Digg

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Hillary Clinton Says People Should be Made by Gov't to "Share Prosperity"

biz.yahoo.com — But if people are forced to relinquish or 'share their prosperity' once they have attained it, what incentive is there for people to prosper in the first place? (this is the paradox of communism)

Bury

witte 1 year 134 days ago

100 diggs
digg it

NSResponder, on 10/11/2007, -11/+41Great to see a commie come out of the closet. To hell with her.

-jcr
- sjl127, on 10/11/2007, -13/+15Commie bitch!
- corporate70, on 10/11/2007, -8/+26Comrade Stalin would be proud.
  
  Of course she is going to take back that statement (or claim it was misinterpreted) faster than her husband can pickup a young woman in a bar.
- MercedRocks, on 10/11/2007, -9/+16Hmm, so she finally showed her true colors.
  
  She's so fake it's really sickening, shes a moderate DEM one day, then a stark raving commie the next.
  
  C'mon Obama, here's your chance to get the nomination.
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/11/2007, -5/+18She may have just blown her shot at the White House.
  
  Besides, how can you take that sort of rhetoric from people like her and John Edwards who have sizeable fortunes and live like kings and queens?
  
  I'll believe Hillary is serious about it when I see her and Bill donate away most of the millions that they've amassed. The Left often TALKS about the redistribution of wealth, but rarely do you see them PRACTICING it.
- MercedRocks, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7@Charlotte_Web
  
  Because it's easier to say "let them eat cake" when you have a cupboard full of them.
  
  Edwards Dad may have been a millworker but, I doubt he knows what it's like to break your back and yet barely scrape by.
  
  To boot, even if they succeed, what will they do with the cash? Spend $1000 bucks on hammers for the pentagon instead of $500?
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -15/+10I'm glad you're all having fun with your little we-hate-Hillary mutual masturbation session here. But if any of you read the article, it doesn't say what the headline and summary said.
  
  And I don't even like Hillary all that much. But I hate people who flat out lie or don't know squat about economics or public policy. Buried as inaccurate.
- JohnReb, on 10/11/2007, -6/+9Maybe she didn't say it in so many words, but she did say:
  "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."
  
  Seems mighty close to me.
- MercedRocks, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11@EntropyMan
  Uh, yah, Im sure all her rhetoric of "pairing growth with fairness," has been entirely misconstrued, and that it really isnt "...time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity," that this too has been taken out of context.
  
  She also writes:
  "We have sent a message to our young people that if you don't go to college ... that you're thought less of in America. We have to stop this," she said. "Our country cannot run without the people who have the skills that are taught in this school." Who thinks less of them? They get paid less, does that equate into being less respected? ------ smacks of Marxist proletariat talk to me.
  
  What it comes down to is that once again we have a politician trying to tell us whats right or wrong while ignoring the reality that their to blame. What's wrong is letting all the good paying blue-collar manufacturing jobs like steel, textiles, lumber, and now even automobiles it seems, become exported to other countries to save a buck, and meanwhile they complain guys making 10 bucks an hour at Wal-MArt arent unionized. Must we always beg for Big Govt crumbs?
- Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -12/+4@charlotte_web: Obviously you've never seen the breakdown of how tax dollars consistently flow from blue states to red ones.
  
  @johnreb: Even Adam Smith in Wealth Of Nations recognized that for capitalism to function effectively the government needs to institute rules. It is a necessary and proper role for government to ensure a fair environment for capitalism. Surely at least in this sense you can see government policies relate to fairness.
  
  In terms of taxation and what some call "wealth redistribution", there are legitimate reasons for an increasing tax rate with increasing income. (Which right now is a historically good deal for the truly rich in America.) Didn't Jesus Christ himself praise the woman in the temple who gave two pennies even though they were all she had, but scorned the rich man who gave absolutely more but relatively less? If the Jesus recognized the importance of placing wealth in context, why shouldn't a secular authority?
  
  @mercedrocks: Being paid more generally scaled with respect, yes. While there are other considerations (serving in the military, teaching children, philanthropy), it's not as if the correlation does not exist.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5No, the paradox of marxism is that it's goal is anarchy, but that it believes that the road there goes through dictatorship.
  
