• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Waking up to Hillary's big-government nightmare

Cal

Well-known member
Waking up to Hillary's big-government nightmare
By Larry Kudlow

Apr 19, 2006

The ballroom was packed with a who’s who of business when Sen. Hillary Clinton addressed the Chicago Economic Club last week. No doubt about it, this was the address of a presidential hopeful. But unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton, the eyelids grew heavy as she droned on and on.

Sleep, it seems, was the better option to suffering through this odd and curious presentation. On the one hand Clinton acknowledged a growing economy, a stock market at historic highs, strong productivity and profits, and low unemployment, while on the other she called for big-government investment in infrastructure and heavy spending on health care and education. These two hands don’t go together.

The senator argued that “Tax cuts are not the cure-all for everything that ails the American economy,” and that instead we need the “right tax system [and] the right investment, including infrastructure. . . . decisions and policies that only all of us acting together through our government can make to set the stage for future prosperity.” The italics, unfortunately, are mine.

So what we have here is a strong plea for a government-directed economy. This is something that used to be called industrial planning and targeting, at least until the dismal economic performances of France, Germany, and Japan totally discredited those terms. But for Sen. Clinton, government planning is back. Citing a recent report by New York financier Felix Rohatyn and former senator Warren Rudman, Clinton is calling for a “national investment authority” to rebuild the nation. This in her view will solve all our problems related to airports, highways, bridges, hurricanes, and lord knows what else.

She speaks as though Congress didn’t already spend a fortune on the recent highway bill, replete with corrupt budget earmarks that totaled a cool $30 billion in 2005.

Ironically, while Clinton wants to revive big-government spending, a number of respected policy analysts are writing about making public highways private. Topping their list are the Chicago Skyway, the Indiana Turnpike, and toll roads in Texas and Oregon, toll truck lanes in Virginia and Atlanta. These private ventures would pay for themselves and would substitute market decisions for government planning. The Reason Foundation is chock full of similar ideas, including private-sector road and highway plans in California, where voters just rejected a $68 billion infrastructure package because of a political history of pilfered taxpayer funds.

In Chicago, Mrs. Clinton also engaged in a bit of class warfare, telling the assembled businesspeople, “America did not build the greatest economy in the world because we have rich people. Nearly any society has some of those.” Without exactly saying it, she clearly implied tax hikes on the rich and a large-scale redistribution program worthy of any centrally planned economy.

Hasn’t Mrs. Clinton noticed the worldwide spread of free-market capitalism that has become such an enormous wealth creator across the globe -- including Eastern Europe, India, China, and the rest of Asia? The economic growth principles of higher after-tax returns for work and investment, deregulation to limit government’s reach, and the privatization of government-run companies have become almost commonplace following the Reagan-Thatcher revolution of twenty-five years ago. But Mrs. Clinton would have us turn the clock back in ways that even her husband didn’t support. She defines her goals in terms of “a middle class life, education, health care, transportation, and retirement.” But all this is nothing more than a massive dose of government spending and regulating -- a sure prescription for humongous taxes and a declining economy.

No wonder the Chicago ballroom started to snooze. Clinton’s ideas electrified the audience about as much as a broken plug attached to an old land-line phone.

Why not employ the tax code to reward success rather than punish it? What about investor-owned savings accounts for health care, retirement, and education? Why not put pro-market consumer choice, rather than government, at the center of the 21st century economy? How about setting the fiscal stage so the non-rich can get rich?

Two weeks ago I was in the Oval Office with President Bush and a handful of financial journalists. The president spoke to us about his growth policies and priorities, such as making tax relief permanent, keeping the tax rate on dividends and capital gains low, maintaining lean budgets, and expanding free trade.

This vision is in deep contrast to the one being set forth by Hillary Clinton. The president places the risk-taker and the entrepreneur at the center of economic growth; the presidential candidate sees government as the driving force of the economy.

It may well be that the booming American economy is still the greatest story never told. But the reality is that low-tax free-market policies are triumphing here and around the world. It makes one wonder, What planet is Hillary Clinton living on?


Larry Kudlow hosts CNBC's "Kudlow & Company," and is a contributing editor for National Review magazine and a columnist and economics editor for National Review Online.


Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/larrykudlow/2006/04/19/194215.html
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Good try, but the facts are clear: The size of the US government has grown by leaps and bounds under George W. Bush. Anyone who's paying attention won't fall for the spin that Dems mean spending and big government. Not when this Republican dominated government has spent us into the largest Federal deficit in my memory. I aksi think more people are coming to understand, too, that someone has to pay the bill for Bush's war. I'd much rather the retiring head of EXXON pay a big chunck of his multi-million dollar retirement package than my widowed neighbor with five kids pay out of her insurance income. But, hey, that's just me.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Southdakotahunter said:
Huh......Like Kerry paying more? So the more i make, i should be penalized for that...is that what your tellin me dis?

