Why I'll never vote for Hillary (part 2)
To put it short and sweet, and most of all--because she's a socialist:
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....
"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."
Her government policies, that is. Her definition of "fairness." Ace and his commenters point out the hypocrisies.
Anyone who hasn't recognized by this time that the woman is an unabashed socialist is either uneducated or trying really hard not to pay attention. Unfortunately the majority of those who support her, whether they realize it or not, also support socialist policies (including more central government regulations) and a socialist economic agenda. Which is a crying shame in a country like ours with a demonstrated and ongoing successful free market (and with all the evidence around the world that economic freedom trumps government control of wealth in offering the best good for the most people).
How do such people manage to keep on living in a bubble? I think enough Americans know better by now than to hand this would-be dictator of such failed policies a blank check to take the juice out of the America economy, make us less competitive in a global market, and increase the footprint of governmental force in every individual's life.
Revisit Part 1.
UPDATE: Neil Boortz sees the same philosophy being revealed by Hillary Clinton as I do:
You need to read between the lines here. You need to digest what this lady is saying. Hillary Rodham is presenting herself and her philosophy on freedom and individual rights to the entire country. Her "on your own" usage is nothing less than a negative reference to individualism. Her reference to an "we're all in it together" society represents her strongly held belief in collectivism. You're not in this for yourself. You don't matter. You're in this for society. You exist to serve the needs of your fellow men, with government your life's choreographer....Read the whole thing.
UPDATE: Betsy comments too:
People don't go to work every day and take risks with their family's well-being to create a "shared prosperity." They do it for the benefit of themselves and their loved ones. The miracle of our system is that millions of people taking those individual risks and making their own economic decisions will create a far more successful economy for everyone than any planned economy organized by the smartest individuals in government. And people can be focused on only their own personal self interest yet still promote the general interest. As Adam Smith said,Every individual...generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.It might have been one thing to promote such ideas for sharing wealth a century ago. But we've had a century to see how such policies play out in real life from communist societies to the failing socialist plans in many parts of Europe. Why would anyone want to emulate those policies now with all that historic evidence of how such plans work out in reality? Well, no matter their failures, telling the less well off that they should be getting some of the wealth from those who are better off will always be politically winning rhetoric to the ears of the poor. What such ideas would do overall to economic growth and economic innovation is an entirely different story.