An unlinked assertion of what someone else said is always suspect, Kim, especially when it's you. She was talking about Social Security, and only Social Security, and she's right, IMO.

The New York senator told the AARP's legislative conference that she would bring a "renewed national commitment to Social Security" to the White House.

"This is the most successful domestic program in the history of the United States," Clinton said to applause from seniors gathered in Washington to push their policy agenda. "When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything."

Ah, you hadn't added a link yet. Nevermind that part. Still a stupid post.

There's one very big problem with your argument, Mantis, and that is Hillary Clinton's words. If she were referring only to social security then she would have said, "privatization isn't the answer to social security." But she didn't limit her comments only to that program. Instead, she said it wasn't the answer to anything.

"she's a Marxist" and "If she thinks privatization isn't the answer to anything, then the only logical conclusion we can come to is that she thinks that nationalization is the answer to everything."

First off, if you even went to college, youi obviously skipped Poli Sci & Econ, because you haven't any but the vaguest of notions about what Marxism entails.

You have the logic of a simpleton. Read the frigging article before you leap for a rag on Clinton.

Secondly, what Clinton was talking about was in a context to privatizing programs like Medicare & SS. That doesn't make her a Marxist any more than this silly post accomplishes anything more than reflecting your childish ignorance of economic systems.

mantis, you're way off base on this one. It definitely appears that Mrs. Clinton was referring to the proposed privatization of any program not being the answer while discussing social security. Not just social security, as you see it.

One thing for sure, the communists are right out there in your face. If you can't see who they are now, there is no hope for you.

If you loved the federal response to Katrina, you will rave single payer no-medicine for you. It would be easier to move to the charlatan's beloved Cuba to get medical care.

Now about that Chinese money -- I know nothing. Seems a little light since you want to run the country, how about you? But that's how it is with charlatans.

"Clinton was referring to the proposed privatization of any program not being the answer" J.R.

Of course, it was a reference to other "programs," presumably Government programs. Many of those programs became programs because the private sector either could not or would not take care of the problem.

The idea of privatizing government programs is jut an excuse for profit taking in exchange for scaling back services.

Ever hear of a Municipal privatized Police Servic or Fire Department? I'll take SS and Medicare as is rather than leave it to the likes of a privatizing maggot...er, magnate like Kudlow.

If she were referring only to social security then she would have said, "privatization isn't the answer to social security." But she didn't limit her comments only to that program. Instead, she said it wasn't the answer to anything.

Please. Context means something. "Anything" in this context seems very logically to mean any of the problems with SS.

Of course, I don't expect you to admit or even understand context, as you seem to think opposing privatization of what are already government institutions means that "nationalization is the answer to everything." Is someone proposing nationalizing anything? If you say healthcare, it will only further show how stupid you are (expansion of already existing government health programs to cover uninsured people is not nationalizing - no one of any note is proposing that the government take over the private healthcare industry).

In your twisted mind, if I oppose the privatization of prisons, that means I want all manufacturing to be taken over by the government. If you oppose privatization of anything, you support nationalization of everything, right?

Please let her be the nominee because she's toast.

Oh, btw Kim, did you notice that Geraghty omitted a paragraph in between the two he quoted from the Chronicle (with no ellipses, I might add). Why do you suppose he did that? Oh, that's right, because she specifically refers to Social Security in that paragraph, which makes it clear what she was talking about when referring to privatization.

Luckily there are other news outlets that attend such things, so you can read even more:

As president, Mrs. Clinton said she would take steps to ensure that the older Americans can "afford to retire with dignity and comfort." She pledged to put pressure on employers to strengthen the system of defined benefit pension plans and touted her proposal for providing universal health care.

Recalling her husband's presidency, Mrs. Clinton also said that she would take the idea of privatizing social security off the table.

"We need to get back to the fiscal responsibility of the 1990's when we weren't raiding the social security trust fund," she said. "When my husband left office, we had a security social security system until 2055. And then all of a sudden the Bush administration took us back into deficits. We've lost 14 years off the solvency of the social security trust fund."

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with criticizing politicians for their positions (I have a lot to criticize Clinton for), but your insistence on inventing positions for them is just stupid. Sorry to harsh your buzz on your latest "Red Scare" piece.

