Social Question

Pied_Pfeffer's avatar

Why should I support Hillary Clinton?

Asked by Pied_Pfeffer (26667points) April 12th, 2015

As an American who generally supports the Democratic candidates, it is a struggle to believe that Ms. Clinton is worthy of even considering.

What are the pros and cons? Are there any other Democratic candidates that might step up to the plate that might be better suited?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

80 Answers

talljasperman's avatar

Suze Orman and Oprah Winfrey.

chyna's avatar

Hold off. Hillary Clinton won’t be the only democrat running. As of this minute, I’m not impressed with anyone running which includes Hillary, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz.

hominid's avatar

Because Republicans.

Note: Clinton or anyone else the Democrats run is worth your support. Clinton is worthy of your consideration because it appears that she is who will be the candidate that Democrats feel will give them the best chance to win. Yes, I know that says nothing about Clinton. But elections are not about individuals – they are about parties.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Because there is no good reason not to, whoever else is running would be no better…..

cheebdragon's avatar

I highly recommend that you check out OnTheIssues, they have everything you need to know about each candidate.

No one should be encouraged to vote if they are uninformed.

kritiper's avatar

Of course! She’ll be a better president than Obama and her husband. Probably the best president we’ve had since FDR. No one better!!!

Blackberry's avatar

It’s nothing new, they all suck and we don’t have many choices, but are you really gonna vote for an American republican…?

nutallergy's avatar

I found the following user comment that sums up my feelings on this story.

“Any American who can spend eight years in the White House, and then go on to be a senator, and then Secretary of State, and still want to be president, after all of the slings and arrows shot her, has the guts, savvy, and fortitude I want to see in my president.”

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Well look at it this way, don’t the republicans have control of both houses in your Government right now?
They have the power to really help the poor and working class, and all they could come up with is they think they shouldn’t allow people on food stamps to be able to buy steak and sea food, WOW really understand the poor and working class don’t they??
And spend the rest of the time fighting for a foreign countries pipe line, way to go conservatives.
And you wonder why you should support Clinton???

cheebdragon's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 A large % of republicans are the middle and working class.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@nutallergy

Guts? Maybe. Or maybe profound narcissism.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@cheebdragon , Well you know your a red neck when??

nutallergy's avatar

@Darth_Algar You aren’t going to change my opinion of her. From my link- When Clinton was in high school, she volunteered with her church youth group to babysit the children of migrant laborers. From there, her resume continues with one item after another aimed at improving the lives of women and children.

She’s a narcissist I want in my corner.

rojo's avatar

Of the three candidates now running, she is the lesser evil.

cheebdragon's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 By all means, please continue that sentence…..

rojo's avatar

@cheebdragon You think “loading the dishwasher” means getting your wife drunk.

rojo's avatar

or Your school fight song was “Dueling Banjos”

rojo's avatar

Actually, this one is probably more appropriate:

You’ve ever been kicked out of the zoo for heckling the monkeys

nutallergy's avatar

You’ve dangled your baby over a cheeta pit

Darth_Algar's avatar

@nutallergy “You aren’t going to change my opinion of her.”

I’m not trying to.

marinelife's avatar

The Republican alternatives are all so horrible that I would support any Democrat over them. I wish Elizabeth Warren would run, but lacking that I like Martin O“Malley.

cheebdragon's avatar

The republican bashing is entertaining, did you guys forget to answer the actual question?

nutallergy's avatar

@Darth_Algar No? You disagree that Hillary has guts and it was important enough for you to tell me this. I think you may have some narcissistic tendencies. Am I right?

rojo's avatar

I believe it was this

”@SQUEEKY2 By all means, please continue that sentence….”

which was the response to

”@cheebdragon , Well you know your a red neck when??”

tinyfaery's avatar

I’ve been being duped by the Democrats my whole voting life.

