Michelle Malkin » Everybody gets a 401K plan!

Everybody gets a 401K plan!

By Michelle Malkin • October 9, 2007 01:13 PM

Every citizen could get a 401(k) retirement account and up to $1,000 in annual matching funds from the government under a plan offered Tuesday by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

At a cost of $20 billion-$25 billion a year, the plan is Clinton’s largest domestic proposal other than her plan for universal health insurance. The New York senator said it would be paid for by taxing estates worth more than $7 million per couple and would help narrow the gap between the rich and those who don’t have enough savings for retirement.

Does she ever give the Big Nanny act a rest?

I guess the hand that robs the taxpayer is the hand that rules the world.

Posted in: Hillary Clinton

Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly

comments (93)

trackbacks (5)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

#1

On October 9th, 2007 at 1:17 pm, Larry L. Sharp said:

I am not certain which I am more amazed at, Hillary being so brazen as to think she can actually pander her way into the White House or the voters who believe she will actually make good on all her pandering promises.
#2

On October 9th, 2007 at 1:18 pm, mngirl said:

Someone needs to tell Hillary that everyone already has a 401k Plan.

Its called Social Security; and if Washington would let it be privatized it would mirror 401k’s and be a hell of a lot more valuable.

I hope Republicans use some of this against her tonight. Its supposed to be an economic discussion.
#3

On October 9th, 2007 at 1:26 pm, cblesz said:

Dear God…when oh when is the RNC gonna jump all over this socialist bufoon…first every newborn gets $5,000 and everybody gets matching funds from the government for a “401k” and to top it off…national healthcare?? This is such blatant socialism. I am literally shaking at the thought of this woman and the Dimwhits taking over…
#4

On October 9th, 2007 at 1:27 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

I shudder to think of what the US will look like if the Ice Queen becomes President.

Here a tax, there a tax, everywhere a tax, tax…
#5

On October 9th, 2007 at 1:27 pm, Chard402003 said:

Such blatant pandering. Mrs. Clinton is as dirty as dirty can be. What’s next, a cash payment for anyone that votes for her?
#6

On October 9th, 2007 at 1:29 pm, reine.de.tout said:

I commented at HotAir - a simpler thing would be to simply reduce every person’s tax burden by $1000 per year and let us do what we want with our own money, instead of giving it to the gov’t so that they can create some bureacracy to give it back to us.

These items are all intended to pull the middle-class into the “entitlement” mind-set, in preparation for further expansion down the road.
#7

On October 9th, 2007 at 1:30 pm, PaleoMedic said:

Maybe she’ll buy us all cars. I want a Nissan X-Terra. My wife likes the Mazda Miata convertabile…She’s like Santa Claus in a plum colored pantsuit.
#8

On October 9th, 2007 at 1:30 pm, gippergirl said:

Ummm…I think that IS cash for anyone who votes for her!!!…just wait till they roll out the clause that includes the dead illegal convicts…after all, isn’t that the majority voting base of the dems???
#9

On October 9th, 2007 at 1:33 pm, palani said:

Re: Larry L. Sharp

I am not certain which I am more amazed at, Hillary being so brazen as to think she can actually pander her way into the White House or the voters who believe she will actually make good on all her pandering promises.

You’re kidding, right? All politicians pander. The most adept win. At least with Oprah, her sponsors willingly pay for her largess.
#10

On October 9th, 2007 at 1:37 pm, xler8bmw said:

She and Bill are in a competition if she becomes Prez she can raise taxes higher than he did!
#11

On October 9th, 2007 at 1:39 pm, TheWriteJerry said:

Why is it that the so-called party of personal choice is always so quick to tell us how to spend our own money?
#12

On October 9th, 2007 at 1:40 pm, xler8bmw said:

MNgirl I agree!
#13

On October 9th, 2007 at 1:40 pm, CO of Fort Housewife said:

Democrats are always ‘thinking of the children’, what with SCHIP and referring to our troops as ‘children’ (which super-bad p*sses me off, but that’s another story). We are all children to them…we need them to take care of us poor things that don’t know what’s best! (sarc)
Here’s a novel idea~personal responsibility. Want to blow your money in your younger years? Go ahead, but don’t be whining when you have nothing left for retirement. Want to take out an interest only loan on a house that’s 3 times to big for you? Be my guest, but don’t expect me to bail you out. Health care? Join the Army (or marry a soldier). Either that, or pay for it your own damn self.
God help us all, if this Socialist gets any more power.
#14

On October 9th, 2007 at 1:41 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

mngirl hit the nail on the head.

