Rare honesty from Hilary Clinton....

[bamaslammer]

I read this story and my jaw dropped open. But at least she is honest in that her party is a bunch of Euro-wannabe socialists.

Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.
link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/06/28/politics2039EDT0165.DTL&type=printable)
Ms. Clinton, it is not your money to give or take away. It is money those people EARNED. And you people claim American liberals are not socialist!
Same principle as those advocated by this man:
In a higher phase of communist society... only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be fully left behind and society inscribe on its banners: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

I like this quote from the Americans for Tax Reform:
The Washington, D.C.-based Americans for Tax Reform responded to Clinton's remarks, saying, "When it comes to tax policy, liberal politicians often try to hide their true colors."

"There you have it: Hillary Clinton, the soul of the Democratic Party, talking about taxpayers’ money like it's hers," said Americans for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist. "What insufferable arrogance – it's as though our taxes are hers to spend!"
link (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39205)
I'll at least give this to Hitlary, at least she's honest about what liberals intend to do with your money!

[twhy77]

Yeah that kinda struck me as a scary quote. We're taking away your money for the common good. EEEK. Whose version of the common good?

[MadMax]

Here's the thing. You can agree with this woman's intent. You can agree with her policy calls. You can agree with her, in general.

But when you couch it in language like this, you scare the crap out of Americans. You just do. Maybe we're uneducated. Maybe we're McCarthyistic. Whatever. When you couch it in terms of "we're going to take things away from you" then you really seem to be stepping all over a lot of language and concepts that this country finds its roots in.

[SamFisher]

That's right bamaslammer. Hilary Clinton is smart enough to realize that we don't live in an unregulated, laissez faire, plutocracy and that markets aren't always perfectly efficient, and all those other things that you seem to not be able or are unwilling to recognize.

Thank god we don't live in that kind of a society, your life would be a lot worse.

By the way, since your looking for quotes, this noted socialist is probably of a similar mind to Clinton on taxes:

Quotable

"I would not have voted for [President Bush's] tax cut, based on what I know. . . . There is no doubt that the people at the top who need a tax break the least will get the most benefit. . . . Too often presidents do things that don't end up helping the people they should be helping, and their staffs won't tell them their actions stink on ice."

-- Former senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), in a recent interview with Business North Carolina magazine.

Does this make him a Marxist too?
:eek:

Or what about this one:

'Haven't we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut's gonna do it again.'

--George W. Bush, as alleged by Paul O'Neill.

Socialists, one and all!

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by MadMax


But when you couch it in language like this, you scare the crap out of Americans. You just do. Maybe we're uneducated. Maybe we're McCarthyistic. Whatever. When you couch it in terms of "we're going to take things away from you" then you really seem to be stepping all over a lot of language and concepts that this country finds its roots in.

She wasn't talking to the country, she was talking to a rich group of like minded Bay Area residents at a 10,000$ a plate fundraiser for women senators. Preaching to the choir. But if you disagree, don't vote for her next time around......

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by bamaslammer
I read this story and my jaw dropped open. But at least she is honest in that her party is a bunch of Euro-wannabe socialists.


I love comments like this. Yes, bama, socialism is a European originated concept. Of course, so are Democracy, Republicanism, free market economics, fascism, liberalism, conservatism, and virtually any other aspect of the hard right American system you seem to love so much. Talk about shock jock rhetoric without substance.

[Oski2005]

Well, when you pay any taxes, your earned money is being taken from you for the common good. Unless you are for zero taxes, then what is so outrageous about what she said. National defense is a common good.

This whole socialist welfare state nonsense has to stop. Until democrats advocate a cradle to grave welfare policy, there is no argument. There are also so many stereotypes pertuated by people like bamma about welfare that it makes me sick. Most people on welfare are only on it temporarily and when they go off it, they don't usually come back. Also, welfare only makes up about 1% of the national budget.

[bamaslammer]

Originally posted by MacBeth
I love comments like this. Yes, bama, socialism is a European originated concept. Of course, so are Democracy, Republicanism, free market economics, fascism, liberalism, conservatism, and virtually any other aspect of the hard right American system you seem to love so much. Talk about shock jock rhetoric without substance.
God you people just don't get it. She is basically saying that YOUR money and MY money belong to govt. Also she is saying that we peasants should be happy with what the lords in Washington allow us to have. It is a sick, sick statement, but I appreciate her candor. Elect liberals, get your taxes raised while economic activity is pinched off so some leftist politicians can buy votes. Sure... right. Common good my ass. Get your damned hands out of my wallet, Sen. Clinton.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by bamaslammer
God you people just don't get it. She is basically saying that YOUR money and MY money belong to govt..

No, she's not saying "your" money.

You don't make enough money to live in San Francisco, Marin County, Napa, etc, and go to $10,000 a plate fundraisers. Hence, it's not your money she's referring to.

