« Them's My Peeps | Main | See a doctor, or suffer the consequences! »

Hillary Clinton: "Privatization is not the answer to anything."

Those who are the least bit familiar with Hillary's views on the economy, health care, and other domestic issues already know that she's a Marxist. Now, she has admitted it herself. Hillary spoke to a group of senior citizens and in the context of discussing Medicare social security, during which she said, "privatization is not the answer to anything." 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. There is no limit to government takeover of everything in life with a belief system such as Hillary's. She's so confident that she's going to win the Democratic nomination and possibly the presidency that she's now telling us exactly what she's going to do if she becomes president.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/23842.

Comments (80)

An unlinked assertion of wh... (Below threshold)
mantis:

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... (Below threshold)
mantis:

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

There's one very big proble... (Below threshold)

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 "I... (Below threshold)
FreedomFries:

"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... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

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 com... (Below threshold)
bill:

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 t... (Below threshold)
FreedomFries:

"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 on... (Below threshold)
mantis:

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 nomin... (Below threshold)
Jo:

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

Oh, btw Kim, did you notice... (Below threshold)
mantis:

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 th... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

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... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

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 offic... (Below threshold)
yo:

"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 soc... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

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 hy... (Below threshold)
JFO:

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 offic... (Below threshold)

"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 Medicar... (Below threshold)
Ken:

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

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

Again, JFO cannot help but ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

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

Hillary 's plan means a tax... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

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 ... (Below threshold)
James:

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 com... (Below threshold)

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

Privatization? Nah, just u... (Below threshold)
Ken:

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 qu... (Below threshold)
mantis:

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 thou... (Below threshold)
JFO:

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 Hil... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

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... (Below threshold)

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."

OysterYou usualy w... (Below threshold)
JFO:

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 hist... (Below threshold)

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

Clinton doesn't have a plan yet either. But she says her proposal, when it comes, will contain the most controversial element of her failed earlier effort--an employer mandate requiring all businesses to provide health insurance for their workers. "No more free riders," she declared. "No more companies that don't insure everybody and shift their costs onto other companies that do and onto the taxpayer." 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." Let the battle begin--again.

Discussing her plan for nationalized health care in 1993:

"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices ... Government has to make those choices for people."

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 comm... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Isn't "socialism" just communism-light?

..the more hillary tightens... (Below threshold)
moseby:

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

You've obviously s... (Below threshold)
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 ... (Below threshold)

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 abou... (Below threshold)
JFO:

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... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"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 al... (Below threshold)
mantis:

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.

I gotta say, I was with man... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

I gotta say, I was with mantis on this one when I started this comment, but then I got to the quote from the Chronicle I was going to use :"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."

Now I'm not so sure. She obviously was saying that privatization is off the table for social security (the most successful domestic program ever?!?!?!?!?!?), but then she did say "it's not the answer to anything."

The reason I think that quote said more than she wanted is because I think that's the way she feels. She a collectivist. It takes a village, remember? If I had no other context to put this in I would have probably sided with mantis, but knowing Hillary!, well...

Well, I might also... (Below threshold)
Well, I might also ask about you apparent obsession with me?

I admit, I'm a human. It's like watching a train wreck. There's no stalking involved when the target stumbles into the gun sight and refuses to exit the field of fire.

As to the growth in government under Bush, are you complaining about it? Complain about that, but embrace Hillary's total takeover of American life?

You won't find many conservatives happy about the growth of government under Bush - least of all, me.

Campaign finance? Boo

No Child Left Behind? Boo. Should just abolish the Department of Education. But, do you think statist liberals would allow that? Not likely.

Part D Medicare Rx? Boo. There is a silver lining in that - Bush delivered something democratics promised for years and didn't deliver. Not surprisingly, when it was done, what did the democratics complain about? It wasn't big enough.

And note, that in Part D, it's voluntary. You don't have to participate.

Social (in)Security? Hmm, let me see. Oh, yeah. Bush tried to reform that. Make it less government controlled. Who killed that effort? Oh, yeah. Demagoguing democratics who wouldn't even come to the table to talk about the issue. Because democratics don't want to fix Social Security. They want to either make it more burdensome or keep it as an unresolved issue. It's more valuable to democratics as a problem than it is rectified.