What a money making prospect the government set up there. You pay in - no option - and you die early and they keep all of your money. Or, you pay in all you life, retire (soon you will have to live past 70 to collect) you get a payment and die and the keep your money. How in good blazes does a system like that go bankrupt? If we were “allowed” to put that same money (not all of our tax money) into a 401k, it could generate millions of dollars for the participant and leave a nest egg for the beneficiaries that could continue to grow. Then, who the heck would need entitlements?

NOOOOOOOO, we have to do it their way and hear how they are going to take care of us.

Dogs – all of them.

Now, don’t get me going on a flat tax that, combined with a proper retirement plan, would make us all sit pretty at retirement.
#15

On October 9th, 2007 at 1:44 pm, Dkian said:

Here’s a promise I’d like to see Hillary make:

Every taxpayer will get a government-paid accountant to do their taxes.

Think about it.
#16

On October 9th, 2007 at 1:44 pm, steveegg said:

Tax the rich
Pander to the poor
Till there are no
Rich no more.
#17

On October 9th, 2007 at 1:53 pm, jrlingreenbay said:

Why don’t we just assign anyone who has an estate worth over $7,000,000 a list of citizens that they are responsible for caring for.

That way - maybe one of us can just call Oprah, Bill & Hill, or John Edwards and say, “I want to retire - gimme my money” - and avoid all the government red-tape of redistribution.
#18

On October 9th, 2007 at 1:53 pm, publiuswarmac9999 said:

Madam Hillary is building a socialist government - one which will control virtually every aspect of everyone’s life. Already a good portion of the population is in the government’s pocket. All she is doing is adding more control to lovingly force us all to do things that are good for us. This woman is a dangerous creep, but so are Pelosi and Reid.
#19

On October 9th, 2007 at 1:56 pm, JammieWearingFool said:

Surely the wealthy Clintons will manage to shelter their money so they wouldn’t have to pay the tax.

I assume the idiot with the yellow hair will ask the GOP candidates about this tonight.
#20

On October 9th, 2007 at 1:56 pm, JammieWearingFool said:

Surely the wealthy Clintons will manage to shelter their money so they wouldn’t have to pay the tax.

I assume the idiot with the yellow hair will ask the GOP candidates about this tonight.
#21

On October 9th, 2007 at 1:57 pm, J S Ragman said:

News Flash.
Estates of greater than $7 million are already taxed, between 38% and 55%. Where is that money going now?
#22

On October 9th, 2007 at 1:57 pm, pressto said:

The USSR shall rise again.
#23

On October 9th, 2007 at 1:57 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

This woman is shameless. This would ultimately morph into another entitlement program…for which she’ll command significant control over the respective constituency groups. Ah, yes. What better way for a megalomaniacal freak to have their cake and eat it too?
#24

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:02 pm, feebiebabe said:

The New York senator said it would be paid for by taxing estates worth more than $7 million per couple and would help narrow the gap between the rich and those who don’t have enough savings for retirement.

Hillary is a damn Bolshevik. (will her estate be subject to taxation?)

These kind of statements make my blood boil. The person(s) who has the $7mm estate may have worked their entire life to earn the right to have that property - and they certainly don’t deserve to be penalized for it.

Just because some stinky hippies decided to do drugs their whole lives (grasshoppers that sang all summer) instead of going to med school or working their butts off like the rest of us, shouldn’t entitle them to mandatory handouts.

grrrrrrrrrrrr.
#25

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:07 pm, legalbgl said:

Wait a 401K plan, one that is invested in the market, you mean like Bush’s plan that she vigoursly opposed?

