Posted on 06/02/2007 3:24:38 PM PDT by K-oneTexas
Hilrya Rodhamovich Clintonov's economic plan By Mark M. Alexander
Friday, June 1, 2007
"It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people...." --Adam Smith
Demo-gogue presidential candidate Hillary Clinton gave a little-noticed stump speech this week that should've sent up countless red flags.
By now, all of us know about Clinton's re-warmed plans for socializing medicine, regulating healthcare services and providers and centralizing government control of about ten percent of the U.S. economy.
This week, however, Clinton went national with her classist "it takes a village" model, claiming that free-enterprise Capitalism is the root of all evil.
In a speech on "shared prosperity," she proclaimed that it's time to replace the conservative notion of an "ownership society" and economy with one based on communal responsibility and prosperity, alleging that the current system is really an "on your own" society that increases the income gap between "poor" and "rich" Americans.
Now, if Clinton is implying that individual initiative, self-reliance, responsibility and ingenuity -- the very foundation of free enterprise -- are the keys to creating wealth, then she is right. If she is implying that dependence upon the state and redistribution of income creates poverty, then she is right here, too -- but that was not her message.
"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she went on. "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."
In a quintessential example of Clintonista doublespeak, Hillary outlined her economic fairness doctrine: "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. Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."
So, according to Ms. Clinton, free markets work best when they're constrained by the right government policies. In other words, free markets work best when they're not free.
Apparently Hillary has also been smoking Fidel's hand-rolled cigars. How else are we to account for her failure to recall that centralized economies, like that of the former Soviet Union, are doomed to fail and have cost millions of lives along the way?
Of course, Clinton's allusion to "rules" is Demo-code for taxation, which, as we know, is often the forcible transfer of wealth from one group to another. This taxation, in turn, creates reliable political constituencies for Democrats. As George Bernard Shaw once noted, "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul."
Clinton's economic plan is nothing more than a contemporary remake of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's class-warfare proclamation: "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."
In fact, Roosevelt's "principle" was no more American than Clinton's. It was a paraphrase of Karl Marx's Communist maxim, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev said of Roosevelt's "New Deal" paradigm shift, "We can't expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism."
Echoing that sentiment was perennial Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas (the grandfather, incidentally, of Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas): "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
No irony was spared in another interview this week, when Hillary Clinton was asked about the enormous wealth that she and Bill have amassed since their co-presidency. Clinton replied, "My husband and I never had any money. Now suddenly we're rich. I have nothing against rich people."
"Never had any money"? Spare me. She and Bill were long ago cashing in on commodity futures and real-estate deals. Still, the wealth they have accumulated in recent years must make those good ol' days seem Spartan by comparison.
Hillary claims that if elected, she will "hit the restart button on the 21st century and redo it the right way." I checked, and the Clintons were in the White House the first year of the 21st Century. Did they push the wrong button then?
Only when the Clintons voluntarily surrender for redistribution all their assets to the U.S. Treasury will I then consider her economic views with at least the sincerity afforded one who is not a complete hypocrite. In the eternal interim, her Socialist "we're all in it together" claptrap should be considered a perilous hazard to prosperity for all.
Mark Alexander is executive editor and publisher of The Patriot Post, the Web's "Conservative E-Journal of Record."
Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
A communist by any other name.....
Still stinks
Exactly. All of my Liberal friends get upset with me when I call hillary a Socialist. Then they talk about "helping the poor" and penalizing "evil corporations".
Socialism is all about making sure the poor stay poor, and that there aren't any private corporations.
Every Woman a Queen. And some guys, too.
***Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev said of Roosevelt’s “New Deal” paradigm shift, “We can’t expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.”***
Khrushchev also said, “We’ll conquer you, and we’ll do it from within.” With Hitlery’s help, it will happen.
I called Hillary “Rodhamovich Clintonov” once on here a while ago. Has Mark Alexander been reading my posts? lol
I’m surprised she said this outside of an echo chamber of liberals. The speech she gave in which the “We’re going to take things away from you for the common good” quote came from was a fund raising < smirk > spiel given to a bunch of SF Bay Area liberals. A more brain dead pack of knee jerk lefties cannot be found.
She’s a marxist, and has been at least since she knelt at and worshiped at the feet of Saul Alinsky, the firebrand marxist from Chicago from whom she adopted the socialist phrase “It takes a village.” She is dangerous, my friends. She is so very, very dangerous.
Whenever you hear a politican talk about “shared responsibility” grab your wallet.
I have called Valerie Plame Natasha Plamakovavitch. They are cut from the same cloth.
Socialism and communal-ism are based on three sins: coveting, lies and theft.
Economist Ludwig von Mises had a lot to say about socialist schemes:
Interventionism cannot be considered as an economic system destined to stay. It is a method for the transformation of capitalism into socialism by a series of successive steps. — Planning for Freedom, p28
A government that sets out to abolish market prices is inevitably driven toward the abolition of private property; it has to recognize that there is no middle way between the system of private property in the means of production combined with free contract, and the system of common ownership of the means of production, or socialism. It is gradually forced toward compulsory production, universal obligation to labor, rationing of consumption, and, finally, official regulation of the whole of production and consumption. — The Theory of Money and Credit, p 281
In the socialist commonwealth every economic change becomes an undertaking whose success can be neither appraised in advance nor later retrospectively determined. There is only groping in the dark. Socialism is the abolition of rational economy. — Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, p 26
A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death. A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings. — Human Action, p 676
Socialism knows no freedom of choice in occupation. Everyone has to do what he is told to do and to go where he is sent. — Socialism, p 165
Hilrya Rodhamovich Clintonov Bump
In Russian, gender must agree with subject. Therefore, Hillary’s moniker in the language of Putin might be
Hilarya Rodamnevna Klintonova
Has a rather sinister ring, konyechna?
My answer is no. A society that is generally prosperous cares about the unfortunate among them. I'm glad about that. Most people recognize that their individual efforts don't go a long way toward solving the problem (never mind that actually solving the problem for one person or one family is a big step), so they look for a general solution. There's nothing more powerful than the gov't, so that looks like an easy solution.
But no good deed is easy. Socialism sounds easy, so it's attractive.
You beat me. The correct name does sound more sinister.
**my bad, the last name should begin with a K...
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.