Mantis,
I think that is a cheap spin on your part. In the context of Hillary 's history, she is intending on socialism under another name. Even from a wiki page, we can see who she is here. In a moment, Hillary told the truth about her self and you guys are trying to ignore the context of her history. Is the context really important to you? Or you are simply trying to make some cheap personal insults?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan

In many years of studying American social policy, I have never read an official document that seemed so suffused with coercion and political naivete ... with its drastic prescriptions for controlling the conduct of state governments, employers, drug manufacturers, doctors, hospitals and you and me

Come on Mantis, you're full of it here. Talk about context. Her line was:

"When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything."

Nowhere does she say "privatization OF SOCIAL SECURITY", or even, "it's not the answer to SOCIAL SECURITY"! Come on man, she clearly states, that when she is president, privatization is off the table. IT'S NOT THE ANSWER TO ANYTHING. Nowhere does she say its not the answer to anything...having to do with Social Security. By your logic, someone saying that the Iraq war is wrong because war never solved anything (which we hear all the time) would mean war never solved anything in Iraq only. I think you know better that these people are talking about war in general. As Clinton is talking about privatization in general. The fact that you and loopy ass freedomfries even act like this is not her belief in the first place is ludicrous. Everyone knows this is and has been her belief, she is finally being honest about it. For some reason you want to still deny it.

"When my husband left office, we had a security social security system until 2055. And then all of a sudden the Bush administration took us back into deficits."

I guess she forgot about that war thing, for which she voted.

And, if she's got a problem with "raiding" SS, where's her legislation to stop it?

She's also conveniently omits that the fiscal boom of the 1990's, and the subsequent non-need to raid social security, was a result of a booming economy. Not of politics.

Whatever. She's a skank. She knows it. And, I'm sick and tired of her "when I'm president" BS. I know the marketing guys think it gold to make such statements, but her marketing guys obviously are stuck on in high school debate mode.

What frightens me is that some people are falling for it.

Boy it really burns the socialist-regressives when one of their candidates accidentially speaks the truth.

Don't worry Mantis, I'm sure this was a rare slip up and she'll be back to her old lying self soon. And no one in the mainstream media would bother to report something like this anyway. They got ya covered.

Since the writer of this hysterical (I don't mean funny) post obviously;y has no understanding of basic english language here are the definitions of anything and everything. A typical post of a typical wingnut taking the truth and twisting it to mean what you want. You've obviously spent too many years watching Generalisimo [bush] do exactly the same thing.

WAIT, I hear a noise!! Maybe there's a MARXIST under my bed!!

anything |ˈenēˌθi ng | pronoun [usu. with negative or in questions ] used to refer to a thing, no matter what : nobody was saying anything | have you found anything? | he inquired whether there was anything he could do.

everything |ˈevrēˌθi ng | pronoun 1 all things; all the things of a group or class

"When my husband left office, we had a security social security system until 2055. And then all of a sudden the Bush administration took us back into deficits."

The problem was, of course, that the system would be bankrupt by 2056 (actually earlier, she is using one of the rosier scenarios). The fiscal condition of Social Security has nothing to do with federal budget deficits, which fluctuate, but rather with the number of payees versus the number of taxpayers paying into the system.

If, as the frothing leftists are claiming, Hillary was speaking narrowly, then they should be able to provide examples of her approving of privatization, shouldn't they?

Besides allowing political cronies to "privately" sell sensitive technology to China, I mean . . .

...I'll take SS and Medicare as is...

And what happens in about 20 years when both programs collapse?

Again, JFO cannot help but spew the garbage from within.

Hillary 's plan means a tax increase. Maybe we can go back to the day of 90% tax for the top bracket. But that is socialism under another name.

Clinton is a Marxist, it's well documented. That's what she's all about. And the fact she could be our next President scares the heck out of me.

On the whole, Hillary's comments certainly continue to indicate constant rhetorical genuflection in the direction of Havana.

Privatization? Nah, just use Venezuela for an economic model. Things are going so well for Chavez that he plans on remaining "El Presidente" for the next several decades.

Ok, fine. Here are some quotes from the President, applying your context-free reading of things, we'll see how they hold up.

The state can do what they want to do.

This was regarding gay marriage bans, but without context we can plainly see that the President is saying that the states can do whatever they want, without restriction. Drug legalization, euthanasia, ignoring the partial-birth abortion ban. Federal has no power. Good to know.

But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best.