What is different about her plan and the one that Bush proposed and got shot down?
#26

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:08 pm, legalbgl said:

The New York senator said it would be paid for by taxing estates worth more than $7 million per couple

Maybe we could fund it with contributions from Hsu?
#27

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:09 pm, gippergirl said:

it’s not from bush…
#28

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:10 pm, feebiebabe said:

What is different about her plan and the one that Bush proposed and got shot down?

Someone correct me if I am wrong here, but I believe the difference was that Bush wanted to allow us the option to divert a portion of our Social Security withdrawls already being taken out of our paychecks and have the ability to place them into privitized accounts/portfolios.

Right?
#29

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:10 pm, cblesz said:

The difference from her plan and Bush’s plan is that the government will give you additional handouts…
#30

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:13 pm, raybury said:

I’m glad this money is coming from the government rather than out of current or future taxpayers’ pockets.

Give every child $5000 at birth, and the average (or below) college will simply increase tuition by the accumulated total of the 5k plus gains over 18 years, and high-end schools will increase by proportionally more. This helps the 15-year-old wunderkind from a poor family get to Harvard HOW?

Give every worker $1000 a year in retirement savings and retirement costs, or more generally living costs FOR EVERYONE, will inflate accordingly. This helps the guy who can only save $1000 a year instead of $3000-4000 HOW?
#31

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:15 pm, bit_boy said:

By Watson Wyatt “INSIDER”: Social Security — The Fate of the 1983 Long-Term Solution and the Lessons for Future Reform

The federal government last tried to restore long-term financial solvency to Social Security 24 years ago. The Social Security Amendments of 1983 were supposed to make Social Security fiscally sound for the next 75 years. According to current trustees’ projections, the program has enough assets to pay benefits until about 2040. However, because the government has borrowed most of the assets, some policymakers argue that, without additional reforms in the near future, Social Security will become a drain on the federal budget and the overall economy long before 2040. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke recently warned that “rising health-care and Social Security spending could create a ‘vicious cycle’ of rising debt and interest payments and an eventual fiscal crisis.

Seems to me we’ve been there, done that. The governments “borrowing of assets” is more like stealing. Naw, the government of the people, by the people, for the people would never steal from the people. Oh, just financially reform the Social Security program and watch Bush give the rich a nice tax cut. There go the reform revenues and we now know why Bush so wants Social Security reform.
#32

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:17 pm, Regulus said:

One of the annoying things about the 1992-2000 Co-Presidency was how they thought of the American taxpayer as little more than a bottomless pool of money. They taxed us at a rate reminiscent of the high water mark of World War II, racked up huge surpluses, and wouldn’t give any of it back because of Bubba’s concerns that we lumpenpolitik hoi polloi wouldn’t “spend it right.”

~~Evita~~ Madame Hillary would just pick up where Bubba left off. “The Rich” would be once again fit Ann Coulter’s Democratic definition as “anyone with an alarm clock” - and we’d tax, tax, tax our way to prosperity, truth, justice and The American Way.

And remember, for the heartless and selfish among you who want to think that it’s “your” money, it’s really for The Children (TM) and The Greater Good (TM). Who are we to argue with that?

So stand by to Stand and Deliver.
#33

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:20 pm, Phiber0p said:

OMG!! Does she EVER stop spending our money. Let me guess another one of those “thinking out loud” things when she’s pressed on the issue.
Lawyers do a real good job at getting points across to a jury, even when it’s objected and sustained, it’s still heard and damage done. I’m just sayin!
#34

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:26 pm, J S Ragman said:

#31 - The governments “borrowing of assets” is not stealing, it is called US Treasury Bonds, that pay interest, and give the principal back at the end of the term.
As for Bush wanting to reform Social Security, your own quote says that projections have the program in a world of hurt long before 2040, what’s he supposed to do ignore the problem?
And since the “rich” in this country pay about 59% of the tax dollars collected, why shouldn’t they get some benefit from a tax cut?
#35

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:27 pm, Glibertarian said:

Sorry, a little off-topic but the pic of Hillary in the witch hat on Drudge is priceless. Check it out while it’s still up.

I’ll have to save that for Photoshop purposes should she become The Wicked Witch of the West Wing.
#36

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:27 pm, planetgeo said:

One good thing about this proposal…now we know that Hillary and Bill make $6,999,999 per year.

