Rare honesty from Hilary Clinton....

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

 

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?"

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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?

 

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...

 

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

 

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."

 

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?

 

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.

 

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)

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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