Hillary Endorses Socialism ... Lies About Household Income

We all knew she was at best a Socialist, and at worst a full blown Commie ... it's just nice to hear her actually say it.

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.

Come on now ... be honest with yourself ... you know where this is going.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

DING! First she endorsed ethnic cleansing in Iraq, and now she is endorsing Communism! You can't ask for a better gift when you return from vacation than this.

"Special privileges for NONE." That means she wants to take away money from those who work hard, and give it to those who don't. A nice car, house, boat, clothes, vacations, etc. are all special privileges. She's just told you point blank that she wants to take that away.

"We have sent a message to our young people that if you don't go to college ... that you're thought less of in America. We have to stop this," she said.

Not only that, but we've sent a message that if you hold degrees from two of the most prominent universities in the world ... you're a dunce. Hence the attacks on President Bush.

Clinton said she would open up CEO pay to greater public scrutiny.

Now this is funny. Is she going to allow people who are not invested in a company have a say over how much the CEO makes. There are already plenty of ways for a CEO's pay to be scrutinized ... by the shareholders, and that should never change.

Now here is a nasty spin/lie depending on how you see it.

In the last six years, productivity has increased, but family incomes have gone down, she said, leading to rising inequality and pessimism in the work force.

Now I get to beat her over the head with this one. You see, pay in the US has increased at a faster rate than productivity. That means we are getting paid more for doing less ... period. That is a unanimous fact in the economics world people.

Martin Crutsinger (AP) wrote about this not too long ago in a piece titled "Productivity Growth Skids to Standstill" , and it refutes what Hillary is saying in her latest Communism is great speech.

Growth in productivity — the key ingredient for rising living standards — skidded to a standstill in the late summer while workers' wages and benefits shot up at the fastest clip in more than two decades.

The combination of slowing productivity and rising wages was seen as a formula for inflation troubles down the road.

So our wages rose more than at any other time in the past 20 years while productivity remained stagnant. That's not what Hillary was saying ... was it?

Productivity, the amount of output per hour of work, showed no growth at all from July through September. Growth was just 1.3 percent over the past 12 months, the weakest showing in nine years.

The cost of wages and benefits measured by each unit of output grew at an annual rate of 3.8 percent in the third quarter.

Employee compensation climbed by 5.3 percent over the past year. That gain was the fastest since a 5.8 percent rise in the 12 months ending in the fourth quarter of 1982.

Technically, Hillary was right about productivity increasing, but she was way off on family income going down.

Higher wages and benefits are good news for workers. But such increases can trigger inflation if companies pass on the higher wage costs by making products more expensive.

Forget about the price of our goods going up for a minute. Let's simply look at the companies. We all know for a fact that small business drives the US economy, or we all should. It's not big business that drives it, but the little guy who is now paying his workers more money for doing less than they were doing (per dollar) a few years ago. Hardly seems fair. Companies are faced with two choices:

1. Pay the higher wages by having their workers produce more ... thus created higher profit margins.
2. Pay the higher wages out of the profits from price increases without increasing productivity, and face scorn from shareholders.
   

Option 2 may ultimately lead to the company going overseas to get cheap labor, or folding altogether. You can't have it both ways.

Maybe you don't believe me. Fine. Hardly pro-big business Labor Radio says that the average income rose 8.6% from 2001-2006 (the same 6 years Hillary is talking about), but the average family income did decline from 2001-2004 by 3.6%.

You'll notice that family income study is missing two years on it. That's because household income has been growing the past two years as we recover from 9/11. The drop in household income is still easily explained without using 9/11 as an excuse.

You can't have an 8% increase in individual pay, and still have a decline in family income unless you factor in another growing trend ... women choosing to stay home with their kids is on the rise. While workers are earning more ... the loss of a second income altogether would cause a decline. That's the family's choice, and is not a problem for government to rectify. Remember how I told you that household income has been on the rise the past two years? The US Census Bureau is the one saying the median household income is on the rise. Hillary didn't mention that either.

Hillary also spoke of increases in education, universal health care, and more social programs in this same speech. All of this requires one thing ... higher taxes. Something she neglected to mention as a cause of income problems. Not only has our personal income suffered due to increases in taxes the past 20 years, but she is proposing more tax hikes. Which will what? Take more money out of our paycheck. Meaning we will make less ... not more.

We owe it to ourselves to be the type of society Hillary speaks of. We shouldn't be selfish people. On that I agree with her, but what she is proposing is the ultimate in selfish. If we truly didn't want to be a selfish society then we wouldn't want those who make more money to give us handouts. To take from the haves and give to the have nots is selfish in its purest form.

Nor can we believe the words of someone who says they will raise taxes, and increase your pay. The bottom line is if Hillary gets the programs she desires ... our taxes will go up, and more of our money will go directly to the government without us ever gazing upon it. It's not the salary that counts ... it's the pay we take home that allows us to live our lives.