Hillary Clinton: "We're Going to Take Things Away From You on Behalf of the Common Good"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1162094/posts ^ | Tuesday, June 29, 2004 | Kristinn

[kristinn]

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-Cuba), speaking at a Democratic party fundraiser in San Francisco yesterday, was remarkably frank about the Democrats' intentions to use socialist redistribution policies if the party gains power after the November elections.

As reported by the Associated Press, Sen. Clinton said, "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. 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."

With her blunt statement, Sen. Clinton has drawn clear the difference between the two major parties: The Marxist Democratic party will "take things away from you on behalf of the common good" while the Republicans will defend your right to spend your money as you see fit because they know it's your money, not the government's.

Remember this during the long slog to the elections this year. The choice is clear: Marxism or freedom. Vote wisely.

[Darlin']

She might as well have quoted Marx. There is no other way to describe her thinking except to say once a commie, always a commie. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto.

[smonk]

it fairly safe to say that in SF; she must have thought
that there were no reporters in the room . . . . She
certainly didn't want it to get to middle america.

and how could america possibly be MORE "getting back on
track"?

[GatorGirl]

I'd rate this article supremely bookmark-able. Thanks! GG

[hosepipe]

[ As reported by the Associated Press, Sen. Clinton said, "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. 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." ]

What NOT said was:
"and we will determine what the "common good" is, and what it is NOT.. and the things that will be taken away we will also determine. We will even determine what "common" itself means.. and as Commander Spock said; "the good for the many is primary to the good for the few", and other utopian Marxist bull crap.. dumped by other imaginary thinkers. Because thats what we are, imaginary thinkers, democrats. We will create an america you can't even imagine.. and it won't be a movie either..

[catpuppy]

Whenever the Hildabeast speaks something is subtracted from the sum total of human knowledge.

I disagree. When she speaks we learn an awful lot about the far left.

[television is just wrong]

But of course, "NOTHING". You silly fools, it is all mine!

[doug from upland]

Memorialized in song HERE.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

As reported by the Associated Press, Sen. Clinton said, "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. 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."

No you're not! Because Bush will be re-elected in a landslide.

[StriperSniper]

Rush did a few minutes on this.

[catpuppy]

her true feelings .. they always surface to the top

Thank goodness for that.

[Sloth]

the Republicans will defend your right to spend your money as you see fit because they know it's your money, not the government's.

Really? That's awesome. So when do they start?

[Jonx6]

bttt

[mvpel]

The new flag of the Democrat party:</>b

At least they're finally being honest for a change.

[JimRed]

Tough break for Springsteen and Bon Jovi with the millionaires tax.

They brought it upon themselves by backing Marxists.

[JTHomes]

You are right on.

[NeoCaveman]

This is exactly why she could never be elected president. She isn't the skillful liar her husband in name only is.

[JTHomes]

I just think that if there was a flat NRST, every time the liberal marxists like Hillary raised taxes, the average joe buying his big gulp would be aware that it cost him a few cents more. "Soak the rich, he77! They are soaking me!". No one except the top 10% or so who pay all the taxes cares that the federal government alone soaks up 30+% of the economy. If they had to pay 30 cents on the dollar every time they went shopping, they might start to question if government might be too big - by a factor of 3 or so at least. When 60% of the voting public pay almost no income tax, they see no impact of either tax increases or cuts. We need to make the poor pay their fair share.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Hillary is getting bold these days.

I expect her to come out of the closet any day now. Her and reno on the ticket in November? Hmm?? Any takers?

[stillnoprotestsagainstmuslims]

"VE ARE GOING TO TAKE TINGS AVAY FROM YOU FÜR ZE COMMON GUT!! ZEIG HEIL!!! ZEIG HEIL!!"

"BACK SPAWN OF SATAN!"

*Actual magazine cover from Germany "VHEN IN DER FATHERLAND, HITLERY ONLY WEARS BLACK UNT RED! ZEIG HEIL!! ZEG HEIL!!"

Hitlery finally gets an honor she deserves

"The nightmare has begun. Now I am in charge and you will all die."

[William Terrell]

I think the average Joe will adapt to the sales tax just like he adapted to increases in the income tax, if its done slow enough and with some color of cause behind it. Plus there are some provisions that raise the sales tax rate by virtue of the same statute without Congress having to put its ass on the line at all.

An example. There are statutory provisions that maintain the level of social security at a certain level and not to drop below that level. Social security has a cut (percentage) of sales tax revenue collected.

Since all new goods and services are to be taxed, but not used goods (no such thing as used services), it's reasonable to forecast a boom in the trade of used items (they are even booming now), reducing the amount of tax collected on new items that weren't bought because the money was spent on the used items.

This wold reduce the level of social security collections, necessitating a rise in the sales tax percent. Which will encourage more purchases for used items in a spiraling effect.