Also, if Hillary would just modify her plan to give every American a big screen HDTV instead of a measly $1,000 she would finally win over the Nascar Dad vote.
#37

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:28 pm, blues said:

Just like all good Socialists,Hildebeast is in fact a Fascist.Convince the sheeple that you know whats best for them(not hard to do,just tell them what they want to hear),promise them the world,then enslave them.The voters of this country can’t seem to understand that the free market is the way to personal wealth,not government handouts.Dependency reduces freedom.I believe she is sincere about the give-aways,what better way to foster dependency and gain absolute power;especially after she makes Bubba Sec. Gen. of the U.N.
#38

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:28 pm, Just A Grunt said:

See how her platform matches with this checklist.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

(Almost complete)

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

(Death tax ring a bell)

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (Recent Supreme Court rulings)

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. ( Fairness Doctrine for part 1)

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. (Done, well almost)
#39

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:33 pm, st_james said:

If it keeps up like this, both my wife and I will be able to quit working! Go Hillary 08!
#40

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:33 pm, WisCon said:

And everyone gets a free car!
#41

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:37 pm, Defector01 said:

Big money Big Money no whammy no whammy big moneeeeyyyyyyy STOP!

Oh damn I got a Whammy
#42

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:39 pm, gippergirl said:

pretty soon we’ll all just sign up where we relinquish EVERYTHING and go live in pods a la “The Matrix” and her plan will be complete…
#43

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:41 pm, xler8bmw said:

Hmmmmm! Anyone this she’s getting just a bit Orwellian here?
And us conservatives want a police state and gov control LMAO!
#44

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:44 pm, Desert Rat said:

Wouldn’t it be easier to just privatize Social Security (on a VOLUNTARY Basis), to allow Americans who choose to do so to invest in several pre-approved Mutual Funds?

Oh yeah, that’s been proposed and shot down by Hill as “evil” . . .
#45

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:46 pm, feebiebabe said:

gippergirl - You got it! apperantly this is looking to be the direction we are going in, (sigh)…. I hope my little pod at least has email capabilities.
#46

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:46 pm, gippergirl said:

sorry Desert Rat, the only thing ye olde lowly citizens are allowed to choose for themselves is whether or not to have an abortion…
#47

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:48 pm, gippergirl said:

thx!…I miss Ronald Reagan…any chance El Rushbo will take that nudge to run seriously?…we need someone w/big brass ones…
#48

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:48 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:15 pm, bit_boy said:
Seems to me we’ve been there, done that. The governments “borrowing of assets” is more like stealing. Naw, the government of the people, by the people, for the people would never steal from the people. Oh, just financially reform the Social Security program and watch Bush give the rich a nice tax cut. There go the reform revenues and we now know why Bush so wants Social Security reform.

So, when you received your tax refund check from Bush in 2001, did you send it back and say - “no thanks just put it back in the system”?

Dude, take a pill. The problems with SS were around long before either Bush was president. At least W made an attempt to allow us the option to invest some of the money they ~~ste~~ take out of our paycheck and invest it for ourselves. If you did not have BDS so bad, you could at least see it.
#49

On October 9th, 2007 at 2:53 pm, jah said:

Why does the term bread and circuses come to mind?

Let’s see government (Hilary, et al) supplies the bread and hollywood (in the form of any blonde poptart in the news) provides the circus. Yep I got it now!
#50

On October 9th, 2007 at 3:00 pm, William Amos said:

Hillary to American people “Let them eat cake”
#51

On October 9th, 2007 at 3:03 pm, frayed said:

George Orwell was off a few years and he should have said “Big Mother” instead of “Big Brother”
#52

On October 9th, 2007 at 3:07 pm, jah said:

A government that is large enough to give you everything you want is large enough to take away everything you have
#53

On October 9th, 2007 at 3:07 pm, gippergirl said:

Sorry Mr. Amos, the people aren’t allowed to eat cake b/c it causes obesity…or, should you eat the cake then you must sue the fatcat company that forced you to eat the cake w/it’s razzle dazzle advertising…
#54

