Hillary Continues With Plan to Socialize America

[stephanie]

Land of the free (handouts)- Home of the brave (and coddled).

Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., stands with former Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern before speaking at the Johnson County Democrats' annual barbecue. (AP)

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Hillary Clinton
June 29, 2004

"It’s time to replace an 'on your own' society with one based on 'shared responsibility and prosperity.'"
Hillary Clinton
May 29, 2007

"The same with energy. You know, we can’t keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil and the need to deal with global warming and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God’s creation and just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
Hillary Clinton
June 5, 2007

"I want to take those profits. And I want to put them into a strategic energy fund..."
Hillary Clinton
February 2, 2007

"...It would help narrow the gap between the rich and those who don't have enough savings... We have to fight and finally bury the idea of privatizing Social Security."
Hillary Clinton
October 9, 2007

But please don't call Hillary a socialist for her latest proposal today to expand government.
She doesn't like that.http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/hillary_clinton_how_dare_you_call_universal_health _care_socialized_medicine/


http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/

[diuretic]

Again more rubbish. I don't particularly like Clinton but that's just rubbish. The right must be panicking now. It looks very much like she'll get the nomination as Obama is falling away. And it looks very much like the Democratic nominee will win the presidency given the fact that the GOP is in the toilet. Thus Clinton has to be attacked even before she is the nominee.

There'll be more of this rubbish to come no doubt.

[April15]

Again more rubbish. I don't particularly like Clinton but that's just rubbish. The right must be panicking now. It looks very much like she'll get the nomination as Obama is falling away. And it looks very much like the Democratic nominee will win the presidency given the fact that the GOP is in the toilet. Thus Clinton has to be attacked even before she is the nominee.

There'll be more of this rubbish to come no doubt.Just like before the last presidential election the republican shills came out of everywhere to put forth all kinds of misinformation on the web. Your correct in your presumption of desperation by the republicans.

[stephanie]

Who desperate and what's rubbish...

Those are all quotes she said...

And I thought we were on a board where we can discuss a person's political views??

What is the queen Hill off limits, now..:poke:

[diuretic]

Who desperate and what's rubbish...

Those are all quotes she said...

And I thought we were on a board where we can discuss a person's political views??

What is the queen Hill off limits, now..:poke:

I am debating views, I'm just calling out the rubbish, that's all. Did I suggest you shouldn't post? Nope.

Now, the stuff on that blog is rubbish. I'd go through all the crap posted there but it would get tiresome for dear reader. The "me-too" posts in the blog reflect the close-minded stupidity of those who don't understand the issues. The comment about redistribution of wealth being socialism is typical of the ignorance displayed there. I treat it with the contempt it deserves.

[stephanie]

I am debating views, I'm just calling out the rubbish, that's all. Did I suggest you shouldn't post? Nope.

Now, the stuff on that blog is rubbish. I'd go through all the crap posted there but it would get tiresome for dear reader. The "me-too" posts in the blog reflect the close-minded stupidity of those who don't understand the issues. The comment about redistribution of wealth being socialism is typical of the ignorance displayed there. I treat it with the contempt it deserves.

Well then by all means, don't go back there...sheesh..:slap:
I go on a lot different sites, some considered liberal and some conservative..
if it's not something I don't like...I just don't go back..

And some people DO feel redistribution of wealth is socialism...
Just because you think it isn't....

[actsnoblemartin]

id rather vote for a dog then hillary, because atleast i know what to expect from the dog.


Land of the free (handouts)- Home of the brave (and coddled).

Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., stands with former Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern before speaking at the Johnson County Democrats' annual barbecue. (AP)

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Hillary Clinton
June 29, 2004

"It’s time to replace an 'on your own' society with one based on 'shared responsibility and prosperity.'"
Hillary Clinton
May 29, 2007

"The same with energy. You know, we can’t keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil and the need to deal with global warming and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God’s creation and just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
Hillary Clinton
June 5, 2007

"I want to take those profits. And I want to put them into a strategic energy fund..."
Hillary Clinton
February 2, 2007

"...It would help narrow the gap between the rich and those who don't have enough savings... We have to fight and finally bury the idea of privatizing Social Security."
Hillary Clinton
October 9, 2007

But please don't call Hillary a socialist for her latest proposal today to expand government.
She doesn't like that.http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/hillary_clinton_how_dare_you_call_universal_health _care_socialized_medicine/


http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/

[diuretic]

Well then by all means, don't go back there...sheesh..:slap:
I go on a lot different sites, some considered liberal and some conservative..
if it's not something I don't like...I just don't go back..

