One of my favorite features from Rush Limbaugh's "Limbaugh Letter" is a "Who said it?" section that offers quotes from two different individuals and asks readers to guess which noted figure committed the utterances. July's edition of the newsletter highlights quotes from New York Senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton and noted socialist thinker, philosopher and revolutionary Karl Marx. The really scary part is how much the two are alike when it comes to their political thoughts.
Listed below are five of the Clinton quotes that could have just as easily been spoken by Marx:
--"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." (June 29, 2004)
--"[W]e can't...just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." (June 4, 2007)
--"I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in [the] entire economy that they're being watched." (September 2, 2005)
--"I certainly think the free market has failed." (June 4, 2007)
And finally,
--"We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West." (April 6, 1993).
Remolding society. That means American society. Why? Why would we remold the society that has made us the most prosperous and most powerful nation in the history of the world? Why would we remold the society that built this nation through hard work and individual responsibility. The bottom line is that Senator Clinton believes in taking from the "haves" to give to the "have nots." That means that those members of society who are most productive are penalized in order to benefit those members who contribute the least to our national well-being. It sounds eerily like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," from Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme.
I'm sure Marx would have been proud.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 22
Myself, personally I prefer an intelligent human being in the White House, who does not do things for their own personal agenda. How much time has Bush spent raising campaign money rather than run the country. I would rather see Hillary in the White House than another Republican for at least 16 years. Get back to the middle and off the agendas!!!
Good article and I agree with you
I think our definition of poor in this country is skewed because our priorities are skewed. But the answer, in my opinion, is not interference with the free market or the taking of money from some to give it to others. That's socialism, not one end of capitalism.
Don, I understand what you are saying. My problem is that to me it is a problem of priorities. I understand that the cultural values set those priorities, but that is itself the problem. If I'm having trouble feeding my kids, I don't buy them a cell phone or myself a Cadillac. If I'm living in free government housing I don't buy $300 shoes. That's me. That doesn't mean I don't understand the cultural influences or that I am unwilling to learn about understand them. You can take them into account, but I will not accept them as an excuse. Those very things you talk about are what make it hard to validly define the word "poor."
To be fair - when we make a higher income - it is usually off of the backs of those with a lesser income. The progressive tax is hardly socialistic. A flat tax would be because 10% would never be enough money. I like the idea of a value added tax. It makes perfect sense. The corporations would never go for it and so it is dead because ultimately big business is in charge regardless of our expensive representational form of governance.
Joe, that's socialist. Taking from those who have and giving it to those who do not.