Mantis, Now you are... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Mantis,
Now you are trying verbal gymnastics again. Hillary tried to nationalize the health care industry. Her socialist plan was defeated by the Dem congress. Now a tax increase is simply an investion in the liberal "verbal gymnastic" lingo (except for the garbage that keeps comin out of JFO, but we know that he simply cannot do anything but spew the garbage from within).

Let me ask you thi... (Below threshold)
Let me ask you this, do you oppose taxes entirely? If not, then you're clearly a socialist-Marxist-communist-Stalinist-pinko-bastard.

mantis, you've caught me. Yes, I clearly am all those things.

No, I don't oppose taxes entirely. I suppose it's a matter of degrees, isn't it?

It's a matter of what is the legitimate function of government.

I base my philosophy of what our government's legitimate function and authority should be on the original intent of the Framers. I can safely say it was not constructed to enable the federal government to control too many facets of our life.

Here's something that seems to sum up my thoughts on government: Government should do only those things that only government can do.

Conservatives believe that the natural state of taxation is the closer to zero, the better. Liberals believe that the closer to 100% is the solution for all problems.

How often do democratics confront a problem that doesn't involve more government and a tax increase?

John in CA:See you... (Below threshold)
JFO:

John in CA:

See you're like a lot of your fellow wingnuts. You make a huge assumption about what others think or believe. It's part of that arrogant {bush]-like, I know everything attitude.. See, I can't abide by Hillary. I have Clinton fatigue, Bush fatigue, Gore fatigue, Kerry fatigue, McCain fatigue, and on and on. Personally, I'd like to see a wholesale cleaning out of the Congress - Reid, Pelosi,McDonnell, Lott and the whole damned bunch who have done nothing much for any of us on either side.

But you, in all your arrogance, think you know what a"liberal" thinks when in fact you're clueless.

The government is too damn big with too much power.
The tax system is an abomination.
The military is stretched too thin.
Social security needs to be reformed - not privatized but reformed.
The people need to have control back.
Campaign financing is corrupt.

See, I betcha there's a thing or two in there we even agree about. maybe not how to get there but in the basic concept of change.

Oh, and I really like Bill Richardson and Mike Huckabee. The rest are fakes and opportunists on both sides.


No, I don't oppose taxes... (Below threshold)
mantis:

No, I don't oppose taxes entirely. I suppose it's a matter of degrees, isn't it?

Oh, now it's a matter of degrees. Not long ago anyone who wanted to raise taxes for any reason was a socialist. Glad to hear you're tempering that position.

I base my philosophy of what our government's legitimate function and authority should be on the original intent of the Framers.

I'll just note that there is, and always has been, disagreement about the original intent of the framers on a number of issues.

Conservatives believe that the natural state of taxation is the closer to zero, the better. Liberals believe that the closer to 100% is the solution for all problems.

Wrong. Conservatives believe in keeping things just as they were in some fictional, halcyon past. Libertarians believe in zero taxation, or as close to it as possible. Keep in mind I'm talking about modern conservatives, who have no problem with the government taxing us as long as it spends the money on things they like (faith-based programs, more and more prisons, war, etc.). Paleo-cons had principles, but most of them are gone. Today's liberals have largely lost their principles as well, but I defy you to find one prominent liberal who espouses 100% taxation (true socialism). If that truly is their core belief you should be able to find at least one. I can find you loads of libertarians who support zero taxation.

How often do democratics confront a problem that doesn't involve more government and a tax increase?

Not very often, I agree. That does not mean they're socialists. It's a matter of degrees, remember?

FWIW, I'm pretty liberal on most issues, but I'm also always suspicious of new or higher taxes. That said, I can manage to discuss them without screaming Commie! at anyone who proposes them.

The government is too da... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

The government is too damn big with too much power.

The people need to have control back.

Fine. Then why not let the people have some control and voluntarily manage a portion of their own SocSec? People like you can opt out and let the gov't completely handle their SocSec.

Oh, and I really l... (Below threshold)
Oh, and I really like Bill Richardson and Mike Huckabee. The rest are fakes and opportunists on both sides.

Huckabee is a populist and probably a nanny-stater. Richardson is probably abandoning some of his (maybe reasonable) beliefs in hopes of appealing to the far left.

