Who Said It?

[IRISHDODGER]

Here's a little history lesson for you. If you don't know the answer,
> make your best guess.
>
>
> Answer all the questions before looking at the answers.
>
> Who said it?
>
> 1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common
> good."
> A. Karl Marx
> B. Adolph Hitler
> C. Joseph Stalin
> D. None of the above
> 2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the
> few, by the few, and for the few...... And to replace it with shared
> responsibility for shared prosperity."
> A. Lenin
> B. Mussolini
> C. Idi Amin
> D. None of the Above
> (3) "(We) ...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means
> something has to be taken away from some people."
> A. Nikita Khrushev
> B. Josef Goebbels
> C. Boris Yeltsin
> D. None of the above
> (4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people
> to give up a little bit of their own ... In order to create this common
> ground."
> A. Mao Tse Dung
> B. Hugo Chavez
> C. Kim Jong Il
> D. None of the above
> (5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."
> A. Karl Marks
> B. Lenin
> C. Moloto v
> D. None of the above
> (6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the
> most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being
> watched."
> A. Pinochet
> B. Milosevic
> C. Saddam Hussein
> D. None of the above
> Scroll down for answers.
>
> Answers:
> (1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton
> 6/29/2004
> (2) D. None of the above. Statement was m ade by Hillary Clinton
> 5/29/2007
> (3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton
> 6/4/2007
> (4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton
> 6/4/2007
> (5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton
> 6/4/2007
> (6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton
> 9/2/2005
>
> Be afraid, Be very afraid!!

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I just threw up. Her mentor was a radical who shared those beliefs to the core. If anyone thinks she is moderate, think again. She is voting moderate in order to appear so.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Turns out much of this is not exactly true...some of it's basically a lie.
Urban Legends Reference Pages: 'Marxist' Quotes from Hillary Clinton

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Turns out much of this is not exactly true...some of it's basically a lie.
Urban Legends Reference Pages: 'Marxist' Quotes from Hillary Clinton

I respectfully disagree. Were some of the statements taken out of context? Yup. Did they still preach Big Government & re-distribution of wealth? Yup. Is re-distribution of wealth a socialist tenet? Yup.

Where in our Constitution does is say that every citizen is guaranteed the right for free health care? Who's gonna pay for it? Not the rich...the middle class. What's next free flat screens, ipods? Why not free groceries? everybody has to eat, after all.

We weren't tax paying adults in the '70s; our parents were. If she's elected, we'll revisit a 70% tax rate on the wealthiest that will directly affect the middle income class and their 401K. The richest 1% aren't idiots. When they see the capital gains & income tax escalate beyond control, they'll have already divested from Wall Street & put their money overseas. What do you think our 401Ks, mutual funds & other retirement vehicles consist of? Those same stocks that the rich will be bailing on.

Anytime the government has gotten control of something, they've invariably bankrupted it. Social Security if the prime example. FDR even said how ludicrous it would be to tax SS benefits once a taxpayer retired b/c "we'd never tax something that's already been taxed".

I know you disagree, but for the people who look closely, she's a dyed in the wool socialist.

 

[goldandblue]

they are all crooked.

 

[IHateMarkMay]

im not against a woman in office... just hillary clinton... is that too much to ask for?

 

[Sureal]

I just threw up. Her mentor was a radical who shared those beliefs to the core. If anyone thinks she is moderate, think again. She is voting moderate in order to appear so.

Who was her mentor?

 

[GoshenGipper]

im not against a woman in office... just hillary clinton... is that too much to ask for?

No, I actually think Condoleezza Rice is a very smart individual.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I respectfully disagree. Were some of the statements taken out of context?

Mor than out of context. Some of those were pieced together from different ideas.


Let me give you an example...here is your post as someone could quote it:

"I respectfully...preach Big Government & re-distribution of wealth...our Constitution does... say that every citizen is guaranteed the right for free health care...flat screens, ipods...free groceries? everybody has to eat, after all."

She's a socialist as much as Bush is a socialist. They just approach it differently. Except he outspends the Democrats.

