Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    a place called, Liberty
    Posts
    9,922
    Thanks (Given)
    102
    Thanks (Received)
    314
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    441562

    Default For Clinton, Government as Economic Prod

    By DAVID LEONHARDT
    Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said that if she became president, the federal government would take a more active role in the economy to address what she called the excesses of the market and of the Bush administration.

    In one of her most extensive interviews about how she would approach the economy, Mrs. Clinton laid out a view of economic policy that differed in some ways from that of her husband, Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton campaigned on his centrist views, and as president, he championed deficit reduction and trade agreements.

    Reflecting what her aides said were very different conditions today, Mrs. Clinton put her emphasis on issues like inequality and the role of institutions like government, rather than market forces, in addressing them.

    She said that economic excesses — including executive-pay packages she characterized as often “offensive” and “wrong” and a tax code that had become “so far out of whack” in favoring the wealthy — were holding down middle-class living standards.

    Interviewed between campaign appearances in Los Angeles on Thursday, she said those problems were also keeping the United States economy from growing as quickly as it could.

    “If you go back and look at our history, we were most successful when we had that balance between an effective, vigorous government and a dynamic, appropriately regulated market,” Mrs. Clinton said. “And we have systematically diminished the role and the responsibility of our government, and we have watched our market become imbalanced.”

    She added: “I want to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and the market.”

    In the last two weeks, Mrs. Clinton has devoted most of her public remarks to the economy, and she won the New Hampshire primary and the Nevada caucus largely because of support from households making less than $50,000 a year, according to polls conducted by Edison/Mitofsky.

    Mrs. Clinton’s approach to the economy would have three main components. She would roll back the Bush tax cuts for households with incomes over $250,000 while creating more tax breaks below that threshold; impose closer scrutiny on financial markets, including the investments being made by foreign governments in the United States; and raise spending on job-creating projects like the development of alternative energy.

    “We’ve done it in previous generations,” she said, alluding to large-scale public projects like the interstate highway system and the space program. “But we’ve got to have a plan.”

    Using blunt and at times populist language in the interview, Mrs. Clinton, Democrat of New York, tried to steer a course between the often business-friendly themes embraced by her husband and the straight populism that John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina, has used in his presidential campaign this year. Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton’s main rival for the Democratic nomination, has also begun using more of her kitchen-table language in recent days.


    read the rest..
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us...gewanted=print
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself."
    Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,271
    Thanks (Given)
    22
    Thanks (Received)
    272
    Likes (Given)
    73
    Likes (Received)
    347
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    554230

    Default

    She said that economic excesses — including executive-pay packages she characterized as often “offensive” and “wrong”
    Holy Hell!! Does she believe that she should be making decisions on how much executives should be paid?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    9,768
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    28
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    16
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    515526

    Default

    I think shareholders should decide how much ceo's make.

    Please tell me where im wrong on that?

    Quote Originally Posted by MtnBiker View Post
    Holy Hell!! Does she believe that she should be making decisions on how much executives should be paid?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums