Hillary Clinton Will Make A Bad President

1. First of all, Hilary has never advocated wealth redistribution as such. She is not forcing anyone to hand over their money so she can give it to the poor. All she is doing is bringing capitol gains tax a bit closer to what normal taxes are at. As it stands, capitol gains tax can be as low as 5%, whereas ordinary income tax is 35%. I see no reson not to even these two out a bit. As it is, all that a lower capitol gain's tax will do is give more power to the elite, those who can afford to invest money in the stock market, and wealthy businessman who have shares of their companie's stock. I see no reason that money earned gambling in the stock market should be taxed less than money earned through honest labor. There is absolutely no coorrelation between what Hitler is doing and what Hilary clinton is doing. They are two entirely different situations. Quite frankly, in my opinion, comparing Hitler to Hillary should discredit your whole argment right there. As to your analogy, it does not apply to the issue at hand. Lets say that evryone who's parents make more than 100,000 a year automatically gets one letter grade higher than the children of poorer parent's, and children whose parents make less than 40,000 a year automatically get one letter grade less. How is this a fair arraingement? All Hillary is doing is evening things out somewhat. 2. Your statement that having socialized health care would be bad is irrelevent. What Hillary is proposing is NOT SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE. All she is proposing is that employers must provide healthcare coverage to all their employees through HMO's. This is not socialized medicine. The HMO's, or health maitenance organizations, will still have to compete for business, which means they will still have an incentive to provide fast, efficient health care. Right now, American health care is the most expensive in the world, and it is quickly getting even more expensive. Ms. Clinton's law would curtail the rampant rise in cost and provide healthcare to EMPLOYEEs of companies, without jeapordizing the quality of healthcare. NEarly every one of the former opponents to her plan have changed their minds, in fact, most Healthcare providers, Hospital organisations, and drug companies support her now. As to your argument that the constitution doesn't include free healthcare, well, it doesn't have anything about punishing murderer's either. The constitution is by no means the be all, end all, list of laws in the US. Right now only 84% of all Americans are covered by healthcare, and even then, they often can not afford critical operations. THERE IS NO REASON WHY PEOPLE SHOULD DIE OF TREATABLE DISEASES JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE POOR. I see nothing wrong with changing that. (As to the lack of experience, experience in every field imaginable is not necessary to be president. Even if it was, she has experience; she headed a 500+ person healthcare intitiative for 3 years.) 3. Polls are not untrustworthy or innaccurate. Guess how our national elections are decided? BY A POLL. That is all that voting is. And furthermore, the questions on the polls are, to quote, "Which of the candidatesdo you support?" How is this innaccurate, misleading, or biased? And as far as the exit polls, Gore DID win the popular vote. What polls show is the popular vote, not the electoral vote. It is possCITIZENS VOTE FOR HIM), and still lose the electoral vote (i.e. HAD MORE ELECTORS VOTE FOR HIM), as happened in 2004. And Kerry lost in the exit polls, so your point is irrelevant. She does have principles, it just so happens that her principles happen to coincide with the will of the people, which is what a president's principle's should do. 4. I have already said that she has experience in the healthcare industry. I will not repeat myself for a third time. If you actually read her bill rather than reading what her opponents say the bill is, you would see that it is well thought out and effective. Furthermore, I would say that it is insulting to call life saving healthcare coverage "goodies". I have been unable to find any evidence to support your "Chinese Dishwashers" and I will not argue an issue that does not exist. Suffice it to say, that there has been no evidence to support this. As to your other argument, that her advisers are greedy, power hungry, and so on, you provide no support for this either. All you are saying here is unsupported rhetoric. Please provide some support for those points. 5. She is not pitting the middle class and lower class against the rich. How do you think she got so much in campaign donations if the rich did not support her? Irregardless, the rich and corporations are an indescribably small segment of the population when compared to how many poor and middle class there are. The wealthy and corporations only represent roughly a tenth of the population. I would argue that what Hillary is doing is supporting the right of an overwhelming majority in a democracy to dictate what happens