NOT a supporter, but......That's collectivism, but it's not limited to Hillary among Democratic candidates. A lot of nations have tried "all in it together" economic policies over the last century. Some used "government policies" to force all economic activity under government management, and places like the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites all collapsed. Others, such as France, have discovered that collectivism results in economic stagnation and an entitlement mentality that deflates the will to innovate and invest, there is no incentive for an individual to excel, because any of their extra work is taken and distributed to other individuals who contributed less. Altruism gives way to apathy once the excellent individual sees that he/she is taken advantage of under the system.
The problem is that liberals define "rich" people differently. In their view, "the rich" include people who have a job and work for the money they have. So, the guy who started a business and is at last enjoying the fruits of years of hard work, sweat and worry is "rich". The couple who worked hard to save money for their retirement are "rich". The guy who worked hard to get good grades in school and worked his way up the corporate ladder is "rich". The libs' attitude toward them? Tax 'em! Tax 'em, tax 'em, and tax 'em some more! They must PAY so those who WON”T can benefit for someone else’s labor—ie “shared prosperity”.
But remember, kids: it's for the "greater good" that the libs want to engage in this legalized theft.
2007-06-19 02:11:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by Cherie 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
I would have to say that the statistics as the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics contradict everything you just wrote. In the 70s, we had result of progressive economic policy (demand-side economics) which resulted in stagflation and the misery index (inflation + unemployment) greater than 20%. These policies of wealth redistribution by government mandate through high taxes, union domination of the job market, and restrictive import tariffs resulted in high unemployment and drastically reduced productivity. In comparison to this year (which is by no means a banner year), the misery index is just about 8%, life expectancy has increased by about 6 years on average, and upward mobility in on par with the roaring 20's. I believe your wealth comparison is flawed because your wealth brackets for the lower and middle class are fixed while the upper class is not. Once into the upper class, there is no moving beyond it while people in the lower and middle classes can move up. Also, you assume that people that were making minimum wage when in high school are still making minimum wage in 1980 are still making minimum wage today. This would require more effort than simply working hard and earning raises. I ask that you look at the federal income tax receipts from 1979 and 1989. What you will see is taxes were slashed dramatically and yet income tax to the feds increased in an equally dramatic fashion. If your logic were true, when taxes were lowered, federal receipts should have lowered by an equalent percentage. I am sorry to say that your argument is false.
2016-05-18 23:26:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
"Shared prosperity" is code for govt redistribution of wealth, and more govt control of the economy. People think that just because they're born and have kids, that everyone else is obligated to respect and support them.
Go Hillary '08
2007-06-18 09:48:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am definitely not a Hilary fan, But I have wondered about this statement of shared prosperity , or doe's it mean we should share with other country's or ? our hard earned money and life style? I can bet Hilary is not going to give any thing up from her high living life style, just like the other commies you give but, I keep mine,same with the Kennedy's and many of our commie professors.it is damned easy to tell some one else to give up their money and such but when it comes to them they are better than us,( they think)
2007-06-18 10:02:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
To her it means windfall profits. When the oil companies make too much, she along with her staff, containing the smartest people in America, will define "too much", take that excess money, and buy health insurance for the millions upon millions of "children" without healthcare.
2007-06-18 10:42:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by Matt 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
It means wealth redistribution. Tax the rich and give to the poor until everyone is middle class. However, by that time middle class will be difined as $20,000/yr income.
2007-06-18 09:47:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Its a buzz word thought up by Rush and that crowd to take peoples eyes off the worst President in the history of the United States of America
2007-06-18 09:55:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
Communism.
Actually, where Hillary is concerned, it means all us peon have to give up what we have to those less fortunate, while she and her little group continue on making and keeping what they have. "All are equal, but some are more equal that others" (source: Animal Farm).
2007-06-18 09:49:03
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I am most assuredly no supporter of this wicked witch but I'll betcha her definition of "shared prosperity" is nothing like yours, dear friend!
2007-06-18 09:49:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
It means higher taxes, pure and simple. Mark my words, it'll be OUR prosperity she's sharing, not her own!
2007-06-18 09:48:48
·
answer #10
·
answered by texasjewboy12 6
·
2⤊
0⤋