Rare honesty from Hilary Clinton....

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?

 

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.

 

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?


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!

 

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......

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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'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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.