She's talking about "their" money.

Consdering that the rich are among the largest stakeholders, and the biggest beneficiaries in this little experiment we call "America", which costs a hell of a lot of money to run from day to day, it's not unrealistic to expect them to foot the largest portion of the bill.

A lot of rich people realize that, despite a lot of non-rich people screaming at them otherwise.

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by bamaslammer
God you people just don't get it. She is basically saying that YOUR money and MY money belong to govt. Also she is saying that we peasants should be happy with what the lords in Washington allow us to have. It is a sick, sick statement, but I appreciate her candor. Elect liberals, get your taxes raised while economic activity is pinched off so some leftist politicians can buy votes. Sure... right. Common good my ass. Get your damned hands out of my wallet, Sen. Clinton.

IIRC, both your home state and your state of residence spend more than they are taxed. You grew up in, and moved to, a welfare state. As such, your complaints ring pretty hollow.

[bamaslammer]

Amazing how you people miss the point of what she's saying or in the case of Sam, make excuses and rationalizations for it. She claims in not so many words that our money is the Govt's to disburse as they please. It is not ours to even begin with. The fact that you people aren't even bothered by that is troubling. If that's the case, Sam, mail me some of that big paycheck you claim to make. Share the wealth, brother. If redistributing your income doesn't bother you, help me pay for my children's tuition at the catholic school. It's not your money and it's for the common good!

[thadeus]

Socialism has been almost completely bred out of existence, and Capitalism, having done so much to better the world over the past three centuries, has now become an impediment to achieving the same goals that made it attractive in the first place. It is, in the modern context, every bit as cumbersome and unjustifiable as Socialism, in the 20th century, ever was.

It's time for something new.

As for Hilary Clinton - she's enough of a politician to know that the frightened, purse-clutching American demographic are going to react to these quotes (no matter what they really mean) like rich old white ladies trapped in the parking lot at a G-Unit concert. Must have been a rare lapse of political instinct on her part.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by bamaslammer
Amazing how you people miss the point of what she's saying or in the case of Sam, make excuses and rationalizations for it. She claims in not so many words that our money is the Govt's to disburse as they please. It is not ours to even begin with. The fact that you people aren't even bothered by that is troubling. If that's the case, Sam, mail me some of that big paycheck you claim to make. Share the wealth, brother. If redistributing your income doesn't bother you, help me pay for my children's tuition at the catholic school. It's not your money and it's for the common good!


I do mail you some, you get a little piece of me every day when you drive to work on your federally funded highway, and profit from your federally funded education.....etc.

Again, you completely missed the point and read in whatever you wanted too...she was talking to a bunch of rich liberals and specifically talking about repealing Bush's tax cut giveaway to the upper 1% of the country -- a sentiment that a significant portion of the country -- including such socialists as Jesse Helms, George W. BUsh, Warren Buffet etc -- might even agree with.

Of course, since Hilary is the antichrist to you, and probably always will be, you make it into some grandiose Leninist plot and a sinister revelation of her master plan to steal food from your table.

Whatever floats your boat I guess.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by bamaslammer
Amazing how you people miss the point of what she's saying or in the case of Sam, make excuses and rationalizations for it. She claims in not so many words that our money is the Govt's to disburse as they please. It is not ours to even begin with. The fact that you people aren't even bothered by that is troubling. If that's the case, Sam, mail me some of that big paycheck you claim to make. Share the wealth, brother. If redistributing your income doesn't bother you, help me pay for my children's tuition at the catholic school. It's not your money and it's for the common good!

Currency is a symbol of a system of exchange issued and approved of by a nation's government.

A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquifiable account.
The official currency, coins, and negotiable paper notes issued by a government.
Assets and property considered in terms of monetary value; wealth.

As such, it is a fallacy to deem that it exists in a state of entriely independant possession to those who currently hold it.

It cannot exist without government. We do not exist in an entirely free market. Your capacity to earn it, and what value it posseses is entirely dependant on the system of government in place, the current policy of same, and the efficiency of the process.

People who act like a purely free market is the natural way of life rudely interrupted by a left leaning government don't know a damned thing about the history of economics, or of money or society in general. Additionally, I like how Europe is used to marginalize the other side through xenophobic rhetoric when, in fact, the United States exists at the extreme right on the global scale, and the socialization bama fears could almostl be described as 'everyone but us' I know, again, we're right and everyone else is wrong, and what's more, it's self-evident.

[4chuckie]

I wish teh liberals would come out and say what taxes tehy are going to raise. let me give these 2 options as simply as I can:

a. Are they really going to only tax the rich? Are they going to creat a nex tax bracket that only effects 1% of teh population (like a 40% bracket for income over $1 million)

or

b. Are they going to repeal teh Bush tax cuts and increase taxes (in one form or another) the taxes paid to everyone who paid federal taxes last year.