Some may say that the President was talking about deciding whether cabinet secretaries (specifically Rumsfeld) should stay or go. But context does not matter, so we can only assume that he is declaring himself the decider for all issues in the country.

And I'm not going to change my mind. I'm the kind of person that when I make up my mind, I'm not going to change it.

Since context doesn't matter, Bush was not talking about stem cell research here, but everything. Clearly the President has never changed his mind about anything, ever.

I think you guys are onto something here. It's easy to find quotes you can read this way, and it takes no thought whatsoever!

Good point mantis - no thought whatsoever is the operative word for these folks. Just make sh** up and then say it's true - just like [b]ush does.

Mantis,
We read Hillary 's statement in the context of her rhetoric and attempts at policy making over the years. We provided the context for you already. You are the one who doesn't want the context in this case. I thought you want the context. So you want to ignore the context now? (like the 2 year old JFO)

What part of "It Takes a Village" are some people here having a problem understanding? Marxism, Socialism, Communism, whatever. We can mince words and use semantics all we want, but Hillary is what she is - "Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. 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."

Oyster

You usualy write insightful, reasonable comments. But what you have to say is ridiculous. To equate the title of a book and a desire to make the tax burden more equitable with Marxism or Communism or Socialism is like me saying right wingers are Facsists. Obviously it is reasonable to disagree with her philosophy and her views on taxation and social security but to her label her in the manner you're trying to do is silly.

It's as silly as the author of the post taking the word "anything" and changing it to mean "everything" and then concluding she's a Marxist.

To carry ir further in the absurdity. I strongly disagree with Bush's views on the courts and on survelillance. I don't label him a Fascist for those views - which I guess I could based on the reasoning some are usuing on this thread.

Let's review Hillary's history and put this privatization into the full context of what Hillary has said in the past.

Washginton Monthly, March 31, 2007

Clinton warned that her plan will spark a "big political battle" because it will mean "taking money away from people who make out really well right now." And who might those people be? "Well," she answered, "let's start with the insurance companies."

">Time Magazine, March 29, 2007

World">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39205">World Net Daily, June 29, 2004

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. "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."

Raw Story, February 2, 2007 (from the transcript)

The same -- the same is true with energy independence. The Democrats know what needs to be done. Again, we're working to try to push this agenda forward. The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. (Laughter.) I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to find alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence! (Cheers, applause.)

P.J. O'Rourke described Hillary as:
"Hugo Chavez in a pantsuit" on CNBC this weekend. Quite apt.

None of the links seem to be valid now. But those were the sources they were originally from. I'm not going to go find archived links right now.

The liberals here will try to spin out of what Hillary said anyway.

No matter what they say, it all sounds like more government, bigger government, confiscatory government. All that adds up to is socialism.

Isn't "socialism" just communism-light?

..the more hillary tightens her grip the more star systems will slip thru her fingers....

You've obviously spent too many years watching Generalisimo [bush] do exactly the same thing.

15. Posted by JFO | September 5, 2007

That post from the guy, jfo, who sees a chicken hawk in every Iraq war supporter, but won't say it in plain English.

And what's your obsession with Bush? Why were you checking out the President's "package"?

Comment #28 Posted by John in CA

Well, that's about a botched up formatting job. It didn't look like that in preview.

Well, I might also ask about you apparent obsession with me? Rememeber now John (no pun intended), it's you right wingers who are looking for sex in stalls in airports. Go to one of them and quit stalking me.

As for your utterly absurd comment about growth in government why don't you enlighten us about the growth in government under Generalisimo [b]ush? You out dumbed yourself with that comment, but no surprise that.

"Isn't "socialism" just communism-light?"

Not quite, although communism is a type of socialism. Technically socialism is govenment control of, well, pretty much everything while communism is government ownership and control of everything.

The main thing is that socialism, whether in it's mildest forms or full communism form, historically has always led to only one outcome: universal poverty.

The Democrats are total socialists for sure, but probably not total communists. Well, most of them aren't.

But hey, universal poverty would be a good thing wouldn't it? At least everyone would be equal!

No word on nationalizing already existing private industries in any of those quotes, John. Higher taxes--for wealthy people, for corporations, for anyone--whether you agree with them or not, are not nationalization of anything. Let me ask you this, do you oppose taxes entirely? If not, then you're clearly a socialist-Marxist-communist-Stalinist-pinko-bastard.