Questions for our American friends

[Rogerbh]

Originally Posted by ultimatewarlord

How is Chelsea Clinton regarded in the U.S.A. ....... if nobody really cared or gave her much thought.

As I recall, the most I ever heard of her as a topic of conversation was when Saturday Night Live made fun of her looks - I believe in a Wayne's World sketch - when comparing her to the Gore daughters. They apologized for insulting the teenage Chelsea as there was a public uproar over dragging her into the spotlight. http://gawker.com/5002985/you-too-wi...helsea-clinton

[ultimatewarlord]

Originally Posted by Rogerbh

As I recall, the most I ever heard of her as a topic of conversation was when Saturday Night Live made fun of her looks - I believe in a Wayne's World sketch - when comparing her to the Gore daughters. They apologized for insulting the teenage Chelsea as there was a public uproar over dragging her into the spotlight. http://gawker.com/5002985/you-too-wi...helsea-clinton

I remember the attitude towards her when she was a teenager and fairly gawky looking. I thought it was out of order then and she has certainly blossomed. From what I've seen recently I'd equate her to Sarah Ferguson. IE. She is promoted above her abilities purely through her connections. Not the first to have that happen Not the last.

[philll_77]

Originally Posted by ultimatewarlord

I remember the attitude towards her when she was a teenager and fairly gawky looking. I thought it was out of order then and she has certainly blossomed. From what I've seen recently I'd equate her to Sarah Ferguson. IE. She is promoted above her abilities purely through her connections. Not the first to have that happen Not the last.

I'd much rather she was in charge than Trump Jr.

[Sir Honkers]

Originally Posted by ultimatewarlord

IE. She is promoted above her abilities purely through her connections. Not the first to have that happen Not the last.

The Trump spratlings being cases in point...or so it seems to an outsider looking at your Presidential joke in disbelief.

[Decadence]

Originally Posted by ultimatewarlord

This may be a question that is separated by political beliefs which is something I'm hoping can be avoided. How is Chelsea Clinton regarded in the U.S.A. I ask this because I am currently watching a report by Tucker Carlson(kneels in praise) talking about how she is being accused of plagiarism over a childrens book she has written. Carlson derides her achievements pretty hilariously to be fair but I wondered if it was a commonly held feeling or if nobody really cared or gave her much thought.

For me, she's famous for being famous. Like those God-awful Kardashians. When her folks occupied the white house, she was in the background and didn't garner a lot of attention. It was only afterwards that she was trying to go places based on her name. Clinton Foundation aside, there was a time when a network (NBC) paid her $600,000 to be a "journalist"... that didn't work out. She's tried her hand at being an author, only to sell fewer books than her mother. Like her parents, she seems determined to try and remain relevant even tho most of us wish they'd all just fade away.

Originally Posted by diamelsx

This. Only worry about if she will be forced on the voters like her mother.

Well said.

Originally Posted by Brian249x

She seems to be an intelligent young woman. Hopefully, she is smart enough to avoid bringing her family into the cesspool. Caroline Kennedy ought to be her role model.

Based on some of Chelsea's tweets, I'm not so sure of her intellectual prowess..

Caroline Kennedy did a great job of remaining out of the spotlight for years. Really didn't see the need to use her last name to promote an agenda and by most accounts was content being a mother and raising her kids. Then, when Hillary was named Secretary of State in 2009, they tried to get her to run for US Senator from New York.

Either she didn't want to do it, or she wasn't equipped to campaign, face the media, etc., because that notion didn't last long. I recall her tv appearances were awkward and she didn't come off well. Ever since, the only time her name is mentioned is for an ambassador-type position and even that never materialized under 8 years of the Obama administration.

There are some past "first kids" that knew the value of shunning the limelight-- Amy Carter, the Bush twins, and even the two Obama girls all seem to have gone out of there way to avoid the spotlight and try and live a normal, private life.

Chelsea could learn from them.

[Roubignol]

I don't know if this question was already asked, but don't you think that your country would invest less money in the army and transfer this money to socially improve your society?

[Decadence]

Originally Posted by ;4099482

don't you think that your country would invest less money in the army and transfer this money to socially improve your society?

Oh lord… there is so much wrong with that I’ll try and explain it even so you can understand it. I hope it goes without saying the government has no money until it confiscates it from someone who actually earned it.

The United States budget has 2 parts: mandatory and discretionary spending. In 2015, the total US federal budget was 3.8 TRILLION dollars.

Mandatory Spending – 2.45 Trillion (65% of total federal budget):
Pays for social security, medicaid, health subsidies, welfare, unemployment, food stamps, etc., and the bureaucracy to administer it.

Discretionary Spending – 1.11 Trillion (29% of total budget):
Pays for the military, education, agriculture, science, paying government workers, housing, international affairs, energy, environment, science, transportation, etc.

Interest on the national debt - 229 Billion (6% of total budget).

The US already spends two-thirds of its budget on social programs. Military spending is less than half of all discretionary spending which is only 29% of all spending in total. Hence, we already spend at least FIVE TIMES more on social engineering as we do on the military. It’s enough.

Some of us have learned over the years that throwing money (“investing”) at a social problem doesn’t solve it. I point you to Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” and it’s war on poverty. All it did was create a welfare state. 50 years and 22 trillion dollars later, the same percentage of people are living at the “poverty” level… except we have more than 100 million more people in the country now than we did in 1965… so the number has actually gone up substantially. 22 trillion dollars, adjusted for inflation, is more than THREE TIMES the cost of all US military wars since the American Revolution.

AND.. it’s no secret that in America, people living in “poverty” have smart phones, flat screens, Air Jordans, whatever…

and you wanna suggest that we need to spend more ("invest") on this shit?

[Rogerbh]

I would rather the government spend less on the military and less on the public welfare. Both usually are wasted. Try to payoff the debt so that our future citizens aren't left with this huge problem in the future. A pipe dream at best.

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by Decadence

Oh lord… there is so much wrong with that I’ll try and explain it even so you can understand it. I hope it goes without saying the government has no money until it confiscates it from someone who actually earned it.

The United States budget has 2 parts: mandatory and discretionary spending. In 2015, the total US federal budget was 3.8 TRILLION dollars.

Mandatory Spending – 2.45 Trillion (65% of total federal budget):
Pays for social security, medicaid, health subsidies, welfare, unemployment, food stamps, etc., and the bureaucracy to administer it.

Discretionary Spending – 1.11 Trillion (29% of total budget):
Pays for the military, education, agriculture, science, paying government workers, housing, international affairs, energy, environment, science, transportation, etc.

Interest on the national debt - 229 Billion (6% of total budget).

The US already spends two-thirds of its budget on social programs. Military spending is less than half of all discretionary spending which is only 29% of all spending in total. Hence, we already spend at least FIVE TIMES more on social engineering as we do on the military. It’s enough.

Some of us have learned over the years that throwing money (“investing”) at a social problem doesn’t solve it. I point you to Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” and it’s war on poverty. All it did was create a welfare state. 50 years and 22 trillion dollars later, the same percentage of people are living at the “poverty” level… except we have more than 100 million more people in the country now than we did in 1965… so the number has actually gone up substantially. 22 trillion dollars, adjusted for inflation, is more than THREE TIMES the cost of all US military wars since the American Revolution.

AND.. it’s no secret that in America, people living in “poverty” have smart phones, flat screens, Air Jordans, whatever…

and you wanna suggest that we need to spend more ("invest") on this shit?

The US - A "Welfare" State ???
(The numbers aren't actual (most unfortunately to 2008) , but the tendency is still visible.)
















Those numbers are a catastrophe for the "average workers" in a comparison, but unfortunately it's the same - more ore less - all over the world, not only in the US - admitted.



Of course a state should endeavour to a equation - that as nearly no one needs a welfare - but most governments only talk about to lull their citizens and no further action appears.
And owning a flat-screen or a smart phone (in a industrial state) is not really a criterion of a social poverty. .

[ultimatewarlord]

What is the opinion of the average American of Maxine Waters? The few bits I've seen and read about her lead me to believe that she is deeply untrustworthy, a racist woman and totally unfit for office. But who am I to judge? I merely do.