Sorry, no featured properties currently.
Does America really want Clinton style Socialism? Unfortunately it's essential to preempt any Clinton speech with a hefty dose of truth serum. In the latest debate, Hillary regurgitated her familiar mantra that she would veto the falsely maligned Bush taxcuts which resuscitated the U.S. economy from the inherited Clinton recession; but, which Hillary says favor only the rich. That tired old populist ploy of "soak the rich". However , a brief review of IRS statistics related to post-Bush tax cut revenues reveals exactly the opposite. Specifically, the share of individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40% of American taxpayers, as a result of expanded child tax credits and earner income tax credits, was reduced from 0% to a -4%; and, took another ten million low income Americans completely off of the tax roles. That is, a very significant four(4) % decrease. On the other end of the scale, the tax burden on the top 20% of income earners, the so-called rich, increased to a full 85% of the total tax burden. For example a Single Individual making 30K paid $8400 in taxes under Clinton; under Bush $4500. A married couple making 60K: under Clinton $16,800, under Bush $9000. So Hillaryspeak, an economic strategy that left our Nation in a RECESSION on the Clinton's departure from the White House, would damage the poor more then any other group. One can summarize this quite simply by noting that IF Hillary's Marxist philosophies of soaking the rich were valid, Communist societies throughout the world would be exorbitantly wealthy, in lieu of economic basket cases a' la Castro's Cuba. The same can be said of her forced plan for Socialized Medicine. A program which is failing miserably in such Nations as Canada and the United Kingdom. Canada, as just one example, is now experiencing a dramatic shortfall in physicians. The American electorate should carefully evaluate the Marxist rhetoric coming from the Hillary campaign and her minions. Greg Neubeck
Both of the candidates for the Democratic nomination are socialists. Both favor higher taxes to fund expanded entitlements.
We can't afford the entitlements that we have now. We are borrowing money from China to pay for them. I realize that, like Clinton 42, they will slash the military budget in order to divert funds to entitlements. The problem with that is: (1) We were forced into a GWOT, which we are now fighting worldwide, and (2) Defense spending only accounts for 20% of government expenditures (entitlements are 60%, and rising fast).
What the Democrats (Socialists) have done is divide Americans into two groups ("Two Americas"), and encourage class warfare between them. One group will be rewarded with gifts from the public treasury if they are elected (thinly veiled vote-buying), and the other group is vilified and will be punished with tax increases.
Quite frankly, I fear for my nation. I am certain that a socialist will win in November, and that the income tax will rise, which will supress productivity, the entitlements will increase, as will the national debt (as it has under Presidents of both parties), and we will borrow even more money from China, and become ever weaker as a nation.
Government dependence is not freedom, it is dependence.
The solution would be to gradually reduce entitlement spending, promote our founding father's virtues of personal responsibility, self-reliance, hard work and voluntary charity. Probably the only candidate even close to believing in these principles is Ron Paul, and I get the feeling he might not be our next President.
Forgotten your password?