine industry is in serious trouble, with an ever dwindling number of producers and recent severe vaccine shortages. What everyone also should know is that the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine has now pinned much of the blame on the government vaccine-buying program promoted by former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The panel of doctors and economists issuing a report on vaccines last week identified as a fundamental cause of the problem the fact that the government purchases 55 percent of the childhood vaccine market at forced discount prices. The result has been "declining financial incentives to develop and produce vaccines."

The root of this government role goes back to August 1993, when Congress passed Clinton's Vaccines for Children program. The plan, promoted by the Children's Defense Fund, was to use federal power to ensure universal immunization. So the government agreed to purchase a third of the national vaccine supply (the President and Mrs. Clinton had pushed for 100 percent) at a forced discount of half price, then distribute it to doctors to deliver to the poor and the un- and under-insured. As a result:

* Where 30 years ago, 25 companies produced vaccines for the U.S. market., today only five remain, and there is only one producer for a number of critical shots.

* Recent years have brought shortages of numerous vaccines, including those for whooping cough, diphtheria and chicken pox.

The Institute panel in effect said that one of Senator Clinton's pet projects is a bust. As Congress considers Medicare legislation that could do similar harm to prescription drug makers, the vaccine tale is a timely alarm, says the Journal.

Source: Editorial, "Hillary's Vaccine Shortage," Wall Street Journal, August 15, 2003; based on Committee on the Evaluation of Vaccine Purchase Financing in the United States, "Financing Vaccines in the 21st Century: Assuring Access and Availability," Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, August 4, 2003.

mikewrona
January 27th, 2007, 09:25 AM
You know, Mikey, just once it'd be refreshing to see you do some research before you embed your foot into your piehole....

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/2003/pd081803e.html

Everyone knows America's vaccine industry is in serious trouble, with an ever dwindling number of producers and recent severe vaccine shortages. What everyone also should know is that the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine has now pinned much of the blame on the government vaccine-buying program promoted by former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The panel of doctors and economists issuing a report on vaccines last week identified as a fundamental cause of the problem the fact that the government purchases 55 percent of the childhood vaccine market at forced discount prices. The result has been "declining financial incentives to develop and produce vaccines."

The root of this government role goes back to August 1993, when Congress passed Clinton's Vaccines for Children program. The plan, promoted by the Children's Defense Fund, was to use federal power to ensure universal immunization. So the government agreed to purchase a third of the national vaccine supply (the President and Mrs. Clinton had pushed for 100 percent) at a forced discount of half price, then distribute it to doctors to deliver to the poor and the un- and under-insured. As a result:

* Where 30 years ago, 25 companies produced vaccines for the U.S. market., today only five remain, and there is only one producer for a number of critical shots.

* Recent years have brought shortages of numerous vaccines, including those for whooping cough, diphtheria and chicken pox.

The Institute panel in effect said that one of Senator Clinton's pet projects is a bust. As Congress considers Medicare legislation that could do similar harm to prescription drug makers, the vaccine tale is a timely alarm, says the Journal.

Source: Editorial, "Hillary's Vaccine Shortage," Wall Street Journal, August 15, 2003; based on Committee on the Evaluation of Vaccine Purchase Financing in the United States, "Financing Vaccines in the 21st Century: Assuring Access and Availability," Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, August 4, 2003.



As has always been the with a person who has his head up his assho_e. You were asked a question and you minute brain simply can't handle it. That is why you are a programmed puppet mouthing things because someone leads you by that ring through your nose.

The vaccines are made in England. England has socialized medicine. The question is back to you. Feel free to find some child to help you with the answer.

Why is England able to produce the vaccine and not the U.S?. If you can't provide a simple explanation, reinsert your head.

You're up Homer.

mikewrona
January 27th, 2007, 09:27 AM
Production is mandated by government in Europe.


So they will be healthy and you won't. Your decision is not to have it available.. So don't complain about not having a vaccine when you need it.

colossus27
January 27th, 2007, 09:54 AM
As has always been the with a person who has his head up his assho_e. You were asked a question and you minute brain simply can't handle it. That is why you are a programmed puppet mouthing things because someone leads you by that ring through your nose.

The vaccines are made in England. England has socialized medicine. The question is back to you. Feel free to find some child to help you with the answer.

