Fred75 wrote:DanMc wrote:Fred75 wrote
And is not taxing everyone so the poor can have free healthcare a SOCIALIST agenda?
Yes, and a good idea too.
I doubt that Hillary Clinton is a socialist though.
It SOUNDS like a good idea.
But the reality of it is that you create a tax burden that cripples its citizens.
A tax burden that only gets larger and larger.
A society of freeloaders that live off the sweat of others.
A nation of children instead of independent MEN.
Women that can have children with no fathers in the home (broken homes).
Fraud to get money.
California & New York's health care and fraud has those states burdened with a huge debt.
Nonsense, Fred...
Out here in the real worldworld it is
rampant military spending - and NOT socialised health care nor education systems - that eventually bankrupts countries.
It was their excessive military spending - trying to match the USA - that eventually crippled the USSR. Modern day Russia and the Ukraine
both still maintain their socialised education, health and pensions systems, despite now being capitalist countries..
Australia, Britain, France, Sweden, Germany and Canada have nationalised healthcare and education systems {that were still maintained - even if modified - when under conservative governments..}, that DON'T cripple our economies - why should it be so different for the USA ???
Why is it that hawks like you
never complain about unbridled and excessive military spending,
nor unjustified invasions of other countries ??
As for California, it is still capable of
standing alone as the
sixth largest economy in the world - if it were considered independantly of the rest of the USA... California still has the highest concentration of wealth on the planet,
despite the general malaise in the USA as a whole..
How much of your perceived problems in California and New York, might actually be because of their
counter-acting the neglect of your Federal government, rather than any simple largesse on the individual state's part ?