The liberlas keep talking like it's number 1, but I firmly beleive it's number 2 meaning we will all have our taxes raid so the liberals can redistribute the wealth as they see fit.

[basso]

Originally posted by MacBeth


People who act like a purely free market is the natural way of life rudely interrupted by a left leaning government don't know a damned thing about the history of economics

well, you've just described the entire editorial board of the wall street journal, and i'd wager they know a wee bit more about economics than you.

i live in the heart of tax and spend liberalism, and hillary is my senator (moynihan excepted, new york has had some of the worst senators of the past 15 years: schumer, clinton, d'amato? please...), and i probably have more money w/held fromm my paycheck than anyone else here (except his supreme, divine, devo-ship, SF) and hillary's comments do concern me. admittedly, she let her usually sure political guard down for a mmoment, but how can one not look at them as saying "mama knows best?" W said it best, it's not the gov'ments money!

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by basso
well, you've just described the entire editorial board of the wall street journal, and i'd wager they know a wee bit more about economics than you.


I'm sure they do: I only taught t for a year, but in my ignorance I wouldn't agree with you that that's what they think. Some may feel it should be that way, but none, I would venture, would suggest that it is or has been that way. Even Smith himself called for the invisible hand as a remedy to an existing condition, and was a natural state only in an idealized sense, not in an historical one. And there are very few who still adhere to Smith carte blanche.

[GreenVegan76]

She probably worded it wrong, but I agree with her 100-percent -- I'd much rather millionaires pay a few extra bucks than have millions of kids without food or healthcare.

Of course, like bama said, at least Clinton's being honest. The Bush tax cut was disastrous, and now we're stuck with a scary deficit and too little money to pay for anything other than perpetual war. We *will* have to raise taxes, but few politicians are honest enough to admit it.

And the whole "it's not your money to decide" argument is slightly misguided (though not totally). It's not like we earned our money in a vacuum. We earned it through a system that our tax dollars maintain --- roads, infrastructure, incentives, education, treaties, grants, incentives, loans, subsidies, etc. There's no such thing as pure capitalism; the system creates wealth and prosperity for some and poverty for others.

I have absolutely no problem paying my share to give Americans better education, health care and standards of living. America is too rich a country to allow so many to live in poverty.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by SamFisher
I do mail you some, you get a little piece of me every day when you drive to work on your federally funded highway, and profit from your federally funded education.....etc.
Isn't the part of the road that bamaslammer drives on paid for by him... not you?

[KingCheetah]

I can't understand why those on the right of the political spectrum have such difficulties owning up and paying their fair share of the nations bills. Enough with all the droning and complaining about taxes ~ they serve a purpose that helps us all both in the short and long term.

Deficit matters (debt is bad) ~ nothing in life is free.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by giddyup
Isn't the part of the road that bamaslammer drives on paid for by him... not you?

I'm pretty sure that federal highway funding does not discriminate as to whose tax money funds the highway.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by basso
well, you've just described the entire editorial board of the wall street journal, and i'd wager they know a wee bit more about economics than you.

i live in the heart of tax and spend liberalism, and hillary is my senator (moynihan excepted, new york has had some of the worst senators of the past 15 years: schumer, clinton, d'amato? please...), and i probably have more money w/held fromm my paycheck than anyone else here (except his supreme, divine, devo-ship, SF) and hillary's comments do concern me. admittedly, she let her usually sure political guard down for a mmoment, but how can one not look at them as saying "mama knows best?" W said it best, it's not the gov'ments money!

I'd wager that the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, (which is comprised of such notable economists as Holman Jenkins (journalism masters) William McGurn (philosophy/Journalism) Dorothy Rabinowitz (English BA) Hugo Restall (asian studies) and Nancy Smith (ba from Hollins college, looks to be another journalism major) probably doesn't know that much more about economics than MacBeth or any other humanities guru. (To be fair, they have one former adjunct professor of econ from Columbia, Susan Lee on there...of course, not with the credentials of Paul Krugman or anything)

But anyway, I'd wager that the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal is smart enough to realize that absurd rants equating repealing tax cuts for the top 1% during a time of massive government deficit, with Marxist dogma, are a product of ignorance, hysteria, or a combination thereof.

Further, I'd wager that they realize, as some here apparently do not, that the belief that markets are perfectlly effficient in allocation of resources in both the long and short runs and that externalities don't exist is equally stupid.

Finally, you've got it right on Bush, he had it right: "Haven't we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut's gonna do it again?"

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by MacBeth
I'm sure they do: I only taught t for a year, but in my ignorance I wouldn't agree with you that that's what they think. Some may feel it should be that way, but none, I would venture, would suggest that it is or has been that way. Even Smith himself called for the invisible hand as a remedy to an existing condition, and was a natural state only in an idealized sense, not in an historical one. And there are very few who still adhere to Smith carte blanche.

