Doesn’t this tell it all! She’s not going to "Give" me MY money.

This is the Marxist Party line in it’s purist form.

It’s nice to have you out of the closet commerade.

Who would vote for these America hating FOOLS?

I think this is a huge mistake by Hillary. She’s usually on top of her game, but I imagine that the adoring crowd of her people caused her to let her guard down.

This is honesty, I guess. One of the arguments in Bastiat’s: What is seen and what is not seen, is that when government takes money from people we see the effects of the spending but we do not see the effects of private spending that would have occured otherwise. Obviously if these business people are happy to see Hillary spend money for them, then they lack immagination as to what else could be done with the money.

In effect these business people are saying, we have too much money and not enough ideas, help us spend it.

Perhaps it is obvious that they have too much money by the fact that they are willing to pay 10k to hear Hillary say what anyone knows Hillary already believes in the first place.

Or perhaps they believe that they can get contracts out of the deal. Perhaps they really don’t care about the "public good" as long as more government translates into more spending for the particular interests they represent. They are paying Hillary for propaganda. For a transformation of a windfall for the particular interests they represent into "public good" which is beyond attack especially since the sacrifice they endure is obvious, at least in terms of higher taxes. Who knows?

I tend to think that maybe it is just the declining marginal utility of money, and a lack of immagination on the part of the rich that would account for such a thing.

Maybe it is part of looking like old money vs. new money type of thing.

A strange fact is that states that pay more in taxes and receive a lesser percentage back are more likely to vote Democrat.

"To maintain the spirit of commerce, it is necessary that all the laws must favor it. These laws, by proportionately dividing up the fortunes as they are made in commerce, should provide every poor citizen with sufficiently easy circumstances to enable him to work like the others. These same laws should put every rich citizen in such lowered circumstances as to force him to work in order to keep or to gain."

"Although real equality is the soul of the state in a democracy, yet this is so difficult to establish that an extreme precision in this matter would not always be desirable. It is sufficient that there be established a census to reduce or fix these differences in wealth within a certain limit. After this is done, it remains for specific laws to equalize inequality by imposing burdens upon the rich and granting relief to the poor."

"Now it is true that if one considers the sheer pleasure of commanding to be the greatest joy in life, he contemplates a crime against society; it will, however, always be a noble ideal to govern men in a manner that will make them happier."

"Those who are subject to vulgar infatuation may exclaim: "Montesquieu has said this! So it’s magnificent! It’s sublime!" As for me, I have the courage of my own opinion. I say: What! You have the nerve to call that fine? It is frightful! It is abominable! These random selections from the writings of Montesquieu show that he considers persons, liberties, property—mankind itself—to be nothing but materials for legislators to exercise their wisdom upon."

So Hillary is following Montesquieu’s advice and Business leaders agree with her.

All quotes from: Bastiat, Frederic. The Law. Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., trans. Dean Russell, 1998. [Online] available from https://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss2a.html; accessed 30 June 2004; Internet.

Posted by John Lewis.

Haven’t seen much commentary to convince me that this is really different, in form, from Bush and the Republican congress telling me that they are going to take my money and spend it on a war in Iraq. Governments spend money for what they claim is the common good. Throwing around the word "Marxist" is just enemy construction, I’m afraid.


Well, I suppose one of the differences is that Bush has told us that he’ll spend borrowed money on the war in Iraq. I don’t see how that’s better, though. If the government is responsible, it doesn’t dig itself an enormous fiscal hole that will take generations to get out of. Hillary Clinton is to be commended for admitting what we all know -- tax cuts are an irresponsible fiscal policy right now. To my mind, the Grover Norquists of the world are perpetuating an adolescent’s understanding of politics, of the same kind that conservatives are not loath to criticize in the context of the culture wars. Isn’t there a way to break out of this silly discussion? I’m being serious here.

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."

The massive re-distribution of wealth via taxation & paternalistic social programs for the poor attempts to achieve an equality of results rather than an equality of opportunity that strips the human dignity from those who sheepishly line up at the government trough.

P. S.— the war on terrorism is costing money, but the purpose is to advance freedom for all men in general, and to protect American citizens and way of life in particular. Democrats’ tax schemes have quite a different purpose.