1992: I voted Clinton (The whole welfare atrocity was unforgivable.)
1996: Nader
2000: Nader
2004: I got duped again. Voted for Obama
2008: Roseanne Barr

You don’t have to vote for her. It will take a whole lot for me to vote Democratic for president.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@nutallergy

Did I say she does not have “guts”? No, I did not. Did I say you should not vote for her? Again, no, I did not. Do I think she’s narcissistic? Yes, I do. Personally I think all politicians are to some degree or another, though I believe she’s even more so than the norm. I think, for example, that it takes an especially large degree of self-love to run for office in a district you’ve never lived in and have no real connection to (as she has done). Does this exclude the possibility of her possessing the traits you believe she has? No, it does not.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@tinyfaery

Umm, when did Ralph Nader or Roseanna Barr run for President on the Democratic ticket? And what office did Obama run for in 2004?

wildpotato's avatar

Because you are a mature and intelligent person who, however distasteful she finds reasoning such as “the other option is worse, and there is no viable third option,” recognizes the reality of the situation that the other option is worse and there is no viable third option.

SmashTheState's avatar

I’m rooting for Hillary simply because she enrages neo-cons into such delicious, butt-blasted, hysterical fury. First the Democrats inflicted a brown dude on the sister-boffing troglodytes of Amerika, and their tears of outrage were so exquistely sweet. Tossing a pair of boobies into the White House will cause an unbelievable howling cacophony of shrieking monkey RAEG. Why should you support Hillary? Because the schadenfreude will border on orgasmic. Now if we can just convince her to accept Louis Farrakhan or Michael Moore as a running mate the icing will be on the cake.

wildpotato's avatar

@SmashTheState Hi Smash, good to see you!

SmashTheState's avatar

@wildpotato Howdy. Just dropping by. I monitor the site, but haven’t really contributed since the reigning clique decided reporting Fluther members to the US secret police was perfectly acceptable behaviour to shut down dissent. I don’t see most of them around, so I may return and see if things are a little less… authoritarian.

rojo's avatar

@SmashTheState

Then what we need to do is nominate, and elect, a liberal, gay, married, pot smoking, transgendered, black female vegan atheist.

That should send the majority of them into apoplectic seizures.

ucme's avatar

Because she’s clearly demented & under tremendous stress, her face looks rather like a wounded elbow, support her & her tits, like her, they’re sagging badly.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@ucme so what are peoples choices either Tits or Bush?
Aren’t you glad niether of us live or vote in the U.S?

ucme's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 The choice gets no better over here, a limp prick (Milliband) or a massive arse (Cameron)

Darth_Algar's avatar

“Everyone complains about politicians. Everyone says they suck. But where do people think these politicians come from? They don’t fall out of the sky; they don’t pass through a membrane from a separate reality. They come from American homes, American families, American schools, American churches, and American businesses. And they’re elected by American voters. This is what our system produces, folks. This is the best we can do. Let’s face it, we have very little to work with. Garbage in, garbage out.” – George Carlin

SmashTheState's avatar

“I have this feeling that whoever is elected president, like Clinton was, no matter what you promise on the campaign trail -– blah, blah, blah -– when you win, you go into this smoke-filled room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum-fucks who got you in there. And you’re in this smoky room, and this little film screen comes down, and a big guy with a cigar goes, ‘Roll the film.’ And it’s a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you’ve never seen before, that looks suspiciously like it’s from the grassy knoll. And then the screen goes up and the lights come up, and they go to the new president, ‘Any questions?’”Bill Hicks

janbb's avatar

I wish this article were the last thing that I had to read or hear about the election. I think it sums things up pretty handily.

1TubeGuru's avatar

I feel that Elizabeth Warren would be the best possible candidate but if she wont run Hillary will be the lesser of two evils. in my opinion The GOP has the potential to destroy America and turn it into a third world Country if they can win the next Presidential election.keep in mind that I am a moderate Democrat who has not seen any evidence that a moderate candidate can be elected as President.