Don't be so sure about that -- see above.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by SamFisher
I'm pretty sure that federal highway funding does not discriminate as to whose tax money funds the highway.
Of course. So bamaslammer is paying for your road as well, right? You make it sound as if you are taking care of bama with no reciprocation. That is not the case.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by giddyup
Of course. So bamaslammer is paying for your road as well, right? You make it sound as if you are taking care of bama with no reciprocation. That is not the case.

No, he's not. Residents of rural areas don't contribute enough to the tax base don't contribute enough $ to finance their own roadbuilding, and hence (while the money is not physically aggregated) and require net inflows of federal funding.

If you marked every dollar that I contributed to the federal tax base "SF" and deducted the portion of them that went back to New York in federal spending, then there would be a surplus of SF dollars floating around amongst other regions. If you did the same for BS, you wouldn't find any BS dollars floating around New York, or anywhere else, after you deducted his per capita value of federal goods & services recieved as a resident of Alabama ( or rural georgia, or whatever red state), because you would be in the negative.

i

[nyrocket]

Originally posted by SamFisher
But anyway, I'd wager that the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal is smart enough to realize that absurd rants equating repealing tax cuts for the top 1% during a time of massive government deficit, with Marxist dogma, are a product of ignorance, hysteria, or a combination thereof.

I'm pretty sure in this case it's ignorance.

[Faos]

Originally posted by SamFisher
No, she's not saying "your" money.

You don't make enough money to live in San Francisco, Marin County, Napa, etc, and go to $10,000 a plate fundraisers. Hence, it's not your money she's referring to.

She's talking about "their" money.



That's right, Bama, she's not talking to you. You are just scum of the earth trailer park trash. :)

[Mulder]

You don't want to pay your share? Why do you hate America? :p

[Rocket104]

I don't understand what some of you are saying. Are you saying the government should withhold no money at all from the people?

Who should pay for roads? How about the military? Should any social services exist? How about scientific endeavors? What about national parks? Power plants? Amtrak? Is it fair for cities to use taxpayer money to bring a company to town which ultimately gives you a job? How about stadiums?

If you choose that some of the above should be funded while others shouldn't, what happens if I or someone else doesn't agree? How do you reconcile this?

For a society and community to exist, do some have to sacrifice for others? How do religious beliefs and morality come into play?

If everything should be local, then I would assume Alabama (bamaslammer's location?) gets no tax money which is generated outside of the state. What are the odds this is true?

[ROXRAN]

It's real simple, when I have more money in my pocket...I can buy more bullets or butter, and this in turn contributes to the overall economy...This is how it is suppose to work. The socialistic liberals want a heavy handed government that treats people less like people...

[Oski2005]

Yeah, but if the government doesn't subsudize the farmers who grow the grain to feed the cows, how are you gonna buy butter?

[giddyup]

Originally posted by SamFisher
No, he's not. Residents of rural areas don't contribute enough to the tax base don't contribute enough $ to finance their own roadbuilding, and hence (while the money is not physically aggregated) and require net inflows of federal funding.

If you marked every dollar that I contributed to the federal tax base "SF" and deducted the portion of them that went back to New York in federal spending, then there would be a surplus of SF dollars floating around amongst other regions. If you did the same for BS, you wouldn't find any BS dollars floating around New York, or anywhere else, after you deducted his per capita value of federal goods & services recieved as a resident of Alabama ( or rural georgia, or whatever red state), because you would be in the negative.

i
So is this your way of saying that bama contributes his share? Aren't you glad that your (rather large) share enables you to drive on federally-funded roads in Georgia?

BTW, I doubt that bama had road-building in mind when he complained about the Federal Government appropriating "our" money as "theirs."

[bamaslammer]

Originally posted by SamFisher
I do mail you some, you get a little piece of me every day when you drive to work on your federally funded highway, and profit from your federally funded education.....etc.

Again, you completely missed the point and read in whatever you wanted too...she was talking to a bunch of rich liberals and specifically talking about repealing Bush's tax cut giveaway to the upper 1% of the country -- a sentiment that a significant portion of the country -- including such socialists as Jesse Helms, George W. BUsh, Warren Buffet etc -- might even agree with.

Of course, since Hilary is the antichrist to you, and probably always will be, you make it into some grandiose Leninist plot and a sinister revelation of her master plan to steal food from your table.

Whatever floats your boat I guess.
It's amazing that you and several others continue to defend her on account of her statement, which basically said that all money is the govt's to keep and distribute as they see fit. According to Hildabeast, we should be glad that the ruling class allow you to keep some of it. It is her attitude that galls me.

