Posted on 06/29/2004 6:12:49 AM PDT by kristinn
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-Cuba), speaking at a Democratic party fundraiser in San Francisco yesterday, was remarkably frank about the Democrats' intentions to use socialist redistribution policies if the party gains power after the November elections.
As reported by the Associated Press, Sen. Clinton said, "Many of you are well enough off that ... the 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 take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
With her blunt statement, Sen. Clinton has drawn clear the difference between the two major parties: The Marxist Democratic party will "take things away from you on behalf of the common good" while the Republicans will defend your right to spend your money as you see fit because they know it's your money, not the government's.
Remember this during the long slog to the elections this year. The choice is clear: Marxism or freedom. Vote wisely.
So, in other words, McGoofy acts as though the "rich" people took something away from the lower and middle classes in the first place?
THANKS.
Out to my email list.
I wonder what amount of taking would satisfy her/them?
GREAT FIND!
>>Well, at least the Republicans are protecting money
Are you kidding? Have they done anything about the impending collapse of Social Security? How much did you pay in taxes last year? Statistically speaking, I pay more in taxes than most Americans make and I am by no means wealthy. Giving me a paltry tax cut doesn't make up the republicans big government agenda and spending habits.
You seem to have a comprehensive understanding of the topic. So what is the alternative? Status quo? Like I mentioned, I am suffering an audit right now, so it is hard for me to imagine anything less complicated or intrusive than the income tax.
Headline from the future:
President Fox of Mexico asks President Hillary Clinton to help Stem Flow of Illegals from Her Country
With NRST, it would take away the argument of the Hillary types, because a tax increase would hit everyone, and it would be very visible. That seems like a plus.
"The Constitution?!! That's so quaint. Run along now."
What tax would be more egregious than the income tax, and why?
--Point 24 of the National Socialist Party platform, 1923
Come to think of it, Hillary supports most of that platform.
The only difference that I can see between the two parties is how they want to spend your money "for the common good", and frankly, there isn't a whole lot of difference even in that any more.
Bookmarked
The income tax has about reached the point where its increase will foment a internal war. More and more people are opting to not pay it. They use various foundations for their rebellion, their approaches 99% dead wrong.
But dead wrong or not, they are exercising a very ancient right of human beings in a social context: to vote with their feet or their fist, the current term for that being " civil disobedience".
The Treasury Dept. doesn't have the personnel to handle it. One little increase in the income taxes on any front will increase exponentially the foot voters and the system will collapse for all intents and purposes, although will still be in place.
The problem will force a confrontation that is long overdue. That confrontation has already been biting. No agency of the Treasury Dept. has been able to answer the question why an American citizen comes under the authority of Title 26 having to do with income taxes.
The indication that that system is cracking is demonstrated by the fact that they will not answer the question, when the answer, if legitimate, would be a most simple to end the controversy.
I am for the forms that the general government, using its national or federal power, has traditionally used to finance itself. Those forms are a debate for another time.
The fact is, that the income and social security taxes are for the purpose of financing our developing socialist systems. I hate socialism in any form, so I may not be an objective person to ask.
Post of the Year on FreeRepublic.
Let's see... "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"... now where did that quote come from???
This will end up liek the bill to impose a luxury tax on yachts..remember..it destroyed several boat builders..laid off thousands of workers..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.