logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Is Hillary Clinton a Socialist?, William F. Buckley doesn't think so
Is Hillary Clinton a Socialist?
Is Hillary Clinton a Socialist?
Yes [ 9 ] ** [20.45%]
No [ 31 ] ** [70.45%]
Maybe, Don't Know, Not Sure, Other [ 4 ] ** [9.09%]
Total Votes: 44
  
Victoria Silverw...
post Sep 24 2007, 09:16 AM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,601
Member No.: 608
Joined: March-16-03

From: Chattanooga Tennessee USA
Gender: Female
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Green Party



I found this quote on a completely unrelated thread:

QUOTE("TheFoundersIntent")
Hillary Clinton . . . is a known socialist . . .


I dispute this. I would say that there is no major American politician who could accurately be called a socialist (let alone a Socialist.) This perception comes about, I think, from the position that any political position which is not firmly conservative is socialist. It's a good scare word, now that "liberal" is not quite so poisonous a term as it was during the Reagan years. Frankly, I think it's as inaccurate as calling any political position which is not firmly liberal "fascist."

Don't take my word for it. Let's ask William F. Buckley, one of the great intellects of modern American conservatism, what he thinks.

Link

QUOTE
Well, she is sort of ... left-wing, no?

Well, not entirely. In her early political life she was a cheerleader for Barry Goldwater. If she had married George Wallace, and if he had then gone to the White House, is there any reason to suppose that she would not have espoused the views expected of Mrs. George Wallace?

There are those who point to her preposterous health plan as evidence of her ideological naivete, her capacity to fondle statist models for dealing with social issues.

Well, yes, she is certainly a liberal. But there aren't any grounds for believing she is a hard-core socialist.

There are only grounds for believing that she is comfortable occupying positions that maximize her political popularity. She does this with a broad smile, a lovely face, and a piquant sense of destiny. Barack Obama has to pry out a position more central, and then center in on it. Either that, or find for the Democratic party some other, engaging view of what to do for our fatherland/motherland.


(I deliberately choose a firmly conservative commentator who is no fan of Senator Clinton.)

Opportunist, yes. Socialist, no.

For the sake of fairness, let me offer an opinion from someone who thinks that Clinton really is a socialist.

Link

QUOTE
Since the day she became a United States Senator, she has been running for president. Toward that end, she understands better than any, that she has to successfully deceive enough Americans into believing she is a “centrist” -- instead of the committed socialist she is – in order to obtain the most powerful office in the world.


The fact that this article ends with an utterly paranoid nightmare about President Hillary Clinton speaks for itself, I think.

QUOTE
Washington, DC – September 11, 2012 – Today, President Hillary Clinton received the following joint communiqué from the leadership of Al Qaida, Hezbollah, and Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez: “Because your policies so easily allowed us to reconstitute our powers and infiltrate your pathetically porous borders, we have hidden three nuclear weapons in three major American cities. If you try to find them, we will set them off. If you do not give in to our demand, we will set them off. Our demand? That you surrender your nation to us or suffer the loss of millions of Americans. There will be no negotiation.”

Washington, DC – September 12, 2012 – Today, President Hillary Clinton surrendered the United States of America to terrorists.


(Never mind the rather bizarre linking of Chavez with Islamist fanatics; this whole scenario is absurd.)

To Be Debated:

Is Senator Clinton a socialist? Why or why not? And what definition of "socialist" are you using, anyway?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 23)
JamesEarl
post Oct 30 2007, 12:53 AM
Post #21


****
Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 64
Member No.: 8,072
Joined: October-28-07

From: New Zealand (Christchurch)
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 29 2007, 03:30 PM) *
QUOTE(JamesEarl @ Oct 29 2007, 04:43 AM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Sep 24 2007, 05:55 PM) *
No she is IMO a center left Democrat who is trying hard (now that she is running) to look more conservative (for the independents she hopes to pick up) and more liberal for the left wing of the party as represented by MoveOn etc.


Nothing in her (or anyone else’s for that matter) position is Socialist. That said she, I am sure, supports increased “socialization” such as this health care for kids bill that is now been vetoed by GB.

This bill would have, if passed, effectively moved millions of “kids” (some 25 years old) from private to Federal insurance. I did not hear her condemn it.

As I have said before “real” Socialism is nearly dead in the world – RIP.



Hi Ted!

I was reading this entire post with some interest, but thought i would leave it for awhile until i actually join, but i wanted to ask you what "real socialism" entails?


Hi James
Do I really have to tell you – it should be obvious sir.

“Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that visualize a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1] for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by socialized (state or community) ownership of the means of production.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism



Hi Ted!

It is indeed interesting that you use such a definition, and yes, i am surprised by it after what i read from you so far. The problem here is that that this definition, being quite broad, included just what you quoted (i had a look at Wikipedia just to make sure).

You pay taxes, do you not? This makes the United States a socialist state per your own definition. And i doubt you would yourself call United States socialist, nor in any way "caring" for its populace. The U.S is based upon self-interest and not caring for its population, and therefore generally is defined as an aggressive (negative) form of capitalism.


But this is not true, as all nations need to be socialist in one way or another, and there are quite a few examples of "good" programs in the U.S, even if you are blind to it yourself. I am curious if you are sure you wish to use this as a definition of "socialism" (Socialism being something positive, meaning to care for the nations people in everyway possible)?

Taxes makes your country a Socialist State by the definition you provided. Any Healthcare program, School program, infrastructure make it so. The government can (and are) using "none-governmental" industries to do so (hiring them) in certain areas, this dos not make it "less" socialistic, just less controllable.


Hillary Clinton is included in this, and by your definition, makes her, and everyone else in the government Socialists. So are you really sure you want to use that kind of definition instead of limiting it to, say, something "obviously" liberal and clear for us all. Just mind asking, as it could sort out any confusion in this debate.


-JE

This post has been edited by JamesEarl: Oct 30 2007, 12:55 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nebraska29
post Oct 30 2007, 03:06 AM
Post #22


*********
Only siths speak in absolutes.

Sponsor
November 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,712
Member No.: 1,871
Joined: November-29-03

From: York, Nebraska
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
Is Senator Clinton a socialist? Why or why not? And what definition of "socialist" are you using, anyway?[/b]

Excellent topic Victoria, I've been reading, re-reading, and ruminating about it for a few days now, excellent work. flowers.gif

Socialism to me is a "mixed" economy whereby entire segments of the economy are run by the government. Hillary Clinton's views are not socialistic. For that to be the case, the government would run the entire health care system, the entire transportation system, and other industries. Hillary's views are not socialist in any way. Instead of the government employing all doctors and running out insurance companies, Hillary's proposed health care plan would emphasize technological upgrades, prevention, as well as greater consumer choice. A given person could keep their own public or private plan, or choose from a new option. In regards to the economy, Hillary would favor increasing the minimum wage, a balanced budget, as well as growing the economy. For her to be a socialist, she would have to propose the entire government taking over an industry. I fail to see what industries she would do this to. whistling.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
azwhitewolf
post Dec 4 2007, 09:18 AM
Post #23


******
Senior Contributor

Sponsor
December 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 339
Member No.: 8,176
Joined: December-1-07

From: Guess.. it's a toughie!
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE
To Be Debated:

Is Senator Clinton a socialist? Why or why not? And what definition of "socialist" are you using, anyway?

Well, to start, my definition:

From MSN Encarta:
noun
Definition:

1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles

2. movement based on socialism: a political movement based on principles of socialism, typically advocating an end to private property and to the exploitation of workers

3. stage between capitalism and communism: in Marxist theory, the stage after the proletarian revolution when a society is changing from capitalism to communism, marked by pay distributed according to work done rather than need


I tend to take Wikipedia's "facts" with a grain of salt, since they are user submitted and cite internet reports. With all due respect, "just because it's on the internet, doesn't make it true..." It is, however, a great gauge of modern attitudes. I'll note that even Wiki notes that... Most socialists believe that the state should own companies, as well as control the cars, the computers, and the money, and that the money be equally split by everyone. Since the government owns the companies, they would get to decide how much each position should earn. SOURCE

Here's a 35 second clip of Hillary talking about oil profits.

There's only one problem with that. That's not her money. She wants to create "a fund" of oil company profits to promote energies that might actually take business away from a privately owned company. That's not even according to equity and fairness (definition #1), it's according to a political agenda.

Or this quote from Hillary:
QUOTE
"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."

SOURCE

See, I hate that. Fairness doesn't require government policies, and it's not even about fairness anyway. This country has enough rules to make it fair to follow the American dream. The idea that we need cradle-to-grave policies and laws and rules run by the government in itself distinguishes the spirit of a free market.

And this quote:
QUOTE
"I have been fighting for universal health care for a long time, and I"ve got to tell you I will never give up on the very fundamental right that Americans should have, to have access to quality, affordable health care, no matter who they are," said Mrs. Clinton, New York Democrat. "Health care is a right, not a privilege."