 

[Newc]

Uh oh...my political senses are tingling so I'll spare you all by not getting into this too far.

Hillary is dangerously socialist, but only in her political asperations because she is power hungry and right now socialist ideals appeal those who are not as well off and either don't take the time to educate themselves about her positions or would just simply rather have someone else take care of everything for them. However, like all politicians, the talk is just that...talk. Before Hillary declared her running for president she had to disclose all blind trusts, which is a normal regulation that all canidates must abide by. And what holdings were found in the portfolio of little miss for the common man? Substantial holdings in Haliburton, Exxon and even Raytheon.

In the big picture, is that a bad thing? Absolutely not! We in America are free to invest our money in any venture that we so desire. Even avid non-smokers are advised to hold shares of Altria, hey, you can even use your profits to fuel your anti-smoking campaigns.

However, the problem I have is her vicious attacks of those whose steps she is mimicking. She would like Americans to believe that the wealthy are evil and plot to keep those who are not as well off where they are. However, the fact remains, as we can see right now with the troublesome credit market that the sentiment is quite different, which is why the free market works the best. Having economic prosperity, solid growth and low unemployment benefits everyone, conversly, economic instability hurts all.

I could go on and on for ever, and would most likely bore you all to death to the point of my banishment from this site so let me leave you all with a question.

What has the federal government ever done well enough that gives you the confidence in them to make crucial decisions that pertain directly to you?

 

[KAPLAN]

I would rather have Pete Carroll as President than Hillary.

 

[Sureal]

I don't like none of them. I'll vote for the lesser evil whomever that may be.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Bush is the biggest spender since LBJ

Bush is the biggest spender since LBJ

And there you have it...spend, spend, spend...

This money comes from YOUR pocket. Not out of the thin air.

McClatchy Washington Bureau | 10/24/2007 | Bush is the biggest spender since LBJ

 

[goldandblue]

again, there all crooked. What do ya'll know about Edwards, and does he have a chance?

 

[Newc]

LMI...thats a very valid point. The Bush administration went way overboard with their spending, which many of his conservative constituants have criticized him about. However, your point about where the $$ came from to fuel that spending would only get worse under a Clinton administration.

Hillary has proposed a 47% across the board tax in oder to put her programs into action. 47% is a lot of my hard earned money for something that I marginally benefit from. Now I am not saying that I am against helping my fellow man, I just don't think that giving half of my money to the government for them to run their programs is the best option.

However, I am very in favor of a consumption tax...which is backed by both Gulliani and Romney and I believe other conservative canidates are coming on board but I can't say for sure. The consumption tax makes the most sense of any country based tax option. Tax what you buy. Therefore those who make plenty of money to buy boats and cars and bling will pay the tax for those goods, while a hard working lower class family gets the oppurtunity to save their hard earned money allowing them to build wealth quicker and easier. Now ofcourse essentials such as food and appropriate clothing will not be taxed which further illustrates how this kind of government involvement is best for the people. Not a system that requires you to give them half of what you earn and have them turn around and dictate the important decisions in your life.

Forgive me, but I would rather make my education choices and health care choice in a free market which is determined by simple supply and demand....it works, socialism doesn't, just ask the USSR.

 

[Newc]

Edwards has very little chance as of now. Hillary has a commanding lead over everyone in the polls with Obama following. Other than a huge scandal or something big coming out I don't see how anyone other than Hillary gets the nomination.

 

[notredomer23]

Spending is good, that makes the economy grow.

I thought the quotes were obama, but shilary doesnt surprise me.

 

[SoCalDomer]

Is the answer to all of these "E. Your mom"?

Cause if this is a "Your mom" joke, I don't get it.