  Of course, Clinton isn't a marxist. Only someone who has no clue what marxism is, but who yet is desperate to tarnish Clinton through gilt by association and not quite making it to calling her Hitler, would claim that she is one.
  
  Buried as inaccurate.
- vertinox, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Eh. I pay more taxes to Bush's friends with gasoline.
  
  I'm not a fan of Hillary, but my prosperity is already being shared with big government as it is... Both sides are just as bad.
- WordyRappington, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5How is Hillary Clinton NOT a Marxist? Can you give an example of her ever praising the free market or capitalism? Can you give an example of her ever supporting individual rights over collectivist social planning? Seriously, I have never heard this woman say anything that was not dripping with Marxist rhetoric.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -7/+7@Wordy, for crying out loud, it's right there in the article. Read the first sentence of this quote:
  
  "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," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."
  
  She believes in free markets. She was on the board of Wal*Mart ! Do you think they'd want a Marxist?
  
  Her point about fairness is that it's important for free markets to have a mostly level playing field. If we don't enforce rules against, say, monopolistic practices, or if we deny workers the right to negotiate deals just as cooperating companies do, then what we wind up with is not capitalism, but a form of corporate feudalism, the law of the jungle. That doesn't work. What we'd see in the pure Republican/Libertarian laisse-faire approach is a few monopolies, just one in each market sector, with workers (you and me) basically treated as serfs.
  
  That doesn't serve us. And it's the citizens, not the corporations, that this country was founded to serve.
  
  Now, we can argue about too much authoritarianism (which frankly exists on both "sides" in America, left and right), but free and fair markets are totally in line with functional (as opposed to fantasy-land) Capitalism. And so is she.
- witte, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7WR is dead on. Take a look at any of H. Clinton's speeches relating to economics:
  
  http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/general-index.html
  
  "collective good"
  "collective power"
  "collective priorities"
  "collective need"
  "collective sins"
  "spread our prosperity"
  "extend our prosperity"
  
  I searched on 'collective 'or 'collectivism'. Through the years, Hilary Clinton remains very specific in how she uses the term 'collectivism'; from what I can tell, when HC talks about 'collectivism', it is almost always with respect to taxation! Nearly always it is pertaining to money: who has it, and who doesn't. And who has 'too much'. And who could use more of it.
  
  So just for the hell of it, I also searched for references to 'collectivism' in G.W. Bush's remarks. There is an astonishing difference in how these two people use this term! When GW talks about 'collectivism', it is WAY more abstract, and always with respect to democracy, or economic freedom, or security:
  
  "collective commitment to democracy"
  "collective challenge to build a hemisphere that trades in freedom"
  "collective acts of courage"
  "collective security"
  "collective defense"
  "collective will of the world"
  "collective compassion"
  
  Bush uses the term collectivism when discussing his aspirations for a certain type of political consensus, or on issues pertaining to democracy or nationalism, while Hilary Clinton uses collectivism to press her desires for taxation to benefit various social causes. Very interesting! (to me, anyway)
- Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Interesting how a significant number of people are willing to dig me down but not actually respond.
- rebrad, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I always knew her Stalinist roots would show. Hail Lenin.
- kaelyiesta, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Show her true colors? She has been doing this ***** for years. She has been playing to ignorant fearful mothers for years by going off on banning video games and other things the government has no right doing. Here's a wikipedia quote:
  
  "Tompson has supported legislation in a number of states that would ban sales of violent and sexually explicit video games to minors.[58] In response to First Amendment concerns, he argued that the games were a “public safety hazard.”[77] However, he rejected as “completely unconstitutional” Hillary Clinton’s proposed legislation to ban sales to minors of games rated “M” for Mature by the Entertainment Software Rating Board. Thompson contended that the government could not enforce a private-sector standard but had to depend on a Miller obscenity test. He charged that Clinton was simply positioning herself politically, with the support of the gaming industry, by proposing a bill which he felt she knew would be unconstitutional.[78]"
  
