Hillary Was Right; We Can’t Afford Her
by Big Dog on Jan 11, 2008 at 14:10 Political
Hillary Clinton, in one of her last mutations, told us that she has so many plans for America that we could not afford them all. She was absolutely right. Not only can we not afford her plans financially, we can not afford to have them as part of our economy. Hillary, while pandering for votes, is to announce a $70 BILLION dollar economic stimulus plan aimed at, who else, the poor. That is Billion with a “B” and it will come from the hard work of taxpayers.
Hillary will infuse money to slow the rate of foreclosure, a crisis that came from people buying more house than they could afford from people who were only concerned with making money. Ultimately, the responsibility rests on the shoulders of the people who made the loans. Those loans are contracts that are legally binding and people who made them should be held accountable. Having said that, there are ways to help with this without bilking taxpayers out of their money. I pay my bills and I expect everyone else to do the same. Forcing finance companies to have a set interest rate and refinancing loans over longer periods will help. But whatever they do it should not involve picking the pockets of the rest of us.
Hillary wants to put some money aside to help with the rising cost of fuel. I know that many utility companies have programs where people donate money to help those who cannot afford their utility bills. This is fine and it is voluntary. If the government is going to set money aside for people in this fashion, which I am opposed to, then there needs to be other steps. People who get assistance must have thermostats installed so that they cannot raise the heat or lower the AC. They must be set at 68 degrees. These folks must also give up cable TV, cell phones, and other luxury items. Additionally, they may not take out credit or buy any luxury items. If they can afford those, they can afford their utilities. Once again, I pay my bills and I expect others to pay theirs.
Hillary also wants to expand unemployment coverage for those struggling to find a job. Once again, taxpayer money will be used to pay people who do not work. There are jobs out there and if the government would stop creating a climate where businesses leave the country there would be even more jobs. No program should pay a person so long as there is a job whether it is greeter at Wal Mart or burger flipper at McDonald’s.
There are other parts of her plan but this is designed to make people want to vote for her. It is a huge vote buying scheme based upon the tax and spend philosophy so prevalent in the Democratic Party. Seventy BILLION dollars is a lot of money and when you add this to the other expensive plans she wants to impose, like universal health care, then we can rapidly conclude that we cannot afford Hillary Clinton.
She will spend us into bankruptcy and she will tax EVERYONE who earns money. This idea that the rich will be the only ones to suffer is a bunch of BS. It is easy for her to say that because her definition of rich is anyone who earns money and pays taxes. Most of the taxes in this country are paid by the top wage earners in this country and the only way she will get more money is to keep moving the line that defines rich lower and lower.
Anyone who subscribes to these ideas or who votes for this woman is an idiot. We have problems in this country but spending more money that we do not have, on social programs is not going to solve any of them. The Congress (and mostly Democrats over the last 60 years) has spent TRILLIONS of dollars on social programs and we still have the same rates of poverty and we have even higher deficits.
If we want to get our economy on track why don’t they decide to end so called free trade and impose tariffs on the items other countries send here. That would bring money in and reduce the tax burden. We could also get rid of the ILLEGALS and free up some jobs for those having problems finding one. That would also decrease the burden on our social program dollars.
Clinton and the rest of the Democrats are turning the issues into class warfare and one day the wealthy are going to stand up and say enough is enough. Pretty soon, those who earn money and pay taxes are going to insist on some accountability. Anyone who receives these services will have to have a strict accounting of what they got and what it was spent on.
Hillary Clinton is a socialist and she will complete the job of ruining this country that her husband started.
Hillary is Satan.
Source:
The Politico
Tags: Hillary, pandering, socialism, tax and spend
While I don’t support Hillary or this particular plan. Large government projects have been shown to help the economy, especially if there are troubles in the market. (Like a housing crash, on top of falling currency, on top of inflating fuel)
Or would you rather we didn’t have a highway system?
It really depends on the project. Subsidy systems are generally a bad idea for corporations or the poor. Projects that employ a large number of people and/or leave a useful infrastructure after their gone helps out everyone. Generally the more people they employ, the more input into the economy. Even after the project is over, companies built around the resulting infrastructure provide increasing employment over time. (Which is why subsidies are a bad idea, the subsidy ends and so do nearly all of it’s benefits)
If anything HIllary is playing republican lite by using subsidies instead of projects. She’s moving corporate welfare to the masses. Most likely to end up having it siphoned off by the companies giving the subsidies to customers.
Corvidae,
Thanks for taking the time to comment. The highway system is part of an infrastructure that helps everyone. Each person who uses it gets the same benefit. Public projects are necessary for the country and there are taxes on transportation (fuel, tolls, etc) that pay for those. No one builds a road that only some people may use. No one builds a road that is for the poor or some other interest group.
I don’t see corporate welfare in the taxes they pay (what is it, second highest in the world) and they are already hampered by too many government regulations. Economic stimulus packages hurt the economy. Dropping the interest rate devalues the dollar. The government cannot take money from people to stimulate the economy because it is those very people who need the money to spend which actually does help the economy.
One thing is for sure, taking tax money and giving it to the poor does not stimulate the economy because they will not be spending it in the market. They will be using it to make ends meet. All it does is decrease the buying power of those from whom it was taken.
The housing crash is the result of people spending more than they can afford. Should we pay the bills of everyone who makes a bad financial decision?
How much more of a burden can the taxpayers stand?
Translated: Well yeah, the highway system worked, but it doesn’t count because it doesn’t fit my ideology. And you didn’t spout libertarian drivel so you must be pro welfare for the poor.
As for your question, No. And we shouldn’t be bailing out the lenders with lower interest rates, loan auctions and the 4.1 billion in insurance we’re providing BofA. When it comes to the economy though, they’ll burn everyone to save the banks every time.
No, that is translated incorrectly. There are certain things we pay taxes for and infrastructure is one of them. The infrastructure helps everyone not just some people.
It is not a matter of fitting my ideology. It is a matter of how our money is used. They sell bonds and they tax transportation to pay for roads (and other infrastructure) that is used by everyone and it is for everyone’s benefit. Spending tax money to help poor people pay for heating oil is not a benefit to everyone.
I am not pro welfare for the poor. I believe that we should raise tariffs and end so-called free trade and that we can use that money to pay for what we need. I also know that it is wrong to take money of the people who pay more in taxes and give it to those less fortunate.
A road benefits everyone, welfare does not.
The highway system wasn’t paid for like a normal road, and still isn’t. It was built as part of the ‘New Deal’ by Roosevelt. The Highway system and electrical grid were and are federal projects. Federal projects are not welfare, they’re employment that stimulate the economy and leave behind a skilled work force with a useful infrastructure.
I never claimed you were pro welfare, I meant that as part of the translation as well. Generally anyone who doesn’t spout the taxes/government spending are evil meme gets labeled as a pro welfare liberal. It makes it easier to ignore the few successful ways that the government can tax and spend in the public interest, creating growth in the economy and valuable infrastructure.
And therein lies the distinction. The taxes were spent in the PUBLIC’s interest. Highways, waterways, etc. Spending tax money to help poor people pay their bills or to bail them out of trouble is not in the public’s interest. David Crocket found this out when he voted to apportion money to help a woman whose house had burned down.
Certainly, we pay taxes for the government to do things in the public interest. Buying a battleship is in the public’s interest because each citizen gets the same benefit from it (protection).
Taxes are a necessary evil. However, government spending has blossomed out of control so that now we spend the money on everything and most is not in the public’s interest.