Friday, June 01, 2007

Hillary's: "We're all in it together Society"...


Hillary has been busy on the campaign trail and has outlined her “economic vision” for when she takes over the village.

"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."
She then goes into the obvious by stating that the free markets are a “Great force” but yet they need some tweaking as she sees best.
"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."
Are these “Government policies” like the education system that we now have were we far outspend other countries per student but yet our students test considerably lower then other countries students?
"We have sent a message to our young people that if you don't go to college ... that you're thought less of in America. We have to stop this," Mrs. Clinton said.
Is the Senator advocating not stressing the importance of education and bettering ones self? Should we stop stressing people to strive towards higher goals and education thus bettering themselves as a person and increasing their value in the workforce? Should we punish those who sacrifice financially and other ways to apply themselves in training programs and higher education because it leaves those behind who do not apply themselves?
Do we need a government program “It requires the right government policies” to even the playing field as the Senator as stated in the past? It is commendable that the Senator is looking out for those at the lower economic levels but shouldn’t she be stressing lifting these people up by proper and effective education practices?


Student 101 said...

As President will Hillary take over my college loans and split them up amongst "ALL" in her Village? Or will it be my fault because I recklessly spent that money on higher education to improve myself and to get a better job?

RightsideVA said...

I had a conversation with a co-worker the other day who is about 20 and new to the workforce. She agrees that minimum wage should be raised and everybody should get free healthcare. When I as k her about social security she feels the rich should pay more so the lower income people can have more.

I then asked here what about those of us who drive a 12 year old pick-up truck instead of something newer? I can afford a newer and better one but I rather not spend that money on 401K and company stock purchases to get the company match. She agrees the company match program is a good thing and feels social security will be little when we get there. I then asked what happens after many years of not buying that new vehicle every few years, going with the simple cell phone instead of the top new model, vacations closer to home to save $$$, sacraficing pleasures now to save for the future and when it comes to retirement time. Say I have $300,00 to 500,000 in savings, investments, 401K, company stocks as the result of sacraficing or deferring until later. What happens if the government determines that I have enough savings, on my own, and that I do not need that social security check that I paid into all my working time? What if they say I should only get half for there are those who have nothing saved for they did not save during their life? What if all those who chose to spend now instead of saving\investing in their future?

How much taking by the government is enough?

I am still waiting for an answer from my co-worker....

dignan said...

Why is it that you can not see that these people need help and that the Rich should pay their fairshare!
If Hillary Clinton is able to win the election it will be a welcome sight to see somebody in power who cares for "all" of the people and not the Select few.
We need change and it is coming!

RightsideVA said...


What is the "Fairshare" that you talk of? At what point do you consider a tax rate being high enough?

Is taxing a person who has strived and sacraficed to train, educate themselves for a better job ethical? Should we punish those who have gone out and made themselves better instead of addressing the problem of the person sitting on the sofa doing nothing?

Steve Harkonnen said...

Why is it that you can not see that these people need help and that the Rich should pay their fairshare!

Being an immigrant who came to America in 1970, and coming from parents who barely had a dime before some paydays, I realized that coming to America gave me the opportunity to work hard and reap the earnings.

After the hard work that I put into my education, and the money I fork out for two student loans each month, it is comforting to know that I worked to get where I am today. I also served my country for twenty years and retired seven years ago, and then picked up another career in the IT force.

As for fair share of capital and the gains that come with it, I dislike the idea that I would have to "share" what I have reaped over the years with some liberal hippy who spends their Saturdays in a local laundromat, wishing they had a washer and dryer and who probably supports your idea of "fair share."

While we do not live in a feudalistic society, I feel that hard work amongst all participants would one day equate to possibly sharing the wealth - but when you live in a society with lazy people who don't want to work but want a cut from me, then that is the same society that I totally disagree with.

But oops - there's that word again, work. Sorry, Liberals. Paychecks, and the benefits that follow, are for workers.

RightsideVA said...


How can you say that Hillary will care for all of the people? She has already stated that she will raise taxes on those who she feels need to pay more and Redistribute that wealth to those she feels deserve it... Income redistribustion for votes? Thats the best chance for you guys to win?

Steve Harkonnen said...

Democrat in the White just isn't gonna happen, not with their platforms. Obama is their only hope, if any, and that's really stretching it; women today are too smart to even bother voting for Hillary just because she's a woman.