SOURCE

This falls under definition #1.

Health care is NOT a right. It costs money, and in it's current state, is a shambles. The assertion is that there are people blocking doors of hospitals, leaving people in the parking lots to die. The reality, however, is that hospitals are closing down at an alarming rate, leaving the remaining hospitals overcrowded with patients and people (notice I didn't necessarily say citizens) skipping out on the bill. Even if you don't pay, you'll not be turned away.

Hillary would enact a right to get free care anywhere, with everyone "sharing the bills together", which sounds much prettier than "they skipped out, so the businesses had to write off the losses on their taxes". That smacks of a socialistic attitude. And why does America make all these great medicines? Because Capitalism drives the motivation to find cures. You can knock the drug companies all you want, but the medicine you take is a direct result of a company looking to deliver a result that benefits anyone who gets a disease. Take away that motivation, and hand the health care system to the government. "Here's our set price". Where does the motivation go? "Oh, I'll find a cure because I'm a Patriot"? hmmm.gif I don't think so.

I only bring that up because I think it's a direct result of Hillary's anti-capitalistic AND socialistic attitude. And not that she's the first, and most certainly won't be the last. Nor is she the biggest, baddest, etc. But she's a frontrunner for the Presidency.

However, I'll wait to see the responses before I actually click a vote. These are just my initial opinions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Just Leave me Al...
post Dec 5 2007, 03:49 AM
Post #24


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 508
Member No.: 4,594
Joined: March-1-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Oct 29 2007, 10:06 PM) *
QUOTE
Is Senator Clinton a socialist? Why or why not? And what definition of "socialist" are you using, anyway?[/b]

Excellent topic Victoria, I've been reading, re-reading, and ruminating about it for a few days now, excellent work. flowers.gif

Socialism to me is a "mixed" economy whereby entire segments of the economy are run by the government. Hillary Clinton's views are not socialistic. For that to be the case, the government would run the entire health care system, the entire transportation system, and other industries. Hillary's views are not socialist in any way. Instead of the government employing all doctors and running out insurance companies, Hillary's proposed health care plan would emphasize technological upgrades, prevention, as well as greater consumer choice. A given person could keep their own public or private plan, or choose from a new option. In regards to the economy, Hillary would favor increasing the minimum wage, a balanced budget, as well as growing the economy. For her to be a socialist, she would have to propose the entire government taking over an industry. I fail to see what industries she would do this to. whistling.gif

Wow nebraska. Are we going to get into the definition of the word 'is' next? wink2.gif I like the AZWhiteWolf's definition.

QUOTE(azwhitewolf @ Dec 4 2007, 04:18 AM) *
From MSN Encarta:

noun
Definition:

1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles

2. movement based on socialism: a political movement based on principles of socialism, typically advocating an end to private property and to the exploitation of workers

3. stage between capitalism and communism: in Marxist theory, the stage after the proletarian revolution when a society is changing from capitalism to communism, marked by pay distributed according to work done rather than need


While I think that you may technically be right nebraska that she doesn't fall exactly into this definition flowers.gif , she would certainly push the country from more capitalist to more communist. And to me that is bad economically. So you have to help me out a little in how Hillary can offer a federalized health care option, balance the budget, raise the minimum wage, and grow the economy at the same time. It just doesn't compute with me.

To pay for the health care option and get us out of the debt that we're already running she would either have to cut a ton of spending or increase taxes (which I think that she has proposed some types of high end increases which maybe you could point me to). Raising taxes won't grow the economy though. If you tax cigarettes, on average people buy less cigarettes. Everyone can seem to get that, but people have a much harder time accepting that when you tax income people on average won't work as hard. First I need to know if you accept that to be true. If so, then you can my problem.

Similarly, raising the minimum doesn't grow the economy, except in the sense that it further encourages you to hire illegal immigrants. If you raise the cost of the cheapest labor, you price some businesses out of the market of expanding operations because they can't afford the employees (the legal ones anyway). So capital ventures/innovations decrease and the economy suffers for it. As an added kick in the pants to the economy, the people that would have been working are still unemployed. Or if the company would have used a guest worker program, new entrepenuers are denied the opportunity to work their way up in this country.

Plus the oil example that the AZWhiteWolf posted. Nebraska if you can explain to me how Clinton is going to overcome these market forces and actually grow the economy, it would go a long way towards me (and probably a lot of other people) considering the Hill.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Closed TopicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: February 19th, 2018 - 04:06 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.