  When good ol' JT rejects someones support of banning games you know they are ***** out there.
- rebrad, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Terr01,
  If you want a response, write an original comment.
- mattxb, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2RTA people, this submitters description is completely inaccurate. Hate Hillary all you want but at least let your opinions be based on fact. The closest thing in the article to this is:
  "Clinton said she would reduce special breaks for corporations, eliminate tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas and open up CEO pay to greater public scrutiny."
  Bury me, but study some American history and you will see that keeping large companies in check is a vauable role of the government.
  Conservatives have long exploited racism by convincing middle class white America that the Democrats want nothing more than to steal their hard earned money and give it away to minority welfare recipients, but in reality the wealth conservatives are protecting is not the wealth of the average American, but instead the wealth of the upper class. The idea of capitalism is that everyone should work for their own best interest, but Republicans perpetually trick the middle class into fighting for the interests of corporations and the upper class.
  If you hate taxes so much, here is a chart where you can see how your tax money is spent:
  http://nationalpriorities.org/auxiliary/interactivetaxchart/taxchart.html
  So much for the lower class taking all your money right?
- Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1@rebrad: WTF are you talking about? I already did.
NoStoppingUs, on 10/11/2007, -7/+20if i wanted to live in a socialist society, i'd move to france. i hear things are going pretty well over there these days. it's about time she started showing who she truly is. if she wants to share the wealth, why not start with the entire clinton family's wealth? money for all!
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11You'd be disappointed. Even the French just voted in a non-Socialist who wants to do away with their socialism.
  
  Try Venezuela for the Real Socialist Experience.
- Railer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Come to Canada, we're still pretty socialist, we have a conservative government as well, but in Canada even a conservative government is still very liberal. Besides it's a shorts drive.
  
  Reading all these posts I'm not sure I'm a digg anymore so all you diggers are good with this quote?
  
  "In 1965, the average corporate chief executive earned 24 times as much as the average worker, she said. By 2005, it was 262 times as much. In the last six years, productivity has increased, but family incomes have gone down, she said, leading to rising inequality and pessimism in the work force."
  
  So if Hillary said she was going to increase taxes on large corporations, like Exxon and Haliburton, who made billions off gas prices and the Iraq war, you guys would be against that?
  
  Seriously? This is digg right? Fox News didn't buy it out?
- witte, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3>> "In 1965, the average corporate chief executive earned 24 times as much as the average worker. By 2005, it was 262 times as much. In the last six years, productivity has increased"
  
  We have a free market down here. The salaries of the folks who work for private orgranizations are not set by our government. So let's clear that up first.
  
  On the other hand, yes our current law does grant the U.S. government the right tax these high-income-earners at a higher rate because of their extraordinary income. Our government of course already does this. The question is, how much of a greater burden should these folks be expected to bear? You have to stop rasing their tax rate at some point --- obviously you can't tax them at 100%, or they will stop working. So you decide: how much is enough?
  
  >> "increase taxes on large corporations, like Exxon and Haliburton, who made billions"
  
  Increasing taxes on corporations is a dangerous game. Those corporations that make lofty profits are generally those which are operating effciently. In fact, the sole incentive for a company to operate efficiently is profit. Punishing companies for being efficient would be monumentally damaging to the economy. This would have a devastating impact on everybody.
  
  To socialists, 'profit' is a dirty word. But profit is the driving force of a free market. And freedom what our country's about. Profit is good. It makes sound-minded, happy people smile -- even if they themselves don't own a share of it. It is a signal of economic strength.
- Railer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2@witte - I totally agree but the question is how much money is too much money. I'm all for capitalism, and I could give you 100 reasons why communism sucks, but there should be limits to capitalism.
  
  Does Paris Hilton deserve to inherit Billions because who she was born to? That's not capitalism that's a monarchy. And Exxon and Halliburton didn't make their money by becoming more efficient, they made it by price gouging and war profiteering, hardly a honorable or even honest way to make money, do you think the CEO's of these companies deserve million dollar bonuses for these type of less than ethical actions?
  
