"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 have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
(Hillary at a fund raising speech in San Francisco; SFGate.com 6/28/2004.)
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/03/hillary-clinton-get-fcked.html
2007-10-11 03:25:13 · 32 answers · asked by DANCER 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
WAAAAAAAAAAIT A MIN!!!
DON'T YOU KNOW YOU CAN NOT ARGUE LOGIC WITH LIBS!!!
That just isn't fair!
2007-10-11 04:03:44 · answer #1 · answered by USMCstingray 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hillary Clinton is the most dangerous politician I have seen in my lifetime. She has a true socialist agenda, where people can "have too much" for their own good. Achievers are penalized in that system in order to give to those who prefer not have, or prefer not to earn rather. Any platform she runs on is in some way trying to buy a vote. It's all about what she can give you if you vote for her. That way of thinking is not good for the country, and I hope Americans do not fall for her tricks. Further, the Bush tax cuts benefit everyone, not only the wealthy. And get real, the wealthy are really the only people in America who pay taxes. I'm talking true income tax, not your medicare and social security which is for your own benefit, I mean actual income tax. The upper 10% of earners pay 90% of the taxes, so why does it offend people if they get a tax cut? They use the extra money to start businesses, create jobs, and grow the economy. Hillary is anxious to take all that away, and we will suffer....
2007-10-11 16:07:58 · answer #2 · answered by John C 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Frau Clinton isn't a Nazi, yet an intensive feminist socialist pretending to be a reasonable innovative. I call her vast Sister Hillary after the super Brother character interior the unconventional "1984." If elected she would be ready to tax the wealthy and the better center classification to pay for greater desirable government centers to the poor and center classification. The national debt will enhance, the commerce deficit will enhance, and the financial equipment will tank. Oh, and he or she would be ready to furnish amnesty to all the 20 to 38 million unlawful extraterrestrial beings in our u . s ..
2016-11-08 00:02:27 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Have you ever heard of a nation that gave tax cuts during a war? These tax cuts for the rich have cost America money needed to keep the country running, for example, fixing roads and bridges. They benefit only 1% while the rest of us must make up the difference. I believe that taking back those outragious tax cuts is the first thing any good candidate can pledge. I'm not a fan of Hillary but she is right to put an end to those cuts.
2007-10-11 03:33:30 · answer #4 · answered by diogenese_97 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I'm not the biggest fan of Hillary's but certainly due to different reasons than you. On the other hand, compared to bushCo, even my cat would be a viable alternative. As expected, individuals with low IQ are opposed when somebody it trying to "take away" their stupidity which they consider a major asset possibly because it's the only property they possess and the outside world is capable of identifying.
2007-10-11 03:30:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because she's a socialist. Her agenda is socialist. The best way to keep hard working people down is to take what they earn and give it to those who don't earn. She claims this is for the common good, but socialism has been proven not to be good for the common person.
She wants to increase the welfare state.
She wants to give your money to children of illegal aliens
She wants to screw up your retirement by having the government control 401k plans (because she hasn't learned from the social security fiasco that the government is a crook.
For a minimum of these reasons alone she is evil, in my opinion. Unfortunately, she is in bed with the mainstream media, which makes the truth about her a little more difficult to get out. Thank God for the new progressive media. at least the truth has a forum now, as compared to 15 to 20 years ago.
2007-10-11 03:35:26 · answer #6 · answered by Wayne G 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
I take it that you'd rather see the government go into debt that properly fund it?
Most Americans would prefer that the poor pay less taxes and the rich pay more taxes.
I'm not wild about Senator Clinton, but THAT is common sense.
As to the comment above about having read Marx ... my guess is that that answerer has NOT read Marx and knows not of what speaks.
Personally, I think we should ALL read Marx in some sociology class, if for no other reason to understand systems that don't work, what has been tried, what can be salvaged and what must be avoided.
Are you really so afraid of an idea that you refuse to understand it?
2007-10-11 03:29:08 · answer #7 · answered by Elana 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋
You answered your own questions its for the common good. The country as a whole needs to be reestablished and fixed, it will benefit all... Thanks you gave me another reason to vote for her too.
But if you are worried about the rich there are many ways for them to get away from paying taxes like hedge funds...
After reading other: I dont get it people love to betch about how things are going so bad, the government is doing bad, economy is bad but then they betch when someone wants to actually find a reallistic approach to fix it. Come on!! Thats why this country is the way it is... Look at Europe they do what Hillary suggested and their countries are cleaner, better education, healthier, economic classes aren't as wide, etc...
2007-10-11 03:30:30 · answer #8 · answered by 2legit2quit 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Hillary will be the worst thing EVER to happen to the USA and maybe the world. She will try to socialize health care and whatever else she can get her hands on. this will have suck a devastating effect on the global economy that it will take decades to repair the damage, if there is still a USA after she is done giving it away and not protecting what's left.
2007-10-11 03:33:11 · answer #9 · answered by Jon 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I don't think the money you earn dancing around a pole is going to be taxed anymore then it is now if Hillary is elected president.
2007-10-11 03:31:33 · answer #10 · answered by the_end_of_the_cons 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Why are we so selfish that it's only what's in our bank accounts that makes us like or dislike a candidate? She has a point -- not enough money is going to fund schools, teachers, police, etc., so why can't the rich give a little more than they have had to under the rich-people-favoring administration over the last 8 years?
2007-10-11 03:30:41 · answer #11 · answered by Chris H 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