Kerry's wife is very, very wealthy. She (and her children) have benefited greatly from George W. Bush's tax cuts. Eventually, under Bush's tax plan, people who inherit money, as she and her kids did, won't pay taxes on the interest that money earns. She will earn millions every year, drive on the roads, be protected by our military, all the benefits of being an American, and not pay a cent of income tax. You can't blame the Dems for the tax cuts that gave away the first Federal budget surplus in my memory mostly to wealthy people. But sooner or later, someone is going to have to pay for the excesses of this Administration and the Republican led Congress. Who do you expect will pay that bill?
 

Southdakotahunter

Well-known member
I am not saying one at all that someone will have to pay, the bush admin says they have a plan. what that is i dont know, and even if you listen to hanity or whoever, they will tell ya the repubs are spending like the dems and if they dont get a handle on it, they will get voted out. To tell ya the truth, i am an independent, meaning i can think for myself. I can see some dems points, but i probably lean a little further to the right that the left. I dont want my kids to pay for it either, i really dont know what should be done, but you would think those who bitch the most, like the Kerrys and other dems, and dont forget HOLLYWOOD would say "i am not paying enough so here is what i feel i should pay" and give some more. at the same time they bitch about SUV's and hop onto their private jet and go skiing in sweeden? Switzerland? whatever
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Southdakotahunter said:
I am not saying one at all that someone will have to pay, the bush admin says they have a plan. what that is i dont know, and even if you listen to hanity or whoever, they will tell ya the repubs are spending like the dems and if they dont get a handle on it, they will get voted out. To tell ya the truth, i am an independent, meaning i can think for myself. I can see some dems points, but i probably lean a little further to the right that the left. I dont want my kids to pay for it either, i really dont know what should be done, but you would think those who bitch the most, like the Kerrys and other dems, and dont forget HOLLYWOOD would say "i am not paying enough so here is what i feel i should pay" and give some more. at the same time they bitch about SUV's and hop onto their private jet and go skiing in sweeden? Switzerland? whatever

Are you saying that Democrats who benefit from Bush's tax cuts should voluntarily pay more taxes, but Republicans shouldn't? Am I understanding you correctly? And what difference does it make if rich people (dems or republicans) want to jump on their private jet and go skiing? The facts are the Bush tax cuts benefit mostly the wealthiest people in this country. If he gets all his tax cuts in place, rich Dems or Republicans, who live off interest on money left to them by their husbands, grandfathers, whatever, will not pay income taxes. Yet they will continue to receive all the benefits that us normal, working citizens pay for. I have some investments. I've benefited from the Bush tax cuts, but I'd be more than willing to pay my old tax rate on investments than see our Federal deficit this large.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
When are you going to realize, IT AIN'T UP TO YOU.

You go on and on and on. We didn't even ask a question.

How about this: Smart people don't need advice.
STUPID people won't take it.

Tape it on your refrigerator.
 

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
I am not saying one at all that someone will have to pay, the bush admin says they have a plan. what that is i dont know, and even if you listen to hanity or whoever, they will tell ya the repubs are spending like the dems and if they dont get a handle on it, they will get voted out
I know a number of Republicans who have changed their registration to Independant because they no longer feel represented by the Republicans of today's gov't. The out-of-control spending usually tops the list of complaints.
confused-smiley-013.gif
 

Southdakotahunter

Well-known member
Your missing the point Dis Fonda, the point is that people, mostly dems, complain, but yet like what they are recieving. The private plain to ski resorts and the suv....i guess that alittle over your head. Do you like to pay more money to those who spend it foolishly? Then please. Send it off. You can pay all you want in taxes if you want. There is only a minimum you have to send, but you can pay all you want. Please, send more. Maybe if all the rich Dems out there want to be penalized for being successful, thats fine by me.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
When are you going to realize, IT AIN'T UP TO YOU.

What ain't up to me?

You go on and on and on. We didn't even ask a question.

Don't read my posts. Very simple. I think SDH did ask a question, or at least responded in a manner that I chose to respond to.

How about this: Smart people don't need advice.
STUPID people won't take it.

Cute. Did you make that up? But don't knock yourself too much. There's hope for you to get smarter; just read my posts! :lol:

Tape it on your refrigerator.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Southdakotahunter said:
Your missing the point Dis Fonda, the point is that people, mostly dems, complain, but yet like what they are recieving. The private plain to ski resorts and the suv....i guess that alittle over your head. Do you like to pay more money to those who spend it foolishly? Then please. Send it off. You can pay all you want in taxes if you want. There is only a minimum you have to send, but you can pay all you want. Please, send more. Maybe if all the rich Dems out there want to be penalized for being successful, thats fine by me.