On October 9th, 2007 at 3:08 pm, William Amos said:

Ah right PC correctly it should be “Let them eat tofu”
#55

On October 9th, 2007 at 3:09 pm, Just A Grunt said:

SS was designed to meet the needs of folks in the 40’s and 50’s. A lot has changed since then not the least of which is the make up of the American workforce, the family, and the needs of citizens in the 21st cnetury. Everything must evolve, just as it does in the business sector. A business that tries to do things today the same way they were done in 1950 wouldn’t last long.
I was very pissed that the AARP lobby worked to defeat the SS reform, and then turn around and offer their members their own private retirement investment plan. I will never join them for that reason.
This is the 21st century and it is time to come up with 21st century solutions to our problems. Society is more mobile, they no longer spend their entire lives working for a single employer, we live longer, and there is no longer big families meaning the children will not be there to pay into schemes designed to take care of the needs of their parents.
#56

On October 9th, 2007 at 3:12 pm, xler8bmw said:

The minute the gov gets into your money accts and your home(no smoking in your apt in some town CA)it’s all downhill from there.

People need to wake up and tell the gov enough!
#57

On October 9th, 2007 at 3:34 pm, LC said:

What doesn’t she just go ahead and run under the Communist party. Seriously, she may call herself a democrat, or even a progressive democrat but in the end she in a Communist in sheep’s clothing (also sometimes refered to as a Socialist.) God help us all!
#58

On October 9th, 2007 at 3:39 pm, cblesz said:

Isn’t that what so called “progressives” are? Communists? They are and think “progressive” sounds better…
#59

On October 9th, 2007 at 3:47 pm, logdog said:

I hope Hillary gets elected. Then I can tear up my naturalized citizenship papers and become an illegal so the new socialist government can take care of all my needs.
#60

On October 9th, 2007 at 3:48 pm, Lan Astaslem said:

Once again, Shrillary knows what we really need. Surely we cannot be trusted to make our own decisions, now can we?!
/sarc

Here’s a sad article about socialized medicine. Guess this is what we have to look forward to if the Hildebeast gets elected.
#61

On October 9th, 2007 at 3:49 pm, xler8bmw said:

#58 YEP! They’ve gone from Communists to Socialists to Democrats to Secular Progressives to Progressives.
#62

On October 9th, 2007 at 4:01 pm, maisy said:

The NEW GIVERMEnt of the USA!!!
What do you expect from The Mall of Mankind…(new name for the USA!!)
#63

On October 9th, 2007 at 4:02 pm, Gabe said:

Anyone can open an IRA acoount and contribute to it himself.

But this type of self-reliance is not good enough for Hillary because she doesn’t get the credit for “helping.”
#64

On October 9th, 2007 at 4:03 pm, countrybumpkin said:

We’ve seen the writing on the wall. It reads SOCIALISM. Socialism will always give way to a dictatorship followed by revolution followed by chaos.
Hillary in ‘08.
#65

On October 9th, 2007 at 4:05 pm, xler8bmw said:

This is waht happens when you have too many uneducated, unskilled illegal/legal immigrants coming in to our country.

This has historically happened before which why the social services were created in the 1st place.
#66

On October 9th, 2007 at 4:15 pm, jrlingreenbay said:

After reading the news story about this - it states that this plan, according to her team - was an “idea” - not policy, and is now off the table.

Same thing for her $5000.00 per child born scheme. Just an “idea” - not policy.

The problem is she keeps dropping these ‘ideas’ to voters she speaks to - and how many of them never hear that it’s ‘off the table’ or was not something they’re seriously considering and will vote for her because of what they heard at that one speech??

But that is the beauty of it, isn’t it?

