Okay, all liberal bashing aside. I thought I would give you all a glimpse of Hillary’s proposals if she is elected as President; and then you can decide whether or not we can afford her spending habits.
Source: Townhall Magazine, January 2008, Premier Issue
- Universal Healthcare – Cost: $110 Billion
- Strategic Energy Fund – Cost: $50 Billion
- Create “American Retirement Accounts” – Cost: $20-25 Billion
- Universal Paid Leave – Cost: $1.75 Billion
- College Affordability – Cost: $8 Billion
- Global Aids Prevention – Cost: $50 Billion
- Universal Pre-Kindergarten – Cost: $10 Billion
- Aid for ailing bridges – Cost: $10 Billion
- Double the National Institute of Health’s Budget – Cost: $2.8 Billion
- Increase funding for public transportation – Cost: $1.5 Billion
- Aid for passenger rail services – Cost: $1 Billion
- Green Building Fund – Cost: $1 Billion
- Foreclosure Prevention for “at risk” borrowers – Cost: $1Billion
- Increased funding for subsidized rental housing – Cost: $1 Billion
- Increased funding for autism research – Cost: $700 Million
- Double the National Cancers Institute’s Budget – Cost: $500 Million
- More National Science Foundation Fellowships – Cost: $388 Million
- Funding for “congestion reduction” – Cost: $350 Million
- Second Change education for felons – Cost: $300 Million
- U.S. Public Service Academy – Cost: $200 Million
- Increase Physical Education programs in public schools – Cost: $36 Million
- Funding for cancer survivor groups – Cost: $25 Million
- Create a “Corporate Subsidy Information Service” agency – Cost: $15 Million
Let’s see…that’s 23 brand new programs and $265 Billion. It doesn’t stop here either. This list is only a sample of Hillary’s proposals. The full list can be viewed here and totals close to $778.6 Billion.
So I am scratching my head in amazement, wondering — who in the hell is going to pay for this?
Yah know, I am not totally against all of Hillary’s proposals. Some are quite noble and I just might support a few of them (i.e. funding cancer survivor groups, Aids Preventions, and Autism research).
But….
- I really don’t want to pay for someone else’s healthcare when mine already costs so much to support my family.
- I don’t want to pay for other kids to go to college when I am busting my ass trying to put away money for my own daughter’s college tuition.
- I don’t want to bail out those home owners who made bad decisions and bought homes they couldn’t afford.
- And, I surely don’t want to spend my hard working cash flow supporting programs for felons. HELL NO.
So I ask this simple question…Can we afford Hillary as President of the United States?
Technorati Tags: hillary clinton, proposals
Very nice!!! Thanks for putting it all in such an easy-to-read---- and easy-to-show-your-Democrat-friends/family/boyfriend's idiot sister--- format!
"Why the hell are you voting for her?!?!" "I just think it's time we put a woman in the White House." HOW DO YOU EVEN CONSIDER HER A WOMAN???
Yo Val...
Thanks for the compliment. God, I hope she doesn't win the dem nomination.
I just cannot understand it! Why do people think she's going to do good things for America?? I think they are all oblivious, they're so busy watching American Idol that they have never heard Hillary on one of her "black" nights. She's frightening. Little kids should not be in the room when she's yelling on TV.
Actually, on second thought. She'd be much easier to beat than Obama; so maybe she should win the nomination.
UGH.
yeah.... like a politician is gonna do everything they said before the election! Hillary knows the score. She'll prioritise....... and surely the one person the american people could not afford is bush. His tax cuts were projected to cost $297 billion in 2004 alone( Joint Committee on Taxation estimates) http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm
Costs for 10 years following 2004 are estimated to be $3.9 trillion. Now doesn't Hillarys wishlist sound achievable. Infact presuming they were rolled out, and she served a full term, the initiatives would cost only $194.65 billion a year.
Found this little gem while doing the bit of research which was written when Bush was President-Elect
"To compensate the government for revenue lost to tax cuts, Bush's plan would draw from the budget surplus estimated to reach $4.56 trillion by 2010." http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa010201a.htm
Ahhhh.... how optimistic that commentator was. Guess nobody could have known just HOW badly Bush would manage the economy.
