Clinton Advocates Socialism
Tuesday, May 29th, 2007Hillary Clinton appears to be taking her vision of child care (“It Takes A Village”) and applying it to America’s economic infrastructure:
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) — Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.
The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an “ownership society” really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.
“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “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.”
That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.
“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.”
I’ve known that Clinton was a socialist for some time, I just never thought she would come out and say so on the campaign trail. If you read the above statements by the Hildebeast™, you’ll see that her plan is nothing more than the redistribution of wealth based on need rather than ability. When you hear her say Fairness doesn’t just happen. It requires the right government policies, the English translation is When I’m President, I will pass laws that will take from the people who achieve and give it to the people who don’t achieve.
Actually, you can sum up her entire economic plan with one sentence: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Hildebeast™, meet Karl Marx.
This is not new. Remember back in June of 2004 when the Hildebeast™ said this:
“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,” Sen. Clinton 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.”
It seems to me that socialism is the one constant in Clinton’s political positions. She’s flip-flopped on the War in Iraq, funding for the troops, and almost every other position she’s taken since before she started her campaign. Yet, since the days of her husband’s administration and her misguided attempt to foist socialized medicine on the U.S., she seems to have strayed little from the socialist camp. Her answer to everything seems to be more government regulation and control.
This seems like yet another in a long string of reasons to make sure that there is no second Clinton Administration.
Print This Post
