# Hillary the socialist



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Hillary says that she is tossing the idea of a $5,000 baby bonus. Golly, I wonder why that would be? Truth is, she drove that wreck into the electoral parking lot and it dented far too many fenders.

So ... when one income redistribution plan fails, just roll in another. See if this one will do better.

So ... here is Hillary Rodham's latest great idea for a new entitlement program. American Retirement Accounts. Hillary proposes that every citizen have a 401(k)-type retirement account. You can put up to $1,000 annually in the account and the government will match 100% of it (if you make less than $60,000).

How will she pay for this? Taxes!! The $20 to $25 billion cost of this entitlement program would be paid for by death taxes levied on estates of more than $7 million per couple. She says that this will help "narrow the gap" between the evil rich and the "unfortunate" people who don't have enough savings for retirement.

OK .. rather than going through a long narrative on Hillary's latest tax-and-spend plan, let me just give you some bullet points.

For every dollar families earning less than $60,000 a year put into their account the federal government will match that dollar - up to $1000. This will be called a "refundable tax credit."

Refundable tax credits are a scam.

In the mid 1970s I purchased my first home. Builders were having a tough time selling homes back then, so the government instituted a $2000 tax credit for anyone purchasing a newly-built home. This meant that I could take when I filled out my tax return I would subtract whatever I owed the government by $2000, and pay the difference. If my tax liability minus $2000 equaled zero or less, then I simply didn't pay any federal income taxes, and that was the end of the story.

That is not the way "refundable" tax credits work. With the modern invention of the "refundable" tax credit you once again subtract the credit from the taxes you owe the federal government. BUT ... if the tax credit is more than the taxes you owe, the government pays you the difference! In other words, the government uses its police power to seize the difference between the amount of taxes you owed and the amount of your credit from some other individual, and then hands that money over to you. uke:

Income redistribution ... pure and simple.

Hillary's little savings scheme isn't going to cost the "government," as she say, $20 to $25 billion. Much of that money is simply seized by the government and handed over.

Now .. if Hillary gets her little entitlement plan passed, let me tell you what the future holds in store. In campaign after campaign Democrats will tell the voters "Vote for me and we'll increase the contribution limit for your American Retirement Account. Vote for that evil Republican running against me and he will take your money away!

By the way ... you don't have to work to get this handout. Of course if you don't work, you don't have income. If you don't have income you don't owe income taxes. That would mean that every single non-working person in this country would just have to find $1000 somewhere to put into this account and the government would rush forward to match it with someone else's money.

Illegal aliens? I don't know. She hasn't said yet. Maybe someone will ask this dangerous woman if she plans to set up these accounts for illegals. The answer should be interesting.

Something else interesting: Hillary says that less than half the families in the U.S. have retirement savings accounts. Another lie. Ever heard of Social Security? Now instead of creating this new entitlement program, why not just establish private accounts for each and every poor sap paying into Social Security right now? Oh wait, I forgot. The politicians need those Social Security taxes to fund their vote-buying programs. :******:

Watch this woman. All she seems to be doing lately is coming up with ideas for government entitlement programs ... and government entitlement programs are nothing more than wealth redistribution programs. Check your scorecard we have:

Nationalized Health Care.

The Baby Bonus

American Retirement Accounts

Hillary's idea of government involvement in our children's education even before kindergarten! :eyeroll:

In the meantime ... have you heard one single idea from Hillary that would increase your personal freedom? Have you heard one single idea that would decrease the intrusiveness or the power of the Imperial Federal Government? How about one idea that would promote competition in the free market?

You're right ... you haven't. :eyeroll:

You haven't because Hillary Clinton worships the God of Government. This is a woman who feels that there are only a select few in this country who are capable of ordering and living their own lives without guidance from those smarter and more capable than they. This is a woman who believes to the depth of her soul that you can't exist without embrace of government guiding your every step and picking you up every time you stumble.

To Hillary Rodham Clinton, self sufficiency is a vice.