On a more sympathic note, thanks for raise Hillary in my estimation by bringing to light her wish to enact such noble initiatives.
Nobody's celebrating what happened during the Bush years, and the war is really ridiculous, and the stimulus package makes no sense-- sending a check for a few hundred bucks is not going to help my dad pay the $4000 a month in property taxes & mortgage. But it's unfair to say that he did EVERYTHING wrong with the economy. The market rises and falls regardless of who is in office. Clinton didn't do anything spectacular by simply existing while e-commerce blew up and made him look good in a time of disgrace. I guess that's what a "black president" can get away with, though... (I don't see Obama trying that shit, but then again he isn't married to a man-beast-cyborg-fat-crazy-psycho)
However, Congress is officially screwing us with their earmarks, and you'd be a fool to pretend otherwise. Honestly- HOW much did Pelosi blow on flowers for her office? Almost $20,000 of OUR money. If that went to healthcare I'd be much happier, but their list of earmarks does not span things that will benefit us.
Anyway, you can add little accents and squiggles to fancy up your name, but it doesn't change that you're a big pansy for approving of Hillary Clinton. At least Obama isn't a fucking psychopath. He's just a guy who wants to do things, even if he doesn't know what or how.
Ya of course its not all Bushs' fault....... it's not like you have a centralised economy so it couldnt possibly be.... unless he's got everybody under mind control and seemingly independent actions by many people are his thoughts coming true (joke btw, not crazy liberal conspiracy..... or is it?!)
I was just trying to show that what looks at first glance to be a woman you shouldnt give ur wallet to to buy grocerys (isnt that what u guys call them!) is actually just setting out a wishlist which will be guided by economic circumstances. She's required (to be elected) to set out her stance based on the possibilities which the job may open up for her and the american people......... not the cold hard reality and difficulty of it all!
Earmarks?? Sounds like our politicians expenses......... Our Taoiseach (head of Government) blew 25,000 euro on make-up the year before last and our very fat Minister for Health spent thousands on chocolates and flowers which were only for flights in the government jet!
Incase you thought it an accent agu (nt sure of the spelling of it but its the french accent that points the same way!) thats used in my name its actually a fada. It's irish........ so its pronounced like your Shawn or the english Shaun.
AMERICA SPENDS FOR ISRAEL MANY TIMES OVER BILLIONS FOR ISRAEL'S SAFETY BUTWON'T SPEND I SINGLE PENNY FOR ITS OWN AMERICAN CITIZEN, WHY HEY! ! ANSWER. I THINK AT THIS JUCTURE A PERSONALTY LIKE HILLARY CLINTON IS NEED AND NOT BACK RUB BUSH TYPE MAN/BOY LIKE OBAMA. FIRST CHANGE YOUR AMERICAN BASIC AMERICAN MENTALITY OF PIDE AND PREJUDICE, OK MY FRIEND. THE PERSON WHO LISTED THE HILLARY'S SPENDING HAS ONLY SHOWN HOW GREAT SHE IS AND HER THINKING FOR WE AMERICANS FIRST AND THE REST SECONDARY. TRY AND LEARN TO BE IMPARTIAL FIRST BEFORE YOU COMMENT, OK. MIRZA
Valerie, name calling is really not a very effective way to win an argument, whether in person or online. Calling Hillary supporters "big pansies" might get you some admiration from fellow Hillary-haters, but that's about it. Also, making fun of the accent mark? Silly.
As to earmarks, they account for about 1/2 of 1% of the federal budget. Granted the budget is huge, so that's a lot of money. And they do need to be reined in. But 1/2 of 1% is not going to fix anything. Also, I'm not sure you really understand what an earmark is, if you're saying Pelosi buying flowers for her office is one.