Les:I have no prob... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Les:

I have no problem with the concept. It's the nuts and bolts that are most important to me.

"This is the most ... (Below threshold)
marc:
"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.
And that history covers the last two decades when it has become a financial sinkhole that is raided at will by politicians trying the hide other financial sinkholes.

JFO:

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.

So, in your [parsing] world anything and everything have two separate and very different meanings.

Anything means "anything |ˈenēˌθi ng | pronoun [usu. with negative or in questions ] used to refer to a thing, no matter what"

So it's safe to say JFO will spin anything, and Shillary can be opposed to "privatization" of anything, or Democrats will spin anything to deflect attention from theie leading, albeit flawed, candidate.

mantis..but I def... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

mantis
..but I defy you to find one prominent liberal who espouses 100% taxation (true socialism).

Espouse it? Probably none. The people would reject it out of hand.

But how many liberals are not 'espousing' 100% or close to it, but are slowly working towards it with ever more gov't programs? How many don't come out and say it, but beleive in their hearts that Socialism is the way to go; and through their actions and legislations bring us closer to it?

Personally, I think many liberals don't realize the consequenses of some of their actions. As/if we get closer to Socialism, many will suddenly say ' Wait! I didn't want it to go this far. ' Too late then.


I can find you loads of libertarians who support zero taxation.

I'm sure you can. But aren't they just a fringe within a fringe group, with no political office and no influence?

Spoken like any true member... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

Spoken like any true member of the demacrook party

I have no prob... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

I have no problem with the concept. It's the nuts and bolts that are most important to me.


And yet just such a plan was floated by Bush, and was utterly rejected and demagogued by the Dems. They didn't even want to consider negotiating it or anything like it. And Hillary is stubbornly sticking to that mindset. They don't have any intention of even discussing the nuts and bolts of it.

But how many liberals ar... (Below threshold)
mantis:

But how many liberals are not 'espousing' 100% or close to it, but are slowly working towards it with ever more gov't programs?

Fine, then anyone who cuts taxes is slowly working towards 0% taxation and elimination of of the military, police and fire departments, public water resources, public schools, social security. Because if you propose cutting taxes and eliminating any public programs, you're working towards eliminating all of them, right?

How many don't come out and say it, but beleive in their hearts that Socialism is the way to go; and through their actions and legislations bring us closer to it?

Well, gee, I don't have the President's powers so I find myself unable to look into people's hearts and find their true intentions. I have to go ahead and rely on their records and public statements. You tell me, how many of them have socialism in their hearts?

Personally, I think many liberals don't realize the consequenses of some of their actions. As/if we get closer to Socialism, many will suddenly say ' Wait! I didn't want it to go this far. ' Too late then.

Well, our Constitution allows us to remedy, or reverse, our mistakes through the representative legislature. As long as we keep our Constitution intact, it's never too late.

I'm sure you can. But aren't they just a fringe within a fringe group, with no political office and no influence?

So are socialists, chuckles.

"Since the writer of this h... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

"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."

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"

Thanks for pointing that out jfo, as you just proved the point of this post. Had Hillary said:

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

...that would've been fine, because she would've been saying that privatization is the answer for some things, but not everything, thus singling out SS as being something it is not the answer for. She did not say that, she said:

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

...meaning, quite clearly, that privatization isn't the answer for anything. Talk about a lack of understanding of the English language!!

"As long as we keep our ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"As long as we keep our Constitution intact, it's never too late."

And as long as Democrats keep getting elected, the Constitution will be "interpreted" by the courts as meaning whatever the far left wants it to mean. Thus it will be useless, but that appears to be o.k. with the left.

"Not long ago anyone who... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"Not long ago anyone who wanted to raise taxes for any reason was a socialist."

Strawman. I don't believe anyone made that argument.

It is true that (1) most all modern American Democrats are socialists, and (2) all modern American Democrats want to raise everyone's taxes, but that does not mean that everyone who wants to raise taxes is a socialist.

Strawman. I don't believ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Strawman. I don't believe anyone made that argument.

Here's what I was referring to, from John:

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

No matter what they say, they're socialists. Seems pretty clear to me. But I guess I shouldn't have included "for any reason."