Too bad no one in the MSM ever holds her feet to the fire about these “Ideas” when they fall by the wayside….and the blatant pandering that brings it about.
#67

On October 9th, 2007 at 4:21 pm, jsr said:

AAAARGH!!! This woman is relentless. I’m not sure if the idiocy of her ideas or the seriousness they are accorded in in the MSM are worse.
#68

On October 9th, 2007 at 4:21 pm, jegjr said:

I thought the Dems already had the poor vote locked.
#69

On October 9th, 2007 at 4:37 pm, obdurate said:

Without being smug, face facts,the majority of dimocrat voters are not sophisticated enough to be trusted with any type of savings programs . Look at the number of annual bankruptcy filings and the dolts who think they can exist solely on socialism security.
#70

On October 9th, 2007 at 4:41 pm, DesertLover said:

BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) can now be described as being the pre-cursor to

CDS (Clinton Derangement Syndrome) …
#71

On October 9th, 2007 at 4:44 pm, Milwaukee Mike said:

publiuswarmac9999 said:
Madam Hillary is building a socialist government

…And the more of these ideas she spits out, the more her lead increases in the poles.

I’ll see you in the gulag, comrades!
#72

On October 9th, 2007 at 4:52 pm, DelosWorld said:

What’s interesting about this proposal is that it finally brings one of the last great taxes in Europe to the USA: the wealth tax. Right now you only pay taxes on income (with the exception of real estate taxes) but with this mechanism they can tap into the value of your unrealized gains. Of course I could list a number of difficulties with determining the value of an estate if it’s not simply cash in a bank account. And just imagine all the creative loopholes that will be generated. Truly, keeping your money in a mattress will become much more attractive with such a tax!
#73

On October 9th, 2007 at 4:59 pm, JohnHolliday said:

The greatest political mind of the 20th Century, Winston Churchill, once said -

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.

‘Nuff said.
#74

On October 9th, 2007 at 5:04 pm, Fodder_Jack said:

“The goal of socialism is communism.”
– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
#75

On October 9th, 2007 at 5:07 pm, Chard402003 said:

If Madame Hillary gets elected, what then? Hope for the military to remove her from power? She should go take classes from Hugo Chavez - wait a minute, maybe she coached Chavez?
#76

On October 9th, 2007 at 5:14 pm, Defector01 said:

Chard
Seriously, don’t go there
I mean it - don’t act like your on DU or DK
#77

On October 9th, 2007 at 5:17 pm, BerryG said:

Arn’t there 250 million people in the U.S.? With my public education that adds up to $250 Billion a year.
#78

On October 9th, 2007 at 5:20 pm, gippergirl said:

well BerryG, w/Mrs. Clinton’s public education it adds up to freeeeeeeeee!
#79

On October 9th, 2007 at 5:33 pm, JohnHolliday said:

You must remember that the gov’t considers the money you earn as theirs. Just to prove my point, check out your paycheck. The amount that says “Net pay” is what the gov’t calls “an expenditure.” As in, “we the gov’t take all of your money and are nice enough to spend this amount back to you.”

Karl Marx wrote that a heavy or graduated or progressive income tax is necessary for the proper development of communism. Question - if you don’t want communism (or socialism), why would you have a tax scheme that is necessary for the advancement of communism?

Answer - because the money is not important. The FairTax is designed to collect the same amount of money that every tax put together collects now. The only difference: No Enforcement Needed. The only reason for the continued use of the Income Tax is so Hitlery can have the IRS apply the thumbscrews to anyone that dissents with her position.

Interestingly, that’s the same type of misconduct she screamed about when, as a lawyer on the Watergate investigation, she claimed was an impeachable offense for President Nixon. And she wasn’t even in the chain of command when she ordered those IRS audits. Great. Just another glimpse into what a Hitlery presidency would look like.
#80

On October 9th, 2007 at 5:36 pm, tony the tiger said:

#13 CO of Fort Housewife said:

Here’s a novel idea~personal responsibility… Join the Army (or marry a soldier). Either that, or pay for it your own damn self.

*Now - don’t take this the wrong way - I agree with you!

My last fifteen years of service I used my benefits to get zero down mortgages (twice) with the VA. BOTH times lenders tried to loan way more than I was comfortable borrowing. I always used “base pay” only in figuring how much I could afford.

I’m starting to wonder whether the ant or the grasshopper comes out ahead in this game… may as well spend and enjoy it rather than save for a depreciated outcome.

Personal responsibility, like repairable goods is falling victim to the “planned obsolescence” of socialized agendas.
#81

On October 9th, 2007 at 5:50 pm, CO of Fort Housewife said:

Tony~how could I take it the wrong way when you agree with me?

I’m starting to wonder whether the ant or the grasshopper comes out ahead in this game…

That was just what I was thinking when I saw how little interest I was getting from my savings account. Through 2 deployments and The Man’s tour in Korea, we were frugal and saved up. I told the rep from BoA that I might as well pull it out of the bank and bury it in the backyard for all the good it’s doing me in their hands.

Back on topic, xler8bmw (#64) made a good point. Back at the turn of the 20th century, there were folks coming in from all over the world, many not speaking English and getting the short end of the stick. Upton Sinclair, that great Socialist, wrote “The Jungle” to call for change. Either that or he got a bad hot dog. I’ve never been too clear on that point.
#82

On October 9th, 2007 at 6:10 pm, TMoney said:

Unless this woman really screws up, between now and election day, we best be ready for her term in the White House.

Her unfettered gall - Berger as an advisor - and her constant announcements of socializing the United States, doesn’t seem to get the negative play that it should, except on radio (gone when she is president) and on the blogs. That means the majority of the press, TV and the welfare-state sheep are ready to suck the people who work dry.

If Y2k had been all it was warned to be, maybe we wouldn’t be facing eight years of Hillary. Come on 2012!!!
#83

On October 9th, 2007 at 6:20 pm, The Raging Republican said:

Hillary Clinton pulls an Oprah. Again

Bullseye!

Is there anything she is not going to promise in her push for the White House? Ahhh, socialism at its finest!
#84

On October 9th, 2007 at 6:55 pm, xler8bmw said:

TY #79 I wasn’t even thinking of that book (good book) but your right on point.
#85

On October 9th, 2007 at 7:07 pm, blues said:

Off subject(sort of).Dems are backing off on wiretapping-probably smell the White House in 08.Careful what you say after 01/20/08.W isn’t interested in grandma’s cookie recipe,but the Hildebeast will be.
#86

On October 9th, 2007 at 7:08 pm, Boomer said:

Great just what this nation needs another bloated tax burden on the rapidly shrinking American middle class. Nothing like being bribed with your hard earned and forcibly taxed dollars in to voting for “she who must not be named.”
#87

On October 9th, 2007 at 9:21 pm, riplag said:

Where am I going wrong? US population of 250 million times $1000 is 250 BILLION not 25 billion! Yes ? No?
#88

On October 9th, 2007 at 9:24 pm, Durangodarlin said:

And there are many, many people who believe that she can deliver, and they will vote for her. “Please, federal government, save me from myself.”
#89

On October 9th, 2007 at 10:48 pm, Bob's Kid said:

I’d like HRC to explain to me how this is different (in spirit) than GWB’s plan to privatize SS.

It’s stupid, she’s got to know people are going to jump on that, right?

Right?

Oh, I forgot. Pandering knows no shame.
#90

On October 10th, 2007 at 1:19 am, Miss Ladybug said:

I’m beginning to like the Teacher Retirement System in my state more and more. They don’t take SS out of my district paychecks. I won’t get paid any SS when I retire, but since it won’t be there anyway, I lose nothing, really, and stand to gain instead…
#91

On October 10th, 2007 at 8:03 am, bvw said:

The bribe-the-vote handouts tell all what Hillary thinks at her core (1) of them, and of (2) all whom she deals with.
(1) We, the public, want want want and our “integrity” is for easy sale. We are cheap floozies.
(2) And to her, all politics is bribery. You want access to President Clinton, you BUY it.
And by that understanding of the lady we all see what is the heart of those who love her — what they expect of the world and others.
#92

On October 10th, 2007 at 9:15 am, chow said:

These entitlement programs are nothing more then vote buying scams. free medical care, free 401k, 5 grand for every mother. It speaks volumes about the sad state of affairs in america when an opportunistic candidate even thinks they can entice voters through bribery.
#93

On October 19th, 2007 at 11:05 am, foxforce91 said:

I’m kind of heartened by the fact that she thinks she needs to buy votes in order to get them. She’s running scared. I don’t think most Americans agree with her. I think most Americans will see right through her. Am I being too optomistic?