Why is England able to produce the vaccine and not the U.S?. If you can't provide a simple explanation, reinsert your head.

You're up Homer.

How on earth do you use the phrases "The vaccines are made in England. England has socialized medicine.", "Why is England able to produce the vaccine and not the U.S?.", and "I too was wondering why vaccine manufacturers are able to stay in business in Socialist Health Europe but not in Capitalist Health U.S." to address the point that Hillary killed US vaccine manufacturers? Ho ho ho, now there's a cracking good justification for me to pull the lever under her name.

If I've such a minute brain, why are you bothering to reply to my posts? From your High Up perspective, this must be akin to a grown man viciously beating a hamster. A minutely-brained puppet of a hamster with, evidently, a ring through his nose, and The Hand of The Man wedged through his little fundament.

With the predictibility of gravity, you've again ignored what I've posted, while burrowing on in your usual manner, with the open-mindness of a six-year old that still hasn't gotten his hands on his Wii.

Lift your knuckles off the floor, crack them, wipe the dorito-stains on your pants, tuck the bag under the left cushion of your mother's couch, and find something of substance to add here.

We already know your political leanings, oh yes, yes, we do.

If you want to take a thread entitled "Hillary Clinton's Senate Accomplishments" and turn it into a vapid rant about the golden Wagnerian glories of subsidized, mandated, vaccination companies, and how they accomplish the financial equivalent of perpetual motion, you're welcome to do so. Just open another thread already.

"Here endeth the lesson" --Homer J. Simpson

Mr. Lackawanna
January 27th, 2007, 11:00 AM
How on earth do you use the phrases "The vaccines are made in England. England has socialized medicine.", "Why is England able to produce the vaccine and not the U.S?.", and "I too was wondering why vaccine manufacturers are able to stay in business in Socialist Health Europe but not in Capitalist Health U.S." to address the point that Hillary killed US vaccine manufacturers? Ho ho ho, now there's a cracking good justification for me to pull the lever under her name.

If I've such a minute brain, why are you bothering to reply to my posts? From your High Up perspective, this must be akin to a grown man viciously beating a hamster. A minutely-brained puppet of a hamster with, evidently, a ring through his nose, and The Hand of The Man wedged through his little fundament.

With the predictibility of gravity, you've again ignored what I've posted, while burrowing on in your usual manner, with the open-mindness of a six-year old that still hasn't gotten his hands on his Wii.

Lift your knuckles off the floor, crack them, wipe the dorito-stains on your pants, tuck the bag under the left cushion of your mother's couch, and find something of substance to add here.

We already know your political leanings, oh yes, yes, we do.

If you want to take a thread entitled "Hillary Clinton's Senate Accomplishments" and turn it into a vapid rant about the golden Wagnerian glories of subsidized, mandated, vaccination companies, and how they accomplish the financial equivalent of perpetual motion, you're welcome to do so. Just open another thread already.

"Here endeth the lesson" --Homer J. Simpson


Good reply.

Linda_D
January 27th, 2007, 11:47 AM
You know, Mikey, just once it'd be refreshing to see you do some research before you embed your foot into your piehole....

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/2003/pd081803e.html

Everyone knows America's vaccine industry is in serious trouble, with an ever dwindling number of producers and recent severe vaccine shortages. What everyone also should know is that the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine has now pinned much of the blame on the government vaccine-buying program promoted by former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The panel of doctors and economists issuing a report on vaccines last week identified as a fundamental cause of the problem the fact that the government purchases 55 percent of the childhood vaccine market at forced discount prices. The result has been "declining financial incentives to develop and produce vaccines."

The root of this government role goes back to August 1993, when Congress passed Clinton's Vaccines for Children program. The plan, promoted by the Children's Defense Fund, was to use federal power to ensure universal immunization. So the government agreed to purchase a third of the national vaccine supply (the President and Mrs. Clinton had pushed for 100 percent) at a forced discount of half price, then distribute it to doctors to deliver to the poor and the un- and under-insured. As a result:

* Where 30 years ago, 25 companies produced vaccines for the U.S. market., today only five remain, and there is only one producer for a number of critical shots.

* Recent years have brought shortages of numerous vaccines, including those for whooping cough, diphtheria and chicken pox.

