"Scotius" <wolvzbud@mnsi.net> wrote in message
news:gvcp539mpp8otjfmvahrhufk6gmirk8u81@4ax.com...

On Tue, 29 May 2007 15:10:09 -0400, "Joe S." <no_one@nosuch.net>
wrote:

"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
news:koso535tdntjmj99dlmfndbutppukrlhqt@4ax.com...

On Tue, 29 May 2007 11:19:18 -0700, "Elwood P. Dowd"
<Libby-AlQueda@FoxNews.net> wrote:

"James" <kingkong@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:465c6a04$0$16265$d94e5ade@news.iglou.com...

"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
news:rpmo535fkl002a29geurf7ks9ep36vfk2c@4ax.com...

We Are All in It Together, Clinton Says
Tuesday May 29, 12:11 pm ET
By Holly Ramer, Associated Press Writer
Clinton: Shared Prosperity Should Replace 'On Your Own' Society

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.

Is she a socialist or is she a socialist? I think we can put that fact
to
rest.

And you are a fascist. Wave your little swastika flag.

If Hillary's statements don't make your but pucker it should at least
make you scratch your head.

"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. Fairness
doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

In the first part of the statement she says how powerful a force free
markets are for growth. In the second part of the statement she goes
on to explain how we should we should make free markets less free.

No, that's not what she said.

Anyone who takes a careful look at our history understands that compeltely
free markets do not result in economic growth. Instead, they result in
accumulation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands and the growth of two
classes -- the very wealthy and the very poor. That's exactly where this
nation was for the first 150 years -- and the result was the Great
Depression.

After the Great Depression, government stepped in to curb the abuses of
the
completely free market -- limited monopolies, made banking transparent,
limited the power of banks and security exchanges, and the like. The
result
was the growth of the American middle class and it was the middle class
that
led to the economic position we enjoy today.

Now, we find ourselves slipping back into the situation before the Great
Depression:
-- robber barons are emerging and they are tied tightly to the political
leadership
-- the middle class is being squeezed and squeezed
-- wealth is being accumulated into fewer and fewer hands
-- gap between the very rich and the rest of us is widening

Appropriate government control makes a free market work by curtailing the
abuses.

Of course, those who benefit from the abuses don't see what they do as
abuse.

I was all set to totally disagree with anything you said in
defense of Hillary, but it turns out you've pretty much posted what
the Bush regime is all about.
Unfortunately, Hillary is NOT a fix for the problems you've
mentioned. That crazy ***** doesn't care about anything but being the
president.

--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.

Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS

Celibacy in healthy human beings is a form of
insanity. -- Captain Compassion

"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net

Unrestricted business and unrestricted government have one thing in common -
they will both screw the hell out of you. .

On May 29, 7:40 pm, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
wrote:

On Tue, 29 May 2007 15:10:09 -0400, "Joe S." <no_...@nosuch.net>
wrote:

No, that's not what she said.

Anyone who takes a careful look at our history understands that compeltely
free markets do not result in economic growth. Instead, they result in
accumulation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands and the growth of two
classes -- the very wealthy and the very poor. That's exactly where this
nation was for the first 150 years -- and the result was the Great
Depression.

After the Great Depression, government stepped in to curb the abuses of the
completely free market -- limited monopolies, made banking transparent,
limited the power of banks and security exchanges, and the like. The result
was the growth of the American middle class and it was the middle class that
led to the economic position we enjoy today.

Now, we find ourselves slipping back into the situation before the Great
Depression:
-- robber barons are emerging and they are tied tightly to the political
leadership
-- the middle class is being squeezed and squeezed
-- wealth is being accumulated into fewer and fewer hands
-- gap between the very rich and the rest of us is widening

Appropriate government control makes a free market work by curtailing the
abuses.

Of course, those who benefit from the abuses don't see what they do as
abuse.

You all must be working with a different definition of "free market"
than I am.

free, market n.
an economic market regulated by the forces of supply and demand.

If you want to take about some sort of regulated or mixed market
perhaps you and Hillary should use another term.

Isn't Hillary the one who wants to confiscate the after tax profits
from companies and use them for government ends?
If Hillary's statements don't make your but pucker it should at least
make you scratch your head.

[previously]

"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. Fairness
doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

In the first part of the statement she says how powerful a force free
markets are for growth. In the second part of the statement she goes
on to explain how we should we should make free markets less free.

Sorry, but I can't let you wander off to your next propaganda piece
before correcting your present bit of misinformation.

The US has never allowed 'free trade' (by your definition) in its
history.

A *controlled trade* is what made america prosperous and great until
WTO and NAFTA were unleashed upon a misled public. And still.. there
isn't 'free trade'.
It's getting closer, yes.. but not there yet.

And God willing, no US citizen will allow themselves to be cast into
the position of human property again.

For most of its history, the major source of US revenue consisted of
trade tariffs.. which are the antithesis of 'free trade'... and the US
and its citizens did quite well. There really isn't/wasn't a need to
change that paradigm for the average US citizen. Rather it was a ruse
to enable 'robber baron' types to increase their personal wealth - at
their fellow citizens' expense.

True free trade would result in the equalization of world wide incomes
for average citizens.
This means that people in the US will ultimately have to equalize
their incomes with workers in say.. Bangladesh or the Congo. A good
deal for the foreign workers - as they only average a few hundred
bucks a year - but a very bad deal, indeed, for any US worker.

Actually, I would say it was a foregone conclusion that globalization
will fail because US workers will never accept being reduced to slave
wage status.. nascent police state or no police state. In any event
the system will collapse because it will have been hollowed out the
nation economically.

If you had ever read half of the books you quote from, even you would
have realized the inevitable conclusion of your lauded 'free trade'
and reformed yourself; from self-absorbed neocrat spreading disdainful
misanthropy in your wake - to concerned citizen and participant in
real society.

What good will your portfolio do you, when an inevitable global
economic systemic shock comes?
(the globalized economy is a reckless, radical, and never tested one)
Your paper will be worthless, your chain of supply nonexistent, your
skills needless, and you friendless.