I'm sorry, but I cannot blog today. I cannot blog because I'm blind. I'm blind because I just rolled my eyes so violently they plumb fell out my damn head.
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Well, if that isn't leftism in a nutshell. It's enough to make you want to throw her down Lileks' staircase*, isn't it?
Thank you, my dear. You must know by now that I hold you in highest esteem. . .one of these days I'll write as well as you do. (Riiiight.) Heh.
Posted by: Emma at June 30, 2004 09:09 PMDrudge likes to play a "drop" (audio clip) of Schwarzenegger saying "Everything must be provided for da people", as if it means he's a raging socialist.
I have no idea what Arnie really meant, and this blogger isn't providing any source or context for Hillary's comments, either.
Posted by: jdc at July 1, 2004 12:41 AMThere wasn't a whole lot of context. It was a fund raiser for another Dem Senator.
Joining other Democratic women senators at an event for Sen. Barbara Boxer, who's seeking re-election, Hillary Clinton (news - web sites) told hundreds of party faithful to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed under President Bush (news - web sites) if Democrats take control in Washington next year.
In any case it does not take a whole lot of knowledge of Hillary Clinton to know exactly what she means here. She wants all of the tax cuts gone and a higher tax burden imposed for anybody who should statistically have disposable income left. She knows how your money should be spent much better than you do.
Posted by: jim at July 1, 2004 11:02 AMFor the record, Miss Apropos' link doesn't show up underlined, or blue, on my system, though it is indeed a link. I'm not a lazy reader, honest! Thanks for pointing the camouflaged link out, Ilyka.
I've been poor most of my adult life, and I could stand to pay more in taxes for a compassionate, helpful government. I guess I favor a flattER tax, but the rate I'd choose might not please y'all. We libs really aren't all about punishing wealth and success, and the sooner that argument is retired, the better.
Posted by: jdc at July 1, 2004 03:39 PM"a compassionate, helpful government"
You could pay 100% of your income in taxes and you won't get that. There ain't no such beast. Government is power and power corrupts, and the taxpayer will always be seen as "sucker" to a certain extent. The founding fathers knew this, that's why they set up our system of checks and balances to control the government, not to help the government control the people. And you can't buy compassion with money any more than you can buy love with money. You wouldn't (I hope) go to a prostitute looking for true love; why would you go to the government looking for it?
Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 4, 2004 12:32 AMThe "power corrupts" argument can be used against any powerful entity. Therefore, we should dismantle citizen's groups and multi-national corporations before they destroy the country?
Actually, a lot of people have found they have more power to accomplish in joining collectively for a purpose. And you can damn well help people with money.