Just where is Hillary getting the money for all of this from?
Could it be from John Q. Public?
2007-10-09
08:27:15
·
21 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Henry,
You are badly mistaken my friend, I am very interested and would LOVE to discuss this. By all means, please elaborate and provide any material you feel relevant.
2007-10-09
08:37:40 ·
update #1
Additionally, I HAVE taken an issue.
Here it is (I guess you didn't do any inductive reasoning):
NO SOCIALISM. PERIOD!
Pretty simple actually.
2007-10-09
08:56:36 ·
update #2
OK we all know that Republicans favor heavy industries and big corporations, bcoz they create jobs, and jobs will bring in more Taxes and so on. And they don't believe in public spending. That's fine no problem with that for now.
On the other hand Democrats tend to do more in public benefits, and the affairs of each individual member of society, is what they favor more. That's OK too, for now.
But for over a century this country has progressed and moved forward, bcoz this two different ideology some how have balanced each other out, have worked to keep the majority of the people happy, and moving forward.
Pushing one side too much will disturb the equilibrium and will break fabric of the society. Just think if this benefits are cut or reduced tremendously, what Will happen.
Or the other way spend it all in welfare and none in the industries or defense creating no jobs. It is easy to see both cases will bring disaster to this nation.
Best Regards.
2007-10-11 01:44:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by ? 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
In this book I'm reading about Bill Clinton's first term it says that his term got off to a bad start partly because many of the proposals he made for new programs simply couldn't be implemented and take place alongside the defecit reduction which was neccessary. The next President will inherit a defecit, so they will need to likely put some of their programs aside to be able to deal with the defecit and the Iraq War and all of the money that it continues to cost.
2007-10-09 08:32:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by Super Tuesday 3
·
3⤊
0⤋
It's easy, just raise taxes, but only on the following;
-The rich cigar smoking, top hat wearing aristocratic pigs who are holding the poor little guy down.
-The evil cigarette smoking, cancer spreading rednecks
-The big mean, heartless oil companies who will be sure not to pass it along to the average motorist.
She is clearly trying to buy the votes of people who don't understand where the government gets it's money, (or at least how inefficient they are with it), or who don't care because they don't contribute to the government coffers. If she becomes president, I think I may aspire to be a member of the low income elite to reap the best rewards.
2007-10-09 09:07:21
·
answer #3
·
answered by heavysarcasm 4
·
4⤊
1⤋
It should not be. there's a regulation on the books aboutr denying scientific care, a Federal regulation. this variety of factor would desire to be unlawful. Granted, it would not happen often, yet there are recorded circumstances of infants who proceed to exist abortion. human beings handle their dogs greater perfect than this, this is ridiculous. this is the effect of legalizing abotion although, it became into between the arguments against it, that it could make human beings callous. Obama is a working occasion. be conscious on your first answerer: You did no longer examine . this is not any longer approximately abortion in any respect. that's relating to the infants who proceed to exist abortion and denying them scientific care. They bypass away them on the surgical table, walk out of the room, and are available returned on occasion to make certain in the event that they have died. wayward: this is actuality. you are able to examine the Illinois Sentate balloting checklist in this bill. The bill meant to make it mandatory that those infants acquire scientific care. Obama did no longer even vote his typical modern in this one. He voted an unequivocal NO.
2016-10-08 22:01:43
·
answer #4
·
answered by misconis 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I see no problem with John Q. Public getting the benefits from his own tax dollars.
As opposed to the bush regime's gleeful financing of a trillion-dollar war, the obscene CEO salaries hatched in a climate of "greed above all", and the criminal way that Corporate Welfare has been happily, generously given -- to the most successful companies in the world. FREE money. OUR money. To Big Business. There is no excuse for it.
I say it's John Q. Public's day.
2007-10-09 08:33:28
·
answer #5
·
answered by Crossing the Rubicon 4
·
3⤊
4⤋
She has withdrawn her statement of 5K for every baby.
And yes all 3 proposals were to come from John Q. Public but all three were only supposed to come from the "rish" John Q. Public.
I hope Edwards and Obama seriosly start attacking her on these proposals.
2007-10-09 08:33:42
·
answer #6
·
answered by labken1817 6
·
4⤊
2⤋
Hmmmmm....maybe she plans to get it from the same pile the money for the Iraq war comes from........oh....you mean their isnt a pile and we've bporrowed all that money?????....how can that be with the fiscally responsible republicans controlling the government?
The gaul of a politician to actually propose a way to pay for their programs. They should just follow Bushes lead and leave it for future generations to pay for
2007-10-09 08:36:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
4⤋
or heres obomma
"why I support a free go cart for every amurican child"
why if im elected im looking onto free dominoes pizza every day for school lunch "
i love the dems and their madness
and the dumbells who buy into their bs
2007-10-09 08:53:46
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
HILLARY CLINTON IS A BS'ER......THAT WITCH IS UP TO SOMETHING AN FOR SURE ITS ROTTEN!.......I HAVE HER EXACT WORD SHE SAID ON 6/28/2004........" MANY OF YOU ARE WELL ENOUGH OFF THAT [PRESIDENT BUSH'S] TAX CUTS MAY HAVE HELPED YOU...WE'RE SAYING THAT FOR AMERICA TO GET BACK ON TRACK, WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO CUT THAT SHORT AND NOT GIVE IT TO YOU...WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THINGS AWAY FROM YOU ON BEHALF OF THE COMMON GOOD."
2007-10-09 10:28:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 3
·
4⤊
1⤋
She has already said she will raise taxes on the rich. However, a democrats idea of rich and my idea of rich are two completely different ideas.
2007-10-09 08:35:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