Posted on 01/20/2008 11:14:37 PM PST by FocusNexus
Hillary Clinton said that if she became president, the federal government would take a more active role in the economy, in an effort to address what she said were the excesses of the market and the Bush administration.
She told the New York Times she would put her emphasis on issues like inequality and the role of institutions like government, rather than market forces, in addressing them.
She said that economic excesses -- including executive-pay packages she characterized as often "offensive" and "wrong" and a tax code that had become "so far out of whack" in favoring the wealthy -- were holding down middle-class living standards.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
never even managed a 7-11 who've never worked an honest day's work in their lives, but have always been swilling at the public trough as government apparatchicks.
Sounds perfectly logical to me. (In a pigs ass!!)
Dear God, this would be a good year for the Repbulicans to run a conservative.
Most probably true. Yet just look at those on this forum who on the one hand claim to love America and all she offers, yet is perfectly willing to stay home on election day if they don't get the Republican candidate THEY want. It's for the "good of the Party", according to them. The problem is once a plague like the Clintons infect us there may be little left salvage. I read in stunned disbelief posts here by some who actually claim there is NO difference, NONE, between Clinton or Obama and Giuliani, Romney or McCain. How absurd is it that none of these people seem to consider the Congress and the effect a Dem victory would have on it (coattails anyone)? These people will say, like the bumper stickers we sometimes see from the crybaby left(except slightly different) "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for Clinton, I stayed home." Who was it that said, "We will get the government we deserve"? If some of you believe we deserve a Clinton then by all means stay home.
No simply put, she would exempt herself and her “family” from all restrictions, and applications of the new Queen Tax Code. THat way she would be the “most equal” of all.
Wake the heck up America!
After decades of Marxist indoctrination from Hollywood, academia and the MSM, the Hildabeast can now openly promote a Stalinist agenda and the sheeple just eat it up.
“She told the New York Times she would put her emphasis on issues like inequality...”
Right, by taking my money and giving it to deadheads.
Liberals don’t have the first clue.
The Democrats promise to take money away from people who don’t vote for them, and give it to people who vote for them.
Fracking commies.
Unfortunately, with the economic tsunami that is about to hit, this is going to get her elected... (as the powers that be have intended)
No, by that time Ahmamurderijad will have the Bomb and we will all be dead.
Even Hillary says she's not a lib but a "progressive" so of course that makes her beliefs all right! (rolls eyes)
I suppose she intends to start with book advances?????
LLS
The unique thing about her is that she is not concealing this Marxist stuff right now. One would think her "team" would ask her to play more moderate now to get elected.
Oh, yeah, I forgot: it was "government" that did all that. When the same sort of people suggest that I'm not paying my "fair share", I ask them what they think would happen if I just decided to stop working and live off the government instead. What if all of the undeserving "rich" people did the same? To even pose the question is considered to be unspeakably selfish. It is apparently some people's duty to produce for everyone's benefit, you see. For her part, Hillary Clinton seems to believe this wholeheartedly. Of course, she's never earned an honest dollar in her life - which of course, explains a lot.
And it never applies to those who want something someone else earned--it applies to those who have "been lucky in life's lottery" aka those who work for a living and make a decent living.
Exactly. The word is used by Socialists in order to end all debate over the right to wealth and property. It is a form of emotional blackmail, a bullying epithet meant to induce guilt on the part of producers and excuse envy on the part of those who desire what they have not produced and do not wish to pay for.
Atlas is not shrugging yet but his shoulders are getting pretty damned sore.
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.