 

[KamaraPolice]

WHO SAID IT? PART 2

"Proper preparation prevents poor performance."
1) Abraham Lincoln
2) John Maynard Keynes
3) John F. Kennedy, Jr.
4) Ronald Reagan


"If you don't respect me, I'll have no choice but to return the favor."
1) Abraham Lincoln
2) John Maynard Keynes
3) John F. Kennedy, Jr.
4) Ronald Reagan

"There are two types of people, my dear friend: those that are happy to see you have problems, and those that dont care."
1) Abraham Lincoln
2) John Maynard Keynes
3) John F. Kennedy, Jr.
4) Ronald Reagan

"I like to quote myself."
1) Abraham Lincoln
2) GG
3) John F. Kennedy, Jr.
4) Ronald Reagan


here are the answers:

NONE! These are all my quotes.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

LMI...thats a very valid point. The Bush administration went way overboard with their spending, which many of his conservative constituants have criticized him about. However, your point about where the $$ came from to fuel that spending would only get worse under a Clinton administration.

Hillary has proposed a 47% across the board tax in oder to put her programs into action. 47% is a lot of my hard earned money for something that I marginally benefit from.

Where? I have never seen this. Ever. Anyone running for President who says this will get trashed.

I just did a search and found nothing on this...nothing at all.

She has proposed no such thing.

I don't care much for her, she's definitely not my pick, but I am constantly impressed at the Soviet-like propaganda being spewed against her.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Mor than out of context. Some of those were pieced together from different ideas.


Let me give you an example...here is your post as someone could quote it:

"I respectfully...preach Big Government & re-distribution of wealth...our Constitution does... say that every citizen is guaranteed the right for free health care...flat screens, ipods...free groceries? everybody has to eat, after all."

She's a socialist as much as Bush is a socialist. They just approach it differently. Except he outspends the Democrats.

Sorry LMI, she's a socialist period. Prove to me that she's not FOR wealth redistribution. Tell my why she wants to dismantle the greatest healthcare in the world in favor of the proven failure that is socialized medicine. Try to convince me that she doesn't despise the military. Check out the Frontline soundbites from PBS that incl. Stephanopolous & DiDi Myers talking about her role in the White House. Those 2 are hardly partisan.

What socialist lowers income tax? Kennedy, Reagan & GW Bush were obviously not socialists. Socialism is a mild form of communism. You, more than anyone, know that Kennedy & Reagan were HUGE anti-commies.

Bush spent like a drunken sailor (or a liberal, take your pick). To his credit, his tax cuts have brought in more revenue than our government has ever taken in. Unfortunately, he & the Republican controlled congress got greedy & spent money just like the libs. Then they were promptly voted out of power for not living up to their promises of fiscal responsibility.

One mistake people often make: you assume b/c I disagree w/ Hillary's anti-American policies, that I autmatically agree w/ GW Bush. Wrong. Bush has sold out like the rest of the Rockefeller Repubs.; especially regarding ILLEGAL immigrants. You may see things as Republican & Democrat. I prefer to see things as liberal & conservative.

You're a smart fellow, LMI; but for the life of me I have no idea why you ignore Hillary Rodham's socialist tendencies. For those of us who weren't born w/ a silver spoon in our mouth and had to earn everything we got, it's hard to respect pols who rarely work in the private sector, have never met a payroll & believe more government is the answer to all the nation's ill. Granted that includes plenty of pols on both sides of the aisle, but Hillary & Bill take the cake.

What's your idea of paying your fair share?

 

[IRISHDODGER]

LMI...thats a very valid point. The Bush administration went way overboard with their spending, which many of his conservative constituants have criticized him about. However, your point about where the $$ came from to fuel that spending would only get worse under a Clinton administration.

Hillary has proposed a 47% across the board tax in oder to put her programs into action. 47% is a lot of my hard earned money for something that I marginally benefit from. Now I am not saying that I am against helping my fellow man, I just don't think that giving half of my money to the government for them to run their programs is the best option.

However, I am very in favor of a consumption tax...which is backed by both Gulliani and Romney and I believe other conservative canidates are coming on board but I can't say for sure. The consumption tax makes the most sense of any country based tax option. Tax what you buy. Therefore those who make plenty of money to buy boats and cars and bling will pay the tax for those goods, while a hard working lower class family gets the oppurtunity to save their hard earned money allowing them to build wealth quicker and easier. Now ofcourse essentials such as food and appropriate clothing will not be taxed which further illustrates how this kind of government involvement is best for the people. Not a system that requires you to give them half of what you earn and have them turn around and dictate the important decisions in your life.