It is true that (1) most all modern American Democrats are socialists,

Prove it.

and (2) all modern American Democrats want to raise everyone's taxes,

Prove it.

Do that, and we can talk about strawmen.

"...liberals have largely l... (Below threshold)
Ken:

"...liberals have largely lost their principles as well, but I defy you to find one prominent liberal who espouses 100% taxation (true socialism). If that truly is their core belief....."

And there's the rub -- many liberals have to hide their core beliefs or else they wouldn't get elected anywhere but in the bluest of states. As someone mentioned earlier, Hillary had a Freudian slip when she made the statement we are debating. Does she believe in 100% taxation? I doubt it. But I'll wager that she wants the government meddling in our lives far more than currently.

No matter what they say, th... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

No matter what they say, they're socialists.
-----------------------------------
I simply look at their actions. Hillary tried to nationalize our health care and failed (fortunately). And she believe that it takes a village to raise a child. I know that you can do more verbal gymnastics with that. So the context again shows that Hillary is a socialist. She just had a Freudian slip about what she really believed. Unless you are a die-hard supporter of Hillary, I don't know why one would be afraid to face that fact about Hillary.

"with no political offic... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"with no political office and no influence?

So are socialists, chuckles."

Senator Bernie Sanders Socialist Vermont, snarky.

marc:I'm no fan of... (Below threshold)
JFO:

marc:

I'm no fan of Hillary's as I said to John. I'd like to see wholesale changes and the sweeping out of the old wood of both parties. I'm not defending Hillary, merely pointing out the author's (kim) lie. But that is his/her modus operandi all the time. The idea that Clinton is a Marxist is absurd and you know that to be true. If you don't then you're not near as intelligent as I think you are.

Again, JFO cannot but spew ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Again, JFO cannot but spew the garbage (disguised in his personal insults) from within. It seems like every JFO 's post is soiled with the garbage. Again, notice the pretention too. Yup FF is more honest for sure.


I will wait and see when Hi... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I will wait and see when Hillary will be voted out of office. Can liberal NY find a better liberal than Clinton?

JFO,What do you th... (Below threshold)
Ken:

JFO,

What do you think would happen if Mrs. Clinton was given unfettered control (Dems in the House, Senate and White House) over the reins of power of this great country?

Well she'd be a dictator if... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Well she'd be a dictator if she had unfettered control and we don't allow that here. Didn't you know that?

Again, I don't see why anyo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Again, I don't see why anyone would be afraid to face the fact that Hillary is a socialist (unless you are not honest enough to admit it).

Idiotic response JFO. Let ... (Below threshold)
Ken:

Idiotic response JFO. Let me rephrase so that a child can understand -- If the democrats have total control of the levers of power (with filibuster-proof majorities), what can we as citizens expect from the democrats?

Fair and balance,d open and... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Fair and balance,d open and honest government. The opposite of what we've had the past 7 sorry years.

Fair and balance,d open and... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Fair and balance,d open and honest government. The opposite of what we've had the past 7 sorry years.
------------------------------------
Yup we had that from 1992-1994 under Clinton and Hillary tried to nationalize our health care in secret meeting. BTW, we would have a woman harasser/abuser and an alleged rapist as president (but JFO would be fine with that too).

Sorry to forget that JFO cannot be honest about who he is. He is here to spin for the dems regardless of the facts. Again, FF is more honest.

LAIAre you in love... (Below threshold)
JFO:

LAI

Are you in love with FF? Perhaps you should call Senator Craig - it sounds like you have an unfulfilled need. Or, you could always learn onanism from Kim - that's her specilty.

Again, JFO cannot help but ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Again, JFO cannot help but spew the garbage from within when his dishonesty is exposed. JFO is acting like a 2year old again.

You clearly are delusional.... (Below threshold)
Ken:

You clearly are delusional. Do you understand the concept of checks and balances? A party that believes in ever-expanding the reach of the government will do so if left unchecked. If you thought the heady days of Jimmy Carter were a time of bliss, just wait for the perfect storm of Hillary and Democrat control of the Hill to bring this country to its knees.