  Finally I'm not saying tax them 100% but an increase on the highest tax bracket like 5% is not going to kill and of these companies or people but could bring in billions in new tax revenue, and increase the inheritance tax for individuals with assets over 100 million would be good too. Watch the markets they can handle a tax increase, no one is going to die. Maybe take the money and get yourself universal health care while you're at it, trust me it's nice to have.
- witte, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2>> "Does Paris Hilton deserve to inherit Billions"?
  
  Uh, that's not my call. It makes absolutely no difference to me how much that sexy bitch is worth on paper. Her worth does not make her a 'monarch' -- she is beholden to the same laws here as everybody else.
  
  >> 'raise her taxes and get yourself some government healthcare'
  
  LOL, no thanks. I'll stick with my PPO+.
  
  >> "war profiteering"
  
  "War" and "profit" together... Gasp!
  
  Well, I think I've already established that "profit" is not evil; in my country it's the impetus of efficiency. Prima facie, the profit a company earns by executing a government war assistance or nation building contract more efficiently and less expensively than its competitor may appear disingenuous, but without it there would have been absolutely no incentive for the company to have bid on the contract in the first place (and thus, again, no chance the contract would have been executed as efficiently and cheaply as was possible).
  
  So your question should not be, "why do you have war profiteering," but rather, "why do you have war contracts?"
  
  In times of yore, war was a series of destructive battles and then an exit. Alas, sometimes even 'scorched Earth'. But civilized nations now attempt to exit war humanely -- modern warfare is as much about 'nation building' and 'keeping the peace' (security) as about killing the enemy. In this, my government has learned that there are certain tasks that private contractors perform better at than soldiers, and/or sometimes there just aren't enough specialized soldiers to meet ALL the objectives set forth by a commander's aggressive timeline.
  
  But this is really not anything new -- militaries have all through the ages turned to the private sector for an edge. It's how you win!
  
  The end result: peace back home.
- NSResponder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"Does Paris Hilton deserve to inherit Billions because who she was born to? "
  
  Who cares whether she deserves it? Her grandfather, who EARNED it, was entitled to do whatever he wanted with it, including passing it along to his worthless offspring.
  
  -jcr
catchphrase, on 10/11/2007, -5/+20I'm surprised that she would admit it. Anyone paying attention would know that Hillary is a socialist who would like to make the US a full blown communist state. Sorry witch.
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6Actually I've always seen her as power hungry. The politics matter not, it's the ends that justify her means.
  
  In my opinion... that's worse than being an outright commie. At least then you know what you're dealing with.
mattowan, on 10/11/2007, -6/+16Clearly Hillary is starting to display her Socialist agenda. If you need to see where that ends, read Atlas Shrugged.
corporate70, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13If she is all about "sharing" perhaps she can share her Senate power and let me borrow her voting key card.

Her policies are nothing more than an attempt to increase and solidify her own power.
uberneoconcert, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13i never thought she'd be so careless with her agenda...can't wait until her ideas for fostering revolution in the underclass are announced (read her college thesis).
ptgustan, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10At least it is out in the open now. Comrade Hillary is a Marxist.

Her campaign message might as well be: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
- NSResponder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This is quite common amongst people who are rich through no effort of their own.
  
  -jcr
pilgrim3970, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7Creepy stuff and the scary thing is, I doubt she is alone.

"The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an 'ownership society' really is an 'on your own' society"

I go to work, I pay my bills, I spread a little around when I canand wherever I will - all on my own. Sounds like a free country to me.

"that has widened the gap between rich and poor."

Talk about worn out rhetoric. Can't the Dems come up with something original like say, fixing the real problems and not the strawmen problems they use to get voted into office on the backs of "the poor". Of course, the Republicans are little better.

Leftist I can deal with, outright Marxist? No thank you.
agvance, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Sounds like communism to me!
irvman21, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7I didn't know Hillary and Hugo Chavez shared the same speech writer. She so carefully manages everything she does to try to seem moderate, but every so often you get a real peak at the batsh*t crazy socialist that lives just an inch beneath the surface.
WinnerS, on 10/11/2007, -6/+8Buried as inaccurate.
CPMan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5So, because (as Clinton said) "There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets," she proposes more government intervention, regulation, and redistribution. In other words, because X is the better way to do things, we're going to do Y, instead.