Jaxk's avatar

I would agree with @janbb in that I hope it’s the last I hear or read from Paul Krugman. It seems he is stating the Democratic strategy for this election, vote for the party rather than the person. Kinda says something about Hilary, doesn’t it? If you look at what has taken place over the past 6 years the picture is pretty dismal. The economy is still struggling, the wage gap has increased rather than decreased, big business is thriving while small business is struggling or dying, the workforce participation is the lowest in 50 years, the Middle East is disintegrating, the reset with Russia has only made them more belligerent, and Hilary will only take us further down this dead end road. She has nothing in her bag of tricks that will improve anything but a lot to help the decline that Obama has brought.

The only reason to vote for Hilary would be blind obedience to party line. Doesn’t sound like a good idea but if you don’t want to look at other candidates, that’s all you have.

Jaxk's avatar

I suppose there is one other reason you could use to vote for her, because she is a woman. It is interesting that if you used that to not vote for her, you would be a misogynist, sexist, bigot, or an all around rotten person. If you use to vote FOR her, you’re a progressive. Go figure.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Jaxk

Clearly it’s impossible that someone might vote for her because they genuinely feels she best represents their stand on the pertinent issues or because they feel she advocates the best policies. No, it must be, it has to be, because they’re blind or because she has a vagina.

Jaxk's avatar

@Darth_Algar – According to the responses and the state of the country, I would have to agree that “Clearly it’s impossible that someone might vote for her because they genuinely feels she best represents their stand on the pertinent issues”.

tinyfaery's avatar

Uhh…My point was I try not to vote for democrats.

rojo's avatar

The economy is still struggling to recover from a crash causes by Republican fiscal policies over the preceding eight years The wage gap has increased rather than decreased Because of Republican tax policies that favor the rich over the middle class. U.S. income inequality is comparable to other developed nations before taxes and transfers, but is among the worst after taxes Big business is thriving while small business is struggling or dying Because while small businesses depend on local economies that are also suffering, the bigger companies are raking in the cash from overseas with the help of large political donations the bought large Republican tax breaks and legislation such as the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, and the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008, none of which were for middle class and small business relief but were designed for and targeted to help out the big boys Workforce Participation is down because since the 1980’s we have allowed more favorable incentives to the big corporations to ship jobs overseas which forces our own economy to turn toward lower paying service sector jobs while sending manufacturing jobs overseas , The middle east is disintegrating Because of Republican inspired dreams of Empire Building which stuck us into the middle of it then left it up to someone else to clean up Russia is more belligerent Which, of course has nothing to do with our amping NATO up to antagonize them by getting involved in territorial disputes of satellite nations (What would we do if they, I don’t know, sent missles to Cuba say?) .

I have said before, I am no fan of Obama but I dread to think what we would be like had we had another Republican in office having control of all three branches of the Federal Government. At the very least we would still be in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would be in new wars in Ukraine, Syria, Iran, and possibly Egypt and Libya.

Jaxk's avatar

@rojo – Unfortunately I don’t have much time right now but I will address each of your points when I get back. In the mean time I will leave you with the Workforce participation rate. Hardly a problem from the 80s but definitely a problem now. It is a good example of most of what you say. Wild statements that don’t have much in common with reality.

rojo's avatar

Ah @Jaxk I see you have decided to focus on one of the latest “Talking Point Du Jours” put out by the Republican doom and gloom fearmongers.

So, why do we choose to focus on a relatively obscure data point? Because the more closely watched unemployment rate showed steady improvement perhaps and there is no spinning that?

It has been going down since 1978/1979 so yes, it most definitely IS a problem from the 80’s and it will continue to go down. A couple of interesting quotes:

“The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in 2012 concluded that just over half of the post-1999 decline in the participation rate comes from the retirement of the baby boomers. Critically, the research showed that the problem is only going to get worse in the rest of the decade, with retirements accounting for two-thirds of the decline of participation rate by 2020. In other words, the rate will keep declining, no matter how well the economy does.” (italics mine)

and

“Barclays economists, meanwhile, say that just 15 percent of the drop in the labor force stems from people who want a job and are of prime working age (25–54). “We view the possibility of a large and sudden return of previously discouraged job seekers to the labor force as remote,” they wrote.”