What's next? Stay tuned, it should only take a day or two to figure that out.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Here is a good article about welfare too.

The top ten reasons to cut corporate welfare
by Timothy P. Carney | Feb 12, 2006 
Article Tools
Post a Comment (6) 
E-mail this Article
Printer-Friendly Version
More in Politics & Prose The federal budget is too big. It's way too big. George W. Bush has called for total spending this year of $2.47 trillion. Normal people simply cannot think in terms of billions and trillions, but here's one way to imagine $2.47 trillion:

Alex Rodriguez is the highest-paid player in baseball. He earns $23 million per year in salary. Last year, he played in 162 games, averaging out to almost $142,000 per game. You get the point: Rodriguez makes a lot of money.

To earn $2.47 trillion, A-Rod would have to play for more than 100,000 seasons. At his current pace, he would retire with 20 million hits, 4.6 million home runs, and 13 million RBIs. He would get eliminated from the playoffs 50,000 times and win zero World Series. And just imagine getting hit by 1 million pitches.

But who knows how much baseball will change between now and then? After all, 100,000 years ago, man was just becoming anatomically modern, so Major League Baseball probably would have been dominated by the Gigantopithecus blackii, a 10-foot tall 1,200-pound ape that later drove itself into extinction by eating all the available bamboo in the world (you have no idea how relieved I was to learn that these things were vegetarians). Since then we've invented the printing press, the flying buttress, the lathe, and the slider. The league might look totally different in another 100,000 years. By the time A-Rod has earned his $2.4 trillion in the year 109,468, there might be guys with 45-foot-long legs who could steal second base just by doing a split.

Well, maybe that explanation was not as helpful as I had hoped it would be, but anyway that's how astronomical is $2.47 trillion, the total spending Bush has requested in this year's federal budget.

So how do we fix it? I propose we begin by eliminating corporate welfare. That's a great place to start, and here are my 10 reasons why we oughtta start there (drum roll):

10. It's Good Politics: The Democrats and the mainstream media will attack every Republican budget for starving the poor. Last year at budget time, Paul Krugman said that Bush "takes food from the mouths of babes and gives the proceeds to his millionaire friends." This charge is outrageous, in part because of the Orwellian implication that not handing out money is "taking" (this akin to the mainstream media's insistence that tax-cuts "cost" something). So the attacks will come no matter what. But at least Bush could take some of their edge off by no longer giving billions to "his millionaire friends." Time magazine estimates in 2002 that taxpayers subsidized $125 billion in corporate welfare every year.

9. It's Good Diplomacy: The United States is trying to get the European Union to stop subsidizing Airbus--while at the same time subsidizing Boeing to the hilt. The Export-Import Bank, a federal agency that subsidizes exports, has dedicated the overwhelming majority of its subsidy dollars to boosting Boeing's sales in recent years. Why should Europe listen to our free-trade sermons when we're having our own dalliances with corporate socialism?

8. Get These Business Guys Back on Our Side: Here's a secret: Big business often loves higher taxes. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supported tax hikes in 1993, and Colorado and Virginia have seen businesses help the pro-tax side in recent years. Should we be surprised? Corporate welfare transforms the federal treasury into big business' piggy bank. Why would they want taxes cut? If corporate welfare is off the table, business might just stop fighting on the pro-tax side.

7. Improve the Economy: Ending corporate welfare will aid the economy. The beauty of the free market is that it responds to consumer demands. The horror of the state-managed market is that it responds to government's demands--and so resources get directed to things people don't want, like bridges to nowhere and lobbyists. This is a waste of money, which makes us poorer as a nation.

6. Save the Soil: Ethanol and Florida sugar cane both exist only because of corporate welfare. Ethanol subsidies drive up the demand for corn, which eliminates the crop diversity necessary to keep soil healthy. Sugar cane only exists in the Everglades because of federal efforts to manage the ecosystem there as well as subsidies for domestically grown sugar and trade barriers against imported sugar. The federal management of the Everglades is devastating to the unique habitat.

5. Save American Jobs: The Export-Import Bank has financed a GE plant in Mexico that helped the company lay off its workers in Indiana. Ex-Im also aided Chinese steel makers who were accused of "dumping" steel in the U.S. Also, artificially high sugar prices resulting from sugar welfare have driven U.S. candy manufacturers overseas where sugar prices are lower, since they better reflect the world market.

4. Give us Credibility on Nuclear Programs: Did I mention that the Export-Import Bank is currently offering a $5 billion subsidy to the same arm of the Chinese government that has helped Pakistan and Iran develop their nuclear weapons programs?

3. Reduce Corruption: Is it any wonder that companies spend as much on lobbyists as they do when there are billions in handouts on the Hill every year? Eliminating corporate welfare, both entitlements and earmarks, will drive some of these hired beggars away.

2. We Pay too Much in Taxes: Taxes are too high. Anything we can do to reduce taxes or forestall future tax hikes is all to the good. Cutting spending everywhere possible is necessary. And, if people get to keep more of their own money, they are more likely to buy my book, The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money, coming out from John J. Wiley and Sons this summer.

And, finally, the top reason we should eliminate corporate welfare (drum roll crescendo climaxing in cymbal crash):

1. Moral Reasons: Taking my money to spend it on something I don't like is bad enough. But taking it from me and giving it to rich people and big businesses is downright immoral. That's just what corporate welfare is.

Tim Carney, the Warren T. Brookes Journalism Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is writing a book due out this summer from John J. Wiley & Sons on big business's support for big government.

http://www.affbrainwash.com/archives/020761.php


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

There does come a point where some of these arguments from Hillary start to validate the GWB private ownership of your future and the privitization of Social Security. Even though they do so in a backward sort of way.

As far as health care goes ... We have the "old poor" covered ... and we have the "young poor" covered. Seems just a matter for "incrimental inclusion" until Hillary can see her dreams come to fruition.

Hopefully folks will see what a bafoon she is before the second set of massive floodgates to Socialism since the FDR admistration are opened.

or so it seems to me.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Jdpete, no one here is going to disagree that corporate welfare should end. If we can do that why would we be foolish enough to start government run healthcare? 
Why is one welfare bad, and another good? I am compassionate enough to want the poor taken care of, but why must everyone become enrolled in a government run healthcare program? If we continue down this path where everyone is covered then those rich you hate so much will be covered also. 
It would appear you have sucked into the class warfare propaganda of the left. I don't see the divisions in humanity that you do. I don't hate the rich, I don't pity the poor (but I have compassion for them and am willing to help), I don't see color or race, I don't divide male and female, and I am conservative not republican or democrat.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Well than why is he not saying it, you two seem to be able to find plenty of articles like the first one, but it would seem you have never managed to find one dealing with income redistribution from the middle class to the rich. Oh and btw seeing as how you and bob are so bi-partisan I was wondering if you could show me some examples of you guys hating on a republican candidate :wink: .


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

jdpete75 said:


> Well than why is he not saying it, you two seem to be able to find plenty of articles like the first one, but it would seem you have never managed to find one dealing with income redistribution from the middle class to the rich. Oh and btw seeing as how you and bob are so bi-partisan I was wondering if you could show me some examples of you guys hating on a republican candidate.


I'm to lazy to search  , but if you look back I think you will find it. Right now not one of them excite me, and the only reason I don't get on them real bad is I don't want to disadvantage a bad choice and help out an even worse choice. I mean, why bad mouth Rudy now in the event he runs against Hillary. It's like cancer of the finger vs. cancer of the brain. I can live without a finger.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

No need to search, I figure you are a pretty stand up guy, If you say it Ill believe it. I agree with the original post that hillary is a no good commy wannabe. This country would be a worse place with her as prez. Im still a McCain guy. Whoever it is I hope they have enough sack to do something about pork spending and fight the war to win it


----------