Forgive me, but I would rather make my education choices and health care choice in a free market which is determined by simple supply and demand....it works, socialism doesn't, just ask the USSR.

Good points. Sounds like you have a mortgage, pay taxes, have a family to feed & got thru college on your own dime. Nice to know I'm not the only one.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

And there you have it...spend, spend, spend...

This money comes from YOUR pocket. Not out of the thin air.

McClatchy Washington Bureau | 10/24/2007 | Bush is the biggest spender since LBJ

What's your point sweetheart?

I don't know how much more plain I can say it. I am no fan of George W. Bush. He was simply the lesser of two evils between Gore & then Kerry...nothing more. He sold this country out on the illegal immigration issue.

You act like people argue the fact that Bush spent like a liberal. I haven't seen that; I agree that he has. What does that have to do w/ Hillary being a socialist? I guess you thought I would be greatly offended by documenting Bush's spending. Sorry to disappoint.

For what it's worth, you're still one of my favorite Irish fans & I'll even let you pay my tax increases after Hillary signs off on them.

 

[NDFan4Life]

LMI...thats a very valid point. The Bush administration went way overboard with their spending, which many of his conservative constituants have criticized him about. However, your point about where the $$ came from to fuel that spending would only get worse under a Clinton administration.

Hillary has proposed a 47% across the board tax in oder to put her programs into action. 47% is a lot of my hard earned money for something that I marginally benefit from. Now I am not saying that I am against helping my fellow man, I just don't think that giving half of my money to the government for them to run their programs is the best option.

However, I am very in favor of a consumption tax...which is backed by both Gulliani and Romney and I believe other conservative canidates are coming on board but I can't say for sure. The consumption tax makes the most sense of any country based tax option. Tax what you buy. Therefore those who make plenty of money to buy boats and cars and bling will pay the tax for those goods, while a hard working lower class family gets the oppurtunity to save their hard earned money allowing them to build wealth quicker and easier. Now ofcourse essentials such as food and appropriate clothing will not be taxed which further illustrates how this kind of government involvement is best for the people. Not a system that requires you to give them half of what you earn and have them turn around and dictate the important decisions in your life.

Forgive me, but I would rather make my education choices and health care choice in a free market which is determined by simple supply and demand....it works, socialism doesn't, just ask the USSR.

Excellent post!

Socialized health care doesn't work either. Just ask Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Sweden, and many others.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Where? I have never seen this. Ever. Anyone running for President who says this will get trashed.

I just did a search and found nothing on this...nothing at all.

She has proposed no such thing.

I don't care much for her, she's definitely not my pick, but I am constantly impressed at the Soviet-like propaganda being spewed against her.

I haven't seen where's she's divulged any of her plans b/c she knows that even her weakest opponent would pounce on it ASAP. How do you think she's gonna pay for all her "freebies"? You said yourself, the money doesn't come out of "thin air". See she wants to increase spending & increase taxes. Luckily, Congress just shot down the federal funding for the "hippie" museum in Woodstock. We're supposedly wasting money on a war, but she has no problem proposing tax payer funds be spent on a museum honoring a bunch of burnout, hippies?

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Sorry LMI, she's a socialist period. Prove to me that she's not FOR wealth redistribution.

You need to prove she is. Her plans do nothing of the sort. You cannot prove that which is not substantiated. It's impossible.

Tell my why she wants to dismantle the greatest healthcare in the world in favor of the proven failure that is socialized medicine.

Ummm...you obviously haven't read her plan. Anyone who wants to keep their healthcare can. Much of what she has proposed has come from the Republican side of the house...she has simply wrapped it all together.

What socialist lowers income tax? Kennedy, Reagan & GW Bush were obviously not socialists. Socialism is a mild form of communism. You, more than anyone, know that Kennedy & Reagan were HUGE anti-commies.

Reagan and Bush did not lower taxes they defered them. You can only lower taxes if you do so not on the back of debt. Both cuts were funded 100% with debt. That's a deferral of payment not an elimination of it.