Now as for all of this jumping to extremes that I'm against defense and road-building, I am not. But the common good Clinton is talking about has nothing to do with either. It's more like her common good. Govt. exists to defend our right to life, liberty and property from those who would deprive us of those rights. When govt. turns into a redistribution clearinghouse run by politicians, you have serious problems.

And I'm not going to be hypocritical, the GOP does it as well. Just look at Bush's prescription drug boondoogle and that godawful education bill. Republicans are better in that regard than the Democrats, but not much better. Just look at what John Kerry proposes, socialized medicine, tax "credits" to people who pay little or no taxes (that is hilarious, a "credit" for something you never paid), more spending earmarked for failing govt. schools (gotta kowtow to your teacher union goosesteppers) and countless other programs. Kennedy said "Ask not what your country can do for you." Now another man from Massachusetts says "Ask for it from me, I'll steal from the filthy rich who you hate and give to you. Just vote for me."

MacB, I understand that govt. has a role in our ability to make money because of law and order and roads, etc. But that fact does not make my money ITS money. I went to school and worked a vast selection of ****ty part-time jobs that forced me to give up baseball.
I paid for most of my college myself, along with my GI Bill. I didn't do all of this just so I can be happy with a share the govt. allows me to keep. That is a twisted attitude and is one born of irrational guilt.
That is my money that I earned through the sweat of my labors and for it to be redistributed arbitrarily for the purposes of buying votes is just ridiculous.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by bamaslammer
It's amazing that you and several others continue to defend her on account of her statement, which basically said that all money is the govt's to keep and distribute as they see fit. According to Hildabeast, we should be glad that the ruling class allow you to keep some of it. It is her attitude that galls me.



And it amazes me that you continue to be intentionally mislead about what she actually said, even though you linked us to it.

I'm going to play detective here and guess that this happened because you pulled the quote and link off of a right wing blog, and didn't bother reading the article, because once you see the name "Hilary" or "Clinton", you launch into a hate fuled rampage.

Here is her statement, from the article:

Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters -- some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend -- to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."



Here is what your pathologically Clinton obsessed mind turned it into.
her statement, which basically said that all money is the govt's to keep and distribute as they see fit.

which is wrong, and I don't need to even explain why or how you twisted it as it's obvious.

Why do you need to lie to us in order to bash Hilary? Your paranoia is driving you to even more outlandish behavior. The junior senator from New York has little jurisdiction in your fortified rural compound, so if a bunch of rich liberals feel like giving back a little more (to a government that can't pay its own bills), I don't see how you have any grounds to object, unless you're pulling down 4-500k a year and would be impacted by the repeal of the tax cuts for the top 1%. Are you?

[HayesStreet]

It doesn't seem like Hillary personally would be deciding where the money went so this seems like more overblown Hillaryrage. As part of a group we've chosen to make those decisions, known as Congress, she might help make the decisions about tax issues but she's not taking over the government to seize your stuff.

Personally I always wonder why people gripe about taxes on the rich? Of all the people we should be concerned about, they should be on the bottom of the list.

[bamaslammer]

Originally posted by SamFisher
And it amazes me that you continue to be intentionally mislead about what she actually said, even though you linked us to it.

I'm going to play detective here and guess that this happened because you pulled the quote and link off of a right wing blog, and didn't bother reading the article, because once you see the name "Hilary" or "Clinton", you launch into a hate fuled rampage.

Here is her statement, from the article:



Here is what your pathologically Clinton obsessed mind turned it into.


which is wrong, and I don't need to even explain why or how you twisted it as it's obvious.

Why do you need to lie to us in order to bash Hilary? Your paranoia is driving you to even more outlandish behavior. The junior senator from New York has little jurisdiction in your fortified rural compound, so if a bunch of rich liberals feel like giving back a little more (to a government that can't pay its own bills), I don't see how you have any grounds to object, unless you're pulling down 4-500k a year and would be impacted by the repeal of the tax cuts for the top 1%. Are you?
Sam, you arrogant jerk. Why didn't you trace back the link I sent, which was from the San Francisco Chronicle, no conservative publication mind you? In case you're too lazy to page back, here it is again:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/06/28/politics2039EDT0165.DTL&type=printable
Right wing blog my ass. We have a senator who basically said in not so many words, "You don't need this money. We're smarter than you so we'll make sure we spend it on the 'common good,' which is code for a vote-buying entitlement." You don't have a problem with this? Whose to stop her from saying that people who make $100K are "rich?" It never stops with people like her. But then again, I'm talking to someone who implicitly trusts everything the govt. does, except when a Republican runs the show......:rolleyes:

[Chump]

Originally posted by bamaslammer
We have a senator who basically said in not so many words, "You don't need this money. We're smarter than you so we'll make sure we spend it on the 'common good,' which is code for a vote-buying entitlement."


