More Clinton Socialism; Hold Your Wallets
Oct 9, 2007 Uncategorized
It is beyond me why Democrats think it is perfectly OK to take money from rich people and give it to poor people. The Maryland Governor (a Clinton backer) is looking to change taxes in Maryland and saddle the rich with a higher income bracket to pay for the out of control spending. He calls it a fair system. Hillary Clinton, who is a socialist, has already been shot down on her plan to give $5000 to each newborn. Evidently the polls showed this was a bad idea because she abandoned it.
Now the Socialism queen is saying that she would start a government 401(k) plan for all workers and this plan would cost 20-25 BILLION dollars a year. How will she get the money? Why tax the rich, of course. Hillary said the plan was to take away the inequity in our society and allow everyone to have savings for retirement. What she is doing is making the rich pay for the retirement of the poor. It is a disgrace and it smacks of Socialism.
The government already extorts money from us in a ponzi scheme they call Social Security. The money is taken from workers, ostensibly for their retirement, but it is not saved for the worker. It is immediately turned over to the current crop of retirees. Anything left over is spent by the idiots in DC with nothing more than an IOU left in the safe. The courts have ruled that the money is not ours and that the government can decide how to distribute it, or even not to distribute it. The money does not even transfer to your heirs if you die before collecting it. This system has been extremely mismanaged by the government and there are no protections for workers because the money is not controlled by the worker. It is extorted and then wasted.
If the government wants us to have a mandatory savings plan then let us take the system that is in place and revamp it. First of all, set up individual accounts so that money paid in is earmarked (I know they know what that means) for the employee who paid it in. Then allow the employee to invest that money in a number of savings and stock plans just as federal employees do with the Thrift Savings Plan. The money will belong to the employee and pass to his family when he dies. No one in the government will be able to touch it. This is one of the problems with Social Security. The government takes control of the money and spends it on things that are not retirement benefits (they transfer it to the general funds). The second problem is that Social Security has morphed into a social panacea for all problems. They pay for handicapped kids, disabled people, and a number of other things that has nothing to do with retirement.
With the track record of the idiots in DC do we really want them to have any more control over our money? What would stop them from spending it on their pork projects? What would stop them from deciding that they needed to cover the unemployed with our money? If they contend that the money will be in individual retirement accounts and cannot be touched by the feds then I say revamping Social Security would accomplish the same thing.
The federal government does not run anything efficiently and they do not look out for our interests. They are concerned with how to get elected and how to stay elected. I do not want them messing with my money as I can handle my own retirement accounts much better than they can. I certainly do not want them to dig into my pockets for more of my hard earned cash.
Hillary Clinton is a socialist and she will ruin this country if she is elected. Her ideas are anti American and they are not, despite what people like the Maryland Governor would say, fair.
Take this little quiz and see what you think.
Tags: Democrats, Hillary, Political Opinion, socialism, taxes
Obama Wants Openly Gay Military
Oct 6, 2007 Military
For a very long time the United States armed forces had a rule that made it illegal for gay people to serve in the military. Homosexuality was deemed incompatible with military life. When Clinton became President he tried to change that to appease the homo crowd who he had pandered to but the best he could do was get don’t ask, don’t tell passed. Now, B. Hussein Obama wants to end DADT and make it OK for openly gay people to serve. To Obama, since England and Israel do it that way, it is fine. I love the way that liberals say we should do something because some other country does it but let’s give Hussein this one and say that additionally, Israel requires service in the military from everyone when they graduate high school. It is compulsory service so if we should follow Israel’s lead, we need to start making EVERYONE serve in the armed forces.
There area number of reasons that homosexuals should not be serving in the military, though to be honest, in a firefight I would not give a hoot in hell. However, there are more negatives than positives in this issue and the military has to look out for national defense first and foremost. Allowing homosexuals in would be another problem and cause other issues that would take away from the mission of the military. It is not the job of the armed forces to have equality and fairness. Fat people are not allowed, those with poor sight, those with other conditions are not allowed. The military has decided that homosexuality is incompatible with military life and that is how it should stand.