From wikipedia:
"In U.S. politics, an earmark refers to congressional provisions directing that funds already authorized be spent on specific projects (or directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees). Earmarks can be found in both legislation (also called "Hard earmarks" or "Hardmarks") and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called "Soft earmarks" or "Softmarks"). Hard earmarks are binding and have the effect of law, while soft earmarks do not have the effect of law but by custom are acted on as if they were binding. Typically, legislators seek to insert earmarks which direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in his/her home state or district."
In other words, they are congress specifying that certain amounts of money that has been budgeted for some large purpose (e.g. transportation) be spent on specific things (e.g. bridges in a certain member's district)
But that's going way off on a tangent. I think Hillary doesn't expect to actually implement all of those things. But if you watched the debate last night, she explained how she would pay for her health care plan.
yeah, by garnishing the wages of those who do not want health insurance. Sounds like socialism to me.
$778 Billion huh? this is a small number compared to Bush's latest budget for 2009 which is ~$3 TRILLION. Not to mention you forgot the whole point of universal treatment. it's UNIVERSAL. yes, you assist others, but they assist you at the same time which means you don't have to "bust your ass" to put away money for health care and college.....
@ Kyle
...and what's wrong with "Bustin' your ass"? You want everything handed to you on a silver platter?
Yeah Bush is spending too much damn money too!
Cheaper than the war with more benefits to those of us here in America.
You go, Girl!
@ Jay
Your comment isn't worthy of a response, except for...
You are an idiot!
@ Urban Conservative
not expecting a silver platter here, but it would be nice to not have to worry about some of the financial things that cause so much stress in our society. i'm a "work smarter, not harder" type person, but if you want to keep slaving away, feel free.
Why should we be relying on the Government for National Healthcare....look at how horrible the VA is....National Healthcare will look worse because it would be bigger. It takes me like 3 months to schedule a physical with the VA....also the Government in general is corrupt....they should get rid of Social security, welfare...medicare and medicade....what Hillary Clinton is trying to do is a slap in the face for responsible americans who plan for their future and themselves. now you may ask how unthoughtful of thi 23 yr old. well if we take it away from the Government and give it to non-profit organizations to help out the communities because the Government just isn't doing the job. the same could be done with Public Schools....they suck....shut them down and open up all private schools......well the non profit organizations can now help out with lower income families...and private schools will then have to compete against each other for a promise of lower prices with better education...furthermore i think any member of congress, senate, Govenors and President should be drug tested. it is unfair for people making our laws breaking them,...along with non-profit organizations would also go for international aid. this would cut millions of millions of dollars to citizens and allow them to pay for the matters that mean most to them. this puts the responsibility back in the hands of the citizens,.The main things that should be taxed are the DoD, DoJ, DoS at a national level because they protect us. I don't know about you all but i don't want my money going somewhere i don't want it to go. and by allowing things like national healthcare and national retirement it sounds a lot like communism. where everyone is the same where no matter how much harder you work than another person u are at the same level as them. i belive if you want to reitre good be smart and get a 401K invest your money plan ahead and be responsible for yourself.
curtis says:
"i belive if you want to reitre good be smart and get a 401K invest your money plan ahead and be responsible for yourself."
..........would a military retirement pension be considered "socialistic"?
i agree about being responsible ..........that's part of the reason i served......
No you served your country for 20 years or longer. Other companies offer retirement the military definitly should. you sacrificed your life in one way or another for your coiuntry. Most people don't even join the military or law enforcement or Fire Dept. most people do not have the attitude to serve. And obviously you had a plan with the military being responsible. relying on social security by itself is not being responsible.
curtis:
"............relying on social security by itself is not being responsible."
No, it's not(responsible)to rely on SS........and it's not exactly luck that i have more than that to retire on @ 53.........
what about people that lost considerable $$$tied to investment accounts......or an injury that puts them on disability.?
point is, there are lots of cracks for people to fall through ........and to tighten those cracks will cost $$$....Question is......from where?
Some Americans want real answers and real accountability ..........i was once young&strong and i served my country in a way most people are not equipped to handle,
what about those weaker than we?
