correct? I mean, she wants to tax tax tax those who already pay more taxes than anyone (the wealthy) and redistribute money for the "victims" in this society. Am I correct on this, or can someone please ~ without insult ~ set me straight?
2007-12-13 03:43:44 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Wrongo BeardedDog person, the wealthy pay most of the taxes in this country...check it out sometime :)
2007-12-13 05:16:15 · update #1
Seth, do you PROMISE?
2007-12-14 01:22:56 · update #2
Yes, Hillary wants to create a socialist society, but her ideas about redistribution of wealth are only the tip of the iceberg. What she advocates more than anything is government control over virtually every aspect of our lives. Taxing the rich and giving more to the poor is the government telling us how hard we can work and how much money we can make before we will be penalized by Big Brother for having more than the masses. Universal health care is the government telling us which doctors we can/cannot see and what drugs or medical treatment we can/cannot get. Removing all mention of The Bible or the name Jesus Christ from government buildings and schools is the government telling us we really cannot worship God the Father Almighty; plain and simple.
Hillary is a dangerous individual, and the reason she should never be allowed to be the leader of the free world is she is after one thing -- POWER. If she succeeds in turning the U.S. into a socialist state, she will not suffer one iota because she'll be the one in charge. But anyone she doesn't like and anyone who disagrees with her would suffer if she sat in the Oval Office.
2007-12-13 04:11:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Do you know what a socialist society is? In a socialist society the government controls the property. In this society is that so different, you don't really own your own home. Try not paying your property taxes and see if you really your own property. As for victims, if you are not worth at least $50 million the government doesn't care about you anyway. I think it is unfair that the people that have really old money never had to work for it because they were given an unfair advantage. I admire Oprah W. because she amassed her fortunes on her own. But do you really think Paris and Nicky Hilton would be anything less that prostitutes if their father didn't leave them with millions.
2007-12-13 04:02:20 · answer #2 · answered by King Midas 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You know, I never hear poor people whining about their taxes, when really the difference in the quality of life is much more immediate for them. Only rich people- those who've benefited the most from our society- balk at paying back into it. What's the deal with that?
No one has started any sort of Socialist society, nor has anyone tried. It's just more excuses from the rich, whining because they don't want to pay their taxes.
They SHOULD pay the most, but they don't.
2007-12-13 03:55:23 · answer #3 · answered by Beardog 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
If that's "socialist"... would it be fair to call Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy "fascist"? I mean, isn't it like just contributing to this conglomerate of wealth at the top, essentially making the rich richer and the poor poorer?
I don't think either characterization is really fair to the respective policies; they are not as extreme as the true economic systems behind socialism and fascism.
2007-12-13 05:38:22 · answer #4 · answered by Sangria 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Yes,
Hillary is a socialist, but the society has already been created. The Federal Reserve prints money out of thin air, circulates it, causes all other dollars to lose value in circulation and then charges the taxpayer to pay back the "loan" plus interest. This money is then distributed to various corporate big wigs and Zionists in the global circuit. The billionaires are getting richer and everyone else is sliding into poverty. Hillary is part of this agenda as well. Thanks for pointing that out.
2007-12-13 03:50:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Hilliary is more republican than any republican running. Her husband cut welfare, and let oil companies conglomerate again, she want the pigs at the big blues to run health care and they will sunk any program dry, and that money not going to anyone but the richest of the rich.
2007-12-13 03:55:38 · answer #6 · answered by Mister2-15-2 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Answer: Her ideas for Government controlled and administrated health and child care strongly support that position.
2007-12-13 03:49:45 · answer #7 · answered by trumain 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Hillary, Obama, and the rest of them. Oh God help us PLEASE!
I Cr 13;8a
2007-12-13 21:43:59 · answer #8 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
its all part of the democratic plan. the american people wont let her though.
2007-12-13 04:22:03 · answer #9 · answered by Seth D 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anymore, so do the republicans.. errm neo-cons. Don't be confused, both parties are virtually the same now.
2007-12-13 03:49:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