[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
(s)Elections See other (s)Elections Articles Title: Michelle Obama Wants Your Piece of the Pie Universal health care is not socialism! Or so the argument goes. The truth is however, before our government can give to one person, they must take from another. Government mandated distribution of wealth is falls right in line with the Marxist principle of 60;from each according to his ability, to each according to his need61;. Sadly, government mandated distribution of wealth falls right in line with another57;s principles, and that would be those of the Democratic party. In 2004, Hillary Clinton spoke in San Francisco and was quoted as saying: “Many of you are well off enough that [President Bush’s] tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to have to take things away from you. We’re going to have to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” I was happy to see Hillary at least being honest as to what her goal was, and that is to take away from some for the benefit of others. Of course Democrats rarely refer to tax increases as taking money away from the citizens, after all these are the same people who consider a tax break the same as the government giving you money. In the eyes of many on the left, what you have worked for is not yours unless the government says you can keep it. Hillary is not alone in her goal to 60;take61; from the people, as Michelle Obama demonstrated yesterday while talking about universal health care: "If we don't wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership for how we want this country to work, then we won't get universal health care," she said. "The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more." What Michelle Obama meant to say was that the government was going to have to 60;take61; your piece of the pie. To say that someone is going to have to 60;give up61; a piece of their pie would imply that it was voluntary, which our tax system is not. Astonishingly Michelle Obama also believes the solution to our poor education system lies in additional funding, which as Ed Morrissey reminds us, has already had enormous sums of money thrown at it. Want an example? Look at the VA. For that matter, look at the education system Mrs. Obama wants to expand. We have increased federal spending on education by 58% since 2000 (after inflation), and no one in their right mind would argue that education has improved 5.8%, let alone 58%. We’ve increased VA spending by 59%, and few would argue that we have received our money’s worth from that. In fact, American families will pay $4,000 more per household in taxes this year than in 2003, the highest level since the last year of the Clinton administration. We have already given more of the “pie” for government expansion. If that was the solution, then the Democrats should be arguing for a continuation of the Bush administration, which has expanded federal spending by 30% after inflation in just seven years. Education spending is at an all time high, Medicare and Social Security are on the verge of bankruptcy, and Michelle Obama57;s idea of 60;new leadership61; is an increased tax burden on the middle class to institute another government program which will be destined to fail. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
#2. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
Wrong category, it is an editorial. The election is over.
Take your bitch to management, boy.
#6. To: Jethro Tull (#3)
Calling management a bitch, figures.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||