First off if people saved their money in more than one account and more than one bank would be a great idea. Plus this would demand responsibility out of Americans. Due to the fact of reality that some do not plan for themselves if an unexpected event happens there should be non profit organiztions to help people out. The beauty of it is take myself for example I'm not a fan of giving a lot of other countries millions of millions of dollars.If we got rid of taxing americans for this department and leave it to non profit organizatrions who have a heart to help out other nations. I would put my money towards the DAV. Other might put it to the elderly in need through a non proift organization. Others to the homeless through homeless shelter. If the Government is doing it I believe Americans have already seen the results of what happens when the Government does it i.e. the Public Schools, VA, Homeless people now. If Americans stand togethor and do it ourselves not only woudl it get done better but each person knows where there money is going. I know I don't know exactly where my specific tax dollars go. This way get rid of most of these taxes and you, we take control of the areas in America we want to see change.
OH MY GOD!!! 778.6 BILLION DOLLARS!
wait a second... thats only 100 billion more than what the Bush administration spent on the Iraq war! So Hillary Clinton would spend approximately the same amount of money on 23 programs instead of one?
I love when Republicans complain about over spending. The bush administration wasn't really the epitome of fiscal responsibility.
The point is Curtis, American can fund it's schools, infrastructure, welfare,and its defense......but it cannot fund massive outlays this disastrous war is eating up, along with a tax cut for the rich....and Virginia Class Submarines(How much does 1 of them cost?)
Thanx for giving(...esp. the DAV, they have helped me plenty...) My point is, Yes it's good to be responsible, but it's not cool to be a "chump".......and i see so many americans(myself included) being played as chumps while some seem to have easy access to treasury dollars(Haliburton?)
No Joe.......... "I love when Republicans complain about over spending"
They blame it ALL on liberals when they are the really BIG spenders!
Ya know, I was right on the edge of feeling sorry for HRC, with her valedictory at the Texas debate.
But then I remembered her tearing up just prior to the NH primary and thinking at the time that her getting all teary isn't possible, since reptiles don't have tear ducts.
Speaking from a purely pragmatic Republican point of view; she was the better damnocrat nominee, because no matter how much we Conservatives have problems with McCain -- nominating HRC would have galvinized all Republicans to vote against her -- hate is a real motivater.
I am divided - on the one side I am glad to see the Clinton dynasty dissolve into the dust of history, but on the other hand we face an opponent who has no face -- he's all vapor and no solidity. That is something which appeals to youth and which anyone who is an adult realizes is just verbal gas.
I fear this deeply commited "I hate America" candidate may carry the day in November.
hcapper.......The hate America candidate would be B.Obama? Why is it wrong think that America isn't perfect? i'm not proud of a country that puts the interests of the corporate citizen ahead of the private citizen.......i may hate the corporation, but not the country. As far as i am concerned, those who use machinery of government to enrich themselves are the "Hate America Crowd".......not those of us that are fighting to change business as usual in Washington.
Here is my background. I was homeschooled for highschool. 3.9 GPA. Captain in Civil Air Patrol. Build computers for fun. Two years of college for computers. Signed up for 5 years in the Army as a paratrooper. No criminal record whatsoever until July 4th 2007 when I drove my "buds" to a robbery and was arrested the next day.
I am a felon, but ill let you know not all felons are "bad". I work with quite a few felons infact and most of us just made a mistake and just happened to get caught for it.
Also, I can garuntee you that 80% of people commited some sort of fellony in their life time, you just didn't get caught.
I dont think Americans should pay for others mistakes, I think its a condition of the heart, but the way you put your last point, made me feel like if you saw me on the street and learned that im a felon that you would turn and walk away.
This artcle just got submitted to Digg, get on there and digg it up.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Can_America_pay_for_Hillary
It was the wrong link. heres the corrected one.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Can_America_Afford_Hillary
Question?
if Hillary wants the government to step in with foreclosed mortgages, and either somehow taking the mortgage and almost "flipping" the property? Im not sure if I am getting it right maybe someone can straighten out my ignorance. And alert me to if this is whats meant by "big government" involvement.
Again,Please allow for my ignorance, I am a bit of a new student to politics and am trying to understand.
Thank you