seems like to me that you are putting a lot of words into her mouth and making a lot of assumptions about what she is meaning, which of course is all your preception, which is biased to begin with (as is everyone's)

[rimrocker]

The problem for Republicans is when Hillary mentions "the Common Good" she actually means that the policies she's pursuing will be good for commoners. Such an idea makes many Righties apoplectic these days.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by bamaslammer
Sam, you arrogant jerk. Why didn't you trace back the link I sent, which was from the San Francisco Chronicle, no conservative publication mind you? In case you're too lazy to page back, here it is again:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/06/28/politics2039EDT0165.DTL&type=printable
Right wing blog my ass. We have a senator who basically said in not so many words, "You don't need this money. We're smarter than you so we'll make sure we spend it on the 'common good,' which is code for a vote-buying entitlement." You don't have a problem with this? Whose to stop her from saying that people who make $100K are "rich?" It never stops with people like her. But then again, I'm talking to someone who implicitly trusts everything the govt. does, except when a Republican runs the show......:rolleyes:

Yeah, I know it came from a newspaper article that you linked to, hence my reference to the newspaper article that you linked to and my copying, and pasting therefrom, the context which you decided to omit.

So tell me bamaslammer, were you just browsing local San Francisco news out of personal interest, and found the quote, and then you stumbled around the article in your ever trusty, faithful, Worldnetdaily blog? Or was it vice versa.... that's a tough one to figure out. :rolleyes:

The dead giveaway is that you and the Worldnetdaily blog both engaged in the same misleading tactic -- you both omitted the context that she was referring to Bush's latest tax cuts, and conjured up a conspiracy theory nightmare scenario of Hilary stealing your milk money while you slowly and seductively oil down the barrel of your shotgun, gently working the shaft to prepare it for a final climactic confrontation in which you unload its hot projectile.

Keep lathering yourself up into a frenzy. There's lots of evil for you to fight in the world.

[ROXRAN]

Originally posted by SamFisher


...Hilary stealing your milk money while you slowly and seductively oil down the barrel of your shotgun, gently working the shaft to prepare it for a final climactic confrontation in which you unload its hot projectile.

Keep lathering yourself up into a frenzy. There's lots of evil for you to fight in the world.

LMAO!!! Calm down Sam, you almost got me excited!!!

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by bamaslammer
MacB, I understand that govt. has a role in our ability to make money because of law and order and roads, etc. But that fact does not make my money ITS money. I went to school and worked a vast selection of ****ty part-time jobs that forced me to give up baseball.
I paid for most of my college myself, along with my GI Bill. I didn't do all of this just so I can be happy with a share the govt. allows me to keep. That is a twisted attitude and is one born of irrational guilt.
That is my money that I earned through the sweat of my labors and for it to be redistributed arbitrarily for the purposes of buying votes is just ridiculous.

Bama, it's more than that.


Some people seem toact as if the American system is a given, a natural order. It's not. It's a choice. It may be the best chouce, it may not, but our system is one of an almost infinite number of options, which we have chosen because it is what we feel reflects our particular priorities.

But, like every system, it benefits some people, some abilities, some segments of society, and there are others who would be better served by another system. That is not to say these people are less American, less deserving of the benefits of their society, just that the status quo, however permissive of personal improvement you might feel it is, cannot benefit all people equally. Short of utopia, no system can.

So beyond Unmet Public Goods, the idea that our government plays a role in our ability to make money extends way beyond providing a safe environment in which to do so, but it is also entirely responsible for us maintaining a system which benefits some people more than others. Is it unreasonable for those who benefit the most from a system to also, if only as a relection of the fact that they do benefit from our choice, to support that system at a proportional rate? And that that support be partially distributed to those who benefot less? Additionally, as any economist will tell you, economic systems like ours essentially maintain and incrase the status quo.


The original democratics, the Athenians recognozed this relationship between the choice of system a society has and those it benefits. The Athenians had a law whereby the richest were expected, not at a standardized rate, but when called upon, to provide for the city at a very hig rate: warships, buildings, etc. If they ever felt the burden placed upon them due to their wealth was too high, they could say so, and any other citizen could switch places with them, assume their assets income, and burdens.

[Sir Jackie Chiles]

http://brawl-hall.com/gallery/data/media/5/pwned.jpg

[bamaslammer]

Originally posted by MacBeth
Bama, it's more than that.


Some people seem toact as if the American system is a given, a natural order. It's not. It's a choice. It may be the best chouce, it may not, but our system is one of an almost infinite number of options, which we have chosen because it is what we feel reflects our particular priorities.

But, like every system, it benefits some people, some abilities, some segments of society, and there are others who would be better served by another system. That is not to say these people are less American, less deserving of the benefits of their society, just that the status quo, however permissive of personal improvement you might feel it is, cannot benefit all people equally. Short of utopia, no system can.