The Institute panel in effect said that one of Senator Clinton's pet projects is a bust. As Congress considers Medicare legislation that could do similar harm to prescription drug makers, the vaccine tale is a timely alarm, says the Journal.

Source: Editorial, "Hillary's Vaccine Shortage," Wall Street Journal, August 15, 2003; based on Committee on the Evaluation of Vaccine Purchase Financing in the United States, "Financing Vaccines in the 21st Century: Assuring Access and Availability," Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, August 4, 2003.

Since the Republicans have controlled Congress since 1994 and the White House AND Congress since 2001, how is the vaccine shortage in 2005 the fault of Hillary Clinton?

The Republicans had ample time to fix it and they didn't. In fact, they didn't even address it. Why not?

speaker
January 27th, 2007, 11:58 AM
I remember very well when Clinton was first in office and he was touting a two for one, meaning both his and his wife's brain would be put to work to try and solve some of the toughest questions at the time.

Hillary Clinton went head to head with pharmacist companies to try and iron this thing out. She wanted to be correct with her information.

The thing never got off the ground, let alone anyone changed anything concerning vaccines, health care or anything else. The Republicans were scared of Bill Clinton already and from day one had him in their sites. They gave him such a hard time for all the years he was in office, but he still made for a peaceful and prosperous era for all Americans.

Do not try and rewrite history.

Mr. Lackawanna
January 27th, 2007, 12:42 PM
How Quick we forget:

Peaceful, Ask the people in Eastern Europe (Bosnia)

The miss adventure our troops in Africa This adventure was to take the heat away from his affair with an intern.

The bombing of the China's embassy.

The bombing of a drug company.

Robust economy, Mr. Clinton was benefiting from the previous Republican Party tax reductions.

The downsizing of our military.

The transfer of our missile technology to China

NAFTA

etc

:mad:

Micheal Joseph
January 27th, 2007, 12:44 PM
I too was wondering why vaccine manufacturers are able to stay in business in Socialist Health Europe but not in Capitalist Health U.S.

Do you think it's all the U.S. regulations?

Naw....can't be U.S. government regulations. There has got to be a lot more anti-business regulations in Europe.

It's called the ability of people to sue in the US, compared to overseas.

ALso there really is no incentives for US manufactures to make the vaccnes (sp), as if they are not used, the company losses money. No financial incentives.
Micheal

Micheal Joseph
January 27th, 2007, 12:49 PM
As has always been the with a person who has his head up his assho_e. You were asked a question and you minute brain simply can't handle it. That is why you are a programmed puppet mouthing things because someone leads you by that ring through your nose.

The vaccines are made in England. England has socialized medicine. The question is back to you. Feel free to find some child to help you with the answer.

Why is England able to produce the vaccine and not the U.S?. If you can't provide a simple explanation, reinsert your head.

You're up Homer.

Well, I think you do not understand, that he did answer the question.

England mandates that the vaccine get made, but they also pay for it, where in the US the Government does not pay fo the vaccines that are made. Thus the Drug manufacturess in the US hope that they can recoup their costs.

In England, the drug manufactures are gaurented their cost & profit from the manufacuterer.

Micheal

Micheal Joseph
January 27th, 2007, 12:52 PM
Since the Republicans have controlled Congress since 1994 and the White House AND Congress since 2001, how is the vaccine shortage in 2005 the fault of Hillary Clinton?

The Republicans had ample time to fix it and they didn't. In fact, they didn't even address it. Why not?

Now, you need to blame all of congrees, as the Democrats did not bother to readdress the issue either in all this time. Not a single bill was introduced in bother houses.

Micheal

biker
January 27th, 2007, 01:07 PM
This is one of your dumber posts, which----given your lack of gray cells----is really saying something.

Exposing the depths of your stupidity will take some time.

(It's about time for you to hide now.)


I remember very well when Clinton was first in office and he was touting a two for one, meaning both his and his wife's brain would be put to work to try and solve some of the toughest questions at the time.But the two of their brains combined still only equals that of a Neanderthal. Still enough to count for a genius among Democrats.

Hillary Clinton went head to head with pharmacist companies to try and iron this thing out. She wanted to be correct with her information. Unlike you. Do you think she went to battle with WalGreens and RiteAid? Or did you mean "pharmaceutical" God how I hope you're the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.

