Clinton Proposes 401(k)s, Matching Funds

**PVVikeFan** · October 24th, 2007, 09:55 AM

After seeing the Clintons at their "best" for 8 years do you honestly have enough faith in her to lead this country??

**sup-rbeast** · October 24th, 2007, 10:04 AM

Well after the 8 years that followed..I'd have to say yeah...BTW, in SI yesterday I found out Bush was a cheerleader at Yale..lol..and according to CNN he also asked for another $43 billion to prolong the war in Iraq...Makes the Clintons look pretty tame IMO. At least they could straighten out the economy, and really, my wallet is all I worry about when I vote.

**PVVikeFan** · October 24th, 2007, 10:24 AM

I am not in any way a fan of W. I do not agree with most of what he has done. I agree that the last 8 years have not been such a great time. But you have to remember what happened just months into his first term. Not defending him at all, but I would hate to have faced what he did as the leader of this country. I would not envy anybody in that position.

If you worry about your wallet I can't understand all the support for Hillary. Honestly. If the worst possible thing happens and she is elected see what happens to your taxes. You can agree, disagree or whatever. Only time will tell.

BTW
Hillary could NEVER have been a cheerleader unless she attended a school for the blind. UGLY UGLY UGLY UGLY

**sup-rbeast** · October 24th, 2007, 10:41 AM

9-11 should have not resulted in an invasion of Iraq. W created his own problem there. The invasion of Afghanistan I totally supported..but he thinks that if he can keep the country in fear of terror that he can have his way. All in all he is prolly our WORST President since Hoover. My support isn't so much for Hillary as it is anti-Republican. But, regardless of the taxes taken out of my check, at least I'll know what I'm missing instead of wondering how much I'll be missing monthly at the gas pumps. I know taxes go up under dems...but I also know that everything else goes up under Reps...I can remember the inflation of the 80s...and I can also see that after 8 years of the current administration that college tuition is going out of reach for many, gas has nearly doubled its price per gallon...and every other product has gone through the roof. So, to me taxes aren't going to go up enough to offset everything else.

**PVVikeFan** · October 24th, 2007, 11:33 AM

Did gas prices go up because of W? Or anybody else in this country? No. That is a world wide situation. Actually China had more to do with that than anybody.

Should Saddam have been taken down? Absolutely. The man was a tyrant and a threat to world peace.

Should the United States have been the country to take him down? Probably not. It needed to be done but it could have been done differently. I am sure the American people don't have all the facts leading up to this war. I am still torn on this one. I hate war. Period. Been there, done that and hope nobody else ever has to go through it. I feel like we were really let down by the rest of the free world on this one, with the exception of Tony Blair. The people of Iraq need to stand up and take care of their own problems. But until that happens we are in a no win situation. We shouldn't stay but we can't leave. TERRIBLE situation.

**sup-rbeast** · October 24th, 2007, 11:37 AM

IMO the Bush administration has more to do with gas prices than they want to admit, or that we know. And, really, how was Saddam a threat to world peace. He's been there for years and we backed his war with Iraq...got pissed over his invasion of Kuwait, and besides that, all he did was keep a country under control that our government can't even manage. I think the reason the world didn't back us in Iraq is because they could see that Iraq wasn't the problem...and W decided to go it alone with small contigents from other countries. That lies on him, not the rest of the world.

**PVVikeFan** · October 24th, 2007, 12:06 PM

So we let Saddam build up more chemical and biological weapons than he already had? Sure, some say he didn't have them. But ask the Kurds. He used chemical weapons on his own people. He led the world to believe he had more weapons than he actually had. He led the world to believe he was close to having nuclear weapons. He had every opportunity to prevent what happened to him. He ignored UN Resolution after UN Resolution.

Of course, as it turned out he didn't have what he wanted the world to believe he had. But what if he had? Do you think he would not have sold any kind of weapon to the highest bidder? Yes, he was a threat to world peace. He murdered hundreds of thousands of people as the world stood by and did nothing. He invaded Iran and got his butt kicked. Then he invaded a country that was no match for him. Would he have stopped there? I doubt it very seriously. His past record certainly would not lead me to believe that.

I don't in any way support this war as it is going now. If we were going to do it we should have done it full force. Politicians can't win wars but they certainly can lose tham. We evidently didn't learn anything from Vietnam because that is exactly what we are faced with again.

And one thing a lot of people seem to forget is that Bush had enough support from Congress and the Senate to go to war. Flipper Kerry supported the war before he denied doing it. Hillary supported the war and then changed her mind after it became unpopular. Actually at one time the vast majority of the American people supported the war. That support started dropping as the war began to drag on. But the war is dragging on because it is being run by politicians more than the military.

**sup-rbeast** · October 24th, 2007, 12:30 PM

After all the lies the government fed us before the Iraq War as justification, I'll believe Saddam had bio and chemical weapons when I see em. BTW, Iraq held Iran at bay in the middle east..which isn't a bad thing.

**PVVikeFan** · October 24th, 2007, 01:58 PM

Saddam definately did have the biological and chemical weapons. He used them in the Iraq/Iran war and he also used them on his own people. Do you not remember seeing our troops destroy them as they were found?

At the time of the Iraq/Iran war Iraq had the 3rd largest military in the world. And since it was Iraq that invaded Iran I wouldn't say they held Iran at bay. Seems like it was the other way around. Never the less, he did invade a weaker country after he couldn't do anything with Iran.

**sup-rbeast** · October 24th, 2007, 02:12 PM

Who "sponsored" and funded Saddam's invasion into Iran...the US. So, we in effect, used Saddam to keep Iran at bay. Did we care then what kind of weapons he used?..no. Who stood by idly as he gassed his own people?..we did. Who decided not to overthrow Saddam at the end of Desert Storm in fear that Iraq would become unstable and throw the Middle East into war?..W's daddy decided not to. Who still hasn't found bio or chemical weapons in Iraq even after 2 wars in which we feared they'd be used but never were?..we haven't. The USA saw Saddam as a puppet used to quell Iran's dominance in the Middle East. When he invaded Kuwait (Which most Iraqis still claim as theirs and have for decades) the USA got caught in a game of politics vs. what the world expected the US to do and the man they had backed for years. Bush 1 decided to do what the world expected, but realized he was in too deep to overthrow Saddam...sadly, his son isn't as smart.