Hillary Clinton Meets Karl Marx

Hillary Clinton is promoting a new idea called “shared responsibility”:

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator 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.

“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.”

Or, as a man once said, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Thanks but no thanks Hillary.

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/ Stephen Littau

    But Doug you don’t understand. Hillary is so intelligent, she can succeed where, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro and others have failed. Because Hillary is a woman, she is so much more compassionate then these brutes. Hillary’s Communism is a “kinder and gentler” Communism. Actually, maybe she can call it “Compassionate Communism” or even better “Motherly Marxism.” What do you think; do you think this could catch on?

  • Bobby McGee

    Oh come on Stephen. I agree with Douglas Macaroni. Thanks but no thanks. $5/hour min wage is fine for another 20 years. What, me inflation? Hillary just wants the lazy bums to be given free TB/Flu shots on OUR dime. Not to mention giving a chance for american workers to keep their jobs versus training their replacements in india. Down with marxism in the disguise of enlightened-post-WWII-social-democracy as proven workable by all scandanavian governments.

    i’ve said too much

  • trumpetbob15

    Too bad Hillary won’t back up her mouth with her money. I am all willing to try her system of “shared responsibility.” If she would only give me access to her bank accounts, I will gladly take on the “responsibility” of spending her money. Oh wait, you mean she doesn’t want to actually have to give her money away? Oh darn. I got my hopes again.

  • http://www.no-treason.com Wild Pegasus

    Interestingly enough, I agree just about completely with her rhetoric. Free markets are an engine of prosperity – it’s too bad we don’t have them. The rich do get massive subsidies under our current system – we should abolish their special privileges. Growth isn’t as important as fairness – stealing someone’s land to build a new highway can create growth, but it is unjust. And so on. Problem is, her solutions and mine are diametrically opposed. I support a real engine for fairness, liberty, and economic power – the free market. She believes markets must be managed by an elite, ostensibly to protect the powerless, more likely to ensconce the power of the ruling elite.

    – Josh

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital js290

    Didn’t Marx write Das Kapital?

  • kevinsmom

    Yes, Marx did write Das Kapital. Also ol’ Billary Clinrod is/are (I think they’re the same person) are apparently building a new house in the Dominican Republic, which figures. We plebes get left behind to deal with the mess that will be left to us, while the ruling elite get to live at our expense.

  • http://www.weeklyjohnson.com Matt

    Josh –

    The free market has had its chance to work freely, and it failed miserably, almost destroying America in the latter half of the 19th century through the horizontal and vertical integration of Carnegie and Rockefeller, to name to notable offenders. There were more.

    The fact is you simply cannot trust corporations to look out for anything but what’s in their own interests, profit making by any means necessary and monopolizing their particular industry.

    And there are too many loopholes as is, too many routes by which to screw the consumer. I agree with you insomuch as we need to find a way to check that power, but mass liberalization of the market is, well, stupid. All you need to do is a little history to see that, though.

    I don’t know what Hillary Clinton specifically has in mind, but at the moment I’d at least be willing to hear her out.

  • trumpetbob15


    You are sadly mistaken. The latter part of the 19th century was one of the better times for America. You need to realize that corporations that only can exist if they serve customers are much, much different than a corporation that exists because of government subsidies and/or goverment outlawing competition. Without government backing up certain monopolistic powers through laws and regulations (best illustrated by the Post Office and the law banning actual profit making companies from delivering first-class mail), certain companies cannot survive. But should they survive?

    By the way, Rep. Ron Paul was just on The Daily Show and discussed this very issue. His example was Bill Gates. Sure, Gates is extermally wealthy, but aren’t we all better off? (If you are an Apple fan, consider Steve Jobs instead.) Now some governmental types in Europe claim Microsoft is a monopoly, but if so, it is the only one I have heard of with not only a large competitor in Apple, but also random computer geeks trying to bring it down by offering open-source applications and operating systems. Now, if Microsoft were truly like the Post Office, it would lobby Congress and have open-source outlawed. Instead, the free market allows Microsoft to generate profits from those who choose to purchase a computer running Windows while still allowing everybody else to choose to buy a computer running Apple or Linux if they want.