And some people DO feel redistribution of wealth is socialism...
Just because you think it isn't....

stephanie - people are entitled to be wrong. Redistribution of wealth isn't socialism because if it were socialism the wealth would have been socially owned in the first place and any redistribution scheme would be redundant. If that's wrong and it's proven to be wrong then fair enough, I'll stand corrected.

Redistribution of wealth is social policy. I have to say I don't think it's very good social policy. Since the means of production in capitalist societies like yours and mine is privately owned then its product (money not goods) can't be taken away and redistributed. That would be counter-productive as it would see a capital strike. Social policies can and should be funded from taxation but the wealth of individuals shouldn't be taken from them and redistributed, it just doesn't make any economic sense.

[Immanuel]

stephanie - people are entitled to be wrong. Redistribution of wealth isn't socialism because if it were socialism the wealth would have been socially owned in the first place and any redistribution scheme would be redundant. If that's wrong and it's proven to be wrong then fair enough, I'll stand corrected.

Redistribution of wealth is social policy. I have to say I don't think it's very good social policy. Since the means of production in capitalist societies like yours and mine is privately owned then its product (money not goods) can't be taken away and redistributed. That would be counter-productive as it would see a capital strike. Social policies can and should be funded from taxation but the wealth of individuals shouldn't be taken from them and redistributed, it just doesn't make any economic sense.

I had never thought of it like that. I had always thought of it as a movement towards socialism. Sort of like a continuum or the pendulum swinging back to socialistic policies.

Immie

[diuretic]

I had never thought of it like that. I had always thought of it as a movement towards socialism. Sort of like a continuum or the pendulum swinging back to socialistic policies.

Immie

One of the things I've thought about long and hard and worked out for myself (sometimes I take a very long time to understand things) is that socialism will never succeed where it's imposed. There have been a few impatient ideologues who have tried to impose socialism (as an economic model, not a political model) and it's failed. It's almost as if Marx was right and that there's an almost pre-determined and natural progression and it will happen when the time and conditions are right.

The thing about capitalism is - it works. We socialists can critique it as much as we like but the fact remains - it works. While it works it will be preferred by the electorate. It can't be imposed by fiat. I do think socialism - that is the social ownership of the means of production - will eventually happen but it won't be as a result of some sort of revolution or overthrow of the existing order. It will happen when it's necessary and it will happen what the current model ceases to work. Forcing people to accept an economic system when the current one they have is functioning is absolutely stupid or it's dictatorial.
And I despise dictatorships.

[Immanuel]

One of the things I've thought about long and hard and worked out for myself (sometimes I take a very long time to understand things) is that socialism will never succeed where it's imposed. There have been a few impatient ideologues who have tried to impose socialism (as an economic model, not a political model) and it's failed. It's almost as if Marx was right and that there's an almost pre-determined and natural progression and it will happen when the time and conditions are right.

The thing about capitalism is - it works. We socialists can critique it as much as we like but the fact remains - it works. While it works it will be preferred by the electorate. It can't be imposed by fiat. I do think socialism - that is the social ownership of the means of production - will eventually happen but it won't be as a result of some sort of revolution or overthrow of the existing order. It will happen when it's necessary and it will happen what the current model ceases to work. Forcing people to accept an economic system when the current one they have is functioning is absolutely stupid or it's dictatorial.
And I despise dictatorships.

I don't think "true socialism" will ever happen at least not here is the US. As I said, I think it is a continuum. We will float up and down the line as we have for a long time. If Hillary policies mentioned above were enacted we would be moving closer to the socialist side of things, but I can't foresee us getting all the way there.

Personally, I have no problem with helping the needy within limits. I'm for Welfare as long as it is not used as a lifelong crutch for the lazy. Social Security would be great and was a great idea in its time, but now is just one more mechanism for the government to take our money and waste it while leaving the needy destitute.

I don't think I would like the idea of "pure Capitalism" either not that I am sure I could define what that means. A balance somewhere in the middle seems preferable to me.

Immie

[diuretic]

I don't think "true socialism" will ever happen at least not here is the US. As I said, I think it is a continuum. We will float up and down the line as we have for a long time. If Hillary policies mentioned above were enacted we would be moving closer to the socialist side of things, but I can't foresee us getting all the way there.

