May 29, 2007
HRC: What's Yours Is Mine [Updated]
Having trouble digesting some bad food and you need it to come up? Don't waste your money on medicine. Just read what Hillary Clinton plans for America.
(Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, wife of only the second President ever impeached) said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor."I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."
That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.
"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."
Forget the fancy words and slogans. It's socialism pure and simple. We won the battle over collective economics abroad and now we have to win it again at home.
I hope you had a barf bag when you read and understood what she was saying. If she wants what's mine, I have my special bag to hand her.
[Update]
Neal Boortz, a conservative and Libertarian, has written a stronger opinion on these remarks by Sen. Clinton to a high school class. The link to his entire commentary is below, and selections are found by clicking on "Read More."
Boortz on HRC: Attack of Individuals (05/30/07)
.
...Hillary exemplifies the essential difference between a liberal and a conservative. The conservative believes that the individual lives for themselves while the liberal believes that the individual exists to serve society. Conservatives believe that the individual should be free to act freely and independently so long as they don't violate the rights of others; liberals believe that for the individual to act freely and independently IS a violation of the rights of others ... a violation of the basic human rights of the other members of society who somehow have developed an enforceable claim to a portion of the lives of their fellow men.Posted by Woody M. at May 29, 2007 05:50 PM | TrackBackIn short, conservatives, and especially libertarians, believe that the individual owns himself. The liberal believes that the individual belongs to society, an entity to be exploited for something called "the common good." The libertarian believes that the best thing a person can do in this life is to live their own life in responsible and self-sufficient manner so as not to impose a burden on others. The liberal believes that we have a duty to live our lives for the benefit of others or for society. To do anything else is to be "selfish" or "greedy."
You need to read between the lines here. You need to digest what this lady is saying. Hillary Rodham is presenting herself and her philosophy on freedom and individual rights to the entire country. Her "on your own" usage is nothing less than a negative reference to individualism. Her reference to an "we're all in it together" society represents her strongly held belief in collectivism. You're not in this for yourself. You don't matter. You're in this for society. You exist to serve the needs of your fellow men, with government your life's choreographer.
Listen ... listen hard. Listen well. Absorb. don't just taste the words. Digest them. Hillary is talking.
...This woman is dangerous. Perhaps the most dangerous politician in America. This is a woman who believes that America is great because of its government, not because of the dynamic of individual freedom, economic liberty and the rule of law. She casts wealth redistribution in the light of "fairness" and decries the concept of ownership. Her attacks on individualism are clear, as is her affinity for "we're all in it together" collectivism. Her professors had it right. Socialist.
Breath of the Beast which you linked to below in your "Toads. Snakes" post (http://gmroper.mu.nu/archives/227806.php), has a followup piece about Amnesty International which fits very nicely with this post about Hillary. Purporting to defend the powerless against the powerful is itself an avenue to power.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at May 29, 2007 05:28 PM
re-defeat communism!!!
Posted by Angel at May 29, 2007 08:44 PM
... What Angel said. :-)
Posted by Seth at May 30, 2007 12:13 AM
Hillary has been busy trying to pass herself off as a moderate. She's anything but!
Posted by Always On Watch at May 30, 2007 06:27 AM
AoW: you said a mouthful. Hillary herself said: "The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they're not. "
That woman is a socialist through and through.
"I want to take those profits..."
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. "
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."
Posted by Oyster at May 30, 2007 08:39 AM
Yeah, if you can't defeat the terrorists then you may as well kick the socialists around some. It won't accomplish much but it'll make you feel better.
Posted by e. nonee moose at May 30, 2007 10:13 AM
Moose, I expect more from you than that. One doesn't have anything to do with the other. Pointing out the dangers of a socialist president does't make me feel good or distract me from the threat of terrorists. Fighting terrorism is something that has gone on since Carter's administration and will be going on decades from now. It's not like conquering a nation with geographic boundaries and a government. At least we haven't had any domestic attacks since 2001, so we must be doing something right.
Posted by Woody at May 30, 2007 10:58 AM
I read the little essay by your boy Boortz. What a collection of altruistic ideals. The boy needs to start living in the real world.
Do you and he really believe that anointing a person with the title "conservative" is tatamount to changing his personality? Do you believe that all people named "Conservative" are pure and honest? Will no "conservative ever cheat his fellow man? Are you ready to return to child labor and even more lawless corporate shenanigans?
You must (or at the very least, should) know that the unfettered human instinct is for greed and self made laws. The old west was a short model of pure conservative life. It was not a pretty sight and you seem to want to reinvent that.
Posted by James S Melbert at May 30, 2007 11:41 AM
James, what you described was anarchy--not conservatism. But, I would freely trust a conservative more than a socialist after everything I own.
Posted by Woody at May 30, 2007 02:06 PM
You are both wrong. The Old West tended to have high homicide and violent crime rates only among the young. Folks a little older rapidly developed agreements and systems of social control, much of it based on inherited Scots-Irish Appalachian culture.
That said, I agree with James that rule of law is a necessary ingredient for a free market. Otherwise it's not a free market, but one run by corruption, nepotism, or violence.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at May 30, 2007 07:32 PM
No one is calling for a free market with no regulation. But, government regulation and taxes can go too far, and I don't want a socialist, guided by power rather than ethics, setting the rules.
Posted by Woody at May 30, 2007 08:35 PM
I still have a concern for the financial ethics of our country. If the government can go too far raising taxes, can it also go too far in cutting taxes?
I think it's great that the ecomony is booming, lots of people are getting rich on other peoples money. But what about paying for the government we have elected? My personal opinion is that 7 TRILLION dollars is too much debt. My son thinks that I am chicken, because the debt is a small percentage of the GNP.
My response: the treasury is currently paying 5% interest. That amounts to 350 BILLION dollars as interest paid each year to the "lenders". That 350 Billion is a sizable chunk of our Annual budget. As long as there is only talk about reducing the deficit, the interest will continue to increase.
Doesn't that give any of you pause to consider?
I don't want to hear about the wonderful economy, I want to hear you thoughts on the National Debt.
Posted by James S Melbert at May 31, 2007 12:12 PM
James, three points.
Point one: Taxpayers earn the money and it belongs to them first. The government doesn't own it and allow them to keep some of it. If there's an injustice, it's that too much is required as it is.
Point two: As collections show, reducing the tax rates have resulted in record revenue collection because of the stimulous to the economy and allowing people to take capital gains and reinvest with lower tax consequences. Higher tax rates can kill the economy and result in less revenue.
Point three: After the government has eliminated all waste, come to me about wanting more money.
Oh, one more thing and not that i necessarily agree in total with this, but I had an economics professor who had no problems with the national debt because we owed it to ourselves.
Posted by Woody at May 31, 2007 12:58 PM
We owe China, Germany and Saudi Arabia. The only money we owe ourselves is the money represented by the IOUs in the Social Security account.
Taxpayers earn the money and then spend it on the Government Services that they ask for. Now those folk are trying to keep from paying the debt.
The biggest government waste today is the Iraq fiasco.
How do you eliminate waste when you keep repeating the same actions (elections) and then expect a different result?
Posted by James S Melbert at June 1, 2007 02:35 PM