The thing never got off the ground, let alone anyone changed anything concerning vaccines, health care or anything else. The Republicans were scared of Bill Clinton already and from day one had him in their sites. They gave him such a hard time for all the years he was in office, but he still made for a peaceful and prosperous era for all Americans. Any time wild Willie had a hard time, Monica took care of it for him.

Do not try and rewrite history. Nope, history will correctly record that Bill and his pecker always favored shag carpets in their El Caminos.

Oh yeah--and that Speaker is a blithering idiot.

speaker
January 27th, 2007, 01:08 PM
How Quick we forget:

Peaceful, Ask the people in Eastern Europe (Bosnia)

The miss adventure our troops in Africa This adventure was to take the heat away from his affair with an intern.

The bombing of the China's embassy.

The bombing of a drug company.

Robust economy, Mr. Clinton was benefiting from the previous Republican Party tax reductions.

The downsizing of our military.

The transfer of our missile technology to China

NAFTA

etc

:mad:

What a dreamer you are. The US was never plunged into an endless morass as it has been by W. and the backsliding of anything good and decent, anything contributing to the advance of civilization and the health of our environment.

What "miss adventure our troops in Africa" are you referring to?

Prosperity and peace of mind had nothing to do with the reduction of taxes, just figure it out--how much did the average family benefit from that?

NAFTA was and idea before its time and I agree, a mistake.

We didn't need a huge military force at that time. If we needed a show of power, we had it with our technology.

And I don't know too much about our knowledge of missile tech being given to the Chinese. Tell me about that.

equally :mad:

biker
January 27th, 2007, 01:13 PM
Since the Republicans have controlled Congress since 1994 and the White House AND Congress since 2001, how is the vaccine shortage in 2005 the fault of Hillary Clinton?

The Republicans had ample time to fix it and they didn't. In fact, they didn't even address it. Why not?

And the Dems have moved even more swiftly to fix this. Right???

Apparently not. They're too busy passing Ethics bills in their first 100 hours.

Wowee. The Democratic Party. The Party of Ethics.

And the party of William Jefferson. Democratic of Louisiana. He of $90 thousand in his freezer. Who used the National Guard---deployed in a disaster---to recover his loot.

Party of ethics, indeed!

atotaltotalfan2001
January 27th, 2007, 01:15 PM
This is one of your dumber posts, which----given your lack of gray cells----is really saying something.

Exposing the depths of your stupidity will take some time.

(It's about time for you to hide now.)

Oh dear. You mentioned the "C" name and now biker is getting all worked up. I'm sure you plan to delight us with a lengthy treatise on how dumb we are, biker, and how brilliant you are.

But please, don't start that whole obsessing thing you do about Bill Clinton's sex life. You really need to move on.:rolleyes:

colossus27
January 27th, 2007, 01:33 PM
Since the Republicans have controlled Congress since 1994 and the White House AND Congress since 2001, how is the vaccine shortage in 2005 the fault of Hillary Clinton?

The Republicans had ample time to fix it and they didn't. In fact, they didn't even address it. Why not?

Exactly what should they do, Linda? Create companies out of thin air? Let's say they would...and after that, we both know you'll whine about how much they charge for vaccines, and they're getting favored from the federal gov't. Unless, of course, they are a union shop, in which case it's the Price We Have to Pay.

Have I missed something here or am I wrong in predicting the obvious?

colossus27
January 27th, 2007, 01:40 PM
The thing never got off the ground, let alone anyone changed anything concerning vaccines, health care or anything else. The Republicans were scared of Bill Clinton already and from day one had him in their sites. They gave him such a hard time for all the years he was in office, but he still made for a peaceful and prosperous era for all Americans.

Do not try and rewrite history.

Peaceful and prosperous? Somebody forget how Enron swindled the entire country out of money? Who was In Charge during those glorious days? Who's rewriting? I got laid off from an R&D position in optoelectronics, two days before GWB was sworn in, and I, along with tens of thousands of others, were the first wave in the collapse of the economy. It started in the last quarter of 1999.

I won't even start on the phrase 'peaceful'- that's an outright fabrication and you know it.

Rewrite history indeed.

tomac
January 27th, 2007, 02:34 PM
NAFTA was and idea before its time and I agree, a mistake.