I'm having a problem with this one. First, the Republicans are in charge of our government and are spending our money hand over fist, not Democrats. Second, all the people who are rich aren't successful. For example, Mrs. Kerry and her children didn't do a thing to earn their fortune. They inherited it from her first husband, the Heinz heir. I'm sure there are Republicans in the same boat. So don't throw out that "penalize the successful" line. Third, yeah, more Dems probably complain because they tend to understand that there are poor, unsuccessful but hard working, people who are trying to support their families. They also understand that someone is going to pay the bill for Bush's war and Congress' excess spending. Maybe they do send more. How do you know they don't?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Disagreeable said:
I have some investments. I've benefited from the Bush tax cuts, but I'd be more than willing to pay my old tax rate on investments than see our Federal deficit this large.
Who's keeping you from paying more? Nobody is. Nothing but your own greed. Just wanting to keep it because it's yours. How conservative of you. I know you can't stand that, can you? So just make your check out to the "U.S. Treasury." Glad I could help. :lol:
 

Southdakotahunter

Well-known member
What is considerd poor? I think if you look at it, the poor are already paying very very little or no tax and many are actually getting more than they put in. Should we be giving them more money becaus of that? should we be giving them money because they may have made some bad choices in the past? Why should i have to support some, like some of the parisites that have come out of New Orleans, that dont want to get a job? In Houston, there was a job fair, pointed towards the New Orleans refugees, and guess what....no one showd up!! I have heard there are law suits out there now by some who are staying on cruise ships in the gulf that are being told they will have to leave, and they wont.....WHy should that be placed on my shoulders?
 

T3023

Well-known member
Cal said:
Waking up to Hillary's big-government nightmare
By Larry Kudlow

Apr 19, 2006

The ballroom was packed with a who’s who of business when Sen. Hillary Clinton addressed the Chicago Economic Club last week. No doubt about it, this was the address of a presidential hopeful. But unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton, the eyelids grew heavy as she droned on and on.

Sleep, it seems, was the better option to suffering through this odd and curious presentation. On the one hand Clinton acknowledged a growing economy, a stock market at historic highs, strong productivity and profits, and low unemployment, while on the other she called for big-government investment in infrastructure and heavy spending on health care and education. These two hands don’t go together.

The senator argued that “Tax cuts are not the cure-all for everything that ails the American economy,” and that instead we need the “right tax system [and] the right investment, including infrastructure. . . . decisions and policies that only all of us acting together through our government can make to set the stage for future prosperity.” The italics, unfortunately, are mine.

So what we have here is a strong plea for a government-directed economy. This is something that used to be called industrial planning and targeting, at least until the dismal economic performances of France, Germany, and Japan totally discredited those terms. But for Sen. Clinton, government planning is back. Citing a recent report by New York financier Felix Rohatyn and former senator Warren Rudman, Clinton is calling for a “national investment authority” to rebuild the nation. This in her view will solve all our problems related to airports, highways, bridges, hurricanes, and lord knows what else.

She speaks as though Congress didn’t already spend a fortune on the recent highway bill, replete with corrupt budget earmarks that totaled a cool $30 billion in 2005.

Ironically, while Clinton wants to revive big-government spending, a number of respected policy analysts are writing about making public highways private. Topping their list are the Chicago Skyway, the Indiana Turnpike, and toll roads in Texas and Oregon, toll truck lanes in Virginia and Atlanta. These private ventures would pay for themselves and would substitute market decisions for government planning. The Reason Foundation is chock full of similar ideas, including private-sector road and highway plans in California, where voters just rejected a $68 billion infrastructure package because of a political history of pilfered taxpayer funds.

In Chicago, Mrs. Clinton also engaged in a bit of class warfare, telling the assembled businesspeople, “America did not build the greatest economy in the world because we have rich people. Nearly any society has some of those.” Without exactly saying it, she clearly implied tax hikes on the rich and a large-scale redistribution program worthy of any centrally planned economy.

Hasn’t Mrs. Clinton noticed the worldwide spread of free-market capitalism that has become such an enormous wealth creator across the globe -- including Eastern Europe, India, China, and the rest of Asia? The economic growth principles of higher after-tax returns for work and investment, deregulation to limit government’s reach, and the privatization of government-run companies have become almost commonplace following the Reagan-Thatcher revolution of twenty-five years ago. But Mrs. Clinton would have us turn the clock back in ways that even her husband didn’t support. She defines her goals in terms of “a middle class life, education, health care, transportation, and retirement.” But all this is nothing more than a massive dose of government spending and regulating -- a sure prescription for humongous taxes and a declining economy.

No wonder the Chicago ballroom started to snooze. Clinton’s ideas electrified the audience about as much as a broken plug attached to an old land-line phone.

Why not employ the tax code to reward success rather than punish it? What about investor-owned savings accounts for health care, retirement, and education? Why not put pro-market consumer choice, rather than government, at the center of the 21st century economy? How about setting the fiscal stage so the non-rich can get rich?

Two weeks ago I was in the Oval Office with President Bush and a handful of financial journalists. The president spoke to us about his growth policies and priorities, such as making tax relief permanent, keeping the tax rate on dividends and capital gains low, maintaining lean budgets, and expanding free trade.

This vision is in deep contrast to the one being set forth by Hillary Clinton. The president places the risk-taker and the entrepreneur at the center of economic growth; the presidential candidate sees government as the driving force of the economy.

It may well be that the booming American economy is still the greatest story never told. But the reality is that low-tax free-market policies are triumphing here and around the world. It makes one wonder, What planet is Hillary Clinton living on?


Larry Kudlow hosts CNBC's "Kudlow & Company," and is a contributing editor for National Review magazine and a columnist and economics editor for National Review Online.


Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/larrykudlow/2006/04/19/194215.html


Excuse me....hate to be the bear'er of bad news, but this is PNAC and Agenda 21.
 
Top