By taking what hard working people make
and giveing it to those who choose not to work?
2006-06-29 05:55:25 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Other - Social Science
Yes - She already designed a socialist health care system that birthed the dreaded HMO even though it was voted down. I don't trust her and I think we need a lot of change in D.C.
We are 8 trillion in debt and the politicians did it to us. Let get some responsible people in office next time.
2006-06-29 08:39:32 · answer #1 · answered by coolforbeer 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The welfare queen stereotype is as much a myth as it is racist.
Truth of the matter is, we are losing all our jobs partly due to the fact that the rest of the world has government-paid medical care.
However, here in the US, businesses have to cover the cost of medical insurance, which as a for-profit endeavor, the least efficient way to do things--money has to go to shareholders and executives, and progressively taken away from health care workers.
If anybody has taken money from working people, it has been the military industrial complex. Iraq will have cost $500 billion dollars by the end of 2007. Yet we have not captured bin Laden, nor have we made the US safer.
We could have gotten bin Laden on the cheap in Tora Bora in December 2001, but we decided to drop million dollar bombs that didn't get the job done, but made the military dudes richer.
2006-06-29 13:23:59 · answer #2 · answered by Professor Campos 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
lol. America and socialist no way match. Hillary could make America a little more fair to all, but pure socialism is dead worldwide! For example, I was appauled - and anyone in europe would be, I guess - to see on Yahoo!answers that a pregnant woman in USA could not get medical care becuse she was in a new job less than 2 months!
2006-06-29 13:02:25 · answer #3 · answered by cpinatsi 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We are already socialist in many ways. We expect the government to fund most social programs (education, health care, retirement, etc.) The main difference is we are unwilling to pay for those programs like the citizens of "socialist" countries do. Would it be such a bad thing if we accepted a little more "socialism" and funded social programs to a level where they could work for everyone?
2006-07-06 09:01:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Isn't that what George Bush has done -- he has taken from those who work and given it to those who do not work -- the very, very rich who don't have to work, who inherited their monies.
As I recall, the Republicans have reduced taxes on the very, very rich significantly, have now extended the no tax on inheritance on the those whose estates are over $8 million (?) thereby bypassing the capital gains tax they would have paid.
With these taxes, the Democrats won't have to tax the middle class to pay for social programs.
2006-06-29 13:04:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, this is just a lie told to get you to vote Republican or Libertarian.
2006-06-29 14:33:24 · answer #6 · answered by The angels have the phone box. 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know, but I hear she likes to be refer to as chairman Clinton.
2006-06-29 14:24:50 · answer #7 · answered by chops1929 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hillary is stupid
2006-06-29 13:30:34 · answer #8 · answered by Nick 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
we don't care what she thinks, just make sure you don't vote for her
2006-06-29 13:02:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