Why is Hillary against deficit spending?

Question

but for additional spending, such as $5,000 for each child, and universal health care? Is she talking out both sides of her mouth?

lame - how can it NOT increase the deficit, as both will cost additional funds to run?

reality - where do you think the $5,000 is going to come from?

steve - read the question - never said spending was bad, but you can't be for and against it at the same time, she confuses me...

Mymystery - you ask what I would prefer? How about raising your own children instead of coming in my pocket for it. Wake up!

charlie - you are saying that keeping $5000 is killing kids? What meds are you on, and where can I get some?

Answer 1

Another American has figured it out. Hillary is an idiot !

I truly believe this time she stepped on her dummy. Even those who were die hard Hillary supporters are asking themselves, "What is this person trying to do, buy votes with taxpayers money ?"

It's almost looks like she is taking some strategy out of Russia's playbook, by paying white Russians to have more babies.

Hillary, if you're awake in there, you should be informed that Americans don't have a problem birthing children. If Americans need to formally educate their children, five grand won't cut it, but maybe one hundred grand will, hell if all you're doing is buying votes, promise them one hundred grand. In either case, you will never deliver and neither will the federal government.

Will you stop with these off the wall ideas your handlers keep coming up with, it's really making you look desperate !

Answer 2

Not only does she talk out of both sides of her mouth, she also blows smoke out of her @$$!

Universal health care will add TRILLIONS to the national deficit on top of the upcoming bankruptcy Medicare and Social Security. $5,000 per child will just be the icing on the cake.

If anyone out there thinks that if and when the Dimmocraps get into the oval orifice, the national debt will be decreased, or the size of government will get smaller, you are a fool!

Everyone is angry at the Repooplicraps for increasing government and the deficit while they were running the show, but history shows that they are PIKERS when compared to the Dimmocraps and their social programs for increasing government spending.

And since the government creates NOTHING, where do you think that this money will come from?? That's right, baby ... bend over and SMILE while that vacuum pump is stuck into your wallet.

Answer 3

How about taking $5000 for every child born in the US and paying down the deficit instead? Sorry, but if I was on the verge of bankrupcy, I would not run out and get a new Lexus. Her plan makes no sense. And how many illegals are gonna run over here 9 mos preg, have the baby and claim a right to their 5 grand. I dont wanna pay for that crap.

Answer 4

Well, first, you're expecting Hillary to say anything that you can hold her on. She won't do that. If Hillary's talking, you'd be better served picking your nose. You'll get more and better information.

But no, if this is the case, she wouldn't be talking out of both sides of her mouth. She would spend the money and raise taxes to pay for it. But not on everyone, just the most productive and successful in our society. She's a big supporter of spending other people's money. But then, she IS a 'progressive'.

Answer 5

She is NOT against deficit spending. When Lick my Willy was in the oval office, he spent $400 million per year in deficit, and she never said a mumbling word (the largest deficit in history at that time). She is a habitual liar. But libs feel that "truth" is saying whatever advances their socialism. For them,
commoners, like you and I are the enemy. We aren't smart enough to know how to run our government- and a whole lot of libs are going to prove, once again, that she is right.
________________________________________
KrazyKyngeKorny(Krazy, not stupid)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Answer 6

Hillary is already snared in her own tangled web, she created and trying to enforce socialism by talking out of both sides of her mouth. Apparently she has a line of bs for each state or crowd.

Health Care: "What about the children?" Whenever Democrats drag out that perennial question, you know Republicans are about to get rolled. That's the case with the children's health care bill the House just passed.


The bill that would more than double current spending on children's health care to $60 billion over the next five years passed by a surprising 265 to 159 vote late Tuesday, with 45 GOP representatives in favor. Just a month ago, the bill could only muster support from a lonely five Republicans.

What happened? Did the GOP suddenly realize the merit of the bill, and have a change of heart? Hardly. They just feared being baited in next year's elections by Democratic challengers taunting them for being "anti-children" which they are not.

As Democrat Charles Rangel of New York noted, when lawmakers go back to their districts, "the question is, were you with the kids or were you not?" Some Republicans won't have an answer. Of course the Democrats want admit that this will also take away from Seniors Benefits.

Too bad. The only hope now is that President Bush will follow through on his threat to veto it. Because 290 votes would be needed to override a veto, it looks like he might succeed.

In doing so, Bush will be vilified and excoriated for being against children. But let's look at this bill without blinders, shall we?

As passed by the House, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP, will create a major new middle-class entitlement even as we face looming national bankruptcy from our $50.5 trillion (yes, you read that number right) in planned spending under Social Security and Medicare.

Today, some 6.6 million kids are covered under SCHIP, at a cost of about $25 billion over five years. The new bill raises that to 9 million kids covered, at a cost of $60 billion. It pays for it with a 61-cent hike in the tobacco tax.

Sounds good, except that tax will hit the poor hardest. And those it helps are not poor. Under the new bill, families earning $83,000 a year could be eligible. If this bill were targeted at the poor, President Bush and the Republicans wouldn't oppose it. But it isn't. It's a new, radically expanded middle-class entitlement.

That, by the way, includes families like the Siravos of New Jersey, profiled recently by Bloomberg News. The Siravos earn $56,000 a year, own their own home and drive two used cars. They also pay $9,000 a year to send their only child to a private school.

Yes, things are a bit tight for the Siravos, as with many American families. But should the working poor subsidize health care for the Siravos and other middle-class families?

And should those who, unlike the Siravos, send their kids to public schools but buy health insurance, now do the opposite?

That's the problem — SCHIP's expansion sets up perverse incentives, such as encouraging those with private insurance to dump it in favor of subsidized care. This isn't just talk. According to health care economists David Cutler and Jonathan Gruber, for every 10 children enrolled in SCHIP, six drop their private insurance.

There are other problems. For instance, far from being "about the children," SCHIP already covers 670,000 adults. The new law will increase that. Thanks to loopholes, illegal aliens are eligible too.

Add it all up, and SCHIP's costs will be much, much higher than the $60 billion forecast — just as happened with Medicare.

Ironically, a Republican-controlled Congress created SCHIP in 1997 to help the poor — those up to 200% of the poverty level.

But Democrats, along with many state governors, now want to expand that to up to 400% of the poverty rate — or $83,000 for a family of four. That's upper-middle-class, not poor.

This is a very bad, very cynical bill, disguised as an effort to help children. If it becomes law, spending will soar and we will have taken another foolish step down the road to a poorly run, expensive and inefficient nationalized health care system.

President Bush would be right to veto it.

If Bush does not veto this, be prepared for your taxes to triple.

Answer 7

For the same reason the bank wont let you bounce checks. Ever look into student loans? How much money do you think the government is owed just on those loans? The $5,000 is not a freebe you must graduate from high school. I think its a good incentive for children to become educated. Would you prefer uneducated hillbillies? Which side of your mouth are you talking out of?

Many students default on thier student loans. Most of which are $20,000 or more so that money would be saved immediatly. You dont sound to happy to me. b is more like it

Answer 8

I agree, why spend $5000 on a child when we can save a stem cell...oh, where are our priorities. big jon should know the last two times the budget was balanced was under Democrats, not Republi (steal money from you and give it to me)cans. But us Republicans have family values, so let the kids die

Answer 9

Hillary Clinton must not propose expenses that the national budget could not afford. Instead, establish other ways to help the people without pegging additional taxes.

VOTE for your choice as US President on my 360 degrees blog and know who will likely win.

Answer 10

What does one have to do with the other? Just because she wants health care does not mean it has to be paid for by increasing the deficit...