Ken:Am I delusiona... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Ken:

Am I delusional? What are you? Nuts? Where have you been for the past 10-12 years or so? Outer space? For 6 of them the Republicans had "unfettered" control over the government and what the hell are the results? No one trusts Bush - the republicans were tossed out of Congress and will probably lose more seats in 08. The corruption was/is rampant; the White House is above accountability for anything. And you're yapping about complete control of the government. Are you drunk? Stoned?

I don't know how the dems would do but they sure as hell couldn't fu** it up worse than your gang has done.

Based on the level of JFO's... (Below threshold)
Ken:

Based on the level of JFO's repartee and lack of ability to deal with reason, I have to assume that (s)he will be getting their driver's permit once they turn 16 years of age.

I don't know how the dems w... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I don't know how the dems would do but they sure as hell couldn't fu** it up worse than your gang has done.
-------------------------------------
Simply cannot be honest. We had secret taskforces by Hillary trying to nationalize health care and Bill Cliton as the womanizer in chief. With control of Congress, Pelosi and Reid took only 6 months to have the dem culture of corruption fully in place. Not even counting their defeatist and propaganda work on behalf of the terrorists.

Oh, JFO is not here to spin for the dems. Again, cannot be honest about who he is.

"For 6 of them the Republic... (Below threshold)
Ken:

"For 6 of them the Republicans had "unfettered" control over the government and what the hell are the results?"

If the party of limited government cannot control its impulses when in power, what will the party of expansionist government do? Hmmmm, far more than when the Rs were there. Far more.

"The corruption was/is rampant"

That knife cuts cuts both ways. There are as many Dems with their hands in the cookie jar as Reps (see: Jefferson, William; also: Hsu)

"the White House is above accountability for anything. And
you're yapping about complete control of the government"

If that is so where are the impeachment proceedings?

Forgot to add: when the dem... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Forgot to add: when the dems had control of the WH the last time, we had an AG that presided over the killing of American women/children at Waco, a sec of state that chased after Yarafat, a terrorist and Kim-Yong-Il (a communist dictator). And we had a national security advisor that stuffs classified information in his trousers.

RE#53. "Prove it."</... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

RE#53. "Prove it."

That would take a lot of time and bandwidth. Can I instead ammend my statement?

Change: "It is true that...

to: From a lifetime of observation, it is my belief that...

It is not from any particular statement or action, but a totality of their statements, writings, actions, and ideas that leads me to conclude that the modern American Democrat Party is overwhelmingly socialist.

Jason, when he was blogging on Polipundit, often did posts about different legistlation and he'd post "Democrats voting against- Republicans voting for" or vice versa. They were good examples. The qoutes and posts on this blog are good examples. Again, it's the totality, not any one specific thing. Specific things can be and are regularly spun.

For what it's worth, I think the modern Republican party has become a little too socialist, too, but the far lesser of two evils on those issues.

Since Fred Thompson announc... (Below threshold)
rrita m:

Since Fred Thompson announced his candidacy today, I'm interested in his views on privatization even more now.

JFO: " For 6 of them th... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

JFO: " For 6 of them the Republicans had "unfettered" control over the government and what the hell are the results?"

JFO is kinda clueless.

Not really worth the time.

It is not from any parti... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

It is not from any particular statement or action, but a totality of their statements, writings, actions, and ideas that leads me to conclude that the modern American Democrat Party is overwhelmingly socialist.

True that. Anyone who's been paying attention knows that gov't, at virtually all levels, is constantly growing bigger and more intrusive over time. What .gov programs ever end? They only get larger and laden with more rules and regs.

And while mantis can apparently only go to extremes to make his point ('If you support tax cuts that means you want zero taxes! Dontcha! Dontcha!' or ' Show me a Dem who supports 100% taxation! Show me! ', I think people can see how we are slowly heading towards more socialistic gov't.

We don't have to get to 100% taxation to be socialists. I don't know if it is at 80 or 70 or whatever percent, but honest people can see that the Libs/lefties/dems, by and large, are heading in that direction.

btw, I think many liberal/m... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

btw, I think many liberal/moderate Republicans would happily go along with the Socialization of American gov't, too.

"You usualy write insigh... (Below threshold)

"You usualy write insightful, reasonable comments."

Wish I could say the same for your following doublespeak, JFO.

OysterI guess i wa... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Oyster

I guess i was wrong. Sorry -




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy