Posted on 04/21/2015 9:10:52 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The first thing I thought of while reading this was Romney trying to impress CPAC a few years ago by calling himself “severely” conservative. Coming from a committed populist ideologue like Elizabeth Warren, this might sound ominous. Coming from Hillary, it reeks of someone trying way, way too hard to sound like they’re part of the tribe.
In her 2008 campaign, Mrs. Clinton touted the prosperity of the 1990s. Today, the trade deals, Wall Street deregulation, and deficit reduction Mr. Clinton oversaw are often blamed as contributing to the current divide between a tiny sliver of the wealthiest and the vast majority of Americans…
In a meeting with economists this year, Mrs. Clinton intensely studied a chart that showed income inequality in the United States. The graph charted how real wages, adjusted for inflation, had increased exponentially for the wealthiest Americans, making the bar so steep it hardly fit on the chart.
Mrs. Clinton pointed at the top category and said the economy required a “toppling” of the wealthiest 1 percent, according to several people who were briefed on Mrs. Clinton’s policy discussions but could not discuss private conversations for attribution.
It takes a net worth of around $8 million to join “the one percent.” The Clintons’ net worth is estimated at $55 million; Hillary alone got a cool $14 mil as an advance for her dismal memoir “Hard Choices.” The electorate’s usually willing to let populists slide on their personal wealth — FDR is the ultimate example but John Edwards was a lefty heartthrob for a time as recently as 2008 — but I wonder if they’ll be so forgiving for Hillary. It’s not just the tone-deaf comments about being “dead broke” after Bill’s second term ended. It’s a mix of her famous chumminess with Wall Street, the stench of oligarchy that surrounds her dynastic campaign, and the obvious opportunism involved in her seizing Warren’s core platform to try to dissuade Warren from a primary challenge. It’s just impossible to take her seriously about this anymore. That’s one of the ironies of the campaign, that the “same old Hillary” really isn’t the same anymore in terms of how she’s politically positioned.
And believe it or not, youngsters, once upon a time righties did take Hillary Clinton kinda sorta seriously as a class warrior (a fact her campaign is now desperate to remind lefties of, as proof that she’s an authentic populist after all). I myself noted more than once during the 2008 campaign how easily startling comments about collectivism and redistribution sometimes seemed to slip from her mouth. Remember when she grumbled about oil companies’ profits being at an all-time high and recommended taking them for an energy fund? Remember the “‘we’re all in it together’ society,” a bit of Warrenism several years before Warren became the rage? Remember “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good”? Calling for “toppling” the one percent is of a piece with that, a little flourish for effect from someone who knows how deeply compromised she is on this subject. If a wave of liberal populism handed Congress back to the Democrats and the White House to Hillary, it’d be worth worrying about how far she’d go to accommodate the true class warriors in her party. As it is, with the House sure to be safely Republican throughout her first term, it’s a cheesy pander aimed at keeping progressives complacent during the primaries.
Wouldn’t surprise me, in fact, if the “topple” comment was leaked by her own campaign. I wonder which one of her staffers scripted it.
She doesn’t intend any of that. That is just populist BS she’s using to run on. All the 1% know this is BS. Nothing will change. Think of Obama with Joe the Plumber.
Jobs will continue to decline while the financial industry thrives and the Fed grows.
Her goal isn’t to help the poor or gays or anyone. Just get money, get votes, get power.
If you look at the list of biz contributors to Podesta’s Center for American Progress, it verifies your comment. They’re all paying protection money.
That makes no logical sense mathematically.
Mathematically you will always have a top 1% in everything.
This makes about as much sense as eliminating the 13th floor of a building and just going from the 12th to the 14th floor (which is actually done if you can believe it).
“She really thinks people like Steve Job and Bill Gates should be taken down?? ”
No. Just the ones who disagree with her and/or fail to make healthy donations to her campaign and/or the clinton foundation.
Also, it’s the majority of the tax base...
Seizing their wealth, limiting their consumption and income, will decrease their means and motive to accumulate wealth, which is an assault on capital accumulation, which leads to less economic progress, which leads to less general prosperity in the long run, which is counterproductive to the people she is trying to help.Just another example of libtard perversity of result.
“Also, it’s the majority of the tax base...”
Im reminded of mike bloomberg when he was still mayor of new york city when he said that in a city of 8 million people, 60 percent of the citys tax revenues came from only 40 thousand of its residents.
Am I the only one that notices that Hillary seems to be posting to the forum almost constantly these days.
I read demonizations of the 1% here all the time. I just addressed people yesterday on the subject.
I hope they’re honest enough to avoid this thread.
Hillary, is that you?
(Not you SeekAndFind)
Well since a high percentage of the one percent are crony capitalist regime affiliates, they deserve some demonizing in my view.
Look where your mindset leads. I say this knowing that some of you have specific beefs, that I could support.
We can’t feed into this crap. This is collectivist doctrine. Hillary and the left hate Capitalists. We cannot afford to feed into this. These people are serious.
If you don’t like something, address it on point and don’t trash the top earners in our nation.
If you’ve got grounds to take some issues to task. Do it on policy.
This broad is serious. The more people that see the 1% demonized, the more likely she is to find a way to screw the wealthy in our nation. This is all about income redistribution for her, and toppling the Capitalist system in the U. S.
You take that 1% down, and this nation is harmed. They won’t stop at the 1%, I’ll guarantee you that.
We need to spread the word that the Buffetts, Gates, Zuckerbergs, Steyers, Google Boys, etc are corrosive to liberty.
Excellent Graphic!
LMFAO...
Sure she does....
I wonder if she asked Tom Steyer, or the Soros boys about that?
If you look at the list of biz contributors to Podesta’s Center for American Progress, it verifies your comment. They’re all paying protection money.
Al Capone and those old time gangsters would be envious of the Organized Crime of today.
I’d love to see that communist bitch “topple”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.