Oh, yeah, that makes total sense. Tell me more about these "free markets," Hillary.
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6"markets work best with rules?" Really, Hillary? You think the Government should regulate corporate business? Are you trying to start a war on free-market capitalism, Hillary? And I thought you liberal mooninites hated wars! Why do you hate America, Hillary?
JWav3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Hell.. why not let the government run all business.. It worked for the soviets. The Yugo was the best car ever made.. uhh.. wasn't it?

Ron Paul '08
- CognitiveD, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3what does a yugoslavian car have to do with soviet?
  
  It ***** scares the hell out of me that most Americans are ignorant about the rest of the world and think that capitalism is a good thing.
uptown, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I wish someone would just ask her this one simple question in a debate:

"One of the biggest challenges any politician faces is trying to relate to those they represent. An everyday event for millions of your constituents is riding the New York City subway system to get to and from work. When is the last time you rode on the New York subway system?"
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Clinton, like every other politician (except Mike Gravel who is apparently broke), is simply too rich to use public transportation. What do you think that proves?
- JohnReb, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Mayor Bloomberg refused to move into Gracie Manor, the official NYC Mayors residence, and daily commutes by subway from his apartment to City Hall.
  
  Perhaps you think he's broke like Gravel?
revelation476, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Help us Ron Paul, you're our only hope.
ddxChrist, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton in the least; I sincerely hope she ends up not even getting close to elected.

But this title on Digg is misleading, and many of the previous comments are blowing it out of proportion. Yes, her BS on free market economics in the article is incredibly flaky, but she doesn't completely make a fool out of herself as she usually does:

"Clinton spoke at the Manchester School of Technology, which trains high school students for careers in the construction, automotive, graphic arts and other industries. The school highlighted one of the nine goals she outlined: increasing support for alternative schools and community colleges.

"'We have sent a message to our young people that if you don't go to college ... that you're thought less of in America. We have to stop this,' she said.

"Beyond education, Clinton said she would reduce special breaks for corporations, eliminate tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas and open up CEO pay to greater public scrutiny.

"Clinton also said she would help people save more money by expanding and simplifying the earned income tax credit; create new jobs by pursuing energy independence; and ensure that every American has affordable health insurance."
JigoroKano, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"Share Prosperity" says the submitter, but Billary is never quoted as saying that on the page. Here are the only statements quoted from Billary's mouth on that page:

"on your own"
"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society"
"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."
"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."
"We have sent a message to our young people that if you don't go to college ... that you're thought less of in America. We have to stop this,"
"It's not as if America hasn't been successful these last six years, but the measure of success does not relate to what's happening in households across our country,"
"It's like trickle down economics, without the trickle."

Putting the phrase in quotes make the submitter a liar. Burried as innacurate.
fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Did any of you actually read the article? She isn't talking about "redistributing wealth", or any other communist ideal. She is talking about people helping each other out, and the government helping people, not communism.
reddevil3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Man what is wrong with you guys? What is wrong with "sharing responsibility and prosperity"?

FTFA: "Beyond education, Clinton said she would reduce special breaks for corporations, eliminate tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas and open up CEO pay to greater public scrutiny."

I don't know about you, but that sounds good to me. CEOs are paid an obscene amount of money you have to agree, and shipping jobs overseas has to stop.

Of course, for now this is all talk...I'm no fan of Hillary (go Obama) but c'mon let's not blow this out of proportion shall we?

Buried as lame.
- NSResponder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"What is wrong with "sharing responsibility and prosperity"?"
  
  What's wrong with it is that it's a mealy-mouthed way of saying that she wants to loot what we earn, and use it to buy votes.
  
  Hope I managed to clarify that for you.
  
  -jcr
Racerx52, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Its a good thing to know she won't be elected now.

Thanks Hillary!
Newportbeachguy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Gosh..why should I even work

Hillary does not seem to understand the word "incentive"
witte, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Here's the full text of the speech:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=1839
kingygk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Hillary! Comes Out For Socialism! Clinton: Shared Prosperity Should Replace 'On Your Own' Society
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Hillary Clinton Says People Should be Made by Gov't to "Share Prosperity"

Login or register to add a comment