Posted on 01/20/2008 11:14:37 PM PST by FocusNexus
Hillary Clinton said that if she became president, the federal government would take a more active role in the economy, in an effort to address what she said were the excesses of the market and the Bush administration.
She told the New York Times she would put her emphasis on issues like inequality and the role of institutions like government, rather than market forces, in addressing them.
She said that economic excesses -- including executive-pay packages she characterized as often "offensive" and "wrong" and a tax code that had become "so far out of whack" in favoring the wealthy -- were holding down middle-class living standards.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
Images of the May Day Parade through Red Square are dancing through my head.
I don’t know why.
Would she stamp out insider trading and sweetheart deals that allow powerful Democrats to turn $1,000 into $100,000 or $100,000 into $17,000,000?
Lying ****.
I’m fully confident that “wealthy” elites will not be impacted by her reform.
Income redistribution is a favorite tool of those who’ve never even managed a 7-11, but know just what we need to do in the nation’s economy.
She was completely out of her element when trying to run the Whitewater Property. So inept was this woman, she contributed to the collapse of an entire Savings & Loan (I’m exagerating a bit here for suspense) but nevertheless 13-people were convicted and sent to prison over that mess (no exageration).
Now she believes she can run a nation?
Oh Joy!
Stock market is just gonna love that!
Move over Zimbabwe! I wonder what the new US 10,000,000 bill is going to look like.
The Berlin Wall was not effective at controlling market forces. The stupidest woman in the world should know better.
There’s a misprint in your article. It says “Clinton promises end to economic excess”
They accidentally put in ‘excess’ when they meant ‘success’. They should fix that.
Her Heinous promises “peace, land, and bread”; “swoboday bratsvo”, “freedom and brotherhood”. I’m going to hurl..
Clinton promisers are the hope of fools..
This is confirmation that she did mean her statement of a while ago:
As reported by the Associated Press, Sen. Clinton said, “Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. 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.”
June 29, 2004
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1162267/posts
Well, I for one hope she starts with the cattle futures market. I heard there was a governor's wife with no prior experience who made $100,000 on a $1,000 investment in a very short time in what appeared to be a disguised bribe. That is exactly the kind of market excess the federal government should take a more active role in addressing!
# In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.
# The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.
# Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush’s tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.
# The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.
# The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.
# The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.
The White House has announced it will lobby Congress to pass legislation making most of President Bush’s tax cutting measures permanent.
Source: U.S. Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm
She will deliver what she promises...at the price of our freedom.
How the hell does our tax structure “favor the wealthy?”
The top 1% of wage earners earn 17% of the nation’s wealth but pay 39% of the federal income taxes. Their “share” of the tax burden has actually gone up under Bush.
The way I see it, the top 1% should pay 17% of the taxes......their federal income taxes should be cut by more than half.
If this Marxist broad ever becomes president, we’re going to see a series of events take place in America that will leave a trail of death and destruction from coast-to-coast.
In the meantime, look how much taxes the “rich” are already paying disproportionately to others:
Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1946831/posts
“The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 perÂcent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent - those below the median income level - now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.”
Last time I check that was up to the shareholders of corporations, not the federal government...communist witch!
No income caps, Commissar.
It's very simple--I am not joking, I can post about this with authority because I work in Cambridge, MA and have had this argument over and over and over.
People like HRC believe in the Marxist concept that if you are wealthy, it is because you took more than your share from someone else, who thus has less than they should.
HRC and her sort--known as HRCS--believe that one of the reasons we even HAVE a government is to prevent certain people from "getting" too much.
Thus, if someone goes out and creates a new product or industry, they are using this country and its system which is ALL OF OURS to "play the system" and earn MORE than someone else--thus, taking money from an imaginary "closed system" which has only so much wealth to go around.
So if someone is making more than HRCS deem necessary, and can afford luxury items (namely anything beyond essentials and MAYBE a one-week, MODEST vacation), they're not fueling the economy. No, no, NO--their expenditures somehow go nowhere and do nothing.
It is only government which has the right to spend that money, because we ALL get to vote for the executive and legislative branches. Thus, they are our proxies in deciding what should be done with the wealth that's NOT created by an individual but by THE SYSTEM we are ALL a part of.
So any punitive taxes are only about "playing fair" and "leveling the playing field" or otherwise taking back for ALL OF US what those evil rich people "took" from ALL of us.
Now, ain't that logical to you? :D
I don’t know if I can take it.
The country moves ever leftward abetted by both major political parties.
“We’re gonna take things away from you for the common good.”
Hillary's sole-mate sources of inspiration:
Nikita Khrushchev and Joseph Stalin. Currently rotting somewhere in hell...
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Hillary: ‘We’re Going to Take Things Away From You’
Hillary Clinton knows better than you do how to spend your paycheck. Really she does. Just ask her.
Few media have trumpeted that Sen. Clinton exposed her socialist agenda during a speech Monday in San Francisco (which the Associated Press dubbed the “leftiest big city on the Left Coast”). But don’t take our word for it. We’ll go straight to the horse’s mouth.
“Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. 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,” she said at a fund-raiser for radical Sen. Barbara Boxer.
“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good,” the former first lady admitted.
Hillary, naturally, knows what “the common good” is.
And what the hey. As we reported Tuesday, the Democrats are the party of the filthy rich.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/30/91013.shtml
That’s it! I’m not reading any more of your posts. That last one gave me a headache!!!! LOL
Which, of course, explains why certain bureaucrats have secret accounts in the Cayman Islands.
It'll feature a nice portrait of Billy Jeff of course.
I can’t help it if I’m an expert in Clintonese! :D
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/us/politics/16text-obama.html?pagewanted=print
Some other gems, but recall he is speaking to Wall Street, so he’s not gonna expose his full hand. He also had said (really ticked me off) that American Companies don’t give to charities.
The nine most terrifying words in the English language
are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’
Ronald Reagan (1911 - 2004)
It took so long to half-bake it.
“She told the New York Times she would put her emphasis on issues like inequality and the role of institutions like government, rather than market forces, in addressing them.
She said that economic excesses — including executive-pay packages she characterized as often “offensive” and “wrong” and a tax code that had become “so far out of whack” in favoring the wealthy — were holding down middle-class living standards.”
Somewhere in hell...Karl Marx is smiling.
Well, it’s a dubious achievement, to be sure, but I guess someone has to translate. :D
Yeah, just what a free society needs. The federal government taking a "more active role" in the economy.
This woman is frightening.
"Conspirisy wacko"
"It can't happen here"
I've heard em all. But we all Americans will feel it, when the policies are in fruition.
Truly frightening! They only let you out of your cage at night, correct?
Just joking. Your statement was spot on. Thank you, as it was broken down into easily understood terms.
The last woman with whom I had this retarded argument with "backed up" her "facts" with--I am not kidding--"My professors said so, and they're very well-educated!"
WOW! THAT is her "research"--my professor said so!
Yeah, I bet.
Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton
What a racket!
Suetonius reports that the Emperor Claudius was so offended by the sight of a gilded chariot that he had his bodyguards stop it, and he personally demolished it with a hammer.
Envy takes strange and always dangerous forms. Next her sights Madame Ceausescu will target the salaries of doctors, reducing them to the status of government employees and cutting their salaries to less than top law school graduates.
This from a guy who drives a 2001 Corrolla and wears a $20. dollar watch from Target. (Pronounced tar-zhay.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.