So beyond Unmet Public Goods, the idea that our government plays a role in our ability to make money extends way beyond providing a safe environment in which to do so, but it is also entirely responsible for us maintaining a system which benefits some people more than others. Is it unreasonable for those who benefit the most from a system to also, if only as a relection of the fact that they do benefit from our choice, to support that system at a proportional rate? And that that support be partially distributed to those who benefot less? Additionally, as any economist will tell you, economic systems like ours essentially maintain and incrase the status quo.


The original democratics, the Athenians recognozed this relationship between the choice of system a society has and those it benefits. The Athenians had a law whereby the richest were expected, not at a standardized rate, but when called upon, to provide for the city at a very hig rate: warships, buildings, etc. If they ever felt the burden placed upon them due to their wealth was too high, they could say so, and any other citizen could switch places with them, assume their assets income, and burdens.
Our system, despite its flaws, is much better than socialism, where there is NO incentive to work harder or be creative. Of course it will benefit those with the most talent- I wouldn't dare argue that point. But my point is this- we, no matter what happens- can not equalize outcomes without killing the golden goose. It just isn't morally correct to take something from me to pay for something you are unwilling to pay for yourself, which is what the Left has advocated for years. By having that power to take by fiat, you are basically saying the money is not the earner's, but what the govt. allows them to keep. And that is scary. Of course we should be charitable and give freely to the poor- I do. But telling me that if I don't pay my property taxes they are going to take what is mine, remove from it by deadly force and sell it is not charity. Charity comes from goodwill, not the barrel of a gun.

I think our country has arrived at the point where citizens constantly pester our ruling class (we elect the same, old corrupt people to rule over us, again and again, don't get me started on that) with "what can you do for my group of people." What goodies can you bring home to me. How can you rob the wealth of someone else to give me something that I'd rather not have to work for to obtain. They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions and let me tell you, with our ballooning budget and choking entitlement bill due, we're on an expressway to hell full of good intentions.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by bamaslammer
Our system, despite its flaws, is much better than socialism, where there is NO incentive to work harder or be creative. Of course it will benefit those with the most talent- I wouldn't dare argue that point. But my point is this- we, no matter what happens- can not equalize outcomes without killing the golden goose. It just isn't morally correct to take something from me to pay for something you are unwilling to pay for yourself, which is what the Left has advocated for years. By having that power to take by fiat, you are basically saying the money is not the earner's, but what the govt. allows them to keep. And that is scary. Of course we should be charitable and give freely to the poor- I do. But telling me that if I don't pay my property taxes they are going to take what is mine, remove from it by deadly force and sell it is not charity. Charity comes from goodwill, not the barrel of a gun.

I think our country has arrived at the point where citizens constantly pester our ruling class (we elect the same, old corrupt people to rule over us, again and again, don't get me started on that) with "what can you do for my group of people." What goodies can you bring home to me. How can you rob the wealth of someone else to give me something that I'd rather not have to work for to obtain. They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions and let me tell you, with our ballooning budget and choking entitlement bill due, we're on an expressway to hell full of good intentions.

Before I respond, I'd first like to commend you on this post. If only you'd post like this more often. See, you can be hard line and very much in disagreement without reverting to invective, insults, and hyperbole.

Secondly, the point I was making is that there are several thousand options, not just Hard Line Capitalism and Hard Line Socialism. Even between those two there are all kinds of shades in between.

Thirdly, socialism has never really been tried. RUle of the Proletariat, in which each has gotten stuck, is itself an abortion of Marxist ( which i assume you meant-lack of incentive, etc.)doctrine if extended. Not that I think it could work as a pure form, partly because the Proletariats will almost never give up power willingly.

But, fourth, it's not just talent. Our system is not a pure meritocracy. For one thing, it only rewards certain talents, and only those which are accompanied by other priorities. There are many great people in history who have contributed in incredible ways to human development who would have been lost and never heard from in ours. That's the point: I think you see us as an ideal rather than an option. From that perspective, coupled with a general distrust in authority ( which I share with you, and am surprised it doesn't affect your stance on the war more, given all the lying, screw ups, etc.) I can see how you see it as taking from us. But if you see the system as a choice rather than a given, you might see it differently.

[bamaslammer]

Originally posted by MacBeth
Before I respond, I'd first like to commend you on this post. If only you'd post like this more often. See, you can be hard line and very much in disagreement without reverting to invective, insults, and hyperbole.

Secondly, the point I was making is that there are several thousand options, not just Hard Line Capitalism and Hard Line Socialism. Even between those two there are all kinds of shades in between.

Thirdly, socialism has never really been tried. RUle of the Proletariat, in which each has gotten stuck, is itself an abortion of Marxist ( which i assume you meant-lack of incentive, etc.)doctrine if extended. Not that I think it could work as a pure form, partly because the Proletariats will almost never give up power willingly.

