Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Rank Socialism

Its like the pink elephant in the room that no one will acknowledge.

[Senator Clinton] 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.

"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."

That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.

Why isn't everyone in the world standing on their chairs right now screaming "Socialist!" at the top of their lungs? I mean lets be serious here. Populist, socialist, progressive, whatever you want to call it, it ain't capitalism -- and it isn't democratic, either. The thing that really gripes me is that its not painted that way by anyone. She would never use the word socialist to describe herself...but she's redder than Clifford. Explain to me if you can, Senator, how increasing the tax burden on the middle class makes us more competitive in the global economy? Reduction of spending power and personal choices and freedoms don't make me feel more economically relevant.

"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."

Actually, Senator, markets work best with as few rules as possible. And everyone in America has a chance to succeed; if that weren't the case how do you explain flunkies-turned-millionaires like Michael Dell or Bill Gates? Neither of them are from blue blood families. Our society has more fairness in that regard than any other in the history of the world, ever. But she knows all this; she's not from an affluent family herself.

Hillary Clinton is the epitome of hypocrisy. Having enjoyed the wealth of opportunity made available to her through the miracles of a free market capitalistic society she now is able to turn her back on this and deny it for the sake of personal political power. How else can you explain her radical social policies? No one in their right mind sincerely believes in socialism; time and again it has been shown to be economically inviable. No one gains from socialism but those who pull the strings -- the politicians themselves.

And of course, the tagline: not only do you, the poor stupid worker who never had a chance at anything in your life because you were born ______ (insert whatever patronizing adjective you please, be it poor, stupid, black/white/hispanic/asian, female/male etc.) need some kind of "help" to be successful, but that help can only be achieved by the Government! And who better to control how government helps you along than Hillary?

The elitist patronization of socialism makes me sick.

How could you ever vote for someone who comes out and says something like that?

2 comments:

Matt said...

"it ain't capitalism -- and it isn't democratic, either"

Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

If Hillary is elected, the people have spoken. And this isn't democracy how?...

k2aggie07 said...

Democracy comes bundled with some form of free market economy, along with other things -- equality under the law, varying degrees of freedom, and the protection of property.

Socialism defies all of that. The only way you can have socialism is at the cost of personal freedoms -- which are the heart of the republic that we live in.

I'm not saying people won't vote their way out of a good thing. I'm just saying socialism is a foil of democracy.