HILLARY IN "08" GET USED TO IT!!
I couldn't let him get away with that statement so lightly so...
Sometimes we need a good shock to see how really wrong we are... I think Hillary will be that shock. The nanny state will not be what "everyone" wants once they find out how much of their freedom it will cost.
Yeah, Bush was/is a disappointment in several areas. Yes the Republicans were disappointing in the legislative leadership on many fronts. Do I want a government that will "fix" every wrong in my life? Do I want a government that will be my source for every "need?" Do I want a government run by people who spend their lives looking for what's wrong with America and their answer is always bigger, more intrusive, more expensive, government? The answer is no.
But lets consider for a moment, how are they (specifically Hillary) going to pay for what they (she) propose? Tax the rich? I don't think so.
Statistics for 2004: The top 50% of income earners paid 92% of the taxes. The top 50% started at $50,000 annual incomes. That included you.
Those earning over $1M were less than one quarter of 1% but paid almost 21% of total taxes. That means those earning less than $50,000/year paid only 8% of taxes. Those are my gleanings from the IRS statistics freely available.
Others say essentially the same:
"The U.S. income tax system is so bad and increasingly reliant on a shrinking number of Americans to pay the nation's bills, that 40 percent of the country's households pay no income taxes at all, says Ari Fleischer, a former White House press secretary, and president of Ari Fleischer Communications.
Our tax system comes up short in a lot of areas; however, the one place where it does excel is at redistributing income, says Fleischer:
According to a recent study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO),
"And those super-rich one percenters? Their share of the nation's income has risen, but their tax burden has risen even faster:
From the National Center for Policy Analysis
In 1993 Bill Clinton pushed through a plan to make the wealthy recipients of Social Security pay their fair share. In that plan that Clinton signed into law, "couples earning $32,000 or more on Social Security (and individuals above $25,000) get the opportunity to have the taxable portion of their benefits expanded from 50 percent to 85 percent." (See World News Communications article) So the definition of "wealthy" was lowered to just $25,000/year. Few disagree that Hillary was the brains behind the Bill Clinton administration and the policies attempted and implemented.
How about the corporations? We can just load up on their taxes and have them pay the costs of our ever increasing, every more expensive government. OK, who pays corporate taxes? The business, no, a business builds into it's products and services it's costs of creating, marketing and selling those products. All costs in business, and a tax is a cost of doing business, are passed on through the product or service to the end purchaser. And who is that? Who buys the products? The consumer, you.
What about the shareholder? Shareholders, whether as individual shares or in a fund are also ultimately individuals. Those taxed shares, even in a tax exempt portfolio such as an IRA or 401-K are still taxed before they become part of the investment vehicle and those taxes impact the total return and therefore the income available to the individual. Again, the individual pays.
So before you vote for Hillary or anyone else, you better think long and hard about how they are going to pay for all those promises. We should have been thinking about it all along, but now with 20% of the national economy at stake with the push to federalize healthcare, it's more so. All else aside, think rationally for a moment, have you ever trusted "the government" before to efficiently spend the dollars they take from your income?
Have you ever experienced the government to efficiently administer a service? Are you satisfied with the level of service you get with Social Security, Medicare, from the IRS, from any government service under any administration. What makes you think that will change now? Because someone promises to let your neighbor, the clerk at the grocery store, the guy behind the counter at the convince store or the kid who sells you at ticket at the movie theater share in your healthcare costs by charging them higher taxes?
And what about the uninsured? According to media reports and the Census Bureau, 47 million Americans have no health insurance. While that's a big number, it also mean's 84% of Americans are covered under employer, government and individual plans!
Of the 15% without, how many have been denied health services? And how many choose not to purchase health insurance. While the percentage rose during the period covered (2005-2006), that the economy was in a strong growth phase and the poverty rate declined (MarketWatch)would indicate that maybe not having insurance was a choice for some,not a lack of availability or ability.
We have county health services freely available at little or no cost to the recipient. Hospitals are required to treat any who come to their emergency rooms. And they do. It's all paid for by our taxes and insurance premiums.
Healthcare costs are rising at a crazy rate and we need to control them. Yes we do. But is nationalization of healthcare the answer? I think not. Anywhere you look where there is government administered healthcare, Canada, Europe, Cuba, wherever, there are restrictions on not just 24% of the population, but on everyone regarding the availability of health services. Waiting lists are the norm, not the exception. Why do people from all over the world come here for healthcare? Because of the wait or lack of services in their own countries.
Is our system perfect? Far from it. Can it be fixed? Yes, but it will take a change in attitudes from everyone. For starters, include or increase co-pays so those who won't regulate their own use of health services to when they really need it, will have to pay more for it, with or without insurance. Reduce the cost of bringing drugs to market and balance the cost paid by overseas consumers with those paid by the American consumer so they, and we, pay a fairer portion of the cost the medications we take. Create a system of more efficiently using medical resources instead of unnecessary duplication of services. But not to the extent of harming access to critical resources.
Do I trust Hillary to administer the challenges facing this nation? No. At heart she's a socialist. I know that's a flaming statement but when you rationally consider her proposals, that's where it all comes down to. Government control of all services instead of a free market economy.
On the other hand, do I trust the Republicans any more. I'm having a hard time with that one too. The last seven years have proven that when it comes to fiscal policy, the Republicans are just as much free spenders with the taxpayers dollars as any Democrat. On social issues I'm much closer to the Republicans than the Democrats, but even then there are many moving away from me.
Has the war in Iraq been prosecuted badly? Has any war at any time in history been prosecuted properly when viewed through the lens of history? Wrong assumptions were made that would have been made by any American administration because of our Western perspective.
Is George Bush evil? I Hillary evil? No to both. They are two different people with different agendas and perspectives on the place of government in the life of the individual and the role America should play in geopolitics. I just happen to agree more with Bush and less with Hillary. Certainly not totally in agreement or disagreement with either.
John Edwards made the statement that in essence characterized the Republicans as serving bumper sticker politics. If this little exchange is any indication, look at your statement and my response. Which is more suited for a bumper sticker and which is more of an in-depth analysis?
That's why the Democrats appeal to the poor and uneducated, present company excluded of course. Because they were educated in the government run, teachers union administered schools the economically and intellectually challenged lack the patience or skills to look beyond the "bumper sticker" and get to the meat of the matter.
That's enough of a rant for one day...have a happy!
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
