George Bush gave only 300 dollars just to tax payers, the Dems critisized him for it?
Both partys have me confused the Republicans think its okay to give away money in the form of tax breaks but the Dems oppose that. The Dems thinks its okay to give away money in cash Which the Republicans oppose. What's the difference? It's still giving away money. It's like an watching an Abbot and Costello routine.
2007-11-11 13:05:35 · 9 answers · asked by wisemancumth 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Apparently you didn't hear that it wasn't cash, it was a bond. The idea was that by the time the child was old enough to go to college, the bond would help pay the tuition.
The other factor was that the college bond would help children of the not-rich get educated and thus create a better life for themselves. The tax break went to very wealthy people who didn't need it.
It seems to me that you might benefit from reading more widely and listening to news from a variety of sources. Then analyze everything you've learned and form your own opinion. Then you won't be so confused.
2007-11-11 13:21:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Giving each and every baby $5000 doesn't upload as a lot because the TRILLIONS Bush has squandered on an unconstitutional, unlawful, unjustifiable, immoral 'conflict' all so as that a handful of wealthy elitists, industrialists and capacity brokers can change into wealthier and extra sensible. Hillary's theory is 'raw' - there desires to be some regulations: a) the youngster must be born of a union between 2 U.S. electorate; b) the youngster's relatives must have a relatives earnings now to not exceed the median earnings of the country; c) the money ought to no longer be accessible to the youngster till its twenty fifth birthday, except for practise applications or medical emergencies; d) Banks ought to no longer be allowed to position in writing - or tamper with - the regulations basically so that they generate extra earnings for his or her shareholders; e) No destiny administration or Congress ought to re-write the regulations to the great factor about economic pastimes. -RKO- 09/30/07
2016-10-24 01:46:19 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I understand your point but I must point out that the $5000 for every child was not originally Hillary's idea. It had been mentioned in a New York newspaper a few months earlier and had actually been tried over in Europe a few years ago. The idea was dropped by Hillary and never made a part of her official program. (Whatever that is?)
2007-11-11 13:44:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where do you think they're going to get this money? They'll be taxing us too death, to re-coup it all, Plus some. I'd rather have less & have the tax breaks. Hilary just tells everyone what she thinks they want to hear, but there is seldom ever anything free, without strings attached to it.
2007-11-11 13:16:04 · answer #4 · answered by srbyn1 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's inflation votes are not cheap now. In the 30's it was a chicken in every pot. Now it's $5000 and free medical care and we will not be taxed to pay for it ......... RIGHT.
2007-11-11 13:14:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Don't confuse promises made during campaigns with actions taken after the election. They lie to get your vote, then blame the other party for their lack of follow through. Welcome to modern politics!
2007-11-11 13:11:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
yeah, far better to WASTE $12 billion a month in iraq than to spend it here on americans.
2007-11-11 13:15:12 · answer #7 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The $300.00 was to taxes the$5,000.was to come out of your pocket,not hers. She love pledging your money.
2007-11-11 13:10:46 · answer #8 · answered by ♥ Mel 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
She stupid.
2007-11-11 13:11:30 · answer #9 · answered by The prophet of DOOM 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