CugelTheClueless's avatar

Haven’t read all 47 replies. My short answer is, Hillary lost my vote when she voted for the Iraq war.

If she gets the nomination and goes up against some far right wacko like Ted Cruz, I’ll hold my nose and vote for her. If she goes up against someone from the establishment wing of the GOP, not a Tea Party person, I’ll probably vote 3rd party.

jerv's avatar

@Jaxk I await your response, but I will say that you’ve beaten the “Workforce participation rate” horse enough that not only have you stripped the flesh from it’s bones, but you’ve atomized the bones. But since it is your favorite talking point, I think we may as well analyze it a little.

If these BLS numbers are remotely correct, the biggest factor in the decline is that people age. Voxeau backs that up. However, those are “Liberal” sources, so lets go to the Heritage Foundation. Well,there was quite a bit there, but the way I read it was that the lack of job creation is the biggest factor in declining workforce participation, though the shifting demographics and increase of those in the 16–24 age bracket going to school also contributed.

So, why are you waving that number around with little context? It is that putting hte number out there without context “proves” your point while actually citing the reasons behind those changes weakens your argument?

Better yet, don’t bother addressing any of that; just find a different horse to beat to death and beyond.

Jaxk's avatar

It seems I have a couple of detractors. @rojo – It is hardly an obscure number and it has not been falling since the 80s. In fact the participation rate grew throughout the 80s, Leveled off through the 90s declined then started to rebound in 2004, then has been in free fall since 2008. It is almost amusing that the detractors tell us that if you remove the 16–24 age group (37 million people) and then remove the over 54 age group (another 100 million people) you can change the rate of decline. Gee, I surprised, take half the population out of the equation. Is that how we fix the problem under Democratic rule.

I see both you and @jerv trying to use the aging baby boomers as the scapegoat for the problem. Just curious as to when the retirement age became 55, it’s not. And to make it worse, the over 55 crowd shows a smaller percentage retired now than in 2007. The 55 age group is where it is the hardest to find a new job (ever heard of age discrimination).

This administration is all about changing the calculus to make things look better. It doesn’t work if you look at the numbers.

SmashTheState's avatar

@Jaxk I don’t have a horse in this race since I think every politician on Earth is a sociopathic scumbag, and only support Hillary because she makes people like you so pig-biting mad. But you may be interested to know that the real unemployment across North America hasn’t changed much in more than 100 years. If you look at the raw data across the entire period, it’s pretty consistent: 40% of the adult population is employed, 20% is semi- or partially employed, and 40% is unemployed. The only thing which changes is the way the numbers are massaged.

CugelTheClueless's avatar

^Employment during the depths of the Great Depression was the same as it was at the heights of the postwar expansion? I doubt that very much. Or if it that 40/20/40 figure is true, then it is covering up lots of important context.

jerv's avatar

@Jaxk Actually, I am not entirely sure whether it’s the aging population, the fact that more young are getting educated in order to try to fill those positions that we have a lack of qualified candidates for state-side, or the lack of job creation. I’ve seen mixed numbers supporting all three arguments.

But I don’t think it worth looking too far into as the only person I’ve seen who cites that figure anyways is one that has a history of blaming liberals/Democrats for EVERYTHING, and I’m done beating my head against that wall with you. You’re clinging to that Workforce Participation figure like a Titanic passenger clinging to driftwood, so I’m just going to wait (with low expectations) until you come up with a new argument. Hell, at this point, blaming it on Xenu would increase your credibility on this in my eyes.

@SmashTheState The Conservative candidates that are far enough to the right to make @Jaxk look like a Liberal have enough support (at least according of the 2014 midterms) that they’ve effectively hijacked the Republican party, and they are already pig-biting mad that the Democrats and traditional Conservatives (who they call RINOs) even dare to exist, and they will be so long as corporations and churches have less-than-absolute power.

