Clinton Says She Wants To Donate Her Money To Newborns?
Oh, wait a minute. Hillary Clinton actually wants to donate YOUR money to newborns. That's different. by Walt Thiessen
(libertarian)
Friday, September 28, 2007
According to a Reuters report, Hillary Clinton has announced that she wants to give away $5,000 to every baby born in America to start a savings account for college. The problem is that she isn't volunteering to give it away drawn primarily from her own money or Bill's money (even though she and Bill are worth millions). No she wants to give away your money and mine.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 4,115,590 babies were born in 2004. This means Clinton wants to add more than 20 billion dollars additional liability on taxpayers beyond the backbreaking burden the Federal government has already applied on us.
It would be one thing if she was volunteering to give her own money away. That, after all, is what philanthropy is all about...the rich giving their money away to help others. But that's not what Hillary wants. Oh sure, she's willing to part with $5,000 of her own millions, but she also wants to force you to part with $5,000 of your paltry savings and mine. I ask you...is that really right? I don't think it is.
The things that big government politicians from both branches of the Republicrat Party promise as they're kissing babies on their way to the White House makes me sick. My wife and I can barely afford to pay the rent and bills each month. We couldn't even take a proper vacation this year because we didn't have the money. Yet, the amount of money we paid out in Federal Income Tax, Social Security tax (which we'll likely never see again), Medicare, State Income Tax, etc., etc. is absolutely staggering. And now Hillary Clinton wants us to pay another $5,000 per baby born.
I can tell you this, Mrs. Clinton. You're not getting my vote.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 20
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Walt Thiessen only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Walt Thiessen is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
The people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. Americans are getting exactly what they deserve from those in Washington. Clinton should wear a kilt--it would save him and his ladies time and effort--and everyone was informed of this before he received that very first vote for president. George W. Bush's irresponsible ways and lack of intellect was well known before he received his first vote for the Governor of Texas. If the Independents want to vote for Ralph Nader or whomever, that is certainly their option. But when Satan is on the Republican or Democratic ticket, and even though the candidate running against Satan is not Jesus, the voters had better do whatever they can to see that Satan doesn't get elected. Just because Independents refuse to take part in the real election doesn't mean they're not going to suffer the consequences.
Posted By: Gary Lee Whitaker
Date: 2007-09-28 20:46:01
Is this real? Lets see, government schools teach that government is what made the USA great and more or less is our savior and has all the money and power to save us all.
I send my kid to a Christian School to avoid this non-sense, save the state $13,000 by doing it, have to pay $4,500 to do it (No vacation in years).
A child, when he is born owes hundreds of thousands of dollars because of reckless spending of our so called leaders. Now on top of that we should pay so they can continue their cultural Marxism or political correctness education that is destroying the morals and reasoning of many young minds. Scotty beam me up!!
"Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves." (NASB) Rom. 13:1-
It's not the public schools that are teaching children to bow down to these demons in Washington, D.C.. It was not the public school block of voters who sent George W. Bush to the Oval Office; it was the Christian block of voters. Please, Mr. Christian, take a vacation. America simply can't afford your thriftiness. It has cost us every dime we had in the treasury plus we've had to borrow five hundred billion dollars to keep this Christian vs. Muslim event going, not to mention the collateral damage (a million+ lives) as George W. Bush describes it.
Posted By: Gary Lee Whitaker
Date: 2007-09-30 20:31:28
What is up is down and what is down is up. For instance, George W and Rudy G. are not Conservatives. The original Conservative position on foreign policy is to avoid war and entangled alliances. George Bush is clearly a Gnostic (for instance; every thing is good or evil, you are with us or you are a with the terrorists, Gnostic or what?), many so called Christians are no more Christian than Republicans are Conservative. Christians believe that family and charity are responsible for taking care of people, not the government. We believe that peacemakers are the children of god, not neo-cons. In the first century, Jesus of Nazareth said an astonishing thing. While he did not prohibit Christians from giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s, he did make one thing abundantly clear; God and Caesar are two very different things. God, who created the heavens and the earth, is the eternal ruler of an ordered and knowable universe. Caesar, on the other hand, is a temporary and arbitrary ruler, properly bound not by his own law, but by the immutable laws of nature as established by God. For everywhere that Christianity is stamped out, the cult of the state grows by leaps and bounds, unbound by adherence to natural law. The examples are endless, USSR, China and look at our country as the fictionary separation of church and state continues to expand. Again the proof is in the pudding.
