Jumpin’ Jesus Christ On A Pogo Stick
I can’t believe that Hillary Clinton actually said this:
“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,” Sen. Clinton said. “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.”
Just read that last sentence over again a few times and think about what it means. Clinton, apparently, does not believe in individuals; that is, she’s a collectivist. Meaning that one of the Democratic Party big-wigs thinks in that horrible and perverse way. No, the Dems haven’t moved leftward, not at all…
But that’s what I’m, like, totally best at!
Actually, you revised Stalinist to Socialist after I gave you guff. Stop trying to rewrite history, Stalinist!
I called him a Socialist, not a Stalinist, for the record. And, yes, I am willing to admit that there’s a difference.
To change the subject just a little bit . . .
Tim: aren’t you a little late to the “Hillary is a collectivist” party? (Assuming there is such a fandango.) She wrote It Takes a Village to Raise a Child eight years ago!
I also have to take issue with the “collectivist” rhetoric. It’s not as bad as when you called Dean a Stalinist, but come on. If Soviet Russia was magnitudes worse than Nazi Germany, and it was, you’re making some hefty substantive breaches of Godwin’s Law here.
OXR, are you calling me ineffective?
I’ll be sure to consider the Ruff Eye Roll Scale (TM) before all of my future postings.
Effective? No. Compare and contrast:
The sentiment is all wrong. It’s an embrace of big government, bigger social programs and more crowding-out of the private sector. Of course we have taxation…
versus
Clinton, apparently, does not believe in individuals; that is, she’s a collectivist.
One of these statements made me roll my eyes. Guess which! (See also: going overboard with the taxation-is-theft bit.)
I gotta stand up for Tim here. The sentiment is all wrong. It’s an embrace of big government, bigger social programs and more crowding-out of the private sector. Of course we have taxation, but as Tim points out, the public sector does far more than it should — but far less than Hillary would have.
To quote James Lileks: “Why is it your money? I think it should be their money.
Dan: All taxation is an implicit threat of violence, not theft, but certainly an implied threat. And in my opinion there’s a very short and specific list of things the government is allowed to tax for. Welfare, social programs, “the greater good” not so much. To provide truly public goods in the sense of things like roads, the military, some environmental protections, and to help provide access to semi-public goods like Education, well, that’s defensible from even the standpoint that taxation is an implied threat of force. Those things simply would not be provided in sufficient quantities to be useful without some sort of public sector involvement. Higher taxation to fund the sorts of welfare-state chicanery that’s on the Hillary platform, well, that’s just plain theft.
Olly: Hey, it’s an effective rhetorical device in our unsolicited opinion-spouting web-area.
Timbo: It takes a lot of will power, but I am going to refrain myself from starting.
Double taxation must end!
The estate tax must be curtailed!
So that the wealt^H^H^H^H^H poor farmers won’t lose their mansio^H^H^H^H^H^H family farms!
Taking things away from individuals on behalf of the common good is also known as “taxing.” You’ll find many apologists for this practice among Republicans of all stripes as well.
Clinton, apparently, does not believe in individuals…
Hyperbole much, Tim?