If Hillary gets elected, and we begin to live in a 'shared society', should I just quit my job...............

Question

and collect money from the government so that I won't have to work and take care of someone else?

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070529/clinton_economy.html

I really think everyone should take time out to read the article. This socialist stuff is SCARY!

Answer 1

scary thought

Answer 2

Shared responsibility? This country needs more people to step up and take more PERSONAL responsibility for their actions, not less!

We ARE in it together, but why should the successful feel obligated or forced to help those who do not wish to help themselves? There are plenty of private charities out there who help those hardest on their luck, and do more than the government to get them on their feet and self-sufficient. Give a man a fish...

I know it is easy to just sit back and coast, or collect a check others have worked for, but IMHO, those people should be barred from voting while they are on the dole. They should have NO say in how government is run, since they will invariably favor a greater portion for themselves, and will put more strain on those who actually work for a living.

"Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

This is the scariest and most socialistic sentence in the article. The government (and specifically a democratic administration) talking about "fairness" and policies to regulate it means one thing: more taxes. Re-distribution of wealth. Micro-managing a free economy. Why does she assume:

1. That the system is broken?
2. That keeping taxes low for everyone is a BAD thing?
3. That people and the economy cannot prosper unless the government "does something"?

Typical liberal thinking: see who else we can blame or get to pick up the tab for our bleeding heart causes.

Then she is basically encouraging youth to NOT go to college? Saying it is OK to be a deadbeat live-at-home-until-you-are-35 loser? I suppose we should all "share the responsibility" of making people like that feel OK about being a leech with no goals or ambitions?

The last thing we need is another loophole allowing people to sit on their asses, getting their welfare checks and trying to scheme their way deeper into Uncle Sam's pockets.

Answer 3

That's how some democracies have failed in the past. People figure out that they can drain the treasury, they stop trying to advance themselves and improve their own lot, they take all the free money they can, and soon they money runs out. Instead of quitting your job, you'll need a second job just to pay your raised taxes. You're already working until May to pay your tax. Think how long you'll have to work to support the socialist government. I live in a european country that has 19% sales tax. Luckily my income is derived from America, so I don't have to pay their exhorbitant income tax, but I pay a lot of other taxes, while getting nothing in return besides infrastructure.

Answer 4

I see no problem with it.

You, on the other hand, can only parrot "socialist" slurs.

As much as cons incessantly whine about working people vs welfare recipients, I would think you'd take some time from your copy/pasting to read up on the Netherlands and how they do things over there.

In Amsterdam, for example, every "able bodied" person works. And if you don't have much in the way of job skills or if you're physically limited, you don't get to whine about the job you get. It might be the guide at a museum, but the bottom line is, YOU WORK.

And in return, every person over there has health insurance, and I'm not talking crappy insurance, either.

Take a break from trolling and do a little homework.

Answer 5

I read the article.
It's clear that you only read the headline, and made assumptions based on it.

The issues of policy that are brought up, are eliminating tax breaks for companies outsourcing jobs. What she is doing here, is trying to protect and create American jobs. That has little to do with socialism.

She also says there may need to be a cap on what CEOs make, since in 1965 they made 24 times what an average worker did, while now, they make 262 times what an average worker does, and that means the money that companies make is not being distributed fairly. And she's right. That's not socialist, that's just common sense, and unless you're a CEO, which you're definately not, because I'm fairly sure that CEO's can handle reading short articles, you shouldn't care.

She also mentions increasing support for alternative schools and community colleges.

And she mentioned affordable healthcare.

I know. It's just TERRIFYING!

Answer 6

If you want to live at a subsistence level by all means quit your job. Joe D has called it as it was and we hope will never be again. But the neo cons march in step with the corporations to cut worker benefits, job security and the right to sue for injuries, death and damages.

Answer 7

You will have to keep working to support our government---you just won't be allowed to own anything unless Comrade Hillary ok's it.

Answer 8

So back in the 60s, corporations accounted for 33% of the federal tax revenue. Now they account for 7%. Is it OK with you that large corporations get federal welfare? It's not OK with me.

If you can't understand the concept of a more democratic society, maybe you should move somewhere else...like the moon. I hear they have an "on your own" society there.

Answer 9

Oh, yes. I plan on quitting my job and staying home with my daughter. Then I can get paid to do nothing. NOT! That type of socialist forced entitlement mentality does not sit well with me.

Answer 10

She talked about the middle class having a bigger share of the pie, so I hardly see how her views are really socialist. Of course, if it were up to some people, only the superrich would have a say in how things are done.

Answer 11

Boy, where were you guys before Bush signed the Medicare Drug Plan? You have a socialist type president right now.