Posted on 07/01/2004 6:33:41 AM PDT by Isara
Governing: For today's multiple choice quiz, identify who said: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Please choose from among the following:
a) Karl Marx
b) Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
c) Josef Stalin
d) Hillary Clinton
It's a trick question, because in fact each of them has expressed the same idea. But it is only Clinton who said it in those exact words.
Just to assure readers there is no attempt to take her words out of context or to twist them, here is the statement, as provided by The Associated Press, that Clinton gave Monday in San Francisco at a Democratic fund-raiser:
"Many of you are well enough off that . . . the tax cuts may have helped you," the junior senator from New York said. "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."
The left is usually a bit more guarded in advocating its Marxist-Leninist views. But Clinton was quite clear: The state ("we") reigns over the individual ("you"). For her moment of candor, she should be commended.
But not for her governing philosophy. It's straight from the Bolshevik book of fundamental principles.
Most alarming, though, is not Clinton's statement. We long ago recognized her statist, wealth-redistributing agenda. She is part of the "we" that promises to take things away from individuals. She, and others like her, are perfectly happy defining the "common good" for all people. Clearly, the people can't do it themselves.
No, the bigger concern is that her words will not only go virtually unchallenged, but also they will be celebrated — which is more of a tragedy than a shame.
Have we become so unthinking as Americans that we'll validate the politics of envy? That we'll obediently surrender what belongs to us and to our neighbors because corrupt ideas require it?
The common good is never reached through the central planning that Clinton espouses. The nations that tried it, from the Soviet Union to Czechoslovakia to East Germany, were worse off because of their oppressive systems.
They learned the lesson the hard way. So will the nations of Western Europe, where statist, top-heavy systems are beginning to fray. With all respect to the junior senator from New York, it's a lesson America can do without.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
John Gambling and Rush were all over this like long on Kerry's face.
It would have to be paid ads, cause our great media will never report it, or have they and I missed it?
Excellent, excellent. The more often this shows up in print, the better. It MUST not be swept under the carpet.
Hillary's made her intentions quite clear, so if she runs, and they elect her, and she taxes them at the pre-Kennedy era rates (around 78% at the top level, IIRC), they should not complain.
The same is true with her statements made in Germany last year, where she strongly suggested that socialism is a preferred form of government. That trip and her words didn't get much coverage in the US by the US media. Wonder why?
Hillary has said what she believes in. If she ever gets elected to the top position, we should not be surprised at anything she does there. The media laughted about 'how do you get Bill Clinton off the political stage'? If Hillary ever gets in a position of having that much power, she might not leave.
Please get this article circulating around the Net and given to everyone you know. Most importantly, please write letters to your local paper about Clinton and her comments so others can read them.
Thanks!
I've seen it quoted repeatedly in the usual sources, but I haven't heard if there's audio or video. We can only hope...
BTTT
Bookmarked
Neal Boortz just sounded off, too. He said Hillary Clinton is the one person who really scares him because she is so power-hungry. He thinks she is the most dangerous person in the country.
Already done!
nice catch
The middle class is the pot of money regardless of posturing and she was just baiting the traps with eco-class warfare yummies for the idiots in the middle class.
I don't exactly see Hillary's rich elitists firing their accountants and lawyers and filing the 1040 short forms any time soon.
Those words she floated were very caregully chosen and very deliberately spoken in order to obtain a result from a specific group, and it's not the rich or wealthy she was really speaking to. The rich and wealthy know that. Wink, wink.....Nudge, nudge........
Thanks!
He actually runs radio ads about how he's going to double the "property tax refunds" for the middle class, by raising taxes on the rich.
He calls it his "Millionaires Tax" and it applies to anybody whose household income tops $500,000 (he's a mathemagician!).
He actually says something like "I'll give you relief, by taking it from those who already have plenty."
Makes me want to put my foot through the radio every time I hear it.
Also, her husband said (almost) the same thing to a bunch of big donors in Texas, after he raised taxes in his first term. The news media reported it, and, ho hum, he got re-elected anyway.
So she is going with a game plan that has worked in the past.
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.