Hussein Obama should also be careful what he asks for because of the unintended consequences. Let us suppose that Obama wins the presidency and has a majority Congress and gets this passed. The recruitment of soldiers would go way, way down. Then Obama would be forced to implement a draft in order to provide national defense, something he claims to have a grasp on. You see, the majority of our enlistees come from the mid west and the south. These areas are full of the Christian right, people who believe homosexuality is an abomination. The liberal elitists in New England and the west coast regions have much fewer people enlisting than does the south and mid west. If Hussein Obama allows gays to openly serve a bunch of people who are in will leave at the end of their hitch and those who thought about joining would skip it. This would mean Obama would have to institute the draft.
I realize that he said that he would bring the troops home so people might not feel any need to have a strong, full strength military. They might feel that way until the next natural disaster comes and there are no guard soldiers to assist or the next attack comes and we do not have the troops to deploy. No, B. Hussein will have to force people to serve, unless of course, his plan is to weaken the military to make it easier for Muslims to take control.
Why is it that Democrats who have never served in the military feel free to use the military for their social experiments?
Military phrases we will have to be careful with if Hussein gets his way:
Is your chute packed?
Go get your sh*t packed.
I’m locked, cocked, and ready to rock.
Who is the rear Admiral?
I only want to see asses and elbows.
Where did you get your training son? Fort Dix, sir.
Tags: Commentary, experiments, homosexuals, Military, Obama, socialism
Socialized Hillary; from Cradle to Grave
Sep 28, 2007 Uncategorized
Hillary Rodham said that each child born in the US should receive a $5000 bond that will accrue while the child ages and will be turned over to the child for college or a down payment on a first home. This is more socialized clap trap and involves the government in our lives even more. Pathetically, it involves our children from the day of their birth and makes them part of the nanny state from day one. The federal government runs Social Security and it has been a tremendous failure that keeps the elderly who were not able to save, in the poor house.
There are problems with this idea right from the start. Where will this money come from and will it be placed in a dedicated account? The first answer is obviously the taxpayer, who will be forced to foot the bill for someone else’s education or home down payment. The second is probably a flat out no. This means a $5000 IOU will mature and accrue interest and then the government will have to come up with a way to pay out. If they decide to place the money in an account and it is not dedicated to the child AND ONLY THE CHILD then the government will rape that account as it has done to SS for the last three or four decades.
What rules will be placed? Will the government decide that children from wealthy families may not have the bond because they should be able to pay their own way? What happens if the child dies before the bond is paid out? These, and many more, are questions that should be asked long before we allow them to do this because they have a terrible history of handling money and when they take it from you it is no longer yours. If we were allowed to have Social Security deductions (our money) go into our own accounts that could not be touched by the government then they might have more credibility. I don’t like it either way because I think that people should be responsible for their own retirement savings and not live off the hard work of others.
This is the other issue I have with these baby bonds. It is not the job of government to provide education or house payments and using a redistribution of our wealth to do it is socialism plain and simple. If the government wants to make it easier for people to save for their children’s education or house payment then perhaps they could stop taxing the hell out of us and let us invest our own money and take care of our own needs. Between the federal government and the states we pay a high percentage of our earnings in taxes. Let us keep more of that money and invest it.
Hillary is a socialist and she wants big brother to take care of all the minions. It guarantees successive generations of poor voters who will vote to keep Democrats in office so they can have more hand outs. Perhaps by cutting our taxes (and that means reigning in the spending) people will be able to put more away.
Cutting off federal programs that give money away will force them to do it. Once they learn not to depend on the government and to save, they will enjoy the freedom.
Source:
Breitbart
Sometimes unrelated trackbacks to: Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson’s Website, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam’s Blog, Stix Blog, Nuke’s News & Views, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Right Voices, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: bonds, education, Hillary, house payments, Political Commentary, savings, socialism