Hillary wants to redistribute your wealth

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) -- 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."

Clinton spoke at the Manchester School of Technology, which trains high school students for careers in the construction, automotive, graphic arts and other industries. The school highlighted one of the nine goals she outlined: increasing support for alternative schools and community colleges.

"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," she said.

Beyond education, Clinton said she would reduce special breaks for corporations, eliminate tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas and open up CEO pay to greater public scrutiny.

Clinton also said she would help people save more money by expanding and simplifying the earned income tax credit; create new jobs by pursuing energy independence; and ensure that every American has affordable health insurance.

Beyond education, Clinton said she would reduce special breaks for corporations, eliminate tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas and open up CEO pay to greater public scrutiny.

In 1965, the average corporate chief executive earned 24 times as much as the average worker, she said. By 2005, it was 262 times as much. In the last six years, productivity has increased, but family incomes have gone down, she said, leading to rising inequality and pessimism in the work force.

"It's not as if America hasn't been successful these last six years, but the measure of success does not relate to what's happening in households across our country," she said. "It's like trickle down economics, without the trickle."


http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070529/clinton_economy.html?.v=1

 

So, she is against higher education.

The reason companies move offshore is because they are taxed to heavily here to make a profit, she needs to take an economics course.

I think she means witch-hunt. CEO's of publicaly traded companies already have to make their salaries public, along with every other corporate officer of the company. She's pandering to stupid people.

Why not just lower the tax rates?

 

That's a great question.

 

I am but a simple man.

 

I wonder if Halliburton's recent decision to move its headquarters overseas was because of the excessive corporate taxation put in place by the laws of the Republican Congress and President that poor little Dich Cheney's former company has been suffering from. The truth is, these companies don't want to pay any tax. They are pleased with the infrastructure, we the little people pay for, that provides an educated workforce, nice roads to transport their goods, police and EMT to protect where their Directors live, and a reliable power grid to run their plants. But whoa should they have to pay for any of this.

The simple solution is to raise tariffs for goods not produced in this country. We can get companies not located here to pay their fair share of keeping their consumer haven here operating.

 

Hmm

Point well put and taken.

 

Because many receiving the EIC don't pay federal income taxes at all. EIC maxes out at just above $10,000 of income, which the standard deduction and personal exemptions cover.

 

Every owner of those companies DO pay tax on the income they recieve from the corporation. . They just dont like paying it twice. MARK

 

The fact is that the repiglicon congress. Cheny and Junior wanted to redistribute the wealth of the country away from you and I and put the big corperations on welfare. AND THEY HAVE SUCEEDED!!! All Hillery is proposing to do, is to reverse this crazy upside down, inside out reversse Robin Hoodism of taking from the POOR and giving to the Rich. If you support this kind of socio-ecconomic insanity then you are either fabulously wealthy and greedy or tragicly stupid.

 

Quote:
"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," she said.

So, she is against higher education.

NO she clearly means what should be stopped is, the thinking less of the underprivlidged. Only an imbicile would really take this statment to mean that she is against higher education.
I give you the benifit of that doubt, however this "I caught you saying something you didnt mean nyah nyah." Is demonstative of an immature and week style of debate. You reveal your intellectual foibles and lack of arrgument with this style of repartee.

 

Actually, precisely the opposite is the case.

and at the same time total tax revenue WENT UP!

I think simply believing what the liberal politicians tell you over and over and over again is , well, pretty stupid. MARK

 

I think this applies to all politicans, and everyone in the world. People generally talk out of their arse, and right wing politicans are just as bad as left wing politicians.

 

Here is an impartial assessment of the bush tax plan through 2004. It doesn't contain any of that repilicon numbers juggling that makes more sound like less and less sound like more. Please note that the raw data comes from the government record and not from some repiglicon pipe dream of voo-doo ecconomic fantasy.
http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm

 

I like how the liberal answer to everything is more taxes.

 

You play fast and loose with insults, don't you?
Between insults could you please define "under privileged" for me?