That's Procurement 101...I spent 5 years in that area for a Fortune100 company (after my MBA).

Bush spent like a drunken sailor (or a liberal, take your pick). To his credit, his tax cuts have brought in more revenue than our government has ever taken in.

His tax cuts don't bring in revenue, increased productivity, population growth, and corporate profits did. Neither of which were related to the tax cuts.

One mistake people often make: you assume b/c I disagree w/ Hillary's anti-American policies

Please feel free to cite some anti-American policies...I would love to hear about them.

You're a smart fellow, LMI; but for the life of me I have no idea why you ignore Hillary Rodham's socialist tendencies.

All spending done by the government is socialist in nature. All. Defense. Roads. Healthcare. All of it.

I ignore rhetoric and look at actions.

Given her husband's centrist policies and her voting record over the last 6 years, there is no evidence for the boogeyman that is being created. The Hillary Clinton Socialist is a strawman that simply does not exist in reality.

I heard the same things about her husband and how he would spend us into oblivion. And then with a Democratic House and Senate at his side he REIGNED IN SPENDING like we had not see in 30+ years.

For those of us who weren't born w/ a silver spoon in our mouth and had to earn everything we got, it's hard to respect pols who rarely work in the private sector, have never met a payroll & believe more government is the answer to all the nation's ill. Granted that includes plenty of pols on both sides of the aisle, but Hillary & Bill take the cake.

Bill knew poverty that most can't imagine. Heck I grew up below the middle class line. I've been there. My MBA is still being paid down.

What's your idea of paying your fair share?

Fair share is a tricky question which no one can give a straight answer.

Is "fair" we all pay our part? Like a toll? That would be what 20k-30k in taxes each year? Flat tax? Progressive? Regressive? Sales/Consumption?

I have many thoughts on the matter, but I can't say I have one solid answer.

My simple call on this is as follows: overall tax rates should be determined by our spending. If we spend more, we pay more. If we want to pay less, we spend less. If Americans want government healthcare, they better be ready to pay. If they want more defense spending, they better be ready to pay. If they want mocha lattes every other day, they better be ready to pay.

The problem is that people are FINE with their rep bringing back the pork, but they get mad at the other guy who does.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Excellent post!

Socialized health care doesn't work either. Just ask Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Sweden, and many others.

Ours does not work either. Well, it does if you are well off.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Good points. Sounds like you have a mortgage, pay taxes, have a family to feed & got thru college on your own dime. Nice to know I'm not the only one.

Most of us do...and did all that you mentioned. And having watched the country get raped these last 6 years has been extraordinarily difficult.

Debt funded tax cuts...poorly managed foreign policy...insecure borders...piss-poor education policies...

The one big thing I give Bush and the Congress is the Free Trade Agreements they have signed. Those are bigger and more important than so many people realize.

 

[SoCalDomer]

All spending done by the government is socialist in nature. All. Defense. Roads. Healthcare. All of it.

No, not all spending is socialist in nature. The intent behind socialism is the redistribution of wealth. Taking money from those who have and distributing it in the form of benefits to those without. We all use roads, we all benefit equally from national defense. The fact that some pay more taxes because they make more income doesn't change that. Regardless of how much you pay, the roads and national defense are open equally to everyone.

However, federal/state healthcare is different. Most people do not receive federal medical benefits, such as Medicare/Medical type aid, and would nto qualify for them. You either have to meet certain financial or disability criteria to receive these benefits. Yet we pay taxes to support for it. That is socialism, the first two items are not. Nor is all government spending necessarily socialist.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

No, not all spending is socialist in nature. The intent behind socialism is the redistribution of wealth.

Actually, no, it's not. That's communism.

Regardless of how much you pay, the roads and national defense are open equally to everyone.

...and are controlled by the government...

EXACTLY. That's socialism!!!

Now the other part of socialism is government control of Industry. Which NO candidate espouses now.

Regulation is one thing...but government ownership and control is another.

Here's the definition...no one has argued for this that is running for President:

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done