But, fourth, it's not just talent. Our system is not a pure meritocracy. For one thing, it only rewards certain talents, and only those which are accompanied by other priorities. There are many great people in history who have contributed in incredible ways to human development who would have been lost and never heard from in ours. That's the point: I think you see us as an ideal rather than an option. From that perspective, coupled with a general distrust in authority ( which I share with you, and am surprised it doesn't affect your stance on the war more, given all the lying, screw ups, etc.) I can see how you see it as taking from us. But if you see the system as a choice rather than a given, you might see it differently.
If our society was a pure meritocracy, which I agree it is not, why would a talentless whore like Brittney make millions whereas a talented Joshua Redman makes a mere pittiance by comparison?

My point in all of this is that nothing is perfect. Perfection that can be achieved by humanity is a myth. As for the war, I'll just say that I'm concerned about the need for it (admittedly), but now that we are there, we should see it through to its logical conclusion.

[Rocket104]

Originally posted by bamaslammer
I think our country has arrived at the point where citizens constantly pester our ruling class...

bamaslammer - Brilliant post.

What can be done about it?

Why always blame the "Left" for taking money away, when the "Right" does it as well? Rumors state that GWB is going to focus on reforming social security and EXPANDING health care coverage during the Republican convention.

Both sides do it. Both sides feed at the trough. Why can't a Republican-dominated government pass a budget bill for the coming fiscal year?

Talent comes in a multitude of forms. If you know how to market yourself, sell yourself, etc., you're talented. That's why Britney Spears is a millionaire. That's also why William Hung makes more than Joshua Redman (whoever he is - sorry).

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Rocket104
That's also why William Hung makes more than Joshua Redman (whoever he is - sorry).

Joshua Redman is a fantastic jazz musician.

[Supermac34]

Originally posted by Oski2005
Yeah, but if the government doesn't subsudize the farmers who grow the grain to feed the cows, how are you gonna buy butter?

My father in law is a farmer. He really doesn't get any subsidies. It is only a small portion of farming that is subsidized.

[rimrocker]

Aide: "What are we going to do about the Farm Bill?"

LBJ: "Pay it."

[Woofer]

The title of this thread is offensive in itself, presupposing that honesty is rare from Hillary Clinton.

[bamaslammer]

Originally posted by Woofer
The title of this thread is offensive in itself, presupposing that honesty is rare from Hillary Clinton.
She of the Rose Law Firm billing records.....Sure, she's honest. It's not offensive when it is the truth. Just ask her about how she turned a few thousand in cattle futures into a dump truck-load worth of money.

[bamaslammer]

Originally posted by MadMax
Joshua Redman is a fantastic jazz musician.
He is probably my favorite sax player besides Chris Potter, who plays with John Pattituci among others and Wayne Shorter. The "Young Lions" in jazz these days like Brad Meldhau, Redman, Potter, Pattitucci, etc. have really re-energized the genre.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by bamaslammer
She of the Rose Law Firm billing records.....Sure, she's honest. It's not offensive when it is the truth. Just ask her about how she turned a few thousand in cattle futures into a dump truck-load worth of money.

Actually, we did ask her that. Perhaps you missed it, but a $50 million plus, near omnipotent investigation with subpoena power and the full force of the Justice Department, and run by a motivated group of political enemies, investigated those and every other allegation under the sun with an eye towards criminal prosecution, and found insufficient evidence of any criminal behavior at all.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/09/20/national/main234848.shtml

They got nothing, and neither do you except for recycled hate-fuel-gossip from the American Spectator. Let it go, bamaslammer, it's over.

[giddyup]

Is that Hillary's qualification to be VP... she committed the perfect crime?

[bamaslammer]

Originally posted by SamFisher
Actually, we did ask her that. Perhaps you missed it, but a $50 million plus, near omnipotent investigation with subpoena power and the full force of the Justice Department, and run by a motivated group of political enemies, investigated those and every other allegation under the sun with an eye towards criminal prosecution, and found insufficient evidence of any criminal behavior at all.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/09/20/national/main234848.shtml

They got nothing, and neither do you except for recycled hate-fuel-gossip from the American Spectator. Let it go, bamaslammer, it's over.
But she never told the truth on it. I was just responded to Woofer's comment that intimating that she is untruthful is offensive. When it is the truth, it can't be offensive.

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by Woofer
The title of this thread is offensive in itself, presupposing that honesty is rare from Hillary Clinton.
Yes, from now on, please only post NON-offensive thread titles....like "Republicans have to think of new way to steal Florida"...

[mc mark]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
Yes, from now on, please only post NON-offensive thread titles....like "Republicans have to think of new way to steal Florida"...

You're right ima, it should have said "the bushies have to think of new way to steal Florida"...

:D