We Are All in It Together, Clinton Says
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.
“shared responsibility “? So if my neighbor doesn’t earn as much as I then it’s partially my fault? “and prosperity”? Isn’t this nothing more than code for tax the rich and give to the poor? Why work if you can get everything you need by taking it from some sucka that likes to work?
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.
Rich people “may” be smarter. Maybe they can make better life decisions that lead to greater wealth. Maybe we should focus on educating the lower end so they can get out of their poverty. Taking money from the wealthy and giving to those that are undereducated won’t solve anything. Money can be squandered very easily.
“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.”
Isn’t one of those reasons people want to get higher on that ladder of success is so they can have more privileges? If you take the carrots away, then you also take away some of the drive that people have.
“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.”
Fairness does happen. Just as unfairness does too. What’s with the ‘protect our workers’? Are you just talking about the left or all working folks?
“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.
One of the biggest differences between an Officer and an Enlisted person in the military is the College Diploma. If you say that the diploma doesn’t have a better status, then can we get rid of officers? Just create one group or class in the military. Enlisted shouldn’t have to salute someone that is their equal. And for the civilian world, are you going to make it so employers stop requiring them? Not having them can make you feel inferior. Yup, just kill all the incentives for spending four years in college. Brilliant.
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’ll agree with getting rid of those tax incentives and I’ll go one step further, have a disincentive in place. We have too many people unemployed and holding cardboard signs in this country to favor one from another.
Keep in mind the Income Tax was established just to get the rich to help support this country. And now look at it, most people pay taxes- not just the ‘rich’. What happened? Someone (congress?) wanted more money and changed the rules of who qualify for ‘rich’. Yup, we got suckered into that one! The question is, are we going to fall for it again? Be forewarned anytime someone wants just the ‘rich’ to pay for anything. Someday, you may be considered ‘rich’. If you’re not willing to pay for it, or have your children pay for it (when the law changes), then don’t vote for it. Or in this case, Hillary.