It was crafted together by George HW Bush. In a campaign promise, Clinton said he'd veto it, a promise that he quickly forgot about after he became president.


And I don't know too much about our knowledge of missile tech being given to the Chinese. Tell me about that.

The bulk of it (at the risk of sounding like Timmy:eek: ) was sold to them by our first-rate allies, the Israelis.


doubly :mad:

tomac
January 27th, 2007, 02:40 PM
Peaceful and prosperous? Somebody forget how Enron swindled the entire country out of money?

You mean the late (maybe) Ken Lay, who was a massive campaign contributer to George Worthless? Republican (to my disgust) Lay, who almost screwed the state of California into bankruptcy? And who stole Billions of dollars from those who had faithfully worked for him for years and cheated them out of their retirements?
And who is probably laying on a beach outside of Rio de Janero right now.



:mad:

speaker
January 27th, 2007, 02:47 PM
I think, colossus, you and some others truly don't know your history. Else you wouldn't be bringing up some things.

mikewrona
January 27th, 2007, 03:29 PM
It's called the ability of people to sue in the US, compared to overseas.

ALso there really is no incentives for US manufactures to make the vaccnes (sp), as if they are not used, the company losses money. No financial incentives.
Micheal

If what you are saying was true. There would be no pharmaceuticals sold in this country, and hundreds of billions of dollars are sold.

The difference is that they want Viagra on the drug store shelves and not flu vaccine. Viagra is where the money is.

Lawsuits is an excuse and nothing more.

mikewrona
January 27th, 2007, 03:29 PM
I think, colossus, you and some others truly don't know your history. Else you wouldn't be bringing up some things.

I always like this type of response. No one knows anything, but you do. Another genius.

mikewrona
January 27th, 2007, 03:34 PM
Well, I think you do not understand, that he did answer the question.

England mandates that the vaccine get made, but they also pay for it, where in the US the Government does not pay fo the vaccines that are made. Thus the Drug manufacturess in the US hope that they can recoup their costs.

In England, the drug manufactures are gaurented their cost & profit from the manufacuterer.

Micheal


He didn't answer. Biker answered. You don't know the difference between the two people.

And that's right, saying as much in my response to that post. England mandates national health. The U.S. government and pharmaceutical companies could care less for your health. Their job is to promote profit, nothing else.

So when you or your family need a medication for flu or something else and none is available don't complain. Just tell yourself, that's OK, they can't make a profit and go about your business.

mikewrona
January 27th, 2007, 03:36 PM
Now, you need to blame all of congrees, as the Democrats did not bother to readdress the issue either in all this time. Not a single bill was introduced in bother houses.

Micheal

In all this time? They been in office for less than 3 weeks. You and your people controlled congress did nothing for 14 years. Now all of a sudden you want results.

Micheal Joseph
January 27th, 2007, 03:58 PM
If what you are saying was true. There would be no pharmaceuticals sold in this country, and hundreds of billions of dollars are sold.

Wrong. With regular drugs being sold (BRAND NAME), and the REFILLS of these drugs is where the money is being made.

What refills are there in vaccines??? There is none, the shelf life is less, and the number of people that they can market to is less. Where is the profit motivation???


The difference is that they want Viagra on the drug store shelves and not flu vaccine. Viagra is where the money is.

DA!!!!!


Lawsuits is an excuse and nothing more.

Obviously you do not follow that part of the drug market. I do because of the work I do as a consultant for companies that deal in the medical industry.

Lawsuits play a big deal, cost an awful lot of money.

Micheal

Micheal Joseph
January 27th, 2007, 04:00 PM
In all this time? They been in office for less than 3 weeks. You and your people controlled congress did nothing for 14 years. Now all of a sudden you want results.

First of all,they are not my people,

Second of all, when I talked about all this time, I was refering to the demacrats in congress from when the republicans took over in 1996???.

Either party can submit bils in congress when the other party is in control.

Micheal

atotaltotalfan2001
January 27th, 2007, 05:23 PM
First of all,they are not my people,

Second of all, when I talked about all this time, I was refering to the demacrats in congress from when the republicans took over in 1996???.

Either party can submit bils in congress when the other party is in control.

Micheal


MJ........

Here is what I don't understand. Hillary Clinton is vilified time and again for coming up with a nationalized health care plan. And? What we have is sooo much better now?

No. It just grows worse and worse. What is wrong with people? People do die w/out proper medical care. They really do. But all anyone can talk about was the arrogance of Hillary Clinton and her effort to come up with a better system.

Jeeze. At this point, I'll listen to anyone with an idea for REAL health care reform -- one that provides everyone with coverage. Why, on earth, is that such a radical statement?

I mean, I hate to see people die, in the world's wealthiest nation, because their HMO didn't cover certain things. But I guess that makes me a so-called "bleeding heart liberal."

biker
January 27th, 2007, 05:35 PM
Oh dear. You mentioned the "C" name and now biker is getting all worked up. I'm sure you plan to delight us with a lengthy treatise on how dumb we are, biker, and how brilliant you are.

But please, don't start that whole obsessing thing you do about Bill Clinton's sex life. You really need to move on.:rolleyes:

You just need to repeat that you'd send your daughter to work as an intern in Bill Clinton's office.

"A wonderful learning experience", you posted.

That tells everyone all they need to know about you.

atotaltotalfan2001
January 27th, 2007, 05:54 PM
You just need to repeat that you'd send your daughter to work as an intern in Bill Clinton's office.

"A wonderful learning experience", you posted.

That tells everyone all they need to know about you.

Oh dear. Boy does that lack intelligence as well as...well... just plain decency.


But this attack on my parenting skills....I would have thought that was below even you. But the standards I was once applied to you were too high, it seems. It's hard for you, I know, to be a Bu****e these days. But I expect you to hold your head high and not stoop to making comments that, for lesser souls, would appear to be an insult to their children.

So sad, biker. I was looking at FOXNEWS the other day and I was amazed at how it resembled the National Inquirer.

How fallen are the (in their own minds) mighty.

Mr. Lackawanna
January 27th, 2007, 08:03 PM
And I don't know too much about our knowledge of missile tech being given to the Chinese. Tell me about that.

equally :mad:


The Clinton Administration continued to implement the policy and in 1996 by transferring to the Commerce Department the control of all communication satellites that had not been transferred in 1992.

However, the State Department still controlled the related satellite technologies as munitions. This split of jurisdiction between the Commerce (controlling satellites) and State (controlling satellite technologies) Departments was arguably destined to cause problems and, indeed, those problems soon became evident.

In 1995 and 1996, two commercial satellites made by U.S. firms were lost in failed launch attempts in China. Provided the opportunity for a political attack on the Clinton Administration’s more liberal export control policy.

Controversy over the nature of U.S. industry involvement during China’s investigation of the cause of the launch vehicle failures led to charges that U.S. participation had aided and improved China’s ballistic-missile program. Although they denied the charges and there were no indictments or establishment of guilt, three American aerospace corporations (Lockheed Martin, Loral, and Boeing) agreed to pay a total of $65 million in fines to avoid lengthy legal action.


In Africa I think it was in Somalia in a city called Mogadish where Clinton sent the troops in and at the time it was one of Americas greatest political/military blunders

colossus27
January 27th, 2007, 08:20 PM
You mean the late (maybe) Ken Lay, who was a massive campaign contributer to George Worthless?


:mad:

If you want to bring up individuals burying candidates in money, plan to discuss Peter B. Lewis and how he poured money into Kerry's 527-coffers.

Enron donated a total of $6,993,334 to the republicans from 1989-2004. All of Lewis' donation went to the DNC via a 527, and exceeded Enron's by over $7,000,000 in ONE YEAR'S TIME.

Lest we forget our history, speaker....:rolleyes:

Who was president when Enron Online began?
Who was president when Enron was initially (and continually, for that matter) in trouble along with Arthur Andersen?

Regarding the fake 'energy crisis' that took place in California during GWB's term...the reality-challenged geniuses that ran California- let's forget the names here, shall we- didn't seem to have any problems at all letting Lay and his swine come in and screw the entire state out of capital in a way that redefines the word screw. He lied to them, they voted on something they didn't understand, and as a result they got vampired to death, and the market tipped enough that we all paid for it. So who's fault is that?

colossus27
January 27th, 2007, 08:29 PM
The difference is that they want Viagra on the drug store shelves and not flu vaccine. Viagra is where the money is.

Homeopathic crap is where the money is. Only in times like this can you sell 3ml of water for $15. The success of homeopathic stuffs is proof of our failure as a species.

Now there's a place we'd both agree needs government controls :D

Linda_D
January 27th, 2007, 08:36 PM
Now, you need to blame all of congrees, as the Democrats did not bother to readdress the issue either in all this time. Not a single bill was introduced in bother houses.

Micheal

Oh, I get it. Any policy the Pubbies think is bad, it's one or the other or both of the Clintons' fault(s), but the Pubbies' failure to fix or change such supposedly "bad" policy is the Democrats' fault???? Only a dumbazz Pubbie would buy that stupid logic! ROFLMAO.

BTW, did you ever look up the New American Century site so you can explain to us exactly how Georgie's invasion of Iraq was just following Bill Clinton's Middle East policy????

speaker
January 27th, 2007, 08:54 PM
In Africa I think it was in Somalia in a city called Mogadish where Clinton sent the troops in and at the time it was one of Americas greatest political/military blunders

This was the first Pres Bush's instigation, although Clinton had just taken over at the time of the Mogadishu ambush, 1993.

Here is what happened there, and I doubt it could be called one of America's greatest blunders. The blame cannot be laid on one person, country, or reason.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/etc/cron.html

speaker
January 27th, 2007, 09:06 PM
No, they never gave Hillary Clinton's health plan a chance. It could have been edited, revised, developed, or totally turned down. But we never got a chance to see it.



This was the first Pres Bush's instigation, although Clinton had just taken over at the time of the Mogadishu ambush, 1993.

Here is what happened there, and I doubt it could be called one of America's greatest blunders. The blame cannot be laid on one person, country, or reason.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/etc/cron.html

And, concerning American missile technology and just how much information was transferred to China was never really agreed on. But it sounds like the Republicans were now deep into scraping the barrel for anything they could find. But read for yourself:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/satellite123198.htm

colossus27
January 28th, 2007, 06:42 AM
Oh, I get it. Any policy the Pubbies think is bad, it's one or the other or both of the Clintons' fault(s), but the Pubbies' failure to fix or change such supposedly "bad" policy is the Democrats' fault???? Only a dumbazz Pubbie would buy that stupid logic! ROFLMAO.

BTW, did you ever look up the New American Century site so you can explain to us exactly how Georgie's invasion of Iraq was just following Bill Clinton's Middle East policy????

Uh, the very same logic has been applied in the opposite direction right on this forum, Linda. "pubbie" or otherwise :rolleyes:

colossus27
January 28th, 2007, 06:44 AM
And, concerning American missile technology and just how much information was transferred to China was never really agreed on. But it sounds like the Republicans were now deep into scraping the barrel for anything they could find.

Pfeh. What about all the other top secret stuff that leaked out via John Huang? Not that it had anything to do w/campaign funding or anything....

speaker
January 28th, 2007, 09:09 AM
Pfeh. What about all the other top secret stuff that leaked out via John Huang? Not that it had anything to do w/campaign funding or anything....

What about it? Here is the story of John Huang:

The bright side of the Republican's total attempt to destroy Clinton is that EVERYTHING came out. Anything that could be misinterpreted or twisted for future generations, is all documented for anyone to read. Thanks, Republicans. You did us all a favor in more ways than one. You spent more time in trying to destroy someone than in doing something constructive.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/players/huang.htm

Linda_D
January 28th, 2007, 12:34 PM
What about it? Here is the story of John Huang:

The bright side of the Republican's total attempt to destroy Clinton is that EVERYTHING came out. Anything that could be misinterpreted or twisted for future generations, is all documented for anyone to read. Thanks, Republicans. You did us all a favor in more ways than one. You spent more time in trying to destroy someone than in doing something constructive.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/players/huang.htm

The really ironic part is that if Bill Clinton could run for POTUS again, he'd probably win in a landslide. I remember after the 2000 election that there were a number of people saying things like "Bush will make people wish Clinton was still President" ... Boy, were those folks right!

Mr. Lackawanna
January 28th, 2007, 01:18 PM
The really ironic part is that if Bill Clinton could run for POTUS again, he'd probably win in a landslide. I remember after the 2000 election that there were a number of people saying things like "Bush will make people wish Clinton was still President" ... Boy, were those folks right!

I never heard anybody say that. I for one would never would like to see any Clinton become President again.

biker
January 28th, 2007, 06:36 PM
I never heard anybody say that. I for one would never would like to see any Clinton become President again.

I wouldn't either.

And I asked four others and they all said "no".

Even the dog said he wouldn't vote for Clinton.

So much for Linda's "number of people."

Must be a Jamestown thing.

atotaltotalfan2001
January 28th, 2007, 07:15 PM
I wouldn't either.

And I asked four others and they all said "no".

Even the dog said he wouldn't vote for Clinton.

So much for Linda's "number of people."

Must be a Jamestown thing.

I would.:)

speaker
January 28th, 2007, 07:57 PM
In a heartbeat.:)

Ragin
January 28th, 2007, 08:05 PM
I wouldn't either.



She won't get my vote either

DelawareDistrict
January 28th, 2007, 08:08 PM
Wow, 99 posts to answer the simple question, "What are Hillary Clinton's Senate Accomplishments?"

Answer: There are none! :D :eek:

mikewrona
January 28th, 2007, 09:26 PM
Wow, 99 posts to answer the simple question, "What are Hillary Clinton's Senate Accomplishments?"

Answer: There are none! :D :eek:

Aw, no one wants to play with you. They give an accomplishment and you tell them they don't know what they are talking about? Poor you. :(

DelawareDistrict
January 28th, 2007, 09:53 PM
MJ........

Here is what I don't understand. Hillary Clinton is vilified time and again for coming up with a nationalized health care plan. And? What we have is sooo much better now?

No. It just grows worse and worse. What is wrong with people? People do die w/out proper medical care. They really do. But all anyone can talk about was the arrogance of Hillary Clinton and her effort to come up with a better system.

Jeeze. At this point, I'll listen to anyone with an idea for REAL health care reform -- one that provides everyone with coverage. Why, on earth, is that such a radical statement?

I mean, I hate to see people die, in the world's wealthiest nation, because their HMO didn't cover certain things. But I guess that makes me a so-called "bleeding heart liberal."
Hillary's national health care plan is not a better system. It just allows the government to further entrench itself in the system and increase all of the problems we are having with it. The government has caused the cost of services and insurance rate increases to the levels we have now.

Surfing USA
November 16th, 2008, 03:00 PM
Sunday, Oct. 23, 2005 10:29 p.m. EDT
Dick Morris: Hillary's 'Paltry' Senate Record


New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has been a great Senator for New York - at least according to her fans in the media, who regularly note how hard she works while insisting she's done much for adopted home state.

Baloney, says Dick Morris and Eileen McGann. In their new book "Condi vs Hillary," they blow the lid off Hillary's pathetic Senate performance - a list of accomplishments that are so meager her supporters ought to be embarrassed.

Morris and McGann note: "Hillary has had a total of twenty bills passed since she entered the Senate. Of those, fifteen have been purely symbolic in nature."

Lest they be dismissed as Hillary-haters who don't want to give the former first lady the credit she deserves, "Condi vs Hillary" itemizes Mrs. Clinton's legislative "achievements" (such as they are).

In five years as the most influential Democrat in the Senate, Hillary has managed to get the following laws and resolutions enacted:

• Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site

• Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month

• Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor

• Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall

• Name courthouse after James L. Watson

• Name post office after John A. O'Shea

• Designate August 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day

• Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day

• Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death

• Congratulate the Syracuse University Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.

• Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship

• Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program

• Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda

• Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death

• Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.

Only five of Clinton's bills are, according to Morris, "substantive":

• Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11

• Pay for city projects in response to 9/11

• Assist landmine victims in other countries

• Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care

• Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the Wilderness Preservation System

Concludes Morris and McGann: "In the face of Hillary Clinton's reputation as an effective U.S. senator, this record of paltry accomplishment is sobering. As much as Alexander Hamilton, Harriet Tubman, and the American Revolution deserve our recognition, one thinks the voters of New York may have expected more of their junior senator."

Not to mention their soon-to-be presidential candidate.Anyone care to update us on Hillary's accomplishments in the last three years, since the above quote was originally posted? :D

granpabob
November 16th, 2008, 04:56 PM
running for pres took up her time

ILOVEDNY
November 16th, 2008, 05:16 PM
Don't forget the Botox treatments.