I agree, well, I agree that it won't happen any time soon. The core values of America aren't inclined towards socialism and there are very good reasons for that. Individualism is a very powerful value in America. Now it doesn't matter what I think about that (I like it but I can also see the down side of it) because it's an innate value. I've read Thoreau's Walden and I can see that as a metaphor for American individualism. I think - and I don't want to sound presumptuous on this because I am, after all, a foreigner, an observer - that Americans would reject the collectivism that socialism requires.

So, I agree (without a hint of patronising) with you. But it may happen. It may be the case some time in the future that corporatism in America destroys capitalism due to its innate sociopathy. But that's the upside view. If corporatism is allowed to develop then the US will cease to exist as a political entity and will be taken over by the corporations. If anyone thinks that's a stupid assertion then all I can say to them is look at European history, the state is a recent invention.

What some call "socialist" policies are in fact not. They're insurance policies for capitalism. People who have nothing to lose will fight, they have nothing to lose. People who have something to lose may negotiate or capitulate, they have much to lose. Capitalism has been brilliant in inveigling workers into the system. You only have to look at how a union (in the US) will allow "clawbacks" or "givebacks" simply to allow a company to keep making a profit so it doesn't go out of business and put its (the company and the union's) people on the unemployment line. Social security itself, so despised here by the ideologues, is an insurance policy. Marie Antoinette is alleged to have said about the sans-culottes that they should eat bread (I have heard it said it was brioche, but what the hell). The imperialists ignored the poor and the starving and paid the penalty. Capitalists are much more shrewd, they prefer programmes that give the poor bread (or brioche) to take the sting out of the effect of being part of the underclass.




Personally, I have no problem with helping the needy within limits. I'm for Welfare as long as it is not used as a lifelong crutch for the lazy. Social Security would be great and was a great idea in its time, but now is just one more mechanism for the government to take our money and waste it while leaving the needy destitute.

I agree, it should be a temporary shelter. But that presupposes that governments (federal and state) have the wit to help other than offering a mere handout. That wonderful rubic about teaching a man to fish comes to mind.




I don't think I would like the idea of "pure Capitalism" either not that I am sure I could define what that means. A balance somewhere in the middle seems preferable to me.

Immie

I know what you mean. Capitalism isn't a bad thing of itself. Adam Smith was as brilliant a man as Karl Marx. And both would be horrified at what we've done. I've said before that capitalism has given us some terrific advances. There is no question that in the west the average person's life has been enhanced by capitalism. I think if dear old Karl were to turn up next week he'd re-think his views. You have to see the world as it was for him and his mate Engels back then (I always find that Engels Conditions of the Working Class in England) is a much more accurate description of privation than Marx achieve in his economic and his philosophical writings. I mean who can get excited about The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon ? Pah, he even used the French Revolutionary calendar.

Anyway, points taken. We need to rein in greed and corporatism.

[stephanie]

Stephanie - people are entitled to be wrong. Redistribution of wealth isn't socialism because if it were socialism the wealth would have been socially owned in the first place and any redistribution scheme would be redundant. If that's wrong and it's proven to be wrong then fair enough, I'll stand corrected.

Redistribution of wealth is social policy. I have to say I don't think it's very good social policy. Since the means of production in capitalist societies like yours and mine is privately owned then its product (money not goods) can't be taken away and redistributed. That would be counter-productive as it would see a capital strike. Social policies can and should be funded from taxation but the wealth of individuals shouldn't be taken from them and redistributed, it just doesn't make any economic sense.

Thanks for taking the time to give me your opinion..
It still doesn't change my mind about Hillary...but I do appreciate it...:cheers2:

[diuretic]

And thank you for reading :D

[Immanuel]

Thanks for taking the time to give me your opinion..
It still doesn't change my mind about Hillary...but I do appreciate it...:cheers2:

Ah come on! I think you just misunderstand Hillary. Hillary is such a lovable human being she only wants what's best for you... um excuse me...:puke3: sorry, now where was I? Oh yeah, Hillary only has your best interests at heart and your vote and your wallet.

Cut her some slack will you... excuse me again.....!!!!!!

Immie

[Immanuel]

Ah come on! I think you just misunderstand Hillary. Hillary is such a lovable human being she only wants what's best for you... um excuse me...:puke3: sorry, now where was I? Oh yeah, Hillary only has your best interests at heart and your vote and your wallet.

Cut her some slack will you... excuse me again.....!!!!!!

Immie

And before you accuse me of being a Republican Shrill, April15, I will rewrite that for you with the name of any Republican you like, just name him. They are all the same when you get right down to it.

Immie