I don’t think supporting Hillary is meant to incite them; they’re already past “mad” to the point of full-on batshit crazy and thus don’t need any further provocation. I can only assume that Hillary makes a good choice simply because we already know the name Clinton.

cheebdragon's avatar

Presidents get blamed for a lot of shit they probably had very little control over, what will Hilary do when fingers start pointing at her? She didn’t hesitate to resign from Secretary of State.

jerv's avatar

@cheebdragon Valid point. At least Bill did a song and dance about the definition of “is”.

rojo's avatar

Hey @Jaxk some interesting graphs for you regarding Labor (or Workforce) Participation:

Men 40 – 44 shows a clear downward trend and, as the author states ”.... a researcher looking at this trend in the year 2000 might have predicted the 40 to 44 year old men participation rate would about the level as today (see trend line).

Next, lest you think I am cherry picking a particular age group Men, all age groups all shownig a clear downward trend since the mid 1970’s

Graph three is the same as the one above but in full scale (0% – 100%) showing how truly gradual the decline has been. and, according to the author “The bottom line is that the participation rate was declining for prime working age workers before the recession, there are several reasons for this decline (not just recent “economic weakness”) and many estimates of “missing workers” are probably way too high.”

And, one for the ladies, Women, all age groups. Note the dramatic rise in female participation from the mid 50% in 1976 to the mid 75% in about 1990’s and then the decline from that point on.

Finally, the same graph for women on a 0% to 100% scale again showing how gradually the numbers have actually changed.

To me these numbers and figures indicate that this is a societal change and that you are going to have to work much harder to pin this on a particular president or party.
Original source

Jaxk's avatar

@rojo – I’m not sure I understand the point behind separating the stats for men and women. Women have been entering the job market for more than a hundred years now. The stats only go back to the late 40s but since the 60s the labor force grew from about 58% to about 68% in the late 90s. Since we know that most of that time the womens liberation movement was driving substantial grow in women in the workforce, we were able to keep the job market expanding to accommodate that growth. According to you graph there was some decline of the men in the workforce and if you want to account for that as ‘Stay at Home Dads’, I don’t see a problem there either. What is happening now however is a decline in both men and women in the workforce. You want to say ‘Societal Changes’ and they will be with us for a long time. Maybe but if that’s true we have problems. If wages were increasing so that the middle class no longer needed both partners working, that would be a good thing. Unfortunately that’s not happening, wages are declining. If the decline of the workforce was a result of people retiring early, that wouldn’t necessarily be a problem either but we know that’s not happening either. What seems to be happening is that fewer people are working and earning less money while more people are staying home and collecting some sort of welfare (food stamps, disability, etc.). Meanwhile, everyone is bragging about our low inflation knowing full well that the calculus doesn’t count the staple like food and gasoline (which have been rising substantially). If this continues our standard of living has got to decline.

Hilary seems to understand at least some of this since she’s saying that wants to address the middle class deterioration. We have, for the first time in history, more businesses closing than start-ups. That certainly doesn’t bode well for our future. We have got to get back to an environment where small business is encouraged and they have at least a chance to succeed. That will expand the job market and begin to raise wages.

Hilary seems to think if she says she wants middle class growth it will happen even though she wants to continue the policies that got us here. You seem to want to make it a purely political issue and pretend nothing is wrong. @jerv wants to pretend there’s no issue and the numbers don’t mean anything anyway. @SmashTheState simply wants to make up numbers in an attempt piss everyone off (or at least me). I see this as a pivotal election which holds the future of the country in the balance. Personally, I’m not ready to give up and I don’t see Hilary as a solution to any of our problems.

rojo's avatar

@Jaxk

I don’t know if she is the answer either but as I said, in my opinion she is the lesser of all the evils we are presented with at this time.

And, the reason for separating the men from the women was to clarify the effect of the large number of women entering the workforce in that timeframe (I believe). I am sure that the two could easily be combined and will search for something that does have that. One thing I found interesting was that we did not see a drastic drop in male participation that followed the same time line.
There is a link somewhere within the original article that leads to another (etc.) that gives a, what I consider surprising, statistic showing the number of people in the +-24 Y.O. age group who just say they are not looking for a job because they don’t want one. And, it is growing.
What does this mean? Does it mean we need to quit making it possible for them to survive without a job (make them quit school, insist their parents kick them out of the house, cut off social safety nets, etc) or does it mean we have reached a point where they see not a point to the society we have created?
Do we look for the root cause? Do we just keep just trying to stop the bleeding or we take away the band-aids and fuck all. What kind of society do we have if it is dog-eat-dog and everyone for themselves?

Why are wages stagnant while profits continue to increase?

Why do we reward companies that take their manufacturing business overseas, putting people out of work, and then complain because they are unemployed? Why have we become a Walmart society, not caring about anything but the bottom line? Why are we so focused on the here-and-now and not giving a damn about the long term? Is it because even though we make the right noises about education, we are not teaching? Is it because we are pounded day after day by commercials and ads exhorting us to Buy! Buy! Buy!? Is it because capitalism is in its death spiral? Is it because we view progress only in terms of MORE?

Perhaps we have reached a point where the population will no longer support a 40 hour work week. Perhaps we need to think about supporting early retirement to allow younger people into the workforce. Perhaps we need to tax everything over $365,000.00 at 100%. Perhaps we need to eliminate business taxes and put it all on the individual. While we are at it perhaps we need to eliminate corporate personhood. Perhaps it is something more simple like focusing on people instead of capital. Perhaps the entire system needs to be destroyed and allowed to restructure.

Perhaps we need an entire new paradigm defining what is a successful (or productive if you prefer) life.

I know that there is a substantial chance that you and I will never reach a consensus. We both see the same problems but disagree on the causes and cannot agree on a solution but thanks for the civil discourse.

Thank you.

rojo's avatar

ps. sorry for the rant.

cheebdragon's avatar

The future for 16–24 is fucked anyway, can you really blame them for not wanting to work? There is no incentive to hard work, none of it will pay off.
In fact, the less money you make, the more $$ you can get back.

rojo's avatar

@cheebdragon What was ever the incentive to work hard? Most work because they like to eat.

cheebdragon's avatar

You don’t have to work to be able to eat. I know people who haven’t worked in 10–20 years that are doing just fine in life. It’s sad, but true.

janbb's avatar

@cheebdragon Dat true? Can I have a do over?

ucme's avatar

Three out of four american grandad’s admitted to storing Hillary in their wank bank, weakly deposits.

Jaxk's avatar

I look forward to this future paradise where no one has to work and everyone lives off the spoils of others. I’ don’t see it happening, nor do I see it as a paradise but what the hell, revolution comrades. Even our beloved Karl Marx said “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” There’s two parts to this, without the ‘from each’ part there is no ‘to each’ part. Everyone must contribute something if they are to survive otherwise there is nothing to distribute. Sometimes it is better to decide what you want to construct before you tear down what you have. Just a thought.

jerv's avatar

@Jaxk In post-Reagan America, it’s “From each according to their abilities, to each’s boss according to their whims”. But the policies that got us here (supply side economics) are the cornerstone of Conservative economic policy, so it stands to reason that Democrat interference is to blame than any inherent flaw in something that was discredited over a century ago, just as it’s easier to keep flogging the same dead horse instead of finding something with substance.

rojo's avatar

Please note, I did not call for the destruction; I pointed out that we both see the same problems. It is self-destructing in both our opinions. My solution is that we look for a different way of doing things while you want to go backwards to where we have come from. I mean it worked well the first time didn’t it? What was that old saying about insanity again?

Jaxk's avatar

I suppose it was my turn to react when you said: “Perhaps the entire system needs to be destroyed and allowed to restructure.” We have been deteriorating for some time and I see Hilary as a continuation of that decline. It would seem a change of course is in order and Hilary has not indicated anything different than what we’ve been doing. seems like the definition of insanity to me.

jerv's avatar

@Jaxk Looking at the news, especially from the states that take in more federal money than they give in taxes (ironically, Red states with Republican-majority governments and thus Conservative economic policies on the state level) I don’t see it that way. If you want to see the real cause of the decline, look at how those on your side of the fence have changed over the years.

Of course, at this point I don’t see how we can do anything other than what we have been doing unless we vote the extremist elements out of office. When you have a party that will link arms and march in lock-step on a course that will destroy our nation in order to get concessions on unrelated legislation and then blame those that you just extorted for being unwilling to compromise, there really isn’t much that can be done… unless we go the same route that the Romanians took back in 1989. Given a choice between “more of the same” and a total shake-up that leaves a large part of our government imprisoned, exiled or executed, I am not entirely sure that “more of the same” is such a bad thing.

Jaxk's avatar

@jerv – I notice you brought up this issue (a couple of time) of states that get more federal money than they pay in in taxes. Do you even know what that means? It’s primarily defense spending. Military bases and stuff like that. If the state has a small economy or a large military complex, more money will flow to that base to support it than it will return to the Government in taxes. Other than that you certainly have a firm grip on Hysteria.

jerv's avatar

@Jaxk Are you saying that all of our military bases and contractors are in Red states? I seem to recall there being quite a few in California, as well as a ton of defense contractors in places like Washington and Vermont, so I don’t think that’s it. Where there’s defense spending, there are generally jobs that pay well enough that unemployment and poverty levels are lower, whether it be working at the Exchange, machining parts for military aircraft, or otherwise supporting the military.
Besides, I was looking more at SNAP, TANF, SSI, and other social welfare spending. I’ve seen a trend across many sources over the years, and it’s seeing the same thing over and over and over that leads me to have the opinions that I do.

Jaxk's avatar

@jerv – ” there are generally jobs that pay well enough that unemployment and poverty levels are lower, whether it be working at the Exchange”, yes and who do you think pays for all that, the military. It all falls under military spending. SSI spending has nothing to do with the state economy, but it certainly affects places like Florida where people like to retire.

Just a note, California does have several military installations but it also has the largest state economy in the country, $334 billion. So even though they receive $238 billion in spending, it is dwarfed by the size of their economy. And just for drill California isn’t doing so hot with 7.1% unemployment.

cheebdragon's avatar

There aren’t that many active military bases left in CA, a lot of them have been closed. The only major base I can think of in Southern CA is Camp Pendleton, it’s not far from my house and they love doing their artillery training at night (sounds like a dinosaur is walking around in the distance, lol).

SmashTheState's avatar

@CugelTheClueless I used to work in the planning and review division of the social services department, and one of my co-workers had written her doctoral thesis on the 40/20/40 figure. She went back through decades of raw data to prove it. Bear in mind that the figure includes everyone of employable age, so it includes homemakers, the disabled, the retired, and so on. Everyone but children. During periods of recession (or during the Great Depression), the overall numbers remained the same, even though there were dramatic changes in which people were being paid to work—more women, less women, more old people, less old people, more unskilled, less unskilled, and so on.

Her thesis was published (she gave me a copy of her book, which is how I happened to find out about this), but I’m afraid I don’t recall the name of it.

janbb's avatar

Just read that Lincoln Chafee might be entering the race as a Demorcratic candidate. I will be following with interest; have respected him for years.

VenusFanelli's avatar

People shouldn’t support Hillary. She is a tyrant who wants to remove some freedoms. I doubt that the Democrats have any good candidates.

Pied_Pfeffer's avatar

Thanks for chiming in @VenusFanelli. How ironic that, as of today, the US currently has a republican president in place achieved over a 50% in eight days; far sooner than any other US president.

janbb's avatar

Because – now.

Darth_Algar's avatar

^^^ A convincing argument. Timely too.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther