English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

quoting...
it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity

quote addt'l
Clinton also said she would help people save more money by expanding and simplifying the earned income tax credit; create new jobs by pursuing energy independence; and ensure that every American has affordable health insurance.

1.) What's wrong with an on your own society? I dont want or need a sociast state to tell me to share what I produce. Isnt that in reality the function of a free market free of government intervention? Ive been on my own for most 49 years and dont want or need Billary to direct my finances.

2.) Here's a better and more effective way to save people money. ELIMINATE the earned income credit, go to a flat tax and forget socialized health insurance. Its a nice pipe dream but look no farther than Canada or Britian to see what mess the government makes of it.
3.) BUSINESS not governemt creates jobs.
Hillary/gotta liver her

2007-05-29 09:45:56 · 6 answers · asked by koalatcomics 7 in Social Science Economics

Hey Allen. Ever heard of Lutheran Social Services, United Way Information and referral. Its called a charitable institution and the job is to take care of these types of situations. They used to work until Al Gore and the liberals took away the tax credits. And im supposed to feel poltically correct about replacing the money the liberals took away...sorry pal, i dont think so.

2007-05-29 12:14:17 · update #1

6 answers

You hit the nail on the head. We started on the slippery slope toward socialism when the government got involved in a national retirement system (the great pyramid scheme known as Social Security), medicare, the prescription drug program and now, medicine. I'm an older guy and I am against taking more of the individual's labor value and giving it to people who didn't earn it. I don't expect anyone to look out for me but me. I'd give up my Social Security benefits tomorrow if they want to scrap the program. I don't want to see future generations strapped with the debt load that our government (Democrats and Republicans, take you pick of which scum you prefer) is deferring for the sake of staying in power.

2007-05-29 10:07:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

on the properly suited area there could be basically some those with each and all of the wealth all of us else could be in elementary slavery to companies and finally companies will grow to be the government on the left that makes it so as that the government has somewhat some ability that's commonly abused by potential of politicians yet in the thought of the social contract government has an criminal duty to its human beings and the human beings to there government that we supply them there ability and that they are as important as us yet on the different hand companies and agencies basically have an criminal duty to fill there wallet whilst others are broke and in many circumstances are somewhat greater grasping than governments additionally there have been some capitalist governments that slaughter there human beings and did terrible crimes against humanity Chile after the CIA backed protection rigidity coup time-honored Augusto Pinochet killed lots of his own human beings and he became right into a rightist yet another occasion became into time-honored Batista of cuba he became into supported by potential human beings of a basically for being capitalist so in experience Capitalist a lot of circumstances they don't bodily do the killing yet they're many of the time the reason and starters of awful crimes incountry'ss and aren'tt Rwanda and Sudan capitalist u . s .'s they the two had important genocides that have claimed over a million million commonly harmless lives. and us of a on my own can attributed to the deaths of in all probability hundreds of thousands with thereindirectlyy involvement in different u . s .'s politics and affairs basically with the aid of fact there diffrent from them

2016-10-30 03:12:56 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

So, you are saying that if a family can't afford health insurance for their children, or if their employer does not provide it, we should just let them be?

I'm also sort of curious if you went to a public school? If so, do you think that was a good idea? Or, should the purchase of education be up to individual families, regardless of their ability to afford it?

When did the United Way ever provide health insurance to the poor? Must have missed that......

2007-05-29 09:54:05 · answer #3 · answered by Allan 6 · 1 1

Shared prosperity lives in Cuba and is just taking hold in Venezuela.

We already have health care for the poor. It already gets abused. We don't need a bigger system so it can support even more abuse.

2007-05-30 03:35:50 · answer #4 · answered by brain_hanger 2 · 0 2

"Shared Prosperity" is a nice way of saying:
"Meet your new master, the government."

If you want to see the end result of shard prosperity, the city of New Orleans is a great example. They shared their poverty equally.
.

2007-05-29 11:47:39 · answer #5 · answered by Zak 5 · 2 4

koalatcomics, you've demostrated Hillary has some social policies, but I don't see what's "naked", "raw" or "extreme" about them.

2007-05-29 10:00:26 · answer #6 · answered by Henry R 2 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers