Posts
Chelsea Clinton has been out stumping for her mom lately and on Monday she cracked a pretty good joke - she said that her mom is the "most fiscally conservative candidate running." Now that's funny!!!!
I'm not sure if she's referring to the socialist healthcare plan she intends to dump on America or the raising of taxes that will start taking effect in 2009 to pay for all the new social programs that her and the Democratic Congress are sure to enact.
Should be a great year for taxpayers in 2009 when she takes over, get ready to have your paycheck donated directly to the federal government so that you can pay for lazy bums sitting at home all day who just can't seem to find a job and who need financial support for their 5 children that all have different parents!
I'm not sure what's funnier - Chelsea's joke about her mom or Obama claiming to be a person of "change" when he votes 95% of the time with the Democratic party?
8 comments:
She is the most fiscally conservative candidate. The country is $9,000,000,000,000 in debt. The GOP stopped being "fiscally conservative" a long time ago. You don't start a war and then cut taxes for the same reason if I bought a new car, I wouldn't quit my job. How do you consider this fiscally responsible? Is it all about tax rates? What am I missing?
This joke gets funnier each time someone repeats it!
Hillary and "fiscally conservative" - the best joke of the year.
Hill is not fiscally conservative. Never has been, never will be. The problem with Bush, is he also is not fiscally conservative. Remember the quote "I have hundreds of ideas, the country can't afford them all" We can't afford any. To me, being fiscally conservative means shrinking government, and cutting spending, thus enabling me to keep the money I earn. I don't think that Hillary agrees with that. Socialism will destroy this country.
Well then the previous regime has done none of the things you consider "fiscally conservative". Anyway, here are the numbers. . .In 2007 the median income in the US was about $45,000. So, lets say they have $35,000 in taxable income. That would put the average middle class American in the $31,850-$77,100 tax bracket which is $4386 + 25% over $31850. . thus the average tax would be $5173. . .Now, in 1999, $42,000 was the median income so lets use $32,000 as the taxable income. Under Bill Clinton, that same person would be in the $27,300 to $58,500 tax bracket in which the tax is $3697 + 28% over $27,300. . The median income then gives an average tax of $5013. In other words. . there is no difference. Granted these are rough numbers but that's not the point. .Labeling Dems as these free spenders who will have their hand in your pocket as soon as they get elected is complete b.s. It's just a sterotype. . . The only difference is that little matter of $9,000,000,000,000 in national debt. . . oh right and that stuff in Iraq.
First off, Nelly, I said Bush has not been Fiscally conservative, but Hillary would be worse. Secondly, I don't know what you're analysis here is supposed to prove. I didn't get anything out of it. Bottom line, under Bush, I got to keep more money. Hillary will take my money and throw it to some lazy wino that should be given a shovel and told to dig a ditch, or something. Bush spent too much, hopefully the next Republican will see the error in that. A Democrat will be worse than Bush, and I'll repeat; 'Socialism will destroy this country'. And don't kid yourself, that's what the Dem's are pushing for!
No, you did not get to keep more money under Bush. Assuming that you're still in the middle class, you paid almost exactly the same in federal income taxes in 2007 as you would have in 1999. That's the point. You guys say that a Democrat will be more fiscally irresponsible than Bush. .what exactly are you basing that on??? It's all a stereotype. It's simply not true. But, as your lazy wino/shovel analysis shows, using sterotypes to make a point seems to be a pattern . . .
My basis for saying I got to keep more money under Bush, is that when the tax cuts passed, my takehome pay went up. That's all I need as evidence. All Democrats endorse eliminating those tax cuts, which will cause my takehome pay to go down. Other evidence that they want to take more money is this stimulus package that just passed. They wanted more money to go to people who did not pay taxes, rather than a true tax rebate. This is a socialistic redistribution of wealth that is/has been/and always will be a staple of the Democratic platform. These types of policies are not good for the long term health of our economy. So, what do you base Hillary's 'fiscally conservative credentials'? Universal Health Care?
I'm not going to defend the Bush Adminstration on being conservative in spending nor am I going to defend the Republicans who were in power for 6 years during Bush's regime and who spent money like it was going out of style.
At the same time I won't totally blame Bush because he's given bills with all these pork-barrel projects in it and he can't do anything about it. The lack of a line-item veto allows politicians from all parties to throw in huge spending projects unchecked. They attach them to a spending bill at the last second.
Is Hillary fiscally conservative? Maybe compared to her opponent Obama she is. Compared to McCain - nope. McCain is actually one of the most fiscally conservative politicians in Washington (another reason conservatives need to realize that MaCain is better than they think). He doesn't believe in pork-barrel spending, he's in favor of tax cuts and he's ruthless in his criticism of big spenders.
I agree with Joser that if a Democrat takes over the size of government increases. That will lead to more taxes going to more programs. It's the opposite if a Republican like McCain takes over. Should it have been better under Bush? Yes, but it didn't work out due to idiot Republicans spending like crazy.
You referenced the national debt. Cutting taxes, cutting government spending and reducing the size of government are all answers to this and all things McCain plans on doing.
Here's an example of the Obama spending projects he just proposed:
1) $210 billion plan to create jobs with a $150 billion plan to create "green-collar" jobs to develop environmentally friendly energy sources.
- Why is this a government responsibility? Why can't the private sector create these jobs rather than my tax money??
2) A $60 billion dollar program to create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank which he claims will create 2 million jobs for rebuilding highways, bridges and airports.
- Again, can't the private sector create these companies??? In fact, I think they are there already! So why doesn't the government hire them?
Anyways, I'd rather have the money in my pocket. I agree with Joser, my take home is more under a Republican. But I don't disagree with you that Republican spending has been out of control.
Post a Comment